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.
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
My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.
One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.
At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.
For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.
So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.
Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.
Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.
At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.
So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.
Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.
Statistics Canada recently published some data (from 2022) looking at investors in the condominium apartment market. Here is what they believe to be the share of condominium apartments used as investment properties in Ontario's 10 largest census metropolitan areas:
It's worth noting that this is after excluding condominium buildings where every single suite is owned by a single investor. This is/was most prevalent in London, and it's the result of there being property tax benefits to registering a condominium (individual unit assessments), even though for all intents and purposes it's a rental building (building in its entirety assessed).
The article goes on to rightly suggest that the prevalence of investors, and the way that condominiums are financed, could be leading to the construction of more buildings with smaller suites. Here's the proportion of new condominium apartments under 600 square feet by period of construction:
The unsurprising takeaway is that condominium suites have gotten smaller. In the 1990s, the average condominium apartment built in the Toronto CMA was 947 square feet. This is compared to 640 square feet after 2016. And the same thing happened in Vancouver, which went from an average of 912 square feet to 790 square feet.
Investor preferences certainly have something to do with this. But what the article doesn't specifically mention is that this phenomenon is also a direct response to rising build costs: making suites smaller was how the market tried to maintain some level of affordability. Put differently, imagine how expensive new condominiums would be if the average size was still 947 square feet.
But there are obviously limits to this. I was with one of our architects the other week and he made an interesting comment to me. He said, "Brandon, before when build costs used to go up and things got less affordable for consumers, we could just make the suites smaller to offset the impacts. But I don't see how we can go any smaller now. We've reached the limit."
This is one of the reasons why I think this downturn is going to ultimately be a good thing for Canada's housing markets. It's a reset. It's forcing everyone out of complacency and, hopefully, it means that when the next cycle begins we'll be starting from a better foundation.