I absolutely hate talking politics.
Oh, it might not seem like it, since I do it so often. But that’s actually me, holding back.
Politics are really, really depressing when they’re not going your way…
Municipal, provincial, and federal politics haven’t really gone my way in a long time.
Every day, I feel like the entire Western world has lost its mind, and yet if “everybody was jumping off a bridge,” I would clearly be in the minority and be wrong if I didn’t want to join.
But we’re not alone.
Our friends in the U.K. are about to have their seventh Prime Minister in the last ten years, so perhaps it could be worse?
I can’t read the papers anymore.
I feel as though the National Post is the only one that tells me what’s actually happening, but it’s too depressing to read.
So, no, I don’t enjoy talking about politics. But today, I have no choice…
Last week, as most of you know by now, Prime Minister Mark Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby announced that the federal government would pay $3.2 Billion to developers to purchase unsold condominiums.
Mr. Carney used an amazing word to describe what he was going to do for and with these condos that developers can’t sell:
“Unfreeze.”
Is that what he’s doing? He’s simply “unfreezing” the market?
Mr. Carney said that he hoped the subsidy would unfreeze a “stuck” condo sector, “where prices are too low for developers, and still too high for consumers to afford.”
And this is exactly where this becomes problematic.
Condo prices are:
1) Too low for developers to sell, or they risk losing money.
2) Too high for consumers to afford.
That’s how a free market works, right? We all learned this back in economics! A property is worth “what a buyer is willing to pay when a seller is willing to sell,” and that has not ever changed.
So apparently, this creates a problem where condos are “stuck.”
And apparently, it is the job of the federal government, on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, to “unfreeze” this inventory.
Mr. Carney, who was lauded as an economic God by those who were praying that the Liberals could fight off the Conservatives after a decade of Justin Trudeau running the country into the ground, should know better than to mess with a free market.
If prices are too high, then the market provides options:
1) Developers sell at a loss.
2) Buyers overpay.
3) Nothing sells.
Option #3 is what’s happening.
Option #2 is what was happening.
Option #1 is what should happen if developers want to move on from projects.
But, no. Mark Carney has decided to interfere with the free market, BAIL OUT the developers, and do so on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers who didn’t speculate in the real estate market, didn’t buy land and build condos in an adventure in the nature of trade, and didn’t do anything but abide by the law, pay taxes, support their families, and hope that the government would reward them for their financial responsiblilty.
I simply cannot believe this is where we are.
This is 2008 all over again.
The irony is: Canada came out of the 2008 Financial Crisis relatively unscathed! We had one of the safest banking systems in the world and had very little exposure to subprime loans and mortgage-backed securities.
Leham Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Bear Stearns went under.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac went into conservatorship and were nationalized.
But other banks were bailed out!
Citigroup recevied $20 Billion.
Bank of America recieved $45 Billion and acquired Merrill Lynch.
JP Morgan Chase received $25 Billion.
And American International Group (AIG) received a whopping $85 Billion through a federal takeover.
Now, I’m curious, what did Mark Carney think of all this?
Here’s a quote from Mark Carney, from 2012, talking about the 2008 Financial Crisis and the fallout that resulted:
“It is not clear yet that too-big-to-fail has been ended. For example, credit-rating agencies continue to boost their ratings of major banks by a factor that recognizes implied government support.”
This was Mr. Carney arguing, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that no bank should be considered “too big to fail,” and that bailouts were a mistake.
So how in the world did we get to a place where Mark Carney, as the Prime Minister of Canada, is bailing out failing real estate developers in British Columbia?
Other than the CBC, I haven’t seen a single media outlet offering a positive spin on this.
Yes, the Liberal voicepiece that is the CBC had this to offer:
“Mark Carney’s Plan To Bulk-Buy Unsold Vancouver Condos Might Be A Bailout But It Doesn’t Have To Be”
CBC News
June 25, 2025
From the article:
People need affordable homes, and thousands of empty condos in British Columbia are waiting to be sold.
The federal government has an idea to help with both: Prime Minister Mark Carney is partnering with the B.C. government to convert vacant condos into affordable housing units.
“Convert,” eh?
That’s so cute!
They used the word “convert” to suggest that it’s the flick of a switch, or a whisper in an ear, or moving an item from column-A to column-B.
But the government isn’t converting these over-priced, unsold condos to affordable housing units.
They are buying them with taxpayer money.
And the worst part is, they’re overpaying!
I can’t tell you what a specific condo in Vancouver is worth, but I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the government is overpaying for these condos just on the basis of entry-level economics.
Follow these points:
a) developers have priced units as they see fit
b) nobody is buying them
c) the government is buying them at the developer prices
By definition, the government is overpaying.
If the free market determines value via the intersection (literally in the market and figuratively on an X-Y axis) of buyer demand and seller supply.
The two lines on our chart are not intersecting because sellers won’t sell for what buyers are willing to pay.
So in steps the federal government to pay the price that nobody else will?
There’s a term for this.
A very important one. It’s called:
Socializing losses
Thank you to the National Post for leading the charge on this:
“Socializing Losses: Critics Pan Federal Plan To Acquire Unsold Condos From Developers In B.C.”
National Post
June 25, 2026
From the article:
Criticism is mounting for a proposed federal-provincial program that would acquire unsold condo units in British Columbia and convert them into affordable housing.
It’s moral hazard, it’s socializing losses while the profits flow to developers, so developers can only win, the government will come and bail them out, which is crazy,” said Ron Butler, principal broker at Butler Mortgage Inc. and host of the Angry Mortgage Podcast.
Exactly.
We’re privatizing the profits while socializing the losses, and if you want to argue that a capitalist real estate agent and investor would be in favour of this, then you’re completely missing the point.
But let’s go back to that line from the CBC propaganda piece:
People need affordable homes, and thousands of empty condos in British Columbia are waiting to be sold.
Oh, it’s that simple!
It’s like saying, “People need alcohol, and the LCBO has lots of it, so let’s just turn a blind eye to people filling duffel bags with high-end scotch and walking out, untouched.”
You don’t like that analogy? Is it too political?
First of all, when did “right and wrong” get turned backwards and become political?
But secondly, how about this:
People need savings, and there are thousands of untouched bank accounts that have lots of it.
The quote from the CBC is ignoring something really, really important:
Affordable homes are the responsibility of the public sector. Empty condos in B.C. belong to individuals in the private sector.
Yes, I am aware that there are public-private partnerships in many industries, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a segment of society that believes that “affordable housing” is represented by stainless steel appliances, quartz counters, gas ranges, city views, fitness centres, twenty-four-hour concierges, and it’s paid for at 150% of fair market value by taxpayers.
Call me an ass. Tell me I lack empathy.
But “affordable housing” shouldn’t look like this:
I know, I know, people are going to put words in my mouth. “David, you think people should be crammed into barrack-style buildings in purpose-built ghettos?”
People on the other side of my politics, and I’d hate to use directional language here, always resort to extremes to prove their points.
But I would absolutely love to hear the affordable housing advocates explain why the federal government should buy $1,100,000 condos to house the poor(er).
Critics are absolutely slamming this move by Mark Carney, and for good reason.
I’ve seen some incredible quotes online, but I want to share my favourite:
“I think that the most grievous and hellacious error here is that the natural evolution of these unsold, unsaleable, nobody-wants-them condos is receivership for some developers. Is an environment where these remaining properties are more or less auctioned off by a receiver, at the very lowest achievable price. The concept becomes, ‘Oh no, we don’t want these developers to go into receivership, because nobody will ever build a building in British Columbia ever again,’ which is completely nuts. Hundreds of developers went into receivership in 1990 and 1991, and guess what? Stuff kept getting built! Some condos went into receivership, but that’s actually the free enterprise system, as it was designed.”
Incredible stuff.
And who said it?
Some of you nailed this on Friday. Our guy, Ron Butler.
Here’s an incredible 15-minute interview with Ron Butler on The Hub Canada:
Mr. Butler further explains that with the Canadian taxpayers buying these condos at above market rates, we’re avoiding “true price discovery” in the free market.
Isn’t that what so many people have wanted, all along?
True price discovery?
That’s what prices oughta be, should be, could be, or can be without any government interference.
Maybe then we can see more “affordability” in the market, right?
There’s more irony.
The government has spent years talking about “restoring affordability” or simply “making homes more affordable” for the middle-class, or future generations, but bailing out developers and ensuring that thousands of properties do not get sold at lower prices is the complete opposite of what the government has talked so passionately about.
It’s almost like the government has no idea what they’re doing.
Or, they do, but they just lie about it.
More great commentary from another friend of TRB, Mr. Ben Rabidoux of Edge Realty Analytics:
“It’s clearly a bailout. I don’t care what they say. They could be allocating those funds towards construction of new purpose-built rentals that would be geared towards lower income, and they could do it at considerably less than the outlays for this proposed measure.
There’s not a solvency issue, but all else equal, if you’re a bank, you would rather not have to disclose major impairments with some of these very chunky development deals.
You’re going to buy these units at $800,000 to provide low-income housing in what can be relatively luxury-type units, and you’re just going to be massively negative carry on these, subsidized by taxpayers in perpetuity. Just none of this makes any sense.
They should let these developments go insolvent, let the banks take the write-downs, let the developers go bust, and then the government can come in and buy the entire building out of the insolvency proceedings—they would be getting rock-bottom pricing.”
Credit to the folks at www.thehub.ca for the commentary.
Mr. Rabidoux is echoing what Mr. Butler says in terms of “letting these developments go insolvent,” but equally as important, he’s echoing me when he talks about spending $800,000 on a luxury condo to house low-income individuals, which is subsidized by the taxpayers.
Indeed, none of it makes any sense.
Another quote from Ron Butler:
“The Prime Minister said, word for word, ‘Developers do not wish to take a loss.’ So what is private enterprise and capitalism all about at that point?
And now, when the market’s turned against them because of their own bad decisions and overpricing, the government is intervening.”
How are more people not furious about this?
How is everybody in the country not furious about this?
Did you lose money trading shares of SpaceX? Where’s your bailout?
Did you lose money betting on the Stanley Cup? Where’s your bailout?
Who’s going to reimburse you for your lottery tickets that didn’t hit paydirt?
And the bailout isn’t the worst part of it, nor is the fact that this is actually going to keep prices from “becoming more affordable.”
The worst part is that the government is trying to sell this to you as the complete opposite. Because this move is, according to Premier David Eby, going to “bring down buying costs.”
How exactly?
They’re selling us this idea that by purchasing unsold inventory, at inflated prices, on the backs of taxpayers, we’re going to “stimulate supply”
They believe, apparently, that once this inventory is “unfrozen” and absorbed by the market, then developers will start to build again, as there will be an open door to demand.
But this couldn’t be further from the truth.
If anything, this will disincentivize developers.
Why?
Because now developers are far less likely to take risks unless they’re certain that their governments are going to backstop any potential losses.
“You did it for them, now do it for me,” developers will argue, and as they watch the government lament the collapse of the construction industry and the economic fallout that resulted, they’ll believe that they can wait out the government and force it to provide favourable terms.
You can’t feed your puppy at the table every night and then, one night, just expect it to stop begging for food.
Mark my words, this is just the beginning of this saga.
And I can’t wait to see all the people on the left, who should be diametrically opposed to this, line up to defend Mark Carney.
It’s like those folks who blamed Doug Ford for not letting Olivia Chow scalp soccer tickets, but that’s a topic for another day…
Sasha R
at 7:50 am
I agree with your outrage based on the headlines…a couple things though, the government is not spending 3.2 billion in condos – 1.6 billion of this is to cut municipal development charges and fund infrastructure (And I think we can agree cutting taxes is good)…and Carney has said they will buy the condos at a distressed price and there have been no numbers released on the cost per unit. I’m not sure they are intending to provide “affordable housing” but rather housing that is affordable. Obviously, there is a lot of information we don’t have yet, and based on the headlines I get the backlash and think that it’s a good thing when governments respond to that – we should have more outrage like France (I mean, maybe not setting fire to cars outrage but Canadians tend to rollover and accept that we pay more for everything, for example). Ford Cancelled the “gravy plane” when people freaked out and Eby has already said this deal might not go through…I am awaiting more detail to see if this is, in fact, a bailout and reserving my rage until then.
Derek
at 10:20 am
Developers have it pretty good as they are bipartisan pockets for corruption in government. There seemed to be swift and enthusiastic opposition to the initial announcement, sufficient to trigger a “walking back”. The initial comms were so bad, they attracted enough scrutiny to hopefully prevent a complete cluster. The first pivot seems to be renaming and reframing as opposed to changing plans.
Serge
at 8:48 am
“True price discovery” – this seems to be the same process that sellers from previous posts needed to pass through, but now, on much higher level.
The bigger fun is ahead, when and how these “affordable homes” are distributed to “poor(er) people”.
What will life in those buildings be?
cyber
at 9:43 am
Ironically enough, neither Liberals nor Conservatives tried for “more affordability” in grocery store prices or telecom – the cost of which much more drastically affects families who are lower income – by improving and better enforcing antitrust laws.
“Somehow” we keep paying the highest prices in the world for internet and phone service, while telcos make so much hand-over-fist money they don’t even know what to do with, so they have to own among the most overpaid sports franchises in their leagues… or Weston family controls over 60% of supermarkets in Canada, and settles for a few mil every couple of years on price fixing, but somehow this is not anti competitive?
Canada has an entrenched “pro domestic oligopoly and big business” too big to fail mindset on both sides that seems impossible to vote out. (TD bank all inclusive checking account is $30 CAD, but in US TD bank charges less than US $15 for the same service, I wonder why.)
Everyone bails out the banks. Everyone bails out the auto sector. Everyone kept increasing immigration and loosening controls in part to artificially supress wages for big business. No one meaningfully improves consumer protections across products/services. Now I betcha PP would have bailed out RE developers if he was in power as well. We are in the late stages of crony capitalism and the plebs are starting to both notice and get upset, just need to see whether a left or right wing populist takes advantage next (most likely Doug Ford).
Sasha R
at 8:51 am
Good points…and don’t even get me started on Air Canada…
Ace Goodheart
at 10:40 am
The problem is lobbyists. Just recently, a group of highly paid lobbyists convinced Doug Ford to expropriate the Toronto Islands, Little Norway Park and quite a bit of lower Bathurst Street, so that the Provincial government can expand a failing airport located in Toronto’s inner harbour. Why? JP Morgan Chase owns the terminal (through a web of related companies) and they purchased it for around $750 million US. It loses money, and they want to be made whole. So the lobbying efforts have been intensive. We are now bailing out a big US bank and destroying the waterfront and inner harbour, to build a massive international airport in a public park.
Paid for by taxpayers.
It’s the lobbyists. If you do a little digging, you will find lobbyists who have convinced both the BC government and the Feds that purchasing their junk condos at inflated prices is a good idea. The propaganda comes from the lobbyists. So does the newspaper articles. Look at who they interviewed. This is just set up by a bunch of large companies whose owners don’t want to go through CCAA proceedings.
The public doesn’t get to be involved in the discussions. We are just told that it is an amazing deal for us.
Really, lobbying as a profession needs to be re-jigged. They hide their identities now through related corporations. You can’t figure out who is paying them. They break all the rules and when they are caught, they just pay the fines and keep going. They consider it a business expense.
The “closed door lobbying” profession needs to be changed. What should be happening is, if lobbying is to take place, it should be done in a public forum and we should be invited to attend. They are lobbying for our taxes to be given to them. Why are we not consulted?
They also need to greatly increase the fines for breaking the rules. If a lobbyist forgets to put on their lobbying form that they actually work for a company that is owned by another company that is controlled 100% by a third company that is a subsidiary of a large developer that owns 20 condo buildings in BC, well, they should be banned for life from lobbying and subject to a billion dollar fine. Seriously. Otherwise, they just ignore the rules.
There is a serious problem with lobbying in this country. When was the last time you got to go to the government hat in hand, and convince them to give you free money? Lobbyists do this “as of right” for large companies that really don’t need the money, but don’t like putting losses on their balance sheets.
Control lobbying and all of this stops. Seriously.
cyber
at 11:50 am
And politicians and senior bureaucrats (anyone in a non-union role) should be barred from being a registered lobbyist or getting paid by a lobbying company for 5 years after leaving their position.
Ace Goodheart
at 1:36 pm
They should be barred for life.
This stuff must be taken seriously. Lobbying is an industry. The lobbying effort that resulted in the Feds and the BC government buying up distressed BC condos to save the developers from incurring losses, was a “package” that they purchased from a lobbying company. That package seems to have included a media component (release stories to media and get media to report on the positives of the upcoming purchases), a lobbying component, a public relations component and likely coaching and mentoring for those involved in “selling” this to the public.
The effort seems to have partially failed, as people are very upset about it and are lashing out (like our author of this blog just did). It is being referred to a transfer from the “have nots” to the “have yachts”. So the public relations and media component, and the coaching component (when they educate those in government as to how to present this to the public so as to sway public opinion in their favour) seems to have been bungled.
The root of the problem as I said before is the “closed door” nature of the lobbying efforts. We are not made aware that any of this is happening until the deals are already signed and the money is already flowing. The doors must be opened.
Otherwise this will just keep happening. We can’t let lobbying companies sell these “package deals” and then the entire effort goes on behind closed doors, with the public finding out about it after it is already agreed to.
Serge
at 3:47 pm
Wow! So many people think that Canadian politicians cannot even do such an obvious mental decision – to buy out unsold condos by state money – without “lobbyists” prompting them. Are not they adults? Do they not look around? Even Chinese communists do it. Do communists have lobbyists?
Jenn
at 7:21 pm
I’m not getting the olivia chow – soccer tickets – doug ford reference?
Appraiser
at 7:08 am
Bailouts are a terrible thing and should never happen. Conservatives would never allow it. Imagine the horror of “bailing out” low income Canadians. Such madness.
Oh I know I know – homelessness is not a crisis. Pull up your bootstraps and all.
General Motors and Chrysler: In 2009, the federal Harper government, alongside the Ontario government, injected $13.7 billion into the automotive sector to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler. The Canadian portion was roughly 20% of the U.S. auto rescue package . The government later sold its GM shares, resulting in a taxpayer loss of approximately $3.5 billion .
The Big 5 Banks: During the financial crisis, Canada’s major banks (including Royal Bank, TD, and Scotiabank) accessed massive Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives government support . This included $114 billion in combined funding through the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, and mortgage purchases by the CMHC.
Automotive Innovation Fund: Outside of crisis bailouts, the Harper administration doled out several hundreds of millions of dollars through this fund—including a $250 million top-up in 2013 —to support R&D and operations for automakers such as Ford and General Motors .
Serge
at 1:55 pm
What about Ford bailing out Toronto developers with public money?
Island Home Owner
at 12:35 pm
David, if they’re defending Mark Carney, they’re not on the left, they’re a Liberal!
Toad
at 12:20 am
It always amazes me that when people argue their politics, and sometimes the arguments are good ones, that they can never see how they sound just like the ‘other side’. It’s like blinders go up and no matter what, their politics is correct.
Stupid example but David said “People on the other side of my politics… always resort to extremes to prove their points.” Um. Just a few lines up from this, he’s sarcastically talking about duffel bags of scotch and raiding savings accounts to help prove his point. Like what?? I’ve been reading TRB for years and I know there’s TONS of examples of David using his extremes (I for one think it’s an effective way to prove a point). It just baffles me that people get so blinded and overlook their own politic’s failings but will happily point out the failings of the other side.
I like most of David’s real estate commentaries and insights and find him to be an intelligent and practical guy but get him talking politics and oh boy, most of that goes out the window. Everyone has an achilles heel, I guess. It’s just unfortunate that no matter what, politics showcases the worst in people’s analytical and reasoning skills.
I mean, no mention of the 1.6B in this announcement to reduce development charges, yet we’ve read the constant drum beat by David that DCs are way too high due to governments. I would’ve thought this was welcome news (even if he felt 1.6B isn’t enough). But that strangely wasn’t even worth a line in this TRB article.
No mention that the developers are actually leery because they feel the government will most likely buy the distressed condos at a loss for the developers. I mean, this whole article is predicated on the fact that the government is going to overpay for condos and disrupt the free market. But where does it say that? Why would that even make sense? Anyone condo shopping these days is looking for a deal. Private equity is doing exactly this in bulk. The government would be no different. Picking up condos on the cheap. The developers themselves are indicating that that’s what’s going to happen. But, again, the blinders are up and so it doesn’t get a mention because it doesn’t quite fit the narrative.
Sorry to unload but for once I’d like a balanced assessment on these politically charged topics but I know that’s me shouting into the void.
Crofty
at 11:06 am
Take heart, Toad, you’re not “shouting into the void.” There are (hopefully) more fellow travellers here than there might appear to be. Keep the faith.
Derek
at 1:21 pm
Very, thoughtful post. Those sentiments apply to so much discourse in politics today. Teams and tribes, and disdain for anyone not on yours.
That said, while I am likely well left of David on political views, I think you’re being too hard on our boy in this instance. He can’t cover every angle of a government policy that was poorly communicated at first instance on June 18 and then, because of the immediate negative response, resulted in some walking back, some reframing and renaming and the PM throwing the Premier under the bus and vice versa.
Regarding one of your points about “where does it say” the government will overpay, it is hard for me to imagine that the actual default outcome will not be an “overpay” by the government, because there are not very many examples of anything else ever occurring. The fact of the announcement probably self-fulfills the overpay prophecy.
I don’t know what the proper definition of “bailout” is, but to me, it connotes the government giving taxpayer money to private industry that is otherwise in financial peril. There have been many bailouts and perhaps a more honest or transparent debate would revolve around whether the industry should indeed be bailed out like other industries have before. Maybe, the industry SHOULD be bailed out! Did anyone consider that in any thoughtful way? Okay, not my view, and probably not in the general public’s view, which probably explains why the government wouldn’t frame the conversation around why a bailout is necessary. Quiz, who said, “”This is a regrettable but necessary step to protect the Canadian economy.”
I also note that there are many other broad policy problems, and practical downstream implementation problems with the idea of the government buying unsold condo units for affordable housing goals, separate from the dreaded thought of “overpaying”. Many people, smarter than me, have discussed them on the intertubes.
Finally, I am suspicious of any narrative from developers that invites the inference that they are innocent rubes of a government determined to knife them in the back and scoop up their inventory that nobody else wants at current prices.
Okay, I should get back to work!!!
Crofty
at 5:40 pm
Excellent analysis of the pros and cons of such a necessarily complex policy. Most of your points are echoed in an excellent in-depth article by legendary (in my mind, at least) real estate analyst John Lorinc.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/lets-not-be-so-quick-to-write-off-carneys-condo-plan/article_2ab9784e-a3ce-4878-9231-264191b9eb95.html
Toad
at 8:03 am
Harper bailing out the auto sector. Whether this difference matters or not, typically when an industry is bailed out, cash is just given to them in the form of a loan with I assume very favourable terms with the fingers crossed that they can maybe, one day pay it back. The only real gain to be had is that you keep the industry from collapsing. Which seems a bit different here since the money being given here is an actual purchase of assets, not some non repayable loan. But I hear you on whether they can actually be bought for a ‘fair’ price. But again, private equity is doing it. David himself is scooping up cheap condos. But somehow the government will automatically get fleeced on the deal? I’m on the fence on that one.
And sure, he can’t cover every policy angle, but it just seems that someone like David would have a daily alert on the mention of DC’s being lowered since he has a huge disdain for them… but no mention of them? I would’ve at least expected the political slant of ‘the Liberals were the ones that increased them 1000% so 1.6B is just pandering’.
Anyway, I’m just tired of the mud slinging and the obvious biases that make people incredulously look the other way in order to support their views. It may not seem like it but I hold David in high regard but when it comes to his political rants, it exposes the reality that he is in fact only human.
Peter
at 8:38 am
I think I understand where Davids personality and political views overlap. He’s a workaholic and an overachiever who seems like the kind of guy who wants to be the best at absolutely everything he does, and he’s genuinely surprised when others dont want the same. So he doesn’t believe in free passes and that makes him extremely at odds with socialism which is where our political system is firmly staked. I think after all these years of reading this blog, we feel like we all understand him in our own ways. Doesn’t make me enjoy reading these posts any less.
Frances
at 5:32 pm
You should have your own blog Derek. “Innocent rubes.” I love it!
Anwar
at 6:25 pm
I think the “duffel bags full of booze” comment was intended to be hyperbolic, it just came off hypocritical because of the “extremes” comment. But I give him a pass because he’s not wrong. The newfangled open season on consumer theft that costs retailers $4 Billion per year is a microcosm of what Neo-Liberalism has devolved into in this country, and we are having a conversation about politics here. But what is the conversation? Is it about the $3.2 Billion bailout, or is it about not trusting anything the Carney government does?