One of my summer highlights is to feast on fresh, aromatic, colourful stone fruits. Peaches, nectarines, cherries and apricots — which all have a hard, stonelike pit in the centre, hence the name — make summer days all the more enjoyable. Early in the season, we get them from sun-washed California, and they are sold by weight in grocery stores and fruiteries: $2.99 for a pound of yellow nectarines; $3.99 for white peaches. As the season progresses, you get a feel for the price.And in a couple of weeks, Ontario produce will hit the market and, qualitywise, that’s when the real party begins. Yet, what confuses me every year is that, as opposed to U.S. produce, which is sold by the pound, Ontario produce is sold by volume, typically in three-litre containers.While we all know that three litres of water weighs three kilograms, converting fruit volume to weight isn’t that trivial.Here is a quick quiz for you:What is the weight of one litre of strawberries? What about 551 millilitres (one U.S. dry pint) of blueberries?Tricky, right?So when you soon encounter a three-litre container of Niagara-on-the-Lake peaches, say for $8 a box, how would you compare the price to the peaches you buy by weight from the U. S.?Most Ontarians and Quebecers are probably familiar with the three-litre containers sold from July through October by Vineland Growers, a distributor and marketer of Ontario stone fruits, all grown on family farms. According to its website, Vineland Growers is the longest continually run co-operative in Ontario, dating back to 1913.“Our tree fruit industry, along with other industries (berry pints/quarts) have used volume for as long as time,” Matthew Ecker, a sales and marketing executive with Vineland Growers, said in an email when I inquired about the co-operative’s choice of using volume as the primary measure, as opposed to weight.Ecker adds “the measure of volume has always been used because when fruit is being packed on the farms, most growers don’t weigh the individual packages because their job is to fill the basket, pint, quart etc. Adding the process of weighing fresh product adds extra unnecessary steps on an already perishable item that needs to be sold immediately to the consumers.”These are all valid points, but they don’t help resolve consumers’ confusion with respect to the actual weight (and therefore value) of a fruit container that they purchase. Moreover, since people know by heart the “three litres of water = three kilograms” equation, many tend to extrapolate it to all three-litre containers — including those that contain fruits, rather than liquids. But this reasoning would usually work to one’s detriment since when it comes to fruit, a random container will always have bigger volume units (litres) than weight units (kilograms). As a matter of fact, significantly bigger.To prove my point, I did a little experiment. I weighed 20 different 551 ml plastic containers of blueberries using a digital scale at my local supermarket. The average weight was just about 300 grams (remember my quiz?), but differences across containers were quite small — the lightest container weighed 285 grams and the heaviest 310 grams. Adding a short statement like “approximate weight: 300 grams” could have provided valuable information to consumers.Similarly, Vineland and other growers should add approximate weight statements to their fruit containers. This should be easily done (based on a random sample of a few dozen boxes) and wouldn’t require putting each and every box on the scale. After all, the currently used three-litre measure is also just an approximation since different sizes and shapes of fruits fill containers in different ways.You think that plastic containers are confusing? Wait until you visit one of Montreal’s public markets (MPM) to try to figure out the weight of the produce you buy.I’m a huge fan of MPM, but as much as I love supporting the local vendors and farmers, assessing the value of fruit baskets sold in the stands is very challenging.At Atwater Market, for example, “petits fruits” (blackberries, raspberries, etc.) are often sold in a rectangle-shaped plastic tray with no indication whatsoever of the weight. To make things even worse, a common practice is to place each tray inside another much deeper, somewhat hidden tray. This creates a visual illusion that the container has much more fruit than it actually has. Judge for yourself by the picture.Nicolas Fabien-Ouellet, general director of MPM wrote in an email statement, that “we take transparency very seriously” and that “we encourage all our traders to have the best business practices.”Moreover, according to Fabien-Ouellet the selling practice described above is acceptable since “the law provides flexibility for vendors to advertise prices according to weight, volume or units.”This is all fine, but as a frequent shopper to the market, my impression is that in this strategic game with asymmetrical information, vendors have a big edge over consumers.With soaring food prices, consumers are more price sensitive. Three-litre containers, double plastic trays, American dry pints (seriously?), and even bushels create confusion and, in some cases, mistrust. It’s the role of local farmers, market vendors and food agencies to create a more transparent marketplace by clearly presenting the weight (in grams or pounds) of fresh produce sold.Being able to make informed decisions, consumers will enjoy even more what the Canadian summer has to offer.Amir Barnea is an associate professor of finance at HEC Montréal and a freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @abarnea1SHARE:

The federal government, and frankly all Canadians, should be very concerned about Rogers’ anti-competitive process to sell Freedom Mobile to Vidéotron as part of its proposed merger with Shaw.When the process began, Globalive saw an opportunity to buy back Freedom Mobile, the company we founded in 2008 as WIND Mobile and operated until 2015, to bring more innovation and better pricing and services to a starved mobile market in Canada.But preferring the interest of its shareholders and ownership to the interests of Canadians, and to the detriment of the government’s pro-competitive policies, Rogers has selectively guided the sale process of Freedom Mobile. Despite offering more than $900 million more than Vidéotron (a subsidiary of Quebecor Inc.), Globalive was blocked from the process without legitimate reason because Rogers is evidently looking to ensure that the oligopoly status quo is maintained by hand-picking a buyer in Vidéotron, which will offer the least possible competition for them and, subsequently, for Canadians.What is clear is that Vidéotron is not a pure-play wireless carrier and as a regional cable business, it has an exposed flank that an independent operator like Globalive does not. It simply cannot afford a retaliatory strike from Rogers, Bell, or TELUS in Quebec if it genuinely competes in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta via Freedom Mobile.Why would Rogers block Globalive from the process? Because Rogers is afraid to compete.Competition forces incumbents to innovate, and it ultimately delivers more services and better pricing to Canadians.Take, for example, when Globalive operated WIND Mobile. We introduced industry-changing innovation, including unlimited data and unlimited, low-fee U.S. roaming, services that are still relevant today and offered by all major incumbents. During WIND Mobile’s time in the market, average wireless prices in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta, where WIND operated, decreased by 21 per cent, translating to an average household savings of $400 per year.These changes to Canada’s wireless industry were due to the innovation brought forth by a pure-play, independent carrier that had to compete solely using lower pricing.And Canada isn’t the only country where this type of disruption has benefited consumers. The introduction of a pure-play wireless carrier has been proven to promote genuine competition in markets like the U.S., as demonstrated by the success of T-Mobile.Introduced to the market as the “Un-carrier,” T-Mobile has continued to disrupt the American wireless industry, bringing U.S. consumers nearly-free international roaming, unlimited data and more transparent pricing via eliminated wireless service and access fees.Intense national competition in the U.S. over the past 20 years, much of which was ushered in during the introduction of T-Mobile, is largely credited for why U.S. subscribers now save $130 billion (U.S.) annually in wireless plan costs, compared to pricing before T-Mobile was in the market. It’s worth noting that T-Mobile is now also the fastest growing internet provider in the U.S., all done over wireless broadband and without the need for legacy fibre or cable connections. This is what the most modern wireless service in the world looks like.By contrast, Canada is in the Dark Ages and consumers are paying the price. Literally.If Globalive succeeds to buy back the business we started, we will operate as the independent pure-play carrier Canadians need and deserve, building on the innovation created during the WIND era, developing greater industry competition, and bring Canadians more affordable and new wireless services.Rogers says the Quebecor deal will “ensure the continuation of a highly competitive market,” but in what universe does it make sense for Rogers to be able to choose their own competitor? Government intervention is needed for this exact reason. The Commissioner of Competition has held firm in enforcing the Competition Act by blocking the merger of Rogers and Shaw because he knows how anti-competitive it is. We are confident that the actions of Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Philippe Champagne will reflect this as well. Respected industry authorities, such as John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, have also recently identified the lack of competition that Vidéotron would bring to the market, reiterating the facts that we know to be true.Globalive will continue to advocate for the best possible buyer for this business, leading the charge to bring true competition and innovation to Canada’s wireless industry, and shining a light on this flawed process that could ultimately end up cheating Canadians out of what is in their best interest.Anthony Lacavera is founder and chairman of Globalive.SHARE:

While the pace of technology and artificial intelligence advances at galloping speeds, the world of work is changing right before our eyes. Our lives are so intertwined and dependent on technology that most of us don’t think about the impact on our jobs.Most Canadians aren’t aware that in 2019, the Canadian government, specifically, the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, established an advisory council to, “identify opportunities to create economic growth that benefits all Canadians, and ensuring that AI advancements reflect Canadian values.” The council consists of industry leaders and experts who are tasked with developing Canada’s national strategy and policy on artificial intelligence. There are also two working groups which examine commercialization of AI, and find ways to raise awareness of AI and foster public trust in AI.The creation of such a working group implies that the public is still largely distrustful of emerging technologies.But, the larger problem is the makeup of the council. It doesn’t include any unions or worker representatives but consists of industry leaders and members from academia. The problem here is that history has shown the dangers of allowing business to regulate itself and, due to cuts to education, universities are increasingly funded by private enterprises. That such a monumental undertaking is being done by an exclusive group without input from a wide array of perspectives that makeup “the public” should be concerning to both the government and the public.In the fall of 2021, The International Association of Machinists came out with a report titled “Charting Change: Workers’ Voices in an Automated World.” The purpose of the report is to determine the extent of technological change, and identify sectors where it is happening fastest with the goal of developing strategies to, ultimately, protect jobs.Technology powered by AI is already impacting workplaces by transforming jobs, but also by further perpetuating the disproportionate increase in workers’ productivity versus slow growth in wages. Technological change in its most extreme form results in job losses, which, if left unaddressed can become a broader social problem. Equally important to consider is how new technologies restructure labour markets through the rise of remote work, and virtual and augmented reality platforms.New platforms have the ability to erode full-time employment, resulting in more precarious, individualized terms and conditions of work that open unprecedented possibilities for exploitation and control of workers. With unionization rates and union density falling, employers will gain the upper hand in employment relationships. The council likely won’t take this under consideration.Adoption of technology isn’t only about cost savings, there are many drivers that rationalize technological advancements. A key driver, and one that’s been top of mind for the last few months, are labour shortages, which are now endemic to many sectors. For years, unions and the International Association of Machinists in particular, have raised concerns over impending shortages, and the need to invest in training programs. For years, both levels of government have taken a laissez-faire approach on this issue, and likely hoped that the market would adjust itself.There are also social impacts of major technological shifts that ought to be accounted for. Each major technological shift was followed by an adjustment period that resulted in new social systems, and often, without adequate preparation and proactive steps, systems lagged behind changes by decades, while the brunt of changes is borne by those with limited resources and opportunities. It is known that workers who are low and mid-skilled are most vulnerable to automation, but AI holds immense potential to affect even highly skilled workers.We must also not forget the susceptibility of communities’ dependent on a single industry, after all, we’ve seen devastating effects on small communities when a major employer shuts operations down.Progress cannot be stopped, nor do unions seek to stand in the way of change. Rather, throughout history unions have played a critical role in transforming social systems in response to major technological shifts. Unions can be a partner in easing some of the social and economic pressures on our existing systems through innovative work arrangements that help workers who would otherwise rely on social programs, stay connected to the labour market. Moreover, for private sector unions, rendering employers less competitive results in job losses, and no union wants to cause that.The United States and the European Union have developed comprehensive strategies, and in both instances, labour was part and parcel of the process. Democratic societies are rooted in public debates from a variety of perspectives, and although it may make the task of developing a single policy challenging, ultimately, the end result is a superior policy.Business can’t speak to the perspective of unions, just as unions don’t speak for business. It’s alarming that those who will be most impacted by this strategy are not at the table, so that ordinary Canadians, workers like you and I, aren’t shortchanged.David Chartrand is the Canadian general vice-president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.SHARE:

If the passwords to your Instagram profile, bank account, and UberEats app are all variations on the name of your favourite band, 1Password CEO Jeff Shiner wants a word with you. We all have way too many passwords — between 50 and 100 each, according to some estimates — floating around the ether. Most are probably variations on one another — a dangerous yet unsurprising workaround for those of us unable to remember dozens of unique passwords.That said, password managers are one way to keep everything straight — and Toronto-based 1Password is among the best-known. Today, 1Password boasts over 100,000 business customers, a $798-million round last January, and a CEO equally comfortable talking about Lego and his company’s robust security measures.At Toronto’s recent Collision tech conference in Toronto, 1Password debuted Insights, a way for business subscribers to monitor security risks — and improve security practices. “We’re here to protect the human being,” Shiner said. “That is, to me, our number one goal.”He spoke to the Star at Collision about tech’s choppy waters, whether 1Password will ever go public, and how he’d respond if someone successfully breached his company’s security:A lot of public tech companies have lost a lot of valuation on the markets right now. 1Password is privately held — how have you folks been weathering the current market situation?Up until 2019, we had never taken any funding. We were 13 years old at the time — never taken any funding, never taken any debt. We were fully bootstrapped. It wasn’t a case that we needed the money by any means. We’ve got over 100,000 paying businesses. We don’t need the funding to continue. When we look at the situation now, where there are certainly some rough waters from a macroeconomics point of view, we look at it the same. We’re never going to need to raise money.If the market is not in a place where it makes sense to raise money, we don’t really have to worry about it. It’s just a matter of, from my perspective, being very thoughtful about how we spend our money. We’re still growing. We’re still hiring.Do you ever see yourself taking 1Password public?It’s certainly on the table. Not this year (laughs). Like everything we’ve ever done, it will be because it makes sense for us to do so, not because there’s any overriding need to go public or need to raise more money. There are some benefits, obviously of going public in terms of raising additional capital if it makes sense for us to place some bigger bets. From my perspective, I want to get in a place where we can be ready to do so, so we can make the decision. But by no means is it something that we have to do hard and fast.1Password is one of the biggest password managers in the world. I’m sure that makes you a target for hackers. How do you balance the security you need to keep businesses safe, while also making it easy for people to use?We’re always looking at that boundary of security and convenience. We made a decision right at the beginning, when we built the system-as-a-service side of it, that we have no keys. We have no technical ability to decrypt any of that data. There’s two reasons for that. When you put your information into 1Password you now know, no matter what happens, we can’t get at it. We can’t see that information. That helps keep you comfortable in your privacy.It also makes us less of a target because we make that very public. We have a white paper that details all of our security. It makes us less of a target. Of course, we try and protect all our data and we’ve got very good security in place, but at the same time, if that data was taken, the hackers can’t decrypt it either. And so, the very fact that we don’t have any ability to decrypt it means that anybody who would want to try and get that data would also have no ability to decrypt it.What happens if law enforcement asks you to unlock it?Again, we have no technical ability to decrypt the data. If law enforcement came along and said “we believe you’ve done something and we need your data” — even if were to give them that data, there’s nothing they can do about it. And there’s nothing they can force us to do about it. We have no technical ability to decrypt that data. None. We don’t have the keys. The only person it does good is you — because you’re the only person who has the keys to decrypt it. Does it frustrate you that addressing human-caused security issues is so difficult?Yeah, I mean, what do they say? Eighty-five per cent of all breaches have a human element? It’s not that people are trying to do things the wrong way. It’s that people aren’t aware there are easy solutions. That’s our number one goal — can we make it easy for humans to be secure? I like to sometimes say: “Be good by being lazy.” If we can make the easy way the good way, we’re in good shape.The number of people who are running the old “I’m from the federal tax authorities and all you have to do is pay with Apple gift cards” gambit — and people fall for it. It’s sad, and it’s frustrating, because the victims are not people that can afford to fall for these.Are there any emerging threats that keep you up at night that aren’t an issue yet, but might be in the next five to 10 years?Shadow IT is here now, but I think it will continue to be more and more significant. It’s nothing other than software that your business doesn’t know you’re running. If you went to Collision, talked to Company X, and downloaded their app — all of a sudden you, as an employee, are sitting there putting in company data to this app. And your IT has no idea. So if you move on to a different role or you move out of the company now that data is sitting there. Nobody ever knew it was there in the first place to defend against.Software-as-a-service apps have been around for years, but because of the hybrid work and work-from-home environment, everybody is moving to SaaS apps all over the place. We think of Zoom as an example. You’re just as likely to Zoom a bunch of family members as you are colleagues at work. Companies 20 years ago did everything on premises. Now, nobody has a clue who is running what.What’s your biggest password pet peeve? Is it people who leave their passwords on sticky notes?OK, my biggest password pet peeve are the people that have what’s called a root password, and then put some sort of variation on it. Those are the folks who believe that’s sufficient. The people that are using “fluffycat” for all their passwords, or are putting it on a sticky note — they know what they’re doing is bad. They just do, right? I don’t need to educate them, at least on the problem.The reuse of passwords itself is one of the biggest issues. You may sit there and think your bank is secure and, you know what? You’re probably right. But if you’re using a variation of the same password on your cat-picture-sharing site that gets breached, the hackers will take that same password and try it on banks and eBay and PayPal and Amazon — and try all sorts of variations. That’s where it starts to get dangerous. I read you have 1,000 lbs. of Lego.I am a huge Lego fan. I started off in e-commerce many years ago helping IBM build their WebSphere Commerce product. Way back when, I started selling Lego online. It was bricks — I’d take a kit and I’d break it down and sell it off. I did that on what is now Bricklink. I also did it on eBay and other platforms. I thought it was awesome because at the time I was doing e-commerce. It was like learning for me.I stopped selling when my son was born. It just got to be too much work. When my son was five or six years old, he’d want Star Wars Lego. So I told him we’d sell a bunch of our stuff I had in the basement, we’d put that money on PayPal, and he’d be able to buy any Star Wars Lego he wanted with that. We did that for years. We had a wonderful time. And then we started buying more and more Lego, as we do. My wife unfortunately counted. She found Lego in every room in our house, except for one. I can’t remember which one. I think it was one of the bathrooms.Lego, to me, is something that combines technology — or engineering, at least — with art. I think there’s nothing more powerful than that combination.How often do you step on a stray brick?Stepping on it doesn’t bother me anymore. My feet are too hard.History is littered with supposedly unbreakable products that were eventually hacked — the Enigma machine during the Second World War is a classic example. If, or perhaps when, that happens to 1Password, what will your response be as CEO?The most important thing is to be very transparent and public with it. If we’re transparent, we can make sure everybody is aware that our protections are in place. They’ll also be aware that we’ll be honest with them about both what happened and the risks. For any company, regardless of who you are — if you suffer a breach, honesty and following up with your customers is really the most important thing.We also want that to be true of any mistake our team makes. I don’t care if it’s as simple as someone chucking in some code that broke our build: the transparency side, what our chief marketing officer Raj Sarkar calls “radical candour,” is important. It has to come with accountability, not blame. What did we learn from this — and not just who we’re going to point our fingers at.This interview has been edited for length and claritySHARE:JOIN THE CONVERSATION Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)Sign InRegisterConversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the

The setting was almost absurdly idyllic. We sat under a white tent, the sun, having just slipped beneath the horizon, casting shades of pink and purple, a verdant vineyard ahead, and in front of us, an impeccable meal matched with excellent wine.So, naturally, the thing I felt most compelled to do was pull out my phone, take a picture, and post it to Instagram.That about sums up the weekend my fiancé and I spent in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Amid the brilliant food and drinks, I found myself again and again nagged by a desire to constantly take out my phone — yes, in part to capture our sojourn, but also just to stay connected to a vague something.The urge to document one’s life is, I suppose, a part of emerging gingerly into what we might optimistically call post-COVID life. To put up a picture of a trip on Instagram is, one way, the usual awkward mix of genuine sharing and a cry for attention; but in another sense, it is also a way to put up a flare and say “look at me, out in the world again after so long!”I am glad I have photos of my trip. There are a couple of my partner in particular — one softened by my phone’s portrait mode, another of her cast against a kaleidoscopic sunset — that will join others in my mind as part of how I think of her.Yet, as we all start to move out in to the world again, I can’t help but wonder if it might not be time to reconsider our relationship to technology — that is, when we holiday or are simply out in a post-COVID (or at least endemic COVID) world, that it might not actually feel better if we put our phones away.That sort of assertion is old hat by now, and complaints about technology are as part and parcel of the digital era as the technology itself. Those ubiquitous exhortations to “get off that darn phone” can often be well-intentioned, rooted in a desire to have people connect with the physical world around them, but are also occasionally naive, even ignorant or harmful.Consider: What it means for a trans teen in small-town Canada to be on their phone all day is likely very different from when I’m idly scrolling through Twitter or TikTok. Whereas I am just wasting time, for the teen that time online may well be a lifeline, and the idea that screens take you away from life is its own form of anachronistic thinking. A major part of life, after all, happens on and in screens; you can’t say that heaving, nearly infinite mass of human activity that accounts for the thoughts and feelings of billions of people merely amounts to nothing.The pandemic era, however, perhaps casts that all in a slightly different light. We have spent over two years glued to our screens, our phones and computers becoming nearly inescapable. Yes, tech is a tether and conduit to the broader world around us, but in its blinking, beeping insistence, it is an anchor, too, a weight that pulls us into an undifferentiated mass of news, opinion, fluff and distraction.Perhaps that more than anything is why it is better to to sometimes leave one’s phone in one’s pocket. It is not that there is anything wrong with checking the news or taking a photo to have a memory of a shared time. Rather, it is that our phones are extensions of our desire to control — to see and be seen as we wish.When we put them down, we simply offer the world a chance to impinge upon us rather than the other way around. Those things — sunsets and arrangements of clouds; the sounds of birds and insects flitting about; the words or idiosyncratic habits of others; the simple, pregnant possibility of silence and stillness — are opened to us slightly more when we simply sit and watch.I think it is a mistake to posit the world outside the screen as pure and technology as corrupted; you never know when someone finds themselves wasting time and when they are connecting with something they find meaningful.Still, the world of the pandemic and what comes after it may be a useful time to reconsider how we relate to our phones. There is value, too, in the memory that goes unrecorded — that can only be brought to mind in a conversation between you and another. And in letting experience just breathe, we make space for those things that are shared and not captured. There is no untouched, unmediated experience — but perhaps putting down our phones sometimes lets us come a bit closer to one.SHARE:

Canada’s economy rebounded from the COVID-19 pandemic far faster than virtually any economist (myself included) would have dared predict. By October 2021 — 18 months after the fastest, deepest contraction in Canada’s economic history — total employment had already regained its pre-COVID benchmark. Unemployment is now the lowest (5.1 per cent) since Statistics Canada started collecting this data. Real GDP also fully regained its COVID losses by late 2021. And the economy has kept charging forward ever since.By any measure, this is a historic achievement — and a ringing validation of the extraordinary measures taken to protect the lives and livelihoods of Canadians during the pandemic.But celebration of this remarkable rebound has been cut short, replaced by dark pessimism. There are now growing signs the post-COVID comeback will be squandered, like a Game 7 collapse by the Maple Leafs — traded for a needless recession. Most disappointing, the pain will be largely self-inflicted.Accelerating inflation is blamed for the coming storm, but it isn’t the true culprit. In reality, it’s not inflation, but the policy response to inflation, that is poised to derail the recovery. After some initial hesitation, central bankers around the world (including in Canada) have rediscovered austere true religion. They are pledging to drag inflation back to target (in Canada, that’s two per cent), and reestablish their “credibility” with the financial community, no matter what.The Bank of Canada’s Deputy Gov., Paul Beaudry, put it bluntly: “The bottom line is, we will get inflation back to two per cent, and we’ll do what’s necessary to get there.” That signals a willingness to spark outright recession if needed to control inflation — even though the real and immediate costs of recession (from lost jobs to lost homes to lost lives) are far more severe than the consequences of current inflation. This attitude evokes the U.S. major in Vietnam who was willing “to destroy the town to save it.”Reducing inflation from its current rate (7.7 per cent in May) to two per cent is a reduction of almost six percentage points. In the past 70 years, no disinflation of that magnitude occurred without a major recession. But because that magic two per cent target has been elevated above all other priorities, it seems we’re going to do it anyway.This single-minded determination is shared by central bankers across the globe. They’re stuck in a 1970’s mindset in which unions and workers supposedly drove inflation ever-higher in an escalating spiral. But that narrative has no relevance to the current situation. Statistics confirm labour costs did not cause today’s inflation. To the contrary, slow growth in wages and unit labour costs has helped moderate prices; meanwhile, higher business profits account for the bulk of price increases.Concerted worldwide monetary tightening is already shocking expectations and roiling markets. Early signs of stress are visible in plunging asset prices, including equities, real estate, and riskier assets like cryptocurrencies and emerging market debt. Consumer and investor confidence is crumbling, and that can inflict self-fulfilling damage on future growth. If a recession occurs, its aftershocks (exacerbated by over-leveraged financiers, the still-unfinished pandemic and war in Ukraine) will be wide-ranging and unpredictable.Apart from preparing for needlessly tough times ahead, this is also a time to reconsider our over-reliance on this one powerful sledgehammer — central bank interest rates — to manage the ups and downs of the entire labour market. When unemployment was high, lasting ultralow interest rates lost their effectiveness, more often causing undesired effects (like a housing bubble) rather than real growth and job creation. With unemployment low, we now face a devil’s choice between continued inflation and deliberate recession. We need other strategies for motivating growth when needed, and slowing it when it’s not.Other tools could be invoked right now to control inflation, such as strategic price controls, targeted taxes on corporations and high-income earners, and low-cost or free public services. But the dominant orthodoxy demands monetary austerity, and nothing else.The elevation of inflation control over all other economic and social priorities seems likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of our post-COVID economic victory. Decades from now, historians will shake their heads, wondering why today’s leaders were willing to throw away a miraculous economic recovery in a pointless sacrifice to a mystical two per cent god.Jim Stanford, director of the Centre for Future Work in Vancouver, is a freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jimbostanfordSHARE:

Fire & Flower not so fiery hot over the last quarterMore than three years after the federal government legalized cannabis, there are more than 870 licensed cultivators, processors and sellers in Canada. But despite piqued interest following legalization, high supply and low demand have led to billions of dollars in writedowns and millions of grams of unsold marijuana. Fire & Flower, a Toronto-based cannabis consumer retail and technology platform, acknowledged the market challenges in its recent quarterly report to investors, released in mid-June. “Competitive pressures, licence expansion outpacing market growth, and a growing value-oriented customer base have created challenging market conditions for the industry as a whole,” said CEO Stéphane Trudel in a statement. The retailer, which operates more than 100 corporate-owned stores, reported a total revenue of $40.9 million for the quarter, down seven per cent from the same period last year. The company also reported a net loss of $9.9 million over the last reporting period, a significant improvement from about $61.6 million in losses last year. Matt Bottomley, equity research analyst at Canaccord Genuity with a focus on the U.S. and Canadian cannabis sectors, notes it has been difficult for companies to make gains in the sector due to the competition. “Ontario has seen, in particular, a very large increase in the number of retail stores over the last 24 months, and because of that, the overall (market share) each store on average is able to get continues to decline,” he said. Fire & Flower’s most recent quarterly financial report comes after a shakeup in the company’s leadership. Trudel, a former executive at Alimentation Couche-Tard, was appointed CEO in early June. Couche-Tard, which owns Circle K convenience stores, also announced in April it intends to boost its stake in the cannabis company to 35 per cent, from approximately 20 per cent. High Tide riding a wave of strong sales, though still reporting net lossDespite market challenges, High Tide rode a wave of strong sales in the last quarter. The Alberta-based cannabis company, with 126 locations across Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, reported $81.0 million in revenue for the second quarter of 2022, up by 98 per cent compared to the same quarter last year. It also marked the ninth-straight quarter of positive adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). Same-store sales rose by 23 per cent this quarter compared to last year, the company noted. “Once again, I can proudly report that High Tide continues to see consistent and significant growth year-over-year and sequentially with every passing quarter, despite a persistently challenging macro environment and the state of the capital markets,” said president and CEO Raj Grover in a statement. The company also touted the success of its membership program, Cabana Club, which has more than 550,000 members, a 124 per cent increase over eight months. But despite growth in a number of areas, High Tide still reported a net loss of about $8.2 million for the quarter, down from the net loss of about $12.2 million the same time last year. Additionally, many companies, including High Tide and Fire & Flower, have seen their share price decrease significantly over the past year. However, the declines throughout the industry do not come as a surprise to Bottomley. RELATED STORIES“There’s a lot of companies that probably merit further downsiding,” he said, speaking to the sector as a whole, “just given how much capital has been allocated to a sector that is not yet able to provide profitability, on average.”The Bottom LineIt’s been turbulent times for the cannabis industry over the last few months. Bottomley expects many stores to close due to market oversaturation. Although both High Tide and Fire & Flower posted net losses over the last quarter, High Tide comes out as the winner. The Calgary-based company has consistently reported positive adjusted EBITDA. Plus, High Tide’s large revenue gains over the last quarter made it the second-largest revenue-generating Canadian cannabis company that reports in Canadian dollars. It appears to be heading on the right trajectory.With files from BNN BloombergSHARE:JOIN THE CONVERSATION Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)Sign InRegisterConversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the

This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order
presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution
to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about
permissions/licensing, please go to: