Firing the CEO of Hydro One?

Man, we are on the precipice.

There are a lot of things Ford promised that irk me. But, the one that really drives me nuts is "Fire the CEO of Hydro One".

For those not in the now, Hydro One is not a crown corporation. And the CEO is running a business and is a private citizen.

This should go without saying; the Government of Ontario should not be directly interfering with businesses, unless those businesses are actually part of the government.

I want to try and be as objective about this as possible. So, rather than simply calling this "stupid". I really want to take the time to talk rationally about what is happening and what alternatives there are. It is easy to say "I don't like that". It is harder to explain why, and harder still to be willing to think far enough to offer an alternative. But, that is what I hope to do.

As for "why". The simplest target would be that this sets a crazy precedent. We elected a man on a promise to spend tax dollars to punish a private citizen who has committed no actual crimes. If he had committed crimes, there'd be a lawsuit, he'd likely be removed as CEO even if the lawsuit didn't convict. This also paves the way to green lighting the government into using people's businesses to attack individual on just about any grounds. 

But, the bigger problem is there is no guarantee it will have any impact beyond costing Ontarians whatever it costs to buy back a controlling stake in Hydro One. You see, he was a CEO, there is a whole board of people, including investors and the likes who are actually involved in the decision making process. Firing one man doesn't guarantee change. In fact, if he's being paid so handsomely... there is a good chance that board is doing a whole lot of scratching each others' backs and it is SUPER unlikely an incumbent is going to change anything meaningfully.

In short, if it isn't actually illegal for a government to buy a stake in a company simply to punish a private citizen (which it absolutely should be), then you still just voted to spend your tax money to have a government attack private citizens with no guarantee or even a reason to believe it will actually rectify the situation that made you want this man fired in the first place.

None of that last statement is hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating one bit. There is nothing in that statement which is not directly stated or implied in Ford's plan. It WILL cost money. You can't "buy" stake in a company without it. And that money, is tax money. Every cent any government possesses was either directly taxed or is the proceeds/interest/etc from tax money. The CEO is a private citizen and Hydro One is NOT a crown corporation. These are not elected officials or people being paid with your tax dollars. Also, as CEO he may provide direction for the company, but ultimately doesn't control the actual decisions. Thus, as I claimed, there is no guarantee of any change.

What I think is strangest about this though is this; I hear a lot of people who want lower taxes and less government meddling. But this is literally a case where people are clamoring to have the government spend their tax dollars to directly interfere in someone's business.

So, that is why I'm against this. But, what would I do differently? 

I'm glad you asked. As premier of Ontario, Ford and his party, with a commanding majority could easily undertake the task of writing up some new provincial legislation imposing rules on operators of utility companies or essential services to compel them, legally, to act in the best interest of the people of the province. I mean, writing legislation is, up there with budgetary actions, one of the primary jobs of any government. In fact, since budgets, once approved become laws after a sort themselves, you could argue pretty easily that governments primary job is solely writing legislation. 

It should be simple to see what I like about this plan. Firstly, it doesn't need to cost anything above and beyond the salaries of the politicians you'd need to pay regardless. It doesn't set any precedent of have the government acting outside of their purpose for existing. It doesn't attack private citizens directly. By forcing meaningful change through legislation, we can guarantee not only that there will actually be a change, but that it will be lasting and that the change will be more pervasive than just one company. 

If you think it is too much meddling to simply make illegal the behaviors you want to avoid... then there are always grants and other incentives a government can offer to either promote a change in business practices or to encourage the growth of competition. 

A majority government, even at the provincial level, has the ability to enact real change through legislation. And that is (in theory) what they are elected to do.

To be honest, if Ford succeeds in his plan... I would be rather unsurprised to find it results in a successful lawsuit against the Ontario government.