Wildly insufficient. As a local, I'd vote that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to buy property here at all - not residential, not speculative, not vacation homes, nothing. 1% tax is slightly better than nothing, I guess.
Define "local" and "foreigner". Does local mean you grew up in vancouver, or moved there a while ago, or your family spent three generations there already?
In addition, define foreigner. Anywhere else in British Columbia considered "foreign"? What about from Ottowa?
If you mean that you want to punish behaviour, such as buying houses and properties you don't live in or use, that's one thing. Discrimination based on locality sounds an awful lot like Jim Crow laws.
It isn't unheard of. In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents.
I think that's an overly wide generalization. For instance, in Thailand, I don't think you're allowed to own land or houses, just a condo. In Laos, you can't own land at all.
The situation is much the same in much of Latin America.
Let's face it, capital coming into the country to buy property is a Good Thing from an economic perspective. You "just" have to make sure this capital rewards low-income people as much as property owners. This tax is one way to do that, which I think is very good.
When you're passing a law that disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, that particular comparison is apt.
Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. No reason to bring the SJWing into an economic argument.
Restricting people, no matter their ethnicities, based on their country's circumstances is generally frowned upon. Especially when it only affects citizens of a few countries. "Well, this law only applies to <action> Too bad only people from these countries perform these <actions>"
Besides, your claim that the money is being laundered is highly speculative and unproven. That's the definition of painting with a wide brush - because most money is suspect, you cut off access to all of it?
Local residents and voters have the right to keep others out if their laws allow for it. Outsiders/non-citizens don't get a vote.
This is fundamentally a monetary and trade policy issue.
Are you claiming that, for example, tarriffs on Chinese dumped imports are also equivalent to racially targeted laws?
Your simplistic views of history do not explain reality. Just because they weren't called Jim Crow laws doesn't mean that similar laws didn't exist.