Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 29, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 170

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Public transportation for rural B.C.

L. Larson

J. Rice

Student housing

J. Brar

R. Sultan

The cost to businesses of double-dipping

G. Kyllo

D. Routley

Effective therapeutic centres

M. Dean

J. Thornthwaite

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 29 — Listening to local voices

T. Stone

R. Kahlon

M. Stilwell

S. Chandra Herbert

T. Redies

M. Elmore

S. Cadieux

R. Singh

D. Barnett

J. Routledge

B. Stewart

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2018

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

FOR RURAL

B.C.

L. Larson: I am pleased to speak today on the importance of public

transportation in rural British Columbia. The Greyhound Bus service that

so many of my constituents in Boundary-Similkameen have come to rely on

is about to end.

[10:05 a.m.]

The termination of this service will leave them totally reliant on

friends and family for transportation when Greyhound ceases operations

on October 31. They will no longer be able to commute between

neighbouring communities. Many will no longer have access to major

centres that have necessary amenities like schools, hospitals and, in

some cases, jobs.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There is no reason for this last-minute scramble. Greyhound

significantly reduced service to the northern parts of the province this

summer, after warning the government almost a year ago that they would

be cutting back and ultimately stopping all service in B.C. Now there

are no viable replacement options for our residents.

The minister had also stated that government would not be

providing subsidies once this bus service halts on Wednesday. The rural

residents are also taxpayers and, through their tax dollars, are

supporting transportation in the Lower Mainland.

Time is running out. The current proposed plan of using

reservation-based companies, with departures that only happen once or

twice a day, is no way to serve the residents of this region. Some of

these routes, like Highway 3, will leave everyone living along that

corridor without transportation options at all.

It is important to note that in every community where Greyhound

stopped, a small business was also benefiting, like a coffee shop or a

restaurant.

The change in service will have the most significant impact on our

rural seniors. Some would wonder why there are all those seniors out

there in rural B.C., not living closer to major centres. Well, they

didn’t start as seniors; rather, they have aged in their communities,

which they have called home for most of their lives.

As younger residents, they were able to drive themselves to other

communities. They worked in mining and forestry and other related

industries. Now as seniors, they have come to rely on the transportation

that Greyhound had offered, especially those who need consistent and

reliable transportation to major centres to receive vital health care.

Many of these seniors require care that can only be given in major

municipalities. Many travel to Vancouver or Kelowna on a regular basis

for ongoing cancer treatments and major heart surgeries. Now they will

be facing a logistical nightmare in order to receive crucial

care.

It’s not all about seniors. Many of our communities offer an

affordable place for those on lower fixed incomes to live and raise

their families. This government has stated many times that their number

one priority is helping those on lower incomes in British Columbia.

Where is the transportation help for rural B.C.? Should these residents

who are on a fixed income be forced to move? Should they simply stand on

the side of the road and hope for the best? Taking a taxi is not an

option. There is no solution to the transportation crisis that these

residents will now face.

We have been fortunate in the South Okanagan to have a B.C.

Transit system subsidized by individual communities and the regional

district, which does move people up to Kelowna and back a couple of

times a day for medical appointments. But most of the residents of the

Boundary-Similkameen live in areas that will not be served by any of the

proposed routes.

The newly proposed routes by the company in Alberta will not fill

the needs of the citizens of most of rural B.C. and will not offer any

service to my riding. For those who work outside of their communities,

some may even be forced to move, find new work or rely on less

trustworthy forms of transportation.

Without a subsidy or a more thorough plan of action from this

government, the cost of obtaining even basic access to services will be

out of reach for those who are of lower socioeconomic status. Absence of

an affordable mode of transportation means that these individuals will

have to turn to total dependence on friends, neighbours and family. This

is not in the best interest of our citizens. We need to do

better.

Rural transportation in B.C. is a priority for students who need

to get to training in larger centres, for seniors needing to get to

doctors’ appointments and connect to families, for those who work in

other B.C. communities. A safe and reliable form of transportation is

not a luxury but a necessity.

[10:10 a.m.]

I stand in this House today on behalf of rural residents across

this province and let the government know that our transportation needs

should be a priority.

J. Rice: Thank you to the member opposite for outlining a lot of the

similar challenges that we both share, being rural MLAs, around

transportation in rural British Columbia. This is an issue that I’m

quite passionate about.

I remember my first question period as a neophyte MLA in 2003. I

was quite distraught about the confrontational and rowdy format that it

was. In fact, after my first QP, my first question period, I informed

the caucus Whip at the time, Maurine Karagianis, that I would not be

participating.

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member.

J. Rice: She’s a former MLA.

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine.

J. Rice: I informed the former caucus Whip that I was simply not going to

participate in question period. I had to explain that I understood being

an MLA was a big commitment and meant doing a lot of things, but QP was

not going to be one of them.

Now, that short-lived statement was true until I received a letter

from three Indigenous women who had, tragically, lost or had a missing

loved one along the Highway of Tears. These women reminded me of the

2006 symposium on the Highway of Tears, where the recommendation was

that urgent action be taken to provide safe, reliable public

transportation along the Highway of Tears. It reminded me subsequently

that six years later former Attorney General Wally Oppal had reiterated

that this was an urgent need and it still had not been met, with his

inquiry into the murdered and the missing Indigenous women.

These women simply requested: “Please don’t forget us and our

loved ones.” This letter moved me in more ways than one. It moved me

into action, and I felt compelled to ask my first question in question

period. I have to say that after four years in opposition and many, many

question periods, I have lost count of how many times I’d asked the

question, “Where is the bus,” or a form of that question. Where’s the

bus, and what’s government doing to improve the situation for women and

girls along the Highway of Tears?

Now, I’m proud to say that this government has been working hard

to provide northern B.C. with safe, reliable transportation. We’ve

expanded the intercommunity transit along Highway 16. We’ve introduced

B.C. Bus North, and we’ve also expanded the Northern Health Connections

service to include more people that can take advantage of the health bus

service. We’ve also improved cell service along the corridor, which

improves safety not just for women but for everyone travelling Highway

This weekend the Minister of Citizens’ Services was in northern

B.C. to announce that another 22 kilometres of the highway, serving over

5,000 people, will now have cell service. Witset, the community known as

Moricetown, is the last remaining First Nations community along the

corridor to gain cell phone service. As I just said, increased cell

service not only benefits the community of Witset but improves the

safety for all travellers along the Highway 16 corridor.

Now, in just over a year and a half, the new intercommunity

transit service along Highway 16 has provided safe, affordable travel

for approximately 12,000 passengers in northern British Columbia. The

B.C. Transit program has been so successful that we introduced three new

larger-capacity buses into the Burns Lake–to–Smithers and the Burns

Lake–to–Prince George routes this past May.

Popularity of the community vehicle program is growing, with

approximately 2,200 rides happening each month. This program allows

local communities to run community-based vehicles by First Nations,

local governments and not-for-profit options. By stepping in with B.C.

Bus North, a provincially funded, base-level interim service, government

is helping people travel safely, affordably and reliably between

northern communities. B.C. Bus North is a service for people, and not

for packages, with affordable fares to make sure people living in

northern B.C. will not be isolated or left stranded in their

communities.

Understandably, the news of Greyhound’s full withdrawal from

western Canada and parts of Ontario has understandably resulted in

people feeling worried and uncertain about what that means for their

everyday lives and how they will continue getting around safely,

affordably, especially in rural communities. We, this government, share

this concern, and we want people to know that their government hears

them and that they will not be left stranded without access to

transportation.

[10:15 a.m.]

A federal-provincial-territorial working group has formed to find

solutions, and B.C. is an active participant. There are encouraging

numbers of new requests to the Passenger Transportation Board from

existing private operators.

L. Larson: Thank you to the member opposite. I’ll just point out that an

awful lot of work has been done on Highway 16 by the previous government

as well.

On November 1, there will be many residents with little or no bus

service because there’s nothing in place to cover the same areas as

Greyhound. Believe me when I say that the list is not short.

To give you an idea of just how severe the problem is, I’m going

to put into the record the names of a few of the communities affected:

100 Mile House, 70 Mile House, Armstrong, Avola, Ashcroft, Blue River,

Bridesville, Cameron Lake, Canal Flats, Christina Lake, Clearwater,

Clinton, Coquitlam, Cache Creek, Cranbrook, Creston, Castlegar, Boston

Bar, Dawson Creek, Elko, Enderby, Grand Forks, Greenwood, Hedley, Hixon,

Invermere, Jaffray, Kaleden, Lac la Hache, Osoyoos, Okanagan Falls,

Penticton, Princeton, Quesnel, Radium, Revelstoke, Rock Creek, Salmon

Arm, Salmo, Sicamous, Sorrento, South Slocan, Sparwood, Summerland,

Valemount, Vavenby and many communities on Vancouver Island as well as

many more in the East and West Kootenays too numerous to

mention.

This is unacceptable. How is it possible that this government

could allow this to happen to so many of our communities and not have a

plan to reconnect those communities? I know announcements are being made

this morning, but the new service from Edmonton will not help the

communities mentioned. Nor will anything be in place for this winter

travel. These British Columbians need safe, reliable and accessible

transportation. We cannot leave these residents out in the cold this

winter. More needs to be done.

STUDENT HOUSING

J. Brar: I rise in this House today to make a private member’s statement on

the student housing affordability crisis at our universities and

colleges. The housing crisis hit British Columbians really hard, and it

is and will remain the most important public policy for a long time.

Housing affordability became a real crisis for a lot of people under the

previous administration because they failed to take timely action. In

fact, they refused to take action even after strong warnings by many

stakeholders about the emerging housing affordability crisis in the

province.

Our students also became victims of the overall housing crisis.

Students who couldn’t find student housing at universities and colleges

were forced to find housing in really challenging private markets that

are far outside of a student’s budget and in which vacancy rates are

very, very low. The cost of housing in the private market is so high

that a large majority of students cannot afford to pay it. Therefore,

students were looking for help from the previous administration at that

time.

Instead of doing everything they could to help students find homes

and get them out of the crowded private rental market, the previous

administration did the opposite. They made it nearly impossible for

universities and colleges to build affordable housing for students.

Since 2003, the outgoing government refused to allow universities and

colleges to take on the mortgages to pay for student housing, which made

most institutions unable to build new housing for students.

In other words, the institutions were willing to build new housing

for students, but the government of the day said: “You cannot take a

mortgage to pay for that housing.” That was the policy of the government

of the day. The public policy of the previous government at that time

caused a housing affordability crisis for students. Despite promising

again and again to fix it, the previous administration did absolutely

nothing to build affordable housing for students.

[10:20 a.m.]

We are actually listening to the students, and we are building

affordable housing to meet the needs of students. Our government has

developed a 30-point housing plan to make housing more affordable for

the people of British Columbia. That also includes students. We are

taking real actions, real steps to address the student housing

affordability crisis ignored by the previous administration. Our

government has announced a new program, a $450 million student housing

program that will now allow public post-secondary institutions to borrow

directly from the province in order to help finance an estimated 5,000

new on-campus student housing beds. We are on the way to building 5,000

new on-campus housing beds for the students, which was not permitted

under the previous policy.

In addition, 3,000 beds will be built, through grants,

institutions’ self-financing and other partnerships. As a result,

students in our universities and colleges will now have more access to

affordable housing on campus, including housing for students with

families, as part of the British Columbia government’s 30-point housing

plan. We are opening the door to opportunity by helping people find an

affordable place to call home while they pursue their

studies.

Building student housing will help young people, families and

people from neighbouring communities access post-secondary education and

skills training. At the same time, this investment will ease pressure on

the off-campus rental market, creating more housing options for B.C.

residents. Students throughout the province have told our government

that lack of affordable housing has stood in the way of their education.

When students have access to a home they can afford, they can focus on

their studies without the stress of trying to find a suitable place to

live.

At the end of the day, the benefit of this investment will be felt

by the entire community. More on-campus spaces for students will

increase the availability of rental housing in the wider community

outside the campus. That will help to improve the availability of rental

housing for everyone in B.C. We’re doing our best to make sure that we

make life more affordable for our students in the province of British

Columbia.

R. Sultan: Having spent almost a quarter of my life in universities, I know a

little bit about student housing — such as living at home and driving an

ancient Dodge from East Vancouver to UBC every day; such as living in

student apartments at Harvard, heated in frigid winters by your own

wood-burning furnace in the basement, put there by a philanthropist who

believed that this built character; such as the assistant dean hiding

behind the bushes, outside all male dormitories at Harvard Business

School, to catch young ladies leaving after 11 p.m., under the

rules.

Fast-forward to my UBC engineering–student granddaughter renting,

with six others, a teardown in immaculate Dunbar, buying a huge church

organ on eBay and entertaining the neighbours with definitely untutored

concerts. Some student housing must be approached with an open mind.

Unfortunately, government’s response — governments of all persuasions —

is often too little, too late. Our university student population is

closing in on one-quarter million, putting a huge strain on housing

resources.

My friend Andrew Parr, director of student housing at UBC,

demonstrated one new idea: a double bed, bathroom and kitchen, all

squeezed into 140 square feet.

Wow. Under new LAMC rules, I think MLAs can see what’s

coming.

UBC has about 50,000 students, a 20 percent growth in ten years.

To accommodate them, UBC has added about 3,000 housing spaces on campus,

but I figure that about 80 percent of their students live off campus and

compete for space in the city.

[10:25 a.m.]

Not to worry. Our intrepid Minister of Housing has promised

114,000 new housing units over the next decade. Unfortunately, rental

accommodation is, by some measures, actually shrinking due to rent

control, humongous taxation and development fees in Vancouver, which

have added about 25 percent to development costs.

Thank you, Gregor — a great legacy.

Why don’t universities simply build more accommodation? Lenders

are eager to lend. One reason is that university debt is government

debt, and our Minister of Finance is measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio.

To overcome this, a few years ago I proposed a student housing trust to

engage in non-recourse financing off the government books. When I ran

this brainwave past the ministry, they were horrified, and a guru from

the comptroller’s office seconded the motion. Sad to say, non-recourse

project financing is not part of the curriculum in that conservative

corner of our government. When it comes to universities, the de facto

housing policy of governments of all persuasion seems to be: “If we

don’t own it, you can’t have it.”

I will gladly sell my scheme to the NDP, should they be

interested. Putting back on my Royal Banker hat, I would be glad to

arrange financing for the much-needed new dormitory space at Capilano

University on a non-recourse project basis without impairing the superb

balance sheet that we left behind for this new government. It has been

done in Australia. Why not here? Heaven knows.

On the North Shore, we desperately need lower-income housing. To

reduce the army of CapU sofa surfers, I have in mind my first CapU

project-financed student housing site right there at the corner of

Lillooet and Mount Seymour Parkway in the riding of my friend from North

Vancouver–Seymour.

Let’s do it.

J. Brar: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for his thoughtful

response to my statement. I have high regard for the member, because the

member has tons of experience sitting here and also tons of life

experience.

I do value the comments made by the member here. But it’s not

about him; it’s about the two different sides of the House. The reality

is very clear. The member on the other side of the House has a different

perspective when it comes to housing affordability overall, and

particularly when we talk about student affordability.

The reality is the students associations and the management teams

from B.C.’s universities and colleges have been making presentations to

the Finance Committee, and also making presentations to the respective

ministers, MLAs, caucus members and to the previous administration. They

were asking only one thing. These are universities and colleges, and

these are educated people. We trust their judgement.

They were asking only one thing: that because of the housing

crisis in the province of British Columbia, they want to build more

housing on campus themselves. What they need, though…. They need support

from this government and the change in the policy. The policy was that

the government allow colleges and universities to have mortgages to

build that affordable housing for the students.

The previous administration said basically a flat no to that. And

that’s the difference. They said no, but we said yes to allow them to

build affordable housing at campus. So that’s the difference.

[10:30 a.m.]

The result of that is pretty simple. There was no on-campus new

housing since 2003 because of the policy of the previous administration,

whereas under the new plan, which is a 30-point housing plan, we have

announced a new $450 million student housing program that will allow

public post-secondary institutions to borrow directly from the province

in order to help finance an estimated 5,000 new on-campus student

housing beds. The member said it’s too little too late.

The reality is that the previous government had no response at

all, but we are acting on it. We are building 5,000 now, on campus,

through student housing. In addition, 3,000 beds will be built through

grants, institutions self-financing and other partnerships.

It’s very important for us that we do everything possible that we

can do within our means to help students, to help the institutions to

build affordable housing for students on campus.

THE COST TO BUSINESSES

DOUBLE-DIPPING

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to speak about a very serious issue that

will soon impact the businesses that form the backbone of our economy.

It has to do with the costly tax plans of the current government,

particularly in the year 2019, which is fast approaching.

I’m talking about the practice of double-dipping and the negative

impact this will have on our hard-working entrepreneurs, many of whom

have spent years, if not decades, building a successful business. They

range in size, but a lot of them are small, family-owned and –operated

and loyal to their communities. They want to stay in those communities

and continue to employ local people and support their local economies,

but their viability and success are being threatened by a number of

factors, including the new payroll tax that will come into effect on

January 1, 2019.

This tax is intended to replace MSP premiums which are being

phased out by government. But instead of eliminating those premiums

entirely, at the same time the new tax comes into force, MSP premiums

will continue to be collected during 2019. For businesses who pay MSP

premiums for their employees, they will be paying twice. For those

organizations who didn’t previously pay those premiums for their

workers, the payroll tax will be a new expense.

Businesses are understandably upset about the impact this new tax

will have on their bottom line. Many of them now face a large tax bill

and have a tough choice to make. Do they either lay off staff or raise

prices for consumers to cover off the new expense?

I’ll give you an example from my home riding of Shuswap. I met

with a local manufacturer this past April and toured his facility, and

he brought up the payroll tax and how much it would cost his company.

Once implemented, it will cost the company an extra $44,000 per year.

This is not including the year that the government will be

double-dipping by collecting the new tax before phasing out MSP

premiums, which will hit them with an additional $107,000 in

taxes.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique story across our province.

Most businesses don’t have an extra $40,000 lying around, which means

employers will be forced to eliminate jobs, slow company growth or

charge their customers more for their goods and services that they

provide.

Coming from a riding comprised of some pretty small communities, I

can tell you the loss of jobs can be particularly devastating, given

that employment opportunities simply aren’t as plentiful as they are in

larger centres. Again, it puts a tough choice in front of business

owners who would rather reward their employees instead of hurting

them.

The businesses facing double taxation in 2019 are particularly

frustrated and stressed by this situation. Truly, the government can’t

be surprised by this kind of reaction.

In the interim report of the MSP Task Force — a task force

appointed by the Minister of Finance, I might add — the minister was

advised: “Whatever mechanisms are chosen to replace MSP revenue, we feel

strongly that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures and

phase out of MSP. Rather, we suggest that MSP be eliminated at a

specific date and that the new revenue measures take effect fully at the

same time.”

That was the advice of the experts, who did consult with some

businesses, stakeholders and citizens, but clearly, that’s not the route

that was taken by the Finance Minister. Instead we see a plan to

double-dip. Employers in B.C. will have to pay reduced MSP premium rates

as well as new payroll taxes in 2019.

Not only is this cause for concern for entrepreneurs and workers

here in B.C.; it could impact our international reputation as well. This

new payroll tax is just one of a number of tax measures that will hurt

our province’s reputation as a great place to do business.

[10:35 a.m.]

Again, I go back to the words of the MSP Task Force, which warned:

“A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a

time when they are facing several competitive challenges, including

expected increases in the minimum wage, CPP increases and recent tax

reform in the U.S., which improve the competitive position of many U.S.

businesses.”

B.C. business owners who will be scrambling to pay these new tax

bills don’t want to be forced to raise their prices. For businesses

competing internationally, doing so would reduce their competitiveness,

resulting in lost sales.

We should be supporting our business community instead of working

against it, but in double-taxing business owners in the coming year, the

government is sending the opposite message. It is a move that will no

doubt hurt the organizations and the people that form the backbone of

our economy.

Although 2018 is quickly drawing to a close, there is still time

for the government to do the right thing and reverse this course of

action of double-dipping. It’s what’s best for the B.C. business

community and for our economy.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House, particularly on

this issue, because for so many years in opposition, our government

members, now the members in government, fought to get rid of the most

regressive tax in the country, because in fact, we were the only

province that still imposed MSP premiums on its constituents. We were

the last province to get rid of this regressive tax.

If the members opposite would remember the clone speech that their

own former government delivered only a year ago…. They were proposing 50

percent reductions in MSP premiums. Well, we’ve gone further than that,

and they complain about us going further. They want us to walk

backwards, as they did. They want us to increase the most regressive tax

in the country, as they did.

This member would distract us from the former government’s actual

record of doubling MSP premiums on the families, on the individuals and

on the businesses of this prov­ince — doubling, a 100 percent

increase, the most regressive tax there was. And now the member would

interpret the fact that we’re going to give a 50 percent reduction on

the way to a 100 percent reduction as double-dipping.

Well, I hate to break it to the former government, which prided

itself on the balance sheet, that there are two sides to a balance

sheet. We’re giving a break to those same employers, and we’re giving a

huge break to all of their customers.

Each family, after 2020, when it’s completely eliminated, will

save up to $900 to $1,800 per year. That won’t go off as a tax break to

the wealthy, as under the former government — off to holidays in foreign

countries. That will, by and large, stay in our communities, and it will

serve to help improve services.

Simply eliminating the MSP premium will save $50 million per year

in administration costs alone. Now those resources can be directed to

supporting families in British Columbia. That’s our aim: to support

families, not to burden them.

The aim of the former government seemed to be to raise fees. MSP

premiums, hydro, ferry fares — everything was going up. Hidden tax

increases. We find out later the damage that was done to

ICBC.

We can’t forget the economic impact of eliminating the MSP. It is

a 50 percent tax break to employers who pay MSP now. We are going to

eliminate, and 80 percent of businesses won’t pay the employers health

tax. All those savings will go towards growing our economy and growing

their businesses. In fact, when fully implemented, it will be the lowest

employers health tax in the country.

So when the member points to this government and says that we’re

reducing competitiveness, the opposite is the case. We’re delivering the

lowest employers health tax in the country. That’s a good thing. We’re

walking forward, making different choices, not walking backward towards

regressive taxes that hurt the most vulnerable.

We are lifting the burden off the most vulnerable. We’re going to

share that, and all British Columbians will thrive and prosper fairly

because we are taking steps to reduce costs and improve their services.

This is one very big piece of that.

[10:40 a.m.]

It’s unfortunate the member would characterize it negatively,

coming from a movement that prides itself in tax advantages. Well, this

is a tax advantage for the little guy. We’re proud of that. Reducing

costs, increasing services — families prosper and British Columbia

thrives. We all benefit.

G. Kyllo: Well, the response from my member opposite there is political spin

at its finest. In fiscal 2018, total MSP revenues received by this

government will be $1.3 billion. Next year in 2019, they will continue

to collect the $1.3 billion in MSP premiums and an additional $1.8

billion in the new employer health tax — $3.1 billion. So they’re

increasing revenues from $1.3 billion in 2018 to $3.1 billion in 2019.

That’s affordability. That’s NDP math for you.

The fact remains that this new payroll tax will hurt B.C.

businesses, particularly those who already pay MSP premiums for their

employees. The double taxation that they will be faced with in 2019 will

have huge impacts on their businesses, their workers and their

customers. If only they’d been properly consulted by the government and

provided with the openness, transparency and collaboration that they

deserve.

I do laud the Finance Minister for appointing the MSP Task Force,

which did talk to businesses and stakeholders, but I think more business

owners would have welcomed the opportunity to add their voices and

concerns to the discussion, instead of being surprised not only with a

new tax but a year of double taxation. Here’s what the general manager

of West Coast Gardens in Surrey had to say: “The NDP, with their new tax

burdens, has made us uncompetitive. It’s unfair in a time…. That it was

put onto us so quickly, without us being able to have any input or

consultation, is just unfair.”

I think it’s fair to say that First Nations, and municipalities

also, would have liked to have had their say in the matter. We just

elected a number of new mayors and councillors across British Columbia

who are now going to have to grapple with this new tax and who may have

to raise property taxes for their residents as a result.

This may well prove to be the single-largest exercise in

downloading costs to municipalities that we’ve seen in recent history.

Perhaps they’ll hold off hiring new staff in their civic facilities or

delay improvements to them. Tough choices will need to be made by these

officials and by business owners across our great province.

We need to support our entrepreneurs who pour their hearts and

souls into their businesses. They spent years building them, often

sacrificing family and leisure time to do it, and are often the last to

take a paycheque. It’s grueling work to be successful. It takes passion,

dedication, energy and guts. When folks have spent a lifetime building

up their business, taking pride in all they’ve achieved, the last thing

we should be doing is unloading an unfair tax scheme upon them, slowly

chipping away at the success that they have created for themselves,

their families and their communities.

EFFECTIVE THERAPEUTIC CENTRES

M. Dean: I was honoured to be the emcee at an announcement on Friday in

View Royal, in the heart of Esquimalt-Metchosin. We announced the

opening of an innovative therapeutic community for men who have repeat

experiences with incarceration, homelessness and addiction. This is a

new evidence-based model of care and support that will connect many more

people to their own pathways to hope and recovery.

We were joined by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions,

other officials, members of the neighbourhood and, in particular, Ryan

L’hirondelle. Ryan told his story of how he had ended up in a detention

centre, where he had also been offered recovery services to deal with

his addictions issues. The first time he was there, he did the minimum

required and relapsed within three days after he left. The second time

he engaged a bit more and lasted six months once released.

He told us all that the third time he entered the centre, when he

realized that he had motivation and also the appropriate support, he was

able to successfully benefit from the recovery community. He worked

through the process, including attending university, and is now a peer

support worker at the new therapeutic recovery community in View

Royal.

Run by Our Place Society, the therapeutic recovery community

offers a peer-supported therapeutic recovery community for residents to

develop life skills, tackle addictions and receive holistic care. The

goal is that every individual who graduates from this program will be in

control of their addiction, have a place to live, a job and all the life

skills necessary to not only survive in the wider community but to

thrive in it.

[10:45 a.m.]

All supports and services will be provided through the

professional guidance of a clinical team comprised of a physician,

psychiatrist, nurses and clinical counsellors.

The therapeutic recovery community movement was founded on the

principles of respect for life, one’s self, others and the environment.

The San Patrignano therapeutic community in Italy is the model for Our

Place’s therapeutic recovery community and is recognized as the world’s

leading rehabilitation model, with a full recovery rate of over 70

percent for residents who complete the program.

The community members work all day at skilled sectors in the

vineyard, the dairy shed or with the pigs that get used to make salamis

that are now sold in shops across Italy. All their facilities are

staffed and run by either those on the drug program or former residents

who have stayed there.

As one resident said: “I started opening up, having a real

dialogue with people. I discovered friendship. I learnt to face my

problems, not to leave them behind, because they grow up like debts if

you do not solve them. Happiness is not a complex and faraway, abstract

thing. Happiness is made up of small things — going to bed at night and

knowing that you have done your best. Stop craving for something outside

yourself and looking for something you might not even want and that, for

sure, would not satisfy you.”

Our Place will model this approach and build peer support and

mentoring into the community. Already, they have four residents this

week.

The primary goal of a therapeutic recovery community is to foster

individual change and promote positive growth that helps an individual

return to society and lead a productive life. By using a

community-as-method approach, all community members have a

responsibility to hold both themselves and others accountable, challenge

criminal thinking and learn how to embrace pro-social behaviours and

relationships.

The healing power of the community speaks for itself too. The

sense of belonging that residents experience while preparing food and

eating together — food that they themselves will grow — is beneficial in

itself.

The therapeutic recovery community in View Royal will fill a gap

in our community by providing effective, long-term recovery for people

who have had multiple failures through existing addiction and mental

health services. Critically, it will provide the opportunity for

Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals who have had multiple

engagements with law enforcement, health services and jails to heal and

to contribute to society.

The success of this model is in addressing the underlying issues

of addiction, such as trauma, mental health issues, acquired brain

injury and/or criminal and violent behaviour.

This community will contribute to our homelessness prevention

approach by redirecting men released from jail into a long-term recovery

program, instead of releasing them onto the street. It’ll provide a

therapeutic recovery alternative to incarceration for people struggling

with severe addiction.

All community members will be given the opportunity to develop

skills in construction, woodworking, cooking and other areas. Developing

these skills will give residents a stronger sense of purpose, while also

increasing the opportunity for meaningful employment outside of the

recovery community.

Community members will live on site for up to 24 months, with

access to culturally appropriate and safe therapeutic recovery

programming, including counselling and the integration of Indigenous and

non-Indigenous healing approaches. By using a community-as-method

approach, all members have a responsibility to hold themselves and

others accountable and to learn how to embrace pro-social behaviours and

relationships. In the long term, alumni will become the champions and

the role models for peers still needing support in their

recovery.

Ultimately, a therapeutic community provides its members with

self-esteem, a sense of belonging, purpose and meaning, as well as

really, really important skills that can be used for the rest of their

lives.

[10:50 a.m.]

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the community

and the neighbourhood around the Our Place recovery community and the

staff and board members from Our Place Society as well, and the elected

officials of the View Royal community too. They all worked together in

positive partnership and collaboration to make this happen. Everybody

has been working tirelessly to build this model and to serve our

community.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the member’s remarks on the therapeutic recovery

centre in View Royal.

The public funding of long-term recovery centres is something that

I’ve been advocating for ever since I was appointed critic of Mental

Health and Addictions. In fact, I have spoken in this House about empty

beds that are sitting in these many, many facilities provincewide. In

April, I had one of my staff actually do a spot check on empty beds

provincewide, and on that one particular day in April, I believe it was

126 beds that were sitting empty, unfunded.

I also happened to discover that there is a weekly snapshot

availability report by health authorities, and I have one from a couple

of weeks ago for Fraser Health. Out of the 27 facilities that were

listed, only 11 of them were full; 16 were not. That means that 60

percent of the facilities that are currently available in Fraser Health

actually have empty beds that are not funded.

I’d like to mention about the therapeutic communities, which is a

participative, group-based approach to long-term mental illness,

personality disorders and drug addictions. Therapeutic communities have

gained some reputation for success in rehabilitation and patient

satisfaction in Britain and abroad. Many of my colleagues joined me when

we went for a tour of the John Volken Academy in Surrey, which is a

long-term facility that works for those students there.

Our province is in the midst of a crisis. The opioid crisis is so

pervasive in our province, with four people still dying every day.

They’re mostly men, mostly young, and they’re mostly dying at home where

harm reduction measures cannot help them. A recent report from Canada’s

chief public health officer showed that we have such a sustained and

devastating opioid crisis that it is actually causing life expectancy in

our province to drop.

Life expectancy is dropping. Let’s take a moment and think about

that. Health officials in this report note that diminished life

expectancy in developing countries is often the result of premature

deaths in early childhood from infectious diseases and other illness. It

shouldn’t be happening here in Canada.

March 2018 was declared the worst month in the history of the

entire opioid crisis. There were deaths: 162 people died in December of

2016, but the number of deaths in March 2018 is 162.

The Ontario government, despite only being in power for two

months, has already released their plan to deal with the opioid crisis.

And there was a report published by the B.C. Centre on Substance Use

this spring that urged the government to change the focus from its

crisis response of harm reduction to long-term recovery.

Therapeutics could be part of that solution. Harm reduction, while

vital, is not capable of solving the crisis. We need further pillars of

our strategy, such as therapeutics, recovery, prevention and education.

We cannot simply rely on harm reduction. Our health care system depends

on a new and comprehensive approach.

Certainly, I have spoken several times in this House about the

so-called Portugal model. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the

possession and consumption of certain levels of drugs, transferring the

issue into the health system from the legal system. Portugal is

successful not because of the decriminalization but because it has

immediate treatment options available that offer people hope to get off

drugs and rid themselves of their addiction.

When Dr. Goulão from the Portuguese

commission for drug dissuasion visited Vancouver a year ago during the

recovery conference, he couldn’t believe what he saw in the Downtown

Eastside. Our statistics show that the rates of overdose and deaths have

gone up since then. In 2016, there were 27 overdoses in Portugal. In

B.C., 993 people died of overdoses in 2016 and 1,422 last year, and

doctors say we are headed for the same death rate in 2018 as there was

in 2017.

[10:55 a.m.]

Is Portugal something that we should consider here? Maybe. But at

least we should be trying, because what we are doing here in British

Columbia isn’t working. Government needs to make mental health,

addictions and long-term recovery a priority and work together to give

people hope and opportunity for their lives and their families. It just

takes some understanding, some empathy, and some political

will.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–​Seymour. Yes,

treatment and recovery are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Providing a

range of options is important so people have access to the most

appropriate treatment for their specific circumstances where and when

they need it. Ask once; get help fast.

It’s impossible to categorize addiction and to say that everyone

who is dependent on drugs follows one type of behaviour. We know that

people have different pathways to hope and recovery. We need to provide

as many treatment options as possible for people with mental health and

substance use issues.

For example, there are currently 13,011 community mental health

beds and 3,047 community substance use beds throughout the province as

of March 31, 2018, and that’s only 11 percent of the total. It is

important to note that these beds represent a small portion of a broad

continuum of treatment options available and generally are most

appropriate for people who require a higher intensity of services and

supports to address complex or acute mental health or substance use

problems.

There’s evidence that community-based treatment is associated with

substantially better outcomes than in-patient treatment and care — such

as supported housing options. Supported housing for people with mental

health and/or substance use problems includes a variety of safe, secure

and affordable accommodation options within the community, including

supported independent living units, block apartments, congregate

housing, group homes and low-barrier housing.

People in supported housing units have access to clinical mental

health and substance use services such as counselling and psychosocial

rehabilitation services, including assistance with daily living skills

like cooking, money management and communication. Low-barrier housing is

targeted for individuals with substance use disorders who are

continually at risk of being homeless or who are homeless and require a

safe place to live, and they’re provided an opportunity to become

connected with health, social and other community social

services.

I’d like to take this opportunity to say how incredibly grateful I

am for everyone who is taking action to respond to mental health and

substance use issues in the community, especially the overdose crisis.

The best way forward is working together. Lives are being saved, but too

many are still being lost.

Hon. C. James: I now call for consideration Motion 29 by the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 29 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 29 — LISTENING

TO LOCAL

VOICES

T. Stone: None of us have a right to be here. Rather, this is a privilege

stemming from a democracy which all British Columbians cherish. Today,

with pride, I am privileged to move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening

to local voices.]

We have the honour to represent all British Columbians in this

Legislature, regardless of political persuasion. But are those voices we

all represent truly being heard? Regrettably, under this government, the

answer is no. With unwavering support from the weebling, wobbling Leader

of the Third Party, who displays a remarkable skill of talking the talk

without walking the walk, the speculation and vacancy tax is being

rammed down the throats of British Columbians as a critical piece to

moderate the housing market.

Here’s the problem. There’s absolutely no evidence that it’s going

to work, let alone that this tax has anything to do with speculation. To

quote Neil Moody, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Home

Builders Association of British Columbia: “Who are the speculators?”

Reporting an ever-growing number of cancelled contracts and lost jobs,

Mr. Moody, an expert in the housing sector, correctly describes the

speculation tax as “nothing more than a tax grab, a blatant attack on

British Columbians and all Canadians who have worked, who have saved to

own a second home, a cottage, a cabin or even a condo in Metro Vancouver

where they might live for a few months every year.”

[11:00 a.m.]

As Mr. Moody points out: “Each home-building contract allows crews

to stay busy year-round and support their local workforce and families.

Each contract makes a difference. What doesn’t make a difference to

rental accommodations in areas where they are most needed is a cancelled

contract for a home or cabin in rural B.C.”

What about those “right-to-be-heard” local voices? Right now this

government has those people on mute, while the Leader of the Third Party

has simply deceived them on the speculation tax.

Take, for example, the premier’s own community of Langford, which

has gone above and beyond in terms of accommodating new housing starts

for years. Mayor Stew Young’s vehement objections to the speculation tax

— they’ve gone unheard. Responding to the recent so-called NDP and Green

compromise, these changes “mean nothing,” says Mayor Young. He knows

full well that his community’s objections to the tax were blown off,

despite his now-realized fears about housing investments being deferred,

delayed or, worst of all, outright cancelled.

In Nanaimo, a similar reaction. “What changes?” said former mayor

Bill McKay, who also lamented: “If they haven’t listened to any of the

input we provided to date, why is it going to make any difference to

have a once-a-year meeting when nothing happens?”

Expect “unintended consequences,” warns Kelowna’s mayor, Colin

Basran, who has witnessed a dramatic slowdown in his city’s real estate

market, a community where typically one in five home sales represent

vacation homes for out-of-province buyers.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Equally frustrated with the NDP’s speculation tax and this

government’s refusal to listen, the outgoing mayor of West Kelowna, Doug

Findlater, has noted a dramatic slowdown in economic activity. To

paraphrase Mr. Findlater, this is anything but a speculation

tax.

And speaking of former mayors, the weebling, wobbling Leader of

the Third Party will be keenly aware of Nils Jensen, the now former

mayor of Oak Bay. Yes, while Mr. Jensen also expressed initial concerns

about the speculation tax, he was the only mayor to view the NDP and

Green compromise as a positive. “Very supportable,” he described the

meaningless but politically convenient concession.

That was on October 18. Two days later the longtime mayor of Oak

Bay, seeking re-election, garnered only 2,138 votes or just 29 percent

support, while the new mayor, Kevin Murdoch, rolled to victory with over

5,000 votes, or 62 percent support. Mr. Murdoch ran, in large part, on a

platform of steadfast opposition to the speculation tax. One can only

wonder what this could mean for the future political fortunes of the

local MLA in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Speculate on that.

Elected by the people to represent the people, we are sent to this

chamber to make this province a better place. It is our duty and our

responsibility to the people, including local governments, to work

collaboratively to find solutions. For ultimately, every issue is local,

requiring that local voices be heard and respected.

R. Kahlon: It is my pleasure to stand to speak to this motion of valuing and

listening to local voices.

I’m shocked to hear the member across the way stand in this House

and lecture this side of the House about listening to people, local

voices in their community. I’m shocked.

The Province actually wrote a story when that member from

Kamloops was running in the leadership race. He said himself that they

didn’t listen when it came to the needs of communities, especially in

Metro Vancouver, where the Liberals were punished last spring in the

last election.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: He should come back. He should hear this.

He said: “There’s no downplaying this. We have learned some tough

lessons.” The Liberals took the wrong path on transportation issues in

the Metro Vancouver area, alienating local politicians and residents on

the issue that impacts their daily lives — of people.

He also said: “Too much political calculation. We need to stop

telling local communities and regions what is best for them. We need to

start engaging with them to improve places where we live, work and

play.”

I have good news for that member. We have learned at their

expense, after 16 years of being in government, in particular the last

four years, where they failed to listen to people throughout this

province.

[11:05 a.m.]

We learned from those lessons, and we’ve been consulting the

public on various issues. We’ve actually been consulting so much that

they heckle us. They say: “Oh, another consultation.” Now they’re

lecturing us that we should be listening to people. I find it quite

interesting that they would take that position.

Let’s talk about listening to people when it comes to money

laundering. Let’s talk about money laundering. People in our communities

have been telling us that there’s been an issue in the casinos. People

in our communities have been telling us for years that there have been

issues in our real estate market. Where was the listening when they were

in government?

In fact, a simple Google search, searching for “B.C. Liberals

listening” — the first thing that pops up is this gentleman, Joe Schalk,

who was a former senior director of investigations for the B.C. gaming

policy and enforcement branch. The 69-year-old saw his old office get a

shout-out from Peter German in his report.

He was fired in 2014. He was fired without cause. This is what he

said to the local papers. He said: “And to be called in one day and told

I wasn’t coming back to the office, and I couldn’t even say goodbye to

many of the people I worked with…directly involved in hiring — yeah, it

was a painful experience.” All he did was ask questions. He asked

questions such as: “Who has $200,000 in $20 bills wrapped in elastic

bands in $10,000 bundles?” That’s all he was asking.

He also went on to say…. In 2009: “Stop the money from coming in.”

Government and BCLC, the service providers, didn’t do all they could. He

said: “We were insistent that something had to be done, and I think we

got to the point where they didn’t want to listen to us anymore.” He

went on to say that the previous government didn’t want to hear what he

had to say. The previous government didn’t care because the money was

coming in; the money was good. Where was the advice that we should

listen to local people at that time?

It’s easy to sit on that side of the House now and give advice

about listening, but they were in government for 16 years. There was no

listening on local issues. I haven’t even gotten to how this money

laundering affected the casino industry. It affected the housing

industry. People in Australia were teaching the Vancouver model at the

same time the money was flowing into our communities, disrupting our

housing market. People died. A lot of people died, and guess what. There

was no listening from that side of the House.

Let’s talk about ICBC. The member that raised the issue was

responsible for ICBC. At no point did he listen to local issues. Debts

were rising continuously. He was given report after report that

something needed to be done. Nothing was done. Where was the listening

at that time?

I am proud that our side has been listening, despite the heckling

from the other side that there has been too much consultation. That is

what the people require us to do. They want their voices to be heard,

whether it’s human rights, whether it’s every single initiative we’ve

taken, whether it’s listening to Indigenous people throughout this

province having their say.

I’m proud that we’ve taken action to listen to the people of

British Columbia in every single aspect that we’ve taken, whether it’s

addressing money laundering in casinos, whether it’s addressing

speculation in the housing market.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat. I look forward to

listening to my colleagues tell them more.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Delta North, please be reminded that commenting on the

absence or presence of members in the chamber is not permitted. Thank

you.

M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak to the importance and the value of having

local voices.

Having the privilege and honour to be here in the House as the MLA

for Parksville-Qualicum gives me the ability to act as their voice. I

certainly hear from my constituents these days that they do not feel

that this government is listening to them, especially when it comes to

the speculation tax — the so-called speculation tax.

I actually wonder where the name came from when they came up with

this tax. I would presume — as many others, I am sure — that a bill with

that name would actually address speculation in one way or another, and

that certainly is not the case. What this bill does instead is penalize

the citizens of British Columbia who have worked hard and saved for

years to buy properties in our beautiful province.

[11:10 a.m.]

It penalizes people who have bought property with the eye to

spending time in two parts of our province or have that dream of

retiring here, somewhere like the Island or the Okanagan, or even those

Canadians from other provinces who have purchased properties here in

B.C. for retirement or for holiday and weekend getaways.

Parksville-Qualicum is a retirement destination, and many people plan

ahead by buying a home or a cabin. They start spending their summers and

their holidays in Parksville-Qualicum.

Properties are purchased by our own residents, and they’re now

being subject to a petty tax that does nothing to bolster new

developments or encourage any kind of investment in this

province.

There will be 32,000 people penalized by this tax. More than

two-thirds of these people are from this province. Other Canadians —

yes, other Canadians — make up 10,000 of that total. They’re not the

international speculators that this tax claims to target. Only 2,000 of

the 32,000 people are from outside of Canada.

Speculators are those who purchase a property, wait for the price

to rise and then within a year sell it. This may be referred to as house

flipping or perhaps a wise investment to some, but at the end of the

day, that is what speculation actually is. Speculation is not spending

money on a legacy property or a second home that citizens can and should

rightfully enjoy. This tax, simply put, is a tax on wealth, on

inheritance. It’s a cabin tax. It’s not a speculation tax.

This tax unfairly targets our own residents, as only certain

regions have been selected to pay this tax. The tax claims it was

created in an effort to create affordable housing in B.C. It’s supposed

to increase the amount of housing available, which will then drive down

the price of housing, making it more accessible for the hard workers in

our province. But that’s simply not the case. There is no evidence that

it’s going to work. Instead, what we’re seeing is $1 billion in housing

investments cancelled — postponed since the tax was introduced in the

budget.

Macdonald Development cancelled 600 new homes in Langford and 110

lots in Kelowna, worth a staggering $500 million. With so much

construction halted, many apprentices won’t be able to get the skills

and the training and the valuable stuff that they need so desperately.

Countless projects are being sidelined, resulting in no homes being

built and wages being lost.

What is actually being taxed here is the livelihood of our

residents. The biggest impact is being felt by the people who have

worked hard and have invested in this province. They should be rewarded

for continuing to contribute to our economy, not punished for unfair

taxation.

The dream of affordable housing for new families or any young

people who are looking to build a life for themselves here is getting

further and further away, out of reach.

Voices are not being heard. Mayor Stew Young of Langford has

expressed his objections loud and clear in the Premier’s own riding, and

he’s not being heard. The Nanaimo regional district states: “This tax

has been identified…as having negative impacts where it is proposed,

including creating an unequal playing field for real estate development

and property investment between jurisdictions.”

Again ignored, no changes coming for these communities. But if you

have a retirement home in Parksville and happen to be the leader of the

opposition Green Party, not to worry. The government listens to

you.

S. Chandra Herbert: I must say, I don’t often participate in this private members’

debate. I listen to it. I watch it. Sometimes it really seems to be just

two sides talking past each other, focusing on specific issues to try

and paint the other side in a bad way.

Today we were asked to speak on the value of listening to local

voices, which basically means — according to what I’ve heard from the

opposition side — listening to only those voices you agree with. If you

happen to have people….

For example, I know there are members and people in every one of

our communities who support the speculation tax and people in our

communities who might not. So I think the question, when you’re talking

about listening, is: do you hear? Do you agree? You can listen and not

always agree. The opposition decides that you’re not listening if you

don’t agree.

[11:15 a.m.]

Well, in my community, year after year after year I heard from

constituents telling me: “We want action on affordable housing. We need

support for renters. We need action on speculation.” Our government is

now delivering.

I’m hearing from my constituents, a large number — not all of

them, mind you. I know others on the opposite side like to pretend that

they speak for 100 percent of their community, as I think the member

preceding me just did. But she would have to acknowledge that not

everybody agrees with her either.

I think that’s one of the values. We have to consider these

things, weigh them out and land on where we believe the evidence is,

while still acknowledging we are fallible. We may not always get it

correct.

If you want to value listening to local voices, you actually have

to value all of them, not just those you agree with and pretend that

there’s some sort of 100 percent majority in every community that just

thinks one way or another. That, of course, is not true. If that were

the case, well, I don’t think we would have a functioning

parliament.

Of course, we work to get to agreement on things by listening to

each other and learning from each other, agreeing to disagree on

occasion and trying to be respectful about it. I know we can use this

time to just bash at each other and talk about how horrible one side is

or the other, but I would hope we’d try and actually raise above that

and learn from each other. I know that’s a high bar. I fail at it a lot

as well.

In this case, I wanted to speak about the value of listening to

local voices and the value of listening to every one of our MLAs. We’re

one of the few legislatures, I believe, that does not have a scheduled

time for private members’ bills debates. We have time for motion debate,

which we do every Monday morning, like today, where we will agree to

disagree and speak past each other for about an hour. And then we won’t

vote on whatever the statement is, and then we’ll move along.

This is the way it’s been in this House, largely, since about 2001

and possibly preceding that as well. I haven’t got the history on that,

as much as I’d like to.

I think we need to be looking at other parliaments and figuring

out how we do bring a lot of those local voices. I know members on all

sides have good ideas that they’ve raised through private members’ bills

that come for first reading and don’t seem to go beyond that. I know it

loses a bit of control if you actually allow these things to get to

debate and discussion, but I think it would make this place richer,

because every one of us has something to add.

If you’re not in cabinet, as much as you can argue behind the

scenes or through the introduction and first reading bill debate…. I

think we need to open this democracy a little bit wider. I’ll continue

to push that, as I did when I was on the opposition side as

well.

For years I’ve moved private member’s bills that were never

addressed, never acknowledged until the voice of local communities was

so deafening that the government had to acknowledge it. But instead of

bringing my bill forward, they brought a version themselves on human

rights for transgender people. I was glad we got there, but I think we’d

have got there a lot earlier, as they did in other provinces, if private

members’ bills were actually allowed to come up for debate and

discussion and vote.

We each have a vote. We each have a value. We each have advice and

ideas. Not every one of the issues we raise is going to fit neatly in a

partisan box. I would hope that we might consider going

forward.

Maybe it won’t get there this time. It didn’t get there, I know,

hon. Speaker, when you yourself brought forward recommendations, while

you were on the government side, for advice and ideas on how to make

this place work better. But a man can hope. A person can hope. A woman

can hope. We all can hope.

Hopefully, we can listen to each other as opposed to speaking past

each other, as we too often do in this place. We might learn something.

We might find that we have agreement on a whole lot of things that we

didn’t know we did before. We might be challenged. It might delay

things. It might make it harder. But I think you would get a greater

value to the democracy than this show that we have of debate that passes

by each other.

Full respect to everybody who engages wholeheartedly in it. There

are horrible things that the other side did when they were in

government, and I’m sure they’re going to say there are horrible things

that we’ve done when we are in government. I get it. That’s how this

place can work. But I hope we actually value local listening and try to

get more out of this chamber than we have done.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to stand here in support of the tabled motion. Now,

some of my colleagues on this side of the House are going to be speaking

to this in the context of the speculation tax. I’m actually taking a

slightly different perspective on the importance of local

voices.

As members of the House, we have to be careful that we don’t lose

sight of what is really important and what matters to the constituents

we serve. It’s a privilege to serve them, and it is our responsibility

to stand up for their needs in the House. That’s our job.

This makes me believe that the motion being put forward is very

timely indeed. The relationship between public office and constituents

is a symbiotic one. As elected officials, if we keep what our

constituents want and need at the forefront of what we do, chances are

we will be re-elected.

[11:20 a.m.]

We’ve just witnessed historic municipal elections in our province.

In some communities, voters upset with the incumbents sent a very clear

message to leaders that they were not satisfied with the status quo. In

the two cities that I’m close to, Surrey and White Rock, this is a case

in point. In Surrey, voters sent a very clear message. They elected a

new mayor and a completely new council, who promised to establish a

local police force and bring SkyTrain to frustrated Surrey commuters. In

White Rock, all but two of the council members are new to

politics.

All governments have to stay close to the constituents. Those that

do otherwise do so at their peril — unless, of course, British Columbia

moves to proportional representation. Under PR, a significant number of

members will be appointed by the parties they serve. Their loyalty would

move from their local constituents to their party. The proponents of

proportional representation are, in my mind, perpetuating a terrible

fallacy to British Columbia voters: that under proportional

representation, every vote counts. Any student of politics knows that

that is not true.

If anything, under PR, voters have less influence on what happens

in governments than under our current first-past-the-post system. That’s

because, in order to meet the proportions of the general vote, a number

of seats have to be appointed by the party. These appointed MLAs come

from anywhere. They could be a person that lost their riding to another;

they could be someone that has never had to work to get elected in a

city or a riding. Again, since they are appointed by the party, their

loyalties are to the party, not the voters.

The disenfranchisement of local voters under PR is also

perpetuated further once the votes are in. That’s because under PR,

typically, there are only coalition governments as, usually, no one

party has sufficient seats to gain a majority. Then the backroom deals

begin, often taking months — or, in the case of Belgium, two years and

one election — in order to form government.

The party with the most but insufficient votes to form government

typically has to work with smaller parties to cut a deal to get into

power. These smaller parties are often one-focus parties with very

narrow agendas. If the smaller party makes a deal with a larger party to

form government, that smaller party wields a heavy influence that they

can use to get their narrow agenda across. It is the proverbial tail

wagging the dog.

These systems are being proposed to British Columbia right now

without full facts. I believe this is wrong. The direct relationship

between voters and the elected officials should be paramount. Under our

current system, I know that if I don’t work in the best interests of my

riding constituents, I will likely not be re-elected. Moreover, I have a

direct connection to them, regardless of whether they voted for me or

not, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Under a proportional

representation system, I could lose my riding but still be appointed by

the party to sit in the House. How does that reflect the issues of the

voting public? How does that represent local voices?

No, local voices do matter. Local connections matter, and my local

voters matter to me. I, for one, will never vote for a system that flies

in the face of that. That’s why I am supporting this motion that

recognizes the importance of local voices and local constituencies. We

have a historic referendum in front of us that could take that all

away.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to stand and speak to the motion moved today: “Be

it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening to local

voices.” When I was first elected in Vancouver-Kensington in 2009, that

became very clear to me.

The issue in Vancouver-Kensington that I heard from parents, from

teachers and from students was the effort and the pressure to close down

one of our local schools, the McBride Annex. This was an issue that

really galvanized our local community. We saw students, parents and

teachers come together and really talk about the value of the McBride

Annex to the community, the important central role it played and the

importance of keeping it open. That was in my first term. I supported

those local folks, those voices coming forward. It was through my second

term as well.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m very pleased now to be standing here and to be saying that due

to the community coming together and raising their concerns, the McBride

Annex continues to be open. I’ve been very proud, as the MLA for

Vancouver-Kensington, to support folks in the community, to stand behind

the school and to see the school continuing to remain open and be an

important resource for the community.

In addition, as the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, I have, just

down from my office, the South Hill Education Centre. Through my terms,

I’ve had students come to me to talk about the value of adult basic

education — students from right across the continuum who, for one reason

or another, weren’t able to complete grade 12 but appreciated the

opportunity to continue their education, get a grade 12 equivalency,

upgrade their skills, have the opportunity to pursue post-secondary or

vocational school and reach the academic requirements.

It was those students and teachers coming forward when the

previous government cut funding to adult basic education, imposing very

onerous fees for students to upgrade their skills. Often I met with

these students. Many of them were very committed to education but

through no fault of their own, through life circumstances, found that

they needed to upgrade their skills through adult basic education to

continue to fulfil their career goals.

I’m very proud to be standing here now, having stood with those

students and those teachers and the community, talking about the

importance of supporting access to education and the important role of

adult basic education. For our government to have reinstated that

funding to ensure that all students have access to upgrade their skill —

I’m very proud of that.

As well, the previous government cut funding to the Arts Studios,

which is a nationally recognized organization that provides

comprehensive supports for folks dealing with mental illness. It’s not

only renowned across British Columbia and Canada but around the world as

being just a great example of an effective organization that uses peers

who have gone through and have recovered from mental illness and uses

the arts as a way to address reintegrating to the community. It’s a

terrific organization that suffered cuts from the previous government.

That’s an example of a program that does great work.

I want to address, as well, the feedback from my constituents

around the challenges of affordable housing. We know that there is a

crisis in housing through 16 years of mismanagement. I don’t have enough

time to go through the record of the previous government. I just want to

talk about what commitments our government is making to listen to

British Columbians and to address the crisis in affordability of

housing. We have implemented a 30-point plan that addresses affordable

housing and seeks to make housing more affordable. We are protecting

renters.

We’ve heard from the other side. They are speaking against the

speculation and vacancy tax. This impacts 1 percent of British

Columbians. This is, I think, also a contrast in terms of the priorities

that our government feels to address the housing crisis, to look at

providing more rental units and to address the fundamental principle for

all British Columbians to have access to affordable housing.

S. Cadieux: As I take my spot to speak to this motion, “Be it resolved that

this House acknowledge the value of listening to local voices,” I’m

going to take a second to digress and say that I’d like to think the

member for Vancouver–West End and I agree on much, and that includes the

workings of this place. I appreciate very much his comments

today.

There is much going on in the world today, and much of it, I don’t

think any of us like. Hate is taking centre stage. Mistrust is all too

common, especially when it comes to mistrust of politicians. I actually

believe that all of us came here to represent our constituents. We came

here to make a difference for British Columbians. We have differences of

opinion, and that’s okay.

[11:30 a.m.]

What we’re seeing in places south of the border and in Ontario is

not a focus on listening, and it’s not listening being done by the

voters either. As citizens, I believe we are more and more, all of us,

content to listen to a sound bite and to make our decisions without

facts, reasoned arguments or detail. It’s not healthy.

That’s why, when I go to my comments today, I hope you keep that

in context. We did have a municipal election just a few days ago, and in

my community, at least, there was a wholesale change, not because the

people are that much more qualified or that much better but because the

people hadn’t felt heard, so they voted for the opposite.

The government has given testimony that they cancelled, for

example, the Massey Tunnel replacement project because the mayor of

Richmond didn’t like the plan. In fact, the Transportation Minister

said: “I find it very interesting how the opposition can so disregard

the views of other elected officials. The mayors…have a vision for their

communities.” She also said: “Unlike the previous government, we are

working with people and working with the mayors to develop fair,

long-term solutions….”

Well, I hope that’s true, and I hope that reasoning will prevail

when the new mayor of Surrey comes to say, “Thank you, government, but I

don’t want LRT. The people of Surrey have told me they want SkyTrain” —

or a municipal police force or more schools to replace the added

portables.

When the minister says she wants things to be fair, well,

certainly it hasn’t been fair for my community. There’s nothing fair

about the fact that Surrey has paid more towards transit than any other

Lower Mainland community yet hasn’t seen a transit investment of any

scale since the four SkyTrain stations 30 years ago. I don’t see that as

fair.

We’re the fastest-growing community in the Lower Mainland, but

we’re not getting schools any faster than any other community. The

government, while in opposition, certainly felt it necessary to

criticize us on that front on a daily basis, yet we see no different

action from this government.

I hope that the government is listening to the people. I hope that

the government is listening to the mayors. But I’m skeptical, because we

have a government that says one thing and does another. We have a

government saying, “We need proportional representation so that people

can have better representation,” yet proportional representation puts

less accountability in place for local MLAs. Why would an MLA be overly

concerned with the wishes of the people when they are appointed by a

party?

Then, of course, we have a government that professes….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Singh: It’s my pleasure to speak on this motion about listening to local

voices. In my community of Surrey–Green Timbers, I’ve heard people talk

about how life had become so unaffordable for them and how just living

was so difficult. I can say that our government is listening to them.

One of the first promises that we fulfilled was in tackling

affordability. We did away with the tolls, which was a big tax — I think

it was unfair — on people south of Fraser, definitely, but especially on

the community of Surrey–Green Timbers.

[11:35 a.m.]

We reduced the MSP premium by half, and we plan to eliminate it in

the next year. That is what listening to the local voices has meant.

It’s good to hear from my colleagues on the other side, but for the last

16 years, I think they were not listening to the local voices. That’s

what we hear when we go and talk to the people in my community — it’s

not just affordability — and we look at any fees.

I heard the member for Surrey South talk about education and the

schools. In the last years, how many times was the other government

listening to the people? People were so concerned about their kids’

education, but the other government was busy fighting with the teachers

and not putting the resources in the schools.

We know that it is…. I totally agree with you. Surrey is the

fastest-growing community, and we need the resources. That’s what our

government has done. It has put historic funding in education since we

came into power in 2017. We are trying to get rid of the portables. As

we know, it is something that cannot be done overnight, but we are in

the process of doing it. We have put the funding into the capital

projects, and many new schools are in development.

Talking about health care, that is also another thing that I hear

from my constituents. Surrey, with the fastest-growing population, just

has one hospital. For so many years, people were demanding more

resources in health care funding. The other government, rather than

listening to the people…. In fact, there had been land allocated to

build a hospital, but they sold that land. The present government — our

government; I’m very proud — our Health Minister has put in the

resources, has put in the funding, to do the research for a new

hospital. Also, Surrey would be the first city to have an urgent care

centre.

I think this is all from listening to local voices. I’m so proud

to be part of a government that is listening to the people and listening

to their local voices.

D. Barnett: Quite a few of the members of this Legislature sat on local city

councils or served with regional districts before coming here. While not

a requirement for provincial office, it does comes in handy when it

comes to listening to people on the ground and keeping in touch with the

needs of your constituents.

I know because I served as a local mayor for 17 years. That taught

me one thing overall: there is only one taxpayer. Taxpayers are subject

to a bunch of taxes coming from all three levels of government, but

somehow that message gets lost once a political party gets into

office.

Political leaders seem to think that only their taxes matter most

and disregard the fact that taxpayers get hit on all fronts. This is

certainly the case with this government — an out-of-control tax agenda

designed to make good on a whole bunch of campaign promises that will

probably never see the light of day. For example, lots of people voted

for $10-a-day child care or a $400 renters rebate. This government hopes

people will forget about those things, but I can assure you that people

remember when a government fails to deliver on its promises.

Instead, we are left with a huge lift of taxes this Finance

Minister keeps piling on British Columbians: four planned annual

increases to the carbon tax; the poorly planned and executed employer

health care tax that has business owners up in arms; the so-called new

school tax that has nothing to do with schools; and, of course, the

deeply flawed real estate speculation tax.

The speculation tax is one of the best examples of a provincial

government that has turned its back and stopped listening to regional

districts and municipalities. We saw that last year at UCBM, at a

gathering of local governments. Resolution after resolution called for

the ability of municipalities and regional districts to opt out of the

Finance Minister’s ill-conceived speculation tax.

[11:40 a.m.]

When it was first announced in last year’s budget, the Finance

Minister declared that she was going to chase away foreign investors

responsible for vacant housing in this province. Little did people know

that 20,000 of the 32,000 housing units in question were in fact owned

by British Columbians who live and work in the province. After much

outcry, the Finance Minister did exempt some regions from the tax, but

in doing so, she divided B.C. into have and have-not tax regions.

Municipalities and regional districts that get hit hard by the tax are

naturally upset. Why should tax laws apply to some parts of the province

and exclude places like the Gulf Islands or Juan de Fuca? How is this

fair?

I can tell you that as a municipal leader, we are the first to

hear when people are unhappy. Most British Columbians don’t mind paying

their fair share. But when some parts of the province are required to

pay tax while others are exempt, you have a problem. Any government,

mayor or councillor who stops listening to local voices will hear about

it at the next election. Taxpayers want to see value coming from their

hard-earned tax dollar. We owe it to them as elected

officials.

I’m not the only one who wants to axe the speculation tax. There

are lots of municipal leaders out there who are calling on the Finance

Minister to do exactly just that.

Let’s hope this government perks up and listens to local voices

for a change.

J. Routledge: I thank the member for moving this motion: “Be it resolved that

this House acknowledge the value of listening to local

voices.”

I wholeheartedly agree that this House should be listening to

local voices, and I welcome this opportunity to engage in the debate.

But what does it mean to listen to local voices? This is something that

I’ve actually spent quite a lot of time thinking about, reading about,

writing about and talking about. It’s one of the questions that

motivated me to seek public office. What I saw happening was a growing

number of people — a disturbing number of people — that had come to

believe that their voices were being ignored, so they stopped voting.

Declining voter turnout, coupled with our first-past-the-post electoral

system, means that an ever-shrinking minority of voters is making

decisions for the majority. Nothing good can come of that.

Listening to local voices, listening out for local voices, keeping

our ear to the ground and amplifying local voices must be the essence of

democracy. It’s something that we as legislators must do purposefully,

proactively and enthusiastically. It’s a commitment that I made to the

people of Burnaby North: that I would do everything in my power to

ensure that their needs, their dreams and their priorities are reflected

in government decisions.

While I do agree with this motion that acknowledges that

legislators should be listening to local voices, I also wonder what

particular local voices members on the opposite side are listening to

and what it takes to get their attention. Because in 16 years in office,

I don’t think they heard increasingly desperate voices. Did they hear

the voice of the mother who lost her son to a drug overdose but who

tried desperately to get treatment and was being turned away?

Did they hear the voice of the kindergarten teacher struggling to

prepare her kids for a successful life in an overcrowded classroom, kids

who spoke nine different languages, two of whom had special needs? Did

they hear the voices of an elderly couple who after 50 years of marriage

were being forced into two different care facilities or the young

student who doesn’t qualify for the living expenses portion of her

student loan because she’s on persons-with-disabilities assistance so

has less money to put into rent than other students and can’t find a

roommate? These are just some examples of people who have felt that they

were shut out, that their voices were not heard.

[11:45 a.m.]

Since becoming an MLA, I have heard tragic stories of people who

have been let down by the system. Now, the tragic stories don’t surprise

me, but I’ll tell you what does surprise me. What did touch me deeply is

so many people who ended their story by saying: “It’s too late for me.

You can’t help me bring my son back. You can’t get my job back. You

can’t reinstate my life savings. But I’m telling you this because you

can make sure it doesn’t happen to anybody else.”

Now, for constituents like that to come to us in our offices,

approach us on the street…. It takes a lot of courage for many of our

constituents to speak up. Their stories are hard. They’re often shy.

Many of them are in awe of the power of elected officials.

There are some voices that are louder. They are more confident

than others, and they know how to get our attention. But if we wait for

our citizens to come to us, if we only listen to the voices that take

the initiative, to the voters that take the initiative, who believe they

have the authority to speak, then we are getting a very distorted view

of what matters to the people we represent.

In conclusion, I am quite confident that our government is

listening and that local voices are being heard and that our government

is weighing what they heard. I’m confident that we will continue to find

new ways to assure the electorate that their voices are

welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion in

support of listening to local voices. It gives me even greater pleasure

to stand here today in the place representing the local voices of

Kelowna West, local voices that sometimes feel that they aren’t heard

with this government’s narrow focus towards Victoria and Vancouver,

local voices drowned out by the Lower Mainland crowd.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My constituents have been rallying together since day one on the

speculation tax’s existence. Before the media was calling this a

controversial speculation tax, I, along with Mayors Findlater and

Basran, was asking the government to reconsider. My office alone has

received over 800 letters, thousands of emails and a petition of over

15,520 signatures from constituents worried about the harmful effects of

this so-called speculation tax. City hall has received hundreds as

well.

This tax was sold as a way to curb speculation in British

Columbia’s real estate market, a noble goal. But the reality is that the

so-called speculation tax fails to address speculation in any serious

way.

In response, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the Strata

Pre-sale Contract Flipping Act, 2018, in May. It was a guaranteed way

for the province to enact a policy that ensures people who treat our

housing market like a stock market would not only pay the regular

federal tax but also be subject to a provincial capital gains tax. I

thought for sure this government would embrace it, but instead they did

not bring it forward.

Instead, the speculation tax was doubled-down on. As a result, new

housing starts have decreased by over 40 percent in the Lower Mainland

and 60 percent plus in the Kelowna area. The construction industry has

experienced a slowdown, and developments are being cancelled or put on

hold — over eight months of no details on this tax, no

listening.

In West Kelowna, over 1,000 units at Goat’s Peak have now been

scrapped, with the developer directly citing the speculation tax. Other

developers, the Mullins Design Group: “In just the last two months,

we’ve had 12 clients cease their plans, an estimated $20 million to $25

million worth of work from my small firm.” McKinley Beach, Staburn,

Wesbild, Westcorp.

The minister said last spring one of the key factors was we were

going to look at housing starts. Well, we’ve seen the results of what

this tax has done. Now that the chill from the tax has set in, we’ve

seen annualized starts fall.

[11:50 a.m.]

This just isn’t a loss to businesses and families looking for

homes. This is a loss to every single person who would have worked on

that project or others like it similarly scrapped across the province.

Not only is this tax failing to make life more affordable, but in fact,

it’s putting people out of work and not addressing the more affordable

housing supply — again, because of not listening.

Hard-working painters, plumbers, electricians, drywallers,

contractors and countless others are already feeling the negative

effects of this speculation tax. I predict that this is the start of the

next crisis, by just not listening to local voices. As if those people

aren’t hurting enough with their rights to work on public projects

curtailed under the union benefits agreement, many of their employers

are going to be hard hit with the double-dip in their pockets next year

as they pay MSP and the new employer health tax. Those are important

local voices that are often lost in the conversation.

The people of West Kelowna are being negatively im­pacted.

From day one, they’ve been saying that about the speculation tax. West

Kelowna city staff produced multiple reports on the effects of the

speculation tax before the prov­incial government had. After

reading that study, Kelowna and West Kelowna have asked for exemptions

and were joined by municipalities from across the province asking for

exemptions — thousands of local voices at UBCM asking to be heard,

asking to be respected. But once again, those local voices were being

ignored.

Concluding on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House

who have spoken, I am proud to stand up in this House to say that I am

standing up for local voices. As the MLA, I represent those local voices

every time I rise in this House to speak. Today I stand and ask for

those voices to be respected and listened to. Thank you very

much.

Noting the hour, I would suggest that we adjourn.

B. Stewart moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada