[HN Gopher] Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes
___________________________________________________________________
Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes
Author : vincent_s
Score : 145 points
Date : 2023-01-02 09:42 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.voanews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.voanews.com)
| ls15 wrote:
| This seems like a good idea and it carves out exceptions for
| foreigners who are residents. I presume this puts pressure on
| other countries to do the same, since investors are looking for
| other opportunities.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| It is important to note that according to Canadian law,
| permanent residents (equivalent to green card holders in the
| US) are not considered foreign nationals. They enjoy roughly
| the same rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, with very
| limited exceptions such as voting, running for office, serving
| as a jury, and some high-level government positions.
|
| > Foreign national: A person who is not a Canadian citizen or a
| permanent resident.
|
| https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...
| kashunstva wrote:
| However the law does seem to exclude people who reside in
| Canada on a work permit, many of whom are accruing time to
| apply for PR status. Since those who reside in Canada on a
| temporary work permit pay income taxes, it seems unjust to
| limit their housing choices. Ideally the law could have been
| worded with more specificity around prohibition of income
| generation by the property and still allow work permit
| holders to buy property.
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| Such opportunities for investors only exist if the government
| artificially strangles the housing supply as many local western
| governments have done over the past century. If a nation wanted
| to effectively end such investment into the housing stock, then
| lawmakers should devalue this asset by allowing production of
| an excess by updating restrictive zoning codes, not ban foreign
| investment which could very well bring in benefits in some
| cases.
| hestefisk wrote:
| Good symbolic act, but as the fine article states, it's unlikely
| to have material effect on housing affordability for the average
| person until supply is increased.
| grecy wrote:
| Improving something is a multi-step process that takes time.
|
| I'm happy they've taken a step in the right direction, an I'm
| hopeful they'll take more.
| asdff wrote:
| Its really not a step in the right direction. Imo its even a
| bit into the wrong direction because they are opting to
| sidestep the vastly easier step that would actually solve
| this problem for good: updating the zoning to keep up with
| job growth. Blaming foreign investors for today's home prices
| is like blaming the boogyman, because its zoning that
| explains everything about today's home prices and its the
| zoning creating a supply crisis that attracts investors in
| the first place (foreign _and_ domestic lest we think this
| investor problem poofs into thin air with this).
| 7e wrote:
| Update zoning? Humans are breeding creatures. Like all
| animals, they will reproduce to fill their available
| habitat and back pressure is needed to keep the population
| from strangling this planet.
| asdff wrote:
| No one looks up the zoning code before having kids.
| Zoning is also not related to the carrying capacity of an
| environment, usually its decided by busybodies who
| actively ignore the literature on the subject in favor of
| perpetuating a status quo.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Exactly. This is only attracting foreign interest due to th
| artificially constrained supply. If they were serious about the
| issue, they would increase supply.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Imagine if the government of Canada used just 1% of the 89%
| of crown land it owns out of all the land in Canada to give
| to people for housing.
| bparsons wrote:
| Crown land is controlled by the provinces. The feds only
| control national parks, military bases and areas covered
| under Indigenous title.
|
| The provinces hand over crown land to municipalities for
| development all the time.
|
| Land isn't the problem. The lack of density within desired
| metropolitan areas is the problem.
| asdff wrote:
| There's no shortage of land in Canadian cities or really
| any western city in a housing crisis today. The problem is
| that this land is squandered on lower density development
| that is illegal to improve into higher density development
| thanks to zoning mandating low density. Zoning must keep up
| with job growth or else you end up with the situations we
| see today: wealthy people entering bidding wars on an 80
| year old originally working class home.
| standardUser wrote:
| Just because a policy does not solve a problem outright does
| not make it symbolic. The article discusses other measures that
| have already been implemented and points out that current
| housing prices are way off their peak from a year ago. If this
| policy further reduces demand even a little, that will have an
| impact on the trajectory of housing prices. That's not
| symbolism.
| loeg wrote:
| It doesn't move the needle. It's symbolic.
| asdff wrote:
| It is symbolism when everyone who is paid to think in this
| space considers it not to be a solution to the root of the
| problem, which is a lack of housing supply to keep up with
| job growth. You've banned foreign investors, great, there are
| still domestic investors who will fill the void in the market
| like gas in a small room. If you want there to not be
| investors, then housing shouldn't be such a great speculative
| asset to invest in, and it only is such an asset because
| local governments have opted to constrain supply and support
| investors rather than the workers they represent in their
| constituency.
| voisin wrote:
| > current housing prices are way off their peak from a year
| ago
|
| The only policy that impacted this was the Bank of Canada's
| interest rate policy. Houses were rocketing up right until
| the moment rates started increasing.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| One good rule of thumb is that whenever people are blaming
| foreigners for their problems, they're wrong.
|
| Investment in housing and price increases are related. But it's
| the price increases that _cause_ the investments, not the other
| way around.
| db48x wrote:
| Luckily you can depress prices really quickly by forbidding
| sales of property :)
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The value of housing comes from how much you can charge
| people who want to live in them.
|
| That number doesn't change because foreigners can't buy.
| elcomet wrote:
| What do you mean? Foreigners can't buy therefore it will
| decrease the number of people trying to buy there
| db48x wrote:
| By definition it will. Fewer potential buyers always means
| lower top prices. Especially in this case, where the whole
| point is to prevent rich foreigners from outbidding poor
| locals.
| Redoubts wrote:
| A lot of other cool things happen when you do that too.
| notatoad wrote:
| i don't think there's too many people (or at least, people
| making these decisions) who think foreign ownership is the real
| problem here. it's just the portion of the problem that's
| politically easiest to tackle.
|
| banning foreign ownership will help, even if only a little bit.
| newfriend wrote:
| Sure, they should blame their government instead -- which
| allowed those foreigners to cause the problems, instead of
| protecting the citizens they are meant to serve.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| A better title would be "absentee foreigners." I think this is
| part of Airbnb blowback to some extent. Are these people really
| competing for even middle class housing? Seems weird to me. A few
| wealthy foreigners pipping millionaire Canadians for penthouses
| doesn't really seem like a problem for normies. Am I
| understanding this wrong? Portugal is also de facto eliminating
| its "golden visa" which basically lets you be an absentee owner
| with residence, but it's still easy to move there if you want to
| you know actually live there. Some countries are embracing this.
| Costa Rica just lowered its residence through real estate
| threshold to 150k USD.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Middle class housing is a ridiculous investment vehicle in the
| primary few viable Canadian cities, and has provided wild
| returns to people who bought a few years ago, to the point
| where only the rich can really afford anything now. Even people
| who live in modest old 1 bedrooms that they bought a few years
| ago couldn't afford their own places if they needed to. It's
| not by any stretch exclusively wealthy foreigners influencing
| the market though, otherwise the government probably wouldn't
| be enacting any legislation that specifically targets them.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| If you think this law will be easy to sidestep, please read this
| post first:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/zz92li/prohi...
|
| It appears that the law is well-designed to avoid such abuses and
| loopholes.
|
| Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/
| rippercushions wrote:
| > _" The ban doesn't apply to properties with 4 units or more"
| - good. If the goal is to allow single family homes and
| duplexes, condos, etc. to drop in price, it's providing aid in
| the right place. The goal wasn't to make life easier for people
| buying investment properties._
|
| This seems like a massive gap though, and the counterargument
| doesn't make sense. Surely high-density housing is (should be)
| cheaper than the alternatives, and provides fine homes for many
| people who can't afford/don't want a suburban single family
| home with all the expenses that entails? (Car, maintenance,
| etc.)
| voisin wrote:
| Foreign buyers had an insignificant impact relative to the Bank
| of Canada leaving interest rates way too low for way too long.
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| So if you're the stereotypical rich foreigner who wants to invest
| in real estate here, what's the stop them from incorporating a
| company locally, and then having that own the house(s)? And
| that's just one workaround I can think of in the first 30
| seconds. As with all well-intentioned simplistic schemes, this
| will hurt normal folks - immigrants who don't have their
| paperwork sorted out yet - and do absolutely nothing to the big
| $$ driving home prices up.
| refurb wrote:
| It's already covered in the law. Most provinces are requiring
| that "beneficial ownership" of any corporation is reported to
| the government.
|
| https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/british-columbia-finalizes...
|
| What is more likely is that some foreigner would use a relative
| in Canada, who has PR or citizenship, to buy the property on
| their behalf.
|
| But foreigners buying home in Canada was never that big of an
| issue. I think in the hottest areas it was high single digits.
| It did have an impact no doubt, but it was mostly Canadians
| running amuck on cheap debt that ran home prices into the
| stratosphere.
|
| But the funny part is that home prices are already dropping
| fast (due to rising interest rates) so I can't wait until some
| politician claims this legislation works.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >it was mostly Canadians running amuck on cheap debt that ran
| home prices into the stratosphere
|
| The root causes are thanks to the policies of the Bank of
| Canada and CMHC.
| jleyank wrote:
| While I didn't follow the news closely, this seems to have
| come from the Vancouver and Toronto real estate markets. City
| level laws might have been tried but they lack teeth. This
| issue is also leading towards a vacancy survey and tax for
| vacant houses to provide material to escalate (I feel) if
| necessary.
|
| And worldwide, people might want cheaper housing but they
| din't want their own house value to decline. The former
| occurs in the neocortex while the latter seems to lie deep in
| the lizard brain.
| blitzar wrote:
| > seems to lie deep in the lizard brain
|
| Wanting an asset you purchased on 10 times leverage, with a
| 5% interest rate on the debt to decline in value would be
| total and utter insanity.
| jleyank wrote:
| Yup. You made my implicit contradiction explicit.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Housing cannot durably be both a good investment and remain
| affordable.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| It's a fine investment in a diversified portfolio because
| traditionally it was a hedge in both capital and monthly
| cash flow, and decoupled from other asset classes. It
| also offered freedom where you can make improvements to
| the land to increase the rate of growth. There were also
| non-monetary investments because your lifestyle choices
| had certain kinds of freedoms it offered (in exchange for
| giving up others)
|
| So it's definitely a good investment when it's
| affordable. In current environments, it's actually less
| of a good investment than how it used to be used (stable,
| inflation-protected hedge) because it's more in the asset
| class of stock and intertwined with other asset classes.
| That's good for you on the upswing (which is why you
| think it's incompatible with affordability) but not so
| good on the downswing. Also high volatility and even
| rapid growth isn't something most people look for in
| housing and housing-related costs. In other words, people
| now treat housing stock the same way as company stock
| which does make it incompatible with affordability but
| it's traditional role is a hedge in your portfolio.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Typically when we say that something is a "good
| investment", we mean that it's something that increases
| in value faster than inflation.
|
| Conversely, for something to remain affordable over a
| long period of time, its price _must_ grow no faster than
| inflation.
| blitzar wrote:
| > and do absolutely nothing to the big $$ driving home prices
| up
|
| Are the price rises because 1 person bought a penthouse for
| $100mil or because a million 'normal' people outbid each other
| for the 100k house in the suburbs?
| asdff wrote:
| Prices rise because a certain proportion of workers are high
| income workers, and when you limit supply such that a region
| can't fit all its workers, that's who wins the bidding war
| for the house or who happily overpays for that ratty
| apartment and this process raises all boats over time.
| There's no backstop either; people on the low end of the
| economy end up paying more and more of their disposable
| income until they have to start putting bunks in bedrooms and
| living rooms to pay the rent on their wages. Only middle
| class people can afford to move to a lower cost of living
| area since moving as high upfront costs with sometimes no
| prospects of a job at the other end so you need a savings to
| float for some time.
| feet wrote:
| Or perhaps because one corporation is outbidding a million
| normal people for 100k homes?
| blitzar wrote:
| Sounds a bit like zillow buying up 100k properties for 200k
| and then selling them on a few weeks later for 90k.
|
| I dont see that as much of a problem personally.
| feet wrote:
| Well most of the companies doing this aren't completely
| harebrained and they actually capture rental markets,
| Zillow is an outlier
| housingisntbiz wrote:
| And this is exactly why the society should not subsidize
| rental living in any way and heavily make it a priority
| to help private people to buy and maintain ONE house for
| themselves. Just taxing rental predators out of the
| market would be a good start, there's no need to ban or
| outlaw anything. Then actions like giving huge tax
| exemptions for both the seller and buyer if it's between
| private persons and the buyer is going to live there
| would actually send the good signal for society.
|
| However, after all tTis whole thing is just another
| reason to live in rural areas because rental predators
| are pretty much non-existent. Of course not everyone is
| so privileged, but those who are should seriously
| consider leaving cities for their own good.
| asdff wrote:
| It wouldn't be such a good investment if the supply wasn't
| constrained. If you want do devalue the dollar, print more.
| If you want to devalue the housing market, make it legal to
| build more.
| brailsafe wrote:
| It's more like corporations and individuals and rich
| foreigners outbidding a million normal people for the house
| in worthwhile cities that are $1.5m+
| kennend3 wrote:
| Well, there are fines for helping bypass the laws.
|
| "The Act has a $10,000 fine for any non-Canadian or anyone who
| knowingly assists a non-Canadian and is convicted of violating
| the Act. If a court finds that a non-Canadian has done this,
| they may order the sale of the house."
|
| I would assume opening a numbered corp to own the house would
| fall under this category?
|
| Most of the "super-rich" owned houses in Canada are already
| owned by corporations to leverage the protections corps have.
| gruez wrote:
| Only a $10k fine? On a 1 million dollar house that works out
| to 1%, and your house doesn't even get seized, it only gets
| sold so you keep all the appreciation that occurred during
| that time. Considering that transaction fees (eg. for the
| agent) are probably more than 1%, this doesn't seem like a
| huge impediment.
| angry_octet wrote:
| ... and you don't legally own the property. The original
| owner can just return your money and move back in. People
| can squat on your property and you have no legal right to
| evict them. You've just created a legal nightmare.
| robrenaud wrote:
| > the repayment of the non-Canadian of amounts not greater
| than the purchase price for the sale
|
| The foreigner does not keep any appreciation.
|
| https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/New-Rules-for-
| For...
| cainxinth wrote:
| Seems like that will just drive the foreign super rich to
| 'buy' citizenships too. With enough money and in-country
| fixers/ lobbyists, that's usually not unobtainable in most
| countries.
| asdff wrote:
| I wonder if you'd eventually get a weird marriage for
| citizenship market from such legislation. Like say you are
| a modern millennial couple and both you and your partner
| don't care about the institution of marriage. Are you going
| to leave money on the table, or get a huge lump sum for
| both you and your partner to be legally married to some
| investors that you might never need to meet in person?
| JCharante wrote:
| The downside is the requirement to stay in Canada during
| that time. Plenty of people don't want to do it so they
| commit fraud
|
| https://www.scmp.com/week-
| asia/society/article/2158716/speci...
| emsixteen wrote:
| Not being able to stop it entirely doesn't mean it's not a good
| idea. Increasing the hurdles that need to be jumped through
| will be off-putting to some who would have otherwise went down
| this road, and provides the state with more avenues to actually
| have control over foreign buying. Immigrants who don't have
| their paperwork sorted out yet shouldn't be buying homes imo.
| Get your ducks in a row.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| The problem is not rich people overseas, its rent seeking rich
| people everywhere.
|
| 1 person - 1 property.
|
| Commercial property should be state owned with perpetual leases.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Of all the things that a person can own, land seems the least
| justified to me. There is a finite amount of it, you did not
| create it, you cannot destroy it, and essentially all ownership
| derives from conquest, in recent or ancient history.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >you cannot destroy it,
|
| is this really true? you can definitely do things to it that
| would make it uninhabitable, no longer "fertile", or any other
| terms that essentially come to the same conclusion of the land
| being essentially destroyed.
|
| at least as far as the context of desirability to be owned
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| I mean, China is pretty good at creating land.
| tromp wrote:
| The Dutch excel at creating land where before there was
| sea...
| drowsspa wrote:
| Owning land makes a lot of sense, I'd say. What doesn't make
| much sense to me is subjecting it to so much speculation
| asdff wrote:
| It makes poor sense because landowners are often selfish, and
| choose use cases with their property that maximize personal
| benefit and if there is a collective benefit to these
| decisions it is a happy accident. I'm including local species
| into the collective in this case. Often a landowner will put
| up barriers (e.g. a fence around a sprawling ranch or a
| beltway of roads around a suburban development) for species
| or will introduce invasive species or otherwise lower the
| biodiversity of a place through disruptive development.
| cek wrote:
| There's actually a near-infinite amount of land.
|
| We just haven't yet gotten to the point where we can access any
| of the land not on this planet.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Of course, but that has no practical implications in the near
| or perhaps even distant future.
|
| Even using the ocean as a fresh water source -- which is
| right here on earth -- is a challenge with significant
| hurdles to overcome.
|
| Even with near infinite land it will presumably be a long,
| long time before common people can set out into this new
| frontier and carve out anything like a familiar, safe, let
| alone comfortable life.
| ryan93 wrote:
| Its a practical not a philosophical discussion. Try driving
| through the western united states and see if a lack of land is
| a real issue.
| daqhris wrote:
| Land is where you can build a shelter. My current experience as
| a refugee made me realize the importance of shelter and food.
| The rest comes afterwards.
|
| Basically, all land on Earth has an owner. Be it individuals,
| corporations or governments. It's finite, so highly valuable.
|
| I'm currently unable to return _safely_ to my homeland because
| the current land owners marked me as an adversary. I wish it
| wasn 't the case but societal rules have been this way since
| ever.
|
| It's thousand times easier to me to build something, by using
| software, in the metaverse/on internet. In the real world, I
| now have no place to call home, except refugee camps and squats
| in abandonned buildings.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Everything physical you can buy is made up of things that are
| of a finite amount and were not created by humans.
|
| All ownership works like that.
| michaelt wrote:
| When I buy a wooden table it's true that the tree grew from
| the ground - but I'm _also_ paying for the efforts of the
| foresters, the sawmill workers, the truck drivers, the table
| designers, the machine operators, the assemblers, the store
| salespeople, and the delivery drivers.
|
| I buy a plot of land, on the other hand? The lazy sellers
| won't even deliver it to my home :)
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| Land seems like one of the oldest and most "natural" forms of
| ownership -- Many animals, plants, bacteria, fungi will
| establish territory and defend it against conspecfics and
| competitors
| tpush wrote:
| Natural doesn't imply good.
| asdff wrote:
| They aren't defending land though, they are really defending
| access to resources contained in that land. If you drop a
| plant on empty land with no relevant resources for it, the
| plant will die. It will not become a landowner. Land
| ownership is a very recent concept in our history. Most of
| human history on this planet happened with no concept of
| owning land.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Cue Georgism
| pestatije wrote:
| In Spain they'll give a residency permit to foreigners buying a
| home over 500k euros.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| Costa Rica it's $150,000 US and they just lowered it in 2021
| from 200. Portugal also has/had a similar setup, but it seems
| gridlocked by the bureaucracy. I thought Canada actually had a
| similar law several years back, but maybe not. There are easier
| ways to get residency in Portugal and Spain, the difference is
| these let you be absentee 90% of the time. This Canadian law is
| typical of left-isolationism as opposed to right-isolationism.
| Keep out the rich instead of keep out the poor.
| blitzar wrote:
| Eligible applicants must invest CAD $350,000 into a Canadian
| "authorized designated organization". Accredited investors
| must also demonstrate their net worth with an income of at
| least $200,000 or proof of $1,000,000 of financial assets
|
| https://www.goldenvisas.com/canada
| kennend3 wrote:
| This is where Canada's new law gets really weird.
|
| We also have an "investment" class visa and almost everyone who
| has used this bought a house to meet the "minimum requirements"
|
| https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=653...
|
| So.. earlier they encouraged foreigners to buy houses in order
| to get PR cards, now they ban it??
| runnerup wrote:
| >> So.. earlier they encouraged foreigners to buy houses in
| order to get PR cards, now they ban it??
|
| Yes, because at one point they thought they had enough
| property and could use more money. Either they were wrong or
| at some point that changed, and now they've reacted in
| acknowledgment that Canadians need local property more than
| they need foreign cash.
| dmix wrote:
| Both foreign housing sales and startup visa-style investments
| flood foreign capital into the country making everyone
| wealthier (either getting reinvested in more housing/jobs or
| spent in stores then taxed). So hopefully the new law won't
| do much to stop that.
|
| It's probably not surprising that for all the things to get
| upset about, re: lack of housing supply, people always choose
| the foreign boogeyman route.
| housingisntbiz wrote:
| >"making everyone wealthier"
|
| That's not the case. More like "making everyone suffer the
| consequences of inflation more". And even more stronger
| point is that Canadians shouldn't be more wealthier.
| Especially so if the excess wealth comes from foreign
| countries. And if the country of wealth origin belongs to
| the third world it's outright evil, nothing less. It's just
| another form unholy imperial colonialism and I can't
| believe somebody still defends that kind of immorality.
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| Difference is they live here
| cgh wrote:
| Canada's Immigrant Investor visa program was canceled in
| 2014. This new law has nothing to do with visa applications
| and is intended to address foreign speculation in local
| housing markets.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Doesn't Spain has excess residential housing?
|
| Visited recently and there seemed tons of empty housing and
| it's quite cheap.
| Jemm wrote:
| Canada is also bringing in one million immigrants a year to feed
| the exploitative low paying job market and to try to stave off
| recession. These immigrants tend to gravitate in either Toronto
| or Vancouver.
|
| Meanwhile corporate and rich investors are snapping up any
| property they can get their hands one.
|
| In Ontario the Premiere is reclassifying conservation land owner
| by his buddies to allow them to build developments. In Toronto
| they tore down a vital section of the main highway to allow their
| buddies to build condos. The also allowed polluted lands to be
| developed a residential by simply putting a thin layer of top
| cover over the industrial pollution.
|
| The foreign ban is only for high density areas. Small towns and
| rural land have become unaffordably for the people who grew up
| there.
|
| It is a major catasrophe that is not being solved, just postponed
| by a year.
| verdenti wrote:
| As a Canadian, Canada needs way more people for how much
| habitable land we have.
| voisin wrote:
| I 100% concur. Canada would benefit by having a population
| 2-3x current. I am always amazed how in the US there are so
| many cities with vibrant cultures in the 50-80k range whereas
| in Canada you can drive vast distances and only find tiny
| settlements of a few thousand people and no services or
| culture to speak of.
| betaby wrote:
| We don't have 'much habitable land'. Most of the 'land' is
| literally a rock
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
| kennend3 wrote:
| Instead of being critical of the decisions of others, what do
| you suggest?
|
| Arm chair critics are a dime a dozen, what are your ideas on
| how to address the housing problems?
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Zone every inch of currently settled land to allow 6 story
| mixed use buildings, by right. Don't require anything to
| build besides engineering and safety checks - no chance for
| NIMBY input. Do this federally.
| adverbly wrote:
| Not sure if I'd do it federally... maybe start with a few
| trial cities or areas where the idea has a lot of
| support... But I'd be all for trying something like this!
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Not import half a million immigrants per year, to start.
| ravendug wrote:
| It's nowhere near 1 million per year. The record from 2021 was
| 405,000 and the plan for the next 3 years is < 1.5 million in
| total.
|
| https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ne...
| rsync wrote:
| "The foreign ban is only for high density areas."
|
| Is this correct ?
|
| Under these new laws a foreigner can still purchase farm, or
| ranch land or, for instance, a ski chalet in Golden ?
|
| Asking for a friend ...
| credit_guy wrote:
| Killing the golden goose?
| diceduckmonk wrote:
| There is still the immigration-by-visa route, no?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Immigrant_Investor_Pr...
| brailsafe wrote:
| "With the passing of Economic Action Plan 2014 Act (Bill C-31)
| on June 19, 2014, the program was terminated and undecided
| applications were cancelled."
| smnrchrds wrote:
| No. Out of all the provinces, territories, and federal
| immigration schemes, only Quebec still has an immigration by
| investment program, and they have changed it to make it super
| difficult. It's no longer enough to just have or invest large
| amounts of money. One has to score enough points from a
| selection grid, which for example requires B2-ish level in
| French. The language component alone disqualifies most of the
| people who benefited from the original program and the current
| prospective applicants.
|
| https://www.quebec.ca/en/immigration/immigrate-business/inve...
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| It goes beyond that:
|
| https://www.quebec.ca/en/immigration/immigrate-
| business/inve...
|
| Applications have been on hold for a while now, with no talk
| of re-opening it. There is no active immigrant investor
| program in Canada. There are several other immigration paths
| open to many skilled tech professionals, but the details of
| one's specific situation matter greatly and it is quite far
| from open immigration.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-02 23:00 UTC)