It was also a stick in the eye by outgoing PM Bill Davis, who lived across the street from Cardinal Leger Secondary School at the time.
|
|
|
Return of Ford Nation
- Thread starter Baggsy
- Start date
It was also a stick in the eye by outgoing PM Bill Davis, who lived across the street from Cardinal Leger Secondary School at the time.
Ford said today he’s going to fire the CEO of Hydro One as well if he’s elected.
Uhhhhhh....
Uhhhhhh....
And the entire board. He admitted that he has no idea if that's possible or how much that will cost. Eeeediots. All of them.
Aww, I was hoping someone would latch on and run with this again. :lmao:
If he does get elected it seems like Canadians will have their own Trump-Esque comedy lined up for years.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Uhhh what? Ontario owns 49.9% of OPG, they are the single largest stakeholder. You don't think there are a few conservative supporters that would pledge their shares to get to the controlling vote needed?
Look at your electricity bill, then think about the H-One CEO who makes more than all the provincial hydro CEOs across the country combined. Then think about a company who has 7900 employees paid more than $100,000/year (so says the 2017 Sunshine list -- rather odd considering the company claims to have only 7400 employees).
He would be able to replace the board... and then the board would replace the CEO. Very possible, but wouldn't be quick or that simple.
47.4% actually. The province does NOT have a controlling vote anymore.
And firing the CEO of a private entity would end up costing the province a massive severance and likely a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. On exactly what basis would they fire him.... "You make too much?" Or "This makes me look good" perhaps instead?
And then who are they going to replace him with...some inexperienced lackey off the street, since the goal seems to be to fire him because he makes too much? What could possibly go wrong.
Although I agree that there's issues with Hydro One and overpaid executives, the "shoot first, ask questions later, because that's what the voters like!" method will end up costing the same taxpayers many millions of dollars to accomplish, and could end up costing them billions more down the road if they push some bargain basement CEO into his place who subsequently makes dumb decisions.
Action is needed, sure, but it needs to be done carefully...and it won't happen overnight.
J_F
Guest
I own 0.5% of hydro one. I'm good with firing everyone on there.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
49.9% actually, OPG holds 1.5% of Hydro One and that's 100% in the hands of the province. Don't think a 49.9% shareholders doesn't have control, it would virtually impossible to defeat them in a vote.
Hydro One isn't private, they are public (although that's not germain to this discussion). In a situation like this it's likely the directors on the compensation committee gets axed first, they are invited and serve at the will of the shareholders. It's pretty hard to defend paying a CEO and their exes 10x more than any peer utility in Canada.
I'll guess he won't be fired solely based on his compensation, it would be something related to performance or actions he's done or not done. If he's truly a great CEO (and maybe he is), then he may be able to justify his compensation or make it more palatable by linking it more closely to goals. That said, you still have a big question as to why a CEO has allowed his executive team payroll to become 10x that of other Canadian electrical utilities (and for that matter, the entire Hydro One payroll).
The nice thing about being a BIG public company is there are smart shareholders keep their boots on your neck. If the directors and executives are doing poorly, those stakeholders will be sure to choke them out next AGM.
As far as Ford goes, he's a populist, he's going to make noise about Wynne's faults -- Hydro is a big part of that -- easy target.
Hopefully he takes that advice!
JTR
Well-known member
Maybe he can also find a way to undo some of the sell-offs that have happened over the years. Especially un-make some of the private that have been given the ability to determine what people can and cannot do, and choose who can and cannot do it. Drive-Test and OMVIC for example.
If anything you’ll see the exact opposite, less government bloat, not more, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see more things move into the private sector versus the other way around. The LCBO would be a great example – selling it off would not only help with the provinces financial woes, but would perhaps move us past this nanny state that we are currently in when it comes to alcohol.
I’m not particularly automatically against all of Fords fiscal ideas, but I am against knee-jerk reaction’s that were not well thought out as to their long-term effects or costs – one only need look south of the border to see the results of this sort of thing, i.e. Trump is now looking to squirm back into the TPP for one example...
While I agree that a free market would be beneficial for some aspects of the market, I'm more concerned with the long term financial trade off of selling the LCBO. How much could be generated by a one time sale versus the billion$ of revenue that the LCBO generates every year.
- Sells the LCBO for a bajillion dollars, put on the books and declare "wow, look at that huge budget surplus"
- Future budget planning must account for a significant revenue loss
- Criticizes future governments for running a deficit "We ran a surplus, why cant you?!"
That's why I'm not in favour of selling or privatizing the LCBO.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I don't mind it when gov't exits businesses that can be done more efficiently by private sector firms. I do mind when they meddle and make it impossible to deliver a service any better than if it were gov't workers doing the work.
For example, Service Ontario could offer self serve kiosks and more online services - but no, Kathleen and Dalton say people, not technology.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
The province's revenue would go up without the LCBO. First, they wouldn't bear the LCBO's $1Billion annual operating cost, then there is an opportunity to cut prices to increase volume... more revenue, and finally there is no possible way the LCBO could ever approach the sales and distribution efficiency of companies like Loblaws, Walmart, Coke, etc.
I don't think you can say with certainty that their revenue would go up, but I guess I also can't say with certainty that it would go down.
The LCBO does have a significant operating budget but a quick google shows me that their dividend to the provincial gov't last year was just over $2 billion. Lets also factor in the economic stimulation they provide through good paying jobs for employees who pay income tax. So what's the net tax revenue between that dividend, income tax paid by direct employees, plus the tax collected on downstream spending by those well paid employees?
Selling off the LCBO and allowing companies like Walmart, Loblaws, etc to take up the distribution would mean that employees supporting alcohol sales would be paid at or near minimum wage. The LCBO dividend would vanish, the profits from alcohol sales would become corporate profits instead. The downstream spending and economic benefit from well paid employees would decrease.
You'd have to make a pretty strong business case to satisfy my concerns that privatization of alcohol in Ontario would result in a greater economic stimulus than the $2 Billion dividend currently being paid.
|
|
|
|
|