Navigating Dual Crises in Metro Vancouver: Public Health Alarms and the High-Stakes Housing Battle

Introduction

Metro Vancouver is currently navigating two significant, concurrent crises: acute environmental health concerns stemming from its long-standing waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator and a severe “cost-of-delivery crisis” crippling housing development. Independent testing has triggered alarms about toxic emissions from the Burnaby incinerator, provoking strong reactions from environmental and public health advocates. Metro Vancouver officials, however, maintain the facility is safe and cost-effective. At the same time, the region’s housing sector is buckling under the pressure of soaring costs, regulatory hurdles, and economic uncertainty, prompting stark warnings from developers and new regulations from the provincial government. This analysis examines the core dynamics of Metro Vancouver’s waste management controversy and the evolving landscape of its housing market, highlighting the critical intersection of public infrastructure, economic viability, and community well-being.

Section 1: The Burnaby Incinerator: A Public Health Flashpoint

The Contamination Concern

The Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy facility in Burnaby, operational since 1988, is at the heart of a fierce public health debate. The controversy ignited after independent rooftop-dust samples, taken within 500 meters of the facility, revealed a toxic equivalency of 44 pg/g of dioxins and furans. This level is approximately 19 times the tolerable daily intake recommended by Health Canada (2.3 pg/kg of body weight).¹

In response, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE-BC) issued a “Health Alarm,” demanding continuous emissions monitoring and an eventual phase-out of the plant. Advocacy group Zero Waste BC echoed these concerns, reporting “dangerous levels of dioxins, furans, and heavy metals” and noting that significant material deposits are accumulating on nearby properties. Critics argue that the current testing protocol—consisting of only annual tests on one of the three boilers under ideal conditions—is dangerously inadequate. They contrast this with regions like Oregon, where continuous monitoring for heavy metals and dioxins/furans is mandatory. They also highlight that the plant’s operational certificate extended its deadline to reduce acid gases from 2021 to 2028.¹

The Official Defense and Financial Realities

Metro Vancouver staunchly defends the WTE facility, asserting it emits “non-dangerous levels of toxins.” Paul Henderson, General Manager of Solid Waste Services, explains that the facility’s process air undergoes “multiple stages of treatment and filtration that removes 99.99% of particulates,” rendering any remaining material “far too fine to contribute to dust.” He suggests that observed dust likely originates from other nearby industrial facilities and heavy traffic.¹

Officials also argue the WTE facility is “more cost-efficient than shipping garbage outside the region,” particularly as the Vancouver Landfill approaches capacity. They tout Metro Vancouver’s 65% recycling rate as leading North America and double the Canadian average. However, the facility’s finances paint a challenging picture. In 2023, it recorded $26.69 million in operating costs against just $4.91 million in revenue, resulting in a $21.78 million deficit. The net cost was $92.18 per tonne, which remains lower than the Vancouver Landfill ($129 per tonne) and contingency disposal ($249 per tonne). Complicating matters, operating costs are projected to soar by 74% by 2027 due to an infrastructure rebuild and stricter air-quality standards. In March 2025, Veolia, a subsidiary of a Paris-based firm, began a five-year, $245 million contract to operate and maintain the plant.¹

Stakeholder Impact and Future Investments

The debate carries significant weight for taxpayers and public health. Advocacy groups including CAPE-BC, Zero Waste BC, Doctors for Planetary Health-West Coast, and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives are united in their call for the incinerator’s closure and firm opposition to further investment.

Currently, Metro Vancouver is debating a proposal to spend an additional $480 million to build one or more new incinerators. This faces strong resistance from the Fraser Valley Regional District, Vancouver city councillors, and the BC Chamber of Commerce. John Winters, the Chamber’s president, argued, “Half a billion dollars is half a billion dollars we don’t have, so taxpayers … can’t afford it.” Proponents, however, insist that incineration is the best method for managing non-recyclable waste while generating revenue.¹

Expert Voices

• Paul Henderson (Metro Vancouver’s GM of Solid Waste Services): Maintains that the incinerator is not the source of the dust and emits “non-dangerous levels of toxins.”
• Dr. Tim Takaro (CAPE-BC): States the “incinerator is clearly a source of hazardous pollutants in an already polluted airshed” and calls for independent assessment.
• Sue Maxwell (Zero Waste BC): Asserts that “more emphasis has been placed on maintaining the 37-year-old incinerator” than on reducing overall waste generation.
• John Winters (BC Chamber of Commerce): Criticized the proposed $480 million expenditure as unaffordable for taxpayers and warned it could create a monopoly, stifling private-sector waste management solutions.
• Marc Lee (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives): Warned a new incinerator would “lock us in to needing to produce garbage… for decades into the future.”

Section 2: British Columbia’s “Cost-of-Delivery” Housing Crisis

Unpacking the Issue

The housing sector in B.C. is mired in a severe “cost-of-delivery crisis,” precipitating project cancellations, development delays, and industry layoffs. Developers are grappling with a confluence of pressures: rising material costs, weak presale activity, lower immigration, a shortage of rental investors, high interest rates, and tightening credit. Beau Jarvis, President and CEO of Wesgroup Properties LP, emphasized the heavy financial burden of holding vacant land intended for development, with floating interest rates on that land surging by as much as 400% over the past two years. Compounding this, the rezoning and development permit process frequently takes over five years, creating substantial delays before construction can even begin.²

Data Spotlight

The crisis’s severity was starkly illustrated when Wesgroup Properties was forced to lay off employees in June 2025, a direct consequence of projects becoming financially unviable. While the Bank of Canada has begun cutting its key rate, the impact remains muted for developers carrying land debt with soaring floating interest rates. The core problem is not a lack of land or developer willingness, but rather prohibitive costs and prolonged regulatory timelines that make building new homes untenable.

Contextual Comparison

Despite these headwinds, pockets of development persist. The Tri-Cities region (Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody) is leveraging its central location and the SkyTrain’s Evergreen Line to foster growth. Coquitlam is concentrating density around transit hubs, while Port Moody anticipates 687 new condo and rental units in 2025. Surrey has also seen hundreds of new rentals as developers pivot from condos—a shift that may reduce future ownership opportunities for first-time buyers. However, the broader regional trend remains one of an industry under intense strain.

Authoritative Commentary

• Beau Jarvis (CEO, Wesgroup Properties): Declared a “cost-of-delivery crisis” where homes are delivered at prices people cannot afford. He dismissed a proposed federal vacant land tax as “simply illogical,” arguing it penalizes an industry already hamstrung by costs and delays. He also opposed retaliatory tariffs on construction materials, stating they “stand in direct opposition to the government’s stated goals on housing.”²
• Terry Hui (CEO, Concord Pacific): Supported the B.C. government’s policy changes on developer fees, acknowledging the industry is “under pressure from multiple directions” and that the initiative will “support new housing starts,” especially for smaller developers.³
• Anne McMullin (President, Urban Development Institute): Stated that upfront fee payments had become “increasingly onerous” and that shifting payment to occupancy “is enabling more projects to move forward.”³
• Brad Jones (CDO, Wesgroup Properties): Formally requested federal ministers exempt new construction materials from retaliatory tariffs, arguing they “make construction costlier, exacerbate Canada’s housing shortage and undermine the country’s own housing supply goals.”

Section 3: Strategic Shifts and Government Responses

Identifying the Trend

In response to the housing crisis, the B.C. government has initiated strategic policy shifts designed to boost housing starts and improve project viability. The cornerstone of this adaptation involves easing the financial burden on developers by changing fee regulations. In parallel, developers like Wesgroup are pursuing collaborative solutions with municipalities and advocating for policy changes at the federal level.

The Rationale

The primary goals of these shifts are to boost housing starts, improve project viability, free up capital for construction, and lower carrying costs for homebuilders. These measures are particularly critical for smaller developers who struggle to access capital. For municipalities, collaborating with developers on public amenities ensures community needs are met when public funds are scarce.

Concrete Examples

• B.C. Government Overhauls Developer Fees: Starting in January, the provincial government will allow developers to use “on-demand surety bonds” as financial guarantees, replacing capital-restricting “irrevocable letters of credit.” The policy also extends the payment period for development charges: developers will pay 25% at permit approval and the remaining 75% at occupancy or within four years, whichever comes first. This is a significant change from the previous rule requiring full payment within two years.³
• Wesgroup’s River District Community Partnership: After seven years of negotiations, Wesgroup Properties struck an agreement with the City of Vancouver to develop a 30,000 ft² community centre and a 10,000 ft² childcare facility in the River District, as the city lacked the necessary funds. In exchange, Wesgroup received 443,442 ft² of additional residential density and a partial exemption from the city’s utilities development cost levy.⁴
• Industry Advocacy on Federal Policy: Wesgroup has actively lobbied the federal government against policies it believes hinder housing supply. This includes formal requests to exempt construction materials from retaliatory tariffs and public criticism of the proposed federal vacant land tax as a “penalty” on the housing industry.²

Outlook

Industry leaders see these strategic shifts as positive steps. However, the housing sector continues to face the overarching “cost-of-delivery crisis.” The long-term effectiveness of these changes will depend on their ability to counteract persistent challenges like high interest rates, tariffs, and lengthy approval processes. While megaprojects like the River District demonstrate that collaboration can yield success, it remains to be seen whether these adaptations will bring lasting relief to Metro Vancouver’s strained housing market.

Section 4: A Comparative Analysis of Two Crises

While the provided materials do not offer a case study from another industry, a powerful comparison can be drawn between the public waste management sector and the private housing development sector within Metro Vancouver itself. Both reveal similar underlying fractures in the region’s ability to manage essential infrastructure and services.

Shared Lessons

• Overwhelming Financial Pressures: Both the WTE facility and housing developers are under immense financial strain. The incinerator runs a large annual deficit projected to worsen, while developers face spiraling costs that render projects unviable. In both cases, the cost of delivering an essential service (waste management) or good (housing) is outpacing revenue and affordability, requiring either public subsidy or higher prices for end-users.
• The Double-Edged Sword of Regulation: Government policy is a pivotal, yet often contentious, force in both arenas. The incinerator’s future hinges on debates over emission standards and massive taxpayer-funded investments. In housing, developers are simultaneously burdened by multi-year permit delays and taxes while depending on other government policy changes (e.g., surety bonds) to unlock capital. This highlights how regulatory frameworks, designed for public good, can inadvertently stifle economic activity.
• Stakeholder Conflict and Communication Gaps: Sharp divisions characterize both industries. The incinerator debate pits public health advocates against municipal officials. In housing, developers express deep frustration with government policies they see as punitive, while municipalities struggle to fund amenities for growing communities. The seven-year negotiation for the River District community centre underscores both the difficulty and the potential of overcoming these divides through sustained, goal-oriented collaboration.

Conclusion & Forward Look

Synthesis

Metro Vancouver is at a critical crossroads, grappling with deep-seated challenges in public waste management and private housing. The WTE incinerator, defended by officials as a cost-effective necessity, is plagued by allegations of toxic pollution and a growing financial deficit. Concurrently, the region’s housing market is seized by a “cost-of-delivery crisis,” with developers struggling against high costs and regulatory delays despite provincial efforts to provide relief. These disparate issues are linked by common threads: financial unsustainability, the profound impact of public policy, and the delicate balance between economic imperatives and community well-being.

Implications

The stakes are exceptionally high. Taxpayers face the burden of the incinerator’s deficit and a potential half-billion-dollar investment in new facilities, while health advocates demand greater environmental protection. For developers, the viability of future housing projects hinges on meaningful policy reform and cost reduction. For residents, the dual pressures of environmental health risks and housing unaffordability create an urgent need for integrated, forward-thinking solutions.

What to Watch

Moving forward, several key metrics will be critical to monitor:

• Metro Vancouver WTE Facility Performance: Look for results from independent emissions monitoring, the financial trajectory of the incinerator under the new Veolia contract, and the outcome of the debate over the proposed $480 million expansion.
• Housing Development Indicators: Closely track housing starts, project cancellations, and affordability metrics in light of B.C.’s new developer fee policies. Federal decisions on the proposed vacant land tax and construction tariffs will also be highly consequential.

These developments will profoundly shape the economic and environmental future of Metro Vancouver for years to come.

Sources

1. Source: Mackin, Bob. “Watchdog claims tests show Metro Vancouver incinerator a ‘significant’ health risk,” Business in Vancouver, July 8, 2025.
   URL: https://www.biv.com/news/environment/watchdog-claims-tests-show-metro-vancouver-incinerator-a-significant-health-risk-10921254 ↩
2. Source: O’Brien, Frank. “B.C. developer warns of ‘cost-of-delivery crisis’ for housing,” Business in Vancouver, June 25, 2025.
   URL: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/bc-developer-warns-of-cost-of-delivery-crisis-for-housing-10817084 ↩
3. Source: O’Brien, Frank. “Province changes developer fee regulations to help B.C. homebuilders,” Business in Vancouver, June 18, 2025.
   URL: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/province-changes-developer-fee-regulations-to-help-bc-homebuilders-10756770 ↩
4. Source: O’Brien, Frank. “Wesgroup-Vancouver deal delivers new community centre for River District,” Business in Vancouver, May 21, 2025.
   URL: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/wesgroup-vancouver-deal-delivers-new-community-centre-for-river-district-10515159 ↩