The usual actors like the government and banks are only too happy tell the public there was no bailout. And therefore the banks were solid but they encountered a weird period steps have to taken to let continue on. But those actions were not a bailout, of course.
The banks got in trouble because there assets were illiquld. On the market their was panic so no wanted to buy mortages of the banks to get some cash is there vaults. So the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) stepped in and bought "good mortages" form the banks at face value. So it was just a fair transaction CMHC gave the banks money and taxpayer got mortages. History reflects that it was profitable for the taxpayer.
Let provide a counter to that narrative above. The point was the market stopped working and assets became illiquid. So they could not sell there mortages to raise cash. This where I have jump in and say that market are never totally illiquid like bankers and government said. It was a bailout because CMHC paid full value(The bankers say the mortages were full value) but how did the banks decide that the mortages were fairly valued. Generally that is decided by putting mortage on market and see what people will pay. But we were told that market was illiquid and nothing was selling so the taxpayer bought the mortages. But I would say that a market is never truely illiquid, if you demand full value then yes the market may illiquid no whats to pay the full price. But if allow the market to price the asset than things will be liquid. But you have take a price of 40 cents on dollar or 25 cents on the dollar to clear. The banks could never take those kind of loses and survive. They know those kind haircuts will impair them so they need a "sucker" to buy assets at full value. If the CMHC did not buy the mortages then would take signinficant cut in an illiquid market. So the banks were bailouted because they were payed full value at a time when the world would pay a fraction of the price.