No, Dr. Tansey, CMHC report never claimed that “the effect of foreign investors is small compared to other factors”

Yesterday, I demonstrated1)UBC report blaming red tape for housing crisis is based on lobby group report containing demonstrably false numbers that the report3)Growing Pains: Density, economic growth, sustainability and wellbeing in Metro Vancouver by Dr. James Tansey of UBC Sauder School of Business blaming red tape instead of foreign speculators has used a demonstrably false report as basis for estimating the impact of government regulations on housing prices.

Today we look at the second half of Dr. Tansey’s claim, i.e., that foreign buyers are having little impact on housing prices.

Here’s Dr. Tansey’s exact claim:

The CMHC study cited above, which is the most authoritative to date demonstrates that the effect of foreign investors is small compared to other factors.

The CMHC study Dr. Tansey is referring to is the report from earlier May 2018 titled *Examining Escalating House Prices in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres*2)Examining Escalating House Prices in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres .

Here’s what the report actually says about foreign buyers (emphasis mine):

A persistent challenge in understanding demand for housing in Canada is the extent of foreign investment. We have supported Statistics Canada in their efforts to bring better data to bear on this question while filling short-term data gaps ourselves. Ontario and British Columbia have also started collecting data on the flow of foreign investment. It remains difficult to quantify the impact of foreign investment, however. The comprehensive data released by Statistics Canada in late 2017 suggest that non-residents account for 3.4 per cent of residential properties in Toronto, and 4.9 per cent in Vancouver. Non-resident owners, however, tend to own proportionately more condominium apartments than singledetached housing. As discussed below, however, prices of single-detached housing have increased proportionately more than those of condominium apartments.

While official data on the stock and flow of foreign investment appear low, it is possible that upsurges of foreign investment at market peaks could alter expectations of domestic homebuyers on the price they should pay for housing, and encourage domestic speculators. Our new Homebuyers Motivation Survey shows that 52 per cent of the buyers who purchased a home recently in Toronto and Vancouver believed that foreign buyers were having an influence on home prices in those centres. Actions taken by the Provinces to curtail foreign investment could therefore have been timely to reduce excessive short-term spikes in house prices.

Dr. Tansey is being intellectually dishonest by claiming that the CMHC study ”demonstrates that the effect of foreign investors is small compared to other factors.” CMHC report admits that it’s difficult to gauge the impact, and suggests that even if the foreign buyer numbers are low, foreign buyers could be punching above their weight by altering the expectations of local buyers. CMHC even concludes that the BC’s and Ontario’s foreign buyer tax may have been a timely measure to cool down housing prices.

References   [ + ]

Complaint against Sutton West Coast over the disruption of AG David Eby’s town hall

I’ve just filed a complaint against Sutton West Coast over the part they played in disrupting BC Attorney General David Eby’s town hall.

Here’s the full text of my complaint:

  1. Sutton Group West Coast Realty (“Sutton West Coast”) took out a full page advertisement on Vancouver Courier newspaper published on or about 2018 April 28 urging supporters to disrupt Attorney General David Eby’s planned town hall with his constituents.
  2. This advertisement, and similar call by BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson, forced Mr. Eby to cancel the event owing to security reasons.
  3. The wording of the call for action in Sutton West Coast’s advertisement was “Regardless of whether or not the Hall is full, demonstrate your opposition to these taxes and make your voice heard by attending:” followed by details of Mr. Eby’ town hall. The “Regardless of whether or not the Hall is full” was underlined in the original advertisement.
  4. Similarly, Mr. Wilkinson, urged his supporters to protest at Mr. Eby’s town hall “whether you have a ticket or not”.
  5. An elected MLA has a duty to meet with his or her constituents. In turn, the constituents have a right to meet their MLA. Sutton West Coast’s advertisement, singularly or in conjunction with Mr. Wilkinson’s letter, amounts to a deliberate disruption of the democratic process. It deprives the constituents of their democratic rights, and prevents an elected official from carrying out their democratic duties.
  6. Section 35(2) of the Real Estate Services Act states :
    A licensee commits conduct unbecoming a licensee if the licensee engages in conduct that, in the judgment of a discipline committee,
    (a) is contrary to the best interests of the public,

    (b) undermines public confidence in the real estate industry, or

    (c) brings the real estate industry into disrepute.
  7. It is plain and obvious that Sutton West Coast has violated Section 35(2) of the Real Estate Service Act as inciting mobs to sabotage a democratic process is contrary to the best interests of the public, undermines public confidence in the real estate industry, and brings the real estate industry into disrepute.
  8. Candice Dyer is named as the managing broker of Sutton West Coast.
  9. Section 6 (2) of the Act states:
    A managing broker licensed in relation to a brokerage acts for the brokerage for all purposes under this Act, and is responsible for

    (c) the control and conduct of the brokerage’s real estate business, including supervision of the associate brokers and representatives who are licensed in relation to the brokerage.
  10. Therefore, Ms. Dyer is named as the licensee against whom the complaint is made.