Business
Canada’s Real Estate Economy, Fueled by Mass Immigration and Offshore Cash, Is Unsustainable, Mayor Brad West Warns
Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2023 to discuss American concerns over fentanyl trafficking and money laundering tied to transnational crime groups operating in British Columbia.
“Billions upon billions” poured into land speculation have turned B.C. housing into a magnet for global money and mass migration, Mayor Brad West writes in an exclusive Op-Ed for The Bureau.
By Brad West
British Columbia, and much of the country, is confronting the consequences of an economic model that was never built to last. For years, we have been told a comforting story about growth — that as long as cranes dot the skyline and property values climb, prosperity will follow. But beneath that veneer lies a stark truth: our economy is not driven by value-added manufacturing, groundbreaking technology, innovation, or by unlocking our vast natural resource potential. It is built almost entirely on real estate and relentless population growth driven by mass immigration. And it relies on the building and selling of homes to the next wave of newcomers.
This is not diversification. This is dependency. And like all dependencies, it eventually demands a price.
In the not-too-distant past, B.C.’s prosperity came from sectors that created enduring value: forestry and mining that supplied the world; fisheries that sustained communities; manufacturing that turned raw materials into products; and, in more recent years, tech companies that could compete globally.
Today, those industries are shadows of their former selves in our economic mix — thanks, in part, to the strangulation of over-regulation and inordinately lengthy approval processes easily weaponized by those ideologically opposed to resource extraction. Their demise is not a naturally occurring phenomenon — and it is reversible — but it reflects the agenda and decisions of policymakers. In their place, real estate has become the dominant force, representing nearly 30 percent of B.C.’s GDP with its ancillary sectors. That’s a hell of a lot of eggs in a single basket, and the province’s balance sheet has become frighteningly tied to this cycle.
As the government oversaw this reorganization of the economy, it sent out the proverbial bat signal that investment capital didn’t belong in business development, but in land. Message received. Billions upon billions poured into bidding up land prices. Among the many consequences of this misallocation of capital are high land values squeezing out industrial employers and gnawing away at industrial land, weakening our capacity to make and export things. Today, industrial land makes up barely 4 percent of Metro Vancouver’s landmass.
Mass Immigration as Fuel for the Model
This new growth machine runs on people — specifically, the rapid influx of newcomers. In theory, immigration is a tool to strengthen an economy, replenish a workforce, and foster innovation. But in practice, B.C. and Canada have relied on it as the primary fuel for real estate demand. In 2023 alone, Canada added 1.27 million people — the most in 66 years, and almost entirely through immigration. No other G7 country comes close.
The country’s notorious Temporary Foreign Worker Program and unprecedented number of international students have figured prominently in this surge. Programs once intended to fill specific gaps or foster academic exchange have morphed into de facto population pipelines.
It’s all about feeding the beast: bring in more people than the market can comfortably absorb, then build and sell homes to meet the stimulated demand. Rising prices are framed as a sign of economic health, when in reality, they are a sign of scarcity and strain. In B.C., the government has clung to this model by throwing community planning out the window with legislation that overrides local decision-making and forces blanket upzoning without regard for infrastructure capacity or livability.
But all the smoke and mirrors in the world can’t obscure the reality. Hospital emergency rooms close not sporadically, but routinely. More and more students are educated in portables rather than properly resourced schools. Infrastructure — from roads and public transit to sewers and utilities — is under immense strain. It was never designed for the pace of expansion we’ve seen, and the costs of playing catch-up are staggering.
And still the cycle continues — because without that constant flow of new buyers, the whole structure starts to wobble. And wobbling it is.
Ponzi Economics: Why B.C.’s Housing Foundations Are Failing
To call this a Ponzi scheme is not to say it is literally fraudulent in the legal sense. But the comparison is apt: returns for current “investors” depend on recruiting new participants at ever-higher prices. The moment the influx slows, the math stops working.
We’ve seen this movie before. Jurisdictions from Ireland before the 2008 crash, to parts of Spain’s coastal boom towns, to U.S. “Sun Belt” cities in the lead-up to the subprime meltdown — all rode a similar wave. And when it broke, the fallout was severe: construction job losses, collapsing home values, public finances in crisis, and a wave of personal bankruptcies.
In B.C., the warning lights are already flashing. Housing sales have cooled. Developers are shelving projects. Construction employment, once a driver of job growth, is faltering. Debt loads — both personal and governmental — are dangerously high. In the case of the Government of British Columbia, that would be a historic $133 billion. Youth unemployment in the province reached 14.6 percent in July — the highest level since September 2010.
Meanwhile, the sectors that could cushion a downturn — manufacturing, technology, value-added resource development — suffer from the province’s unilateral disarmament.
Let’s be honest: status quo politicians have taken us too far down this road to turn back without consequence. The damage is already being felt — and more is coming. But that doesn’t mean we can stay the course. We must act deliberately, and with purpose, to shift away from an economic model where our primary export is real estate, toward one where we build and produce the goods, technology, and services the world actually needs.
The turnaround won’t be easy, and it won’t be quick. But the longer we wait, the higher the cost of inaction. That means unshackling our resource sectors from endless regulatory gridlock so they can innovate and compete. It means investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, research and development, and the skills of our own workforce. And it means having an honest conversation about immigration levels — balancing economic benefits with our capacity to house and integrate new arrivals without fueling a speculative frenzy.
B.C. can either confront these realities now, or wait until the market forces a reckoning upon us. One path allows for a managed, strategic shift toward long-term prosperity. The other leaves us at the mercy of the same “house of cards” economics that has collapsed elsewhere — only this time, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Brad West is the Mayor of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia.
Automotive
Trump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
President Donald Trump dealt the dreams of former President Joe Biden for an all-electric fleet of American cars a fatal blow on Thursday by terminating the onerous Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards Biden invoked in 2022 and further tightened in 2024.
“We’re officially terminating Joe Biden’s ridiculously burdensome, horrible actually, CAFE standards, that imposed expensive restrictions… It puts tremendous pressure on upward car prices,” Trump said during a press conference held in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon.
The Biden standards, which cranked down on allowable tailpipe emissions and raised industry-wide average car mileage to a stratospheric 50.4 miles per gallon requirement by 2030, were the centerpiece of his strategy to force American consumers to buy electric vehicles by intentionally forcing up prices for traditional internal combustion models.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
That’s right, America: Your government, led by Joe Biden’s autopen and the woke staffers who wielded it, intentionally and with malice aforethought drove up the prices of the gas powered cars you actually want to buy to try to force you to purchase electric models that poll after poll proves most of you don’t want. They did this all in the name of the global climate alarm religion, which far too many U.S. politicians use to justify a vast array of authoritarian actions.
The unbridled hubris involved in even entertaining this concept would have in the past been considered scandalous. Yet, today, it is completely in keeping with one of the central goals of the energy transition movement to drive up the costs of all traditional forms of energy to try to make the subsidized alternatives favored by the Democratic Party – wind, solar, and electric vehicles – competitive in the market. Activists in the climate alarm movement no longer even try to deny this goal – they proudly boast about it.
This was the real enterprise behind Biden’s ridiculous CAFE standards, and it is what President Trump interrupted on Thursday. It was just the latest in a series of body blows Trump and his officials have dealt the U.S. EV industry, one that could well prove fatal to many pure-play electric car companies and force major reallocations of capital budgets inside integrated automakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis.
Naturally, the climate alarm activist community was outraged. “Trump’s action will feed America’s destructive use of oil, while hamstringing us in the green tech race against … foreign carmakers,” said Dan Becker, Director of the notorious far-left conflict group, the Center for Biological Diversity, according to the Guardian.
But here’s the thing: U.S. consumers don’t want to buy the alternative the climate alarm community and Biden administration were trying to force. Even with the attraction of Biden’s economically ruinous $7,500 per unit IRA subsidies, U.S. car buyers made clear their strong preference for big, full-size, gas-or-diesel-powered pickups and SUVs.
This reality is why Stellantis announced in September it was abandoning plans to introduce a full-size electric pickup to compete with Ford’s F-150 Lightning. Even worse for EV boosters, Ford has already cut back on production of the Lightning model, and is planning to eliminate it entirely soon, according to the Wall Street Journal. These decisions and plans were already underway long before Trump’s decision to rescind the CAFE standards, based on simple consumer demand.
Interestingly, many consumers believe Trump didn’t go far enough on Thursday, and that he should simply eliminate mileage requirements altogether. One commenter to my Substack newsletter writes, “why didn’t they just kill CAFE standards once and for all? From what clause in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to limit what type of car I can buy?…They should have just killed it outright.”
It’s a legitimate question: Why do federal regulators believe they have the right to control consumer behavior in the name of climate alarmism? In light of last year’s decision by the Supreme Court to rescind the Chevron deference – which helped facilitate the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy for 40 long years – it’s a question that could be litigated in the months and years to come.
Joe Biden’s EV dreams are dead now, but that doesn’t mean the situation can’t possibly get even worse for the EV industry in America. Stay tuned.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Business
US Energy Secretary says price of energy determined by politicians and policies

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
During the latest marathon cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright made news when he told President Donald Trump that “The biggest determinant of the price of energy is politicians, political leaders, and polices — that’s what drives energy prices.”
He’s right about that, and it is why the back-and-forth struggle over federal energy and climate policy plays such a key role in America’s economy and society. Just 10 months into this second Trump presidency, the administration’s policies are already having a profound impact, both at home and abroad.
While the rapid expansion of AI datacenters over the past year is currently being blamed by many for driving up electric costs, power bills were skyrocketing long before that big tech boom began, driven in large part by the policies of the Obama and Biden administration designed to regulate and subsidize an energy transition into reality. As I’ve pointed out here in the past, driving up the costs of all forms of energy to encourage conservation is a central objective of the climate alarm-driven transition, and that part of the green agenda has been highly effective.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
President Trump, Wright, and other key appointees like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have moved aggressively throughout 2025 to repeal much of that onerous regulatory agenda. The GOP congressional majorities succeeded in phasing out Biden’s costly green energy subsidies as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4. As the federal regulatory structure eases and subsidy costs diminish, it is reasonable to expect a gradual easing of electricity and other energy prices.
This year’s fading out of public fear over climate change and its attendant fright narrative spells bad news for the climate alarm movement. The resulting cracks in the green facade have manifested rapidly in recent weeks.
Climate-focused conflict groups that rely on public fears to drive donations have fallen on hard times. According to a report in the New York Times, the Sierra Club has lost 60 percent of the membership it reported in 2019 and the group’s management team has fallen into infighting over elements of the group’s agenda. Greenpeace is struggling just to stay afloat after losing a huge court judgment for defaming pipeline company Energy Transfer during its efforts to stop the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
350.org, an advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, shut down its U.S. operations in November amid funding woes that had forced planned 25 percent budget cuts for 2025 and 2026. Employees at EDF voted to form their own union after the group went through several rounds of budget cuts and layoffs in recent months.
The fading of climate fears in turn caused the ESG management and investing fad to also fall out of favor, leading to a flood of companies backtracking on green investments and climate commitments. The Net Zero Banking Alliance disbanded after most of America’s big banks – Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and others – chose to drop out of its membership.
The EV industry is also struggling. As the Trump White House moves to repeal Biden-era auto mileage requirements, Ford Motor Company is preparing to shut down production of its vaunted F-150 Lightning electric pickup, and Stellantis cancelled plans to roll out a full-size EV truck of its own. Overall EV sales in the U.S. collapsed in October and November following the repeal of the $7,500 per car IRA subsidy effective Sept 30.
The administration’s policy actions have already ended any new leasing for costly and unneeded offshore wind projects in federal waters and have forced the suspension or abandonment of several projects that were already moving ahead. Capital has continued to flow into the solar industry, but even that industry’s ability to expand seems likely to fade once the federal subsidies are fully repealed at the end of 2027.
Truly, public policy matters where energy is concerned. It drives corporate strategies, capital investments, resource development and movement, and ultimately influences the cost of energy in all its forms and products. The speed at which Trump and his key appointees have driven this principle home since Jan. 20 has been truly stunning.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
-
Energy2 days agoA look inside the ‘floatel’ housing B.C.’s LNG workforce
-
Energy2 days agoELZABETH MAY HAS IT WRONG: An Alberta to Prince Rupert Oil Pipeline Will Contribute to Greater Global Oil Tanker Safety
-
illegal immigration1 day agoWhile Trump has southern border secure, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants still flooding in from Canada
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoCanadian bishops condemn Liberal ‘hate speech’ proposal that could criminalize quoting Scripture
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoForeign Leaders Caught Orchestrating Campaign To Censor American Right-Wing Media Companies
-
Business2 days agoUS Energy Secretary says price of energy determined by politicians and policies
-
Energy23 hours agoSenate votes to reopen Alaska Coastal Plain to energy leasing
-
Opinion8 hours agoCountry music star Paul Brandt asks Parliament to toughen laws against child porn

