I don't think you understood what GP meant, so i will try to formulate it in another way:
A: People who want to live in a city need housing and are ready to either 1: pay X/month (rent) or 2: buy the house.
B: This law do not create new unit to be rented or bought, and do not do anything for the cities attractiveness, IE the migratory trend will stay the same
C: The renting price is complex and while location and regulation do have an effect, the price is based on supply and demand, not on "how much did you pay for this house" (unless you have rent limits in canada).
D: The buying price is complex but also half based on the renting price. I think AirBNB jacked things up, and we now see housing as a commodity so the number could be higher, but when i was a kid the common sense was: monthly rent * 12 * 20 > house price: buy, else don't.
If A,B, C and D are all true, then i don't see how this law can change prices. If i'm wrong on any point, it might.
But D is not true. If a property costs one million today, but could sell for two million in a few years, then simply buying it and holding it will earn you a reasonable rate of return even if you never rent it out. In fact renting it out is risky simply because it will make the property harder to sell when the time comes.
And with a small but significant population of potential buyers excluded, the property prices will not not rise nearly as much and they may even fall. If there are enough rich Canadians in the coming generations then prices may rise again, making the investment worthwhile, but there is significant risk there.
But D is true though. Housing price is mostly based on the price-to-rent ratio when outside a bubble, and the average investors know it way better than the average Canadian [0]
Isn't the price-to-rent ratio in the us around 16? And from what i just researched, it's like 18 in Canada, so not "Only if the buyer intends to rent it out". The price-to-rent ratio is 18 in Canada, hence it's not yet a bubble, hence housing as an investment is related to renting prices more than just something to happen in a bubble.
A: People who want to live in a city need housing and are ready to either 1: pay X/month (rent) or 2: buy the house.
B: This law do not create new unit to be rented or bought, and do not do anything for the cities attractiveness, IE the migratory trend will stay the same
C: The renting price is complex and while location and regulation do have an effect, the price is based on supply and demand, not on "how much did you pay for this house" (unless you have rent limits in canada).
D: The buying price is complex but also half based on the renting price. I think AirBNB jacked things up, and we now see housing as a commodity so the number could be higher, but when i was a kid the common sense was: monthly rent * 12 * 20 > house price: buy, else don't.
If A,B, C and D are all true, then i don't see how this law can change prices. If i'm wrong on any point, it might.