Canada, we have a problem and it’s time we talked.
Our love of real estate is not only creating a world where new homebuyers cannot enter the market, it is also massively distorting future opportunity.
I have built several businesses in my career, some successful, others not so much. Each business has been immensely capital-intensive, some have employed hundreds of people and most have done millions of dollars in revenues.
My track record is one that I look to with pride, but also with irritation. After 15 years of engaging in the back-and-forth of the cash-flowing business world, it strikes me that I could have done just as well investing in a bunch of real estate, sitting back employing no one, and simply riding the great Canadian asset bubble of the past decade.
That realization means that something is very wrong with our economy and the way it functions.
A lost decade
Western economies used to produce products and later on, services. Those products and services created enduring value, jobs and above all, innovation. But we in Canada have not engaged in such projects of late. Instead, we have experienced a lost decade — a decade where a significant amount of available capital and innovation has turned to constructing glass buildings in the sky.
Indeed, our present Canadian economy produces living quarters filled with indebted residents paying near New York City prices for Mississauga real estate. In the process, we have created small living space after small living space with no real, intrinsic value beyond the fact that the price of those same spaces continues to increase with every passing year.
We have, in short, collectively spent a decade creating nothing of enduring value beyond monetary multiplication.
What. A. Waste. There is something substantively wrong with an economy whose primary purpose is to house the people who are employed by the housing industry. To be clear, that is not just a fancy turn of phrase — Canadian housing is presently consuming 37 per cent of investment capital in this country. Such an economy will not and cannot lead the world into the 21st century.
Such an economy is, at its core, stagnant — an economy where investing in a room with a view is more valuable than employing hundreds of people in actual productive work.
We need governments that can refocus economic incentives around real business value and promote programs that foster enduring products and services with economic potential beyond Airbnb. This will involve unwinding any number of perverse incentives designed to foster real estate growth at the expense of everything else.
Perversions such as basic bank lending.
Have you ever tried to get a restaurant loan in Canada or a loan to start your own business? Good luck to you if you don’t have a house to pledge as security. But when someone who wants to enter the real estate market asks the bank for money for a condo, even though that person could lose their income and ability to pay a mortgage tomorrow, banks compete to offer government rates for the privilege of lending that same money.
Or consider the principal residence exemption, which is usable over and over again by individuals for any amount of money garnered from the sale of their home, as long as they lived in it. Compare that to the sale of shares of an active Canadian business, which is tax-free only on an amount of less than a million dollars and, even then, is only available for use once in a lifetime.
These perverse incentives exist throughout our system and need to be addressed if this country is to continue to remain on course.
Canada is hooked on real estate. We need to detox fast for our sake, for our children’s future and, above all, for all future aspiring business creators who would seek to develop their skills in a system that encourages rather than punishes their efforts.
Do you have a strong opinion that could add insight, illuminate an issue in the news, or change how people think about an issue? We want to hear from you. Here’s how to pitch to us.
Returning to the Office
Unfortunately, the world’s economies are moving into or are in a Recession. A horrid word I know, but every decade or so it appears like an unwanted house guest.
Will a recession bring people back into the office? After 2 years of working from home, if you had that safety privilege-opportunity, many of us will be invited or perhaps forced to return to the office.
A Pew Research Center survey(2020) found that 64% of respondents polled had been working from home due to office closures due to the pandemic. By January 2022 61% were doing it because they wanted to. Employers allowed and even encouraged working from home while studying their employee’s progress and output.
Now we have found that we live in a job seekers marketplace, with companies offering higher wages and better perks to attract and keep potential employees. The “great resignation” of 2020-2021 has become the “great labour slackening” where employers feel emboldened-half of these employers believe in-office workers are more productive.
Many in the market believe employees will return to the office space, fearing the possibility of being laid off by employers requiring a sense of control and management. The same survey found that 14% of those who have returned to the office feared losing work opportunities while at home.
The Canadian National Society of High School Scholars found that 63% of their members wanted to go back to the office, while 23% considered working from home.
A recession places most businesses in a particularly difficult situation, that would not go well for their employees. Recessions traditionally bring with them cost-cutting avenues, repealing benefit packages, various benefits to the employee and staff, layoffs and terminations. Working from home also grants employers added benefits. Employee’s that work half-time at the office and their home office can save an employer $11,000 annually, while a full-time employee working from home would save them more. Negotiations between employers and employees working from home have and will carry on, where a person’s annual wage/salary will decline. The privilege of working at home has a cost, that of lower wages. Working from home can save an individual as much as $4-5,000 annually.
Businesses and employees have to consider what is best for themselves. The cost of hiring and retraining employees is very high, especially in this labour void we work in today.
A possible work-from-home strategy may be on its way, encouraged by governments, environmentalists and Sociologists. The Possible benefits such as less stress, driving to work, health and safety issues, and improved communication systems will certainly increase the likelihood that home-based work is a future trend.
UN: Multiple famines might be declared in 2022
Guterres warned that farmers in Asia, Africa and the Americas would be the hardest hit by the rising costs of fertilizer and fuel.
“There is a real risk that multiple famines will be declared in 2022, 2023 could be even worse. This year’s food access issues could become next year’s global food shortage. No country will be immune to the social and economic repercussions of such a catastrophe,” said Guterres.
In addition, the UN Secretary-General said the Russian attack on Ukraine exacerbated pre-existing problems and called for the release of Ukrainian agricultural products onto the world market to ease shortages as well as debt relief for indigent countries.
“The war in Ukraine has compounded problems that have been brewing for years, climate disruption, the COVID-19 pandemic and the deeply unequal recovery,” added Guterres.
However, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, said Western nations are deliberately stirring up tensions regarding Ukrainian grain exports.
Putin said Russia is not impeding exports, and criticized the West for its “cynical attitude” towards the food supply of the developing nations, which have been worst affected by soaring prices. He said rising inflation in the West was “a result of their own irresponsible macroeconomic policies.”
Furthermore, Putin said Russia is ready to provide free passage to international waters for ships carrying grain, adding that Russia had reached an “understanding” on that issue with the UN Secretariat.
Moreso, the Russian President suggested that the Ukrainian military should demine the country’s ports to further facilitate exports, and said “a constructive approach on Kiev’s part” is the only thing that is lacking and cited that Russia itself may be able to export between 37 and 50 tons of grain this year.
Canada can now seize, sell off Russian assets. What's next? – CBC News
Selling Russian-owned assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction may sound like a logical approach to restitution, but as the Canadian government gains new powers to begin this process, questions remain about how it will work, and whether some issues are headed to court.
C-19, the budget implementation bill, received Royal Assent last Thursday. Among its many measures are new powers to seize and sell off assets owned by individuals and entities on Canada’s sanctions list. While the new powers could be used in any international conflict, the Liberal government’s current priority is helping victims of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Canada’s stepped-up sanctions powers were discussed with U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her visit to Toronto last week.
“We think it’s really important to extend our legal authorities because it’s going to be really, really important to find the money to rebuild Ukraine,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told Canadian and American reporters. “I can think of no more appropriate source of that funding than confiscated Russian assets.”
That sentiment was shared by Ontario Sen. Ratna Omidvar who proposed her own Senate legislation to enable similar asset seizures two years ago. At the time she was motivated to help the displaced Rohingya population by sanctioning corrupt generals in Myanmar.
“Kleptocrats must pay for their crimes, not through simply being sanctioned and their assets being frozen, but by their assets being repurposed and confiscated,” said Omidvar.
Although C-19 will work a bit differently than her bill, Omidvar still calls it a “good start” and supports the government’s move.
“The question no longer is ‘if we should confiscate,'” the senator said. “The question is: ‘How should we repurpose? … Who’s involved? How do we provide accountability? How do we protect ourselves?'”
Test cases expected
Although some jurisdictions, notably Switzerland, already confiscate and return certain illicit assets, this move by Canada — and potentially other G7 countries meeting in Germany this week — is unprecedented.
Allies agree on the imperative of cranking up more economic pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin, but it’s still a risky play. Other hostile governments could seize Canadian-owned assets abroad in retaliation. It also may violate customary international law, such as the UN Articles on states responsibility.
The new powers target assets in Canada owned by an individual or entity on the federal government’s sanctions list. Previously, authorities could seize the proceeds of crime. With C-19, they can confiscate the assets of sanctioned individuals whether they’re acquired legally or illegally.
Is that fair? Omidvar anticipates the new powers being challenged in Canadian court. “I keep thinking we need a couple of test cases,” she said.
I’m very excited that Bill <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/C19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#C19</a>, which includes the essence of the Frozen Assets Repurposing Act, has passed: <a href=”https://t.co/iR1O2oGSCA”>https://t.co/iR1O2oGSCA</a> Thank you to <a href=”https://twitter.com/wrmcouncil?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@wrmcouncil</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/lloydaxworthy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@lloydaxworthy</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/AllanMRock?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@AllanMRock</a> & <a href=”https://twitter.com/fenhampson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@fenhampson</a> for helping make this possible! <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/S217?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#S217</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/cdnpoli?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#cdnpoli</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/SenCA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#SenCA</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/SenLucieMoncion?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>@SenLucieMoncion</a> <a href=”https://t.co/fCGgPpQR9c”>pic.twitter.com/fCGgPpQR9c</a>
The senator’s original bill proposed seizing and redistributing assets by court order, with a judge adjudicating concerns.
C-19 puts more power in ministerial hands, something that is “faster and nimbler,” Omidvar acknowledges, but also less transparent.
During debate in the Senate, Omidvar called on the government to take “politics out of the equation” so Canada would not be accused of inappropriate distribution of funds, “or worse, appropriation of funds for its own use.”
When asked about the legality of these new powers earlier this month, Justice Minister David Lametti said “you don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada,” and compared it to other processes of government expropriation.
Adrien Blanchard, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly, told CBC News that “necessary checks and balances” are provided in C-19, including a formal judicial process to forfeit any asset.
“Procedural fairness was a key consideration in the development of these measures, and forfeiture proceedings before a judge are not automatic,” Joly’s spokesperson said.
Privacy rules limit disclosure
Omidvar’s bill would have created a registry with the name of any person or entity associated with a seized asset and its value. There’s no such disclosure requirement in C-19, so this could be a difficult process to track once it starts.
One or more court cases could trigger more public disclosure.
When the RCMP reported earlier this month that Canadian authorities have frozen the equivalent of $124 million in assets so far, it was unable to reveal what these assets are — cash, bonds, cryptocurrency, corporate shares, real estate or other property — because of the Privacy Act.
The minister of foreign affairs may issue permits on a case-by-case basis to authorize activities or transactions that would otherwise be prohibited, but only to people in Canada or Canadians abroad. When asked if any such permits have been issued related to Canada’s sanctions against Russia, Global Affairs Canada would not comment, again citing privacy concerns.
One of the prominent Russian oligarchs on Canada’s sanctions list, Roman Abramovich, holds around 30 per cent of the shares of Evraz, a global steel manufacturer that employs over 1,800 people at its facilities in Western Canada.
CBC News asked Evraz North America whether any of its shares or business properties were among assets frozen by Canada so far, but the company did not respond.
Separate from its powers to seize assets, the budget implementation bill also implements a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry to make it easier to trace the ownership of anonymous shell companies. That could reveal more about Russian assets in Canada.
However, a business that’s registered provincially instead of incorporated federally would only appear in the national registry if provinces and territories agree to participate — if they don’t agree, there is a potential loophole, Omidvar warned her Senate colleagues during debate.
Who gets the proceeds?
Omidvar’s original bill would have required the recipient of redistributed funds to report back to a court on its use.
C-19 puts the minister of foreign affairs in charge of who gets the money and what happens to it.
“Operationalizing this is going to be a little bit of a challenge,” said fellow senator and former G7 sherpa Peter Boehm. “This is all very, very new.”
The former senior Global Affairs official suggests the government needs to get safeguards in place.
“What is the mechanism? To whom should these assets go? Do they go to individuals? Do they go to state actors?” Boehm said, noting that Canada may want to coordinate with other like-minded countries and UN agencies, like the World Food Program. “There are a lot of questions there… we need to know and the Canadian people would want to know where this money is going and if it’s being properly spent.”
The G7 considered asset seizures previously, Boehm said. He expects they could feature in at least behind-the-scenes conversations this week, if not the final communiqué.
“The leaders meetings internationally are timed, I think, very well,” he said.
“Ukraine, historically… has struggled with corruption issues,” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow with the Centre for a New American Security who advises companies and countries on sanctions policy. “There have been a lot of strides made… but it’s still not at the level of a developed economy.”
Working through the International Monetary Fund, or setting up a trust fund that would vet recipients and add more reporting to the process could add more certainty, she suggested.
Russian central bank has reserves in Canada
Taxpayers in Canada, the U.S. or other countries don’t want to bear the full cost of this war, Ziemba said, but as governments embark on asset seizures they also have to be concerned about the message it sends on what jurisdictions are safe for foreign investment.
“There are a lot of legal questions ahead,” she said.
According to recent reporting on Russian Central Bank reserves, about $20 billion might be held in Canada — a far more significant sum in the context of Ukrainian reconstruction than the $124 million in frozen assets disclosed so far.
“The Russian Central Bank and some of its investment funds over the last decade [were] really focused on trying to reduce its exposure to U.S. dollars,” Ziemba explains. Canadian reserve assets and government bonds were attractive because they were both stable and got more yield than comparable investments in Japan or the European Union.
In other words: a small slice of Canada’s debt is held by Russia. “The only saving grace is that the amount they have is not so much they can hold much leverage,” Ziemba said.
Russia’s central bank is on Canada’s sanctions list. Should these reserves be seized and handed over to Ukraine too?
Yellen’s argued against doing this in the U.S., even though it could provide more funds to rebuild Ukraine.
“That might send a message to other countries that are investing in [international currency and bond] markets,” Ziemba said — think of China’s buying power, for example. “That, I think, is why the [U.S.] treasury department and even the [U.S. federal reserve] are wary of these moves.”
Are asset sales imminent?
Earlier this month, CBC News asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whether Canada intended to sell the full amount of assets frozen so far. He declined to answer, saying “there are lots of conversations going on” and Canada was “a long way” from deciding how proceeds would be spent.
But when the Senate foreign affairs committee pre-studied C-19 in May, officials said the government will move quickly.
“The intent is definitely to start identifying assets to pursue and to freeze and forfeit them shortly after Royal Assent is received for Bill C-19,” said Alexandre Lévêque, the assistant deputy minister for strategic policy at Global Affairs Canada.
In its report, that Senate committee said the government needs “to monitor on an ongoing basis the ways in which repurposed funds are used and to learn from the early examples of the new powers being implemented.”
Metals haven't crashed this hard since the Great Recession – MINING.COM – MINING.com
Rocket Lab’s CAPSTONE mission to the moon is key to establishing a lunar space station – TechCrunch
1PointFive and Manulife Investment Management announce lease agreement for a carbon capture and sequestration project in Louisiana – GlobeNewswire
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
Economy17 hours ago
India's Economy Shows Spark on Pent-Up Demand After Reopenings – BNN
Sports15 hours ago
Lightning’s Brayden Point remains out of lineup for Game 6 – Sportsnet.ca
Politics22 hours ago
Politicians should admit their dumb mistakes | TheSpec.com – Hamilton Spectator
Sports14 hours ago
Andreescu's 3-year title drought extended at Wimbledon tune-up in Germany – CBC Sports
Science13 hours ago
New Zealand Says It's Set to 'Star' in NASA's Return to the Moon – BNN
Politics21 hours ago
How much influence should politicians have over police? – CBC.ca
Art3 hours ago
Welcome to Drag: The performance art celebrating gender fluidity – Queen's Journal
Economy15 hours ago
China's Economy Improves in June From Lockdown-Induced Slump – BNN