I believe it could be applied here, of course. As I mentioned, there are a lot of ways. The central issue is that, generally speaking in Canada, particularly in the expensive markets—and you could demarcate expensive markets—property is undertaxed, and working for a living and buying and selling goods and services is overtaxed. That's a serious problem and it contributes, of course, to housing affordability.
In British Columbia, you're mapped in or you're mapped out. It's not partial. You're either subject to the speculation and vacancy tax or you're not. As you mentioned, Kelowna was a controversial case. I have not heard of significant problems with the tourism industry. You would know better than I, but I'm not aware of studies that show the SVT in B.C. has hammered badly the vacation industry there.
You have, of course, a trade-off, because, in many places, there's a local economy that's hindered, as you say, by the inability of locals to find work. Even in Salt Spring Island, where I visited with my wife, it's extremely hard for locals to find work, even though it's entirely a vacation community.
I'm just not aware of places that have been mapped in where there have been problems. Could there have been places that were mapped in and all of a sudden tourism died? You know, you'd have to be in such a place where people are just going to leave. One important point is that, yes, it's sad for the Americans, but what's going to happen? The houses won't become vacant. They might fall in value, but you probably won't have any vacancy.
The real economic concern would be vacancy and no more tourism. You'd have to be in a place that's marginally tourist acceptable, where there are many Americans. My guess is that there's a very small set of places where that would be the concern.