Jesse Kline: Mark Carney fast tracks the road to serfdom
Have you heard the good news: our federal, provincial and territorial leaders all agree on the pressing need to build the critical infrastructure necessary to develop our natural resources, get them to market and turn Canada into an 'energy superpower.'
Article content
Yet despite all the optimism and goodwill expressed by Prime Minister Mark Carney and his provincial counterparts following the first ministers' meeting in Saskatoon on Monday, it's readily apparent that the seeds of disunity and obstructionism are already taking root.
Article content
Article content
Article content
At a Monday press conference, the leaders made a point of highlighting that this is a 'generational opportunity,' and that they are united in their quest to tear down internal trade barriers and build critical infrastructure.
Article content
Article content
'We are united. We're going to move this country forward, the likes of which we've never seen before,' said Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
Article content
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe called this 'a generational opportunity for Canadians,' while Manitoba's Wab Kinew noted that it's also a 'generational opportunity for some of the poorest communities in our country.'
Article content
Even Alberta Premier Danielle Smith expressed cautious optimism that the process will bear fruit for her province.
Article content
But, as usual, the devil will be in the details, and Carney spent an inordinate amount of time going over all the fine print.
Article content
While he promised to work 'with the provinces, the territories and Indigenous peoples to identify and expedite nation-building projects,' the catch is that they will have to be deemed to be 'in the national interest' by the Liberal brain trust, along with provincial and Aboriginal leaders who represent a host of often competing interests throughout this geographically and culturally diverse country.
Article content
Article content
To be in the 'national interest,' Carney said that prospective projects will have to 'strengthen the Canadian economy, strengthen our autonomy, our resilience, our security, providing undeniable benefits to Canada, have a high likelihood of successful execution, be a high priority for Indigenous leaders and … drive Canada's clean growth potential.'
Article content
Article content
Which pretty much gives politicians license to reject any project for any reason at all.
Article content
Premier Ford did express confidence in the prime minister's ability to create the 'environment and conditions for people to come here, companies to come here and invest,' which is exactly what we need.
Article content
But it's hard to imagine too many businesses risking their time, energy and capital when they know their investment could be flushed down the drain if the mandarins in the Canadian politburo think it doesn't meet Carney's criteria of being 'in the national interest,' having sufficient 'Indigenous participation, advancing clean energy' and providing 'material benefits to Canadians.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
20 minutes ago
- CBC
New U.S. travel ban is 'cruel,' Myanmar association in Ontario says
The head of an association for the Myanmar community in Ontario says a new travel ban announced by U.S. President Donald Trump is "cruel" to the people of his country. Napas Thein, president of the Burma Canadian Association of Ontario, says the people of Myanmar are already facing difficulties in their own country with a military coup and new law mandating military service, and the ban will make it harder to move to a safer place. He says members of his community in Canada will not be allowed into the United States to study or visit due to the new ban, which takes effect Monday. Thein says he and others from the Myanmar diaspora who are Canadian citizens feel uneasy about crossing the border and some have already started cancelling plans to attend conferences or visit their families in the United States. WATCH | Trump defends travel ban: Trump defends travel ban on 12 countries: 'We don't want them' 16 hours ago Duration 2:02 U.S. President Donald Trump defended banning entry to citizens of twelve countries and imposing stiff travel restrictions on seven other countries. Trump said he's focused on countries that pose a terror threat, have a history of visa violations or lack safe travel documentation systems. Trump announced Wednesday that citizens of 12 countries — Myanmar, Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — would be banned from visiting the United States. Seven more countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela — face heightened travel restrictions. Some of the 12 countries on the banned list were targeted by a similar measure Trump enacted in his first term. Dawit Demoz, vice-president of the Eritrean Canadian Community Centre in Toronto, says his organization is "deeply concerned" about the implications of the new travel ban for the Eritrean diaspora. He says many families in the Eritrean community south of the border remain separated due to the ongoing political and humanitarian crisis in their home country, and the new ban further complicates their efforts to reunite. "[The ban] creates additional fear and uncertainty for those seeking safety and connection across borders," he said. "For our community, policies like this do not just impact travel but they deepen isolation, delay reunification and compound the emotional toll experienced by displaced individuals."
Vancouver Sun
28 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Canada's housing crisis calls for more than ‘cranes on the skyline'
This week three of four Canadians declared they have no confidence in Prime Minister Mark Carney's ideas for solving the country's housing affordability crisis. Like most premiers and mayors, Carney is promising to 'build, baby, build' to stimulate a record amount of housing construction. But Angus Reid Institute polling suggests the public is more than skeptical, perhaps in despair. While voters understandably get lost in the complexities of solving a house-price catastrophe that sees average prices at a ridiculous $1.2 million in Greater Vancouver and $1.1 million in Toronto, at least one veteran housing analyst is making a clear and devastating case that Canada's dilemma is being significantly fanned by a wave of investors. Stay on top of the latest real estate news and home design trends. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Westcoast Homes will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. John Pasalis, author of a new report titled The Great Sell Off: How Our Homes Became Someone Else's Business , says politicians are abandoning people who want to live in their homes, and they're selling a generation of voters a 'fantasy' that their worn ideas will lead to affordability, he writes. 'As long as politicians and housing economists insist that 'more supply' is the only solution — ignoring the financial dynamics driving demand from investors — we will continue to fall short. This is not just a supply problem. It's a financialization problem, and solving it requires more than cranes on the skyline,' writes Pasalis, president of Realosophy. 'We are at a crossroads. For too long, we've operated under the assumption that today's housing market is simply a more expensive version of the one our parents knew. It isn't. We are living through a paradigm shift — one in which homes are no longer primarily bought by local families, but by global investors. Housing has become a financial asset unbound from local incomes, and policy has yet to catch up.' Last year 30 per cent of all homes in Canada were owned by investors —domestic and foreign — who buy properties they don't intend to occupy. That's a 50-per cent jump in 10 years. In B.C., an incredible half of all condos built in the past decade have been snapped up by investors. In Ontario, the proportion is 57 per cent. Pasalis says government policies are largely to blame. The frenzy of investment is forging two big problems. First, it's excluding younger generations from home ownership. Second, it's creating a bizarre economy where investment money passively goes into hoarding homes, rather than into business innovation and creating good jobs. Who are the investors? The answer may hit close to home for many readers. As opposed to 'end users' who live in the dwellings they buy, Pasalis says there is a tremendous range of investors. 'From a family purchasing a home near a university for their child — renting it out when it's not in use — to foreign investors buying condo units on speculation, and billion-dollar corporations acquiring low-rise houses to rent out in communities across Canada and the U.S. — all fall under the broad category of investors.' Alas, most politicians show no interest in curtailing this giant cohort. One reason may be that many politicians are themselves investors: A study in 2023 found almost two in five federal MPs are real estate financiers or landlords . We don't know if Carney owns investment property because he's not making public his personal assets , which he says are in a blind trust. Also, most politicians rely heavily on property developers for donations. Carney, for instance, took part in a Liberal party fundraiser in Vancouver in February that included a who's who of B.C. property developers. 'Canada has built an economy where the best way to get rich isn't to invent, create or build anything, it's to own homes and wait for prices to rise,' says Pasalis. That means the usual free-market belief that increasing supply to meet demand will eventually lower prices does not stand up in regard to houses. That's because homes are not like manufactured widgets, such as vacuum cleaners. One big difference with widgets, says Pasalis, is housing is a 'human necessity.' The other is that widgets, once bought, go down in price. Homes tend to appreciate. Pasalis describes how an affordable house used to be one that costs four times a household's annual income. Now, in Toronto the actual ratio is a grim 10 to one. In Vancouver it's a destructive 12 to one. As if that isn't bad enough, the industry's addiction to investors is causing the wrong kinds of homes to be built. 'Investors tend to drive up condo prices beyond what they would be in a more balanced market because of their better access to capital than end users,' says Pasalis, noting that global access to wealth, credit and leverage for some is almost limitless. 'Equally as important, investors have come to shape the projects that developers build — small units that offer the highest returns.' Metro Vancouver and Toronto offer prime examples of this problem — with their flood of tiny new apartments in towers, which can most easily be rented. It would be better if developers built more medium-rise, three-bedroom dwellings suitable for young families. What can governments do to help so many who are frozen out of the market — especially the almost three in five young and middle-aged adults who told a TD Bank survey they feel buying a home is unattainable? Reducing record population growth is one thing. But the best way to fight investment mania is to make it less lucrative, says Pasalis. One of Pasalis's ideas (there are many in his clearly written 82-page report) is to hike taxes on the way investors profit from their dwelling's increasing value, referred to as capital gains. 'Today, capital gains from real estate are taxed at a lower rate than income,' Pasalis says. 'The solution is to remove this preferential tax treatment and tax any capital gains from single-family homes used as investment properties at the same rate as income.' Such a tax reform would not be meant to be a punishment, but a realignment of incentives, says Pasalis. Developers and most politicians will no doubt protest. Yet Pasalis is dead-on that Canada is going through a housing paradigm shift— and revolutionary new solutions must be attempted. dtodd@
CTV News
30 minutes ago
- CTV News
Chow, Ford strike collaborative tone on future of Toronto bike lanes
Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow appear to have found middle ground on the future of bike lanes in the city as the province looks to rip up 19 kilometres of cycling infrastructure on three major roads. Chow said Friday that city staff have identified areas where car lanes can be restored while keeping bike lanes intact and that her team is currently looking at technical drawings to determine their feasibility. 'So, I think that's a solution that can be arrived at through collaboration, which is what we're doing right now,' Chow said after joking that she and Ford rode a tandem bicycle to Friday's unrelated news. Ford's government passed legislation last year to remove sections of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue. The legislation also requires that municipalities ask the province for permission to install a bike lane if a lane for cars would be removed. In April, lawyers for a cycling advocacy group challenging the removal of those bike lanes were granted an injunction, which paused the provincial plans until a judge decides on the constitutionality of the case. The Ontario government is appealing that decision. Ford lashed out at what he called 'bleeding heart judges' following the injunction being granted and suggested that Ontario should elect their judges, like they do in the U.S. However, he struck a more agreeable tone on Friday. 'I want to work collaboratively with the mayor, and when it comes to the bike lanes, we had a clear mandate in the last election, but the fact is, we're talking about three bike lanes, and hopefully we can find alternatives and work with the mayor and with the city staff. That's what we want to do,' Ford said, adding that he doesn't 'hate bike riders or bike lanes.' Ford said while the conversations about bike lanes on Bloor, Yonge and University are ongoing, '98 per cent' of the city's other bike lanes would be 'left alone.' It's unclear which areas along those three major streets have been identified as viable options to reintroduce a car lane, but a source familiar with the plan told The Canadian Press in April that it includes returning two car lanes to University Avenue near the city's hospital row, and narrowing the bike lanes and removing on-street parking. The province didn't reject the idea and said it was 'open' to the idea, so long as the city funds their portion of 'their identified infrastructure needs.' With files from The Canadian Press
