Subscribe
Given how nice it is outside right now, some of you may be forgetting that Canada does have winter. And it is largely because of winter that we are the biggest foreign buyer of homes in the state of Florida (and the US as a whole for that matter). In 2024, Canadians bought over $2.4 billion worth of homes in Florida. And between April 2023 and March 2024, it is estimated that Canadians accounted for nearly 25% of all foreign home sales in the state (this is according to the National Association of Realtors).
Because of this strong demand, I would imagine that many and perhaps even most Canadians would tell you that being allowed to buy a home in the US — or elsewhere in the world — is a nice freedom to have. (Although demand is waning because of the strong US dollar and because of the current geopolitical climate.)
If we flipped this around and asked Canadians whether foreigners should be allowed to buy homes in Canada, I suspect that we might get a different leaning. And that's why there is the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (which is currently set to expire on January 1, 2027). This was and likely still is the politically popular thing to have in place.
Now, it could be the case that these two groups are mutually exclusive. In other words, the people who own homes outside of Canada (a small minority) do not overlap with the people who support a ban on foreign buyers (the majority). And so when looked at in aggregate, the majority of Canadians do in fact want this ban. That said, I would not be surprised if Canadians buy more homes abroad than foreigners buy homes in Canada, which would make our current policies, at the very least, mildly hypocritical.
Whatever the case may be, it is in the news this week that some of the largest builders in British Columbia have just sent a letter to our governments arguing that the foreign buyer ban and BC's foreign buyer tax need to be reconsidered — or modified to something that resembles Australia's model. (Australia restricts foreign ownership to newly constructed homes and pre-sales. Foreigners can't buy resales.) The letter was signed by 25 companies including developers like Amacon, Beedie, Strand Development, and Westbank.
At the very least, I think there's a strong argument to be made that pre-construction and new home sales should be exempt from the ban. Most people probably don't appreciate that developers rely on pre-sales to finance the construction of new homes. It is significantly more challenging for end users to buy in this same way given how long projects take. We can certainly have a conversation about whether this is the optimal financing approach, but it is the way things work today.
So my view is this: If foreign capital wants to finance new housing and help increase our overall housing supply, that's a good thing. Let's take their money and use it to build lots more homes for Canadians. With this approach, foreigners won't be competing for our existing housing stock and, over the longer term, it is likely that most of these pre-sales will end up as new rental supply or as a resale home for Canadians.
The alternative is building fewer new homes, waiting until there's a worse housing shortage, and then turning the industry back on to deliver new homes in 5-7 years.
Cover photo by Denys Kostyuchenko on Unsplash
Banning foreigners from buying real estate tends to be popular policy.
In a recent public opinion survey conducted in British Columbia, 77% of respondents said they approve of the provincial foreign buyer tax increasing from 15 to 20%, and 75% said they agree with the federal government's temporary ban on foreign buyers. This is consistent with what I'd expect. But for obvious reasons, the development industry doesn't like these policies.
Foreign-buyer bans are a demand-side measure. Meaning, they are intended to ease home prices by reducing demand. The development industry doesn't like this because low demand is bad when you're trying to build things. A better scenario is something involving high demand and high supply, which is why supply-side measures tend to be more popular with industry. Even though there's always the risk of overbuilding.
But it's pretty hard to argue that more supply will help to lower home prices and then not argue the same with reduced demand via the banning of certain buyers. Both levers should, in theory, have an impact, even if the former is suboptimal for builders. That said, there remains the important question of whether there's enough foreign demand for a foreign-buyer ban to actually have an impact or whether it's just political theater.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that we have not typically seen a lot of foreign buyers in our pre-construction condominium projects. The deposit structure we use is different for non-Canadians and it tends to be a very very small percentage of buyers. But for resales in markets like Vancouver, the numbers do seem to be higher, at least based on some historical data.
According to this recent research paper, once BC started tracking the nationality of buyers in June 2016, they discovered that in the 5-week period that immediately followed, about $885 million was spent by foreigners in the Greater Vancouver Area and that they represented about 10% of all sales. It was also discovered that of these foreign buyers, about 90% of them were from China.
The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act -- which came into effect in January of this year and bans foreigners from buying residential real estate in the country for two years -- is weird.
We can debate whether banning foreigners from buying residential real estate is really helpful for housing affordability and if it's the most impactful place to focus our attention (and we have talked about this many times before), but the part that is particularly odd is this feature here:
...the law’s definition of residential property includes land that is zoned for residential use or mixed use, which covers huge swaths of commercial land across the country. As well, an entity is deemed foreign if a non-Canadian owns a minimum of 3 per cent of the entity.
What this means is that the following scenario is now technically a problem (not actual legal advice!):
You own a commercial property with zero homes
You have long-term commercial leases in place that also generally preclude you from building new homes in the foreseeable future
The zoning of your property allows for residential uses (which you like having in your back pocket)
And your cousin from Italy owns 3% of the entity that owns the real estate
This is a scenario where residential homes do not exist and they are unlikely to exist any time soon. It seems clear cut, but I suppose one could argue that it's exceedingly onerous to try and figure out which sites are soft sites and could actually be developed with new residential. And so if you have the potential to build and then own residential, you should be regulated as if you might ultimately own some of it one day.
But even here, I don't know why we would want to restrict the supply side of the housing equation. If you're a developer in Canada where housing is known to be kind of expensive and you want to build more of it for Canadians, isn't that a good thing? And isn't it also a good thing if we can get some non-Canadians to help pay for these new homes?
Given how nice it is outside right now, some of you may be forgetting that Canada does have winter. And it is largely because of winter that we are the biggest foreign buyer of homes in the state of Florida (and the US as a whole for that matter). In 2024, Canadians bought over $2.4 billion worth of homes in Florida. And between April 2023 and March 2024, it is estimated that Canadians accounted for nearly 25% of all foreign home sales in the state (this is according to the National Association of Realtors).
Because of this strong demand, I would imagine that many and perhaps even most Canadians would tell you that being allowed to buy a home in the US — or elsewhere in the world — is a nice freedom to have. (Although demand is waning because of the strong US dollar and because of the current geopolitical climate.)
If we flipped this around and asked Canadians whether foreigners should be allowed to buy homes in Canada, I suspect that we might get a different leaning. And that's why there is the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (which is currently set to expire on January 1, 2027). This was and likely still is the politically popular thing to have in place.
Now, it could be the case that these two groups are mutually exclusive. In other words, the people who own homes outside of Canada (a small minority) do not overlap with the people who support a ban on foreign buyers (the majority). And so when looked at in aggregate, the majority of Canadians do in fact want this ban. That said, I would not be surprised if Canadians buy more homes abroad than foreigners buy homes in Canada, which would make our current policies, at the very least, mildly hypocritical.
Whatever the case may be, it is in the news this week that some of the largest builders in British Columbia have just sent a letter to our governments arguing that the foreign buyer ban and BC's foreign buyer tax need to be reconsidered — or modified to something that resembles Australia's model. (Australia restricts foreign ownership to newly constructed homes and pre-sales. Foreigners can't buy resales.) The letter was signed by 25 companies including developers like Amacon, Beedie, Strand Development, and Westbank.
At the very least, I think there's a strong argument to be made that pre-construction and new home sales should be exempt from the ban. Most people probably don't appreciate that developers rely on pre-sales to finance the construction of new homes. It is significantly more challenging for end users to buy in this same way given how long projects take. We can certainly have a conversation about whether this is the optimal financing approach, but it is the way things work today.
So my view is this: If foreign capital wants to finance new housing and help increase our overall housing supply, that's a good thing. Let's take their money and use it to build lots more homes for Canadians. With this approach, foreigners won't be competing for our existing housing stock and, over the longer term, it is likely that most of these pre-sales will end up as new rental supply or as a resale home for Canadians.
The alternative is building fewer new homes, waiting until there's a worse housing shortage, and then turning the industry back on to deliver new homes in 5-7 years.
Cover photo by Denys Kostyuchenko on Unsplash
Banning foreigners from buying real estate tends to be popular policy.
In a recent public opinion survey conducted in British Columbia, 77% of respondents said they approve of the provincial foreign buyer tax increasing from 15 to 20%, and 75% said they agree with the federal government's temporary ban on foreign buyers. This is consistent with what I'd expect. But for obvious reasons, the development industry doesn't like these policies.
Foreign-buyer bans are a demand-side measure. Meaning, they are intended to ease home prices by reducing demand. The development industry doesn't like this because low demand is bad when you're trying to build things. A better scenario is something involving high demand and high supply, which is why supply-side measures tend to be more popular with industry. Even though there's always the risk of overbuilding.
But it's pretty hard to argue that more supply will help to lower home prices and then not argue the same with reduced demand via the banning of certain buyers. Both levers should, in theory, have an impact, even if the former is suboptimal for builders. That said, there remains the important question of whether there's enough foreign demand for a foreign-buyer ban to actually have an impact or whether it's just political theater.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that we have not typically seen a lot of foreign buyers in our pre-construction condominium projects. The deposit structure we use is different for non-Canadians and it tends to be a very very small percentage of buyers. But for resales in markets like Vancouver, the numbers do seem to be higher, at least based on some historical data.
According to this recent research paper, once BC started tracking the nationality of buyers in June 2016, they discovered that in the 5-week period that immediately followed, about $885 million was spent by foreigners in the Greater Vancouver Area and that they represented about 10% of all sales. It was also discovered that of these foreign buyers, about 90% of them were from China.
The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act -- which came into effect in January of this year and bans foreigners from buying residential real estate in the country for two years -- is weird.
We can debate whether banning foreigners from buying residential real estate is really helpful for housing affordability and if it's the most impactful place to focus our attention (and we have talked about this many times before), but the part that is particularly odd is this feature here:
...the law’s definition of residential property includes land that is zoned for residential use or mixed use, which covers huge swaths of commercial land across the country. As well, an entity is deemed foreign if a non-Canadian owns a minimum of 3 per cent of the entity.
What this means is that the following scenario is now technically a problem (not actual legal advice!):
You own a commercial property with zero homes
You have long-term commercial leases in place that also generally preclude you from building new homes in the foreseeable future
The zoning of your property allows for residential uses (which you like having in your back pocket)
And your cousin from Italy owns 3% of the entity that owns the real estate
This is a scenario where residential homes do not exist and they are unlikely to exist any time soon. It seems clear cut, but I suppose one could argue that it's exceedingly onerous to try and figure out which sites are soft sites and could actually be developed with new residential. And so if you have the potential to build and then own residential, you should be regulated as if you might ultimately own some of it one day.
But even here, I don't know why we would want to restrict the supply side of the housing equation. If you're a developer in Canada where housing is known to be kind of expensive and you want to build more of it for Canadians, isn't that a good thing? And isn't it also a good thing if we can get some non-Canadians to help pay for these new homes?
This data was so impactful to policy makers that it is allegedly what led to BC's foreign buyer tax in August 2016. And since then, there's further data to suggest that it has worked to temper home prices. Here's a chart from the same research paper:
As a developer and proponent of open markets, I don't love this policy. It's a form of protectionism that discourages or flat-out blocks this kind of foreign investment from entering the country. I also worry that it can be a crutch or excuse not to expand the overall housing supply of a market. But this is seemingly not how many or most voters feel. And I can certainly appreciate why that would be the case.
Cover photo by Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash
This data was so impactful to policy makers that it is allegedly what led to BC's foreign buyer tax in August 2016. And since then, there's further data to suggest that it has worked to temper home prices. Here's a chart from the same research paper:
As a developer and proponent of open markets, I don't love this policy. It's a form of protectionism that discourages or flat-out blocks this kind of foreign investment from entering the country. I also worry that it can be a crutch or excuse not to expand the overall housing supply of a market. But this is seemingly not how many or most voters feel. And I can certainly appreciate why that would be the case.
Cover photo by Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
