Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

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

Published

5 minute read

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.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Carney and other world leaders should recognize world’s dependence on fossil fuels

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.

On the heels of his first federal budget, which promises more spending to promote a “green economy,” Prime Minister Carney will soon fly to Brazil for COP30, the 30th United Nations climate summit. Like the former Trudeau government, the Carney government has pledged to achieve “net-zero” emissions in Canada—and compel other countries to pursue net-zero—by 2050. To achieve a net-zero world, it’s necessary to phase out fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, coal—or offset their CO2 emissions with technologies such as “carbon capture” or large-scale tree planting.

But after trillions of dollars spent in pursuit of that goal, it appears more unrealistic than ever. It’s time for world leaders, including Canada’s policymakers, to face reality and be honest about the costly commitments they make on behalf of their citizens.

For starters, carbon capture—the process of trapping and storing carbon dioxide so it’s unable to affect the atmosphere—is a developing technology not yet capable of large-scale deployment. And planting enough trees to offset global emissions would require vast amounts of land, take decades to absorb significant CO2 and risk unpredictable losses from wildfires and drought. Due to these constraints, in their net-zero quest governments and private investors have poured significant resources into “clean energy” such as wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), from 2015 to 2024, the world’s public and private investment in clean energy totalled and estimated US$14.6 trillion (inflation-adjusted). Yet from 1995 (the first COP year) to 2024, global fossil fuel consumption increased by more than 64 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption grew by 39 per cent, natural gas by 96 per cent and coal by 76 per cent. As of 2024, fossil fuels accounted for 80.6 per cent of global energy consumption, slightly lower than the 85.6 per cent in 1995.

The Canadian case shows an even greater mismatch between Ottawa’s COP commitments and its actual results. Despite billions spent by the federal government on the low-carbon economy (electric vehicle subsidies, tax credits to corporations, etc.), fossil fuel consumption in our country has increased by 23 per cent between 1995 and 2024. Over the same period, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy consumption climbed from 62.0 to 66.3 per cent.

Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.

Why has this massive effort, which includes many countries and trillions of dollars, failed to transition humanity away from fossil fuels?

As renowned scholar Vaclav Smil explains, it can take centuries—not decades—for an energy source to become globally predominant. For thousands of years, humanity relied on wood, charcoal, dried dung and other traditional biomass fuels for heating and cooking, with coal only becoming a major energy source around 1900. It took oil 150 years after its introduction into energy markets to account for one-quarter of global fossil fuel consumption, a milestone reached only in the 1950s. And for natural gas, it took about 130 years after its commercial development to reach 25 per cent of global fossil fuel consumption at the end of the 20th century.

Yet, coal, oil and natural gas didn’t completely replace traditional biomass to meet the surging energy demand as the modern world developed. As of 2020, nearly three billion people in developing countries still relied on charcoal, straw and dried dung to supply their basic energy needs. In light of these facts, the most vocal proponents of the global energy transition seem, at the very least, out of touch.

The world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels should prompt world leaders at COP30 to exercise caution before pushing the same unrealistic commitments of the past. And Prime Minister Carney, in particular, should be careful not to keep leading Canadians into costly ventures that lead nowhere near their intended results.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Liberals refuse to disclose the amount of taxpayer dollars headed to LGBT projects in foreign countries

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney will not openly disclose how much money from its foreign-aid budget is going toward overseas “gender identity” and “decolonization” projects.

According to the government, there are “concerns” that disclosing the amount of funds could endanger certain LGBT organizations that get money from it.

On November 3, Global Affairs Canada, in response to a question on the order paper from a Conservative MP, said that the funding amounts could not be made public due to claimed “security concerns” and “confidentiality requirements.”

“These are the most common reasons projects are considered sensitive: the organization or individuals might be in danger if it becomes known that they are receiving funds from a foreign government; (or) implementing a project related to sensitive topics such as two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional sexually and gender-diverse people rights, human trafficking, early/forced marriage, (and) human rights defenders,” Global Affairs noted. 

Continuing, Global Affairs said that there is a possible “danger” to partner organizations that could be “forced to close” or even “arrested” due to “harassment from the local population or government.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Carney’s budget will include millions in taxpayer money for “SLGBTQI+ communities,” gender equality, and “pride” safety.

Canada’s 2025 federal budget is allotting some $54.6 million to LGBT groups in a move criticized by Campaign Life Coalition as prioritizing activist agendas over struggling families’ basic needs.

Canadian taxpayers are already dealing with high inflation and high taxes due in part to the Liberal government overspending and excessive money printing, and even admitting that giving money to Ukraine comes at the “taxpayers’” expense.

As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem gave a grim assessment of the state of the economy, essentially telling Canadians that they should accept a “lower” standard of living.

Continue Reading

Trending

X