Wynne sells a Telcom at a Loss

[Boges]

I hope you people who voted for Wynne are happy.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/29/provincially-owned-telecom-firm-sold-at-loss-of-almost-61-million.html

The Liberal government is under fire for selling off a provincially owned telecommunications company at a $61 million loss.

Even so Northern Development Minister Michael Gravelle says it was a “necessary decision” and a good deal for taxpayers.

Ontera, which provides local and long distance telephone, data and Internet service throughout northeastern Ontario, was sold to Bell Aliant for $6.3 million — less than the $6.5 million the province paid consultants, lawyers and others advising the government on the sale.

Newly released documents from a Public Accounts report states “a loss on disposal of shares of Ontera” of almost $61 million and that the “the government provided a one-time contribution of $52,092,000 to support the sale” of the Crown corporation.

“It sure was a heck of a deal for Bell. (This) is pure Liberal math and this is exactly why we are the most indebted subnational on the planet,” Progressive Conservative MPP Vic Fedeli (Nipising), who raised the “fire sale” in the legislature, told reporters Tuesday.

These MENSAs spent more on consultation of the sale than the ACTUAL SALE!! DaFUQ!!!!!

Yeah Hudak would have been much worse.

[overthere]

We get the government we deserve.

[waldo]

These MENSAs spent more on consultation of the sale than the ACTUAL SALE!! DaFUQ!!!!!

Yeah Hudak would have been much worse.

tech intensive... long-term costs to maintain service and keep service offerings to related citizens current/viable relative to market offerings and conditions. There's a reason most provinces long ago divested themselves of telecom crown corporations.

[Shady]

Vote Justin. He'll do to Canada what Wynne has done to Ontario!

[Boges]

tech intensive... long-term costs to maintain service and keep service offerings to related citizens current/viable relative to market offerings and conditions. There's a reason most provinces long ago divested themselves of telecom crown corporations.

Selling the asset isn't the issue. It's spending more on consulting the sale then what they actually got is the issue.

[waldo]

Selling the asset isn't the issue. It's spending more on consulting the sale then what they actually got is the issue.

as a consultant... I'm not cheap! Apparently you have little experience or exposure to real world negotiations and returns when selling at a distinct disadvantage.

[Boges]

as a consultant... I'm not cheap! Apparently you have little experience or exposure to real world negotiations and returns when selling at a distinct disadvantage.

Are you implying that the Province would have been even more in the hole had they not spent more than the price of the interaction on consultants? I'm interested in seeing your rational for that.

[waldo]

Are you implying that the Province would have been even more in the hole had they not spent more than the price of the interaction on consultants? I'm interested in seeing your rational for that.

all governments rely heavily on outside consultants (as they typically lack required expertise)... and related costs are significant. Unless you're privy to the particulars of the process/negotiations, you really have no idea of what transpired. You're also missing the point that the province certainly wasn't dealing from strength in selling off a resource that will require significant long-term investment from a buyer... into a remote Northern area with a limited population base.

[Boges]

all governments rely heavily on outside consultants (as they typically lack required expertise)... and related costs are significant. Unless you're privy to the particulars of the process/negotiations, you really have no idea of what transpired. You're also missing the point that the province certainly wasn't dealing from strength in selling off a resource that will require significant long-term investment from a buyer... into a remote Northern area with a limited population base.

If they sold it for free they'd have been better off though.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Boges

[waldo]

If they sold it for free they'd have been better off though.

who is "they"? What Ontario government employees would you expect to directly negotiate a sale with say... Bell Aliant? A sale has 2 sides... ya think! There has to be some semblance of return to a prospective buyer. Again, a smallish remote Northern area company with a limited smallish population base certainly isn't a top draw for a telecom services company... you could try to "give it away for nothing"... who knows what incentives/enticements might have been conditional to the sale.

[Boges]

who is "they"? What Ontario government employees would you expect to directly negotiate a sale with say... Bell Aliant? A sale has 2 sides... ya think! There has to be some semblance of return to a prospective buyer. Again, a smallish remote Northern area company with a limited smallish population base certainly isn't a top draw for a telecom services company... you could try to "give it away for nothing"... who knows what incentives/enticements might have been conditional to the sale.

So you're saying that the government had to subsidize the sale. But that's not what happened. A sale happened but more was spent consulting the sale.

[waldo]

So you're saying that the government had to subsidize the sale. But that's not what happened. A sale happened but more was spent consulting the sale.

what I'm saying is its clear you have no experience in real-world negotiations and the cost of consultancy... it's clear that you don't recognize the investment required by a buyer in a tech intensive industry, particularly in a region that offers little growth opportunity, notwithstanding significant infrastructure costs given the location of the company. You sure are very positive of your understanding of events based on your single referenced journalist's interpretation... of course, it plays right into your anti-Wynne wheelhouse, regardless of your apparent naivety!

[Boges]

what I'm saying is its clear you have no experience in real-world negotiations and the cost of consultancy... it's clear that you don't recognize the investment required by a buyer in a tech intensive industry, particularly in a region that offers little growth opportunity, notwithstanding significant infrastructure costs given the location of the company. You sure are very positive of your understanding of events based on your single referenced journalist's interpretation... of course, it plays right into your anti-Wynne wheelhouse, regardless of your apparent naivety!

Do you share such derision to the media outlets that brought news of this sale to light? It's not like the Toronto Star is not an ally of the Wynne government.

I do remember you being the only person in Canada that defended the Gas Plant cancellation, something Wynne did end up apologizing for. So perhaps Devil Advocacy is something you just enjoy.

[Bob Macadoo]

So you're saying that the government had to subsidize the sale. But that's not what happened. A sale happened but more was spent consulting the sale.

So you're saying you expected the civil servants "whose wages you pay" to decide on their own to sell it for $1 to Bell and you would've been OK? The new paradigm is to pay consultants and hide behind their skirt for tough decisions.......as the paying mob won't take it.

[waldo]

Do you share such derision to the media outlets that brought news of this sale to light? It's not like the Toronto Star is not an ally of the Wynne government.

media derision? That's your interpretation, not mine! However, your linked article is poorly written from the standpoint of presenting a representative account from a buyer's perspective; again, tech intensive, remote location, limited population base... where a long-term requirement to fund infrastructure and tech changes/advances is a given. Given attacking Wynne appears to be your favoured hobby-horse, you could care less what factors might influence a sale... you just presume the province was dealing from a position of strength... which it most certainly was not.

.

I do remember you being the only person in Canada that defended the Gas Plant cancellation, something Wynne did end up apologizing for. So perhaps Devil Advocacy is something you just enjoy.

such hyperbole! But you made me look... you should point to posts that speak to your hyperbole... or I could summarize for you: in one post I highlight the political gamesmanship during the election campaign; that when the cancellation announcement was made, both the Conservative and NDP parties lined right up around it with similar stated commitments, "that they (also) would not have a gas plant on that site". I also questioned if the alternate approach should have been pursued against the most significant opposition from Mississauga and Etobicoke residents. In any case, I look forward to you reaffirming your hyperbole!

.

[Boges]

media derision? That's your interpretation, not mine! However, your linked article is poorly written from the standpoint of presenting a representative account from a buyer's perspective; again, tech intensive, remote location, limited population base... where a long-term requirement to fund infrastructure and tech changes/advances is a given. Given attacking Wynne appears to be your favoured hobby-horse, you could care less what factors might influence a sale... you just presume the province was dealing from a position of strength... which it most certainly was not.

So what about buying the telecom at 10% of the actual value indicates that the buyers didn't get a good deal? My point is, if the government gave the buyer the product for free the province would have been ahead because they spent more than the sale on consultants. Perhaps illogical behaviour makes sense to you more than it does to me.

such hyperbole! But you made me look... you should point to posts that speak to your hyperbole... or I could summarize for you: in one post I highlight the political gamesmanship during the election campaign; that when the cancellation announcement was made, both the Conservative and NDP parties lined right up around it with similar stated commitments, "that they (also) would not have a gas plant on that site". I also questioned if the alternate approach should have been pursued against the most significant opposition from Mississauga and Etobicoke residents. In any case, I look forward to you reaffirming your hyperbole!

Yes but the opposition parties weren't in power and may not have decided to build those plans in heavily populated areas. But regardless the government headed up by Dalton McGuinty at the time, told the residents that they were NIMBYs. In the case of Oakville it took Erin Brokovich to make the province back down. In the case of Etobicoke construction had already begun and the government decided to back down during the election campaign! This incidents made McGuinty resign so for you to pretend it's anything but a gigantic scandal is laughable.

The decision to build and cancel those plants cost the government over $1 billion. How's that for hyperbole?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Boges

[waldo]

So what about buying the telecom at 10% of the actual value indicates that the buyers didn't get a good deal? My point is, if the government gave the buyer the product for free the province would have been ahead because they spent more than the sale on consultants. Perhaps illogical behaviour makes sense to you more than it does to me.

again, you clearly have no idea how real-world negotiations are played out... and yes, consultants cost money... and the longer negotiations go on, the more money is paid to consultant companies. Now, if you could actually show the consulting company dragged out the negotiations with the assorted companies involved, you might have something; alternatively, it just might suggest how difficult it was to realize a sale over time. Do you actually know what companies were in the mix... do you know the final conditions of the sale... perhaps incentives required to finally realize that sale, etc.? Of course you don't... you're simply in another round of your favourite routine against the Wynne government.

the "illogical" facets are you continuing to imply the company was a "plum" offering - it wasn't/isn't... for the reasons I've already outlined several times.

.

Yes but the opposition parties weren't in power and may not have decided to build those plans in heavily populated areas. But regardless the government headed up by Dalton McGuinty at the time, told the residents that they were NIMBYs. In the case of Oakville it took Erin Brokovich to make the province back down. In the case of Etobicoke construction had already begun and the government decided to back down during the election campaign! This incidents made McGuinty resign so for you to pretend it's anything but a gigantic scandal is laughable.

The decision to build and cancel those plants cost the government over $1 billion. How's that for hyperbole?

the first plant cancellation was done a full year prior to the election... the second, yes, within the campaign itself. A billion dollars was saved in the cancellation of those Oakville and Mississauga plants... a half-billion sunk costs were paid to the 2 contractors involved for the monies already put into the 2 cancelled plants. There was an extra cost of $60 million for the new/alternate Lambton plant and a claimed extra cost for the Napanee plant of ~800 million... a figure I interpret as associating to the additional costs to bring gas there and transmit electricity where needed most. Of course, "fun with figures" relative to bringing those new plants to alternate 'rural' based areas: as I interpret, those additional Napanee costs don't factor such things as spin-offs to the related rural economy... like 600 construction jobs, 25 permanent jobs, and millions of dollars spent during years of construction. Notwithstanding your zeal in wanting to force 'residential areas' to accept gas plants in their immediate proximity... what would member Boges have done?

.

[Boges]

again, you clearly have no idea how real-world negotiations are played out... and yes, consultants cost money... and the longer negotiations go on, the more money is paid to consultant companies. Now, if you could actually show the consulting company dragged out the negotiations with the assorted companies involved, you might have something; alternatively, it just might suggest how difficult it was to realize a sale over time. Do you actually know what companies were in the mix... do you know the final conditions of the sale... perhaps incentives required to finally realize that sale, etc.? Of course you don't... you're simply in another round of your favourite routine against the Wynne government.

the "illogical" facets are you continuing to imply the company was a "plum" offering - it wasn't/isn't... for the reasons I've already outlined several times.

Or you could illustrate how the consultants saved the taxpayer money. Sounds like there's a lot we don't know. All I know that the government sold an asset at a $6 million loss. Not a good look for a broke province.

the first plant cancellation was done a full year prior to the election... the second, yes, within the campaign itself. A billion dollars was saved in the cancellation of those Oakville and Mississauga plants... a half-billion sunk costs were paid to the 2 contractors involved for the monies already put into the 2 cancelled plants. There was an extra cost of $60 million for the new/alternate Lambton plant and a claimed extra cost for the Napanee plant of ~800 million... a figure I interpret as associating to the additional costs to bring gas there and transmit electricity where needed most. Of course, "fun with figures" relative to bringing those new plants to alternate 'rural' based areas: as I interpret, those additional Napanee costs don't factor such things as spin-offs to the related rural economy... like 600 construction jobs, 25 permanent jobs, and millions of dollars spent during years of construction. Notwithstanding your zeal in wanting to force 'residential areas' to accept gas plants in their immediate proximity... what would member Boges have done?

So if we all agree that putting the plants there was a bad idea then the government needs to own the decision to put them there in the first place. I'm sure you take issue with Dalton accusing those opposed to these plants as NIMBYS.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/new-law-will-keep-nimby-ism-from-stopping-green-projects-ont-premier-1.805978

[waldo]

Or you could illustrate how the consultants saved the taxpayer money. Sounds like there's a lot we don't know. All I know that the government sold an asset at a $6 million loss. Not a good look for a broke province.

standard Boges strawman retreat! Don't let that a self-acknowledged "a lot we don't know" get in your way, hey!

So if we all agree that putting the plants there was a bad idea then the government needs to own the decision to put them there in the first place. I'm sure you take issue with Dalton accusing those opposed to these plants as NIMBYS.

own the decision? Oh my! McGuinty is long gone... I leave it to your selective historical accounting to suggest what part the gas plants played in that. And... it was just you that highlighted the Wynne apology. What else are you after... blood? I note you didn't step-up and state just what YOU would have done in the face of intense pressure from the 2 heavily residential areas that protested against the original plant locations?

[Boges]

standard Boges strawman retreat! Don't let that a self-acknowledged "a lot we don't know" get in your way, hey!

Doesn't sound like you know a lot either. Do you know for a fact that, had consultant been payed more than the actual sale price, that the Province would have lost more?

own the decision? Oh my! McGuinty is long gone... I leave it to your selective historical accounting to suggest what part the gas plants played in that. And... it was just you that highlighted the Wynne apology. What else are you after... blood? I note you didn't step-up and state just what YOU would have done in the face of intense pressure from the 2 heavily residential areas that protested against the original plant locations?

He's long gone because of the Gas Plans scandal. You don't think there was ample warning that the decision to locate the plants here would have caused problems? It was only when the MPPs in those ridings stood to lose their seat did the Liberals finally see the light.

This is ancient history, sort of like all the stuff the Harper government did that makes you upset pre-2011 when they won their majority.

But I'm shocked you still want to defend the Liberals here, You're the only one I've ever heard vigorously defend the government regarding this scandal. It's fascinating actually.

[waldo]

Doesn't sound like you know a lot either. Do you know for a fact that, had consultant been payed more than the actual sale price, that the Province would have lost more?

I certainly know enough of how real-world negotiations are undertaken to fully appreciate the naivety of your statements/position.

.

This is ancient history, sort of like all the stuff the Harper government did that makes you upset pre-2011 when they won their majority.

But I'm shocked you still want to defend the Liberals here, You're the only one I've ever heard vigorously defend the government regarding this scandal. It's fascinating actually.

so ancient you couldn't help yourself in once again bringing it forward, hey! You also miss the timing element where one of those 2 plants was cancelled well outside of the election campaign... a year before. If pointing out a timeline and actual costs involved is 'defending'... if 'defending' is repeatedly asking YOU what YOU would have done in the face of significant opposition from the heavily residential populated areas, and having you ignore that repeated questioning...

.

[Boges]

I certainly know enough of how real-world negotiations are undertaken to fully appreciate the naivety of your statements/position.

So provinces should just eat $6.5 million losses on selling $61 million assets and be happy about it? That's how the world works? Let's hope the Hydro One sale doesn't go down the same path. Of course nothing this government does would surprise me.

so ancient you couldn't help yourself in once again bringing it forward, hey! You also miss the timing element where one of those 2 plants was cancelled well outside of the election campaign... a year before. If pointing out a timeline and actual costs involved is 'defending'...

Erin Brockovich FTW!

if 'defending' is repeatedly asking YOU what YOU would have done in the face of significant opposition from the heavily residential populated areas, and having you ignore that repeated questioning...

I'm not in government, nor was the opposition at the time. You would assume that staff are paid to see if building these plant was a smart thing to do long before the outcry.

It's funny because a similar plant was built less than hour away in Halton Hills, a PC riding. I'm guessing those residents could have protested all they wanted and not seen that plant cancelled. Notice that the replacement plants were also built in PC areas of the province.

But to answer your question, I may not have decided to build those plants there to begin with. But I certainly wouldn't have decided to cancel the plants once I was pot committed to the tune of $1 billion.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Boges

[waldo]

Erin Brockovich FTW!

you keep mentioning this... she made a single appearance (somebody ponied up an appearance fee)! Given her past causal attachments to health and environmental related aspects, are you suggesting she was brought in FOR... or AGAINST... the original plant locations?

But to answer your question, I may not have decided to build those plants there to begin with. But I certainly wouldn't have decided to cancel the plants once I was pot committed to the tune of $1 billion.

quite the cop-out! All after the fact, of course... the "pot commitment" figure you speak to is also after the fact! Good to read you would force communities of thousands of people to accept a plant... you'd simply ignore the protests instead of trying to look for better... for alternate... locations. Your hindsight is quite remarkable.

[Boges]

you keep mentioning this... she made a single appearance (somebody ponied up an appearance fee)! Given her past causal attachments to health and environmental related aspects, are you suggesting she was brought in FOR... or AGAINST... the original plant locations?

Or I could just mention that Oakville is one of the richest communities on Canada and that if they don't want something, they won't get it. All those rural people that hate the wind turbines that are being built in their community don't seem to get that benefit.

quite the cop-out! All after the fact, of course... the "pot commitment" figure you speak to is also after the fact! Good to read you would force communities of thousands of people to accept a plant... you'd simply ignore the protests instead of trying to look for better... for alternate... locations. Your hindsight is quite remarkable.

So I'll ask again. So you hold the government at fault for deciding to put those plants there in the first place.

And if all was good with the decision to cancel the plants then why would the Ontario government go through a separate scandal where they hired and outsider to delete e-mails pertaining to the gas scandal cancellation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tech-expert-allegedly-linked-to-deleted-emails-had-contract-with-liberals-1.1753735

[socialist]

Compared to California, Ontario is in great shape.