Mark Carney has only himself to blame, for the controversy that erupted last week when he announced a half-baked plan to buy up vacant condominiums.
But the blowback, as strong as any he’s faced since becoming prime minister, may ultimately prove a blessing in disguise both for him and for the country.
That is, if it causes him to course correct at all on two traits that threaten to eventually get his government in a lot more trouble: overconfidence in his own communication skills, and a cozy relationship with business that could increasingly be seen as out of touch.
In this instance, those liabilities conspired to turn what could have been a fairly innocuous strategy to provide affordable housing in the Vancouver area into something with national repercussions.
What Ottawa is actually plotting, per the latest explanations, is to partner with British Columbia to each cover 10 per cent of the cost of turning condos currently sitting empty — because of a cold market — into housing offered at below-market rates. With an apparent target of about 2,200 units and an estimated total cost of $1.45 billion, we’re seemingly talking about less than $300 million between the two levels of government.
There are certainly quibbles with this scheme, including that the governments’ intention to make the units available on a rent-to-own basis would not necessarily keep them affordable in the long run. It would probably make more sense just to turn them over to housing non-profits, as John Lorinc argued in the Star earlier this week.
But the fact that it’s been perceived as a massive bailout to wealthy and overextended condo developers — with waves of furious commentary, and enough political salience to prompt opposition calls for an ethics probe — can be chalked up mostly to how Carney chose to tell us about it initially.
Plainly, the PM pushed for the plan to be rolled out before the details had been nailed down — something that B.C. Premier David Eby, who co-announced it, has subsequently lamented.
As a result, the explanation was so vague and shoddy that media and the public were left connecting the dots. The impression took hold that the governments would be footing the entire bill, which in some cases was conflated with a separate $3.2-billion figure mentioned at the same announcement.
If you’ve been following this government’s communications closely, a mix-up along these lines almost seemed overdue.
This is an impatient prime minister who’s extremely confident in his own ability to tell Canadians what they need to hear — often to the exclusion of his ministers doing so, or the sort of detailed and relatively transparent messaging plan that would normally accompany major announcements.
It’s mostly worked out for him so far, partly because he really is a commanding presence behind a microphone. But sooner or later, his instincts were bound to fail him.
And it’s how they failed him that point toward the second liability, which has gotten less attention to this point but could really cause future grief.
There’s a way that Carney could have presented the plan, out of the gate, to minimize the bailout perception now dogging him. That would have involved emphasizing that this was solely about getting new housing at a reasonably low price, and that developers — who got plenty rich when the market was overheated — would have to take a haircut now if they wanted to offload excess stock.
Instead he appeared to have some sympathy for the condo industry’s plight, and to consider the strategy a win-win.
“Developers are stuck” holding onto units, he said. Clearing those units off the books would help mobilize new investment now disincentivized by the glut.
He tried to downplay that side of the equation when subsequently trying to clear up what the governments are up to. But it was hardly out of keeping with his general governing philosophy to date.
Replacing a PM who was accused (at least by certain sectors) of being anti-business, Carney has tilted hard in the other direction.
Speak to representatives of almost any industry — finance, energy, tech, you name it — and they’ll enthuse about how much more respectful and responsive he is.
Read any of the many strategies his government has released over the past year — for artificial intelligence, food security, the automotive industry, climate change — and you’ll see a strong preference for carrots (using public dollars) over regulatory sticks.
So far, that’s mostly proven in line with the public mood.
Amid the desire to batten down the hatches under U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats, Carney’s alignment with (even embodiment of) corporate Canada has worked in his favour.
But in the long run, aligning himself too closely with industries that can be blamed for unaffordability, inequality, job losses, climate change or other threats to our quality of life could both feed backlash and put him on the wrong side of it.
And all the more so, if he’s as cavalier about explaining to Canadians the policy decisions shaping those relationships as he was this time.
