A year ago, the federal government instituted a foreign buyer ban after passing the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act in 2022. The two-year ban, which came into effect on Jan. 1, barred non-citizens, non-permanent residents and foreign controlled companies from buying up Canadian property as an investment.

But Wallace says that ban didn’t do much for her family.

“There’s all of these very luxurious buildings going in all around us that are outrageously priced,” said Wallace, after attending an open house at a promising $1.1-million condo. “The foreign buyers tax … I don’t think that’s making an iota of difference.”

Critics say the foreign buyers ban, which was aimed at making housing affordable for Canadians, had many exemptions and was more of a political manoeuvre. They say it’s clear housing remains out of reach for too many in Canada, and that the country should look to other places in the world to find strategies to foster home ownership.

  • @[email protected]English
    25•11 months ago

    Critics say the foreign buyers ban, which was aimed at making housing affordable for Canadians, had many exemptions and was more of a political manoeuvre.

    That’s disgusting. This is for placating/misleading voters and keeping the status quo as it is. If a ban is not a ban it shouldn’t be called a ban

    • Alto
      8•11 months ago

      For real. “Why didn’t a measure that didn’t actually do what it says it would work?!”

      • @[email protected]English
        12•11 months ago

        It is working as intended though: Make voters believe that an important issue that affects them is being addressed, and don’t actually do anything that would negatively affect the plutocrats or address wealth inequality. The first step was to create a boogey-man out of ‘foreign buyers’ to centre the housing affordability debate around a PR-friendly issue.

        What I’m starting to realize though - through seeing this more and more - is that doublespeak phrases or talking points, like “ban”, play a pretty critical role in keeping us misinformed and easily swayed. The term “ban”, although factually incorrect, fits the government’s agenda of self-promotion and fits CBC’s agenda of reporting uncritically of the status quo. We can only begin to understand what’s happening after realizing that “ban” doesn’t actually mean what “ban” typically does in English.

        Sorry, I’m kind of going off on a rant. M/Disinformation and the current/future state of democracy concern me a lot.

        One thing I’m coming to the realization of, after learning that the recent online news bill has several shortcomings that the government failed to mention and will exclude smaller news outlets, is that financially supporting the dying breed of high-quality, critical journalism is a democratic imperative

        • @FireRetardant
          8•11 months ago

          As with most canadian laws, the online news act was to protect big corporate interests, not the media.