I'll chip in with the criticism.
While it is a way to park your money "relatively safely", the problems with investment properties like you propose are:
1. You own something in a place you don't intend to live - so your property sits empty, which adds to the displacement of the locals, in that it increases the prices of real estates for them. You might pay some property taxes, but you don't contribute much to the community otherwise. Instead you want to rip the benefits of what the active community has built.
2. Should there be a problem with your (empty) property, you won't be there to address it, which means more problems for the locals who have to pick up after you. Let's say a pipe bursts, or a squatter sets shop in your place, etc.
3. Depending what and where you want to buy, there might be regulations (quotas) regarding how many units can be rented out - if you want to buy in a family oriented place, people want to build a safe and welcoming community, more of an extended family feel to their building/area. You, buying in a place like this, contribute negatively to such a community, as either your property sits empty, or you'll have tenants coming and going.
These problems aren't made up - they are real problems that Vancouver is facing, especially the UBC campus - where the prices are such that 99% of the staff and faculty are working poor, while the UBC advertises the newly built apt in Shanghai and Hong Kong. There are apt buildings of which 50% either sit empty because of people who invested their money from afar in the safe neighbourhoods built by those local, or have the apts rented out, so the local could live on a floor of 10 apt and be the only ones there. The burst pipe did happen and guess who had to deal with it. The break-ins and squatting do happen. I know Sidney had started taking measures against such "investment properties". http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle21071391/
Do you still want an investment property?