EDITORIAL: Why bail out B.C. developers when ordinary Canadians are already taking losses?
The BC NDP once promised a $3 billion program to build real affordable housing. They cancelled it and left thousands of units for low-income families half-finished across the province. Now the same government, with the Carney Liberals riding shotgun, is rolling out another $3.2 billion package that funnels money straight to the developers who helped create the crisis in the first place.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Premier David Eby stood in front of buildings where two-bedroom units list near $1.1 million and declared they would cut development charges for builders while using public financing to absorb more than 2,200 unsold condos.
The official line is that this will "unlock supply" and create affordability. The practical effect is simpler: developers who overbuilt at the top of the market get bailed out before they have to cut prices. The Carney Liberals are helping BC politicians prop up unrealistic condo values so that well-connected builders and their investors do not have to sell at a loss. Meanwhile, British Columbians are already taking those losses.
A family in Burnaby who bought at the peak and now needs to move for work sells for less than they paid. A retiree in Coquitlam downsizes and absorbs the hit. Young couples in Richmond or Surrey watch their down-payment savings shrink every month the market stays inflated. Those people do not get a government program to make their losses disappear.
When the Eby NDP scrapped its affordable housing commitments, the explanation was always fiscal reality or shifting priorities, but when protecting developers from the same market forces, suddenly there is more than enough money. The federal contribution through the Build Communities Strong Fund and the new condo conversion partnership makes the whole exercise national. Taxpayers in my province and elsewhere are now subsidizing a BC real estate correction that should have happened on its own.
Carney & Eby's defenders will say there was "no choice": the units are already built, letting them sit empty wastes resources, and it's better to use government financing power to turn some of them into affordable stock than watch developers go under. That argument is ridiculous and collapses on inspection.
A market correction is precisely what brings prices back in line with what working people can actually pay. Shielding the top end of the condo sector from losses simply delays that adjustment and keeps monthly carrying costs higher for working-class Canadians It is the same logic that produced the original price spike: policy that treats housing primarily as an asset class rather than shelter.
Eby and Carney both present themselves as pragmatic progressives who get things done. But on this file, the pragmatism runs one way. They found the political capital to fast-track support for developers who contributed to the overhang of empty units. They could not find it earlier for the low-income projects they themselves had promised. The difference is not technical. It is who holds the leverage.
Regular Canadians have already absorbed the consequences of years of federal, provincial, and municipal policies that treat housing as a wealth generator first and a place to live second. They have watched bidding wars, foreign capital inflows, and chronic under-building of modest units. Now they are told the solution requires another round of public money to keep the same developers whole. That is not leadership. It is the continued prioritization of Bay Street and the interests of Mark Carney's developer friends over the families across British Columbia who actually need homes they can afford without government charity.
Carney and Eby could have said no. They could have told developers the same thing the market is already telling them: prices that no longer clear must come down. Instead, they chose to socialize part of the downside while the upside remains private. That choice tells you exactly whose interests this government is built to protect.
This piece was written and published by The Provincial Times Editorial Board and reflects the editorial position of The Provincial Times. Read our Content Policy here.
