Canada’s next wave of immigration set to add more fuel to overheated housing market

2022/01/07 Leave a comment

About time for greater focus on the links between levels and housing prices. Federal and provincial governments need to consider such externalities rather than just push for more:

After a frenetic 18 months when Canadians pushed up home prices in a quest to ride out the pandemic in comfort, another influx of buyers is set to provide more fuel to the overheated real estate market.

The federal government has increased its annual immigration targets to the highest levels on record, creating the conditions for a surge of new permanent residents, which Canada needs to fill job vacancies. These new immigrants will add to the country’s population and immediately boost the need for housing in major job centres and nearby cities.

This will ramp up competition for homes at a time when national real estate prices have jumped 40 per cent in the past two years.

“Canada’s strong population growth is a factor driving our home prices upward at a faster pace than in many other economies,” said Bank of Montreal chief economist Douglas Porter, who analyzed the relationship between population growth and home prices in 18 developed countries.

He found that countries with faster population growth have had greater home price inflation than those whose populations have remained stable, or decreased.

Between 2010 and 2020, New Zealand and Canada both saw their populations climb by an average of more than 1 per cent each year. In Canada’s case, much of that growth was attributable to immigration.

Over that same decade, home prices rose an average of 7.9 per cent each year in New Zealand and 7 per cent each year in Canada.

Meanwhile, countries with shrinking populations have experienced stagnant or falling home values. Japan’s population declined by an average of 0.2 per cent each year, and home prices there rose an average of 0.2 per cent annually.

One reason immigration may be pushing up Canadian home prices is that Canada’s policies cater to newcomers with wealth and job skills. Many new permanent residents arrive with hefty bank accounts, or with enough professional expertise to make money quickly. And, like anyone else with means, they buy real estate.

Parisa Mahboubi, a senior policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute and an immigration labour expert, said integration is a challenge for all newcomers. But, she said: “Economic immigrants, especially those with Canadian experience or with education, are able to integrate into the labour market quickly. This means they are able to purchase a property sooner than other immigrants.”

New research from Statistics Canada suggests that in many cases it’s pre-existing wealth, not Canadian income, that is behind pricey real estate purchases by immigrants.

For example, in Richmond, B.C., a typical immigrant buyer in the lowest wage quintile, with median annual income of just $11,100, spent a median of $763,000 on a home in 2018, according to data from Statscan’s Canadian Housing Statistics Program (CHSP).

In contrast, a typical Canadian-born buyer in British Columbia in the lowest income quintile, with median annual income of $32,300, spent a median of $396,000 on a home in 2018, according to CHSP, which analyzed land registry information, property assessments and tax filings.

The disparity in the amounts spent by low-income immigrants and Canadian-born buyers suggests that the newcomers were relying on money not earned in Canada. The actual sources of the funds are unknown. CHSP has said the immigrant wealth could have been income earned previously in Canada or abroad, or income that was earned by others or underreported.

CHSP observed that in 2018 the majority of immigrant buyers across B.C. had moved to Canada prior to 2009 and had been admitted through the country’s various economic immigrant programs, which are designed to attract skilled workers and those with wealth.

“If you are an economic immigrant and you don’t have other opportunities, real estate becomes one of the fastest wealth generators,” said Andy Yan, director of the city program at B.C.’s Simon Fraser University. “They are wealthy. But when they try finding a job, it goes south.”

Other factors that have contributed to high home prices in Canada include low mortgage rates, a flood of domestic investors looking for high investment returns, and millennials increasingly forming families and seeking properties.

In the Toronto region, the country’s largest job centre, the average price of a home is above $1-million and many of the surrounding cities are nearing or above that price.

That has pushed Canadians and newcomers out of Toronto and into smaller regions in Southern Ontario. Some have left the province altogether for more affordable areas such as Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Halifax.

Canada’s six largest metropolitan areas – Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa – used to be the top destinations for immigrants. But that has been changing.

In 2002, Canada’s largest cities took in 88 per cent of the country’s immigrants and non-permanent residents. In 2019, the proportion was just 68 per cent, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Over that same period, net international migration to those cities grew by 43 per cent. But in the rest of Canada it soared by 370 per cent, with particularly strong growth in Ontario locations such as Niagara, London, Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge.

Today, there is an acute shortage of housing in those smaller cities.

In Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, London and the Niagara-St. Catharines region, the typical price of a home is 60 per cent higher than it was two years ago, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association home price index, which adjusts for higher-priced homes.

The flow of new permanent residents will put even more pressure on those places. If prices continue to rise, the higher cost of living could discourage newcomers.

“We need the immigration for the labour market. But if we don’t get the immigration for the labour market because they can’t afford to live in the community, that’s a significant challenge,” St. Catharines Mayor Walter Sendzik said.

The federal immigration target for 2021 was 401,000 new permanent residents. The goal for 2022 is 411,000. For 2023, it’s 421,000. By comparison, the number of new permanent residents admitted to the country in 2019 was 341,180.

Anthony Passarelli, a CMHC senior analyst, said that if immigration reaches these record-high levels and Canada doesn’t respond by increasing its housing supply, the effects on the housing market could be noticeable. “We will likely go through a similar situation, where you see another price surge and the ripple effects of people getting priced out of the larger population centres and moving further out,” he added.

Asked whether Canada should slow the pace of immigration until the country has enough affordable housing, BMO’s Mr. Porter said: “I suspect policy will be little swayed by housing market concerns. Having said that, at the very least the impact on housing should be taken into consideration when determining immigration targets.”

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Previous housing data understated number of non-resident buyers in Vancouver and Toronto

2019/03/26 Leave a comment

The importance of good data and how it could have made a difference in public discussion and debate (not that the real estate industry is likely to change its position given its business interests). Particularly worrisome that a government agency, CMHC, got it so wrong in 2015 with a flawed methodology:

Not so long ago, real estate industry and government officials were doing their best to shut down concerns that skyrocketing housing prices in Vancouver and Toronto were related to non-resident buying.

As it turns out, they were very wrong.

“Basically, if we put every residential property unit that was built in the city of Vancouver from 2006 to 2017 into a single building, every tenth unit [and a bit more] would have been owned by somebody who doesn’t live in the country,” says Andy Yan, urban planner and director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program.

The CMHC condo survey of 2015, a busy year for the real estate market, maintained that foreign ownership of condos was low in metro Vancouver and metro Toronto, at 3.5 and 3.3 per cent respectively.

In 2016, Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation chief executive Evan Siddall told the Vancouver Board of Trade that blaming foreign buying was creating an “unhealthy tension” between “existing residents and newer arrivals.” Instead, he pointed to local investors, population growth and lack of supply as the big factors in Vancouver’s affordability crisis.

But the CMHC’s latest Housing Market Insight report, released last week, shows the previously released data were off by as much as two to three times the actual rate of non-resident participation in home ownership. Based upon the new study, the numbers are actually 11.2 for metro Vancouver and 7.6 for metro Toronto.

The CMHC’s new Housing Market Insight report, in partnership with Statistics Canada, now reveals the extent of non-resident buying in Vancouver. The CMHC had begun releasing its Condominium Apartment Survey in 2014, after collecting information on non-resident ownership, in response to the affordability crisis. But the CMHC only had access to condo data and its methodology was limited. It partnered with Statistics Canada to form the Canadian Housing Statistics Program (CHSP), to address the major gaps in data on housing. In 2017, as part of the federal budget, StatsCan got extra funding to delve deeper into offshore buying, which is when the data got more interesting – and far more accurate. It meant that instead of interviewing building managers about the number of foreign owners in the buildings – an obviously problematic method – the CMHC had data from Canada Revenue Agency and the provincial land titles office to verify tax residency.

Perhaps the most surprising revelation is the rate of non-resident participation in the buying of newly built condos across the region.

“Of the housing units owned by non-residents, 55 per cent are condos,” says Jordan Nanowski, senior CMHC analyst and co-author of the report.

Where non-resident ownership is concerned, metro Vancouver overshadowed Toronto by a wide margin. And new builds were a particular draw. Non-resident owners played a part in 19.2 per cent of Vancouver condos built between 2016 and 2017. In other words, almost 20 per cent of condos built that year had at least one non-resident on title. In Toronto, meanwhile, the number falls to a mere 9 per cent.

Mr. Yan dug deeper into the CHSP data, and came up with more numbers. Non-residents have participated in the ownership of a shocking 14 per cent of all housing types built in the city of Vancouver in the past decade (as in, at least one person who owns the property is a non-resident). For metro Vancouver, that rate is 11.2 per cent. For the city of Toronto, the rate is 8 per cent; metro Toronto is 5.2 per cent.

In Coquitlam, B.C., 20.8 per cent of new condos had at least one non-resident on title. In Surrey, B.C., the figure is 20.5 per cent of condos in that time period. Burnaby, B.C., is at 25.1 per cent. Richmond, B.C., has the highest percentage of all, at a whopping 25.8 per cent, he says.

“In Richmond, condos built between 2016 to 2017, we’re talking about 26 per cent have non-resident participation. That’s one in four.”

The numbers are big in the broader housing market picture as well, with 7.8 per cent of all single detached houses built in metro Vancouver from 2006 to 2017 owned by at least one non-resident purchaser. For condos, the numbers jumps to 18 per cent of all condos built in that time period.

“This is something that people have denied for so long,” Mr. Yan says. “It measures a form of foreign ownership that many have denied was happening, and in proportions that few could imagined.”

Mr. Nanowski says that non-resident participation tended to increase when density increased and prices increased. Across all age groups, non-residents tended to own more expensive homes. But a number that stood out for him was the higher prices of detached homes owned by non-residents in the city of Vancouver. Detached homes in the city owned by non-residents were, on average, assessed at $1.1-million more than those owned by residents. In Toronto, the difference of a detached house owned by resident and non-resident was only $89,000.

“Big difference,” Mr. Nanowski said. “Yes, non-resident premiums are largest in Vancouver and the prevalences are largest in Vancouver as well.”

Using new methodology, the crown corporation has revealed that many properties have a mix of resident and non-resident ownership. They analyzed this mix in the category of “non-resident participation,” meaning at least one owner on title was a non-resident. Put another way, at least one person on title is a non-tax resident, which means they do not have a principal tax residence in Canada. They earn their income and pay their income taxes elsewhere. This is a key difference from the CMHC’s previous methodology, which was to define “non-resident” ownership as a property that was owned entirely by non-residents, or majority-owned by non-residents.

The definition of a “non-resident” is someone whose principal residence is outside of Canada, irrespective of their nationality.

Also, these rates do not include pre-sale purchases, or what units were not owner-occupied and held as investments. The study authors did not provide data on the source countries of origin for non-resident owners.

“The summary of all this is the globalization of Canadian residential real estate,” Mr. Yan said, “and what are you going to do or not do about it, on a federal, provincial and local policy basis? This is about transparency, taxation and fairness, and how we build housing and for who, in our communities.”

Mr. Nanowski says the previous data they used weren’t flawed, but useful for following trends. The new data is much more comprehensive, he says.

“When we look at this data, we want to compare it to itself only, as a kind of cross section and not compare it to previous data. Because there is a change in methodology,” he says.

Josh Gordon, assistant professor at the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University, says that the delay of such important data has likely been a setback. He points out that industry voices used the previously limited CMHC data to bolster their arguments that foreign buying was exaggerated. Prof. Gordon had questioned the CMHC’s reports at the time, and received some flak for it.

“Imagine in 2015 if we had a sense that non-resident buyers were buying 15 per cent or so of new condos. How would that have changed the nature of the debate? Would that not have indicated that there was an issue that needed addressing?,” Prof. Gordon asks.

“Those who wanted to push back against possible restrictions were able to use the ‘authority’ of the CMHC in the debate to good effect, and this delayed possible policy action. More accurate data would have helped build the case for policy restrictions, and that might have mitigated the sharp escalation of prices.”

Mr. Yan found it ironic that the report was released the same week as the City of Vancouver announced its annual homeless count was underway.

“Perversely, this week saw the release of measures on two drastically different ends of Vancouver’s housing situation. With the CMHC release, we see the numbers of homeowners who don’t live in the country, juxtaposed with Vancouver doing its homeless count of those who actually live here, but don’t have the benefit of a home.”

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,