If the officials at Hydro One were as good at solving problems as they are feeding at the public trough and spin-doctoring, we'd have an ideal system...

Sandra Pupatello, Chair of Hydro One.

Looking back at the history of Hydro One, ever since Mike Harris or Ernie Eves decided to ‘privatize’ it as a crown corporation, it has changed chairs like a game of ‘Pin the Tail on the Donkey.’ Each one of them has vowed to clean up the mess, but that too has been passed along like a hot potato.

Going back to 2002, the then Chairman of Hydro One, Eleanor Clitheroe, was fired because she: "used credit cards contrary to company policy. They [Ontario Power Generation Board] said she also obtained club memberships at the company's expense. Many of those memberships had no business-related purpose, the board said. Clitheroe is also said to have used Hydro One service providers to do renovations to her home."

At the time she made over $2.2 million, including $174,000 for a car and $172,000 in vacation pay. Clitheroe also stood to get $6 million in cash if she left Hydro One for any reason, and she stood to receive an annual pension of up to $1 million."

Dalton McGuinty replaced her with Tom Parkinson, only to have him 'resign' a year or so later when it was discovered that he improperly charged his secretary's credit card with $45,000 of expenses.

The most recent appointment is Sandra Pupatello, a former Liberal cabinet minister. She and another political has-been—Bernard Lord,  former premier of New Brunswick—were appointed to the boards by Energy Minister Bob “Let them drink coffee” Chiarelli in November, before the billing trouble erupted at Hydro One and a few weeks before the auditor general found OPG rife with nepotism and paying too much in wages and benefits.

 “We are going to fix it,” Pupatello said of the overbilling problem. “There were, frankly, an awful lot of snafus and a customer response the board was not happy with. We need to fix that. It’s unacceptable. We need to be more open about what is happening and the decisions the government takes and how it impacts on energy."

Meanwhile, we are close to July, and the most recent headline says: 'Hopeless quagmire': Ombudsman highlights Hydro One complaints’.

The previous chairs of Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), James Arnett and Jake Epp respectively, didn’t fare to well, either.

In December 2013, Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk reported that salaries, pensions and bonuses at Ontario Power Generation are "significantly more generous" than for comparable positions in the civil service, and have a financial impact on the cost of electricity.

She also stated that, "Earnings and benefits were significantly more generous at OPG than for comparable positions in the Ontario Public Service, and many of OPG's senior executives earned more than most deputy ministers."

Oh, and let us not forget the CEO of Hydro One, Carmine Marcello, who is paid $724,916 per year to say (of the latest fiasco:

“Hydro One has reviewed the ombudsman’s annual report and would like its customers to know that we have been working tirelessly — and have made progress — to resolve the customer service issues currently before us.

“We are taking the opportunity to not only resolve technical problems that resulted from introducing a new billing system, but to also improve service through new customer-friendly policies and by changing our customer service culture.”

However, given Hydro One’s record, I wouldn’t hold my breath!

For the full story, see: Dalton McGuinty and Hydro One (OPG) ... A study in incompetence! (A repost from May 1, 2012)]

More news from Hydro One ... None of it good.

'Hopeless quagmire': Ombudsman highlights Hydro One complaints’

BY CHRISTINA BLIZZARD, QMI AGENCY

TORONTO - You can put lipstick on a slippery pig, but it’s still one greasy piece of pork.

 That’s the message we got from Andre Marin, the province’s crusading ombudsman as he released his annual report Monday.

His office is still piling up complaints from irate Hydro One customers angry at the giant electricity utility’s shocking billing practices.

Hydro One became a target for Marin earlier this year after he received thousands of reports about Hydro One’s faulty billing practices.

Among the complaints, people who signed up for pre-authorized payments found their accounts cleaned out. Customers who had been getting bills for $200 a month suddenly had their bills spike to thousands of dollars. And they had no choice about paying.

In a shake-down that would put a con artist to shame, Hydro One simply emptied out their accounts.

Marin told reporters Monday his office now has now received 7,961 complaints.

I’m not surprised. Hydro One is one of the most arrogant, out-of-touch organizations I’ve ever dealt with.

Marin said dealing with the giant utility is like wrestling a “slippery pig” — which is an accurate description, from my experience with them.

Complaints ranged from unintelligible billing, erratic billing and unexplained withdrawals from customers’ accounts.

There were also cases of overbilling, lack of meter readings and smart meter malfunctions, Marin said.

His favourite story is that of a customer whose house had burned down and who continued to get a bill from Hydro One ~ More.

The chair of Hydro One is Sandra Pupatello (Appointed by Kathleen Wynne, April 1st, 2014)

The president and CEO is Carmine Marcello. His salary last year was $724,916.

***

To read the full story, go to 'Hopeless quagmire': Ombud highlights Hydro One complaints,’ in the Toronto Sun Newspaper

***

Kathleen Wynne: “Ms. Pupatello and Mr. Lord will provide advice and guidance to help deliver clean, reliable and affordable energy to Ontario’s families and businesses,” a government statement says. “They will lead efforts to find efficiencies and address human resource issues, executive compensation as well as potential pension reform.”

Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin has launched an investigation into billing and customer service practices at Hydro One, a distributor of electricity.

That probe is generating over 200 complaints a day (Now numbering over 7,000) from customers who say they’ve been the victim of missing, inaccurate and skyrocketing bills.

Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s annual report in December raised alarm bells about the OPG pension — the company puts in four to five dollars for every one dollar from an employee.

Lysyk also found examples of questionable expenses, such as OPG’s decision to pay $80,000 to cover the cost of one employee’s 10-kilometre move to Pickering from Toronto in the wrong direct from his work.

Editor's Comment: Some guidance!

Tales from the "Nanny Nation"...

The following is a partial list of grants, benefits, tax credits, supplements, and services paid from public funds, directly or indirectly, to children and youth. It is by no means comprehensive—even for the two levels of government included (Ontario and the Government of Canada) because it does not include municipal expenditures on education and social services, such as school houses (both elementary and secondary); teacher and support workers’ salaries; high school daycare centres; administration cost; etc.

In the days that follow I will publish details on each of these categories. My research—far from definitive—already covers 7 pages, and ranges from the Ontario Child Benefit (an outlay of approximately $4 billion per year) to “Smiles Ontario” (cost unknown), and something called “Nobody’s Perfect” (a financial support service for underage parents.)

In viewing this list, consider that while childless couples and individuals are required to contribute to these programs, through their taxes, they are in no way eligible for any of them. Moreover, as far as I can determine, there is no cost/benefit analysis that would justify any of these expenditures.

1.   Ontario Child Benefit (Ontario)
2.   Eligible Dependant Grant (Ontario)
3.   Education Tax Credit (federal)
4.   Child Care Benefit (Ontario)
5.   Assistance for Children with Severe Disabilities (Ontario)
6.   Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) (federal)
7.   Ontario Children’s Activity Tax Credit (Ontario)
8.   Children’s Arts Credit (federal)
9.   “Healthy Smiles” Ontario (dental) (Ontario)
10.                Student Nutrition Program (Ontario)
11.                Transit Pass Credit (federal)
12.                “Stepping Stones” (Ontario)
13.                Youth Opportunities (Ontario)
14.                Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Program (Ontario)
15.                Aboriginal Children and Youth (Ontario)
16.                Adoption Tax Credit (federal)
17.                Cadets Program (federal)
18.                Canada Child Tax Benefit (federal)
19.                Canada Education Saving Grant (federal)
20.                Canada Learning Bond (federal)
21.                Canada Pension Plan Children’s Benefits (federal)
22.                Child Disability Benefit (federal)
23.                Employment Insurance Family Supplement (federal)
24.                Employment Insurance Maternity and Paternity Benefits (federal)
25.                Employment Insurance special Benefits for Parents of Critically Ill Children (federal)
26.              Junior Canadian Rangers (federal)
27.                “Nobody’s Perfect” – Support for teen parents) (federal)
28.                Parents of Mudered or Missing Children (federal)
29.                Registered Education Savings Plan (federal)
30.                Basic and Additional Education  Savings Grant

Watch for the full report.

First there is God, and then there are insurance companies...

Thanks to Alan Shanoff of the Toronto Sun Newspaper, here's another example of how insurance companies set their own rules when it comes to settling claims, and yet NOT ONE level of government seems willing to do anything about it. Why?

 Not reasonable for insurance companies to waste money fighting policy holders

BY ALAN SHANOFF, TORONTO SUN (Sunday, June 15, 2014)

Reasonableness and common sense go a long way in preventing disputes and litigation.

Those are attributes we sometimes find in short supply at insurance companies.

Take the case of Grzegorz Zaprzala who was injured in July, 2009.

He had disability insurance through his employer, Hooper Welding Enterprises.

His disability application was approved with benefits of $3,000 per month commencing in November, 2009.

Every disability insurance policy has an offset provision. Certain specified sources of income are required to be offset or deducted from the disability benefits.

Among the many offsets are CPP disability benefits.

It is customary for disability insurance policies to require those receiving disability benefits to apply for CPP disability benefits.

Any CPP disability benefits obtained are then deducted from the insurer’s disability payments.

If the person receiving benefits doesn’t apply for CPP disability benefits, the insurance company is entitled to reduce its disability benefits by the estimated amount of the CPP benefits that could have been obtained.

In this case, Zaprzala’s application for CPP benefits was denied.

He requested reconsideration of the decision but once again his application was denied.

His insurance company, Manulife* Financial, told him he had an obligation to appeal the denial to the CPP Review Tribunal, even though there wasn’t anything in the insurance policy that specifically spelled out such an obligation.

Before the appeal was launched Manulife prepared a document and told Zaprzala to sign it.

The document stated Manulife would continue to pay the disability benefits without deduction of any estimated CPP benefits, provided that Zaprzala agreed to reimburse Manulife for any subsequent CPP benefits award.

But Manulife had an obligation to continue making the disability payments pending the appeal.

They had no right to deduct estimated CPP disability benefits after his applications had been rejected.

Zaprzala hired a lawyer to handle the appeal to the CPP Review Tribunal. The appeal was successful and Zaprzala was awarded about $34,000 in retroactive CPP benefits.

But his lawyer charged him about half that amount, leaving Zaprzala with a net gain of about $17,000.

Zaprzala offered to pay the net amount of $17,000, to Manulife.

Sounds reasonable to me.

After all, Manulife told Zaprzala to appeal and they received the benefit of the legal work.

No one told him not to retain a lawyer and it was certainly foreseeable he would have to hire a lawyer.

But Manulife wanted the full benefit of the $34,000 CPP payment.

(* Emphasis added by the editor of this blog.)

To read the full comment, go to Alan Shanoff’s Column at Toronto Sun Newspaper.

There is much truth in jest...

Ain't that the truth...

Ontario held an election and 63% of us were ignored!...

Ontario Liberal landslide — with only about a third of the votes – is a powerful argument for proportional representation

By handing Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals an apparent majority with perhaps a third of the popular vote, the outcome will be held up as a powerful argument in favourr of proportional representation.

The fact is that only a handful of parties have governed with a mandate of over 50% of the population since Confederation. In other words this has happened before, and yet politicians and electoral officials wring their hands worrying about falling numbers at the polls. Indeed, they have tried every solution from studying the situation to death, to blaming it on voter apathy while ignoring the elephant in the room—the one in the pink tutu.

The message which they just don't seem to get is that the public is not stupid. They see very well that something is wrong when a large percentage of votes have no effect. In this past election a good 63% of the electorate voted against Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal Party, and yet she ended up with a majority with only 37% of the popular vote. How can you call this democracy?

While it is true that a referendum was held on some form of proportional representation in 2007, but the proposition (that came from some airy-fairy study group) was so convoluted that even I voted against it. 

Given this scenario, one can only conclude that the politicians and officials who have studied the problem in the past have either been myopic, or had other things on their mind. It is no secret, of course, that the present “first-past-the-post” system favors the two major parties, as well as regional, "single-issue" parties (i.e. Bloc Québecois), both of which are at the expense of  broad-based third parties (e.g. NDP). Moreover, since these studies have invariably been conducted by one or the other of the two major parties, it is not an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to suggest that they were not anxious to upset the applecart.

However, there is a movement afoot to lobby for proportional representation voting, and from all appearances it is gaining momentum. You can see their mission statement at the following URL: Fair Vote Canada Mission Statement.

Please do yourself a favour, as well as your fellow electors and all aboard.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx38vorBQgfmdkdGVnJzUVlsWGM/edit

Tim Hudak says he has a plan to cut corporate taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Yah?...

Tim Hudak has proposed a reduction in corporate taxes from 11.5% to 8%. Here's the impact of trickle down economics on the economy at large.

This graphic shows that since 1950 the share of federal revenues from individual income taxes has remained relatively stable. But during that same period, corporations’ share of the burden has plummeted, while the contributions from workers’ payroll taxes have dramatically increased.

That’s an important point because payroll taxes are regressive — after the first $117,000, the more money a person makes, the smaller the share of income gets deducted from his or her paycheck.

Some plan!

Here's something to think about while filling up at the gas pump...

IMF Pegs Canada's Fossil Fuel Subsidies at $34 Billion

In such giveaways we're a world leader, a fact rarely noted when federal budgets are debated.

By Mitchell Anderson, 15 May 2014, TheTyee.ca

   

Bottom of Form

While Canada slashes budgets for research, education and public broadcasting, there is one part of our economy that enjoys remarkable support from the Canadian taxpayer: the energy sector.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that energy subsidies in Canada top an incredible $34 billion each year in direct support to producers and uncollected tax on externalized costs.

These figures are found in the appendix of amajor report released last year estimating global energy subsidies at almost $2 trillion. The report estimated that eliminating the subsidies would reduce global carbon emissions by 13 per cent. The stunning statistics specific to this country remainalmost completely unreported in Canadian media.

Contacted by The Tyee, researchers from the IMF helpfully provided a detailed breakdown of Canadian subsidies provided to petroleum, natural gas and coal consumption. The lion's share of the $34 billion are uncollected taxes on the externalized costs of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel -- about $19.4 billion in 2011. These externalized costs include impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion.

The report also referenced figures sourced from the OECD showing an additional $840 million in producer support to oil companies through a constellation of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. This brought total petroleum subsidies in Canada in 2011 to $20.23 billion -- more than 20 times the annual budget of Environment Canada.

In comparison to other countries, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg.

Natural gas consumption also enjoys billions in subsidies in Canada. The IMF estimates that un-priced carbon emissions from burning natural gas added up to $7.3 billion per year. There's another $440 million in producer support and $360 million in other un-taxed externalities, all of which tops $8.1 billion. This tax giveaway on natural gas alone is 44 per cent more than Canada provides in international aid every year.*

***

To read the entire article, go to The Tyee

* You remember the natural gas industry, don't you? It's the one that the Ontario Energy Board gave a 40% increase to in April of this year, because it cried 'poor mouth.' See: Enbridge 40% Natural Gas Hike Okd.

Hold your nose if you have to...

I did my civic duty today. I went to the poll, held my nose with one hand, and marked my 'X' with the other. Given the choices and what they stand for, not to mention the distorted electoral system, it seems a useless gesture; however, if you don't vote you are declining what so many people have fought and died for.

Still, I feel as though I am merely going through the motions in a play for which the ending has already been written. CEOs and corporations get richer, the poor get kids, and the middle class gets the bill.

That won't stop me from commenting, however, so do drop by often.