Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 22, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 164

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Len Fox

J. Rustad

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Savage

I. Paton

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

Hon. G. Heyman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Taiwan Chamber of Commerce in B.C.

A. Kang

Energy-efficient rental housing project in Pemberton

J. Sturdy

School libraries and promotion of reading and literacy

N. Simons

Kathy O’Connor and advocacy for college of counselling therapists

T. Redies

Raj Chouhan and advocacy for farmworkers and human rights

R. Kahlon

Jody Paterson and Board Voice Society

L. Reid

Oral Questions

Municipal election results and transit services in Surrey

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Hunt

Access to family physicians and services at walk-in clinics

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Municipal election results and Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. J. Horgan

Release of report on Massey Tunnel replacement project

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

Municipal election results and real estate speculation tax

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

M. Stilwell

Impact of real estate speculation tax on housing starts

T. Stone

Hon. C. James

Petitions

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Sims

R. Sultan

L. Throness

Hon. D. Eby

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

A. Olsen

P. Milobar

S. Chandra Herbert

C. Oakes

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

G. Kyllo

M. Bernier

M. Morris

J. Thornthwaite

R. Singh

D. Barnett

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a number of guests who have

come here today to observe question period.

Joining us from the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. is their newly

elected president, as of Saturday, Kathy Tarnai-Lokhorst; from the B.C.

Institute of Agrologists — J.P. Ellson, the executive director; from the

College of Applied Biology — Christine Houghton, the executive director,

Brian Clark, president, and Derek Marcoux, the registrar; from the Applied

Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., otherwise known as ASTTBC —

Theresa McCurry, the chief executive officer, and Sarah Campden, the

vice-president; from the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals —

Christine Gelowitz, the chief executive officer, and Robin Modesto, the

president; from Tolko Industries — Tom Hoffman, the manager of external and

stakeholder relations; from the professional reliance working group of

concerns citizens — Bob Peart, coordinator.

Also here is Mark Haddock, the independent author of the professional

reliance review commissioned by government.

Also in the precinct with us, and possibly in the House, is the

Professional Employees Association and their executive director, Melissa

Moroz. They are, of course, the accredited bargaining agent for government

employees, professional licensed professionals.

Finally, in the gallery are some guests from my ministry observing

question period. I think, for his very first time, Deputy Minister Mark

Zacharias. Also with us is Jennifer McGuire, the assistant deputy minister

of environmental sustainability and strategic policy; Leon Gaber, the

director of the professional reliance review; and Peter Trotzki, the

director of legislation.

Will the House please join me in making all of our guests very, very

welcome.

A. Wilkinson: We tend to forget that the elected members of this assembly are only

part of the function of the Legislature, because in every constituency, of

course, there are the constituency offices, which serve the people of the

province directly.

We’re very glad to have amongst us about 60 constituency assistants

here who are visiting Victoria. I need only make clear their role by

pointing to the weather. When they arrived, it was cold and grey and opaque,

and within a couple of hours, it’s clear and blue and transparent and

beautiful.

Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us on the floor today is someone no stranger to question

period. It’s been a while since he’s had to answer any questions, and I

don’t think any will be coming his way. But he was the Minister of Forests;

he was the Minister of Labour; he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs; he

was the Minister of Employment and Investment. He was also, for a period of

time, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and he was our

32nd Premier. It’s my friend Dan Miller, the former member for North Coast,

with great respect to the current member for North Coast.

Dan Miller is here today to make sure that I answer all the questions

succinctly and with a good message behind it. Would the House please make

him very, very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a very special constituent in the gallery today. Glen Grigg is

the chair of the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists of

British Columbia. I wish that the House would make him welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery with us, we have two special guests today who are doing

great work around promoting STEM education to K-to-12 students in British

Columbia, both of whom work for Science World, a venerable science

institution that has been doing this work promoting science education and

curriculum to young people in B.C. for over 30 years now. Sarah Chow is with

us here. She’s worked in science, I believe, for over ten years at Science

World. She’s also a personality on the Discovery Channel.

With her is Chelsea Stoyt, a science educator who has taught all over

the world and is now part of Science World’s On the Road team. We had the On

the Road team here this morning to entertain and educate a group of young

people, students from South Park elementary school. It was a fantastic

performance, just showing what they can do and what they do in our school

system.

I’d ask the House to make these two young women most welcome here

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Kang: I have several very special guests from the Taiwanese commerce

community. They will be spending their day here at the Legislature learning

about how the province works and meeting with members from all sides of the

House.

As well, I understand that in Taiwan, there was a terrible incident

just yesterday in Yilan County, with a train derailment. My condolences to

their citizens.

With that, I would like to introduce Andy Chen, the director general

of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office; Suzie Chen, division director of

TECO; Ruth Chang, director of Taiwan External Trade Development Council;

Eric Yang, the president of Taiwan Chamber of Commerce in B.C.; Tony Tsao,

the vice-president; Esther Yu, the vice-president; and Angie Tsai, the

treasurer.

Other members and directors are here today: Shan Tseng; Wendy Chang;

Dennis Chiang; Sunny Chen; Jeffery Lin; Tony Lin; Benny Chen; Ray Kuo; Gary

Yang; Jonathan Wu; Anthony Chou and his wife, Wen Yin Chen, and his two

little guys, Chen Ray Chou and baby Chen Jen Chou.

Would the House please make everyone feel very welcome.

T. Redies: I am delighted today to introduce a very special constituent of mine,

Kathy O’Connor, who is visiting from White Rock today. Kathy is here with

Glen Grigg of FACTBC and is an advocate for the establishment of a college

of counselling therapists. I am going to be speaking about her a little bit

later today.

B. D’Eith: I just wanted to say a welcome to a very good friend who I have known

for many, many years. His name is J.P. Ellson. He’s in the audience now. We

actually spent many years together working in the music industry. He was the

executive director of Sask Music, and I was the executive director of Music

B.C. We are both past chairs of the Western Canadian Music Awards. We’ve

managed to reel him out to the west coast. Now, of course, he’s executive

director of the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists.

I would like everyone to make him feel very welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m really happy to welcome a delegation from the Canadian Union of

Public Employees — Andrew Ledger, president of CUPE 1004, representing over

3,000 members performing all kinds of services across Metro Vancouver; and

Sheryl Burns, president of CUPE 1936, representing 1,200 community social

services workers throughout the Lower Mainland. Joining them from the CUPE

B.C. office is Justin Schmid.

I am looking forward to having a meeting with them later on today to

speak about workers health and safety and a number of other issues that they

may have, to make life better for the working people in this province.

Please help me welcome them.

D. Barnett: I have two guests here today, a young lady named Barb Marks…. Her dad

was the first mayor of the district of 100 Mile House, and she now lives in

the Lower Mainland. I would like you to help me welcome her here

today.

Also, Mr. Tom Hoffman, who was here today meeting with the minister,

is a constituent of mine in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. He lives in Williams Lake

— a great Rotarian and advocate for our community.

Welcome, Tom.

Tributes

LEN FOX

J. Rustad: I rise today on a bit of a sad note, the passing of Len Fox

several weeks ago. Len served in this Legislature in the early 1990s and

was one of the last Socreds to be elected. Len, in his youth, loved

hockey but, unfortunately, couldn’t afford a pair of skates. So he

played goalie, wearing gumboots, which was, of course, very

interesting.

Later, of course, he became a school trustee and served two terms

as a trustee, including the board chair; served on municipal council;

three terms as mayor in Vanderhoof; started a Ford dealership called Fox

Ford in Vanderhoof, and many other accomplishments over his

time.

So it’s sad that on October 6, he was diagnosed with an aggressive

form of ALS and passed away 36 hours later, with his family. Len will be

missed, but I know that his accomplishments will not be

forgotten.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: I would also like to add my words of welcome to one of my constituents

who is here today with Taiwanese commerce group that is here, and that is

Yu-Shan Tseng. I just met her recently. Not only is she living in my

constituency; she’s practically my next-door neighbour. Please join me in

welcoming her to this House.

Tributes

JOHN SAVAGE

I. Paton: Also on a sad note today, I’d like to pass along…. Roughly last

spring I did a two-minute statement on the wonderful life of a former Ag

Minister, John Savage. John fought through some health issues several

years ago and was doing very well.

I’m so shocked. I spoke to him just a week ago in Ladner, in his

car outside of the Safeway store. Unfortunately, John passed away

peacefully in his sleep, unexpectedly, on Friday night.

The loss of a great agriculturist, a great farmer, a great farm

name in Delta — John Savage.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by Judy Higney and Bonny Mumford. They’ve come all

the way from Nova Scotia, and they share a sister — my constituency

assistant, Holly Cowan. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

R. Kahlon: I would like to rise to make an introduction. I am a new uncle. My

cousin had a beautiful baby girl on October 20, at one in the morning, after

12 hours of labour — 8 pounds, 4 ounces — Vera Atwal. Mom, Sumeet, and dad,

Muneer, are all doing great.

It’s nice to become a māmā , as we say. It’s “uncle” in

Pun­jabi.

I’d like to ask the House to please make wonderful Vera Atwal welcome

to this House.

L. Reid: I have Georgina Patko in the gallery today. Georgina and I share a

tremendous passion around Pathways Clubhouse. She’s a Richmond treasure.

She’s relocated to Vancouver Island. She’s going to guide the development of

that as we speak. Please make her very, very welcome.

I’d also ask the House to join me in wishing the very happiest of

birthdays to Shelley Leonhardt.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve mentioned that former Premier Dan Miller is here. We had a lovely

lunch together. The reason for the lunch wasn’t so much for Dan and I to get

together. I can find him at the Thrifty’s any weekend, as everyone else

does.

We were joined by the staff that Dan inherited in 1991, who had

previously worked for the former Social Credit government and continued to

work, after the NDP was defeated, for the Liberal government. These are

three outstanding individuals who devoted their entire professional life to

serving people in this Legislature. They are Serena Costa, Debbie Wade and

the irrepressible Bert Willing. Would the House please make all three of

them very welcome.

M. Lee: I would also like to rise in this House to welcome four visitors from

Surrey, friends of mine in the community, who have been very active and

involved in our political process. I thank them for all of their efforts in

our community: Amarjeet Grewal, Sukhpal Mangat, Kirpal Mangat, Surinder Pal

Singh Mahal.

S. Furstenau: I have two sets of introductions to make today, one in each of our

official languages. First of all, I’d like to echo the Minister of

Environment’s welcome to the five professional associations here today: the

engineers and geoscientists, the agrologists, the biologists, the applied

science technologists and technicians, and the Association of B.C.

Foresters, as well as Tolko Industries and the Professional Employees

Association.

I’m delighted that Mark Haddock, the hard-working author of the

professional reliance review, is also here today, as is Bob Peart, a

longtime champion for the environment.

Je souhaite aussi la bienvenue aux étudiants et aux enseignants venus

d’Angers, en France. Il y a 40 étudiants du lycée Sacré-Coeur et leurs

professeurs Jérémie Cotteverte, Corrine Busson et Crystèle Beillouet. Nous

sommes ravis de vous avoir aujourd’hui à la législature et nous espérons que

votre visite sera à la fois informative et agréable.

[French text provided by S. Furstenau.]

Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL

GOVERNANCE

ACT

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Professional Governance

Act.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

The proposed Professional Governance Act has been prepared after

extensive consultation and consideration by our government of the first

two recommendations made in the independent report on professional

reliance and natural resource decision-making.

This proposed act will ensure that best practices for professional

governance are defined collaboratively and are implemented by the

professional regulators that are within the scope of the act. This will

include standardizing the structure and functions of regulatory

counsels, requiring continuing professional development of all

professionals, setting clear conflict of interest requirements, high

ethical standards of professional conduct and enabling practice

authorities to all five regulated professions.

The act will increase public transparency by providing express

authority for ministries to proactively disclose natural resource

information. The act will also strengthen government oversight for

professional regulatory bodies by establishing a dedicated statutory

office of the superintendent of professional governance to replace the

current responsibility residing in a number of ministries.

If this bill is enacted, the intention is to bring it into force

in stages, starting next year. The initial stage of implementation would

enable the office and its policy, guidance, investigation and

enforcement functions, and bring key provisions of the act into force,

such as whistleblower protection.

During the implementation transition period, these authorities

would operate alongside the existing governance statutes of five

professional regulatory bodies — the agrologists, applied biologists,

applied science technologists and technicians, engineers in geoscience,

scientists and forestry professionals. The intention is that regulations

will be developed to support full implementation of the new act, at

which time the five governance statutes will be repealed.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49, Professional Governance Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TAIWAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN B.C.

A. Kang: Today it is my great pleasure to recognize the contributions of

many small businesses from the Taiwan Chamber of Commerce in

B.C.

TCCBC is a non-profit organization founded in 1992. It currently

has close to 1,000 members, with categories such as accountants and

lawyers, retail stores, insurance, financial agencies, construction,

developers, cellular accessories like Mr.Com and supermarkets such as

T&T, and many more. The mission of TCCBC is to consolidate and

strengthen the experience of the Taiwanese business community and to

bridge the gap between other local business groups.

TCCBC works closely with local charity groups and encourages its

members to contribute back to communities. Jason Ko of Viva

Pharmaceuticals has contributed millions of dollars to VGH and UBC

Hospital Foundation and other local charities.

TCCBC doesn’t work alone. Together with the Taipei Economic and

Cultural Office, which is TECO, and Taiwan External Trade Development

Council, TAITRA, the three organizations have been working hard to

further advance the two-way trade and investment relationship between

Taiwan and B.C.

In 2017, the value of all goods and exports from B.C. to Taiwan

was about $695 million. Taiwan ranked No. 6 as a destination for B.C.

origin exports in 2017, and in the education sector, Taiwan is B.C.’s

ninth largest source jurisdiction for international students coming to

our province. Tourism between Taiwan and B.C. is strong and is growing

stronger. B.C. has a strong relationship with Taiwan as a supplier of

energy products.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Eric Yang, 27th

president of TCCBC, Andy Chen, director general of TECO, and Ruth Chang,

director of TAITRA, for your contributions to small businesses,

prosperity and growth in B.C.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT RENTAL HOUSING

PROJECT IN

PEMBERTON

J. Sturdy: Homes that are energy efficient and comfortable, suitable for

families and affordable in the rental market — these are the types of

new-home developments that we need to see more of in British

Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, Vidorra Developments is prioritizing

people and energy efficiency in a very tight Sea to Sky rental

market.

Radius is a private sector, multifamily rental project of one- to

three-bedroom units recently completed in Pemberton. The building is one

of the most energy-efficient buildings in Canada with rooftop solar,

rainwater collection, green roofs, community garden, energy-efficient

heating and cooling systems, built of long-term, durable,

low-maintenance materials. Vidorra Developments has integrated all

energy costs into the rent, so tenants have a reliable and stable

housing cost out into the future.

Vidorra has also partnered with BCIT centre for building

excellence, and through a Mitacs accelerant grant, graduate students

with BCIT were able to model the building and make recommendations on

areas where energy efficiency improvements were possible that would have

the most impact on operational and maintenance costs.

Early results suggest that the rental homes at Radius are trending

to be more than 40 percent more efficient than either a passive house or

step 5 of the 2032 B.C. step code. In real terms, that means total

energy costs of about $1.20 per day per unit, all in, which supports a

sustainable building for both tenants and landlord.

There’s no question that a supportive municipality, by way of the

village of Pemberton, prioritized and facilitated the development of

these new, much-needed rental homes. Vidorra Developments and BCIT

should also be recognized for their collaboration and commitment in

improving design and construction methods and leading the way in one of

the best rental housing products in Canada.

SCHOOL LIBRARIES AND PROMOTION

OF READING AND

LITERACY

N. Simons: Today is School Library Day, a day to think about literacy and one

of the most vital skills a person can possess. Reading and writing is

not only important for an individual’s well-being; it opens doors to

meaningful careers and a greater appreciation of life. Having a literate

society is essential to the economic and social fabric of our

communities.

That’s why governments past and present support the annual

Raise-a-Reader campaign with significant investments that flow through

Decoda Literacy Solutions. Government also supports literacy programs

offered through community organizations, schools, Indigenous

organizations, family resource centres, as well as through our wonderful

network of public libraries around the province.

Last year Raise-a-Reader supported literacy sessions that were

attended by almost 70,000 people, a fivefold increase from the previous

year.

Today students around the province are celebrating School Library

Day by participating in the Drop Everything and Read Challenge. At a

time specific for every school, students in all classrooms are

encouraged to stop what they’re doing and take 20 minutes to read. Drop

Everything and Read draws attention to the importance of reading for

fun. Without even realizing it, readers reap personal benefits from

reading. Exploring new horizons and knowing more about the world is

empowering.

School Library Day is coordinated by the B.C. Teacher-Librarian

Association, a specialist association of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Our school libraries support students by offering diverse collections

and inquiry-based learning opportunities. Our province’s

teacher-librarians help students develop the critical thinking and

digital literacy skills necessary to find and evaluate information,

helping them to succeed in life.

In addition to thanking all the teacher-librarians around this

province, I encourage everyone to find a time today to drop everything

and read — in about six minutes.

KATHY O’CONNOR AND ADVOCACY FOR

COLLEGE OF COUNSELLING

THERAPISTS

T. Redies: I’m delighted to rise today to highlight FACTBC and its efforts to

establish a college of counselling therapists under B.C.’s Health

Professions Act. But mostly, I wanted to speak to the work of a brave

constituent of mine, Kathy O’Connor, who has been actively helping

FACTBC by speaking up for the needs and rights of those dealing with

mental health challenges. Like any medical situation, it’s absolutely

imperative that people dealing with mental health challenges can find

and work with professionals who are properly trained and

accredited.

As many here know, FACTBC is a society of 13 professional

associations representing 5,000 counsellors and therapists in B.C.

FACTBC has been advocating for government to establish a B.C. college of

counselling therapists to ensure that counsellors treating mental health

challenges are accredited and practising according to agreed standards.

B.C. lags other provinces in having an accredited college, but this is

absolutely necessary to protect those living with mental health

issues.

[2:00 p.m.]

I want to say a few words about my constituent Kathy O’Connor, who

has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of this issue. A former child

development specialist, Kathy has had her own challenges, so she knows

from both a professional and a personal perspective of the need to

ensure that B.C. has qualified and accredited therapists. Kathy has

actively worked with FACTBC on many fronts, including a petition which

my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour will present

shortly.

Kathy, I admire your tenaciousness, your passion, your drive to

help others to bring this to the attention of the B.C. Legislature. You

have never let your challenges get in the way of helping others. For

that, you are truly an inspiration to me.

RAJ CHOUHAN AND ADVOCACY FOR

FARMWORKERS AND HUMAN

RIGHTS

R. Kahlon: It is my privilege to speak about a remarkable British Columbian.

This individual emigrated to Canada in 1973. As a student in India, he

was actively involved in student union activities. Upon his arrival to

Canada, he saw an ad in the local paper that advertised the need for

workers at a Fraser Valley farm. The then 20-something decided to go

check out the farm.

When he got there, he was shocked by what he found. Years later he

recalled his experience to his local paper. “There was no running water.

There were no toilets, absolutely no facilities. I was expecting, in a

country like Canada, there would be something better than

that.”

What he saw were workers living on site in converted cattle barns,

squished in like sardines, with six people to a cubicle, he recalled,

adding that a good chunk of the little money they had would go towards

the labourer for their rent. Meanwhile, workers were constantly exposed

to toxic pesticides and unguarded machinery. Many were forced to bring

their children to work because they couldn’t afford daycare.

After asking the farmer’s son why conditions were so bad, he was

fired. The same fate followed him after he asked the same question to

two other employers. That created an interest and a curiosity to find

out what was going on. He later said: “Nothing was going to be done to

organize or help farmworkers. They were not even deemed workers under

the Employment Standards Act.”

Enough was enough, and this individual took action in his own

hands. He went on to create the Canadian Farmworkers Union. I recall

speaking to his kids about what it was like to have a father as an

organizer. They shared their fondest memory and the hardest memory,

which was seeing their father come home with a big gash on his head

after he was attacked for trying to help workers to organize.

After that, he went on to be a founding member of the B.C.

Organization to Fight Racism. He worked tirelessly and relentlessly to

promote human rights and racial equality.

Last night the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Deputy Speaker of this

House, was a recipient of the United Way’s Labour Community Service

Award.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank him for being a

mentor and for all the work he’s done for 40 years to make lives better

for British Columbians. [Applause.]

JODY PATERSON AND

BOARD VOICE

SOCIETY

L. Reid: I rise today to recognize the great work of a much-loved British

Columbian, Jody Paterson. Board Voice Society of B.C. is a B.C.

non-profit representing the volunteer board members and executive

leaders of more than 60 community non-profits, whose services address

the social determinants of health. Their vision to be a clear and

effective voice for community social services sees them engage on a

number of fronts.

A major initiative in recent years has been to advocate for the

need for a provincial social policy planning framework for British

Columbia. With the support of the Vancouver Foundation, Board Voice

completed a three-year project on this issue in 2017, after

consultations with more than 1,500 people in 15 British Columbia

communities.

A social planning policy framework would be similar to those

already in routine use for planning and sustaining the economic efforts,

health care and quality education in British Columbia. It would place

social health and better social outcomes on the same level of importance

as quality schools, great health care and a vibrant economy. Other

provinces and individual municipal governments have already developed

frameworks and plans for better social health.

B.C. has thousands of passionate and knowledgable people working

in community non-profits that are eager to help our residents,

communities and our province to achieve more. Count on Board Voice to be

an active and enthusiastic participant in this effort, and please

contact me if you have questions or ideas you would like to explore.

More details about Board Voice and their work are available at their

website, www.boardvoice.ca.

Accolades to Jody Paterson for leading the change as executive

director, and greetings to Terry Anne Boyles, the co-chair, who I

recently had the pleasure of meeting.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND

TRANSIT SERVICES IN

SURREY

A. Wilkinson: On Saturday, we had municipal elections all around the province,

and the voters had their say. That’s how our democracy works. This is a

good thing, as we see a new level of involvement at the municipal level

— new voices, fresh blood — and we’ll see how it all pans out for this

government.

In one particular place, it took a turn. That’s in Surrey, where

the voters fairly decisively rejected the Premier’s transit plan. The

Premier announced that funding for Surrey LRT was locked down on

September 4, and the issue was concluded. But the voters of Surrey

clearly disagree.

The question that goes to the Premier is: what is he going to do

now that the voters of Surrey have rejected his transit plan for

LRT?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s interest in transit in

the Lower Mainland. If only they’d had this much interest back in 2013,

we may well have had it done by now.

I do appreciate the intent of the member’s question. Certainly,

the newly elected mayor of Surrey has a different point of view than

those who were on the Mayors Council that put the ten-year Mayors

Council plan together. We worked with the outgoing chair, the outgoing

council, with the federal government to put in place funding for

significant investments in public transportation in the Lower Mainland.

If the mayor of Surrey has a different point of view, he’s going to have

to take that up with the Mayors Council.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier is anxious to draw some battle lines right out

of the gate. Let’s take September 4. The mayor-elect of Surrey, on

September 4, said: “For a Premier to tell a city what they’re going to

get…is not the final word. The residents of Surrey will make the final

decision, and I think that the Premier needs to start to

listen.”

Premier, it appears that you’re throwing down the gauntlet with

the new mayor of Surrey. Perhaps you can tell us how you’re going to

come to a productive resolution of this, rather than just picking a

fight.

Hon. J. Horgan: I did nothing of the kind. I pick no fights with anyone. The

voters in Surrey have elected a new mayor and a new council. They will

come together as a mayor and council. They will look at the various and

sundry issues that they ran on, and they’ll bring those forward to the

appropriate places. I would argue that had the people on the other side

been paying attention….

The Mayors Council worked diligently on a ten-year plan. It wasn’t

an NDP plan. It wasn’t a Liberal plan. It was the Metro region plan, and

that’s where it needs to be resolved.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier seems to have forgotten certain things that I

use regularly, called the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line. But we’ll

move on from that.

We now have the mayor of Surrey saying that he doesn’t want the

Premier’s plan for LRT. South of the Fraser residents made their

position very clear in the election on Saturday. The new mayor of Surrey

says that in the first week of November, their first item of business

will be to reject the Premier’s plan for LRT.

Over to the Premier. Will the Premier accept this change in

circumstances, respond to the people of Surrey and start the discussion

for SkyTrain in Surrey, or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: One of the first things we did was respond to the people of Surrey

by eliminating tolls on the Port Mann Bridge. The second thing we did is

work to put in place a project office to build the schools that are

desperately needed in Surrey, because they were abandoned by people on

that side of the House.

[2:10 p.m.]

I am quite happy to go back and forth with the Leader of the

Official Opposition on issues where we can disagree, but I have to

correct him. It is not the Premier’s plan. It is not an NDP plan. It is

the mayors’ ten-year plan for transit in the Lower Mainland. If those on

that side of the House had listened to mayors and councils while they

were on this side of the House, they might still be here.

M. Hunt: In his victory speech on Saturday, Surrey’s mayor-elect said:

“We’re going to stop light rail project and start to build SkyTrain

right away.”

To the Minister of Transportation, will the Minister of

Transportation assure Surrey voters that provincial funding is available

for SkyTrain?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member from Surrey for his question, but he of all

people should know, of the few members on that side of the House from

Surrey, that these were hard decisions that were made over a long period

of time by a council, I believe, he was a member of at one

time.

I find it passing strange that the opposition today has decided to

try and drive people apart rather than unite them. Again, perhaps that’s

why they’re on that side of the House and not over here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: What I have chosen to do in my activities as an individual voter

in Surrey is not what is before us today. What is before us today is the

result from an election. You see, we all have our opinions, and we put

our opinions forward to the electorate, and the electorate chooses to

make its decisions, and the electorate has spoken.

The minister and the Premier have said that those funds were for a

particular project.

My question, again to the Minister of Transportation, is: will the

minister confirm, since the Surrey voters chose SkyTrain, that she will

fund it?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know, as a former councillor who ran many, many

times, that voters make choices for a variety of reasons.

We have a mayor and council in Surrey, duly elected on Saturday.

That mayor and council will have to then go to other bodies in the

region — the Metro table, for example — if they have a disagreement with

the plan, which was not just funded by the federal and provincial

governments but with a portion of taxes coming from municipalities.

They’re going to have to go back to that table first and

foremost.

I await those discussions, and I hope they’ll be

fruitful.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND

SERVICES AT WALK-IN

CLINICS

A. Olsen: The number of meetings in my office about health care is growing;

the number of emails, overwhelming. As the minister knows, my community,

like all of our communities, is struggling to deliver primary

care.

This week I met with Bruce. He shared his deep frustration with

not having a doctor. I also met with Gary. He’s also retired on the

Saanich Peninsula and is now without a doctor for the first time in his

life. To cap off this week, David stopped by to share a story about the

health challenges of his 81-year-old wife, Jane. The minister may know

Jane, as the former member for Saanich North and the Islands brought her

story to question period. David and Jane have lost their doctor twice in

the last decade. At 82, he is now the full-time caregiver for his wife,

Jane, who has Alzheimer’s, is partly deaf and has a disability —

familiar story, no?

No doctor and very little respite — it’s a good thing that David

is strong. He’s a powerful advocate for the changes in health care

services that are so urgently needed in our province.

To the Minister of Health, I know the minister is working to

implement team-based care models across the province, but in the

meantime, people are struggling to find care. Can the minister give us

realistic timelines on when the patients are going to start feeling real

solutions to the doctor shortage?

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank the member for his question. I think his question

reflects the views of many members of the House from many communities

around B.C.

[2:15 p.m.]

The people that he’s mentioned — David, Jane and Bruce, in his

constituency — and more than one in six British Columbians are without a

family doctor or nurse practitioner, a primary care provider. It’s for

them, in May, that the Premier launched our primary care plan — which,

because it’s a complex problem, involves several elements.

We are establishing urgent primary care centres in places around

B.C., most recently in Quesnel, to help address issues of attachment in

care. We know, as well, that it’s not just people who are unattached,

but many people suffer more significant health needs than before and

require significant care — people with mental health and addictions, the

frail elderly, people with chronic diseases.

We’re also establishing, this fiscal year, 15 primary care

networks — established in communities that will bring new resources to

communities to address issues of attaching more people to nurse

practitioners and family doctors. We’re supporting community health

centres, including a couple in the member’s constituency that again, at

a community level, establish team-based care to provide the care people

need when they need it.

We are hiring 200 new general practitioners, 200 new nurse

practitioners and 50 new pharmacists to support these actions across

British Columbia, because such things are needed. In the member’s

constituency, because I know he’s very interested in this, one of those

primary care networks is going to be established this year to ensure

that people have the care they need.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: As a constituent recently wrote in to our office:

“We are surprised to learn that it is next to impossible to get a

family doctor here and even harder to see a doctor in a walk-in clinic

if you have a job.

“Both my husband and I have attempted to get into a clinic during

the day, and even if you show up early, the wait is well over an hour,

if not longer. We have professional responsibilities and cannot take

time off in the hopes that a doctor will be able to see us. This means

we struggle to get prescriptions filled, referrals and results of any

tests.

“I recently left work at noon to try to see a doctor, and I went to

three different clinics that all turned me away because their doctor had

already filled the quota for the day.”

In Saanich North and the Islands, we just recently lost a

clinic.

To the Minister of Health, what is he doing to ensure the lengthy

and unpredictable wait times do not interfere with the ability of

patients to reach care?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member and to his constituents for bringing this

forward.

I think one of the key aspects of what we’re trying to do in the

Premier’s plan is to address urgent primary care centres, of course,

primary care networks and community health centres that will be open not

just during the day but in the evenings and on weekends. We know that

people working in British Columbia have health care needs not just from

nine to five but all through the week. It’s why all of these actions

will establish more care for people, give people more options for care

and allow them to get the care when they need it. This is a critical

aspect of what we’re doing.

This is a significant challenge. When I became Minister of Health,

more than 750,000 people were without a family practice doctor or a

nurse practitioner in B.C., which is a huge number of people, more than

one in six. That, I say with respect, is five years after the launch of

the GP for Me program, a program that didn’t have…. Two years after, it

was abandoned. The program itself had good ideas. It wasn’t all bad. It

wasn’t a problem. But it shows the challenge that all of us face as a

province in addressing these issues.

Increasingly, people struggle with chronic disease. We are living

longer, which means we have new health challenges, and the challenge of

mental health and addiction affects every community. That’s why we put

in place a comprehensive primary care plan to address the problems of

the member’s constituent and people in every community in British

Columbia.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND

MASSEY TUNNEL

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: All three of the Delta mayoralty candidates were adamant about

moving forward with the tunnel replacement. This was the most talked

about issue in our Delta election. Delta mayor-elect George Harvie has a

simple message for the Transportation Minister: “We need a new bridge.

That is the number one concern I heard. We need a new

bridge.”

When will this minister build the bridge?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I know he’s been working very

diligently to address the congestion challenges at the Massey Tunnel.

But he will also know that that project was not part of the ten-year

plan for the local mayors.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve met with former mayor Jackson, as recently as at UBCM. The

current mayor, I believe, was a staff person at that time and was part

of the meeting. We understand full well the challenges at Massey, and

the minister and I are going to be working as diligently as we can to

make sure that the entire region understands the needs of focused

investments on those critical points. But it has to be….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member from Kamloops has no idea what he’s talking

about.

I appreciate the question from the member, and I look forward to

working with him and the new mayor to try and address this serious

challenge.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, the Premier speaks of the term “diligence.” To me, diligence

is a report sitting on the minister’s desk called the Cowdell report,

“What’s Happening with the George Massey Tunnel Replacement.”

To quote Mayor-elect Harvie: “How much longer will Delta residents

have to endure an unsafe and unhealthy daily commute? Every day I heard

this issue on the doorsteps…. Doing nothing is not an

option.”

My question is: will the minister listen to the voters of Delta,

dust off the Cowdell report on her desk, release it to the public and

restart the bridge construction immediately?

Hon. J. Horgan: Absolutely under active consideration, as are all of the

transportation challenges across British Columbia. But we need to

recognize that the Mayors Council wasn’t put in place so that they could

have more meetings. They were put in place to make sure that we could

make rational investments in the fastest-growing part of British

Columbia.

Those rational investments have to be done with the view of

meeting all of the challenges in the region, not just the challenges of

those in Delta. Critical issue — we’re seized of that responsibility,

and I look forward to working with the member in the future.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

J. Johal: Ashton Service Group is a longtime plumbing company in Richmond.

When Ashton Group gets called south of the Fraser, they send two

plumbers, not because the job requires it but because with two plumbers

they can at least use the HOV lane to get through the tunnel. That’s how

badly things have deteriorated under this minister.

On behalf of the Ashton Group and 14,000 Richmond businesses, when

will the minister table the Cowdell report?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, an interesting approach by the quarterback of the question

period team today. First of all, we start by saying: “Stop construction

on critically important infrastructure in one place, and fire up

critically important infrastructure in another place.”

It’s the randomness of the questions that I believe puts in clear

focus for the people of British Columbia the need for thoughtful

deliberation on significant investments of this kind. That’s why there’s

a Mayors Council. I would suggest the member should consult with his

mayor, who was recently re-elected with a massive majority, about his

views on addressing this issue.

Do we need to fix it? Of course we do. Was the solution put

forward by the other guys the right one? I don’t think so.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Had the benched Transportation Minister simply allowed work to

continue, today we’d be a year into the building of the Massey crossing

on behalf of 14,000 Richmond businesses; on behalf of commuters in

Delta, Richmond, South Surrey and Langley; on behalf of ferry users; on

behalf of tourists from Washington state; on behalf of longshoremen and

truck drivers at the Tsawwassen port.

The minister has the report. She’s seen the report. Can she tell

us what the report recommends and on restarting construction?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, if the member doesn’t have time to contact Mayor Brodie,

I’ll read a quote from Mayor Brodie. He said the following, “We have

been disregarded and ignored in the questions that we have asked,”

referring to the previous government. “I think that it’s absolutely

critical to the future of our city” — that being Richmond — “that there

be a re-examination of this project” so that important issues like this

can be done in many different ways.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: It highlights the requirement to have reasonable and rational

discussions with all players at the table. That’s why there’s a Mayors

Council. That’s why they come together — so that they can make sure that

the best interests of the entire region are met. I’m going to listen to

them before I listen to that member.

[2:25 p.m.]

MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION

TAX

S. Bond: Well, another community, another mayor elected in a landslide by

voters who are sending a clear message about the policies of this

government. In West Kelowna….

Interjections.

S. Bond: That’s exactly why this mayor has been elected, because of the

mocking on the other side. In West Kelowna, it was Gord

Milsom….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

S. Bond: In West Kelowna, it was Gord Milsom elected, with nearly 80

percent of the vote. When asked during the campaign about the

speculation tax, here is what the mayor-elect had to say: “The tax

places West Kelowna at a competitive disadvantage…. It has already

curtailed growth and has had a negative impact on local business and

employment.”

We just heard from the Premier that they’ll work and listen. For

months now, this Finance Minister has ignored the requests from local

governments to reconsider her half-baked speculation tax.

Does she plan to continue to ignore the voices of mayors who have

received overwhelming support from the voters in their

communities?

Hon. C. James: It is very clear that this side of the House is continuing to

stand up for British Columbians, while that side of the House decides

not to deal with the housing crisis.

I would remind the member of the statistics when you look at

Kelowna and West Kelowna. Rental prices jumped more than 8 percent

between October 2016 and October 2017. Housing starts, in fact, are 35

percent above the five-year average. Unemployment has dropped from 7

percent in September, under the old government, to 5.6 percent. The

economy is strong. People need housing, and we’re going to address

it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: The Finance Minister certainly has an interesting way of standing

up for British Columbians when, in fact, she told British Columbians

that if they paid tax in this province, they wouldn’t be captured in the

speculation tax. The Premier said the same thing. In fact, two-thirds of

the people captured in the speculation tax are British

Columbians.

Last week the outgoing mayor of West Kelowna, who will now be

sitting on the West Kelowna council, told the minister directly about

the impacts of the speculation tax. I quote not our words but the words

of an elected official: “It has curtailed growth in our city….

Single-family development in West Kelowna has dropped by 40 percent, and

multifamily has dropped by 45 percent.”

Despite the minister’s claims, the so-called speculation tax has

already impacted communities. Both current and recently elected mayors

and councils have made it clear that they want out.

Just how many lost housing units will it take for this minister to

listen to anyone other than the Leader of the Third Party?

Hon. C. James: Well, I can certainly understand from the other side, who spent 16

years not listening to British Columbians, why they would feel that way.

If the members on the other side, who have talked about municipal

elections, listened to every single council and mayoral candidate and

individual who was elected or who ran, what was the issue that was at

top of mind everywhere? Affordable housing needed to be

addressed.

It is very clear who is standing up for British Columbians in this

province and who isn’t. We are going to continue to stand up for those

British Columbians and make affordable housing possible once again in

our province.

M. Stilwell: Re-elected mayor Stew Young of Langford received 81.9 percent of

the vote on Saturday. Now, he calls the phony speculation tax a

job-killer.

[2:30 p.m.]

In Oak Bay, Nils Jensen waffled last week on the tax and received

less than 30 percent of the vote. However, his opponent, who is opposed

to the NDP tax, won the support of 70 percent of the voters.

Why is the minister rejecting the will of Island voters who don’t

want her tax?

Hon. C. James: Congratulations to the mayors who were elected in our area, in the

CRD. I look forward to working with them to continue the kind of strong

growth that you are seeing in this area and around the

province.

The member mentioned employment and the challenges in employment.

Well, let’s take a look at the challenges in employment. One of the

biggest challenges is finding housing for all the people who are

employed right now in British Columbia.

Statistics from the CRD, the capital regional district, which

includes the areas that the member mentioned — unemployment rate, 3.9

percent, the second-lowest in the country.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Newly elected and re-elected local leaders across this province

are calling on this minister to rethink her phony speculation tax. As a

councillor, it was the Oak Bay mayor-elect, Kevin Murdoch, who proposed

a resolution calling for the NDP tax to be suspended.

Why doesn’t this minister start listening to voters on the Island?

They are included in British Columbians, which she says she is

respecting and listening to. Start thinking about rejecting the

tax.

Hon. C. James: Having spent most of my life on the Island, I can tell the member

on the other side that people on the Island are being listened to,

finally, after 16 years with the other side ignoring them.

Housing affordability is at a crisis in our province. I understand

the other side doesn’t want to listen. I understand the other side

doesn’t want to deal with housing. I’m guessing that in getting rid of

the speculation tax, they want to support speculators and investors who

are using housing for a market instead of using it for

housing.

Well, we are not going to let that happen. We are going to end

speculation. We are going to end money laundering. We are going to

address the issue of housing for the people of British Columbia who live

and work here.

IMPACT OF REAL ESTATE

SPECULATION TAX ON HOUSING

STARTS

T. Stone: When questioned about the so-called speculation tax back on May

17, the Finance Minister said: “One of the key factors we look at are

housing starts.” Let’s look at what’s happened since this speculation

tax was announced. Housing starts are down 42 percent in Vancouver.

Housing starts are down 56 percent in greater Victoria. In West Kelowna,

single-family development has dropped 40 percent, and multifamily

development is down 45 percent.

My question to the minister is this. Does she still think that

housing starts are a key factor, and if yes, how far do housing starts

have to collapse for this minister to accept that her speculation tax is

an absolute failure?

Hon. C. James: In fact, according to Statistics Canada, year-to-date housing

starts for B.C. are on track with last year and well above the ten-year

average. Perhaps the member would like another statistic. Again from

Statistics Canada, the value of B.C.’s building permits actually reached

a record high of $1.8 billion in August, and year-to-date residential

building permits are up more than 20 percent.

[2:35 p.m.]

A quote from a developer in Kelowna, Luke Turri of the Mission

Group, says that the speculation tax hasn’t impacted their 25-storey

Brooklyn tower in Kelowna because they’re actually selling to people who

are going to live in the units or rent them out, so they don’t pay the

speculation tax.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Thornthwaite: I rise to present a petition. I have a petition here for the Minister

of Health as well as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions from

FACTBC, the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists in B.C.,

who have distributed a petition of almost 12,000 people to ask this

government to regulate counselling therapists, to protect British

Columbians.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate, second reading, Bill 45, the Budget Measures

Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT,

(continued)

J. Thornthwaite: I’m rising today to continue debate on Bill 45, the speculation

and vacancy tax. My colleague the member for Langley East had been

talking last week about how it more rightly should be called a so-called

inheritance tax because this tax is not a tax on speculation at all. But

the government has taken creative licence and chosen to name it that

way.

Most people would expect that a tax called the speculation tax

would, in fact, address speculation. That is, however, not the case in

this bill. This bill actually fails to deal with speculation. And it’s

worse because it exempts speculators. It has a one-year exemption on

newly purchased properties. So buying a property, waiting for the price

to rise and selling it within a year is actually exempt from this

tax.

That’s exactly what happened to a home just down the road from

where I live. Somebody bought it, sat on it for less than a year and

then sold it, and it went up, I think, $400,000 within that time frame.

Some people would call that flipping. Others call it a wise financial

investment. But almost everyone will agree it is speculation.

[2:40 p.m.]

Why is a bill that exempts speculation called a speculation tax?

Well, in my riding, we’ve got people talking about how we have a school

tax that actually has nothing to do with schools or education, and we

have an employer health tax that causes the costs for employers in the

public sector and the private sector to skyrocket. Your municipalities

will be increasing property taxes to pay for it, and companies will be

increasing prices or laying off staff to pay for it.

Increasing taxes does not belong in an affordability budget. The

name “speculation” sounds good, but of course, it doesn’t actually have

anything to do with housing affordability.

Municipal leaders whose communities are impacted by this tax are

calling on the government to stop this tax. We’ve heard from the mayors

from Kelowna, Langford and right here in the capital regional district.

They are opposed. Their UBCM resolution stated: “The taxes imposed on

municipalities without consultation or economic modelling of its

impact….” No economic modelling at all on the impact on these

municipalities affected.

The Nanaimo regional district stated that this tax has been

identified as having “a negative impact where it is proposed, including

creating an unequal playing field for real estate and property

investments between jurisdictions.”

Some municipalities are in. Some were in, and now they’re out.

Some are out, and some are in — no rhyme or reason as to why some are in

and some are out.

The leader of the Green Party used to oppose this tax, but it

appears, as we found out last week, that that’s not exactly happening.

The leader was quoted saying that he didn’t agree with the speculation

tax. It had too many unforeseen consequences. He agreed that it didn’t

actually address speculation, and it was administratively

burdensome.

He then brought forward, with the Minister of Finance last week,

three amendments, but these amendments don’t address any of those

concerns. The main one — the ability for municipalities to opt out — was

ignored. The Minister of Finance did admit that these changes were

actually put in place to appease the Third Party, not the municipalities

affected, and I can tell you that many of these municipalities are

disappointed.

I can tell you that many of my constituents are also disappointed

that the Green Party said that they would stand up for municipalities

and fight this speculation tax, and in fact, that is not happening. Some

have said they caved. I guess, despite the comments of his own mayor,

the Green Party leader and a unanimous resolution at UBCM, we were not

hearing any standing up against the speculation tax from the Third

Party. We expect that’s because they like to be on that side of the

House, don’t want to be back on this side of the House, and it’s better

to just side with the government and not go against the government,

because then they will be maintained in their spot on that side of the

House. But I digress.

Back to the legislation. It should, one would hope, have the aim

of increasing the amount of housing available so housing becomes more

affordable. Yet all of the NDP’s housing measures have the opposite

effect. More than $1 billion in housing investments have been cancelled

or postponed due to this tax, and that’s even before it’s been

implemented. Projects have been sidelined. No homes have been built.

Wages have been lost. In fact, Macdonald Developments cancelled 600 new

homes in Langford and 110 lots in Kelowna worth $500 million. Belmont

Properties has put almost 600 market and rental properties on hold here

in Victoria.

What about housing starts? We heard about housing starts being

mentioned today in question period. We know that the sign of a good

economy is new housing on the way, and they’re dropping. Last week, many

of us got visited by the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. These

are their stats. They report that residential property sales in the

region have decreased since September 2017 — a 17 percent decrease

compared to now. The last month’s sales were 36.1 percent below the

ten-year September sales average. So housing starts are going down. In

fact, some would say it’s close to almost half.

The affordability crisis looms largest in Vancouver, and on the

North Shore, where I live. It was a major issue in the municipal

election. So if this so-called speculation tax decreases the ability to

build more houses, then it can’t possibly be having any effect on

affordability in my community.

[2:45 p.m.]

This means fewer starter homes for young couples starting their

families and their careers. It means fewer condos for older people

aiming to downsize. Those prices have actually gone up. It means

increased pricing pressures on the existing housing supply.

It means construction crews aren’t working, and construction, as

we know, is the largest industry in our economy. New apprentices won’t

pick up valuable skills, especially since the NDP are excluding 85

percent of workers from their unit benefit agreements.

But the biggest impact is felt by the people here in this province

and across Canada. People have worked hard and invested in their own

province. People have bought property with an eye to spending time in

two parts of the province. It could be a cabin on the Island or

inheritance property passed down from generation to generation. Madame

Speaker, 20,000 people — 20,000 British Columbians — are impacted by

this tax. That is almost two-thirds of the 32,000 people penalized by

this tax. Another 10,000 are from other provinces, many of them from

Alberta, who come and play in Shuswap, Kelowna and the

Kootenays.

Again, this is not about speculation. This bill is about taxing

people and punishing them for investing in their own province, their own

country or in their own retirements. This bill will make housing less

affordable for families as fewer new homes will be built. It will slow

investments, and it will take money out of the pockets of hard-working

British Columbians trying to save for their retirement. This bill fails

to directly target speculation.

On this side of the House, through the Leader of the Opposition,

we’ve introduced a bill that actually targets speculation. Our bill

targets the flipping of pre-sale contracts. It doesn’t touch people’s

cabins and vacation homes. This government’s bill is a tax grab, and we

won’t be supporting it.

Hon. J. Sims: I am pleased to speak today in support of the Budget Measures

Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018. This bill puts

into place the speculation and vacancy tax, a tax that is an integral

part of our government’s 30-point housing plan to improve housing

affordability in this province.

Housing and the lack of affordability right now is a very complex

issue. There is no sweet pill that is going to fix this problem. Members

on this side of the House have recognized that. For over a decade,

members who are now sitting on that side of the House ignored this

issue. The government of the day did not take action to address the huge

price increases that were happening in the area of housing. As a result,

today we have municipality after municipality, business after business,

families and individuals telling us how housing affordability is a key,

key issue that is impacting on the way they live and their

lifestyle.

I have met with the Surrey Board of Trade many different times.

I’m always proud of the progressive work that that particular board

does, whether it comes to affordable child care, universal child care

plan, but also when it comes to tackling the housing crisis that exists

in British Columbia today.

While I was meeting with members of the Surrey Board of Trade,

they told me stories of companies that were finding it hard to attract

people to move to Surrey because the cost of housing was so high. They

talked about child care, absolutely. They said it’s not the wages that

people are balking at. But when they get to Surrey, it’s about housing,

and it’s about child care. Those were the two critical issues that they

identified over and over again.

As I said earlier, this whole issue of housing is a major

undertaking by this government, because we know how important shelter

is.

[2:50 p.m.]

When you have people who are earning over $100,000 a year…. Not

everybody in B.C. does that. Many would love to be able to earn that

much. We’re hearing from professionals who are earning $100,000 a year

and saying: “We cannot qualify for a mortgage because the price of

housing is so high.”

Madame Speaker, I’m sure you’ve heard of these stories as well as

have my colleagues. Not so long ago — I would say as few as two years

ago — you had people who would be scraping together, borrowing from

family, putting all their savings together, looking at their retirement

plans, getting enough of a deposit and making a fairly decent bid to buy

a house, to put an offer in, only to find that the house that they were

hoping to buy was sometimes selling for as much as $200,000 or $300,000

more than the asking price.

I met with many constituents of mine who experienced that

personally. They came to see me, and they said: “This just isn’t right.

Here we are. We’ve got this income. We think we’re making a fairly good

income, but we cannot afford to buy a house.” The houses were moving at

a price way, way beyond the listed price, never mind the assessed value

of the property.

So housing affordability is a big issue in British Columbia. It is

not just in Vancouver or Surrey. I heard about it when I was in Kelowna.

I heard about it when I was in the Kootenays. I hear about it in

Nanaimo, where my daughter lives with her family. I’ve heard about it in

Victoria as well.

I’ve heard people saying that we need to attract professional

people into our region. But they just can’t afford to live here. I heard

in Surrey, for example, very, very clearly, people saying: “You know,

we’ve got these vacancies in this sector. We actually spend money. We

recruit people. But when they look at the price of housing, they say:

‘Wow, what a beautiful area of the world to live in. We want to come

here.’”

Then do you know what they say? “We’re going to have to take a job

somewhere else, because we cannot afford the child care, and we cannot

afford the price of housing.”

These are real issues being faced by working people — people who

work for a living, who need to go out to work. We know — and I

absolutely believe in this — that if you get up in the morning and you

go to work and you work hard, you should be able to afford to buy

shelter with your earnings. Many, many British Columbians cannot do that

today.

Our province is amidst a housing crisis that is hurting the people

who live and work in our communities. Prices have skyrocketed, making

homes out of reach for most people — not only for those who are seeking

to purchase a home but for those looking at renting as well.

I heard from many municipalities, many of them on the Island, even

north Island, saying: “It’s the price of housing that stops us from

recruiting people to come and work in municipal government.” So it’s not

just industry. It’s different levels of government that are also finding

it difficult to recruit, simply because of the cost of

housing.

We are in a crisis, and for too long, those sitting on the other

side of the House were either oblivious to the crisis, or it was just

easier to look the other way. But I can tell you that the Premier of

this province and this government are not prepared to look that way,

because we want to make sure that our children and our grandchildren can

afford to live in a house, whether they rent it or buy it.

Families with multiple children are living in bachelor or

single-bedroom apartments because rents are so high. We know what that

does to the quality of life. We also know what that does to mental

health, what that does to relationships and young students’ ability to

focus on doing their homework and be successful in their

schooling.

[2:55 p.m.]

These issues of living in overcrowded areas have huge financial

impact on our society. Single-family homes have been priced out of reach

for any family earning less than $200,000 a year. Today a minister of

the Crown in this province, unless they have another income coming in,

would find it hard to qualify to buy a house in Surrey, in Vancouver, in

Richmond, in Burnaby, in Victoria. They would find it hard to do that.

Workers and seniors have been living in their cars because there is

simply no rental housing on the market. We’re hearing that more and

more.

Young professionals are leaving the province. Teresa, who lived in

Surrey — not in my riding but in a riding close to mine — has now taken

a job in Alberta. She didn’t want to move, because she has a young

family. But she is going to make not only slightly more in salary, which

didn’t really entice her; it was the thought of moving out of a

one-bedroom apartment, with two kids, and being able to move into a

three-bedroom house. Those are the kinds of choices young professionals

are making today.

Businesses can’t find the workers they need to keep our economy

growing. We hear a lot about economic growth. Economic growth is not

possible without human resourcing, and in order to attract workers here

into the areas where that work is available, we need to address the

housing issue. There are recruits, people who are wanting to move to

Vancouver, some of them from the United States, some of them from other

parts of the world. But they are also looking at the price of housing

and thinking: “Well, if I cannot afford to buy a house, how am I going

to survive? If I cannot afford to pay the rent….”

Rent has also gone up incredibly over the last ten years. There is

no way that wages, salaries, have kept pace with increases in the cost

of housing, whether it’s to buy a house or whether it is to rent a

house.

As a government and as elected officials, no matter where we sit

in this House, we have a collective responsibility to take action. We

have a collective responsibility to the people of British Columbia, to

our children and grandchildren and to the generations to come, to tackle

housing affordability right now. We cannot wait. This is not something

that is going to go away.

This government is willing to take bold action to make sure that

people can afford a home within the communities where they live and

work. We don’t want people to have to sit two to three hours in traffic

gridlocks commuting to work. We know that when people have to live so

far away from the places where they work, that changes the communities.

That changes the culture of the workplace. That also changes the culture

for the people who are spending so long commuting, and we know that that

has an impact that is costly to government in the way of mental health

and other issues.

The speculation and vacancy tax is critical to make sure this

happens so that people can afford to buy homes in the communities where

they live and work, thus reducing the congestion on our public highways.

This bill incentivizes — one of my favourite words — out-of-province

real estate speculators and people who are sitting on empty second and

third homes to make them available for rent or to put them on the

market.

[3:00 p.m.]

People can have more than one home, as long as the other homes are

rented out. As long as they are rented out — you know what? — then they

don’t have to pay this tax. Let me be clear. Not a single person will

have to pay this tax if they rent out their vacant homes — not a single

person.

We need these underutilized homes to become homes for renters.

British Columbia is facing near-zero-percent vacancy rates. While I’ve

lived in the Lower Mainland — especially in the years I lived in

Vancouver — I saw a growing number of empty homes while there was a

growing number of people looking for affordable shelter. It is

unacceptable for homes to sit empty when there are thousands of British

Columbians who have nowhere to live.

This tax will also provide revenue to fund affordable housing

initiatives in the areas most affected by the housing crisis. How does

it do this? This annual tax is calculated between 0.5 of 1 percent and 2

percent of the assessed value of the property. The highest rate will

apply only to foreign owners who are not paying their fair share of

income taxes. This has been said before, but I’ll say it again: 99

percent of British Columbians will not pay this tax.

R. Kahlon: Say it again.

Hon. J. Sims: I will, just for you: 99 percent of British Columbians will not

pay this tax. Most people cannot afford one home, much less three or

four, but those who can afford three or four will not have to pay the

tax if their empty homes are rented out. That’s all they have to

do.

It is completely fair to ask those people who are fortunate enough

to own multiple homes to rent them out. If they don’t want to — we live

in a country where we get to make choices — if they are unwilling to do

so, then all they have to do is to pay the speculation tax so that there

is more money available to create affordable homes. That’s all they have

to do. Anyone can avoid the tax by renting their home out for at least

six months of the year.

This will actually address those who built a house and want to be

able to sell it. The goal here is to provide housing. The goal here is

to look at the growing number of British Columbians — young, middle-aged

and those who are a little bit more experienced — to be able to have

housing. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.

Of course, this bill does provide for special-circumstance

exemptions, and I’m so proud of our Finance Minister because she has

taken the time to put forward a piece of legislation that takes into

consideration that there are times when there could be a need for

exemptions. That has been built into the legislation so that there is

predictability and people know what is out there.

Let me talk about the exceptions. For people who are developing

homes or significantly renovating them, there’s an exemption for them.

For people seeking medical treatment — as we know, in our province, some

people have to travel, so their house might have to be empty for quite a

long period of time — there’s an exemption for them. I don’t know about

you, but with my mother 94 and soon to be turning 95, I’m very, very

conscious of seniors and the struggles they have. So for people who are

residing in long-term care, there is an exemption. Their house can

remain empty.

[3:05 p.m.]

For people who are on a temporary absence for work — that happens

— once again, there’s an exemption for that, because this government and

this minister were thoughtful enough to see through all those scenarios.

There is an exemption for people with disabilities.

This government cares about people. It cares about British

Columbians. It cares about ensuring there is affordable housing. This

tax will work to moderate B.C.’s housing market and help turn empty

properties into homes for people. That’s what we want: homes for

people.

There are too many people who come into my office, offices of

other members, telling us about the challenges of finding affordable

housing. This tax will help to moderate. Because when it comes to

choosing between British Columbians or out-of-province real estate

speculators who buy houses and leave them sitting empty and don’t pay

taxes here, our government will choose British Columbians every single

time.

I’ve had the privilege of teaching for a huge number of years, and

every one of those years is a very, very valuable experience for me. For

me, when I look at legislation like this, I think of all of the children

I have taught and their children. I think of my children, our

grandchildren. I think of the young professionals who are walking into

my office, some of them saying: “We’re going to have to leave this

province because of the lack of housing.” It’s because of that I am so

proud to be supporting this particular piece of legislation.

Because this government, unlike the previous government — my

colleagues sitting across the way — is going to address the housing

issue in order to ensure that housing becomes more affordable for today

and for future generations.

R. Sultan: Last week at the adjournment of debate on Bill 45, the NDP’s

speculation and vacancy tax, my dear friend from Powell River–Sunshine

Coast pointed out that this was only one element of a 30-point plan

whereby his government would expand housing supply; lower the cost of

housing, particularly for the needy; greatly increase affordable housing

everywhere; improve the housing situation for seniors; and, in all

respects, find the pathway to a rosier future for our

society.

Who could disagree with that? Well, all I can say is if the other

29 components of the government’s 30-point master plan are of similar

thoughtfulness and effectiveness as this one, then British Columbia is

in for a pretty bumpy ride until the next election, by which time the

voters — more than a few of them still sleeping in doorways and under

bridges — may choose a different government.

I was also very interested to observe my friend from Powell

River–Sunshine Coast — and he is my friend — resorting to playbook 2

when challenged as to the effectiveness of the speculation and vacancy

tax. He did not address the troubling issues and serious questions being

raised but instead went on the attack. Attacking, we are now beginning

to understand, is the standard NDP playbook response.

The universal and unchanging answer to any legitimate question is

the magic number 16. We saw it again just a moment ago by the member for

Surrey-Panorama, 16. That’s a code word for 16 years of terrible

government, and that’s the answer to all of the questions being asked:

16, 16.

[3:10 p.m.]

Therefore, I suggest to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast

that you could facilitate the proceedings of this House in the future by

simply standing up and shouting out “16” and sitting down again, and we

will understand. We can even give you superior talking points about the

point you’re making, and the whole proceedings will move more

briskly.

However, I would caution the member, my friend, that endless

repetition of the word “sixteen” does have rhetorical limitations. At

some point, members opposite will have to give their heads a shake and

admit they won the last election — sort of, with some help from their

friends — and they are now actually the government. “Hello. You are no

longer the official opposition.”

Sooner or later, since you are already approaching one-third of

your mandate, you must explain and take responsibility for your own

current actions, your current plans and policies. Bill 45, playbook No.

16 repeated over and over again is becoming tiresome and boring, quite

frankly — not to say, irresponsible.

If Bill 45 is a key statute heralding British Columbia’s brilliant

housing future, government MLAs should, in fact, demonstrate that

they’ve actually read this not small piece of legislation. The

government members — I’m looking at you — a feat of good governments

that I’m increasingly beginning to doubt…. It is simply not good enough

to throw rocks in our general direction, because we’ll just pick them up

and throw them back again.

Unfortunately, the NDP-Green fiscal strategy underlying this bill

is to grab some more money in new and clever ways from hard-pressed

homeowners and spend it on higher-purpose things. That’s the

strategy.

In their short time in office, the NDP-Green party has already

done this in some 18 different ways, so often, in fact, perhaps they

believe the 19th time — that is to say, this Bill 45 — won’t be noticed.

But, sad to say, they’re wrong about that.

For the benefit of the folks opposite who haven’t gotten around to

actually reading Bill 45, I offer a briefing, an outline of the bill.

The purpose of the bill is clearly captured in the title: the

speculation and vacancy tax. Clear as day, this is a bill which will put

a tax on speculation and, just to be on the safe side, a tax on vacancy

too. It’s not a short one-pager. It’s, in fact, 105 pages long. I guess

it’s hard to figure out how to tax speculation and vacancy in fewer

words. Fair enough. I can appreciate that.

The bill contains 42

definitions, which, no doubt, is one reason

it is such a long bill, but there are curious omissions. The bill does

not define what it is taxing. It does not define “speculation.” Nowhere.

Nada en absoluto. Zilch . Rien. Ingenting , as they

say in Swedish — nothing. That’s only half their problem.

The other half of the problem is that the bill doesn’t define

“vacancy,” either, which is curious because that’s the easy one. You’re

either hiding somewhere in that house or you’re not. So while defining

speculation could draw us into a century-old University of Chicago

economics department philosophical musing — which I did, for me, as I

googled away on Sunday afternoon — defining vacancy by comparison should

be easy as pie. But that definition, too, is absent from the

bill.

Other important features of Bill 45 are 27 — count them — 27 tax

exemptions. I doubt many pieces of tax legislation on the bookshelf of

this library can beat that. Twenty-seven exemptions perhaps signals a

certain degree of caution, if not beleaguered incredulity, among our

very competent legislative drafters.

[3:15 p.m.]

What is not so clear in the proposed tax statute on speculation

and vacancy are rumoured exemptions, orchestrated not by law but by

where geographic lines are drawn on a map — arbitrarily, it seems to me.

Here is where some spatial economic modelling could have helped — but

nobody asked me — introduce some defensible analytic rationality to the

whole haywire scheme. But it is apparent that no such analysis was

performed.

The resulting boundaries remind me of the British and French

arbitrarily and without consulting anybody carving the sands of the

Middle East into new and separate countries about a century ago. Whether

a British Columbia household today finds itself on the tax-paying side

of the boundary or on the tax-exempt side of the boundary seems

capricious.

Drawing these lines no doubt engaged persons of higher purpose

recruited from the most loyal ranks of the NDP and Green alliance but

not big on detail. How else could we find eminent persons in the NDP

party and the Green Party somehow accidentally included in the

tax-paying zone in the first drafts of the legislation, but after hasty

revisions, excluded from the tax-paying zone, while persons of

less-orange or less-greenish hue find themselves locked forever into the

tax-full-paying embrace on the wrong side of the arbitrary boundary

line? Too bad.

This is what the eminent member for Langley East talked about in

these chambers on Thursday. As I recall, he also said it doesn’t pass

the smell test. It does seem to be a remarkable coincidence that in the

first geographic squiggling of the boundaries of this speculation and

vacancy tax by the government, all three members of the Green Party were

captured. But in the second version, they were not. Quite a

coincidence.

Is this not also true of leadership on high of the benches

opposite? Say it ain’t so, please, and I say that seriously. Otherwise,

I must agree with the member for Langley East: it doesn’t pass the smell

test. I could use more colourful language. Please, please, for the

honour of this House, please remedy this seemingly outrageous situation.

That’s an honest plea.

There are other interesting features. School teachers have evolved

their own coda for who must be present and who’s absent from class. They

see vestiges of such cultural norms in Bill 45. For example,

section 33

says that you can be excused from paying the tax if you get a note from

your doctor. Excellent.

What I conclude is that it’s hard to take this legislation

seriously. It reeks of pandering, improvisation and caprice, not serious

law-making, which is unfortunate, because, as Daniel Webster once said:

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

There’s no question British Columbians’ housing needs are serious

indeed. For example, the member from Sunshine Coast said we have a

housing crisis, and I would agree with him wholeheartedly.

Last week I toured the Lookout shelter on Second in North

Vancouver, close to my riding, and asked how they were doing. They house

about 26 homeless every night and run at about 100 percent of capacity.

When there’s overflow, they put foam mattresses down in the dining area,

and people bunk down at least warm and dry for the night. But they must

leave the next morning.

In addition, I met a person at the Lookout shelter who is

tracking, on a computer, all of those living “in the rough” between Deep

Cove and Whistler, sleeping in doorways, under bridges, in vans and in

their cars, under tarpaulins and even semi-permanent encampments deeply

inside of the North Shore Mountains.

[3:20 p.m.]

In only six weeks, he’d identified 100 such persons between Deep

Cove and Whistler. It wasn’t hard to find them. The police know where

they are. Others look the other way. This is the reality of the most

desperate homeless in the community that I represent, which some would

consider to be a very privileged part of British Columbia. Some of these

desperate people are even trying to hold down a full-time job, living

under those circumstances.

Unfortunately, I don’t see anything in the speculation and vacancy

tax which will help our North Shore homeless. Nada . Zip.

Ingenting . I don’t have to repeat the phrases. This brings

me to the sinful activity which seems to be the focus of this

legislation — speculation.

Wow, who can love speculators, the manipulators of global markets?

We meet them in James Bond movies — crooked bankers simultaneously

buying gold futures and selling pork bellies on the Chicago Mercantile

Exchange. There’s something underhanded and malignant about the whole

scene. Therefore, it is not surprising that, again, as the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast reported, 88 percent of persons polled by

Angus Reid are all in favour of the speculation tax.

Let me confess that if the NDP-Green alliance were to bring into

this Legislature a real tax on speculation, as opposed to a fake tax on

speculation, I would probably support it too. But is buying a house in

New Westminster for $500,000 one year and selling it the next for

$600,000 pure speculation? Maybe, but it’s not captured by this bill.

Those might be called speculators, depending how you want to label them,

but they get a pass from the NDP and the Greens. By the way, our side

introduced a bill which would have caught them, which the NDP has

not.

Is buying a share of Telus today at the current quote of $34.75 a

share and, five years later, selling it for 50 bucks speculating? Well,

in NDP world, I suspect many would think it is. Others might call it

investing in the telephone company.

We should remind ourselves, public servants all — in particular,

politicians of public sector origin populating both sides of this House

in great numbers: former teachers, social workers, government people or

simply MLAs — your pension depends on speculating and investing.

Therefore, be cautious before you heap shame on the speculators. Be

careful, NDP-Greens, when you demonize activities which create economic

gain — buying low and selling high and other activities motivated by,

heaven forbid, profit. Your pension may depend on it.

So what are the real goals of Bill 45? The aim of this tax is

clearly to punish those who own property. Pure and simple. The aim of

this tax is clearly to punish those who buy a second home. The aim of

this tax is clearly to punish those who would be so socially insensitive

as to build a vacation cabin in the woods. The aim of this tax is to

clearly punish anybody who leaves their residence empty for a period of

time — a year, a month, overnight maybe. The tax man will catch

you.

The aim of the bill is to discourage Albertans from owning second

homes in B.C. We reject their oil, and we also reject them in person. At

least we can say the NDP-Greens are consistent. They don’t much care for

Albertans or Alberta or for how Albertans earn a living, and the history

of this legislation shows it. As a Canadian, I’m ashamed.

Let’s talk about enforcement. Bill 45 allows a tax man with a

warrant to enter your premises to check up on whether it might be

unoccupied — see

part 5, division 7,

section 93 of the bill. Having a

switch to turn the lights on and off automatically isn’t going to fool

the tax man. “That house is empty. We checked their heating bill. If I

must, I’m going to enter that place with a warrant to read the

undelivered mail and see if the beds have been occupied or if the milk

in the refrigerator is sour — and prove whether or not somebody is

living there.” These are invasions of privacy facilitated by Bill

[3:25 p.m.]

Does anybody else in this chamber see the irony of this bill being

introduced under the regime of an Attorney General who was the executive

director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association between

2008 and 2012? Well, I certainly do.

Having an empty home is clearly interpreted by the authors of this

bill as wasteful and antisocial. How about the opposite extreme? Here’s

a true story. Somebody took their penthouse condo in North Vancouver,

chopped it up into 14-bed hostel and rented out by the night. The other

strata owners objected and finally sued in court. Would the authors of

Bill 45 endorse such behaviour? I guess so. It’s clear from their point

of view that it’s a move in the right direction.

I believe that when tax policy sets sail in a direction to ensure

that all housing must be occupied 100 percent of the time, it sets into

motion an Orwellian nightmare, a dystopian dream, a degree of

Stalin-like government intervention into our personal living

arrangements most of us would despise.

What has been the overall economic impact of the legislation and

its companion statutes — a full suite of NDP tax measures aimed at real

estate and home ownership? Well, let us agree that Bill 45 is not a tax

on speculation. It’s a tax on property and home ownership. It will erode

confidence in the housing sector and dampen supply, not grow it. Through

dampening supply, this bill will make housing less affordable for

families as fewer new homes will be built.

For most Canadians, their home is their most important asset. It’s

what they plan to use to finance their retirement. It’s what they plan

to use to help their children to make a down payment on a home of their

own. By discouraging the attainment of such goals, Bill 45 will

contribute to unaffordability and shortages in housing. And this bill

fails to halt speculation. It doesn’t even try.

In fairness, it’s not all bad news. UDI, the Urban Development

Institute, has negotiated some softening of more difficult aspects. So

to give them credit, it appears the government can listen and adjust the

legislation, and they have. This is a good thing. Thank you for

that.

As an example, here’s UDI’s October 16 press release. “UDI is

pleased that the government committed today that they will exempt lands

under development from the unfair speculation and vacancy tax. Today’s

announcement recognizes that government taxes, fees and charges on

development lands contribute to the increased costs of building new

homes. Currently,” the press release goes on to say, “more than 25

percent of the cost of a new home can be directly attributed to

government fees and charges.”

What the UDI is saying — and they are the housing experts — is if

you want to make housing 25 percent more affordable, well, a good first

step would be for government itself to back off from the charges and

fees that it is imposing on new housing.

The press release concludes by saying, “We urge the B.C.

government to act in Budget 2019 to apply similar exemptions for the new

school tax and other increased property taxes on development lands that

will otherwise be passed on to eventual homebuyers and renters” — signed

Anne McMullin, UDI president and CEO.

Finally, let’s see what the short-term market reaction has been.

As others have already pointed out, in Metro Vancouver home sales were

down 43 percent year over year in September. In Metro Vancouver, the

number of homes listed for sale is up 38 percent year over year in

September. Housing starts were down by about 40 percent in Metro

Vancouver.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To me, these numbers signal a very large market adjustment is

underway. Some will say: “Well, it’s about time.” But to me, the

statistics indicate a demoralized real estate marketing and homebuilder

sector.

Some NDP analyst would seize upon the numbers as indicative of

success. New supply coming into the market — check. Prices are softening

and probably will continue to soften — check. It looks like people are

bailing out of real estate. That’s wonderful. Or is it?

[3:30 p.m.]

Unless we envisage a future where government itself builds worker

housing à la Stalin’s red brick monsters in the Moscow suburbs, I think

malaise in the real estate market hits all economic segments, high and

low. On balance, this is not conducive to building housing supply.

Housing balance will be restored, I would forecast, when people stop

moving to B.C., just as they stopped moving here in the 1990s. Chances

are history will repeat itself. Such are the fruits of taxation, such as

created by Bill 45.

Good luck, NDP and Greens. Carry on with your plan to tax British

Columbia to full employment, affordable housing and a more prosperous

future.

It is quite marvelous what you can levy new taxes upon when you

set your mind to it. The folks opposite are having a jolly time dreaming

up new taxes in all directions. We await with dread their next taxation

innovation.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure today to speak to the speculation and vacancy tax

bill, which is Bill 45. I want to take my time to give this pestiferous

bill the treatment it so richly deserves.

I want to begin…. As my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano was

just talking about, I want to talk about the title for a moment. The

word “speculation” has long been a trope of the left. It was originally

a word in the 1500s that talked about scouting and exploring, but it has

come to mean someone who takes high risks to buy and sell in a market in

a way that alters market prices.

All the great leftists, like Lenin and Mao and the Soviet press….

They rail against speculators, along with landlords and capitalists and

other counter-revolutionary elements. Here’s what a modern author said

in a book about Brexit, about the modern use of the word “speculator.”

“In leftist demonology,” they said, “speculators were the epitome of

parasitical money interest, the enemies of the real economy.”

So when we come to the title of this bill, I’m not saying that the

NDP were channeling Lenin or anything, but I’m sure they asked

themselves: “We want to take a bunch of money from ordinary British

Columbians’ pockets. How are we going to do that? We need an enemy to

attack. We need someone we can focus on that will make the public angry,

that will give us the political permission we need to impose this

tax.”

The word “speculator” was just sort of snatched from the air. It

was an unconscious reaction, because it’s in the DNA, the genes, of the

left. So we have this bill against these nasty speculators that is not

about speculators at all, as we will see.

I go back to the budget from 2018, in February, to find out about

the speculation tax. That was in February, eight months ago. Two-thirds

of a year has already passed, and now it’s been introduced in the House.

It is supposed to raise $87 million in this fiscal year and $200 million

every year thereafter.

Waiting eight months to introduce this bill has thrown the housing

market into uncertainty. A person from B.C. might decide to go ahead and

purchase a vacation home or not. Should someone from Alberta, who

intends to retire here, build in B.C.? Should a developer take a big

financial risk on a multi-unit development?

People have been waiting for eight months. In that time, $1

billion in housing developments have been cancelled since the bill was

announced, even before it was tabled in the House last week.

You know, the government approaches this whole issue with such

nonchalance, an apparent lack of concern for uncertainty that they have

introduced into the market. It indicates that they don’t really

understand how a market functions. They don’t hear the calls from real

people that they are hurting.

Ultimately, it’s our own economy that they are harming. They are

shooting B.C. and themselves in the foot. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It’s

because construction is an important growth driver in this province. It

accounted for $20 billion of its GDP in 2017, 200,000 jobs, $12 billion

in wages, $25 billion in investment value.

You interrupt this flow, this stream, and you interrupt jobs and

family incomes. That’s not something that should be trifled with. But

that’s what this government has been doing for the past eight

months.

Who knows in Chilliwack what business opportunities have been lost

due to this speculation about the speculation tax?

[3:35 p.m.]

Well, the minister has received a great deal of negative feedback

about the bill. She’s made some changes. She’s introduced some

exemptions. I hope that at some point, she will reveal how much the tax

is now expected to raise, because the integrity of her fiscal plan

depends on it.

The NDP have whittled away our surplus of $2.7 billion down to

$300 million in the last budget. Who knows how much lower it’s gone

because of the exemptions? In fact, just on Friday, the NDP held a press

conference in which they cut the tax in half for Canadians outside of

B.C. Now their rate will be half a percent instead of 1 percent every

year.

There have been other changes. Who knows? Maybe tomorrow they’ll

double it, or they’ll cut it for somebody else, as the government flies

along by the seat of its financial pants. So what do these changes do to

the budget? Has the minister blown her budget? This is a big hole to

fill.

But I would point out that they didn’t cut the tax on Friday for

British Columbians. They cut it for people outside of B.C. All the

British Columbians who were captured by this tax initially will still

have to pay through the nose. You’d think if the minister wanted to give

somebody a break, she’d give British Columbians a break first — but not

under this government.

Let’s talk about the tax for a moment. Let’s get something out of

the way. The stated plan of the government is to reduce home vacancies

to reduce home prices by reducing the incentive to buy and flip them

without anybody occupying them between one sale and another. That’s how

they define “speculation.” But we need to disabuse ourselves of both of

these notions right away.

This tax will not reduce vacancies. It’s just going to drive

investment out of the province and reduce the value of homeowners,

because it doesn’t target speculation. Instead, it targets people with

second homes who are not planning to sell them. They want to give them

to their kids. They’ve had them for a long time. That’s why the

speculation tax has become known as a cabin tax. People who inherited

their cabins from their parents and grandparents, who never intend to

sell them, will be captured by this tax.

Moreover, the tax is designed to target foreign owners, who will

pay the highest rate of tax at 2 percent of a home valued at more than

$400,000. But two-thirds of the 32,000 homes that will be captured by

this tax belong to British Columbians, not rich foreigners — ordinary

people, our friends and neighbours, Canadian citizens and B.C.

residents, who live next door to us.

We can actually quantify the cost of the tax to British

Columbians, because more than 21,000 homes owned by British Columbians

will be affected. By definition, each of these properties are worth at

least $400,000. At half a percent a year, the speculation tax will take

in a minimum of $42 million every year into the future and probably more

than that, because $400,000 is the minimum. This is from British

Columbians — people who own a cabin — not people who are

property-flippers and so-called speculators. This tax is pure

punishment. It is class envy.

If you own a second home or a vacation home, you are doing

something wrong. “We’re going to take that home away from you by degrees

over time.”

Let’s talk about the speculation tax. It has quickly become

apparent that the NDP have introduced not a speculation tax but an asset

tax — a tax not on a stream of income but on the value of an asset. It’s

a tax on people’s savings when they hold those savings in the form of a

second home.

In this case, for a foreigner — say somebody from the U.S. or Hong

Kong — it would be 2 percent of the value of the home that’s worth more

than $400,000. That’s $8,000 a year minimum. Over ten years, that will

tax away a fifth of the value of that place — $666 a month. That’s a lot

of money. Most people cannot afford to pay this tax whether they’re from

the States or overseas.

B.C. families whose cabins have been in place for a generation

will also be caught by this tax. Where will they find the money to pay

for it? That’s $2,000 extra in addition to property taxes, say, for a

pair of grandparents on a fixed income, who just want to entertain their

grandkids at the cabin. They’re not speculators. They’re hard-working

British Columbians. The government has simply found an entirely new

field of taxation, a new well into which they can dip their tax

bucket.

Once they have established the principle of taxing assets, they

will just be able to drop that bucket a little deeper, adjust the rate a

little bit, and more cash will pour into government coffers to be

squandered on this or that NDP government program.

[3:40 p.m.]

What is an asset tax, in reality? An asset tax is really a tax on

the hard work of British Columbians. It’s a tax on thrift, as people

scrimp for years to be able to afford a little cabin. It’s a tax on the

discipline of saving to buy a nice vacation place. It’s about taxing

positive behaviour, punishing hard work, punishing thrift, punishing

saving — good qualities followed by British Columbians. And if you tax

those qualities, people are going to say: “Why bother saving? Why bother

scrimping to buy something nice if it’s just going to be taxed

away?”

This tax will change behaviour. Instead of a second home, people

are going to buy maybe a rec vehicle. They’re going to drive to other

provinces or the States with it. Maybe they’ll buy a time-share

somewhere or go out of the country for shorter, more expensive holidays.

They’ll spend their money outside of B.C. That’s what’s going to

happen.

Or maybe they’ll sell their cabin — at a reduced price, of course.

Eventually, these cabins will decline in value as they’re sold and

resold until their value falls under the $400,000 threshold so they’re

no longer captured by the tax. The market for cabins in the affected

areas will be permanently depressed.

Now, you might say somebody would sell their cabin for a lower

price, still within B.C., but buy in an area outside the areas captured

by the tax. But why would people do that when the legislation allows

cabinet to add new areas to the ones presently captured by the tax? The

tax can follow them wherever they buy, so again we’re going to introduce

uncertainty into the market. All it will mean is that the revenue for

government will decline over time as people take natural steps to avoid

the tax.

Now, unfortunately, Chilliwack has the ill fortune to be included

in the list of areas that will be captured by the tax. We’re lumped in

with Abbotsford, Mission, the GVRD, Victoria, Nanaimo, Kelowna — what

good luck — even though Chilliwack has a vacancy rate of zero at the

moment. There are no empty homes. People are crying out for homes to

rent. Neither is there much speculation in Chilliwack, given that

housing sales this month are down 53 percent from last year. It’s not a

speculators’ market.

How did Chilliwack get to be chosen in this blacklist of taxation?

Why Chilliwack? Why Kelowna? There’s no rationale. It’s completely

arbitrary public policy. There’s no consistency across the province, no

sense of fairness. I think the government just looked for the biggest

cash cow to milk, and it exempted some areas.

Which areas did they exempt? The Premier and the Minister of

Finance owe an explanation to the people of Chilliwack. They owe an

explanation as to why Parksville, Qualicum, the unincorporated Gulf

Islands and the Juan de Fuca electoral area were removed when Chilliwack

was not. Why were they removed? I’d like to know what members of

government or what friends of the government have a second home in those

areas. To me, there’s a total lack of fairness here of due process, of

transparency, of predictability.

Let’s talk about foreigners for a moment. Let’s talk about

Americans as foreigners. British Columbia residents are going to pay

half a percent tax on a second home that’s not rented out for more than

six months of the year. Canadians from outside the province will now pay

the same, due to Friday’s amendments, and non-Canadians will pay 2

percent of tax on the assessed value of their second home every single

year.

Stewart wrote me a letter, and Stewart made a great point. I want

to quote from his letter. He said: “We all know that many B.C. residents

leave B.C. to go to San Diego, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; Palm

Desert, California; and other U.S. destinations when the weather isn’t

ideal in Vancouver and Victoria. The United States does not assess a

speculation tax on these Canadian citizens, even though their properties

in the U.S. are increasing in value and are vacant for parts of the

year. They’re spending money in these cities, helping the local economy

and paying their real estate taxes.”

Maybe some American citizens — say, from Arizona — who have a

place in B.C. will complain to their state government about our 2

percent tax, which will be a minimum of $8,000 a year to them. You never

know. The president, a little while ago, seized on a minor trade issue,

in relative terms, of supply management to make a point. This kind of

thing can catch on.

As we learned in recent negotiations with the States, Americans

don’t take it lightly when they feel unfairly treated. I don’t know why,

especially at this sensitive time, the NDP would poke America in the

eye, calling them foreigners and punishing them with a 2 percent annual

tax on their vacation property in B.C. They could arouse a sleeping

giant, and that could turn very bad for B.C. snowbirds who have

properties in the States. But probably the NDP did not even consider

this possibility.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, I want to go on to individual letters that I received,

because there are a lot of individuals who the NDP is punishing. I

received emails and letters from them. I want to quote some of them,

just so that the NDP can see who they’re affecting.

Here’s what Brian from Chilliwack says: “We have rented our Ryder

Lake property, which is within the municipality of Chilliwack, for over

20 years. It has provided a very convenient getaway for myself and my

family, and now my grandkids. I resent that the government has branded

my effort to provide a retreat for my family as speculation. I further

resent that I am somehow placed in the same pot as those who are playing

a real estate game to make a quick profit.”

Here’s what Ken and Carla wrote to me:

“My wife and I own a property in Chilliwack and have been long-term

residents of Chilliwack for over 35 years. Five years ago, we moved to

Vancouver because work took us there, so we bought a small condo in

downtown Vancouver, where we live during the week. We return to

Chilliwack on Fridays and are here for the weekends.

“We do not want to rent our property in Chilliwack, because we plan

to have it as our retirement property in a few years, plus we spend our

weekends at our Chilliwack home. We will not be able to afford this

speculation tax if it is imposed as proposed, and would be forced to

sell one of our properties. This tax will dramatically and quickly

whittle away at our savings.”

That’s what it’s designed to do.

Here’s what Corny from Chilliwack had to say in his letter to me:

“This new tax will only serve to drive up the costs of new housing and

further harm affordability. A home is the bedrock of many families in

B.C. Being pushed out of the market because of unaffordability

dramatically increases financial insecurity.”

Here’s what Sharon from Chilliwack said to me: “This tax isn’t

going to address affordability issues or even target the real

speculators. The people who will be hit by this patchwork tax are

law-abiding Canadian taxpayers. This is not the speculation tax we

wanted.”

Here’s a story from Dean and Heather. Dean and Heather say

this:

“I grew up in Kelowna, did part of my university education in

Victoria and later worked in Victoria for several years. Later my career

path took me out of province, and I’ve been in Calgary for the past 16

years.

“Because of my vacation home purchase, my family and friends have

enjoyed many wonderful summer vacations and ski holidays in the

Okanagan. We eventually plan to retire to our home in Kelowna for the

major portion of the year. I think it is entirely inappropriate to ask

us to suddenly begin to pay such an onerous speculation tax on a

property I have legally held for years in the province.

“I’ve paid my property taxes each year. I’ve supported the local

economy by way of purchasing two Kelowna homes and completely renovating

one of them. I support the local hockey team, multiple restaurants,

local merchants and arts and theatre venues in Kelowna. We are hardly a

burden on the local economy. In fact, we’ve done a lot over the years to

help the local economy. Just ask the Kelowna residents we’ve done

business with.”

Here’s Beverly. Beverly is the manager of a short-term-rental

property in Victoria. They have 12 employees. They’ve been part of the

local economy for 25 years. She says this: “B.C.’s NDP government is

treating Canadians as foreigners. The proposed tax is a punishment tax,

designed to sharply discourage vacation home ownership.”

Here’s what Leanne says: “What makes this all the more agonizing

is this: we already pay a premium because we have a family cottage. We

pay more property tax because we don’t benefit from the principal home

exemption. If we did decide to sell the home, then we would pay capital

gains tax, so — boom! — we’re not getting away with anything. We already

pay for this foresight of buying a vacation home for now, which turns

into our retirement home later. We pay and pay and pay.”

Barbara says this:

“In April 2017, we started looking at condos that allowed us the

latitude of using it as a short-term rental so that we could be able to

make use of the condo several times per year. Eventually, we will

transition to British Columbia, with our primary residence being the

condo.

“We found a condo that met these needs and requirements, put an

offer on it and purchased it, renovated it and fit it up with furniture.

We do carry a hefty mortgage on the condo and a lot of credit for the

furniture fit-up.

“We want to use the rental for ourselves as a vacation home during

the course of the year. Renting it out long-term would not allow

this.

“If the speculation tax is passed and we would have to pay it, we

would have a major loss of moneys due to fitting up the condo with

furnishings for a short-term rental. To switch the condo over to a

long-term rental would be a financial catastrophe for our

family.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Finally, I want to quote Kay from Arizona, who has spent every

summer here in B.C. for the past 15 years. She says this: “Sadly, if

this tax is approved, we would likely decide to sell our second home and

lose the many memories we share with the B.C. community every summer.”

Well, I think we should be sad to lose Kay and all those American

dollars she spends every year here in B.C. as a tourist. On and on it

goes.

What does the business community say? One would normally think

that the government would consider what the financial community thinks.

They would be concerned that the business community, the political

community, would accept it. While nobody likes an increase in taxes,

sometimes the business community will grudgingly agree: “Well, maybe

it’s a fair tax. Maybe it’s reasonable. Maybe it’s necessary.” But not

in this case. There is no acceptance among the partners of government

around B.C.

Let me talk about that for a moment. Mayors have opposed it.

Mayors from Oak Bay, from Langford, from Kelowna, from West Kelowna have

called on the provincial government, at the recent UCBM meeting, to

allow jurisdictions to opt out of the tax. The UBCM passed a resolution

on it. Here’s what Kelowna mayor Colin Basran said in September. He made

a good point. “I am concerned,” he said, “that it’s not equitable,

because it’s not provincewide. True speculators can simply purchase in

neighbouring communities without contributing to the tax.”

Even academics disagree with it. Andrey Pavlov, at Simon Fraser

University’s Beedie School of Business, said that the tax is poorly

named because it does little to curb speculation and that it is actually

more of a vacancy tax. Pavlov said: “It might provide short-term relief

for rental-vacancy and housing prices, but government’s move to limit

homeowner rights will actually discourage long-term development. It’s

just going to backfire in the long run because that measure alone,

without the corresponding increase in supply, is going to reduce new

supply even further.” That’s what he said.

Let me talk about what some others in the business community say.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, two-thirds

of businesses oppose the speculation tax. Richard Truscott, their

vice-president for B.C. and Alberta, had this to say: “This patchwork

tax on vacant property and new development will kill jobs and hurt local

economies. We have already seen a major chill go through the

home-building and tourism sectors, especially in places like the

Okanagan. The government needs a plan that will target actual foreign

speculators and not catch long-term B.C. homeowners and other Canadians

in the crossfire.”

Let’s quote the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. That’s a very important

business group. The president, Val Litwin, has said this: “We are

hearing from small to medium-sized business owners across B.C. who are

already feeling the ripple effect…. The last thing we want to do is slam

the door on Canadians who’ve been working hard their whole lives to save

and retire in B.C. It’s not good for B.C.’s or Canada’s brand. The

outcome is less economic activity, less employment and, ironically, less

supply in the housing market.”

Here’s what the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association

had to say. “While the government wants to address housing

affordability, this patchwork tax will do the exact opposite. It will

kill jobs, make the housing affordability issue worse and hurt the B.C.

tourism industry.”

Let’s go to the Canadian Home Builders Association. Here’s what

they had to say: “The tax, as it stands, will negatively impact the

estimated 60-plus different types of trades that contribute to the

construction of new homes across the province, as well as slow the pace

of residential construction in general.”

Finally, Neil Moody, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders

Association, reported this: “Potential homebuyers have already begun to

scrap plans to build new homes in a variety of regions that are both

inside and outside of the boundaries outlined in the tax.” This is what

he said: “Uncertainty in the real estate market is growing, and we’re

even hearing of trades approaching larger contractors, looking for

work.”

What’s the solution to condo flipping? Our leader, the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, introduced a true speculation tax, in the form of a

private member’s bill. Here’s what he called it. He called it the Strata

Pre-Sale Contract Flipping Tax Act, 2018. It is meant to address the

real problem, which is the short-term, quick flipping of expensive

condos around B.C., mainly in Vancouver, but it would apply to

everywhere in B.C. and to everyone, without distinction.

It would be a tax amounting to 50 percent of the increase in price

when a condo is flipped, on paper, without being occupied in between.

That would work like a charm. It would be fair. It wouldn’t tax savings

or assets. It would give a very real financial incentive to have those

places occupied instead of sold and resold while standing vacant. It

would accomplish all that the Minister of Finance wants to do, and

probably raise the same amount of money.

[3:55 p.m.]

What’s the difference between the two approaches? The difference

is that we on this side of the House respect people’s savings and

assets. We want to encourage more of it. But on that side, the minister

wants a whole new field of taxation, a whole new world of possibilities

for bigger government, funded by the savings and thrift and hard work of

British Columbians. That is why I will be opposing Bill 45.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to speak in support of the bill and the Finance Minister’s

incredible effort in putting this piece of legislation together. Let me

tell you, in my community, in Vancouver–Point Grey, that this bill is an

example to everyone of the impact that they can have in getting involved

in government.

So many people spoke out on speculation in our housing market,

concerns about individuals buying properties — interestingly to the

Leader of the Opposition, from Quilchena, many people from his community

— people buying houses, who have no source of income and pay no taxes in

British Columbia, and leaving the properties vacant. Neighbourhoods that

used to be vibrant places filled with children playing on the streets,

with neighbours who knew each other, are now silent.

Houses are vacant and empty. So many people who wanted to live in

those communities are coming and saying: “We could work two lifetimes

and never be able to afford to live in Vancouver.”

When you look at the unfairness of people buying property, not

living in it, not paying taxes…. Then the people who live in the

community —