Canadian Governments Goals: More Wealth for the Wealthy and Austerity for Everyone Else

The following article discusses how Premier Furey set in motion his austerity plan. The article notes "If such a deep austerity plan can be implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be attempted in other provinces in the years to come."

The pandemic has thrown the budgets of governments across Canada into the red as they increased spending to protect their populations from COVID-19 and expand the social safety net, while the economy slowed and revenues declined. But not every province was in the same situation heading into the pandemic, and for Newfoundland and Labrador, despite successfully managing the spread of COVID-19 for much of the past year, it appears the time of reckoning has arrived.

Last October, just two months after taking over the leadership of the governing Liberal Party, Andrew Furey appointed the Premier’s Economic Recovery Team (PERT), chaired by Moya Greene, and tasked it with crafting a plan to “respond to the Province’s immediate fiscal challenges and plot a new course forward.” 

On May 6, the PERT delivered its report, and recommended a harsh austerity plan that includes deep cuts to provincial spending and the handing of more power to the private sector. If implemented, Greene’s plan will forever alter life in the province. It draws from long-discredited ideas about public spending and the role of government that make it feel like it belongs in the ’80s or ’90s. There is no positive future if Furey chooses to go down this path. ...

In 2014, oil prices collapsed, leaving a massive hole in the provincial budget right as construction was starting at Muskrat Falls. In the following years, the project that was once hailed as key to the province’s economic future brought it to the edge of bankruptcy after the cost soared from an estimated $6.2 billion in 2010 to more than $13 billion in 2021. 

A public inquiry’s report released in 2020 found that while elected officials made bad decisions, executives at Nalcor, the provincial energy company created to oversee the project, had held back details about cost increases and was plagued by bad management, among a range of other issues.

On Mar. 20, 2020, as the country was in lockdown, Furey’s predecessor, Dwight Ball, sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau laying out the state of the province’s finances. Ball wrote, “We have no other recourse to raise the necessary funds to maintain the operations of government, including our health-care system, especially at this critical time.” 

It was in that context that Furey tasked Moya Greene, and a panel dominated by local businesspeople, to develop a technocratic plan for the province’s future.

https://readpassage.com/the-big-reset-proposes-deep-austerity-for-newfou...

ETA: Here is just a sample of the recommendations in Moya Greene's 338 page Big Reset austerity report to Premier Furey, giving him exactly what he was looking for. 

The Provincial Government should:

•   Bundle and sell all or a majority interest or create a long term concession in its motor vehicle and registry of deeds system;

•   Revise legislation to require that all unregistered land be registered within eight years. After this period, all unregistered land would revert to the Crown;

•   Sell all or a majority interest in the Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation, and review how the Provincial Government taxes alcohol; and

•   Sell Marble Mountain ski resort and related assets.

The Provincial Government should:

•   Reduce its core expenditures by five per cent, with no expenditure growth for six- years;

•   Reduce its operating grants to Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic by five per cent per year over six years, for a total reduction of 30 per cent;

•   Reduce its operating grants to the Regional Health Authorities by 4.15 per cent per year over six years, for a total reduction of 25 per cent;

•   Reduce administrative costs for the K-12 system and allocate these additional funds to classrooms, to support the teaching of math, technology, science, computer science, and the promotion of entrepreneurship;

•   Reduce operating grants to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Legal Aid bytwo per cent; 

•   Reduce operating grants to other government agencies by 20 per cent.

The Provincial Government, working with public sector unions, should develop a new compensation package. Key elements should include:

•   Pensions to be converted to a collective defined contribution plan in three years3;

•   Measures to reduce the payroll base, such as a four-day work week for certain

  positions and creating seasonal positions targeted at peak demand periods;

•   Wage freeze;

•   Alternative service delivery models; and

•   Development and promotion of work-from-home policies.

  In the event that a negotiated settlement is not possible, the Provincial Government should use legislation that will be effective. ...

The Provincial Government should redefine its role in the economy, the services it offers and how these services are delivered, with a focus on accelerating new technology adoption. The private and not-for-profit sectors should deliver services where appropriate. ...

Government must look critically at its current approach to determine which services it should continue to provide, which services it can discontinue, and which services, existing or future, could be offered by the private or not-for profit sectors. Many services offered by government can be delivered in a different way; some may be more responsive if customized for local needs. ...

Many Provincial Government services could be offered by private and not-for-profit sector enterprises more effectively and at lower cost. Moving some services to the private and not-for-profit sectors could create new businesses. ...

This expertise can then be exported to other parts of Canada and the world and help build a larger market base for local businesses. ...

• Raise capital through the following measures:

o Offer transmission and distribution assets to the private sector to either own or operate;
o Offer the sale of island generation assets to the private sector;
o Sell the Provincial Government’s oil and gas equity interests when oil prices increase; and
o Sell the Bull Arm Fabrication Site, currently owned by the Oil and Gas Corporation; ...

• Apply any monies raised from electrical and oil and gas assets to rate mitigation, the provincial debt, and the Future Fund; ...

The Provincial Government should:

•   Review its petroleum royalty and local benefits structures in 2021-22 to ensure they encourage exploration and development of new activity in the offshore, with net-zero targets wherever possible;

•   Request the Federal Government reinstate the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for offshore petroleum projects and for green mining projects; ...

The slow and laborious government processes faced by businesses are often referredto as “red tape.” No one is suggesting that governments should make decisions that are unsafe for people or the environment, but governments need to make quick decisions.The Provincial Government’s decision making is not competitive with other parts of theworld that develop oil and gas assets. The Province must remove the red tape associated with development in all sectors.  ...

The regulatory framework for oil and gas has slowed progress, and the Province has not always been a good partner. ...

To ensure that Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have a regulatory approach competitive with the rest of the world, the Provincial Government should work with the Federal Government to:

•   Streamline regulatory processes to improve timelines and adjust regulatory approaches that make Newfoundland and Labrador uncompetitive; and

•   Give direction to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) that the development of the offshore area is a priority function and offshore management must be consistent with the principles underpinning the Atlantic Accord.

To ensure that Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have a regulatory approach competitive with the rest of the world, the Provincial Government should work with the Federal Government to:

•   Streamline regulatory processes to improve timelines and adjust regulatory approaches that make Newfoundland and Labrador uncompetitive; and

•   Give direction to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) that the development of the offshore area is a priority function and offshore management must be consistent with the principles underpinning the Atlantic Accord.

The Provincial Government should encourage mining exploration through:

•   Expansion of airborne geoscience surveys in priority areas of Newfoundland and Labrador;

•   Increased funding for the Junior Exploration Assistance Program;

•   Commencement of work related to geotechnical information with Québec, as provided for in the 2018 bilateral agreement with Québec; and

•   Implementation of a five per cent provincial flow through shares mechanism to attract new investment.

The Provincial Government should: streamline the regulatory decision-making processes for aquaculture licences and site approvals; ...

1. The Provincial Government should:

   •   Promote investment opportunities globally and with local entrepreneurs to increase lumber production, value-added manufacturing, and alternative heating technologies, such as biofuels, wood chips, and wood pellets;

   •   Review the forest royalty and fee regime to maximize access to forestry resources; ...

1. The Provincial Government should:

   •   Streamline the administrative structure by eliminating the two school districts with a goal to spend less on administration and reinvest that money directly at the school level;

   •   Place program administration within the Department of Education and adopt a shared services model for HR, IT, payroll, maintenance, etc.;

   •   Ensure principals, vice principals, and other supervisory staff are not members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association (NLTA);

   •   Dissolve volunteer school boards and replace with one volunteer Provincial School Advisory Council. This Provincial Council will be connected to existing School Advisory Councils to link parents, families, and communities more strongly to the school system to enhance collaboration and greater accountability;

•   Change school opening and closing hours to an eight hour day for teachers so that they can use some non-teaching time during the work day for professional upgrading and collaboration; ...

The province provides a high level of subsidy to Memorial University and CNA andkeeps tuition rates low. Given the province’s fiscal situation, the cost of the post- secondary education (PSE) system must be addressed. ... 

Newfoundland and Labrador’s current level of investment in its PSE institutions is not sustainable. As an example, immediate efficiencies could begained by consolidating the province’s three nursing schools into one. The Provincial Government should create one nursing school for the province.

Being known as the “cheapest” university in Canada carries the implication of it beingthe lowest quality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Memorial University could deliver the same or better outcomes if PSE funding came from other sources. ...

The Provincial Government should institute a moratorium on building new long-term Care facilities; ...

The Provincial Government should: review the current structure and consolidate the four Regional Health Authorities into one; ...

The Provincial Government should: modify programs to eliminate disincentives for individuals to take-up employment opportunities when they become available; and revise funding programs based upon analysis, with a focus on partnering with community-based organizations to ensure responsive program and service delivery that is efficiently and effectively customized for real and changing needs and has measurable outcomes. ...

The Provincial Government should:

•   Increase all personal income tax rates by one percentage point and introduce tax credits for the lowest income group to offset the increase;

•   Increase the corporate income tax rate by two percentage points;

•   Increase the HST by one percentage point and consider expanding the base;

•   Increase the gasoline tax by 1.5 cents per litre;

•   Increase the payroll tax by 0.5 of a percentage point;

•   Increase the tobacco tax by 5.5 cents per cigarette; and

•   Increase fees and fines by 15 per cent;

https://thebigresetnl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PERT-FullReport.pdf

ETA: Here's more on Furey's austerity program as outlined in the Big Reset report by Moya Greene he comissioned: classic austerity with a touch of green added to it.

Greene, who is best known for privatizing the British postal service, has proposed an austerity program that combines political and social reforms with a far-reaching economic restructuring plan premised on slashing state expenditures, across-the-board fee and tax increases, privatizing public assets, and breaking public sector unions.

“The Big Reset,” according to the report, proposes “a transformational plan for Newfoundland and Labrador that attempts to tie all aspects of the economy and society together to meet some of the biggest challenges and opportunities ever faced by the province.” ...

The six-year plan is anchored in a proposed shift to a green economy based on offshore oil, hydropower, mining, technology, and hydrogen within 20 years. It also proposes restructuring the education system to encourage jobs in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) sectors, modernizing governance of both Memorial University (MUN) and College of the North Atlantic (CNA) while reducing operating grants, and amalgamating all four Regional Health Authorities into a single entity and reducing their operating grants by 25 percent. ...

“Spending is out of control,” Greene writes. “The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is facing an unsustainable fiscal situation that requires immediate action.” Her refrains are familiar: “[T]he fiscal challenges are entirely of the province’s own doing,” the report says, and “expectations placed on government have to be more realistic.” ...

Including both the gross debt of the Province itself alongside its Crown corporations—Nalcor Energy, the Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation, and Atlantic Lottery Corporation—the Greene Report pegs provincial gross debt at roughly $44.5 billion. (This does not include the nearly $3 billion in new borrowing for 2020-21.) ...

Reflecting on the experience of the 2016 Budget—when protests across the province erupted following the introduction of an austerity budget—the Greene Report notes that “the election cycle hampers mapping long-term visions and the decision-making to support them.” 

A number of remedies are proposed for this. One major recommendation is mandatory balanced budget legislation for all departments, public institutions, agencies, boards, and commissions—with a percentage of ministers’, deputy ministers’, and assistant deputy ministers’ compensation withheld to ensure that departments and other entities meet established targets. This would also include “an external advisory group of experts established to review annual budgets.”

Significantly, the Greene Report proposes that the provincial government must renegotiate compensation packages with public sector unions. The “key elements” it demands are converting pensions “to a collective defined contribution plan in three years” on the model of the United Kingdom; “measures to reduce the payroll base, such as a four-day work week for certain positions… a wage freeze; alternative service delivery models; and development and promotion of work-from-home policies.” 

Greene writes that “in the event that a negotiated settlement is not possible, the Provincial Government should use legislation that will be effective.” ...

The report itself acknowledges that “The Big Reset” will rest on the shoulders of the upcoming generation. 

“It is unreasonable to expect the next generation to fund the current system,” Greene writes. “Newfoundland and Labrador’s systems must change in order to address the poor outcomes and high spending across so many areas.”

In a plan to provide more ‘efficient’ healthcare, the report recommends merging the four regional health authorities and expanding the use of telehealth and distance medicine. It also recommends reducing operating grants to health authorities by roughly 4 percent per year as part of the six-year plan. 

The proposed operating grant reductions to MUN and CNA would include the provincial government creating a single nursing school for the province, and having CNA develop technology upgrade programs. Included is the suggestion that the post-secondary institutions establish a joint “Centre of Excellence in Green Technology,” which would be financed in part by the province’s Future Fund.

These grant reductions should total $103.9 million over the next six years, with MUN shouldering most of the cuts, the report says. The projected loss to MUN would be $82.3 million by 2027. “A reduction in funding will likely result in higher tuition,” Greene writes. ...

According to the report, immigration retention is one of the key factors in the province’s plan to lean towards STEM employment (and industry), and future immigration programs could be tailored to target high-skilled individuals in this area. 

“The Provincial Government needs to act and demonstrate that it is focused on its finances,” Greene writes. “With a thoughtful, balanced, and well-developed implementation plan this province should be successful in the global competition that is underway for the billions of private sector dollars of capital redirected to green projects, technologies, and creating a forum of expertise.”

The report proposes a 2:1 ratio of expenditure reduction to revenue increases. Despite proposing to sell public assets, slash expenditures, and raise taxes and fees across the board, Greene was emphatic that “this is not an austerity program.”

Some of the “modest” tax raises recommended are increases to the tobacco, gasoline, and payroll tax, as well as an increase to the HST of one percentage point. All personal income tax rates would be increased one percentage point, with an introduction of tax credits for the lowest income group to “offset the increase.” Fees and fines would be increased by 15 percent. The corporate income tax rate would increase by two percentage points. 

Wealth taxes are also proposed, with an annual tax of one percent on “wealth exceeding $10 million or an agreed upon threshold.” The report also recommends implementing a minimum property tax on all residences outside of incorporated municipalities, and a separate tax on second residences (outside of the primary residence) valued at $100,000 or more. A tax on luxury vehicles was proposed too, with exemptions for electric vehicles. ...

It proposes reducing operating grants to MUN and CNA by 30 percent over six years; reducing operating grants to the Regional Health Authorities by 25 percent over six years; “[reducing] administrative costs for the K-12 system and [allocating] these additional funds to classrooms to support the teaching of math, technology, science, computer science, and the promotion of entrepreneurship;” reducing operating grants to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Legal Aid by two percent; and reducing operating grants to other government agencies by 20 percent.

“The Big Reset” also recommends the province privatize a number of its other assets in whole or in part. It suggests bundling, and either selling or creating, other long-term concessions in its motor vehicle and registry of deeds systems; selling all or a majority interest in the Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation (as well as reviewing how the province taxes alcohol); and selling the Marble Mountain ski resort and all related assets.

https://theindependent.ca/news/politics/pert-pushes-big-reset-for-nl/

As I noted in the last post, what is happening in Newfoundland with their grooming the population for more severe austerity measures reminds me of the Chretien and Martin Liberal governments. Part of how they could implement austerity measures far more severe than those of the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives was in part of the public that if the Liberals, as opposed to the Conservatives, are doing this the situation must be really bad. 

 A Newfoundland and Labrador Furey Liberal government implementing austerity must be mean the situation is horrendous. After all, these guys are Liberals, just like Chretien and Martin. The Trudeau Liberals wouldn't do this after the next election, even with the record deficits thanks to Covid. They couldn't possibly be going to do it again, could they, just like Chretien and Martin led a whole Red Book of promises and then implemented austerity.  

This 2015 article tells us how the Liberals under Chretien and Martin implemented austerity. 

How exceptional is Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his crop of Canadian conservatives? For not just large- and small-l liberals, but also some leftists, the last decade has been an aberration — particularly compared to the alleged synthesis between responsible government and economic expansion that occurred during the 1990s. Yet while both public and elite consensus has shifted even further to the right since the ’90s, too often Harper and the current Conservatives are portrayed as an anomaly rather than a continuation.

The ultimate irony of the last two decades of austerity may be that Harper’s Conservatives have been able to rest comfortably on their laurels because of previous attacks on working-class power and livelihoods, even temporarily increasing public spending to save a system in crisis.

While the 1980s had laid some of the groundwork in Canada, the Right’s counterrevolution was not as successful as it had been under Ronald Reagan in the US or Margaret Thatcher in the UK. It was up to Canada’s Liberal Party, the centrist, “natural governing party,” to cement it.

In his 1994 budget speech, Paul Martin — then the finance minister, later the prime minister — encapsulated the Liberal message:

It is now time for government to get its fiscal house in order. For years, governments have been promising more than they can deliver, and delivering more than they can afford. That has to end. We are ending it . . . Over the next three years, for every one dollar raised in new revenues we will cut five dollars in government expenditures.

The subsequent austerity drive was one of the most severe in the Global North, and remains the foundation for the Right’s strategy of death by a thousand cuts. ...

As the 1993 election approached, Canada was just starting to exit its longest recession since the Great Depression, and elites faced the prospect of both populist right-wing upstarts in the West and separatists in Quebec gaining popularity. The mass media stepped in and set a centrist tone, asserting the need for a new “responsible” government. As the Wall Street Journalwarned Canada would soon become a “banana republic,” more than a million Canadians watched a panicky episode of the investigative news program “W5” about New Zealand’s debt.

With the disintegration of the ruling Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, led by Jean Chrétien, won a resounding electoral victory.

The economic environment the Liberals inherited was a product of the tight monetary policy carried out in the late ’80s. Modeled after Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s high-interest approach during the early Reagan years, it was intended not only to dramatically cut inflation, but to restore power to capital. Unemployment jumped from 7 percent to 11 percent. What’s more, the public debt accumulated during the elevated-interest-rate era, as well as during the 1990–92 recession, provided a pretext to reshape Canada’s public sector.

On issues of the economy, much in the Liberals’ 1993 campaign platform was developed with the help of private-sector experts. Billionaire Paul Desmarais Sr, on good terms with large segments of the political class, including both Chrétien and former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, was a mentor to Martin and left his imprint on economic policy of the time as well.

A consensus developed that economic and employment growth on their own would not be enough to get Canada out of the recession. On the other hand, the Liberal experts were not in favor of the restrictive zero-inflation experiments that briefly held influence in the Conservative Party. Thus, monetary policy could be loosened, but the screws would have to be put to fiscal policy in order to make Canada more “competitive” — in other words, to make labor more pliant.

The monetary loosening that followed the early ’90s recession pushed interest rates downward and spurred lagging investment and profits. Low rates also meant the Canadian dollar depreciated against its US counterpart, jumpstarting a lagging export sector. Both profits and investment rose as a percentage of GDP through the late ’90s and 2000s, all the way up to the 2008–9 crisis.

Similarly, starting in 1993 and ending only in 2008, Canada consistently exported more than it imported, accumulating a current account surplus, primarily with the US. Canada was thus further integrated into the US-led global surplus recycling mechanism that Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has called the “Global Minotaur.”

This economic pattern paralleled the integration of Canadian elites with their US counterparts. NAFTA, signed in 1992 by Mulroney and implemented in 1994 under Chrétien, was not a case of the US imposing its will on Canada, but rather of large sections of capitalist elites across the continent securing their common interests over the working class in both countries.

Free trade reconfigured coalitions within elites as well as between them and the Canadian state. Of course, some sectors were negatively impacted, but in general the agreement was a win-win for continental capital: rationalized supply chains not only cut costs but put more workers in competition with each other.

This was the context in which the Liberals began their cutbacks, initially quick and deep. A greater share of government expenditures redirected towards debt repayment created additional false scarcity of funds for direct spending. Spending on federal government programs and transfers to provinces, cities, and individuals fell by over 5 percent of GDP from 1993 to the turn of the millennium. Spending growth did not just slow: absolute expenditures decreased.

Reduced fiscal transfers to provinces put the squeeze on local governments. Since the 1990s, Canada has seen provincial governments — not just governed by Liberals and Conservatives, but also by New Democrats — impose austerity further down the line. Since provinces are responsible for many basics like health, education, and welfare benefits, shrinking transfers have further eroded the working class’s social wage. Privatizations, workfare schemes, tuition increases — all were applied (unevenly) across the country.

Overall, the sharp turn to austerity created a more punitive welfare state. While Canada’s economic growth in the mid to late ’90s fed off that in the US, the character of its reforms was also in line with the Clintonite agenda. There was a similar push to create conditions for business expansion even less encumbered by working-class demands. A major strategy was an attack on the social wage. ...

One major social program that is the responsibility of Canada’s federal government — and provides a good example of the transformations wrought by austerity — is unemployment insurance. The Liberals ate into the real value of benefits and made eligibility requirements more restrictive. While just over 80 percent of Canada’s unemployed received jobless benefits during the early 1990s, this percentage fell to about 45 percent by the early 2000s. Most unemployed workers no longer received any benefits. ...

The OECD’s measure of real unit labor costs grew at an average rate of just 0.5% per year between 1993 and 1999 and 2.1% in the first decade of the 2000s, both down from an average of 6.6% over the previous two decades.

Decreased labor costs were reflected in stagnant real wages for most workers throughout the ’90s and 2000s. The depreciating Canadian dollar further cut into wages with higher prices for imported consumption goods. Finally, the social wage provided by public programs and transfers fell under Martin’s austerity budgets.

How was austerity mitigated once the ’90s boom ran out of steam? In short, debt and housing wealth. The fall in government borrowing as a result of Liberal deficit-fighting was offset by a rise in household borrowing, reducing the public debt but increasing private debts. (Rolling back the welfare state means more people borrow to stay afloat and spend more on basic services.)

As in many parts of the world, including the US and the UK, Canada’s housing sector took off after the 2000 bust. This divided the working class. For those who owned homes, housing became a crutch, a valuable asset to borrow against or downsize, making up for the lower social wage and stagnant incomes left after the ’90s expansion. For those who did not own a home, rising prices and rents became a further source of daily struggle. ...

The 1990s in Canada are often held up as an example of “expansionary austerity” — austerity that is not only accompanied by but causes growth. If this sounds a bit nuts, it is. In fact, even economists from the International Monetary Fund have thoroughly debunked the idea: the growth that occurred during most of bouts of “expansionary austerity,” including Canada during the Liberal-led ’90s, would have happened anyway.

Indeed, crediting austerity for sparking Canada’s 1990s growth ignores several factors: first, Canada benefited from strong US expansion, especially given the strength of export growth; greater integration through NAFTA only solidified how closely Canada followed the US boom of the mid- to late ’90s. Second, fiscal austerity was accompanied by an aggressive monetary loosening that resulted in low interest rates and a depreciation of the exchange rate; alongside more flexible labor policies, these improved profits, investment, and growth. Resource booms also played a role in driving wage growth and reducing unemployment in some regions. ...

The austerity implemented by the Liberals, starting with the 1994 budget, helped shift the political consensus sharply to the right. The Conservatives, riding a wave of public resentment against the Liberals due to corruption scandals, were first elected to a minority government in 2006. After five years of governing with the tacit support of the Liberals, the Conservative Party finally gained a majority in 2011.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/canada-austerity-stephen-harper-conse...

Another Liberal party that often failed to get a full critical analysis of its real agenda and its implementation of austerity is the Ontario Liberal party. While the Liberals did implement some social issue reforms, there was a continuity in many ways with the Ontario Progressive Conservative regime on the fiscal side of the ledger. 

Hmm. There, looking at this series of Liberal governments, seems to be a pattern forming here. 

There is an emerging orthodoxy, rooted more in fiction that fact, that the 15-year regime of the Ontario Liberals somehow swung the ideological and policy spectrum sharply to the left. But this is a gross misinterpretation of actual history. While the Liberals did indeed implement a hodgepodge of policies that might selectively register as 'progressive', their time in power was never about a wholesale repudiation of the Common Sense Revolution but rather about deepening and extending it in ways that were more palatable to a public increasingly fed up with the uncompromising and aggressive style of their Conservative predecessors. In other words, it was continuity, not change, that defined the Liberals time in power.

Those at the centre of this historical reimagining are increasingly recasting the Liberals time in government as an extreme left interregnum inconsistent with the 'progressive' conservative values of Ontario. They point to all day kindergarten, the expansion of prescription-drug and dental benefits, the subsidization of tuition fees for some postsecondary students, proposed pension reform, modest increases to high-income earners' taxes, changes to labour legislation, and some investments in new infrastructure and social programs as key illustrations.

But these new investments barely made up for inflation and population growth, let alone a reversal of the fiscal legacy of the Harris Conservatives....

Through their first term (2003-07), modest savings were made through the privatization of services formerly covered by OHIP like chiropractic therapy, physical rehabilitation and optometry exams. The McGuinty government also spearheaded the expansion of private health care clinics, introducing a graduated health care premium that ranged from $60 to $900 per year depending on income level. But this was the calm before the storm.

The "crowing irony" for the Liberals was that after a decade in power they had succeeded in cutting the size of government down to when they had taken over from their Conservative predecessors.

As the tailwinds of the 2008 recession swept across Ontario, the Liberal government responded with a plan outlining a decade of austerity. The major policy plank of this program was the Open Ontario Plan (OOP), which called for, among other things, tax relief, the privatization of public assets and services, and wage concessions from public sector workers. To give a few examples, the general corporate income tax (CIT) rate was cut 28 per cent, the preferential small business CIT rate was cut 36 per cent, and the tax rate on the first $37,106 of personal taxable income was reduced by more than 16 per cent, while those earning up to $80,000 per year saw a tax cut of 10 per cent. Altogether, tax cuts during this time eroded some $500 million in annual revenue generation making Ontario's tax regime among the lowest across the OECD.

The omnibus Open for Business Act introduced over 100 amendments to legislation across ten ministries whose stated objective was to create a more competitive business climate. The Liberals solicited CIBC World Markets and Goldman Sachs to come up with a plan to monetize the province's $60 billion worth of public assets. The idea behind "SuperCorp" was to combine Ontario's Crown assets, including nuclear power plants, power generation facilities, 29,000 kilometres of electrical transmission and distribution lines, six-hundred plus liquor stores and gaming operations.

The Liberals also established the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Servicesheaded by former TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond. The Commission recommended cuts deeper than those of the 1990s followed by the sale of public assets and privatized service delivery. In following through on some 80 per cent of the Drummond Commission's recommendations, the Liberals eroded an additional $300 million in public revenue by 2015-16. The "crowing irony" for the Liberals was that after a decade in power they had succeeded in cutting the size of government down to when they had taken over from their Conservative predecessors. ...

Kathleen Wynne emerged as new party leader and Premier of Ontario, positioning herself as the "social justice" and "activist" premier against the old guard. In practice, however, much of the Harris-McGuinty legacy continued. Public-private-partnerships proliferated, even though the Auditor General found that Ontario could have saved up to $8 billion through traditional public procurement. Premier Wynne launched a blue-ribbon panel headed by president and former CEO of TD Bank, Ed Clark, to advise the government how to privatize public assets such as the OLG and LCBO, which together bring in more than $4.5 billion annually.

Catching her own party off guard, Kathleen Wynne kickstarted the asset sell-off with Hydro One, which was estimated to bring in close to $750 million in annual public revenue. Under Wynne's plan, the Liberal's sold-off 60 per cent ownership stake bringing in roughly $4 billion in one-off monies while maintaining a 40 per cent public ownership. The FAO found that the sale of Hydro one was roughly equivalent to five years of continued public ownership. ...

Far from progressive public policy, it has been tax cuts and austerity that has prevailed in Ontario over the last decade. Little wonder then that Ford and Co. have stoked the fires of deficit hysteria given the reluctance of the Liberals to deal with the revenue side of government expenditures. The reality is that when it comes to the provinces context matters, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world.

2018's election saw Wynne herself boasting that Ontario was now "the leanest government in Canada" when it came to per capita program spending. What wasn't mentioned though was that among the provinces, Ontario was dead last when it came to per capita public revenue, second smallest when it came to the per capita size of Ontario's public sector as measured by employees, and second-lowest in North America (after Alabama) when it came to corporate tax rates.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carlo-fanelli/progressive-liberalism-ontar...

The fightback against the austerity-ridden Big Reset report and the 2021 Furey Liberal government budget has begun. 

Thousands swarm Confederation Building for anti-budget protest in Newfoundland

The long-awaited report of the Provincial Economic Recovery Team (PERT) was publicly released on May 6, just weeks before Newfoundland and Labrador’s Liberal government revealed its budget for 2021. The PERT, chaired by Dame Moya Greene, was widely expected to make strong demands on the provincial government to make deep public spending cuts. Greene’s previous work includes privatizing and “rationalizing” large public entities in Canada and the UK in the last few decades. ...

Ostensibly this plan is to be anchored on a reorientation of the province towards a green economy in addition to creating a “solid fiscal plan.” What we can expect is made very clear by Dame Greene’s introductory words, which effectively label the provincial government and public sector as bloated, unresponsive and wasteful. She notes that people need to “expect less” from government for job creation and proposes a new social compact that prepares the youth of the province to contribute more than any previous generation.

The rationalizations and restructuring proposed by the “Big Reset” are many. Some particularly noteworthy recommendations are: balanced budget legislation that makes such budgets mandatory for all departments and public institutions; a “future fund” derived from oil and gas revenue; public education campaigns to make people aware of service costs; renegotiate public sector union contracts to move all pensions to collective defined contribution plans and reduce payroll through wage freezes and four-day work weeks. The report also calls for the province to eliminate Nalcor (the provincial energy corporation), merge its components into NL Hydro and then privatize it; implement a green transition plan that would rely on the hydro potential in Labrador and on “low-emission” oil and gas activity as well as “low-carbon” mining; promote electric vehicles through private investment and tax rebates; provide tax incentives for technology companies; and promote fisheries investment and rural area secondary processing. Greene further proposes eliminating the two school districts, ensuring school administrators are not members of the teacher’s union, enforcing an eight-hour day for teachers and merging all health authorities into one entity.

Some of the report’s comments about improving transparency and accountability and reducing bureaucracy might be considered positive at first read. However, the obvious end goal is to place limits on the ability of the public sector to play a leading role and, instead, to promote private investment, public-private partnerships and privatization.

The report naturally includes recommendations about actual funding. To avoid the “austerity” label, the PERT recommends a 1 percent increase to all personal income tax brackets, a 2 percent increase to corporate tax, a 1 percent HST increase among a number of taxed items and a wealth of tax of 1 percent over $10 million. Some items, such as the HST, are clearly regressive taxes. The corporate tax, even increased by 2 percent, is still laughably low. As for income tax, it needs to be reformed to put the burden on those best able to pay. Many of the recommended reductions are also shocking, most notably cutting operating grants to health by 25 percent and to Memorial University and College of the North Atlantic by 30 percent. The report also proposes reducing grants to NL Housing by 2 percent, despite a continued lack of affordable housing in the province.

Naturally, the report has been met with disgust from public sector unions, students and environmental and social activists. They are promoting a “People’s Recovery” report which proposes alternatives to the PERT’s large cuts. ...

Given the high stakes of the PERT report and the need to at least put on a show of public consultation, the Liberals’ May 31 budget did not entirely throw the government into fully implementing the “Big Reset.”

The budget appears to be setting the tone for further work towards the PERT recommendations: it commits to balanced budget legislation and a promises a “future fund.” The province’s longstanding tuition freeze is also being eliminated over the next five years as the government moves to make MUN in particular more “autonomous.” Some of the centralization recommendations are also being implemented, such as eliminating the English School District and merging it into the department of education. Regardless of any commitment to a “green” economy, the government is continuing to look to oil and mining to drive economic growth with additional funding being set aside to support projects in those sectors.

The “People’s Recovery” initiative shows that the people of this province are not automatically going to roll over on command. Public sector workers and their unions will also resist efforts to diminish the quality of their work and the vital services they provide daily. The debate over the PERT report creates an opportunity to build a serious public resistance to neoliberal austerity and privatization. Ultimately resistance must extend beyond simply the government de jure and towards capitalism, a system built for the exploitation of the environment and people’s labour in the name of profit. History has demonstrated that austerity does not work; the only “reset” here will be of the cyclical disaster of capitalism.

Capitalism is in decay and we know a better future, a better way is possible and necessary!

http://peoplesvoice.ca/2021/06/10/the-big-reset-newfoundland-and-labrado...

While the Newfoundland Furey Liberal government are set to go ahead with massive cuts to public sector services and salaries, healthcare and education from elementary to university, including eliminating school districts, there is no mention of cutting back on oil production. While the Big Reset report commissioned by Furey and headed by Moya Greene, the former CEO who privatized U.K.'s Royla Mail, to provide a rationalization for Newfoundland's cuts and privatization of government services, included a fig leaf of talk about green renewable energy, the Furey Liberals, like Trudeau, are heading in the opposite direction. 

Both are providing  more money to subsidize the expansion of fossil fuels and to pay for the expansion of exploratory wells to discover new oilfields off Newfoundland. The Trudeau Liberals gave $325 million in subsidies to Furey last fall to keep the oil industry afloat and then added another $41.5 million giveaway for half the cost of building an oil refinery that Husky Oil was about to close. In other words, 360+ million for the Newfoundland fossil fuel industry but zilch from Trudeau for the Newfoundland's government services.

Husky Energy is getting $41.5 million from the Newfoundland and Labrador government to keep the idled West White Rose offshore oil project going, particularly to "protect the option of restarting" in the next year — although there is no guarantee that will happen. ...

That Oil and Gas Industry Recovery Fund was announced Sept. 25, with the federal government allocating $320 million for the N.L. government to support direct and indirect employment. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/west-white-rose-1.5...

Once again the Trudeau federal and the Furey provincial governments are speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they change offshore drilling rules in Newfoundland in order to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to meet them and then proclaiming that the industry must live up to those standards while environmental organizations complain about the changes.  The Liberal government has also excluded new drilling from environmental assessment there. This has become even more important with the announcement of the discovery of oil in two new places in the Newfoundland offshore. 

Canada’s environment minister defended government regulations Wednesday related to the impacts of oil drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told the House of Commons environment committee that “all drilling projects must respect high environmental standards” after a Bloc Québécois MP raised questions about a government rule change meant to help industry.

Monique Pauzé asked Wilkinson about the Liberal government’s announcement in June that it was excluding individual exploratory offshore drilling projects from having to undergo a federal impact assessment. 

That change was touted by the government at the time as lending a helping hand to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil industry, which has been battered by the pandemic’s economic toll as well as low global oil prices. Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan said it was the “number 1” request that “business and investors” had been asking for.

[In November 2020] energy company Equinor said it had discovered oil in two locations east of St. John’sfollowing an exploration drilling campaign. Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry group called the discoveries, which Equinor made with partner BP Canada, an “encouraging” sign for business “at a time when encouraging news is needed.”

Environmental groups have raised concerns about the government’s exploratory drilling exemption. WWF-Canada, Sierra Club Canada Foundation and Ecology Action Centre have said a larger regional assessment of the impacts of exploratory oil drilling off the province’s coast was “flawed” and so cannot be used as a basis for allowing individual exemptions.

One of Canada’s marine refuges, the Northeast Newfoundland Slope is also east of St. John’s. The 55,000-square-kilometre section of the ocean is important for biodiversity since it contains fragile corals and sponges that help out other marine life by acting as spawning grounds or nurseries, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/11/05/news/environment-minister-de...

Here's more on the severe neoliberal cutbacks at Laurentian University that closed 69 programs, laid off 150 or more faculty and cost about 800 students their program of studies by "using legal mechanism of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to impose an unprecedented breadth of deep cuts" as an excuse to open collective bargaining agreements to make salary cuts and to end programs. 

Laurentian and the Ontario government are scurrying to place blame for the crisis on COVID-19, a small tuition fee reduction two years ago, financial mismanagement by a few and declining enrolment due to demographic challenges in northern Ontario. The real problem, though, lies in decades of neoliberal policies. ...

In addition to being important for the community of Sudbury, the struggle at Laurentian has great importance for the whole region and even across Canada. It represents a four-pronged attack – against labour rights and the rights of public sector workers, on the quality and democratic nature of post-secondary education, against French and Indigenous language and education rights, and on the people of Northern Ontario.

For decades, universities across Canada have been undergoing neoliberal restructuring. One of the unique aspects of what is going on at Laurentian is that the university, in coordination with the Ontario government of Doug Ford, is using legal mechanism of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to impose an unprecedented breadth of deep cuts. ...

The CCAA, which is federal legislation, has been used against labour in the private sector to steal the unpaid wages and pensions of workers and ensure banks and corporate creditors are paid back first. This is the case with US Steel in Hamilton, Ontario and many other examples. But this is the first time that a public institution has used the CCAA.

Many have noted that this should be impossible since universities are not private businesses but public institutions that ought to be supported by public funding and oversight. Collective agreements at Laurentian have been opened up, salaries substantially reduced and workloads increased.

The breadth of the cuts announced on April 12 is shocking. Of the 69 program cuts that were announced many of them included programs that are widely considered foundational to any university – Philosophy, Mathematics, Anthropology, Political Science and Physics, among them. Many universities across the country have begun to cut these programs, in particular in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities.

The Communist Party states that this has to do with how capitalism values – or undervalues – education: “This reflects a fundamental difference in terms of how capitalists and working people view the importance of education. Education should not be a ‘personal investment’ or a commodity. Education is a democratic right and a social good. It is part of the common creative drive to seek out and expand knowledge which is valuable for individuals and society as a whole. While the capitalist attempts to limit education to equipping future employees with exploitable skills, we see education as a prerequisite to having a democratic society which needs a highly educated population where working people attend an accessible education system built for the public interest, not private interests." ...

The Franco-Ontarian community is not new to fighting to protect and expand French language education. In 2018, the Ford government tried to stop the creation of Ontario’s first French language university, Université de l’Ontario français (UOF). A massive mobilization of the Franco-Ontarian community thwarted the government’s plan – one of the first items that the newly elected Ford government was forced to backtrack on – and the UOF accepted its first students in September 2019. However, there is still a long way to go to get to adequate provision of French language education in the province to meet the needs of over 600,000 Franco-Ontarians. ...

Laurentian has also touted its “tri-cultural” mandate to reflect the university’s connection to the Indigenous communities of the North. Indigenous language use was encouraged on campus with Anishinaabemowin signage in addition to English and French. This also included an important Indigenous Studies program which is now facing defunding. ...

The dismantling taking place at Laurentian is seen by many in Northern Ontario as yet another massive economic blow to the region. Bay Street sees Northern Ontario as a hinterland whose natural resources belong to mining companies to be exploited. But this approach tramples on the inherent and treaty rights of First Nations and condemns residents of the North to impoverishment. ...

The underlying structural cause of the crisis at Laurentian is decades of underfunding and privatization. This same problem exists across Canada. In Ontario, government funding dropped from about 80 percent of operating revenues in 1980 to about 50 percent in 2004 and to just over one-third in 2017. The picture is similar across the country. ...

Federal funding for post-secondary education has dropped significantly since the 1970s.

http://peoplesvoice.ca/2021/05/10/labour-and-student-unity-needed-to-sto...

Below is an article that traces the sad history of Newfounland's give aways to the private sector that has led to today's austerity program under Liberal Premier Andrew Furey and could also lead to similar outcomes across the country.

On May 6, the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier’s Economic Recovery Team (PERT) released a report and statement outlining an economic “Big Reset” for the province. The PERT report makes numerous recommendations to Liberal premier Andrew Furey. These recommendations are painted as a strategic plan to reduce the provincial debt—which has ballooned to $39 billion, the servicing of which will become unmanageable for the province in the near future—and to reduce expenditures to match revenue. It should be stated clearly that while the 342-page report is full of language about creating a progressive green economy and revitalizing the province, the content is nothing but pure austerity and a direct attack on the working class of Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.). ...

N.L. has a long history of turning to outside investors to exploit local resources, consistently to the investors’ advantage and at the workers’ expense. This pattern has resulted in an ever deepening crisis for the province. ...

The transformation of natural abundance into corporate profit and government debt was already evident in N.L.’s days as a self-governing colony in the late 19th century. In an attempt to open up the interior of the territory for timber and mineral extraction, the government signed land over to railway companies for development. ...

It’s clear that the economic problems the PERT report seeks to address are a real danger to N.L. Decades of economic downturn following the collapse of core industries due to capitalist exploitation and market chaos, culminating in the 2008 financial crisis, threatened to cause social upheaval and decimate the labour force in the province. To “fix” this, the government started a campaign of social spending to keep the economy afloat. However, after accruing debt for years, including by covering much of the costs of the large corporations operating in the province, the government can no longer afford to have these social services and also service their debt, the latter of which makes up a staggering 12 per cent of the province’s expenditure. 

While the crisis was averted for a time, the politicians must now cut spending to restore economic equilibrium. But instead of making the corporations that put the province in this situation accountable, the Liberal government is poised to lash out at the working class. ...

While the language used to define these “Big Resets” is quite vague, the real content of the report is in the recommendations made to Premier Furey. The general recommendation is a five per cent cut to provincial funding for core government spending and a minimum 20 per cent reduction in grants to government agencies. While already devastating for a province struggling to get by with what it has, these recommendations actually hide many other severe and more specific attacks. A list of some of the most significant attacks follows. ...

The “Future Fund” laid out in the PERT report proposes to take 50 per cent of the money generated from privatization and volatile oil and mineral royalties and use it to pay down debt, as well as fund the transition to the green economy.

However, the devil is in the details, as according to the PERT, funding the transition to the green economy means “being proactive in seeking well-capitalized energy corporations, mining corporations and manufacturers that are trying to reduce their carbon footprint. The province’s approach must encourage large-scale private sector investment, and de-risk investments through tax and other incentives.” In other words, the so-called Future Fund will be used to bankroll the bosses in whatever endeavor they can argue is environmentally friendly. ...

The PERT report is recommending a 30 per cent reduction in operating grants to N.L.’s two post-secondary education institutions, Memorial University (MUN) and the College of the North Atlantic (CNA). This is combined with the recommendation that provincial policy be reworked such that the current tuition freeze at MUN and CNA be lifted, allowing the administration to raise tuition rates. This is a tactic being employed elsewhere in Canada, where the cost of an educated workforce is being increasingly put on the students themselves as opposed to the bosses who take home the profit from a skilled labour pool. ...

The PERT report advocates slashing social services currently in place in N.L. This includes a 25 per cent cut to provincial health-care operating grants over six years. The experience of the pandemic, however, has shown us that taking resources away from public health only leads to disaster. Take Jason Kenney’s attack on public health earlier in the pandemic, for example, which directly led to massive spikes in infection and many preventable deaths.

The report further proposes modifying social programs to “strengthen the social safety net” by eliminating “disincentives for individuals to take-up employment opportunities when they become available.” This is despite the fact that many currently aided by income assistance of any form are “worse off financially if they find employment or increase their employment earnings.” In essence, the report admits that the problem itself is not the presence of income assistance, but the fact that many employers do not pay their employees enough to live. Despite this, the report advises rolling back these programs for the sake of the budget.

The PERT report is also a canary in the coal mine; for years, the N.L. government has put much more than it had into public spending to put off the current crisis. The rest of Canada and Quebec face asimilar situation, although they did not start out in economic straits quite so dire as N.L.’s. All of the capitalist economies have been put on life support—in the form of quantitative easing and massive corporate bailouts—due to their inability to address the pandemic. N.L. is simply one of the first to start to fail. And when the cycle of printing money and handing it to the bosses does begin to failelsewhere, the working class in these places will see attacks similar to those laid out in the PERT report.

https://www.marxist.ca/article/crisis-in-newfoundland-and-labrador-from-...

Another government moving toward austerity is Premier Iain Rankin's Nova Scotia Liberal government. Of course, it is isn't going to happen this year because, heh man, there's an election going on and we will throw out the goodies now. But this year's budget in April revealed that the Rankin Liberals plan on cutting spending by $209 million and balancing the budget in four years, which is faster than almost anyone else is promising in Canada. 

Nova Scotia's opposition leaders say Premier Iain Rankin's four-year plan to balance the books amounts to nothing more than a pre-election fantasy straight from the Land of Oz.

"That's Judy-Garland-somewhere-over-the-rainbow economics," NDP Leader Gary Burrill told reporters at Province House on Thursday.

At issue for Burrill and Tory Leader Tim Houston is the fact this budget, which sees some major spending increases heading into a likely provincial election, is to be followed by an estimated $209-million decrease in departmental spending in 2022-23. ...

Burrill said it "defies credibility" for Rankin to suggest he can remove $209 million in departmental spending (to say nothing of the effects of what is now fast rising inflation) in a single year without it "inflicting dramatic damage on the fabric of the province," and he challenged the premier to provide better accounting of the plan.

Burrill pointed to previous budgets following the Liberals' election win in 2013 that saw reduced funding for a number of organizations, including long-term care homes, mental health organizations and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

He said the full focus of the government should be on economic recovery, not balancing the books as soon as possible.

"Even very conservative jurisdictions are talking about the elimination of operational annual deficits over periods of eight, 10, a dozen years — not four," he said. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/iain-rankin-opposition-balanc...

As part of the Alberta austerity program the government is aiming to cut nurses wages by 4% followed by three years of 0% increases and nurses are looking at going on strike in response. 

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says Alberta Health Services has presented General Support Services (GSS) workers with a four per cent wage cut.

AHS brought forward the cut to the AUPE AHS GSS bargaining team on Thursday as negotiations started again, after being put on hold earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the AUPE.

The four per cent cut would be applied immediately after ratifying the new agreement, followed by three years of zero per cent increases, the AUPE said in a news release Thursday night.

“It is indecent and obscene,” AUPE vice-president Susan Slade said. “How dare they attack front-line health-care workers who are already stressed and beaten down because of the pandemic.” ...

AHS deferred comment on the issue to Finance Minister Travis Toews’ office. In a statement, Toews said: “At a time when Alberta has $93 billion in debt, the focus has to be on the long-term fiscal health of the province, as well as the health of Albertans. We must control our spending — and that includes public sector compensation,” Toews said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8033237/alberta-health-care-support-staff-pro...

At the same time the Furey Liberal government implements a drastic austerity program, it gladly accepts $5.2 billion in "investment" from the Trudeau government in the "financial disaster" that is Muskrat Falls, that is a "bailout of a bailout of a bailout" by successive Conservative and Liberal governments at both the federal and provincial level. No such bailout is too large if it profits large corporations and banks financing the project, especially if it helps wins electoral seats in the short run. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to Newfoundland and Labrador this week on his “Election? What Election” campaign tour, and when he landed he bailed out the province’s disastrous Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. ...

Okay, but from here the announcement looks like the latest bailout of a project that only exists because of previous federal bailouts, and which was the subject of a deliberate disinformation campaign about its true costs. This bailout of a bailout of a bailout is rich in logical inconsistencies, and sets a troubling precedent. ...

Muskrat Falls is a financial disaster. A commission of inquiry report released in March, 2020, found that Nalcor, the provincial Crown corporation that (mis)managed the project, deliberately underestimated costs for political reasons, did no research into the typical cost overruns of megaprojects, failed to explore less expensive alternatives, and withheld information from investigators, including the province’s Public Utilities Board. Nalcor said in 2012 the capital cost of the project would be $6.2-billion, with $1.2-billion in additional financing costs. The capital costs rose to $7-billion in 2014, $7.7-billion in 2015, $9.4-billion in 2016 and $10.1-billion in 2017, which was still the estimated cost when the report was released in 2020. Financing costs had also jumped, to $2.6-billion. Since then, the pandemic has added another $435-million to the tally, which means the bill for Muskrat Falls has now topped $13-billion. ...

Ottawa was right there from the start, blank cheque in hand. The Harper government got the ill-conceived project off the ground in 2012 with a $5-billion loan guarantee. In 2017, the Trudeau government upped the guarantee by $2.9-billion, then in 2020 it renegotiated the terms to give the province more financial leeway. And now Mr. Trudeau is throwing in another $5.2-billion. ...

It also should be noted that a $5.2-billion handout to a province with a population of 520,000 is massive on a per capita basis. In Ontario, its equivalent would be $148-billion; in Alberta, $44-billion.

None of this makes any sense, except as an election handout designed to secure Newfoundland’s seven seats in the House of Commons, six currently held by Liberals. Other than that, it’s madness.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-muskrat-falls...

It looks like part of Liberal Premier Rankin's solution to Nova Scotia's provincial debt and his proposal to balance the budget within four years after the massive costs and loss of revenue associated with the Covid crisis is a fire sale of government assets. The revelation that there was no public consultation or even knowledge of a pending sale of  705 acres of crown land to a US developer in a fire sale to build several golf courses when the land was delisted as a protected area in 2019. This suggests a way in which the Liberals could sell off numerous assets to generate revenue to balance the budget, something the BC Liberals did when in power. This would also set a precedent for the sale of other provincial lands and government assets. NDP leader has been criticizing this potential sale. Rankin's weasel word response is that "we are early in the process and there will be public consultation, but he will always err on the side of protecting the environment." This has become a major issue in the provincial election. 

A boisterous crowd of nearly 200 people gathered in downtown Halifax to call on the province of Nova Scotia to halt the sale of more than 705 acres of crown land known as Owls Head to a U.S. developer who wants to build several golf courses along the Atlantic shoreline. ...

Environmental lawyer Jamie Simpson and a group of concerned citizens called the Eastern Shore Forest Watch Association filed a judicial review in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, arguing the conditional sale of Owls Head, approved by then lands and forestry minister Iain Rankin to the Lighthouse Links Development Group, was done without public consultation and that failed to meet standards laid out by the province to protect public lands and goes against the public’s interest.

“If Owls Head had been formally designated as a provincial park, as was represented to the public, any change to its status as protected land would have required an order in counsel and would therefore would have been public knowledge,” said Simpson. For decades, the province managed and treated Owls Head as a provincial park, said Simpson, with documents, published articles and maps listing it as a provincial park. But as it turns out, Owls Head was not legally designated as such but was a list to be protected. “Ultimately, the government’s own misrepresentation of the status of the lands shielded its actions from scrutiny and allowed purportedly public lands to be sold out of the public’s eye,” said Simpson. “And those are damning facts, for sure.”

Court citations show in March 2019, the government’s Treasury and Policy Board delisted Owls Head in a confidential minute letter,  removed Owls Heads from the provinces Parks and Protected Areas Plan, after Lighthouse Links approached the province to inquire about purchasing the land. ... Still, Justice Christa Brothers dismissed the application for judicial review, saying the government may have left constituents feeling betrayed and incensed by the deal, but they still acted in the lawful authority they held. ...

NDP leader Gary Burrill spoke at the rally and called the government’s handling of the sale undemocratic, “As I understand the judges’ decision, it is possible for things to be done by governments which are in fact wrong but still may be technically legal,” said Burrill. “And that in that kind of situation the remedy to the wrongness is in fact to vote the government out and proceed with a new government. That’s our democratic system.” ...

The Nova Scotia Green Party also spoke at the rally and, like the NDP, if elected they would quash the sale of Owls Head. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/8095099/owls-head-nova-scotia-election/

Here's a detailed look from  the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour's report, A Fair Reset, at the costs of Newfoundland Liberal Premier Furey's Big Reset austerity program costs in terms of job losses amounting to a 4% reduction in the Newfoundland workforce and social and health care program cuts and how a progressive program that promotes fairness and equity would help the province. The report was prepared by ten leading economists, political scientists, geographers, writers and professors.

The spending cuts alone will shrink the number of jobs available in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy by an astounding 4%. While on the surface, this number may seem small, in reality this will result in massive job loss and unemployment for nearly 9,000 people.

Other elements of the plan including contracting out, cutting wages and benefits, and privatization will reduce the quality of employment for thousands more (not to mention the reduction in the quality of services that the people of the province depend on every day).

It is incredibly frustrating to see a plan like this put forward because it does the exact opposite of what the report’s authors say they are trying to do, namely create jobs and opportunity to attract people to the province.

Statistics Canada estimates the multiplier effect of government spending in Newfoundland and Labrador to be 11 jobs per million dollars spent on government health care, 10 jobs for every million dollars spent on education and seven jobs for every million dollars spent on other government services.

All told, the Big Reset recommends government cut nearly $900 million a year from the budget by 2026 – $590 million in health care, $100 million in education and $200 million in other services.

Using the multipliers above, it is possible to estimate the number of jobs that will be lost due to these cuts – 7,000 jobs in the public service and another 2,000 in the private sector that supply government with goods and services.

Statistics Canada data show there were 227,000 people employed in Newfoundland in Labrador in 2019 and 214,000 employed in the province in 2021.

Overall, that 9,000 person job cut is a 4% drop in the number of jobs available in the province and a far cry from the job creation scheme the PERT purports to have put forward.

Nearly three-quarters of the job loss would be in the health care sector, much of them in rural areas where employment opportunities are already lacking and where healthcare workers are already stretched thin. There has been a litany of stories in the media in recent weeks about the multitude of issues in our healthcare system, particularly as they relate to wait times, exhausted and understaffed healthcare workers, and backlogs for appointments and procedures. If you are having trouble accessing appropriate health care services now, just wait until there are 6,500 fewer workers in the system.

The spending cuts will result in 800 fewer jobs at Memorial University of Newfoundland and 200 fewer jobs at the College of the North Atlantic.

The PERT does not actually conduct these calculations nor does it provide evidence that cutting spending in this manner will result in more jobs, better service delivery,  or economic growth. This is a huge oversight of the report.

A far better, and evidence based, way to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the province would be to invest in the programs and services that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rely on every day and ensure the jobs created and maintained pay enough for people to get by, provide for fair scheduling and ensure high quality services for patients and residents.

Government could actually embark on a job creation program killing two birds with one stone – providing the services that are needed and creating the family sustaining jobs that some people in the province have and many more are hoping to land.

Policies that promote fairness and equity in the labour market can grow the economy from the bottom up and ensure the benefits of economic growth actually flow to the people of the province.

To that end, Premier Furey must implement a $15 minimum wage that is then benchmarked to 60% of the median wage for full-time workers; develop fair scheduling regulations to ensure that more full-time jobs are available in sectors that currently deprive people of the hours they want; and a Just Transition for workers whether they be displaced by new technology, a shift to a greener economy or economic restructuring due to COVID-19.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy could certainly use a reset, but not the one that PERT is calling for. The premier should instead focus on resetting the rules to create a fair and inclusive economic recovery for all.

https://nlfl.nf.ca/2021/08/the-big-reset-will-mean-big-job-losses/

O'Toole's Conservatives are planning a neo-liberal return of austerity if they win, which seems a distinct possibility compared to even three weeks ago, according to the polls. Of course, the other neo-Liberal party is likely heading down a similar but possibly milder (although that is far from assured) austerity road, but, as usual, not saying anything about it until after the election, if they should win. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the sacred and long-standing precepts of neoliberal macroeconomics were thrown out the window, and for good reason. Dramatic interventions in both fiscal and monetary policy in Canada and other countries helped economies get through the pandemic and resulting recession. Erin O'Toole's Conservatives, however, are now signaling they will quickly reverse course and resuscitate those neoliberal principles if they form the next government. ...

The federal deficit exceeded $350 billion for 2020-21, or around 15 per cent of national GDP -- the biggest (in relative terms) since World War II, and unimaginable in conventional economic discourse.

Canada's deficit was among the largest of OECD countries, indicating a relatively ambitious response to the pandemic. But most industrial countries also incurred very large deficits: across the whole OECD, they averaged around 12 per cent of GDP.

Meanwhile, provincial governments also incurred record-breaking deficits due to reduced revenues and increased health and other program costs. Every province except New Brunswick (whose COVID-insulated economy traversed the pandemic better than any other) incurred large deficits; Alberta's (at close to 7 per cent of GDP) was by far the biggest.

In monetary policy, too, the conventional obsession with inflation control and monetary rectitude -- already shaken by the global financial crisis (GFC) 12 years earlier -- was abandoned in most countries, in favour of extraordinary interventions to support spending.

Until COVID-19, the Bank of Canada had refused to join other leading central banks in a practice called "quantitative easing" (QE): using the Bank's money-creation powers to buy assets (largely but not solely government bonds) in hopes of boosting money supply, bank lending, and spending. ...

Beginning in March 2020, the Bank purchased some $335 billion in federal bonds -- and about $20 billion of provincial bonds, to boot. Those purchases (some made directly in new bond auctions, some bought second-hand in commercial markets) kept interest rates super-low, despite the financial uncertainty associated with the pandemic. They also made it easier for the federal and provincial governments to finance their unprecedented deficits.

The combination of these two dramatic shifts in macroeconomic policy exposed the lie of austerity upon which neoliberal economic and social policies have been based for decades. Harsh government cutbacks were always explained on grounds that government just "can't afford" to spend more. This lie was critical to the formulation and legitimation of austerity.

The pandemic proved something progressives argued for years: there is virtually no financial constraint to the ability of governments (especially national governments, which possess independent currencies and financial regulatory powers) to mobilize resources in the interests of social and environmental well-being -- if they choose to do so. ...

Canadian governments raised hundreds of billions of dollars to support extensive income supports (through measures not dissimilar from the "basic income" vision advanced by many progressives), subsidize wages and protect employment (in the face of macroeconomic chaos), and invest in expanded physical and social infrastructure -- even stretching to the introduction of whole new programs (like national child care).

The ultimate limit on the capacity to deliver these reforms and supports is the real productive capacity of the economy, not the government's budget. As long as the economy languishes far below that capacity limit, government can and should use its capacity to raise money (including creating it, through a publicly regulated and partly publicly owned banking system), and spend it to stimulate more work, output, and income -- preferably in socially useful undertakings.

The dawning reality that government can do amazing things when it chooses to, poses an existential threat to the narrative that underpins neoliberal fiscal and monetary policy. Even mainstream economists have been generally supportive of the extraordinary measures taken during the pandemic. Most recognized that adherence to traditional strict doctrines (of deficit-reduction and inflation control) would have turned the COVID recession into an outright depression. Neoliberal purists were always uncomfortable, however, with the idea that large fiscal and monetary interventions to support public health, public services, employment, and infrastructure could be seen as anything more than short-term emergency measures. Conservative politicians went along with these interventions, to an extent (and in many countries, it was conservatives who oversaw them) -- but always with an eye to cramming the genie back into the botte as soon as possible.

The current federal election campaign has confirmed the Conservative Party of Canada's desire to quickly restore traditional neoliberal goals; smaller government, balanced budgets, and an overarching commitment to inflation control (which is always the most important priority for owners of financial wealth, given the impact of higher inflation on their accumulated holdings). ...

For months during the pandemic, Pierre Poilievre -- then the party's finance critic, still a prominent spokesperson, and likely front-runner for party leader in the event O'Toole falters -- was the most outspoken critic of fiscal and monetary supports. He lambasted both the government's large deficits and the Bank of Canada's money creation. In the Bank's case, Poilievre's attacks were extraordinary and aggressive: accusing the Bank of becoming an ideological tool, serving as "an ATM" for the Trudeau government's rampant spending. ...

O'Toole has walked a more nuanced line in attacking the Trudeau government's deficits -- knowing that the lifesaving policies that caused those deficits. ...

Nevertheless, O'Toole has attacked the federal deficit (without saying what programs he would have eliminated to reduce it), blamed Trudeau for the increase in inflation that has accompanied the re-opening of the economy, and pledged to balance the budget within a decade if elected. That pledge would require years of deep austerity in federal spending, and would almost certainly throw ice water on the economy's rebound from the COVID recession. The experience of Europe after the GFC is painful evidence of the self-inflicted harm caused by fiscal restraint during periods of macroeconomic crisis. ...

The modest increase in inflation in recent months (the year-over-year rate hit 3.7 per cent in July) has provided fuel for loud Conservative warnings about the menace of fiscal and monetary laxity. Those arguments are not credible. The uptick in inflation has been driven mostly by gasoline prices (excluding gasoline, the rate was 2.8 per cent) and a few other volatile commodities. The "core" inflation rate (with volatile items stripped out) was just 1.7 per cent -- still below the Bank of Canada's target. ...

The fact that their commitment to balancing the budget and controlling inflation is completely at odds with their long list of potentially expensive spending promises (including an expansion of EI benefits, business subsidies, and even taxpayer-supported restaurant meals three days a week) should not fool Canadians. When push comes to shove, if they hold the reins of fiscal and monetary policy, Canada will undoubtedly be heading back to an unforgiving and austere brand of neoliberalism -- and fast.

https://rabble.ca/columnists/2021/08/erin-otooles-conservatives-prepare-...

There are two sides to austerity programs of course: more for the rich and less for everyone else in real economic terms. Once again the result can be seen in the ever growing number of people attending food banks, one third of whom now are full-time workers. 

Food banks and other programs serving vulnerable Canadians are expected to serve 60 per cent more people per month in 2023 than last year, according to a report by a national food rescue organization. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/60-rise-use-of-food-banks-program....)

It's even worse in where the largest food bank is calling on the Ford government to address food bank crisis as Toronto food banks hit the breaking point after the number of people using the largest food bank in the city has quadrupled in three short years from 65,000 to 270,000, including one third being fulltime workers. (https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-food-bank-demands-emergency-funding-f...) While unemployment spiked to 13.7% in May 2020 in Canada during Covid, a record it has now fallen to 5.0%. By comparison, unemployment in the 1980s hit a high of 13.1% in Decemember 1982 but stayed well above 10% for many years. Yet there are far more people attending food banks today.  The average two bedroom apartment rent in Toronto is $2,492 (www.apartments.com/toronto-on/)

 At the same time the CEO of Loblaws got a 56% increase  in the last year because "consultants" said he was grossly underpaid by industry standards. "His total compensation reached $11.7 million" (https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/loblaw-ceo-galen-weston-s-compensation-j...).

It is time to set a maximum compensation rate for senior executives based on the number of time more an executive can make than the lowest paid employee as exists in some countries. In Canada the average CEO to lowest worker rate is 149 to 1, while Israel has a 56 to 1 maximum by law. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/424159/pay-gap-between-ceos-and-aver...). In the 1970s they were 30 to 1 in Canada when economic growth rates were much higher than today. 

The city, the province and the country need to all address the problem.

Clearly our economic system is totally out of whack. When people cannot get food or find a home, guess what happens to the crime rate in Toronto or Vancouver or elsewhere.

Toronto’s largest food bank says it is at “breaking point” and cannot keep up with the increasing demand for food. During a news conference Tuesday morning, Neil Hetherington, CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank, said that the solution to addressing the city’s food insecurity and affordability crisis is to reduce the number of people who rely on food banks.

He’s demanding that the Ontario government immediately step up and provide every person on social assistance with an emergency funding top up, like it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It's the government's duty to ensure that every person in this city is in a position that they can realize their right to food. So today, we are raising the alarm bells and we'll continue to do so. We will not stand silently while our neighbours go hungry,” he said, “It's not about food raising or fundraising at this press conference. It's about raising our collective voices to change the fundamental systems that have driven us to this point.”

Pointing to record high rates of inflation, rising rents, and stagnant incomes that are causing Torontonians to struggle more than ever before to put food on their table, he said the Daily Bread is doing what it can, but the need in the city is “continuing at an unsustainable rate of exponential growth.”

Last month, the Daily Bread saw an unprecedented 270,000 client visits, the highest-ever number recorded in its 40-year history. In early 2020, the south-Etobicoke-based charity served roughly 65,000 clients a month. When the pandemic hit, they saw 120,000. That initial number has now quadrupled.

The amount of people experiencing food insecurity is also growing at a worrying rate as about 12,500 new clients are coming to Daily Bread’s food banks each month, a figure that is six times more than before the start of the pandemic.

“(These are people who) have never been to a food bank before and now they are relying on food charity to be able to feed their families,” Hetherington said, adding more than a third of their clients work full time. “It used to be that if you went to school, got an education got a job, you would be just fine. That isn't the case anymore... Let me be very clear, we are in a crisis.”

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-food-bank-demands-emergency-funding-f...

Nothing says more about the Ontario Ford PC government's plan to privatizate everything that it can than its plan to sell off "underutilized" public schools at the same time it hands over very valuable government lands and spending hundreds of millions on an  underground parking garage a 65,000-square-metre private entertainment, water recreation and wellness spa on the West Island of Ontario Place and a rebuilt Budweiser Stage concert venue to be operated by Live Nation. (https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2023/04/17/ford-government-s...). 

The title of the new bill, called the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, to sell off the schools gives away the governments attitude to public education: get rid of it. "Currently, school boards that declare a property as surplus are required to offer it up to other public-sector bodies". This bill means those schools will be going to the private sector.

The Ford government tabled new legislation that will give itself the power to convert underutilized schools in Ontario into affordable housing or sell off the properties on the open market, in a major overhaul of education policies.

The new bill, called the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, includes sweeping new measures aimed at standardizing the education system to align with "provincial priorities" — which will be set by education minister Stephen Lecce — and to give parents greater say over their children's education. ...

In what could prove to be a controversial decision, however, the new legislation would give the Ford government the ability to repurpose unused school board lands to build affordable housing, as the province grapples with a self-imposed goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031. Currently, school boards that declare a property as surplus are required to offer it up to other public-sector bodies such as other school boards, colleges and universities, municipalities and the Ontario government.

The law would place the province at the front of the line, giving itself the first right of refusal, along with the power to determine the final outcome, while limiting its usage. If the property is not needed by another school board, the government said, it would be taken over by the Ministry of Infrastructure and could be used for either long-term care or affordable housing. If the province declines its option on the land, the government said, it would be sold in the open market at "fair market value." …

The Ontario NDP said the bill was "smoke and mirrors" and failed to address the pressing needs of students.Ontario NDP education critic Chandra Pasma said the Ford government was "trying to shift blame" to school boards, schools and teachers. She said she believed the Ford government was working to privatize parts of the education system. "Underfund, underfund, underfund, and when the system reaches a moment of crisis, suddenly the solution is privation," she said.

The government's bill touches on huge portions of the schools, teaching and governance. … The education minister said existing powers could be used to compel school boards to comply and that the Ford government would use them "if we must." Trustees, directly elected to run school boards at the same time as local councillors, will also face new expectations. Standardized training will be set out if the bill passes, while an integrity commissioner will also be introduced. The province repeatedly highlighted changes for trustees were about bringing more standardized governance and discipline approaches. Lecce was education minister when the province stepped in to take control of the Peel District School Board after allegations of anti-Black racism and discrimination. After stepping in, trustees in Peel were sidelined from their roles until recently, with a provincial supervisor taking control.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/underused-ontario-schools-could-be-...

A new Quebec study concluded that private clinics cost 1.5 to 3 times as much as the same ones done in public hospital services and tend to increase in price over time while public hospital services tend to decrease in cost as medical practitioners become more efficicient. The url below continues a video giving more money on this. Quebec has shifted and the Ontario Ford government is planning to shift more such operations to the private sector despite the evidence that it is more costly, less efficient and robs the public system of personnel.

CBC 

Mon, April 24, 2023, 6:54 PM PDT

Recently available data from Quebec shows that the cost for surgery in a private, for-profit clinic costs the government up to two-and-a-half times that of the same treatment in public facilities.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/private-surgeries-cost-twice-much-015437708.html

Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s Special Report on the Greenbelt that examined the opening up of the sale of Greenbelt land to developers for housing that resulted in a minimum of a $8.3 billion increase, and almost certainly much more according to the auditor general, in land value for the developers concluded “ ‘favoured certain developers’, lacked transparency and failed to consider environmental, agricultural and financial impacts.

The Ontario government’s decision to open up parts of the Greenbelt for housing “favoured certain developers,” lacked transparency and failed to consider environmental, agricultural and financial impacts, a scathing report by the province’s auditor general has suggested.

Of the 7,400 acres of land removed from the Greenbelt, the report found that 92 per cent could be tied to three developers with direct access to the housing ministry.

The findings were released in a “Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt” by Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk on Wednesday. The report also found that 14 of the 15 sites were proposed directly by Housing Minister Steve Clark’s Chief of Staff. The remaining site was proposed by a six-person team of public servants tasked with assessing land sites for possible removal.

Clark’s Chief of Staff altered criteria for land removal when the majority of the sites would not be approved within those parameters and implemented a three-week timeline on the assessment. The team, the report found, had to operate under strict confidentiality terms that prevented them from contacting partnering ministries as well as municipalities and conservation authorities. Ninety-three confidentiality agreements across multiple ministries were signed over the course of the project, the report found. 

The investigation into the Doug Ford government’s decision to remove 7,400 acres of land from the Greenbelt for development began in January after a joint request from all three of the province’s opposition leaders. The decision was first announced in November 2022, years after Premier Doug Ford promised not to touch the protected land. The argument at the time was that it was necessary as part of its pledge to build 1.5 million homes in 10 years. The goal was to build at least 50,000 homes on the Greenbelt land with construction beginning no later than 2025. However, it was soon revealed that several large developers have purchased Greenbelt land since the Ford government was first elected in 2018 before the announcement had been made. At least one investment was made in September 2022, a month before the government revealed the land was among 15 sites being opened up for development.

Opposition leaders and advocacy groups have claimed that developers were tipped off and given advance notice of the government’s plans.

Premier Doug Ford has repeatedly said that he did not know which sites would be opened until shortly before the announcement. The auditor general’s report appears to confirm this fact; however it also lays out a decision-making process that lacks transparency, communication and proper consultation. “While the people of Ontario deserve prompt action to solve societal problems like those generated by a need for housing, this does not mean that government and non-elected political staff should sideline or abandon protocols and processes that promote objective and transparent decision-making based on sufficient, accurate and timely information,” the report reads. Their office recommends the government re-evaluate its decision to change the Greenbelt boundaries, as both the premier and housing minister have communicated they were “unaware that the pre-selection of Greenbelt lands for removal was seriously flawed.”

 

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR DEVELOPERS AND LOBBYISTS

The report first notes that there is no evidence that removing land from the Greenbelt was needed to meet the government’s housing goals. This conclusion was made both by the province’s own housing affordability task force and city planners in the regions of Durham, Hamilton and York–the three areas impacted by the changes.

The auditor general notes that 92 per cent of the land removed from the Greenbelt was requested to be removed by developers the Chief of Staff dined with at a Sept. 14 Building and Land Development Association’s Chair’s dinner. “At this event, the Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff were seated at the same table as prominent housing developers and a registered lobbyist,” the report reads. “The Chief of Staff told us two developers provided him with packages at this event containing information about two sites from the Greenbelt: the (Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve) lands in Durham Region and the Bathurst-King site in York Region.” The proposals were handed to the chief of staff in the form of “packages.” The chief of staff told the auditor general that he did not immediately open them, and that instead he added them to a stack of packages on his desk from other developers and their representatives for review.

Lysyk notes these developers “stood to significantly benefit financially by having received preferential treatment through the use of a biased process that was non-transparent to the public.” The owners of the 15 land sites chosen through this process could see more than an $8.3 billion increase to the values of their properties, the report found. The cost of removing the sites themselves is still unknown, although the auditor general estimates it could be in the billions.

The report also notes that throughout the process of conducting the audit, several examples of appeared preferential treatment to lobbyists were noted.“This included providing information about the ownership and purchasing of lands, setting up investment-opportunity meetings with Minister’s Office staff, and the consideration of draft legislative and regulatory changes.”  The auditor general’s office also noted instances in which lobbyists working for developers emailed political staff with legislation amendment suggestions, which were then copy-pasted and forwarded to deputy ministers for inclusion. “Senior non-political public servants, who were directed by political staff to carry the proposal forward, appeared unaware that the proposed amendments had originated from a lobbyist.”

 

HOW WERE THESE SITES SELECTED?

The report notes that hundreds of site removal requests have been submitted to the ministry of housing since the Greenbelt was established in 2005, but only 22 of those sites were considered during the 2022 selection. Of those, 21 were provided directly by the chief of staff. The report notes that the team was provided with further information about select sites by the chief of staff through USB keys. Nine of the 21 sites were brought to the chief of staff’s attention by developers or representatives, the report found, while five others were identified by other political staff members within the housing ministry’s office. The chief of staff could not recall how the additional seven sites were put on his radar. The Greenbelt Project Time was tasked with reviewing the sites using a series of criteria, which initially included whether the site was near an urban area, on the edge of the greenbelt, and near municipal services.The land also could not be part of the natural heritage system or specialty crop designations. The team found that 20 of the sites either did not meet all of the criteria or it could not be determined within the three-week timeframe.

“What followed cannot be described as a standard or defensible process,” Lysyk told reporters at a news conference Wednesday. After this analysis, criteria regarding environmental or agricultural issues were removed. The report also found that some of the sites were also expanded or altered so that they could be considered on the edge of the Greenbelt. “About 83 per cent of the land area removed is of the highest quality and capability for agriculture,” Lysyk said. “Further 11 of the 15 areas removed from the Greenbelt contained lands within the natural heritage system, which captures areas with the most sensitive or significant natural features and functions in Ontario.”

https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-s-decision-to-open-up-greenbelt-favour...