Tag Archives: Business

Public Consultation or Box-Ticking Exercise? A Critical Look at a Local Battery Storage Project

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, I attended a public consultation in my township concerning the proposed development and operation of a battery storage facility. While I support the idea of more distributed energy systems; including local generation, storage, and distribution, I left the session with more concerns than confidence.

The generational divide in the room was striking. The corporate representatives were mostly in their late 20s or early 30s, while the attending community members were primarily in their 50s and 60s. That’s not a critique of age, but it did highlight a gap in understanding and communication. One representative I spoke with didn’t even know the name of our village or the township they were in, and confused our location with the nearest city. That lack of local awareness is troubling.

When it came to questions about employment, the answers were just as vague. There are no local jobs being created by this facility. Pressed on this point, the company conceded that construction would likely be contracted out to a large regional firm. So much for community economic development.

Technically, this consultation was part of the process required to secure project approval. But calling it a “consultation” is generous. In practice, it was an information session for a project that already has funding and, by all appearances, a green light, once the required Environmental Assessment has been completed and approved. Input from residents was neither requested nor meaningfully incorporated. That’s not consultation—that’s optics.

There was discussion of the township gaining a $300,000 gift from the business, yet when this was explored further, it turns out that the gift is over the 20 year projected life of the facility; so by my calculations that’s $15,000/year for a township with an annual budget of around $4.5 million. 

I also learned that the company developing this project, which is ultimately owned by a private corporation through a series of businesses, partnered with a local First Nation to qualify for the contract. On paper, this is a positive step. I strongly support Indigenous involvement in provincial development, but I couldn’t help but ask: beyond a share of the profits, what is the First Nation partner actually gaining from this deal? Meaningful involvement? Job creation? Capacity building? Those questions went largely unanswered.

Many of the company reps struggled to answer even basic questions. When challenged, they became defensive, admitting they were not properly briefed or that statements about local benefits were merely “possibilities.” That kind of unpreparedness doesn’t inspire public trust.

Let me be clear: I’m not opposed to the project itself. I believe in the need for renewable energy infrastructure, and support the transition to a more decentralized grid. I have no “Not In My Backyard” objections here. My issue is with the process, and with the privatization of what should be a public utility. This kind of infrastructure should be owned and operated by the province for the benefit of its citizens, not by private firms whose primary accountability is to shareholders.

If this is the future of our energy system, we need a better framework, one rooted in public ownership, transparent processes, and genuine community engagement.

Work From Home: The Good, The Bad, and The Surprisingly Productive?

Posted on by
Reply

As a business consultant, my work follows a hybrid model – my home office, to client sites, to hotels and back home again. These days, I rarely accept projects where the client requires that I work full-time out of their offices, as I prefer to focus on my project deliverables, and find hourly coffee breaks, and ad hoc meetings distracting. While I often lead multi-stakeholder initiatives, I much prefer working as part of a small team capable of leveraging today’s collaborative tools and communication apps from the sanctity of my home. 

The debate over working from home (WFH) versus traditional office settings has gained momentum over the past few years, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic pushed millions into remote work. In Canada, the transition was significant: before the pandemic, about 7% of Canadians worked from home; by April 2020, that number surged to 40%, before settling around 20% in 2023. Research on this shift has produced mixed findings, with some studies showing increased productivity and others highlighting challenges that come with remote work.

Positive reports, like the 2025 study by Fenizia and Kirchmaier, suggest that WFH can lead to a productivity boost—12% in the case of public sector workers. This increase was largely attributed to fewer distractions and a more flexible environment. Stanford’s 2020 study also found a 13% increase in performance among remote workers, citing quieter environments and fewer sick days as contributing factors. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics observed a rise in productivity across industries that adopted remote work between 2019 and 2021.

However, not all findings are so glowing. A University of Chicago study found that WFH doesn’t necessarily boost productivity across the board, noting that some jobs still require in-person collaboration. The San Francisco Federal Reserve echoed this sentiment, suggesting that remote work alone isn’t a major factor in driving productivity growth. Some sectors, like tech, have reported stable productivity, but with challenges in communication and collaboration. Studies in Canada have also shown that the ability to work from home varies by industry. Finance and insurance sectors were more adaptable to remote work, while industries like manufacturing and agriculture saw little benefit from the shift.

Despite the varied findings, employee demand for flexibility remains strong. A 2024 survey by the Public Service Alliance of Canada revealed that 81% of Canadians believe remote work benefits employees, with 66% reporting that it boosts organizational productivity. The survey found that most employees felt more focused and productive while working remotely, enjoying the balance it offers. Still, companies are grappling with how to make remote work work for everyone, with some—like Amazon—insisting on a return to the office to foster collaboration.

Ultimately, the future of work in Canada seems to be leaning towards hybrid models, where employees can enjoy the benefits of both office interaction and remote flexibility. The challenge remains to find the right balance, considering industry-specific needs and employee preferences, ensuring that productivity, morale, and collaboration thrive no matter where work is done.

Public Utilities in Public Hands: The Case Against Privatization in Ontario

Posted on by
Reply

The privatization of public utilities is one of the most serious threats to the well-being of Ontario’s citizens. Essential services such as electricity, natural gas, and potable water are not mere commodities; they are fundamental to public health, economic stability, and social equity. Yet, time and again, privatization has proven to be a short-sighted policy that prioritizes corporate profit over public interest, leading to rising costs, reduced accountability, and degraded service quality.

Ontario has already had a taste of these consequences. The partial privatization of Hydro One in 2015, sold as a way to fund infrastructure projects, stripped the public of full control over a critical utility. The result? Electricity rates surged while executive salaries ballooned, all while Ontarians faced an affordability crisis. Now, the same logic is being applied to water infrastructure, with growing interest in public-private partnerships (P3s) that risk putting a basic human right in the hands of profit-driven corporations.

The United Kingdom serves as a cautionary tale. Margaret Thatcher’s aggressive privatization agenda in the 1980s dismantled public control over water, gas, and electricity. Decades later, the consequences are glaringly evident—privatized water companies have failed to maintain infrastructure, leading to widespread sewage pollution in rivers and skyrocketing utility bills. In 2023, public outrage reached a boiling point as UK citizens demanded renationalization, fed up with a system that prioritized shareholder dividends over basic service quality.

Ontario does not need to look across the Atlantic to see privatization’s dangers. The sale of Highway 407 in the late 1990s remains one of the most infamous examples. Originally built with public funds, the highway was sold to a private consortium, which promptly implemented steep toll increases. Now, it is one of the most expensive toll roads in North America, generating billions in private profits while Ontario drivers pay the price.

Similarly, in the 1990s, Premier Mike Harris’s government moved to privatize parts of Ontario’s water services, leading to deregulation that contributed to the Walkerton tragedy in 2000. E. coli contamination in the town’s water supply led to seven deaths and thousands of illnesses. A key lesson from Walkerton was that water safety should never be compromised for cost-cutting measures—yet renewed interest in water privatization suggests that this lesson is being ignored.

Proponents of privatization often push P3s as a supposed middle ground, but the reality is that these arrangements often result in long-term financial burdens for taxpayers and reduced service quality. In Ontario, numerous P3 infrastructure projects, including hospitals and transit systems, have faced cost overruns, delays, and contract disputes that leave the public footing the bill. The Brampton Civic Hospital, one of Ontario’s earliest P3 healthcare projects, ended up costing nearly $200 million more than a traditional public model, demonstrating how these deals frequently benefit corporate interests at the public’s expense.

When it comes to water and electricity, the risks are even greater. Private firms operating under P3 models have strong incentives to minimize costs, which can lead to deferred maintenance, staff reductions, and lower service quality. Meanwhile, the public remains on the hook for any failures, as companies structure contracts to shield themselves from financial risk while reaping the profits.

Once essential services are privatized, reversing the decision becomes extremely difficult. Private companies, armed with deep lobbying power, fight fiercely to protect their revenue streams. In the case of Hydro One, the Ontario government now owns less than 50% of the company, making it virtually impossible to fully reassert public control without an expensive and politically complex buyback.

The simple truth is that profit should never be the primary driver in the management of public utilities. Roads, water, electricity, and natural gas are the backbone of a functioning society, and their operation must be based on public interest, environmental sustainability, and affordability—not corporate greed.

Ontario must resist further privatization and instead strengthen public ownership of essential services. This means investing in infrastructure, enforcing transparency, and ensuring that these utilities serve the people rather than the pockets of a few wealthy shareholders. The province has seen the consequences of privatization firsthand, and the path forward is clear: protect public utilities, prioritize public well-being, and reject the false promises of privatization before it’s too late.

Breaking Down Barriers: The Push for a Truly Unified Canadian Market

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre has finally proposed a plan to address the Trump administration’s February 2025 tariffs, seemingly based on an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report. This raises the question: what progress has Canada made on internal trade barriers in response to the IMF’s findings, and what still needs to be done?

Over the past five years, Canada has tackled some of the regulatory and geographic hurdles that have long hindered economic efficiency. The 2019 IMF report highlighted these four barriers—regulatory fragmentation, restrictive provincial controls on goods like alcohol, technical inconsistencies in industry standards, and vast geographic challenges. While reforms have occurred, largely under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), major inefficiencies remain.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the fragility of Canada’s fragmented market, prompting temporary regulatory flexibility. Licensing restrictions were eased for healthcare workers, and supply chain barriers were lifted to prevent shortages. This period proved that interprovincial trade barriers could be swiftly reduced when necessary. Yet, once the crisis subsided, most provinces reinstated pre-pandemic restrictions, missing an opportunity for lasting reform.

The CFTA, in place since 2017, has encouraged regulatory alignment, particularly in vehicle weight standards, and professional certifications. However, progress has been slow, with key industries such as construction, trucking, and food processing still burdened by differing provincial rules. One of the more visible steps forward has been the relaxation of alcohol trade restrictions. In 2018, provincial premiers agreed to lift some limits on interprovincial alcohol transportation, while trying to address the mixed market of monopolistic liquor boards and private sector businesses. 

The economic potential of eliminating these barriers is staggering. A report commissioned by Alberta’s government found that mutual recognition across provinces could boost GDP by up to 7.9%, adding as much as $200 billion annually. Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand reinforced this in a January 2025 CBC interview, stating that reducing trade barriers “could lower prices by up to 15 per cent, boost productivity by up to seven per cent, and add up to $200 billion to the domestic economy.” Yet, political inertia and regional protectionism have stalled deeper reforms.

In the short to medium term, Canada must prioritize mutual recognition agreements to streamline licensing and regulatory requirements. The construction industry, for example, faces costly delays due to inconsistent building codes across provinces—an easily fixable issue. Beyond regulatory alignment, reducing paperwork and red tape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, would remove unnecessary friction from the system. A Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) taskforce focused on simplifying these processes, combined with digital infrastructure investments for e-licensing, could provide meaningful relief.

Addressing natural barriers is a longer-term challenge, but progress is possible. Expanding interprovincial transportation networks and improving digital connectivity in rural areas would allow businesses to access larger markets more efficiently.

Ultimately, Canada needs sustained political will to drive internal trade reform. While agreements like the CFTA have laid the groundwork, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and a shift away from provincial protectionism are required. If provinces remain uncooperative, federal intervention may become necessary to unlock the full economic potential of a truly open market. Canada cannot afford to let bureaucratic inertia continue to suppress its economic growth.

Made in Canada: Leveraging Transparency to Strengthen and Grow the Economy

Posted on by
Reply

As a business consultant, I spent nearly two years managing the Canadian multi-livestock traceability project office in response to the BSE “mad cow” outbreak. Later, I became the first General Manager of the Canadian Livestock Identification Agency, helping to expand this approach nationally, and then with the aid of federal funding, pushed into Latin America,. What became clear was the transformative power of full value chain traceability. It not only opens doors to new markets, but also helps countries differentiate their products, and navigate technical and political trade barriers like tariffs.

For Canadian retailers and manufacturers, U.S. tariffs have long created challenges—raising costs, shrinking margins, and destabilizing cross-border trade. But technology offers a way to turn these obstacles into opportunities. Imagine a system where every Canadian product carries a scannable code revealing its value chain, from sourcing to production and even its environmental footprint. This transparency wouldn’t just empower consumers—it would give Canadian products a competitive edge by showcasing their quality, sustainability, and tariff-free origins.

Traceability technology, backed by blockchain, makes this vision possible. By assigning every product a unique QR code or barcode, manufacturers could provide consumers with instant access to detailed information. A quick scan might show that a product was made in Canada, outline ethical practices in its supply chain, and even display its carbon footprint. Such transparency doesn’t just satisfy curiosity—it allows consumers to align purchases with their values, all while supporting the Canadian economy.

Blockchain adds an essential layer of trust to this system. Unlike traditional databases, blockchain technology is inherently secure, creating an unchangeable record of every step in a product’s journey. From raw materials in British Columbia to manufacturing in Ontario, each stage is logged and verified. In an age where consumers demand proof of sustainability and ethical practices, blockchain offers the credibility that builds trust and eliminates doubt.

For shoppers, the benefits of this system are clear. It provides a powerful tool for identifying Canadian-made goods, particularly in tariff-sensitive sectors like food, textiles, and electronics. When trade restrictions drive prices higher, consumers could actively choose local, tariff-free products, keeping money in Canada while avoiding inflated costs. Retailers, in turn, could spotlight these products as premium, ethical choices, differentiating them from imports.

From a business perspective, adopting traceability technology is more than a tool for compliance—it’s a way to build brand loyalty. Shoppers are more likely to trust and return to brands that are transparent about their supply chains. Companies investing in traceability could also attract eco-conscious and ethically driven consumers, both domestically and internationally, creating new opportunities to expand market share.

This technology is real today, and ready to use. Japan has been a pioneer in retail traceability, leveraging advanced technology to ensure transparency and quality in its supply chains. From QR codes on produce that detail farm origins to blockchain systems tracking seafood to combat fraud, Japan’s focus on traceability reflects its commitment to consumer trust, food safety, and sustainable practices.

The Canadian government has a role to play in fostering this transformation. Policymakers could accelerate adoption through regulations requiring supply chain transparency, and by offering tax incentives to early adopters. Public campaigns could educate consumers about the benefits of traceability, while certification programs could establish recognizable “Made in Canada” labels, further encouraging local pride and support.

While small businesses may face challenges in adopting this technology, such as costs and competition concerns, these barriers can be addressed through subsidies, partnerships, and thoughtful frameworks. By striking a balance between transparency and proprietary protections, Canada can ensure accessibility while preserving competitive advantages.

This system isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about redefining how Canadians shop and consume. Traceability technology positions Canada as a leader in ethical, sustainable retail practices. It empowers consumers with unprecedented insight into the products they buy, while strengthening the economy through local innovation and production.

Ultimately, this approach reinforces what makes Canadian products stand out. Whether it’s sustainability, fair labor practices, or national pride, traceability ensures that “Made in Canada” is more than just a label—it’s a commitment to quality, transparency, and trust.