Staffers in crisis comms were called to the front after significant fallout from the joint B.C. and federal announcement on housing last month.

To very little fanfare, B.C. Premier David Eby and Prime Minister Mark Carney outlined a taxpayer-backed plan to procure 2,200 distressed condos and transform them into affordable housing. The project is expected to cost a total of $1.45 billion, $145 million of which will come from Ottawa.

The Canadian punditry responded forcefully, rightly qualifying this as a bailout for developers who have been unable to offload units in a cooling market. TD Bank released its prediction that Vancouver-area condo prices could drop by 8 per cent compared to the end of 2025, which would be the largest correction since 2005. In the province writ large, rent has fallen by 12.5 per cent between August 2023 and April 2026.

This comes during what feels like a millennium of young Canadians eternally hankering to leave the nest: in 2021, almost 9.5 million Canadians lived in a multigenerational or intergenerational home. Homeownership has become reliably elusive, translating to over 1 in 5 millennials living with their parents in Canada, according to 2021 census data.

So, while a market correction is a good sign for young homeowning hopefuls, not everyone is enjoying the breeze.

Ottawa’s strategy on housing was candidly delivered by Housing and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson: Ottawa is interested in increasing housing supply while ensuring home prices don’t go down.

No one benefits more from a stable housing market than those who already own homes, which skews older.

When government officials ride in like white knights, it is seductive to think that these plans benefit younger Canadians most, because this is what is always implied. While it may be the case that a majority of those housed in government-owned and operated rentals are younger, the vast majority of young Canadians are worse off in the long run.

Prohibiting home prices from going down in order to shield older Canadians from losing out on their equity on the least productive asset is a major, but not the only way young Canadians will pay for this policy.

We ought to align ourselves with fiscal hawks who see the perilous journey of overcoming mounds of bureaucracy and consulting firms, leaving us with a bill that’ll make $1.45 billion look like pocket change.

A considerable amount of backpedalling ensued from both Eby and Carney. Carney subsequently made assurances that the plan would not include Vancouver, while Eby’s team decided to frame this as financially responsible, like shopping at a yard sale. The condos are on liquidation; they’re a steal.

How could we pass up such an opportunity? Ladies and gentlemen, the logic of a shopaholic.

In true shopaholic fashion, this will be financed with debt. Canada’s federal debt is now over $1.3 trillion. According to the Fraser Institute, in 2025/26, this came out to $54 billion in debt interest alone. As many homeowners know, spending money you don’t have isn’t cheap.

A similar saga has unfolded in Victoria. In the province’s latest budget, Eby unveiled the largest deficit in the province’s record, at a whopping $13.3 billion. A wee $5 billion will be allocated to pay for that debt.

Creditors get paid first, which means more tax dollars are siphoned to service our debt, and away from essential services many young hold dear — and would probably like to rely on in the future. A lack of fiscal responsibility puts all of it in jeopardy for short-term gains. Yet again, the policy does not truly benefit those it espouses to help.

Governments are emptying their coffers when they should let the market correct itself after more than a decade of inflated home prices.

I have read critics lambast this program as an example of “private profits” and “socialized losses,” but in a country speeding towards socialism, this is hardly unique. Our programs disproportionately benefit the elderly, accounting for 17 per cent of all federal spending. Housing is just another chapter in that long tale.

Sam Dagres is a Canadian public policy writer based in London, U.K. She was formerly the manager of communications at the Montreal Economic Institute. Her writing has appeared in the Financial Post, the Globe and Mail, Le Journal de Montréal, and the Toronto Sun.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.