Green MLAs urge government to audit Maritime Electric's billing practices
The P.E.I. Greens are urging the government to audit Maritime Electric's billing system after some Islanders reported their bills are getting out of control.
In Question Period Thursday, Green MLA Matthew MacFarlane said he's spoken to people who are paying hundreds more on their electric bills this winter compared to last year.
He said the high power bills have led some people to feel "punished" for switching to heat pumps to provide electric heat in their homes — with many using government programs to do so. And he said some are going back to furnace oil because of how much it costs to heat with electricity.
"Another Islander reached out to me with a bill that came in at over $1,000, being hundreds of dollars more than he has ever seen before. He also has a heat pump, but in an effort to conserve energy and keep costs down, he keeps his home cold and uses blankets to keep warm," MacFarlane said.
"Will you commit, minister, to launching an independent review and audit of Maritime Electric's billing, infrastructure, and maintenance?"
Sparks fly in P.E.I. Legislature over high power bills and the high cost of NHL sponsorship
11 hours ago
Duration 2:06
The Opposition Liberals have tabled documents showing the P.E.I. government spent more than half a million dollars promoting the Island during the 4-Nations Face-Off in January, on top of its earlier commitments to the NHL's business office. Meanwhile, the Greens lobbied for the province to review how Maritime Electric collects power use data and bills its customers, after a winter of sky-high bills for some customers.
"I think you're two months behind the eight ball here," Arsenault responded. "What we've done is we've launched — probably close to a year ago — the P.E.I. energy review, which will reveal much of the information that [MacFarlane] is looking for."
He provided no details of what the "thorough review" involved but said the results are due out in four to five weeks.
Arsenault also said a "P.E.I. Energy Blueprint" should be coming out this fall, laying out a 10-year strategy for energy on the Island.
'People want answers'
In an interview with CBC News after Question Period, MacFarlane said seeing people share their bills with him and on social media was "astonishing." He said a Maritime Electric audit should be a priority for the Department of Environment, Energy and Climate Action.
Many Islanders questioning why this winter's power is costing hundreds of dollars more each month
1 month ago
Duration 2:31
Many Maritime Electric customers on Prince Edward Island have taken to social media to complain about electricity bills coming in hundreds of dollars higher than they did for the same winter month a year ago. The CBC's Steve Bruce looked into the matter for them.
"We've seen New Brunswick call for an audit. People want answers… and the only way we're going to get answers to this drastic year-over-year change is to have an independent audit."
Customers of the main power utilities in both New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have complained of rising electric bills throughout this winter.
N.B. Power and Newfoundland Power have pointed to cold weather as one of the drivers behind higher bills. Similar points were made Thursday in the House, where Arsenault suggested P.E.I. bills are higher because it's been such a frigid winter.
MacFarlane said he'd rather have more clarity on that determination by government doing a full audit of Maritime Electric's billing process.
The MLA would also like to see the province "investigate the infrastructure that Maritime Electric employs and the delivery of electricity throughout the province, to see whether or not the consumption per household is accurately being recorded."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
14 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Canada Standard
14 hours ago
- Canada Standard
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces - especially British Columbia - have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts- such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information - and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Read more: How political party data collection may turn off voters Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society - critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history - datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. Read more: A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians - they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes - the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of "if," but "when." Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes - particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times - particularly now.
Edmonton Journal
a day ago
- Edmonton Journal
Opinion: Is a land swap a win-win solution to the Canada-U.S. crisis?
Article content Americans would welcome these provinces and territories — and their agricultural, mineral and energy resources — with open arms (and would pay for those resources with U.S. dollars). Like most out-of-the-box ideas, this may sound crazy at first glance. And, to be sure, it would face major legal and political hurdles in both countries. But in the end, it would put Canada in a stronger position economically, enable the U.S. to counter Russian ambitions in the Arctic and become more energy-independent, and allow West Coast progressives to unite under a common flag — and Alberta conservatives to do the same. For what it's worth, I've travelled extensively in Canada, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, and I love its people and its distinctive culture. (I was a big Canadiens fan as a kid and have followed Canadian hockey and hockey players ever since. I never saw such passionate fans at a sporting event until I finally attended an NHL game in Ottawa back in the 1990s). I want to see Canada thrive, but I fear that it's being torn apart by unthinking attitudes of the so-called elites — something that American conservatives understand and sympathize with. I'm hoping that a cross-border realignment will bring out the best in your country as well as ours, and bring greater prosperity and cultural harmony to both countries. It's not about Trump, it's about common sense and political reality. What have we got to lose?
