Jumping off the corporate diving board and into the deep pool of entrepreneurship

markus-spiske-612-unsplash.jpg

Imagine you’ve got a plush corporate job with a cushy salary, weeks of vacation time and all the benefits and perks you could think of. After all, you’ve worked hard climbing the coporate ladder to get to where you are now. But something just feels off. You’ve had a burning desire to do things differently, or to design that product you’ve always obsessed about. The thought of starting your own company keeps you up at night, and you’ve finally come to the conclusion that now is the time to risk it all and chase your dream. So what should you be thinking about as you prepare to take that leap of faith?

You have to truly believe in what you’re building

If you’re not feeling fire-in-the-belly passionate about what you’re about to embark on, don’t do it. Entrepreneurship, whether you’re employee number one or joining a small team, requires an incredible amount of devotion and energy. To begin with, there is no guarantee that your startup company will be around in the next few months, or even weeks. A lack of passion is a guaranteed way to shorten its lifespan even further. Remember, you’ll be asked to sell, work late, and you’ll face lots of rejection. Without a burning belief in what you’re building, you’ll fail.

Forget the prestige

If working for a prestigious company with name recognition is important to you, the startup life may not be the right fit. If you’ve been in a company for a long time, your reputation can often be tied to that of the firm you work at, so don’t be surprised if things change when you decide to leave the giant ACME Financial Services Corporation to build a better coffee maker at your startup. While some will commend you for taking the risk and putting all your chips into a company that could take off, others may look at your differently. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what others think. Follow your heart (and a healthy dose of your brain, too!) and do what feels right.

You still need top talent

It’s safe to say that the majority of today’s workforce does not have a high risk tolerance. More often than not, the security of a large scale corporation that can provide benefits and an almost guaranteed paycheque is just as important as how much one’s salary is. Startups aren’t for everyone, and that can make attracting top talent tough. Young companies rarely have large amounts of capital on hand for competitive salaries and benefits. Remember, you likely took a pay cut yourself by leaving the corporate world for the chance at building something amazing. So when you do find the right people who share your vision, the results speak for themselves and the synergy that comes from that can intoxicating.

Never settle

Your new company is exactly that: your company. That means you get to decide who you work with, how you work, and what you do for a living. You should never feel like you’re compromising your vision simply for the sake of a piece of business, or your morals for the sake of profit. Pivoting your business to meet the needs the market is telling you it has is one thing. But to settle for what someone else thinks you should be doing is entirely another. The former will make you successful, while the latter will erode your confidence, make you sour on the concept of entrepreneurship and make you feel like you’re working to chase someone else’s dream rather than your own.

Bad company: when your organization’s reputation starts to hurt your own

Earlier this summer, there were a number of stories about current and former White House staffers complaining about not being able to date in DC thanks to their boss, President Donald Trump.

Many vented their frustration, saying they’re on a social blacklist because of their boss and his controversial (to put it extremely mildly) public profile. While the vast majority of these individuals probably never met Trump himself, or even supported all his policies, their association with such a divisive person negatively impacted their reputation.

Not being able to land a date is one thing. But what happens when staying on with your employer means tarnishing your professional reputation, perhaps permanently?

There are instances when public figures cross a line that is just too far, and require immediate action. Wanda Sykes, who was a consulting producer on hit show Roseanne, quit before ABC Entertainment had a chance to publicly comment on the racially-charged tweets sent by Roseanne Barr, which ultimately caused the sitcom to get cancelled.

The same can be said for top staffers in former Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown’s office. When news broke of allegations of sexual misconduct against him, many of his closest advisors took to Twitter announcing their immediate resignation before Brown even held his press conference. They full well knew that in the court of public opinion, especially in politics, they needed to distance themselves from Brown’s now tarnished reputation.

Since quitting one’s job on a whim is not a choice many can afford, there are options for employees who find themselves being tarred with the same brush as the C-suite, or even the organization’s brand.

We spoke with Evangeline Berube at Robert Half Management Resources, the world’s first and largest specialized staffing firm, to gather some insights on what to do when your organization’s negative brand threatens your own.

Provident: At what point does a company's or a senior executive’s negative reputation begin to affect that of their employees?

Evangeline Berube: That really is dependent on the individual ideals of an employee. On one hand, they may not consider their leader’s reputation as having much of an influence on their day-to-day; on the other hand, a professional may feel their leaders’ reputations are representative of the work they do, and a reflect on their own.

More often than not, people want to support and work for companies that serve a larger purpose and help their communities. They want leaders who demonstrate a commitment to something bigger than themselves and may get disenchanted or disengaged with their own work when they feel that their manager doesn’t live up to their own vision of the organization. They may not feel proud of the work they do and start looking for an organization that better represents their professional and personal principles.

Successful businesses make goodwill, philanthropy and engaging corporate involvement part of their culture. This includes giving employees time and resources to dedicate to charitable and community activities and aligning leadership goals with individual goals.

P: Do employees have any options to help protect their personal reputation other than quitting?

EB: Everyone influences culture, whether they proactively try to or not. The best way for employees to protect their reputation is by entrenching a positive reputation for themselves among colleagues and within their network.

Lead by example, and embody the type of corporate culture you seek for your company. For instance, you can foster a culture of recognition by acknowledging colleagues’ work and celebrating their successes. Additionally, you can:

  • Talk to your manager about the culture you think is right for the company. If you’re looking for changes, don’t gripe. Talk about how the company can benefit and ways you can help.

  • Thank colleagues for their help.

  • Build rapport with coworkers, and take an interest in their well-being and that of the people network.

  • Be a resource for your colleagues and peers, including by offering to help when possible.

P: Does working for a company with a bad reputation impact future employment opportunities?

EB: In our experience, it has more of an impact on the business itself rather than the employees who work for them. It makes it more difficult to recruit top talent, and keep top talent.

When employees or job seekers feel that their leaders aren’t living up to the ideals of the business, or misrepresenting the values of their teams, they run the risk of their workers becoming disengaged, unmotivated, resentful and ultimately ready to leave.

When looking for future employment, how workers handle the way they left a company or leader they no longer related to may actually say a lot about them to future employers. Leaving on a positive note while maintaining their individual ideals, shows a strength of character and a commitment to professionalism.

P: Should employees speak out publicly against their employer to distance themselves?

EB: Sometimes silence speaks volumes. Ultimately, leading by example and living the ideals you want your leadership to embody says more about what you represent as an individual and as a professional.

As the famous saying from Warren Buffett goes “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and give minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” At Provident, we couldn’t agree more and have seen first hand just how fast things can change. That why it’s important to have a plan in place to not only respond to potential crisis, but also recover and rebuild any reputational damage sustained. We’d also like to thank Evangeline for taking the time to share her insights on this issue, and we hope you found it as beneficial as we did.

Whatever happened to the wall that keeps business and politics separate?

_103285134_ck.jpg

For years, companies big and small made every effort to keep their nose out of politics for fairly obvious reasons. Why risk alienating your customers and potentially harming your brand’s reputation just to be another voice in the crowded political mix?

Today, however, more and more companies are becoming less and less concerned with keeping a pristine divide between business and politics.

Nike, the global sports apparel company who is no stranger to controversial advertising campaigns, took this calculated risk with their latest marketing initiative featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

To say their new ad, featured above, is causing some controversy across the United States and beyond is an understatement. For those of you unfamiliar with Kaepernick, he gained notoriety with many conservatives south of the border for his decision to lead silent protests against perceived police brutality and social injustice towards African Americans by kneeling during the U.S. national anthem.

Kaepernick’s actions have seen him ostracised by the league, which his supporters say is unjust treatment because of his views. He’s been singled out by President Donald Trump and his surrogates as being “un-American” and for “disrespecting the flag and military,” further dividing football fans across the country. The ad has caused thousands of people to vent their outrage on social media against Nike, with some burning whatever swoosh-labeled attire they own. Many even vowed to boycott the brand who they accuse of further driving a wedge into an already divided country.

So why would Nike choose to sign one of the most divisive athletes in generations to honour the thirtieth anniversary of their “Just Do It” slogan? For starters, Nike took the view that taking what is unequivocally a political stance could prove popular with their largest customer base: people under 35 years of age, who make up two-thirds of their customers in the United States.

You don’t need to be a political science genius to know that a majority of millennials typically support progressive policies. They won’t be the ones burning their Nike runners. Instead, they’re now more likely to buy and wear Nike as a form of statement. While Nike’s stock did take a minor dip following the campaign’s release, some estimates say the buzz generated $43 million in free advertising and is also leading young people to snatch up the company’s stock.

Whether or not you agree with Nike’s position, the fact is they full well knew they would anger and potentially lose some of their customers, but still made the conscious decision to put their money where their mouth is.

While Nike will most likely come out ahead with their controversial campaign, it doesn’t always work out for national brands who decide to put their politics on full blast.

Popular fast food chain Chik-fil-A found itself in the centre of the same-sex marriage debate in 2012 after Dan Cathy, its president, told a syndicated radio talk show that he does not support same-sex marriage, adding: “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

His comments drew swift condemnation, and like Nike, saw many vowing to boycott the restaurant. While Chik-Fil-A’s stock actually jumped a bit, Cathy found himself and his company in hot water again following the Supreme Court ruling declaring same-sex marriage legal, tweeting his displeasure about the decision. A few years later, Cathy said he regretted dragging his company into the debate, and announced that his restaurant chain would no longer donate money to anti-LGBTQ groups. While these negative headlines happened over five years ago, they have lingered. The restaurant’s planned expansion into Canada next year has already sparked anger and calls to boycott it north of the border.

Companies are also vulnerable to major events outside of their control that may force them to take a stand when faced with growing public backlash. Following the tragic mass shooting that left 17 people dead at a high school in Florida, U.S. airline giants United and Delta, along with rental car companies such as Hertz and Avis announced they would stop giving discount rates to NRA members. This happened after the pro-gun association pushed back against efforts to curb sales of high-powered assault rifles.

Again, there was a risk the airlines and car rental companies would anger at least a portion of their customer base. But they also certainly weighed the impact on their overall reputation. After all, silence could imply agreement, so action won over on balance.

The reality is that we now scrutinize companies much more closely and against a much broader criteria. Politics is massively influential in this regard.

Consider this example: just hours after Trump’s immigration ban on six predominantly Muslim countries was first announced, NYC taxi drivers called for an hour long strike from picking passengers up at JFK International Airport in a show of protest. Uber, on the other hand, said via Twitter it was canceling it’s surge pricing. The twitterverse erupted in anger, and #DeleteUber began trending. Uber failed to consider that its tweet looked as though it was undercutting the taxi strike, even though earlier that night it’s CEO denounced Trump’s decision.

To the public, Uber’s actions spoke louder than its words.

This change in the level and type of public scrutiny levied on companies has erased the line that traditionally existed between business and politics. And as companies consider whether to wade into the latest storm, there is a clear lesson that bears repeating: your customer base is not a monolithic block. Just as the issue you’re likely facing is cast in shades of grey rather than black and white, your reaction will be seen the same way by the people who buy what you sell.

Not if, but when: are you prepared for a data breach?

code-1486361_1920.jpg

It seems like we hear almost daily about a new, major data breach, compromising hundreds of thousands of individuals’ private information and leaving billions of dollars of damage in its wake. Just this morning, Air Canada announced their mobile app was breached, saying 20,000 customers may have had their personal information "improperly accessed", forcing the airline to lock-down all 1.7 million accounts until passwords are changed. Wired magazine recently published this story about how one of the world’s largest shipping companies was held hostage in such an attack, sending IT teams across A.P. Møller-Maersk panicking, and ultimately causing nearly a fifth of the world’s shipping capacity to come to a complete halt.

The virus, known as NotPetya, turned out to be a WMD of malware, and is the largest attack of its kind the internet has ever seen.  

Maersk wasn’t the only one to suffer either. The US government estimates that nearly $10 billion in damage was done across the globe, likely at the hands of Russian hackers who unleashed NotPetya on companies big and small. Here are the sobering figures of how much damage some of these companies suffered:

  • Merck: $870 million

  • FedEx: $400 million

  • Maersk: $300 million

Given the extreme severity and steady frequency of attacks like NotPetya, WannaCry and others, it’s safe to say that data breaches are no longer a question of if, but when, for Canadian organizations. This threat is constantly growing and evolving, and organizations must have a plan in place that allows for rapid response.

No matter how robust your cybersecurity protocols are, there is almost no time to play catch up when a breach occurs. Just imagine this scene detailed in Wired at the headquarters of Maersk:

All across Maersk headquarters, the full scale of the crisis was starting to become clear. Within half an hour, Maersk employees were running down hallways, yelling to their colleagues to turn off computers or disconnect them from Maersk’s network before the malicious software could infect them, as it dawned on them that every minute could mean dozens or hundreds more corrupted PCs. Tech workers ran into conference rooms and unplugged machines in the middle of meetings.

While Provident is not a cyber security company, we always stress to our clients that investing in a crisis response communications plan is just as important as having a security response plan in place with your IT department. The logic is simple: a massive attack impacts the thousands if not millions of your organization’s customers. Putting out the fire is paramount, but communicating with those impacted is just as important. What you do in response matters just as much as what you say and how you say it.

With that in mind, we have designed data breach scenario training and tailored response plans to help you prepare in the event of a cyber attack or data breach, protecting your brand and reputation, while ensuring you keep the confidence and trust of the public. We must recognize we live in a world where the public expects a swift response, and reputational damage will only get worse if there is any delay.

If you think you’re immune, think again.

According to an Ipsos poll, half of Canadian C-suite executives and nearly a quarter of entrepreneurs said the cybersecurity of their business was breached in 2016. We don’t even have to look that far back to note that over 600,000 Canadians had their personal profiles shared with Cambridge Analytica through Facebook, 19,000 had their personal information compromised through Equifax, and nearly a million had their names, emails and phone numbers exposed when Uber was hit.

Given how common these cyber attacks are occuring, the government of Canada has a new law coming into effect on November 1, 2018 that mandates all companies to notify individuals if their data was comprised. Failure to do so can result up to a $100,000 fine for each offence.

Like other forms of crisis, cyber attacks can completely disrupt an organization's ability to function, impact both internal and external relationships, and if not handled properly, be extremely costly to fix. That is why companies must adapt and better prepare for responding to potential breaches before disaster strikes -- not during, or after.

Ontario’s new cannabis market has retailers buzzing

chain-close-up-display-1036857.jpg

It’s official: following through on a campaign promise, Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government will be allowing private retailers to sell cannabis throughout the province. The rollout will see the government-run Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) sell cannabis online only immediately after federal legalization on October 17, followed by hundreds of private brick-and-mortar stores that will be opening in spring of 2019.

The new framework is a radical shift in policy from the previous Liberal government, who planned to only sell cannabis in government-run OCS stores under the umbrella of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The new private retail system could see up to 500 retail licenses by next spring, a far larger number than the 40 government-run stores Wynne had promised and what critics called inadequate.

Making the announcement after the markets closed on Monday, Attorney General Caroline Mulroney stressed that public safety is the province’s priority as it rolls out its new policy."We will be ready to put in place a safe, legal system for cannabis retail that will protect consumers," said the AG, "We will also be ready to undermine the illegal market and protect Ontario's roads.  Most importantly of all, we will be ready to protect our kids."

These new licensed retailers will operate under strict rules and guidelines, and will face stiff fines if they are found to violate any terms of the agreement. To help consumers know they are purchasing from a licensed retailer, the government will be issuing an Official Ontario Cannabis Retailer Seal. For those concerned about cannabis stores in their neighbourhood, there will be a retail “opt-out” clause available to municipalities which will prevent physical stores from opening within their boundaries. Queen’s Park will also be providing up to $40 million to local governments to help keep their communities safe.

Vic Fideli, Ontario’s Finance Minister, made it clear the government has no intention of getting involved in running brick and mortar stores. "Instead, we will work with private sector businesses to build a safe, reliable retail system that will divert sales away from the illegal market," he said.

You can bet Bay Street will be thrilled with the news, as a significant amount of investment is waiting to be untapped in the new private market system. It will be interesting to see how the markets react in the short and long term future as recreational cannabis becomes more mainstream overtime. Our expectation would be that as was the case with producers, the initial wave of retailers will be consolidated over time until only several large and dominant players (and perhaps a few boutiques) remain.

Provident will continue to follow developments in this sector and will provide our insights which you can now subscribe to and not miss out on any of our analysis.

This is the biggest risk missing from your crisis PR plan

scandal.jpg

When brands plan for an unforeseen PR disaster, they typically prepare a list of potential scenarios that could impact their business – anything from a data breach to a natural disaster – along with standby statements so that they can respond with speed, if necessary.

Often, these plans contemplate how the brand would respond if its CEO or another senior executive officer was accused of sexual harassment or got into a car accident while drunk. These things happen, so preparation is important.

However, many companies still leave themselves vulnerable to serious reputation risk by failing to consider a massive and unpredictable blind spot: their rank-and-file employees, behaving badly outside of work hours.

Before Facebook and Twitter gave the average person the ability to reach almost any brand, companies could at least claim that an employee’s inappropriate or offensive behaviour on their own time was exactly that: their own, outside the company’s control.

Now, with the public just a few keystrokes away from expressing outrage publicly and in real time, the game has changed. Brands have to be prepared to act quickly and decisively when the actions of a single worker threaten their very valuable brands.

Companies are starting to recognize this reality.

Hydro One fired an employee in 2015 after he shouted an obscenity at a TV reporter during a live report at a Toronto FC game. The incident garnered immediate and widespread outrage on social media, and support for the TV reporter, which included a comment about sexual harassment from then-Premier Kathleen Wynne. (Hydro One eventually re-hired the employee, after an arbitrator found he had made “extensive efforts” to make amends). Then, a year later, there was the famous Blue Jays game beer toss, which cost a Postmedia employee his job, and left him facing criminal charges. The incident again caused a wave of condemnation on social media.

These two examples show how the public, equipped with digital pitchforks and torches, can force the hand of even the largest brands. Could companies simply issue a condemning statement in an instance like this? Absolutely, but with a caveat. While PR teams need to be prepared to swiftly respond with a strong and unequivocal statement, management and HR teams must also be ready to go further if necessary.

That means crisis plans have to consider if the company is ready to fire an employee if the case is egregious enough, pay severance as appropriate and then potentially have to argue its case in front of a court if the employee sues the company.

The stakes can be really high, as the world saw in May, when Roseanne Barr, the star of a successful reboot of her original Roseanne sitcom, posted a racist tweet. Just hours after the post and resulting online anger, TV network ABC strongly condemned Barr’s comments and cancelled the wildly popular (and financially lucrative) show.

At the same time, responding quickly – or too strongly – can be fraught with legal risk. For example, what if a brand condemns or fires an employee for a criminal offence before that person is proven guilty?

Scotiabank is facing such a case right now, after one of its employees in Toronto was charged with child luring, sexual assault and other offences earlier this month. These are gravely serious allegations, the bank’s name has appeared in many headlines related to this case, and its brand is being damaged with every new article. However, these are also charges that haven’t yet been tested in court. The bank took a balanced and appropriate course of action by refusing to comment given the ongoing investigation, and not answering questions about the worker’s employment status.

It’s clear companies have nowhere to hide when it comes to the reputation damage an off-duty employee can cause to a brand. PR and management teams would be wise to address this reality head-on, rather than reactively trying to fix things in the moment. By then, it could already be too late.

Why ‘no comment’ is never an option when your company’s values are on the line

blur-blurry-close-up-164912.jpg

Giant companies with tens of thousands of employees aren’t typically known for their speed and agility when it comes to making decisions. Corporate bureaucracy can often bog down a company’s ability react quickly to an impending issue that needs immediate attention. And when that issue that has the potential to erupt into a full-blown crisis, speed is of the utmost importance.

That’s exactly what happened after an employee of Sonoco, the U.S.-based packaging company, was accused of racially profiling a black woman at a private community pool. A man approached the woman and asked for her ID, before calling the police. The incident was filmed by the woman, and the video was uploaded to YouTube and has amassed millions of views. It also quickly drew widespread condemnation and sparked calls for Sonoco to intervene after the man, Adam Bloom, was outed as an employee. Given how news travels at breakneck speed, Sonoco recognized that the actions of a single employee could have major negative repercussions for the company’s brand.

Realizing there was very little time to act to mitigate the damage this could have on its brand and reputation, Sonoco enacted their crisis management plan, which all companies must have in place in order to respond quickly. Had Sonoco not had a plan in place, you can imagine just how long a response might have taken.

Shortly after learning of the incident, Sonoco put out a well-written open letter from its CEO that touched on three key points that all company’s should do if faced with a similar situation:

  • Show decisive action has been taken, such as termination of employment;

  • Draw attention to the company’s values; and

  • Issue an apology on behalf of the company.

It’s of course important to note that even though the incident occurred outside work, the company’s values were at stake -- after all, a refusal to act or acknowledge the incident would have set a vastly different tone than the open letter from the CEO. Sonoco’s response clearly underscores the reality of today’s business world: companies must be ready to be held accountable for their employees’ actions both inside and outside work.

The manner in which Sonoco managed this particular issue is a lesson to firms big and small -- when a company’s values are breached, action must be swift and direct. ABC and Disney make for another example in their decision to cancel Roseanne Barr’s show because of her racist tweets. What not to do? A slow, plodding internal review or a refusal to comment are almost guaranteed to cause further reputational damage. Being open, transparent and willing to put actions behind corporate values is what the public expects, and what all companies must deliver.

Change officially comes to Queen's Park

 Photo: Benson Kua

Photo: Benson Kua

Change officially comes to Queen’s Park today, with Doug Ford sworn in as the 26th Premier of Canada’s largest province. After a bitter election that saw the incumbent Liberals sink to third-party status and the NDP surging to the opposition benches, Ontario now has a Progressive Conservative government for the first time in fifteen years.

Braving truly sweltering heat, Ford was sworn in outside in public (not seen since former Liberal Premier David Peterson did the same in 1985), on the front steps of Queen’s Park in front of hundreds of supporters in a nod to his campaign promise that his government will be for the people.

In what could be considered a sort of mini throne speech, the newly minted Premier listed off his government’s key priorities that his cabinet will tackle as soon a possible. This included pushing back against the federal government’s cap-and-trade program, vowing to create more jobs and prosperity and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his provincial counterparts in defence of Nafta. Most importantly, he pledged to conducting a full audit of government spending, saying the PCs will review everything “line item, by line item” to back up his promise to find $6 billion in efficiencies.

Despite Ford’s twelve-minute speech, his plan still lacks specifics. The Tories have yet to release a fully-costed platform, causing uncertainty for a lot of industries across the province who fear their funding could get axed. They have good reason to worry, and Ford is moving fast, having already announced a government-wide spending and hiring freeze.

Ford’s cabinet is a mix of political heavyweights and newcomers, including his party leadership rivals. First-time MPP and Harvard educated lawyer Caroline Mulroney has been tapped as Attorney- General and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs. Party stalwart Christine Elliott is Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Here are the rest of his cabinet appointments:

  • Ford himself will also serve as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

  • Peter Bethlenfalvy, President of the Treasury Board

  • Raymond Cho, Minister of Seniors and Accessibility

  • Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

  • Vic Fedeli, Minister of Finance and Chair of Cabinet

  • Merrilee Fullerton, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities

  • Ernie Hardeman, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

  • Sylvia Jones, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport

  • Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues

  • Monte McNaughton, Minister of Infrastructure

  • Rod Phillips, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

  • Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, and Minister of Indigenous Affairs

  • Laurie Scott, Minister of Labour

  • Todd Smith, Minister of Government and Consumer Services, and Government House Leader

  • Lisa Thompson, Minister of Education

  • Michael Tibollo, Minister of Community, Safety and Correctional Services

  • Jim Wilson, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade

  • John Yakabuski, Minister of Transportation

  • Jeff Yurek, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry

The new government isn’t wasting any time either. They are holding their first cabinet meeting today, and will be recalling the legislature for a rare summer session on July 9 to tackle a number of issues such as high gas prices and Ottawa’s plan to force provinces to adopt their cap-and-trade carbon tax policy which Ford has vowed to fight.

So what does this all mean for Ontarians? One thing for sure is that we are going to see a lot of belt-tightening and that programs the government doesn't view as integral to the health and security of the province should be on notice to see their funding levels reduced or cut altogether. Provident will be monitoring the events at Queen’s Park and is ready to assist your organization navigate the complexities that a new government brings and how it will impact your mandate.