Business
Feds to spend $13 billion taxpayer dollars to solve housing crisis they’ve mismanaged for years

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson
Prime Minister Mark Carney recently launched his new “Build Canada Homes” federal agency, which will help build “4,000 factory-built homes” at an initial cost of $13 billion. In light of the affordability crisis that’s plagued large swaths of the country, many Canadians likely welcome more government involvement in the housing sector. But does Ottawa have the ability to efficiently and effectively build homes?
To help answer that question, it’s helpful to consider the federal government’s real estate record. Most Canadians probably aren’t aware that the government owns a bloated portfolio of underused office space, yet efforts to shrink this portfolio have moved at a glacial pace. In 2017, the government acknowledged that half of its office space was underused. But it took until 2019 to formulate a plan to sell off these properties, and by 2023 the federal office footprint (managed by the Department of Public Services and Procurement) was barely reduced—from 6.0 million to 5.9 million square metres.
In light of this failure, the government in 2024 dedicated $1.1 billion in taxpayer money, over 10 years, to hasten the sale of underused federal properties and save taxpayers $3.9 billion in the first decade and $0.9 billion annually thereafter.
Unfortunately, this initiative is already failing. The original goal was to cut the federal office footprint by 50 per cent by 2034, but the government’s current projections envision only a 33 per cent reduction. That means taxpayers will shoulder the cost of maintaining more underused office space each year. And even after a decade and $1.1 billion spent, Ottawa will still be left with roughly one million square metres of idle federal office space.
Why?
According to an auditor general report released in 2025, the federal government lacks even basic data on its own real estate portfolio, routinely misses internal targets for consolidation, and continues to rely on a lengthy process that takes six to eight years to offload surplus buildings. Poor cooperation between federal departments has made matters worse. Nearly half of the largest departments have refused to sign space-reduction agreements, especially those that paid no rent and therefore had no clear financial incentive to give up empty offices.
These failures raise a key question: If the federal government cannot efficiently downsize its own office footprint—despite ample funding and years of effort—how can it credibly promise to deliver complex housing projects?
Which takes us back to the Carney government’s new federal agency, Build Canada Homes (BCH), which plans to develop affordable housing and accelerate housing innovation. But BCH will likely face the same pitfalls that plagued Ottawa’s real estate downsizing effort—namely, poor coordination across the government, competing political priorities, and no real pressure to deliver.
The plan for BCH relies on federal departments to work smoothly with each other, the provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governments and the private sector. BCH is already weighed down by competing mandates. It promises to develop more affordable homes, but only if they’re built with Canadian-made and climate-friendly materials. These goals are at odds. If a product requires a government mandate to be used, it’s not the most cost-effective option.
And taxpayers will give BCH $3.5 billion a year without any clear indication of what we’ll get in return. BCH’s plan promises “significant” numbers of “affordable” homes—with no indication of how the government will measure progress or affordability. How will Canadians know whether the program is on track? Or if it provides good value for tax dollars? These are fundamental questions, especially since there’s a clear risk that BCH spending may simply compete with private-sector development rather than add greatly to the overall stock of houses.
The stakes are high. If Build Canada Homes underperforms, Canadians could be left with few new homes and a considerable bill. Ottawa cannot efficiently downsize its own office footprint despite ample funding and years of effort. That record hardly inspires confidence in its promise to deliver complex housing projects across the country.
Austin Thompson
Artificial Intelligence
The App That Pays You to Give Away Your Voice

What sounds like side hustle money is really a permanent trade of privacy for pennies
|
|
Business
BC Ferries Deal With China Risks Canada’s Security

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A BC Ferries contract with China risks national security, public transparency and Canadian safety. Why are we still looking the other way?
Scott McGregor exposes how a billion-dollar BC Ferries deal with a Chinese shipyard reflects a deeper failure: Canadian institutions are shielding Beijing’s interests—at taxpayers’ expense—while ignoring glaring national security risks.
BC Ferries, the taxpayer-owned company operating ferry services along the B.C. coast, didn’t just sign a billion-dollar shipbuilding contract in China; it handed Beijing leverage over Canadian infrastructure.
Behind the bureaucratic talk of cost and efficiency lies a deeper scandal: a taxpayer-funded deal that puts national security, public transparency and Canadian citizens at risk, all to benefit a hostile regime.
When theBreaker.news, an independent investigative outlet in BC, filed freedom of information requests to uncover the contract’s details, BC Ferries refused to release a single page. The excuse? Disclosure might threaten its financial position, safety and the “interests of third parties.”
This refusal didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came the same day Chinese President Xi Jinping stood next to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Beijing, giving a vivid display of authoritarian solidarity.
BC Ferries’ secrecy is bad optics. It flies in the face of multiple rulings by the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has repeatedly upheld the public’s right to see contracts signed by public bodies. Cities and Crown corporations have been ordered to disclose their agreements with FIFA, the international soccer governing body, and with B.C. Place Stadium.
In fact, public institutions have disclosed deals far less sensitive than this one. Yet BC Ferries, propped up by a $1-billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), insists its Chinese shipbuilder must remain shielded from scrutiny. The result isn’t protection for taxpayers. It’s protection for Beijing’s leverage.
And that’s just the beginning. The more dangerous problem is legal. Canada has no bilateral agreements with China to guarantee fair legal treatment of its citizens. No non-prosecution provisions. No mutual legal assistance mechanisms. No safety net.
At home, corporations can sign remediation agreements to avoid prosecution if they cooperate and commit to reforms. But those agreements stop at Canada’s borders. They offer no protection for Canadians working in Weihai, the Chinese city where the vessels are built. If a dispute arises or Beijing flexes its power, those Canadians could face arbitrary detention, exit bans or national security charges. In a diplomatic crisis, they could become pawns.
This isn’t a theoretical risk. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. That episode exposed the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook of hostage diplomacy. It should have ruled out any deal that places Canadian citizens or Crown assets under Chinese jurisdiction.
Yet even with that memory still fresh, the arrangement continues, quietly, with little public debate.
What we’re witnessing is a textbook case of hybrid warfare. Economic deals masked as trade. State financing disguised as commercial contracts. Political leverage embedded in infrastructure projects. And Canada, still clinging to the outdated promises of globalization, is paying for its own exposure.
At the moment when Beijing is supplying components for Russia’s war machine, Ottawa is greenlighting the outsourcing of core coastal infrastructure to a state-owned Chinese shipyard.
Parliament appears to be taking notice of the situation. The House of Commons Transport Committee has initiated a review of the $1 billion federal loan associated with the BC Ferries deal. The expected witnesses for this review include the CEO of the corporation, the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson.
The review follows political pushback, including criticism from Freeland, who resigned from cabinet on Sept. 16, and had previously called the outsourcing decision “disappointing.”
This review is necessary because BC Ferries is a Crown-owned utility, governed by an NDP-appointed board and funded through federal support.
When a public entity conceals the terms of a massive contract and hands work to a Chinese state-controlled firm, it’s not just acting secretively. It’s normalizing a culture of opacity that weakens Canadian sovereignty and shields foreign interests from democratic accountability.
BC Ferries defends the deal by pointing to its projected economic benefits: four new major vessels, hybrid propulsion systems, 50,000 job-years and more than $4.5 billion in forecasted economic output.
But those figures come at the cost of strategic blindness.
Time and again, Canadian policymakers treat China like an ordinary business partner, even as the Chinese Communist Party uses law, finance and supply chains as tools of global influence. While other democracies are pulling back from partnerships with Chinese state firms, Canada looks the other way, tethered to outdated trade assumptions and short-term economics.
The remedy starts with sunlight. Contracts signed by public bodies must be disclosed, especially when they involve authoritarian regimes. But transparency is only the first step.
Canada must adopt a hybrid warfare lens for every major economic decision. That means asking hard questions: Does this deal strengthen or weaken our position? Does it open the door to foreign influence? Does it endanger Canadians abroad? Short-term savings can breed long-term dependency, and in China’s case, geopolitical exposure.
BC Ferries’ shipbuilding contract with China isn’t just a procurement mistake. It’s a warning.
Without legal safeguards, public oversight and strategic foresight, Canada isn’t just buying ferries; it’s handing over control.
And Canadians deserve better.
Scott McGregor is an intelligence consultant and co-author of The Mosaic Effect. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Business2 days ago
Canadians responsible for $2.3 trillion in government debt: Every single person in Alberta owes $40,939
-
COVID-191 day ago
Second Massive Population Study Finds COVID-19 “Vaccines” Increase Risk of 6 Major Cancers
-
Business1 day ago
Canada Is Still Paying The Price For Trudeau’s Fiscal Delusions
-
International1 day ago
Trump says he won’t back down on Antifa terrorism designation
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Total Surveillance, Censorship, And Behavior Control Are Real Goals Of Digital ID Advocates
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr. says US rejects WHO with powerful message about sovereignty and the chronic disease crisis
-
Business1 day ago
Department of Energy returning $13B climate agenda funding to taxpayers
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Shale Execs Complain Of ‘Broken’ Prospects In New Survey