Latest news with #federal funding
CBC
8 hours ago
- Business
- CBC
Toronto has 6 months to meet terms of housing agreement with Ottawa, minister says
Toronto has six months to meet the terms of a housing agreement with Ottawa, the federal housing minister said — a deadline that comes as the city risks losing $30 million in federal housing funds. Minister Gregor Robertson said it was "disappointing" that Toronto city council voted against allowing sixplexes citywide last month, which was a key condition of its deal with the federal government. "We need Toronto, as the biggest city in Canada, to be really leading the charge in solving the housing crisis we have," Robertson said in an interview with CBC Radio's Metro Morning on Wednesday. Robertson did not say whether Toronto risks losing some of the federal funding it was promised if it sticks to its sixplex plan, but he said the government will review its agreement with the city in January. He said he sent a letter to Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow this week that lays out these terms. "We've got six months ahead of us to sort this all out," he said. "Certainly, my expectation is that Toronto will respect the agreement and the commitments that they came up with, and we're going to see that delivered." CBC Toronto has reached out to the city for comment. Toronto on track to meet housing goal, Chow says Toronto city council voted in June to allow sixplexes in only nine wards and give other wards the chance to opt-in. In his letter to Chow, provided to CBC Toronto, Robertson wrote he was disappointed about the decision, which he wrote "goes against the level of ambition that was committed to in our Housing Accelerator Fund Agreement by the City of Toronto." "I will underscore the possibility of reduced funding if the City of Toronto does not present solutions that ensures the spirit of the agreement is met," reads the letter from Monday. In March, then-federal housing minister Nate Erskine-Smith warned Chow that any deviation from a citywide policy permitting sixplexes would result in 25 per cent less federal funding. That amounts to almost $30 million of the total $118 million that Ottawa has pledged annually to Toronto from its Housing Accelerator Fund, a program that provides incentive funding for cities to build more homes. Chow responded to Robertson's letter on Wednesday, writing the city is on track to exceed its target of building 60,980 homes over the course of the three-year agreement with Ottawa. "We are making progress on multiple fronts: zoning, building, cutting red tape, and protecting existing homes," she wrote in the letter, obtained by CBC Toronto. Chow wrote she has added a motion to city council's meeting on Wednesday to waive development charges for sixplexes "to make these projects more financially viable and easier to build." Some residents had opposed building sixplexes in Toronto at a city planning and housing committee meeting held in June before the council vote. One resident said multiplexes have caused many issues, including problems related to parking and privacy. Robertson told Metro Morning there is "a lot of misinformation" about sixplexes, which he called relatively gentle density.
ABC News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
How Labor's new bill to strip unsafe childcare centres of funding would work
A proposal to strip childcare centres of federal funding has been introduced to parliament. It is one of the re-elected Albanese government's first items of legislation, accelerated in the wake of the shocking allegations against former childcare worker Joshua Brown. It could lead to the effective forced closure of childcare centres that cannot guarantee child safety. Here's how that would work. Like many sectors in Australia, responsibility for child care is split between federal and state governments. States are largely responsible for monitoring the quality and safety of centres, which are mostly run by for-profit companies and not-for-profit organisations. But the federal government provides the money via parents, in the form of the Child Care Subsidy — effectively a "voucher" parents can use on accredited providers. This bill does not propose a federal takeover of quality or safety regulation — that will continue to be done by state auditors in line with their own existing rules. But it does give the secretary of the Department of Education broad discretion to deny or revoke subsidy eligibility from providers if they fall short. Given the centres' business model relies on receiving the subsidy, that would effectively force them to close. For large providers, it could also prevent them from adding new centres. In making such a decision, the legislation would allow the secretary to consider past and present assessments from the states, including whether they meet national quality standards or are graded as "working towards" them. The secretary can also consider any serious incidents or allegations, complaints, or anything else deemed relevant. The legislation sets out a process involving warnings and infringement notices, leading up to suspension of funding. A similar process already exists to strip funding from centres for reasons like fraud, but not for quality and safety — although state regulators can currently shut centres when there are serious threats. The bill leaves significant room for discretion and does not detail the thresholds the secretary must use to make a decision or directly define circumstances where funding must be revoked. It does not specify whether multiple breaches or just one breach are required, and in fact leaves open the possibility a centre could be denied funding on the basis of potential harms rather than past breaches. Education Minister Jason Clare told the ABC's News Breakfast his intention was to focus on centres "that are repeatedly failing to meet [the] minimum standards" and that withholding funding would have significant consequences for non-compliant centres, but also said an action "could be as simple as one" breach. "It is the biggest weapon that we have got to wield here," he said. "Taxpayers provide about $16 billion to childcare centres every year. That represents about 70 per cent of the funding to run a centre … They cannot operate without [subsidies]." The bill also gives the secretary of education greater powers to order spot checks and unscheduled visits to childcare centres. Consistent with their current role, federal auditors visiting sites will focus on fraud rather than quality or safety, which remains the purview of state regulators, but the federal auditors will be able to pass on to the states any safety concerns they observe. Mr Clare said Labor had been working "really professionally and constructively" with the opposition and had also briefed the Greens, signalling hope for broad co-operation to pass the legislation.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS NPR crisis worsens as top editor quits days after radio station lost $500m federal cash for being too woke
NPR's top editor has tendered her resignation days after the radio station lost $500million in federal funding for an alleged bias against conservatives. Edith Chapin, who serves as editor-in-chief and acting chief content officer at National Public Radio, announced her departure on Tuesday. Chapin told an NPR reporter she quit rather than being fired and that she was not leaving due to the funding cuts. She also said she handed in her notice two weeks ago ahead of the cuts, which Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign trail. NPR has long been blasted by conservatives, former listeners, and even former staffers for taking extreme progressive viewpoints on issues pertaining to race and transgenderism in recent years Supporters of the cuts to federal funding - which also affected PBS - said it was unfair to expect all Americans to subsidize a network with such an isolated worldview. Katherine Maher, the chief executive of NPR, told Status over the weekend the decision was politically motivated, framing it as one that would be devastating toward rural communities she said relied on public broadcasting from local affiliates. In her statement to NPR Tuesday, Chapin said Maher was left surprised by her decision, and that she would continue to stay with NPR until October the latest - the same month funding is set to cease to coincide with the next fiscal year. The cuts came as a major win for Trump, who repeatedly promised to defund NPR on the campaign trail. Trump is seen signing a separate executive order in May 'I have had two big executive jobs for two years and I want to take a break. I want to make sure my performance is always top-notch for the company,' she said, after joining NPR from CNN in 2012 as chief international editor. 'It's not a good time to do it, but it's never a good time.' 'I needed to pick a date and share my decision.' 'The best thing we can do is do the best work possible every day,' she said as debate continues over whether the company really engaged in systemic bias as the administration claims. 'We need to hear from all kinds of people - and that is our job. 'And we need to be as clear and transparent as we possibly can, and our audiences can decide how useful we are for them.' 'One of the things that was attractive when I came here was this philosophy of all things considered,' she continued. 'There is room for so much here in a way there is not in so many places. 'In offering that fulsome package of things, some people are going to find things they don't find of interest or agree with - and that's okay,' Chapin eventually concluded. 'I think we have to continue with that philosophy of all things considered.' In a separate note to staff, Maher thanked Chapin for 13 years of service.
France 24
2 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
Harvard fights Trump administration in court over $2.6 billion funding cut
Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Donald Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvardwas told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education." Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.'
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Judge presses Trump admin on Harvard funding cuts
A federal judge on Monday challenged the Trump administration's reasons for slashing billions of dollars in federal funding to Harvard University, triggering a furious response from the president. Judge Allison Burroughs pressed the administration's lawyer to explain how cutting grants to diverse research budgets would help protect students from alleged campus anti-Semitism, US media reported. Trump preemptively fired off a post on his Truth Social platform blasting Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic president Barack Obama, claiming without evidence that she had already decided against his government -- and vowing to appeal. The Ivy League institution sued in April to restore more than $2 billion in frozen funds. The administration insists its move is legally justified over Harvard's failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students, particularly amid campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The threat to Harvard's funding stream forced it to implement a hiring freeze while pausing ambitious research programs, particularly in the public health and medical spheres, that experts warned risked American lives. Harvard has argued that the administration is pursuing "unconstitutional retaliation" against it and several other universities targeted by Trump early in his second term. Both sides have sought a summary judgment to avoid trial, but it was unclear if Burroughs would grant one either way. The judge pressed the lone lawyer representing Trump's administration to explain how cutting funding to Harvard's broad spectrum of research related to combatting anti-Semitism, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported from court. "The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," he claimed, pointing to the university's world-leading endowment. Both Harvard and the American Association of University Professors brought cases against the Trump administration's measures which were combined and heard Monday. - 'Control of academic decision making' - Trump has sought to have the case heard in the Court of Federal Claims instead of in the federal court in Boston, just miles away from the heart of the university's Cambridge campus. "This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard," Harvard said in its initial filing. The Ivy League institution has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and "viewpoint diversity." Trump and his allies claim that Harvard and other prestigious universities are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and anti-Semitism, particularly surrounding protests against Israel's war in Gaza. The government has also targeted Harvard's ability to host international students, an important source of income who accounted for 27 percent of total enrollment in the 2024-2025 academic year. A proclamation issued in June declared that the entrance of international students to begin a course at Harvard would be "suspended and limited" for six months and that existing overseas enrollees could have their visas terminated. The move has been halted by a judge. The US government earlier this month subpoenaed Harvard University for records linked to students allegedly involved in a wave of pro-Palestinian student protests that the Trump administration labeled anti-Semitic. Washington has also told a university accrediting body that Harvard's certification should be revoked after it allegedly failed to protect Jewish students in violation of federal civil rights law.
