Global Affairs Canada goes on real estate spending spree, taxpayers foot the bill

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Records obtained by the CTF show Clark’s lavish condo is just the tip of the iceberg, with the department dropping taxpayer cash on other luxury properties around the world.

Official residences in other countries: $38 million.

Properties in Afghanistan abandoned to the Taliban: $41 million.

Vacant land in Senegal: $12.5 million.

A chancery in Ukraine: $10.2 million.

Those are some of the holdings in Global Affairs Canada’s real estate portfolio, which has cost taxpayers $186 million in the past 10 years alone.

All told, Global Affairs Canada owns more than 400 properties in more than 70 countries, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

“Do we really need the government dropping tens of millions of dollars on official residences half-way around the world?” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Better question, does Senegal not have vacant land available for less than eight figures?

“With the government more than $1 trillion in debt, taxpayers need to know why the government is spending so much of our money overseas.”

Global Affairs Canada is embroiled in controversy after it purchased a $9-million luxury condo for New York Consul General Tom Clark amid a housing and cost-of-living crisis.

The records obtained by the CTF show Clark’s lavish condo is just the tip of the iceberg, with the department dropping taxpayer cash on other luxury properties around the world.

Global Affairs Canada has spent $38.4 million on official residences since 2014, including New Zealand ($2.4 million), Barbados ($3.8 million) and Trinidad and Tobago ($2.5 million), among others.

In London, U.K., Global Affairs Canada spent $58 million on 23 properties since 2015, all of which serve as “staff quarters,” according to the records. All told, Global Affairs Canada owns 65 properties in London purchased for $208 million.

In Kabul, Afghanistan, Global Affairs Canada spent $41 million on three properties in late 2018 and 2019, which have since been abandoned to the Taliban.

Prior to the first property in Kabul being purchased, the U.S. had already begun negotiations with the Taliban for an end to the Afghanistan War.

Seven months after Global Affairs Canada purchased the last property in Kabul, the U.S. struck a deal with the Taliban for the withdrawal of American troops from the country.

On Aug. 15, 2021, Canada pulled its presence from Afghanistan.

“We have … been unable to inspect the state of these properties since that date,” Global Affairs Canada told the CTF in a written statement.

In October 2021, the Globe and Mail reported that “Islamist militants now guard the former headquarters of Canada’s diplomatic mission in the Afghan capital.”

“This is a lot of taxpayers’ money to spend on new property in Afghanistan when our ally had already been clear it was preparing to leave,” Terrazzano said. “Canadian taxpayers are out $41 million and the Taliban now has new digs, so is anyone in government going to answer for the decision to purchase these properties?”

In Kyiv, Ukraine, Global Affairs Canada purchased a chancery for $10.2 million in 2017.

In Senegal, a country in West Africa, Global Affairs Canada bought $12.5 million worth of “vacant land” in 2022.

“Global Affairs Canada’s real estate portfolio is bloated and the taxpayer tab is ludicrous,” Terrazzano said. “Someone in government must explain what value taxpayers are supposedly getting for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on all these lavish properties in far flung countries.

“And if Canadians aren’t getting real value, then it’s time to sell off properties so taxpayers can recoup some of this money.”

Up Next

Emissions cap threatens Indigenous communities with higher costs, fewer opportunities

Don't Miss

The “GST Holiday”… A Smokescreen For Scandal

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 7 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.

In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.

According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.

According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.

The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.

Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.

Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.

And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.