Why BC's 2026 Tax on Unsold Condos Could Shrink BC's Future Housing Supply

Matt Scalena: I thought that was it. It's just bios and we're done. Adam Scalena: Well, no. Thanks, everybody, for coming. It's really great to see so many faces here today to talk about the upcoming municipal and provincial elections. And of course, thank you, Trevor, for letting us ask you some questions about both races. Trevor Hargreaves, of course, is Senior VP of Government Relations, Marketing and Communications at BCREA. Maybe we'll skip the first question, which is "tell us a little bit about yourself," because I think we've covered it. But Trevor, why should BCREA care about the election? Or why do they? Trevor Hargreaves: Housing is a top-of-mind question when it comes to the electorate in this province. When it comes to any political issue that hits the podium between the two parties, one of the topics most in danger of quick, knee-jerk announcements and under-researched policy, things that are just thrown out by parties desperate to get their popularity up, is housing affordability and housing policy. It's the sector in which we work. So I think we need to pay a lot of attention to where this moves, and of course do what we can to try to influence public policy to be as evidence-based as possible, not ideas that are conceived of and announced the next day at a podium without any research behind them.

---

The Snap Election

Matt Scalena: So David Eby just called the snap election, Trevor. Before we get to that, he's obviously been in power for a number of years. Trevor Hargreaves: Nine years. Matt Scalena: Is he much for consultation? How has your experience been, in your role at BCREA, with the provincial government? Trevor Hargreaves: Let me take a minute to give some credit to David Eby. When he came in, he really said, "I'm going to come in as a premier that really does move the dial on housing affordability. I'm going to actually deal with this problem, and I'm going to do it comprehensively." But when they took power, they really came in ideologically, trying to push forward a whole series of measures that were not necessarily based on careful research or careful policy analysis. It was more ideology than careful policy expertise. So you saw them come in and implement a series of things. Good examples are rezoning within municipalities and housing targets on municipalities. This was not consulted work. Over the years since, and we're nine years in, I'd say it's been in fits and starts as to when they're consultative. It depends on the background politics. It depends on the subject at hand. You saw an announcement on Friday, which I'm sure we'll get to momentarily, with them making pre-election announcements. There was certainly no consultation on that, and there's very little policy research to point to behind those decisions. What I've seen a lot of, and I'm sure some of my coworkers in the audience, Brendon Ogmundson being one, have had to deal with this in the past: the government will say to the media, "We've consulted that sector on this issue." But what they've done is set a meeting with you. You've got 30 minutes with the government, and they say, "We have three questions for you. Question one, here it is. Question two. Question three. Thank you. Consultation over." That is not what consultation looks like. Consultation starts with, "This is our proposed measure. Could you analyze it and tell us the unforeseen consequences? Is it good? Is it bad? What aspects haven't we given consideration to?" And you don't see nearly enough of that. I think they've had enough challenges over the years that they're starting to lean increasingly in that direction and recognize they need to wire more housing expertise into their decision-making. But it's certainly been a shortcoming of that government. Adam Scalena: We want to get to the announcement of the new tax on unsold inventory. But before we do, can we talk a little bit about the strategy behind calling the snap election now? What do you think the thinking is behind the NDP? Trevor Hargreaves: Personally, I was pretty surprised that they did it. Calling a snap election immediately after your opposition party is in such disarray and its leader has basically resigned, I don't think that's open and honest politics. I think that's moving forward to take advantage of the situation. Anybody who watched that speech when he made the announcement, I think he mentioned Donald Trump 19 times. Very clearly, they've done some demographic research. Public polling shows Canadians feel extremely anti-Trump. So if you call the election and just drop "Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump," a whole lot of people are going to side with you. That's clearly what he did. It's obviously electioneering. It's seizing the opportunity to call an election while your opposition party is at a seeming great weakness because they don't have a leader. I think the press and a lot of the public have seen the same thing. You've read a lot of media coverage saying this is not on, that this is a pretty self-involved political move. But it's a good way for him to establish multiple more years of government. I just find it a surprise when you're a government that already has a majority and you've got two years left in your term. So they're playing a gamble. It'll be interesting to see if it works out for them. Matt Scalena: It strikes me as a pretty cynical or opportunistic move. I think two-thirds of the voters polled right after they called the election said, "It's too soon. What are we doing? This doesn't make sense. Why are we spending the money on this?" Do you think that actually sticks to Eby? Or is that just something that's part of the news cycle for three days, the outrage, and then it's, "Okay, forget it," on to bashing developers? Trevor Hargreaves: We've got 27 or 28 days until the election. There's a whole lot of hockey to play. What's next, it's hard to say. You really don't know. I think one of the main deciding factors in this election is going to be the Conservatives with their interim leadership. So far, I think the interim leader has done a good job of muzzling his people. You don't need any offshoot wedge issues suddenly coming out. You don't need to be talking about anything that's going to repulse potential voters. Can they stay on topic? Can they stay business-focused, about the economy and the future of this province? I think they strongly need to dismiss this framing that Eby is anti-Trump and they're for Trump. I think it's a pretty flimsy argument to begin with. If they can pull that off, I think they can really build support over the next handful of days. But we don't know what the policy announcements are that are coming. We haven't seen any platform from the BC Conservatives. They're a party that's kind of miraculously pulled it together since this election was called. But it has been an ongoing challenge for that party, being a new party and a party with a lot of dissenting conservative viewpoints, from centrist conservatives to far-right conservatives. If that far-right voice gets out there, it always drags down the whole party in terms of its popularity. So we'll see what's to come. I think this argument about Trump is pretty flimsy, and dealing with it should be priority one for the Conservatives. Adam Scalena: In thinking about the Conservatives, there have been three different leaders this year. Can we talk a little bit about Lorne Doerkson? What do we know about him? Trevor Hargreaves: Sure. He's a northern MLA. He represents Cariboo-Chilcotin, and he floor-crossed from the BC Liberals in years past. I think it was in 2020. For a conservative, he's quite balanced when it comes to a lot of sectors and issues. He's spent a lot of time asking for business reform around healthcare, and he's put forward a lot of environmental policy that's actually quite sound, when conservatives can often be criticized for not being particularly pro-environment. He cares very much about northern industry, so of course forestry is very important to him. I think he's demonstrated that when it comes to resources and healthcare, he's an informed voice, and he had a lot of skin in the game before becoming leader. So he's a fairly balanced representative as an interim leader. I think he's a decent choice in terms of where they're going and what's next.

---

The Issues

Matt Scalena: So there's a lot of hockey left to be played, as you said. What are the issues? I think I saw that the number one issue was affordability in general. What do you think the key central themes are over the next four weeks? Where does housing fit into that, and how important is it? Obviously, this tax has gotten a lot of press over the weekend. But what are the general issues this is going to ride on? Trevor Hargreaves: It's interesting juxtaposing it with the civic election, which we'll get to in a few minutes, because a lot of those issues are the same. Affordability is one. It's a marker we all live under the shadow of. It's just excessively expensive to live in British Columbia. It's expensive when you're already well established, and it's particularly decimating when you're young and trying to start a family and move forward. Our job numbers and the economy are weak, and that of course influences all the other aspects. So you've got poor affordability, a stagnant economy, an extremely high cost of living, and then you've got housing. In terms of where housing fits into the spectrum, it's obviously top of mind, because we're early in the election call and you've already seen Eby come out and make announcements around housing. I think he cares about all of these issues, but it gives a bit of an advantage to the Conservatives when you're a nine-year government. These are all concerns, but they're all things the NDP have been saying they're going to deal with for the last nine years, and you don't see a lot of forward momentum on them. You can only blame so much on Trump. So it'll be interesting to see how the Conservatives capitalize on that and how they move forward. When the NDP make announcements, are they sound, province-wide policy announcements? Or are they just selectively governing, making announcements because they're very concerned about renters, young renters who make up a lot of their voter base? Are they just making snap policy announcements with very little research behind them, things that are going to cost the social safety net a lot of money and in the long run don't benefit the overall province? I'm watching it very closely. We have my policy department on standby for any announcement they make, so we can look at the long-term implications of what's announced. Matt Scalena: Adam and I talk often about how it feels like we're in a bubble. Maybe it's just the real estate world, but I feel like everybody we talk to has the same issues in mind. Again, we're kind of pushing off this tax, but the tax was announced late last week, and I feel like everybody I know thinks it's idiotic policy. But on Polymarket, David Eby was at, say, 46% on Friday, and I think Doerkson was at 53%. This morning, Eby's at 51% and Doerkson's at 50%. I feel like this was the big announcement. Your network is maybe more expansive than ours. Is that what's moving the needle right now? How important are these housing issues? Trevor Hargreaves: When it comes to polls, first off, always recognize that the margin of error is a good plus or minus 15%. It's not like they polled 30,000 people. They called 400 people. Matt Scalena: And this is actually the betting market. I'm looking at the betting markets. Trevor Hargreaves: In the end, he's had a boost in popularity because he's shored up his base. He's pandered again to the young, saying, "Here's the next thing, here's the next measure." There's been this long-running governmental falsehood of "I'm one policy announcement away from restoring affordability," and this is moving in that direction again. "We'll take this next set of steps." I read the quote this morning from that press announcement on Friday when he announced these new taxes, and I thought it was stunningly tone-deaf. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like: deep-pocketed developers are sitting on these empty condos, keeping them out of the housing market, and I'm going to intervene and get those into the hands of renters who are looking to start families and buy affordable housing. That's absolutely tone-deaf to the market realities of developers. As a policy department, my coworkers and I don't want to wake up every day and simply be in the pocket of development, believing in mindless development. No. But you'd better have some sympathy for the struggle of the development sector right now. They've put a lot of money into infrastructure development, they've put a lot of risk forward, and the pendulum has swung. If I can throw a criticism at the NDP: when you are elected, you need to govern for all. Not selectively, "I know you vote for me, but you don't, so you're important and you're not." That is not the way to represent an electorate, especially in a crisis economy. I very much hope that as we move forward and see more announcements from the NDP, they broaden their focus so it's not simply pandering to that electorate, trying desperately to get the vote. What we need to see is careful policy decision-making to steer us through a crisis economy.

---

The Tax on Unsold Inventory

Adam Scalena: For people who might have missed the announcement, can we unpack the 2% policy? And then as a follow-up question, does taxing unsold housing inventory lead to more homes being built? Trevor Hargreaves: We can look at the head shaking from our senior economist right there in the front row. In terms of the announcement itself, the promise was twofold. Number one, increase the speculation and vacancy tax by 1%, bringing it to 2% for domestic owners and 5% for foreign owners. And secondly, implement a new tax on condos that are vacant for over a year. They haven't stated in writing where that tax sits, but I believe he's looking at implementing it at about 2%. The other thing I think is interesting, and the media haven't really had time to dig into this: when you saw that press announcement with Prime Minister Carney talking about buying all that unsold inventory and repurposing it, there was immediately a big backlash around whether that was necessary and whether it was a good use of public funds. Eby said, "Well, if this is really not popular, if this is really a bad idea, maybe we'll pivot and move in a different direction." This is sounding a lot like the different direction. So I think he's recycling prior ideas and going in a direction that very much panders back to the traditional NDP base. Matt Scalena: I'm thinking about developers right now. There's a lot of risk. We're seeing a lot of companies go into receivership on a lot of projects. What does this mean for the development community, in your mind, and what does it mean for the creation of housing? Trevor Hargreaves: I think that's what makes the announcement on Friday so surprising, to just ignore the fact that so many developers are currently struggling. Not "I'm a little bit struggling," but bankruptcy-level struggling. You have a very challenged economy out there. What does it mean for the development sector? I took a meeting on Friday with a series of senior executives from various organizations within the development sector. They're deeply concerned. They're absolutely shocked at the announcement. I think what you're going to see is that it furthers drawing things to a standstill when it comes to new developments and presales. For starters, everybody wants to wait and see where this election goes. As Brendon Ogmundson has outlined over the past year, what you start today comes online multiple years down the road. If you don't keep housing starts frequent, if you don't keep developers confident in reinvesting, you're going to create a housing drought further down the line, which in turn chokes supply and boosts prices. So here we are in an election where they're making decisions pandering to one side of the voter base, but really risking housing affordability in years to come as a result. On the developer side, "concern" would be an understatement. I think they're looking at it with absolute panic and a degree of crisis. Adam Scalena: It strikes me that it's a useful framing to think of this in relation to the bailout, the condo bailout. That was announced, it was attacked on the left, and the developers said, "Wait, we didn't ask for this. This doesn't make sense. This isn't what we needed." So that was kind of the lead balloon, and this is going back to tried-and-true methods. What's kind of shocking to me is that the real estate industry has been under pressure since mid-2022. Does it surprise you that there's still political mileage in beating up the developer as the bogeyman? Trevor Hargreaves: I think it's really unfair to the developer, and I think it must be very challenging. I sometimes say that in the real estate sector, doing government relations, we have to remember we're often not that popular. We're looked at with suspicion, and that can be a little challenging. I certainly noticed the difference from my years doing government relations in dairy farming, because dairy has a very high level of public trust. Sometimes realtors get mixed into the question of where we're contributing to these affordability issues. The developer, of course, is a businessperson or a company that exists in a capitalist society, investing huge amounts of capital over multiple years with an expected return. And you frequently get this attitude from the media and the public of, "How dare they expect a return on their investments? They're just this big, rich capitalist organization," not recognizing that you're often looking at medium and sometimes even small businesses working within this space. I don't think the NDP help with that. They like to stoke that fire. Matt Scalena: I heard Beau Jarvis from Wesgroup on the radio last week, and he said, "Just to be clear, we are doing everything we possibly can to sell these homes. We're not hoarding this. That makes no business sense. We are desperately trying to sell these homes." So it speaks to your point. Trevor Hargreaves: When your nation is in a crisis, and arguably we're in about six overlapping economic and social crises, I think the issue should be honesty in governance. Not perpetuating falsehoods, not perpetuating stereotypes, not furthering "we versus them" politics, but figuring it out. The solutions to all of our problems are not partisan solutions. They're not far to the left and they're not far to the right. They come from experts doing research. The solutions don't sit within a party platform. They sit with policy people. What governments really need on an ongoing basis is to increasingly turn to the experts, and not be so willing to move in partisan directions for the good of their own party.

---

What Real Estate Needs From This Election

Adam Scalena: Before we move on to the municipal elections, what does the real estate industry need from this election, regardless of who wins? Trevor Hargreaves: I alluded to this earlier, and I certainly look at it on the civic side too, but I would like to see a party that governs for everybody a little bit more. You can point to the special interest aspects of the NDP, and they're very focused on those aspects. They're very focused on Indigenous land use issues, and fair enough, these are critical issues. They're very focused on renters, rental stock, and struggling youth in this economy. They have their specific issues. But it's sort of, "You're in the middle class? Never mind. You're not actually on our list for where we're focusing policy." You can't just pick favourites. You need to govern for everyone. That's where the real estate sector needs to be when we're asking questions of candidates and pushing government, and certainly in housing policy. That concept of the missing middle: let's get past just renters. There's a whole big spectrum of struggle out there. How do we help push government into more balanced, evidence-based decision-making? I think that's where the real estate sector really needs to be, from the development side to our end of things on the ground, as real estate organizations and real estate practitioners asking sound questions of candidates in the lead-up to the election. Matt Scalena: I feel like this is a perfect time to plug the roundtable idea. Trevor Hargreaves: Yeah, the roundtable idea is something we've been pushing for a very long time. One of the things we see on an ongoing basis is that you have three levels of government, and it's quite shocking how little coordination there is between them. When you're talking about housing policy, it should be very interwoven, from national to provincial down to municipal. It's a very complicated scenario, and that takes smart people doing complicated work. Instead, the federal government has its agenda, the provincial government has its agenda, and the municipalities are often reeling in response to what has come at them in the last handful of years. I think roundtables in general should be made up of strong experts, not just representing real estate interests. For example, if the province is looking at moving in any kind of housing policy direction, you'd have 15 experts, economists, educational theorists, policy experts from market, non-market and Indigenous housing, all working together to say, "Let's take your potential idea and unpack it. This part works, this part doesn't, but what if you did this?" Put it through very careful, thorough filtering, and have it come out the other side as a carefully vetted idea that can work for the people. Again, getting past left or right. It's just: what's the good idea? What are the right policy levers? One of the real challenges is that you've got three levels of government, each with its own agenda, and then you have this pressure on politicians: "Housing affordability is a massive emergency, please fix it by next week." It results in a lot of knee-jerk policy, which is really just this country chasing its own tail and wasting a lot of resources rather than working collectively to solve the problem. And again, it's a very complicated problem that takes a lot of expertise.

---

The Municipal Elections

Adam Scalena: So we've got two elections one week apart. What does this do to the civic election? Trevor Hargreaves: I think it's unfortunate for both elections. I don't think everybody is just going to default to voting in both. I think you'll have some people vote in the civic election and not provincially, and vice versa. It's a lot of time off work, a lot of energy, a lot of focus. We already struggle enough with general disconnection in the electorate. You have a lot of people who don't vote at the best of times, and now you put two elections back to back. Last week, the UBCM conference was taking place, which is the provincial conference of municipalities. They put forward an emergency request asking David Eby not to call an election right now, because there was word it might be happening and they didn't want it interfering with and overshadowing the civic elections. David Eby has, of course, chosen to do so. I think it's unfortunate on the civic side. The provincial stuff tends to get more focus. But all these issues we're talking about, be it crime or affordability, trickle right down to the community level. There are a lot of challenges in communities right across the province. This is an important civic election at an important time, when communities are facing challenges like never before. I hope everybody in this room takes the time to get out and vote both weeks. Don't pick one or the other. Matt Scalena: I think everybody understands, or at least everybody I talk to is very interested in, the provincial election. I feel like this is a very important one for the province of British Columbia. How important are these municipal elections? I know you just spoke to it, but thinking specifically about the real estate industry and housing affordability, how important are the Metro Vancouver elections? Trevor Hargreaves: I think they're important. You've had a lot of zoning changes within municipalities, and a lot of housing targets placed on municipalities. One of the really big looming crises at the municipal level, much more pronounced in some municipalities than others, is amenity spending. You have the government saying, "You must build X number of new homes in this municipality by this year." But, "No, we don't have any money to build a new school. No, there's no money to build a new hospital." You can get away with that for a year. You can get away with it for five years. But in case anyone isn't noticing, we're running $13 billion deficits right now. There's no sudden influx of cash coming at us. So you're densifying, densifying, densifying with no investment in amenities. That is a crisis waiting to happen. I live in New Westminster, which is a very small and arguably overbuilt community. By the time they built the new high school to serve the local community, it was already so packed that they have to run that school in three shifts. That's bad. What happens in five years? And that's a new school. One of the focuses I increasingly have is that when you're building communities, when you're densifying, yes, we are a province that needs new people to move here. We want to build our economies and we want strong communities. But that doesn't mean growth at all costs. It needs careful, sustained growth. I think the government's housing targets have inspired communities to treat growth like an emergency: "We'd better just accommodate it." We need to get to a point in our communities, and this is where the people running in the civic elections are very important, where you have people who are concerned with sustainable communities. I want where I live to be a viable, beautiful place 25 or 50 years from now. I think we all do. That's where it's incumbent on us as a province to make sound decisions about growth. Urban planning is a complicated game, and I hope the NDP recognize a bit more of that, because you can't just keep pushing to densify, densify, densify if you don't have the amenities to go with it. We already have enough problems in hospital waiting rooms and schools. Adam Scalena: We've talked a lot about housing. What are some of the other issues dominating the civic elections? Trevor Hargreaves: I think one of the big ones is crime, crime and drug use. It touches on all of our neighbourhoods. You see it in the Downtown Eastside. It was interesting reading a lot of the coverage of the Downtown Eastside during FIFA. For many of us who are Vancouverites, or who spend time in the Downtown Eastside, it just becomes the norm, and you think, "I guess that's okay." Well, it's not okay. These are people in desperate need of assistance, and we're supposed to be a grand social democracy. We're failing these people. Meanwhile, crime is just proliferating, and so is addiction. Leading into the Vancouver civic elections, you're seeing this increasingly become an issue of municipal concern. It's difficult, because who solves this problem? Do you solve it federally? Provincially? On the civic side? I don't think there's one answer to that. But those are issues of great concern for a lot of communities, because it seems like a really endemic situation. If you look at most civic elections and read the candidates' platforms, "I'm going to help with affordability" tends to be there. I don't know how much you can do at the civic level around affordability. It's quite challenging. Then it falls to the various platforms and their different perspectives on housing. That's where you see some variability, from "I want to preserve communities" to "I want to build more social housing," "I want to make this community more affordable for young families," or "I want to build more emergency housing for people in need." That's where the different parties are really carving out different ground. Matt Scalena: Thinking about the province taking away a lot of the zoning power from municipalities, what, in your mind, is left for mayor and council to decide? I guess that could change, though. Trevor Hargreaves: Yeah, there's also the aspect of pushback. I think there are times when municipalities need to say, "You can't treat all communities as the same community. We have different needs than Kelowna has. We have special needs, and I need to advocate for them." Using Kelowna as an example, when the short-term rental legislation was put into place, and I see heads nodding in the audience, Kelowna's economy was pretty decimated come summer, because you could no longer rent that place your family had rented for the last six years when you all go up and spend time at the lake. That's a situation where you've got a regional issue coming out of a blanket provincial policy. Who deals with that? Who is really the defender at the civic level? That's your elected local government. All of our communities differ. We all have different wants, needs and priorities, and you need to be voting for people at the civic level who are sensitive to and respectful of provincial needs and long-term goals, but who will also defend your city and its needs and be willing to make difficult decisions. That's the other aspect. We're in an era of tight budgets, declining amenities and declining funds, so trying to do a lot with a little, you've got to make very careful decisions. I think it's honourable work, running at the civic level. These are people we all tend to know and who are out there in common life, taking the time to throw themselves in and really try to make the place they live better.

---

Races to Watch

Adam Scalena: It's hard to talk about all of the municipalities, but maybe we can talk about some of the most interesting races in this election. Maybe start with Vancouver. Ken Sim has obviously been a pretty polarizing mayor. How did Ken do in your mind? And then maybe we can move on to the other candidates. Trevor Hargreaves: I was at a Business in Vancouver event when Ken Sim announced his proposal that we move some of Vancouver's finances into Bitcoin. I can't say I was particularly into that one. One of the challenges on the civic side is that you're learning to be a politician live. You've been elected, and you're figuring it out. Over his term, he's had issues of transparency. He's had issues with making decisions, dismissing people, the city manager, the park board, trying to move things forward without the professionalism you should bring. And you learn lessons. You get a lot of pushback on these things. So I think he's learned over his term. What you're seeing as he moves into the next election is that he's starting to really go hard with his party on crime. That's what he wants as his legacy. He's recognizing that we have to move the dial on the livability of Vancouver, and we have to do it hard and fast. Again, it raises the issue of how much you can do at the civic level. But I think if the civic level makes it a five-alarm fire, that in turn pushes more participation from the province, which in turn draws in the federal side. The Downtown Eastside, not to mention the rest of the city and the surrounding municipalities: these are crisis-point issues that are going to take a lot of time, money and resources to fix. I think he's really doubling down on that issue to say, "If you re-elect me, I'm ready, I'm willing, I'm able. We're going to go hard on this and really move the dial." You've had mayors say it in the past as well, but he seems very determined. Matt Scalena: It's interesting. Again, we're kind of in a bubble. I feel like everybody's talking about street disorder as the number one issue, and there's a plebiscite on the ballot. One question about open drug use and one about involuntary care. Going to the betting markets again this morning, I think Pete Fry's at about 68%, Ken Sim's at maybe 30%, and everybody else is at 1% or lower. Is it working for him? I get that there's a lot of hockey left to play, but Ken Sim seems to be in a pretty tricky spot right now, and I'm not sure it's got the teeth a lot of us thought it would. Trevor Hargreaves: He's had a lot of bad press for the duration of his term, and I think he's really trying to recast his image. It's a challenge. I don't think he's the strongest horse to bet on in this race, potentially. It's a very crowded race. You've got former city councillors, you've got a former chief of staff, you've got a lot of people with a fair amount of expertise and different areas of focus. Strong candidates. The other thing is that the Broadway corridor has caused a lot of concern on the residential side, which is a big part of the voting base. So I think there's a bit of a desire for new blood. It's a challenging area to be running in. Adam Scalena: What other races outside of Vancouver are worth watching? Trevor Hargreaves: It's self-interested, but I think New Westminster is a particularly interesting one, because New Westminster has traditionally had deep NDP support at all three levels. Federally, you saw a turn away from that when Peter Julian lost his seat as MP in the last federal election and they voted in a Liberal candidate. The topics of crime and the economic downturn have become wedge issues of great concern in New Westminster. And New Westminster is one of those areas with a lot of renter-based voters and special interest governance. It's really a left-versus-right scenario, so it'll be really interesting to see where that goes. I also think Surrey is a very interesting race. Fifteen people are running for mayor. You have Brenda Locke running again, and you have the former mayor running. Surrey is a very big metropolitan area within Metro Vancouver, and it's certainly a race we all need to pay attention to, because they're very development-forward. They have a lot of crime issues there as well. They're like a younger version of a growing metropolis compared to Vancouver, so it'll be interesting.

---

The Market and What Realtors Should Do

Matt Scalena: I was thinking about the market on the drive in this morning. A lot of agents in the room are probably going to be listing product for the fall market in the next few weeks. What does this election do to the market, in your mind? What considerations should agents have? Trevor Hargreaves: You have the Trump aspect. When we're all looking at the market and doing various analyses, and my economist should be yelling this at us from his seat in the front row, there's fear of cross-border and trade issues, paired with quite a weak provincial economy. It's a stagnant economy and a stagnant market. I think you're going to see a lot of things on hold right now while it's left versus right in terms of where things go. Is there much public belief that if David Eby is elected, he's going to be better at dealing with cross-border issues? Does the potential home buyer take a lot of confidence in that? It's kind of hard to see. If the Conservatives get in, does that create new optimism in the business sector and the economy, and maybe there's a bit of a surge there? I think you're seeing a lot of people put everything on hold while they wait to see where the dust settles. Adam Scalena: What should realtors be doing between now and the end of October? Trevor Hargreaves: Certainly, we need to follow our community's politics on a daily basis. Go to some of the live debates and figure out who has the soundest policies, and where you see gaps in the thinking of some of these people at the community level. One of the interesting aspects is that they're there to reach out to. You can help round out some of their perspectives. You can be there to ask questions at the podium and actually get them to respond, and you can communicate with them afterwards. We've tried to create some basic resources for realtors, so they can go on our website, download them, and take these questions to debates. That way, on the ground, you can come in at a knowing level and ask questions of relevance. On the other side of the fence, on the provincial side, we've got to follow the announcements daily and see where things are going on housing. Same thing: attend the debates where you can, the few there will be in the lead-up, and vote based on who is building the most sound policies for this sector into the future. This is a very challenged economy, so I think the outcomes of both of these elections are very important.

---

Audience Questions

Adam Scalena: I think we have a few minutes left, and we thought about opening it up for some questions. Does anyone have any questions for Trevor? Audience Member: It was a pleasure to hear Nikki speak this morning. I spent four years in Australia and saw how, in so many ways, they're 15 to 20 years ahead of us. Carney visited Australia this year, and I'm quite surprised that he and David Eby haven't taken that into consideration with all these vacant condos developers own. In Australia, I'm not sure how many years ago, maybe five or longer, they took the foreign investor out of the market except for new construction. Someone is applying to move to Australia every minute, I think, and anyone who is foreign is still allowed to purchase there if they buy new construction. Is there any way any of you could influence our provincial and federal governments to take this into consideration and help out our developers? Trevor Hargreaves: That is an excellent question. And I'll tell you, at 1:30 today Mike Moffatt is speaking. He started the Missing Middle Initiative, and he's an extremely informed and notable policy analyst. For any of you really interested in housing policy, don't miss that session. I'm certainly looking forward to it. What you're referring to is often called the Australia model, where foreign investment comes in to build and invest in new infrastructure. We have this problem in this country where we've demonized foreign buyers, saying that's why everything is so expensive, because of all this foreign investment. That was a prior talking point. Then on the other side, the federal government has put the clamps on international students coming in, because that really pressured the rental market. To answer your question about the Australia model: we very much advocate for that. It's something we're pushing, and we're continuing conversations with both levels of government, provincially and federally, to try to inspire it. It's challenging. The federal foreign homebuyer ban is a great example of a policy that's not going to move the dial, because you're not selling homes to foreign buyers in a volume that could escalate the market. It's 1% of a large market. It's not going to heavily skew it. However, with an unknowing public, there's often this very anti, almost xenophobic sense that if you keep foreign money out, that'll help control our costs, that these foreign buyers are driving everything up, which is patently false. And governments foster that themselves. So I think it really falls to the levels of government to clarify this and move past it, and recognize that if you want new builds, the money doesn't exist domestically to build at the volume we need. You need foreign investment. Foreign investment is a good thing, and governments need to get behind that and alter their course. So thank you for that question. Adam Scalena: Any more questions for Trevor? Audience Member: Hi. Thank you for taking my question. What are your thoughts on a developer moving forward on wood-frame construction development in this market today? Let's say in suburbia, three-storey, 60-plus homes, with a three-year build-out. Trevor Hargreaves: I don't work in the development sector, so that isn't one I would throw an opinion on. I think there are much better experts to give an opinion on that one. Adam Scalena: The one thing I would say, and we were talking about this yesterday, is this new tax proposal. You might want to hold off until after the election, would be my thinking, just because this new tax doesn't make it exciting to be holding any inventory, that's for sure. But what do I know? Audience Member: I missed the first half, so I apologize if you answered this already. The developers really seem to be the bogeyman right now, as if they're raking in all this profit. But it hasn't just been the developers taking their margins. It's also the people who have enjoyed that growth over the last 15 years buying presales and assigning them. They're a big part of the people who've made a lot of the money in the last 15 years, correct? I just want to defend the developers a little bit, and I don't know if my argument is sound. Trevor Hargreaves: Yes, but I think that's yesterday's profit. When we comment on the market, we need to comment on it as it is today. And I agree, we talked about this a little earlier, the developer is looked at as being out there taking advantage of the public. Right now, the developer is just trying to survive. You can look at the past and at where the market was, but you need to judge the market based on today's levers. While it's true that developers in years past have enjoyed great margins and great success, and investors have also heavily reaped the profits, none of those markers are before us right now. So David Eby making a comment like he did last Friday is just out of touch for companies that are struggling to survive. And if they can't build, neither can all the associated tradespeople. So it's not just the developer. It's an entire infrastructure model that represents so much of the working sectors of this province. Again, we need to get past these black-and-white stereotypes that they're just big, rich corporations. Audience Member: Do you have time for one more? Trevor Hargreaves: Sure. It works for me if everyone else is okay with it. Audience Member: Hi. I just wanted to ask about the roundtable. My understanding is that at last year's UBCM, not this year's, the original ask was that a provincial roundtable wasn't going to work, so they asked for municipal roundtables. Where are we with that? What's the practical next step? Because this is the platform for solutions and collaboration. Trevor Hargreaves: There's a lot of movement on the roundtables inside government right now, but we're in the middle of multiple elections, and where the dust settles will slow things down. I am optimistic that we'll see a provincial roundtable put into place within the next year, within 2027, if the NDP move forward. Ironically, the BC Conservatives have long been in support of this. But when they get into power, they're going to need to make a name for themselves, and they've got to figure out all their own housing policy. With that party, we're now openly at risk of the question: are they turning to evidence-based policy, or are they just playing the big party on the block, making a bunch of announcements? There's also always the aspect of trying to wipe away a lot of what the previous government has just done. So I certainly recognize that after multiple years we've made strong momentum on the provincial side with the NDP, and that's now at risk because of this election. Even though the Conservatives are generally for it, it'll be a whole lot more advocacy, kind of back to the drawing board, making sure they stay behind this and see it as what needs to guide them. There's an arrogance that comes with government. As the governing party, you don't necessarily want to be told by others what the right decisions are. I think that's what has kept these roundtables from being more widely accepted than they are. On the municipal side, we've been taking steps, but it's really at the regional level. You have multiple districts or larger regions working collaboratively to establish their own roundtables. That's something else I think we'll see building out in the coming year, once we get through this election cycle.

---

Matt Scalena: Great. Trevor Hargreaves, thank you so much for taking the time today, and thanks for informing us on the upcoming elections. Trevor Hargreaves: It's nice to see you both in person, not via Zoom for once. And thank you all for coming. I urge you all, as interested practitioners within this field: influence your government where you can. Ask candidates the difficult questions. Really push them on what smart, evidence-based things they're getting behind and what they really stand for as a party. Vote for who you think is the best representative, and let's put some good people into office. Thank you very much.