British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, July 26, 2016

20160726pm-Hansard-v40n10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fift h Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, July 26, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 40, Number 10

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ........................................................................................... Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Suzanne Anton, QC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ................................................................. .........................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne, QC (BC Liberal) ...................... Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Dr.

Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) .........................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed ...................................................... Dr. Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North ..............................................................................

Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ..............................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton, QC Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, July 26, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 13387 Bill 28 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016 (continued) D. Eby Hon. P . Fassbender C. James Hon. T. Wat L. Krog J. Th ornthwaite K. Conroy Hon. A. Wilkinson N. Macdonald J. Yap S. Robinson D. Bing G. Heyman R. Sultan V . Huntington

TUESDAY , JULY 26, 2016 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. R. Coleman: I call continued second reading of Bill 28. Second Reading of Bills BILL 28 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (HOUSING PRIORITY INITIATIVES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 (continued) D. Eby: We’ve come a long way in terms of the govern- ment’s position on the housing market in Metro Vancouver. [R. Lee in the chair.] I think there’s really not a quote that sums up this shift more dramatically than a quote from the Housing Minister in May of 2016 to Vancouver.

He’s talking about the hous- ing issue. “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day. I don’t know. Y ou just have to look at it. Th e glass is half full, not half empty, right?” Interjection. D. Eby: Th e Housing Minister is taking exception.

Maybe I can bring him to another one of his quotes about the need to collect statistics. “We don’t need to collect sta- tistics, ” says the Housing Minister. “We’ve worked with the real estate guys for years and have got data on sales. ” Th en again from the Housing Minister on housing prices in Vancouver, the same year it was found to be the least aff ordable city in the world when local incomes were looked at. What did the Minister for Housing say? He said housing prices in Vancouver were “actually pretty reasonable. ” Th at was his opinion.

Here we are, just a few months later, where our Housing Minister was insisting everything is just fi ne. Our Finance Minister is saying no, it’s like six families who he knows who have made the decision to buy a house for their stu- dent going to Vancouver Film School. And what happens today? Well, the Finance Minister drops another set of data, an additional set of data to his very strange 14-day set of data. We were all: “Well, that was really strange — 14 days. Th at was an unusual release of data. ” Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order in the House, please. [1335] D.

Eby: It didn’t include the end of the month, the busiest time for real estate closings. Now we get the end-of-the-month data. Now we understand the government’s panic. Now we understand why we’re here for the emergency session. Th e numbers are double what the government originally presented to us. With all the problems with their data collection — collecting data on international people instead of inter- national money itself — clearly, they realized they were in trouble. So here we are today, a 180-degree turn from where we were with this government just a few short weeks ago.

I’m going to address all three parts of this bill that has been brought before us, that the government hopes will stop the opposition from continually pointing out they could care less about Metro Vancouver housing aff ordabil- ity. Th ey had to be dragged here kicking and screaming. First, I want to point out a few things.

If it wasn’t for the offi cial opposition raising this issue day aft er day — issues of corruption in the real estate industry — the stor- ies that hard-working journalists like Kathy Tomlinson of the Globe and Mail brought forward in her eff orts to uncover shadow fl ipping, the families aff ected by fraud who came forward, the realtors who came to my offi ce to provide information about what they saw that was taking place, we would not have seen the reform in this industry that we are seeing as a result of the eff orts of those people who came forward.

I want to thank them very much for believing that they could see reform, that there could be change if they spoke out and if they investigated. I am greatly appreciative of that. How did we get to those kinds of profound issues in the real estate industry, that the industry actually lost self-regulation, that the government took that away from them after facing this incredible pressure? The government systematically underfunded FICOM. What is FICOM? FICOM is the umbrella organization that includes the superintendent of real estate.

Th e credit unions, the real estate agents, the pensions pay money into FICOM to pay for their own regulation. What does the government do with this money? Do they take it and put the money into auditors, into investi- gators to police the real estate industry to make sure that everything is ticking along just fi ne in the credit unions and the pensions and so on? No, $3 million a year, the Finance Minister told me during estimates, is clawed back from that money into general revenue for the gov- ernment.

So $3 million that was paid by industry for regulation did not go to regulation but was instead taken as an additional tax by this government from industry. No wonder we ended up in this situation, where the very agency responsible for overseeing the real estate in- dustry was systematically underfunded by this govern- ment clawing back that money. Oh, awfully quiet now 13387

British Columbia Debates13388 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 over there. Systematically clawing back the money that the industry paid to ensure that there was proper regulation. I can tell you about the impact of the government’s de- cision. It’s that people in my constituency have unlicensed real estate agents dropping off letters at their homes al- most every day — “I am not a real estate agent. I would like to buy and sell your home” — and taking advantage of seniors. Th e largest real estate fi rm in Metro Vancouver was caught on tape training real estate agents in how to defraud their clients — astounding.

Real estate agents dig through the trash can at that same realtor’s offi ce looking for stolen lawn signs. Th at is the state of the industry that this government brought us to. Th ey want to be patted on the back for trying to get it back under control. It was this government’s failures that brought us to this place — systematically underfunding the regulator, de- regulating without supervision. Where did that $3 mil- lion go? Maybe it went to private jet fl ights. It sure didn’t go into auditors.

I think it’s important to note that for all of those hard- working realtors, many of whom came to my offi ce to thank the opposition for their work on this fi le — and all my colleagues, thank you…. I think for those realtors to know that this government let this activity go on year aft er year by underfunding the regulator is an extra bitter pill to swallow. Th ey fought hard for self-regulation. Many of those realtors conducted themselves ethically. Th ey are of the fi rm belief, which I believe is correct, that there are some bad apples out there who ruined it for everybody.

It was this government who enabled that situation. [1340] Now this law takes away self-regulation from them. Okay. I guess that’s a response. But let’s ask the question about what’s happening in New Coast Realty, a fi rm that was brazen enough to advertise that if you were a seller that wanted to sell to corrupt offi cials from China, they were the best agency to approach. What’s happened there? Well, now they’re actually training real estate agents. Th ey’re now a school for real estate agents. Th is is the same real estate agency that was caught on tape training the realtors how to defraud clients.

Now they have a school for realtors. Th at’s this govern- ment’s action on the fi le. Th at’s where we are right now — running realtor schools. It’s astounding. It’s not fair to say nothing has changed. Th ey’ve found a new type of busi- ness to train up the real estate agents of tomorrow. I’m sure the government is as enthusiastic about that as I am. Th e government says this bill will help with that. But, to be blunt, the existing rules prohibited all of the con- duct that that agency was engaging in. Th e existing rules already prohibited it. It was the failure to enforce the rules.

It was the underfunding of the regulator. I heard the Finance Minister say that he’s going to dedicate money to additional auditors. Well, I’ll believe that when I see it. I bring issues to this House. The Leader of the Opposition brings issues to this House — allegations of money laundering in our real estate market. We can’t fi g- ure out who’s responsible for investigating that. Th e prov- ince doesn’t know who’s responsible for investigating that. Investigative reporter Sam Cooper doesn’t know. He went to six diff erent agencies to ask who is responsible for in- vestigating SunCom — couldn’t fi nd an answer.

Th e Finance Minister says: “Well, maybe it’s time to bring on a couple more auditors to police our new bill. ” Well, that would be a fantastic idea. Th e second part of this bill is the city of Vancouver’s vacancy tax.

I want to take a moment to refl ect on the fact and to thank the city of Vancouver — fed up, like every- body, of this province not taking action — for standing up and saying: “If this province doesn’t take action, we’re going to go it alone because we can’t wait any longer, and here’s the thing we think we can do on our own. ” It forced the province into action, forced us into this sitting here, and I want to thank them for doing that.

I had to listen, the Leader of the Opposition had to listen, and my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill had to listen to this Finance Minister and this Premier day aft er day. “Th ere’s no vacant home problem. Th e data has shown this thing was all made up. It’s not a real issue. We’ve got the data now. ” Except the data showed there was a real issue — 10,000 vacant condos in the city of Vancouver.

Th e Finance Minister: “Oh, I don’t know. ” So now here we are, like in some weird parallel uni- verse, and the Finance Minister brings forward legisla- tion for vacant homes that he said weren’t an issue in the city of Vancouver, legislation to deal with this problem that he says he thinks is going help increase the rental housing stock. Well, it’s wonderful, again, to have him join this conversation a year late and with some really unusual ways to deal with it. I’ll get into that. Let’s talk about this provision that’s put forward for the city of Vancouver’s vacancy tax.

First of all, clearly, we have a regional issue. His own statistics today show that this is a regional issue in Metro Vancouver, spreading over to the south Island. We get a solution for one mu- nicipality. Th e reason? Th e reason, he says, is he wants consensus from the UBCM before he’ll move forward on other areas of the province. This is enabling legislation. Any municipality that wants to do this, if you’re enabling them, if you’re giving them the power to do it, could do it, or they could choose not to do it. It’s up to them.

Why would you enable the city of Vancouver alone but not enable other cities in the Lower Mainland or across the province or in the south Island to do the exact same thing? If it’s such a great idea, enable everybody to do it and let them decide for them- selves. It’s a very unusual objection. I think it would be really helpful to read a

section of the bill particularly related to this vacant property pro- posal to really get a sense about how diffi cult this will be to implement.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13389 [1345]

Section 621 creates a new power for the city of Vancouver inspectors to “enter onto a residential property…for the purpose of determining the status of the property and whether the property is subject to the vacancy tax. ” Let’s just take a second here and think about this. We’re empowering the city of Vancouver inspectors to en- ter property to determine whether or not it’s vacant. So what do you suppose that the inspectors should be look- ing for when they’re entering onto a property to look for whether or not it’s vacant? I don’t know. I think that’s a fair question to ask.

Also, is the mechanism that’s proposed here to deal with this issue…? Is it proportionate to the issue that we face, and is there a better way to do it? Is there a better way than sending a city inspector onto someone’s prop- erty to — I don’t know what — look in the windows to determine whether it’s vacant? Is there a better way to do that? Oh yes, there is. Y es, there is. Th ere’s a proposal that has come forward — Sauder School of Business — endorsed by 40 economists who used the income tax system to determine whether a property is vacant. Y ou’ve got the homeowner grant ap- plication as a primary residence.

Y ou’ve got declared rents received for renting out the place. If it’s a second- ary residence and there are no rents, you don’t need to send someone to look in the windows. It’s pretty straight- forward. And yet, this is the mechanism that the province brings forward to us — city inspectors looking in people’s windows to see whether or not their homes are vacant. Now, if this were the fi rst time this had been tried around the world, I would understand that maybe you’ve got to take a shot to do something. Y ou’ve got to try something.

But the city of Paris did this, and it didn’t work, because it’s easy to evade this kind of tax if you’re not using the income tax system. I think it’s important to understand the context of the vacant condos. Y ou’ve got the head of the largest in- vestment fi rm in the world, Laurence Fink, the head of BlackRock, telling the world’s investors to buy Vancouver condos. Y ears ago he gave this advice. Th is legislation that comes forward to us today does absolutely nothing to tax any of the international money already in our housing market — absolutely nothing.

I heard the Finance Minister say: “Oh well, I look for- ward to hearing how your 2 percent tax proposal stacks up against our 15 percent tax proposal. ” Well, fair enough. If the minister wants to have a conversation about tax lev- els, if his main objection to our proposal is that the tax is too low, let’s have a conversation about that. But the taxes work very diff erently. Th e tax that we’ve proposed taxes all the money that’s already in our real estate market. If you are not paying your worldwide tax in B.C., you have to pay this tax if you own property. It’s very straightforward.

Now, for the min- ister’s proposal, it starts on August 3. So for everybody who’s in before August 3, there’s no new tax. It doesn’t deal with it at all. To pretend a 15 percent tax is more signifi cant when it doesn’t deal with the 10,000-plus vacant condos linked to international investors like Laurence Fink…. I think it’s fair to say this measure doesn’t go where it needs to go, which is to follow international money, including the money that’s already in our housing market.

Again and again in his speech, the minister referred to international capital, but the bill in front of us does not talk about international capital. It talks about inter- national people. It is going to capture people in the im- migration process who have moved to Metro Vancouver, who are starting a life, who are paying taxes, who are working, who are not citizens, and it will not capture any of the international speculators who have dumped money into Metro Vancouver with impunity for years.

Let’s talk about the advantages of the proposal the government didn’t choose, which actually looks at inter- national capital. It doesn’t look at international people. When you use the income tax system to say, “ Are you paying your worldwide taxes here?” instead of saying, “What’s your citizenship status?” then you have an inci- dental eff ect of catching domestic laundering. We’ve got a huge drug problem, a drug war that we’re dealing with in Surrey, street violence, fi ghting over the proceeds of the drug trade. Where are those proceeds going?

FINTRAC tells us that our real estate market is particularly vulnerable to money laundering. We could catch domestic money laundering in our housing mar- ket if we used the income tax system and linked it up to real estate transactions. [1350] We could catch international money laundering. A story in the newspaper on Sunday, Sam Cooper, allega- tions linking SunCom — a B.C. Liberal donor — to a huge fraud in China. Half a billion dollars in residential real estate transactions associated with that would also be captured by this measure.

Y ou would actually catch international capital, regard- less of whether it was a Canadian or a permanent resi- dent or — the government’s preferred term — a foreign national. It doesn’t matter who’s spending it. Th e impact is the same on our housing market. Y ou would capture all of that money, not just some of it, depending on who spends it. It would send a message of welcome to all of the im- migrants who come to our community to work here and participate in our economy and pay taxes here, be- cause they would be exempt from the tax regardless of their citizenship status.

If you’re here on a work permit, we’ve probably recruited you because you’re such a high- ly skilled worker, and this government wants to put an additional tax. Now, importantly, this tax does not privilege people who spend $800,000 loaning money to the government

British Columbia Debates13390 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 of Quebec to buy a permanent residence. It privileges the people who wait in the immigration queue and are work- ing in our community and paying taxes here. Th e govern- ment would exempt that kind of activity from their tax. It catches all of the money that’s already in the hous- ing market. Th e government’s proposal doesn’t catch one dollar that’s already been put into our housing market by international speculators, so all those vacant condos — not captured by the government’s tax. Th e tax that we’ve proposed is collected annually. It’s not a one-time tax.

It could easily be seen as the cost of doing business. Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in the hous- ing market — appreciating 10, 15, 20 percent; Tsawwassen, 100 percent. So this 15 percent tax is less than the depreci- ation in our currency in the last couple of years. At best, we’re in the same situation, in terms of aff ordability for international buyers, as we were a few years ago. Our proposal also allows other communities to opt in. Th is proposal focuses on Metro Vancouver, even though we know on the south Island you’re already starting to see signifi cant activity.

What this is going to do — if it works exactly the way the government thinks it’s going to work — is displace that money directly into the south Island. I’m not sure why the government would do that. It’s profoundly ironic that we had to listen to the Finance Minister extol the virtues of this proposal as somehow rolling out the welcome mat to the world when in fact it does the complete opposite. It says that if you’re a foreign national, we’re going to tax you no mat- ter what you’re doing. Th at’s a very diff erent message than the message: “It doesn’t matter who you are.

It mat- ters what you do. ” Now, there are a couple of major loopholes in this. Th e fi rst is that as a Canadian, I could set up a company, fully capitalized with international money, buy up as many homes as I want in Metro Vancouver and not pay a cent of tax. It seems to be a pretty serious issue, especially in light of the reports related to SunCom — crowdfunded real estate, money from serious allegations of inter- national corruption. Another loophole.

If I buy up all the presale condos in a particular building or a fl oor or just a couple of units, and then sell them like concert tickets or hockey tickets for a markup — totally exempted from this tax. Th ere’s a very live question about whether large rental buildings are exempted from this tax. Y ou have a multi-unit rent- al building, which is not classifi ed as residential for the purposes of this act. I’m going to be asking the minister about that during the committee stage. [1355] I think one of the important things to note….

Obviously, I have some profound issues with what the government has put in front of us today, but I’ve got to say, it’s better than nothing. It’s better than nothing, and it’s better than dealing with a government that refuses to acknowledge that there’s an issue, day aft er day, when you start to wonder whether the speaking notes can defy real- ity. Clearly they can’t. Clearly even this government had to acknowledge that there was a serious issue.

We are in an election year, aft er all, so I am very glad, fi rst of all, to see that we’re actually having a conversa- tion about what’s happening in our housing market and that we’re past the denial and we’re past the obfuscation and the political attacks and all the garbage that we had to deal with to get here. But again, I have to emphasize, because this is critic- ally important, that the issue is not international people. Th e issue is international money. Th is government’s tar- get of international people is completely the wrong target.

We’ll get no explanation of how people are buying million-dollar homes with poverty-level incomes with this proposal. We’ll get no task force to chase allegations of money laundering and tax evasion in our housing market with this proposal. We won’t get even what the Finance Minister was talking about in his speech. Th is doesn’t address supply. Th is doesn’t address transit. He likes talking about it, but I’m still waiting for that big an- nouncement about all that aff ordable housing supply for Metro Vancouver. Th is government’s law is good for a headline, and it’s a good start to start the conversation.

Finally, they’re ad- mitting we have a serious problem, so welcome to the conversation. I’ll be supporting the bill for what it is, but we’ll be put- ting forward amendments to try to fi x it. I’m going to be blunt. When the government made light of our concerns, when they made jokes about our concerns, when they denied that our concerns were real…. Here we are today with them acknowledging that it’s a serious issue. I have a feeling that if they don’t take our advice seriously today, we’ll be back here in six months again. Interjections. D. Eby: Oh, four months.

We’ll be back here again with the government trying to fi x what they’ve done here. Interjection. D. Eby: I’m sure the member from Shaughnessy would love to go back to his constituents and assure them how lightly he takes the issue of international money in the housing market. I would like him to put that on a fl yer and drop that at the doorstep of every one of his con- stituents, who are incredibly annoyed that their MLA has been absent on this issue for so long. Y ou know how I know that, hon. Speaker?

Because they come to my offi ce to tell me that they wish that this government took the issue of international money in our housing market seriously. Hon. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportun- ity to address the bill, and thank you very much for the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13391 opportunity for us to fi nally have a serious conversation about this serious issue. Hon. P . Fassbender: I’m delighted to rise and speak to Bill 28 today. I appreciate that the member from Point Grey probably sees himself as the next leader-in-waiting aft er the next election. But I can also say that we as the government are committed to ensuring that we do every- thing we can to deal with issues on housing aff ordability and access to housing. I know clearly that it isn’t a sim- plistic issue.

Th ere are many aspects to it. [1400] Th e member for Vancouver–Point Grey spoke about the fact that we have not talked about transit in this dis- cussion. Well, actually, no.

We took action on transit by putting $130 million recently on the table to ensure that the $370 million from the federal government could be invested in Metro Vancouver to provide transit that will help to populate the supply that we need in the region, to provide housing to people along transit corridors and to ensure that by providing that supply, we make hous- ing more aff ordable for British Columbians who choose to live in this great province and in the region of Metro Vancouver. I take a bit of off ence when the member also spoke about the fact that we’ve done nothing on housing aff ordability.

Th e Minister for Housing has made a number of announce- ments with the Premier — $350 million invested in low- cost housing to meet the needs of those people in the region, and particularly in the city of Vancouver, who need housing. We’ve done that by investing additional dollars to pro- vide the impetus to work with the industry, to work with non-profi t organizations, to provide aff ordable and low- cost housing. Th at is a signifi cant commitment to the re- gion and to the city of Vancouver.

Th e province and the Premier have said repeatedly that we are going to make every eff ort we can on a number of fronts — not just on one, but a number of fronts — to ensure that that dream of owning a home is reality for young people in our communities. Th e honest review of that says that millennials’ view of what a home means is quite diff erent than it was for my wife and myself and our parents. We clearly see that Vancouver is a city — as is the city of Surrey, as is the city of Coquitlam, as is the city of Port Moody, and Port Coquitlam. Th ey are communities that people want to live in.

Th ey’re moving into communities that have jobs, that have a future for their children, that have great education programs. Th at is because we’ve continued to build an economy in this province — not only in Metro Vancouver, but throughout the province — that provides hope for mil- lennials and for their future and the future generations. Th e results of that are very obvious by the fact that we’re leading the country in terms of our economic growth and the forecast for the coming years.

I believe that the people of British Columbia, when they see what this government has done, is doing and is committed to continuing to do, will see that we are about action — not empty words, not empty promises that we hear from the opposition, but action that has de- livered results, month in, month out, and over the time this government has been honoured to serve the people of British Columbia. I do want to speak a little bit about the issue of transit and aff ordability and all of those.

Last week, on Th ursday, Deloitte held a forum in the city of Vancouver and invited a cross-section of people from the development industry, from academia, from the fi nance world, from the real es- tate industry, from local governments, to come together and to talk about the housing issue, not just in Metro Vancouver but throughout the province. Th e message that came out of that was very clear.

Th ere is signifi cant opportunity, as a result of the investment that this government has made in transportation in the region, to take advantage of that growth and those op- portunities and the lift in property values, to reinvest in transit. We look around the region, and you see what is going to be happening around the Evergreen line when it opens.

Already there is development happening as a result of that investment. [1405] What was clear from the people at that forum is that the benefi t of those transit investments will increase sup- ply, and that supply and some of the profi ts from that supply should be reinvested into continuing to build the transportation system. What was also obvious was the message that we heard from the development industry about the challenges they face to keep supply moving because of the time that it does take in some communities to get development pro- posals through.

Th e Minister of Finance spoke of 108,000 units currently in the pipeline that are waiting for approv- als, some much longer than others. Th e reality is that if we can work together to open up that pipeline, to bring that supply into the marketplace, we will meet a lot of the needs that we see today, and we will see prices moderate because supply is there. We know there is demand, and there is local demand. Th e fi gures that the Finance Minister released today clearly show that the demand in the market by people already in the market is signifi cant.

Y es, the measures that are being introduced in this bill will help to deal with some of the foreign investment by foreign nationals. We’re not picking a jurisdiction or a country. We’re looking across the board in terms of that investment, as other jurisdictions around the world have done. Th ey have imposed this kind of a tax for foreign nationals who are not residents, who do not have land- ed immigrant status, who are not residents of that par- ticular jurisdiction. Th at is why we’re doing what we are doing today.

British Columbia Debates13392 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 We clearly know there are eff ects from this tax. Many of us have already heard feedback from the real estate industry and others who question whether or not this is the right approach. But we are committed to taking this fi rst step, along with the other steps that we are taking — in transit, in other areas of supply management — to ensure that it is a comprehensive look, not a one-off , at what it is going to take to deal with the issues that we face.

We also want to make sure, by increasing the supply, that for people who are in a position to rent and want to fi nd a home, there is incentive for the development com- munity, by speeding up the process so that they can get that supply on the market — and again, that that can be around the transit corridors, not just the rapid transit corridors, but a regionwide approach to it as well. I know that when the Minister of Finance met with the mayor of Vancouver, they had a very open and a frank discussion about the measures that the mayor and the city council in Vancouver wanted and they wanted to focus on.

It was the city of Vancouver that pushed, for quite a while, about taking a look at this. When the min- ister met, he said: “We will provide you, by opening up the Vancouver Charter, the opportunity to implement what you have said you want, but you will be responsible for the criteria and the details and how that is going to be administered. ” Th at goes to the heart of what we as government do in our relationship with local governments: provide them with the tools they need to make the decisions that should rest within their jurisdictions so that they can move ahead, based on how they want to approach that.

And they will be accountable for the measures they put in place to the people who they serve in their jurisdiction. In that meeting, the minister said: “We will move quickly. ” It is important, within the time frame of budget cycles and the other things that the city of Vancouver does, that we would move quickly. Th at’s why this House is sitting, to meet what Vancouver had asked for and giv- ing them those tools. [1410] Th e other measures in the bill are other components of that integrated plan I mentioned that we are commit- ted to moving forward on.

We will continue to look in the future, as we gain more information, as the minister released today…. I fi nd it interesting, again, that the member from Point Grey — who stood in this House and said, “Why doesn’t the government take action?” — now criticizes us for taking the action, saying that it’s not enough and that we should be doing more. Again, this government is com- mitted to taking measured and well-founded steps, based on good research, to make the right moves for the right reason. Th at is why this bill is in front of the House.

In my role in the ministry that I’m honoured to serve, I’ve had a number of calls from other local government offi cials from throughout the province, and there are a variety of viewpoints as to what measures they would like to see put in place. Th e member opposite spoke about the capital regional district. I spoke with the mayor of Victoria, whose focus for me was the concern that they may have a similar problem but also other concerns about derelict proper- ties that they have in her jurisdiction and wondering if there wasn’t a way that we could look at that as part of measures moving forward.

What I said to the mayor is: “I would hope that you and your colleagues throughout the province will watch what happens in Vancouver and will also, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in September, bring forward ideas that you as local governments would like to see. ” Again, that is a recognition of the importance for them to look carefully at what they would like to do in their juris- dictions. Th e learning that will come out of Vancouver’s experience will help to populate that. Th at is why, because of the pressure from Vancouver, we are dealing with the Vancouver Charter.

We are pre- pared to enter into those discussions, on an ongoing basis, with other communities throughout the province. If, in- deed, changes to the Community Charter are warranted and asked for by local governments through UBCM, then this government will be prepared to take a look at those. When it comes to the legislation that is before us — it has been said many times, but it bears repeating: this legislation enables, but does not require, Vancouver to impose the vacancy tax that they’ve asked for.

Th ey may very well decide that there are implications for what they thought they might like to do and that they perhaps do not want to do. Th at’s why the legislation is enabling. Th ey can choose how to move that forward, what ele- ments of what they have thought they want to impose, and how they do it. Th at will be done through their local bylaws to ensure that there is a process and good communication to all of the residents of Vancouver.

Th e legislation absolute- ly balances the fl exibility in enabling Vancouver, but it also ensures that there is certainty for those people who live in the jurisdiction and who have properties which may not be vacant under the defi nition and some of the guidelines that are outlined on what the city of Vancouver needs to do. I also want to make it very clear — because I’ve been asked this question — that the legislation provides the authority. Th e tax applies only to residential land and improvements and will not apply to properties otherwise exempt from property taxation.

Th at, again, is a clarifi - cation that I think is important. Vancouver is also — be- cause of our desire and, I believe, the city of Vancouver’s desire — limited to using the moneys that they receive under this vacancy tax for initiatives that respect aff ord- able housing and for the administration of the tax, of course. [1415]

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13393 Vancouver is going to be responsible for the design details, the implementation, the administration, the collection and the enforcement of the tax. The pro- posed legislation enables a self-declaration approach. Vancouver may require information from property owners regarding the status of their residential prop- erty and seek verifying evidence as to whether or not the property is vacant or occupied.

If such information — and it was clearly stated by the Finance Minister — is not provided, Vancouver has the recourse, including con- sidering the property to be vacant and thereby taxable. In order to support this framework, the legislation also requires or permits Vancouver to cover various matters in its vacancy bylaw, including establishing the length of time for which and the circumstances in which a property is defi ned as vacant property and establishing exemptions from what would otherwise be considered vacant property — for example, properties in probate or awaiting a demolition permit.

All of those things are included. Determining the basis of the tax, which could be on any other basis related to taxable property, such as by parcel or percentage of assessed value. Also, establishing the rate or the amount of the tax, which may be diff erent for diff erent categories of property or property owners. Establishing the process for the administration and the collection of the tax, which may use existing taxation powers, including tax sale. Defi ning the type, form and suffi ciency of verifying information and evidence that must be provided by a property owner regarding the status of their property.

Th en, fi nally, providing for the preparation of an an- nual report that includes the amount of moneys raised by the tax and how they were used. Th e Minister of Finance spoke about the fact that we have 2.5 million people within the Metro region. It is an- ticipated — in cities like the city of Surrey and with the growth that’s happening in the northeast sector — that that is going to increase to another million people in the next 20 years.

In order to be able to deal with that growth, this gov- ernment is absolutely, as I said, committed to working with local governments on transportation initiatives — not just on rapid transit lines, but throughout the region — to ensure that we have the supply of aff ordable and achievable property and housing that will ensure that young people can fi nd a home and fulfi l that dream of home ownership. We also want to be sure there’s enough supply for rental properties. Th at, again, is something that we see throughout the region and throughout the province as a challenge.

What we are doing here, what we are doing in transportation planning, is going to ensure that we will have the supply that is necessary. We will continue, as I said, to work with other govern- ments throughout the province of British Columbia. We will analyze the steps that are being taken and the infor- mation that comes out of it.

We will continue, as a government — not only in the next coming months, but when we are returned back to this House — to work with local governments, to fi nd solutions for the people of British Columbia that will also honour the fact that we want to see continued investment in the province, to see continued economic growth, to see continued balanced budgets that will also ensure a sound and robust economy for every British Columbian. We recalled the Legislature to make sure that we move on those things today that we can.

I look forward to the members opposite voting in support of this piece of legis- lation, because it is the right thing to do for the right rea- sons, and it is only part of our comprehensive economic strategy for the province. [1420] C. James: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act.

I want to begin with the title, because I think there’s some irony in the title of this bill, which talks about housing priority initiative act, given that we’ve seen just the opposite, in fact, from this government — just the opposite when it comes to priorities around housing. W e only need to look back to when this government was elected in 2001 to see — whether it’s social housing, whether it’s aff ordable housing, whether it’s supports for tenants and rental housing, whether it’s building co-op housing — this government has completely neglected the crisis that we’ve seen in British Columbia.

Th ey cut pro- grams and services for aff ordable housing for the most vulnerable in this province. From 2002, when they began their core review, this government gutted supports for housing and for the most vulnerable. Th at was the direction that they took. We are seeing the results of that all across this prov- ince. I have seen it right here in my own home commun- ity with a tent city that grew up out of a lack of aff ordable, supported housing in our city.

It was something that they’ve been told by opposition, by social groups, by the homeless, by community organ- izations, by the incredible not-for-profi t sector in this province that works so incredibly hard without supports to be able to try and provide for the most vulnerable, to be able to try and provide for families — and others in our province, seniors — who aren’t able to fi nd housing. Th at’s the result, again, of what we’ve seen by this govern- ment since 2002.

It should be no surprise that we are standing in this House talking about an aff ordability crisis, talking about a housing crisis when you look at the record of this government. I want to take my time today to speak about three par- ticular areas. First, I want to talk about the approach that the government has taken on this bill, because it’s an ap- proach and a pattern that we have seen in a number of

British Columbia Debates13394 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 areas from this government. I think it’s important to put it on the public record, because I think it speaks to a lack of direction and a lack of a thoughtful approach to gov- erning in British Columbia. Second, I want to talk about the specifi cs of this bill and talk about what’s in it and what is not. Th ird, I’ d like to talk about what could have been. I oft en hear this government saying: “Well, what ideas have you got?” In fact, I want to put forward those ideas that were proposed a number of months ago by our leader and by the offi cial opposition.

In speaking to Bill 28, I want to start with this govern- ment’s approach to this legislation. We’ve seen for more than a year, now, that this Premier and this government and the ministers — both the Finance Minister as well as the Housing Minister — have denied and mocked any concerns that have been raised around a crisis in the real estate market and a crisis in housing in British Columbia. I just want to read a few of these comments, because I think this government oft en tries to pretend that they are the fi rst to come to a problem and raise the solution that’s there.

In fact, this government has done just the opposite.

Back in May 2015 — we’re talking about not this year but last year — the Housing Minister said that if you look at the mean cost of housing across British Columbia or the Lower Mainland and compare it to other cities worldwide, it’s attractive internationally — that it’s ac- tually pretty reasonable compared to other cities across the world. “Th ere’s no initiative at this time in govern- ment to go and interfere in the marketplace. ” He said they don’t believe in that. “Th ere is no initiative or research that we’re doing from this ministry with regards to that. ” Is that listening to the concerns that came forward?

Th is is a year ago that we were hearing some very valid issues. What did the Premier say in June of 2015? Th e Premier said: “Th ere are a lot of great places to live. Fort St. John is booming. It won’t be long before you see lots of new people in Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

The views are amazing, by the way. ” Scorn to people who are seriously struggling with aff ordability and trying to provide for their families. [1425] Th e people who come forward and talk to us and, I’m sure, talk to government as well — aren’t heard by gov- ernment, aren’t listened to by government, but who come forward — don’t expect government to do everything for them. Th ese are hard-working families. Th ey’re do- ing everything right. Th ey’re working. Th ey’re trying to provide for their children. Th ey just can’t manage things.

Th e answer from this government, when they come forward with those genuine concerns, is: “Well, just move. Th e views are great somewhere else, ” or “We’ll make it more diffi cult for you. Why don’t we hike your hydro rates? Why don’t we make it more diffi cult with MSP? Why don’t we make sure tuition is out of reach for you and your families so opportunity doors are closed as well?” Th at seems to be the approach and the answer that this government takes when genuine, hard-working fam- ilies are coming forward with real concerns.

In February of this year, 2016 — let’s fast forward; this has been a year of trying to raise these concerns to government — the Minister of Finance says: “We make housing policy, and I know this will, perhaps, shock some people who think a certain part of Vancouver is home. We make policy for all of British Columbia, not just one part.

I’m sorry, but we govern for the whole province. ” I’ll come back to the specifi cs in this bill — in Bill 28, which we’re debating today — that, in fact, only apply to Vancouver, and other parts of the bill that, in fact, only apply to Metro Vancouver, so just the opposite of what the Minister of Finance said. Finally, I think the topper that describes this govern- ment’s attitude when it comes to concerns that come for- ward came from the Minister for Housing, who said: “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day. I don’t know.

Y ou just have to look at the glass as half full and not half empty, right?” Th at kind of attitude has no place in a government that is supposed to represent all of British Columbia. Th ese are genuine worries coming forward from individuals and families — real concerns. Aff ordability is a real issue. Ignoring and ridiculing people and mocking people is not the way to approach things. But, and I think this is the most critical piece, when it’s a problem for the Premier — not for families, not for British Columbians, not for individuals who work hard….

When it becomes a problem for the Premier — too many headlines, too many questions in a scrum, maybe a few polls, and oh, an election year this coming year — then the government decides they’ d better do something. Th en the government decides that they bet- ter come forward with something. Well, I’m sorr y. Th at is a terrible way to run govern- ment. Th at is a terrible way to run government, to decide only to act when it becomes a problem for the Premier, not when it’s a problem for real British Columbians, who this government is supposed to be acting on behalf of. What does that lead to?

It leads to ideas and approach- es on the back of a napkin. It leads to policy solutions that are not thought out. It leads to unintended conse- quences. It leads to a lack of consultation, which means concerns aren’t addressed. It is pretty clear, as I said, that this government isn’t interested in addressing real con- cerns. Th ey’re only interested in addressing concerns that matter to them, for themselves. I’m sad to say that it’s not simply the housing issue that this applies to. Th is is a pattern we see across government.

I’m speaking about it because it relates to Bill 28, but in fact, if you take a look at, for example, education, you see exactly the same thing. Just as the government did with housing, where they

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13395 said there wasn’t a problem, that people should quit whining and they should just be quiet about it, that’s just what they do in education as well. “Oh, school boards and those parents that complain about their kids and not enough money in education — they should just stop complaining. Th ere’s lots of money. ” In fact, the Premier said, in the area of education, that there’s low-hanging fruit. “School boards should just go and make effi cien- cies and make cuts.

Th at’s how they should address it. ” Just as with this housing bill that we’re here debating today, it happens to be an election year this year, so the Premier and the Minister of Education came forward and decided that they’ d give some money back to school boards, aft er saying that school boards had a lot of money. Th ey took credit for giving them their own money back, which is really quite something. [1430] It’s quite an accomplishment to stand up and take cred- it and send out a press release for giving school boards back their own money that they had cut because the gov- ernment had required it.

But that was their argument. “Boards have done such a good job that we think they de- serve to be rewarded for that. ” Again, as I mentioned with the housing bill, it’s a terrible way to run government. Just like the housing issue that we’re debating today, this government told school boards there was no problem on school closures. “Get on with closing schools, ” they told the school boards. But this year, when it happens to be an election year — I’m sure only a coincidence — they decided that they’ d put a fund forward that people could access to be able to keep schools from being closed.

Well, what happened for those school boards over the last three years that closed schools? Just like the housing bill, what happened to all those families who couldn’t aff ord housing over this last year? Didn’t matter then. It didn’t matter over this last year. It didn’t matter for school boards that were closing schools. It didn’t matter for those families. Now, when it’s an election year, it matters. “Now it’s an election year. We’ d better bring the Legislature back in July. Now it’s an election year.

We better make sure that we’ve got a fund put aside to keep those schools from closing. ” Wouldn’t want that to happen because it’s a problem for the Premier and the government. Th ey didn’t care when it was a problem for families. Th ey didn’t care when it was a problem for parents and for students. A terrible way to run government. Th e pattern from this government is to deny the prob- lem. Slam the real concerns that come forward. Th en, when the pressure becomes a problem, scramble and put something together. Call the Legislature back and say: “Oh, we’ve discovered it’s a problem. We have the answer for it.

We have the solution. ” Well, let’s take a look at the legislation. Let’s take a look at the specifi cs that are in Bill 28 and see whether they actually do address the concerns that have come forward. Th ere are four measures in this bill. Th e fi rst, which is the one that I think most people have heard about, that they’re hearing about in the news, is an additional tax, using the property transfer tax, of 15 percent on resi- dential purchases in Metro Vancouver by foreign na- tionals, which is the term that the government uses in the legislation.

Th e second piece of this legislation is a new fund that’s going to be created. It’s a fund called the housing priority initiatives fund. Additional revenue from that 15 percent tax is going to go into that fund, along with $75 million from government. Th e third piece of this piece of legislation is a move to end self-regulation for the real estate industry. Th e fourth and fi nal piece is amendments to the Van- couver Charter to provide Vancouver, and only Vancouver, with the authority to implement a vacancy tax.

I want to take a few minutes to unpack each of those areas because I think it’s important for the public to know what has come forward in this legislation. What are the areas that the government scrambled to put into a bill? Th en, as I said, I’ll close off by talking about what might have been. I think most people will have taken a look at the 15 percent tax and presume that it might address the issue of speculation in the housing market. But I want to raise a number of questions and a number of concerns that arise with this approach.

Th is approach takes focus at foreign nationals and cit- izenship status rather than foreign money that might be coming in and might be used for speculation or for money laundering. My colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, I think, described it very well when he said that this bill taxes who you are — in other words, your citizenship status — rather than what you are doing. Are you here paying taxes? Are you here contributing in the province, or are you not? I think that’s a very important distinction to take a look at. It truly does leave huge loopholes for folks to avoid paying the taxes.

It also does nothing to address any of the speculation money that is already in the housing mar- ket. It addresses new money coming in, buying proper- ties, but it does nothing to address any money that may be here already. Again, I’ll come back to that. [1435] It also doesn’t address the loophole that might be set up with Canadian companies or companies set up in Canada that could be using foreign money to purchase property. Th ey’re going to be exempt. Th ey don’t have to pay because, again, it’s not a foreign national, the term used in this legislation, buying the property.

It’s, in fact, a company set up by somebody else. I think there have been lots of questions raised around property that may be bought by a foreign student com- ing in and utilizing some time here to be able to pur- chase property.

British Columbia Debates13396 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 I think it’s important to remember the questions that are unanswered with utilizing, as I said, the issue of cit- izenship rather than the issue of: are you here? Are you contributing? Are you paying taxes? If you look at people who are, in fact, invited to come to British Columbia…. Whether it’s doctors coming to British Columbia because we may have a shortage or whether it’s other professionals where we have a shortage and people come in, there is a real challenge when you take a look at using citizenship to say that that’s going to be the criteria.

Y et they’re pay- ing taxes, and they’re contributing here in the province. Th at’s very diff erent than someone who is not paying taxes and who is putting foreign money in simply as an investment or, as I said, questions being raised around money laundering, illegal money, drug money, etc., being utilized, which you can track because there is no income tax being paid in the province by those individuals. So a very diff erent approach that’s being taken here. I also think it’s important…. Y ou know, the minister who spoke before me talked about the government taking the time to be able to put this together.

Well, I think there are a whole number of things that we can point to that show time wasn’t taken. In fact, the government could have acted months ago on this issue. But I think the one that I just want to mention is the issue of collecting data. We had suggested a long number of months ago that the government needed to start collecting data on foreign ownership. It seems like a basic step.

If you’re looking at the challenges of money coming in and you’re looking at the real estate market, you want to make sure that you’re collecting data, particularly when you’re looking at a tax or looking at some kind of penalty for people. Y et, again, this government and the Finance Minister refused to act, refused to move on collecting that basic information. In the end, because of mounting pressure — pressure from the outside, pressure from bad headlines, pressure from the opposition — the government decided that they bet- ter start collecting self-reporting citizenship status.

When did they start collecting that information? Th ey started collecting that information in mid-June — not last June, 2015, but this June, just a few weeks ago — to start putting the information together to be able to bring this legislation forward. So when the members stand up and say, “Th is has been a thoughtful approach, and we’ve taken our time, ” I think this alone shows that that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. In the end, it was 25 days of data that was collected for this legislation to come forward.

It certainly doesn’t, from my perspective and, I don’t think, from the public’s perspective, point to thoughtful policy work or point to taking the time to do proper planning on anything that’s come forward. I think another huge and very valid question and con- cern that has come forward is the fact that this foreign speculation tax only applies to Metro Vancouver.

Well, let’s remember — and I read the quote at the beginning of my time — that it was only six months ago that the Finance Minister actually stood up and said: “We make housing policy for all of British Columbia, not simply for some parts of the province. We make it for everyone. ” Well, here we are…. Interjection. C. James: Exactly, except when we don’t. Here we are debating a piece of legislation that simply applies to one part of the province — Metro Vancouver.

It should be no surprise to the government that other municipalities — including the municipality I live in, Victoria, and others in our region — are really concerned about foreign speculation that’s now going to be pushed to our area. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Th is is something we’ve already been seeing — pressure over the last year but pressure, in particular, over the last number of months, six to eight months, where individuals are receiving in their mailboxes, myself included, two or three times a week, fl yers saying: “We have foreign buy- ers. We’re ready to purchase your home. Just give us a call.

We’re prepared for it. ” Th ose are things that have been hap- pening already in Victoria. Outbidding, which is not some- thing that normally we have seen, is happening in Victoria. [1440] We have people who are having people knock on their doors, driving around on weekends in neighbourhoods, asking people if they’re interested in selling their house.

So I think, again, when you take a look at the chal- lenges of scrambling to bring something forward to address the Premier’s problem and the government’s problem — not the families’ problems and the challenges of individuals who are looking for housing — there are going to be consequences. Th e clear consequence here is when a tax only applies to one particular area of the prov- ince, you’re going to see buyers move to other areas that don’t have the tax. Th at’s pretty straightforward. Th at’s going to be a big problem. It’s going to be a big problem in other markets.

I heard the minister say: “Well, you know, other mu- nicipalities can come forward to UBCM at the end of September, and they can raise concerns. ” Well, why didn’t the government listen and do it right in the fi rst place? I think that’s a very valid question for the public to ask. If it was an issue and the government knew it was going to be an issue, why didn’t they take the time and do it right in the fi rst place or act back in February and January when these concerns were coming forward — or a year ago when the issues were raised — so they didn’t have to scramble and bring something forward?

Th e second piece in this bill that I just want to speak to is the creation of a housing priority initiatives fund. As I

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13397 mentioned, this is a fund that the government proposes to put together in this legislation that would receive the dollars from the new foreign buyers tax. Now, I’m a big supporter of spending money on aff ordable housing. I think a housing fund is a much-needed and a long-over- due step. But like everything else in this bill, in Bill 28, there are a number of unanswered questions. How is the money going to be used?

We already have — and we saw it in the spring session — the Premier’s fantasy fund that has $100 million in it from taxpayer money that, if you’ll remember, was actually going to be money from an LNG industry that didn’t material- ize. Th at’s a $100 million fund for the Premier without specifi cs around how those dollars are going to be spent. I think, again, it’s a very valid question to ask wheth- er this fund is going to become one more fund for the Premier and for the government to be able to use and to draw down in what happens to be an election year. I think that’s a very valid question. Interjection. C.

James: Th e member says I’m a bit cynical. Y eah, I think at this point, the government has given me lots of reasons to be cynical. Lots of reasons. Given this govern- ment’s promises in the 2013 election, there is good reason to be cynical, to be skeptical, to be questioning the kinds of approaches that they’re using. We’ll all remember debt-free. Debt-free, when we just saw public accounts come out with the largest debt we’ve seen in British Columbia. Eliminate MSP premiums — I believe that was also a promise made in 2013.

So I think there are some very good reasons to be skeptical about this government putting a fund together that doesn’t seem to have the kinds of checks and balances that are necessary, the kind of accountability around the spend- ing of public dollars that is expected by the public. Th at is good government — to be able to be account- able for those public dollars. Th e powers in this legisla- tion appear to be pretty open-ended — an ability to make loans, to guarantee repayments of loans, to acquire, to construct, to maintain, to renovate housing.

Again, as I said, I’m all for spending money on aff ordable housing, but given this government’s track record on other areas, it’s critical that those checks and balances be in place. So I’m very concerned about that

section of the bill as well. Th e third area in this bill is the move away from self- regulation for the real estate industry. Y ou know, again, I think we have to remind everybody who moved the government, who moved this industry to self-regulation. Why, it happened to be this government. In 2004, in an effort to end red tape, the Finance Minister of the day, Gary Collins — I’ll just read from his quote — said: “Th ese changes will help to ensure that this important industry remains a vibrant part of our econ- omy for years to come….

By replacing the…act, we’re ensuring that people who retain the services of profes- sionals or purchase units are better protected and at the same time reduce unnecessary regulatory requirements. ” Well, here we are putting back in place those regulatory requirements. Th ink of all the years lost. [1445] I also want to say that it’s important to note that the vast majority of real estate agents are ethical and support- ive and work properly in the industry.

And the reason that you need to make sure that the regulations are there is to weed out the few bad apples so that the good real estate agents, the vast majority of people in this industry, aren’t targeted with that bad behaviour. Because when there are a few bad apples, people presume the whole in- dustry is the problem, and it’s not. It’s a few bad apples. But because this government got rid of regulation and put in place self-regulation, those few bad apples were able to wreak havoc and cause problems for individuals. It’s a good move. I’m glad this

part is coming, but again, let’s remember: it’s this government who brought it in as a way of reducing red tape. Th ey’re fi xing their own mistake. Th e last piece, of course, is the vacancy tax. Again, the Minister of Finance ridiculed the idea of a vacancy tax. He called it an economic wall that the opposition…. How dare we propose something like a vacancy tax? It took the mayor of Vancouver to give an ultimatum to this govern- ment, to say, “We’re going to go on our own if you don’t act, ” for this government to actually fi nally do something.

Y et again, instead of thoughtful planning, instead of do- ing something that was going to support the province, this government decides: “Well, we’ll try it out. We’ll put a vacancy tax in place in Vancouver. ” Well, you could have diff erent sides of the street having diff erent rules in place. Again, it might be a tool. My city, Victoria, has said it may be a tool that they might want to use, now or in the future. Th ey’re starting to look at how they can gather the information to know whether it’s going to be a helpful tool.

Well, if this government had planned, instead of only reacting when it becomes a problem for them, we wouldn’t see this kind of piecemeal approach. We wouldn’t see where one city has one set of rules, and next door or across the street, there’s another set of rules. What might have been? Well, in fact, in March, a number of months ago, our leader tabled

an act in this Legislature that was called the housing aff ordability fund and speculator fee act. Th is act was researched. In fact, it looked at a proposal, a very innovative proposal, that came forward from the Sauder School of Business and 40 economists, that actually looked at if someone wanted to buy property in British Columbia and they don’t pay their worldwide taxes here, they’ d have to pay a speculation fee. Now, the advantage of this, very diff erent than the bill that’s in front of us, is that it addresses both the current and the future market. Th e government’s proposal sim- ply looks at the future market and only catches one piece.

British Columbia Debates13398 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 Our proposal actually looks at the current and future market. Y ou link it to someone paying taxes. We also said that we wouldn’t penalize simply im- migrants or people who come to British Columbia but in fact people who aren’t contributing and aren’t pay- ing taxes. We also, in our legislation, proposed a task force to fi ght tax fraud and money laundering and a proposal to end shadow fl ipping and close loopholes.

We also pro- posed better tenant support, better protection for rent- ers; renovictions — a huge area in my community that I’ve held a number of meetings on. Th ere are big loop- holes there that need to be addressed. And protection for manufactured home owners. While I’m glad that the government has fi nally brought something forward, it could have been so much more. It could have been a comprehensive housing policy. We proposed, in March,

an act that the government was welcome to take and could have implemented that would have touched on all of those areas, not just a piece- meal approach, that would have looked at a long-term housing strategy, that would have begun to address the aff ordability issue that is a crisis for families around our province, a crisis created by this government — whether we’re talking about housing or MSP , whether we’re talk- ing about Hydro or tuition, whether we’re talking about ICBC. Y ou name it; this government has made life hard- er for families.

Now, when it’s becoming a problem for them, they’ve decided they better scramble and put something together. While I’m glad, as I said, that something has come for- ward, it could have been so much more. Th ere’s a real opportunity to actually act on behalf of the people of British Columbia, which is what a govern- ment is supposed to do. Instead, what we see is a govern- ment that acts on behalf of themselves when it becomes a problem and the rest of the time ignores the public. Well, that needs to change on behalf of the public of British Columbia. [1450] Hon. T.

Wat: It is indeed a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Centre and take my place in the debate on Bill 28. Our government is committed to growing our diverse and strong economy, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of British Columbians and putting British Columbians fi rst. Clearly, in my beautiful riding of Richmond Centre, population has been growing at a rapid rate for the past decade. Th e entire city’s population has jumped close to 9 percent to over 200,000 people from 2011 to 2014.

Our government is committed to providing more af- fordable housing for British Columbians. Increasing density is one of the measures that our government introduced. Let me use Richmond as an illustration. Our government funded Kiwanis Towers, a two-tower aff ordable housing development for seniors in the core of Richmond. Th e 294-unit development replaces an old 122-unit complex. Many seniors moved into this fi rst tower in spring last year. Th is year, a new 129-unit aff ordable rental housing development will also be built to house some of the city’s most vulnerable residents at risk of homelessness.

Today the province is taking further steps to help keep the dream of home ownership within reach of middle- class families and ensure that those who are in a position to rent are able to fi nd a suitable home. Bill 28 will create new measures to help make home ownership more af- fordable, establish a fund for market housing and rental initiatives and strengthen consumer protection. Th is bill addresses an urgent and pressing issue that has person- ally impacted many of my constituents in Richmond.

For several years now, prospective homeowners — and young families, in particular — have felt increasing fi nan- cial pressure as the price of real estate in the communities they call home has continued to rise. For too many of these families, the dream of home ownership is slipping away before their eyes. While many families have benefi ted from seeing the price of their home rise, many more, un- fortunately, fi nd themselves on the other end of this equa- tion and have seen homes become less and less aff ordable.

Th e root of this problem, unfortunately, lies in a prob- lem of too much demand for too little supply, and it’s easy to see why. British Columbia truly is one of the best places on earth to live. We are blessed with a beautiful abundance of natural geography, a diverse and thriv- ing population of hard-working young families and the strongest economy in Canada. British Columbia attracts people from across Canada and around the world to our great province and our beautiful cities.

Th at said, this trend of continuous increases in prices year aft er year has created a challenge for certain British Columbians in their dream of home ownership in Vancouver. Our province’s cities must remain areas where young families can lay down roots and raise a family and entrepreneurs can establish businesses and know that their employees will be comfortable and content where they live and where others can come to lead a prosper- ous life for them and their loved ones. Our government has recognized this.

Last February, we took a number of important steps to address the issue of housing aff ordability for British Columbians in our an- nual budget. We introduced new measures to stimulate the creation of more housing supply, make investments in aff ordable housing and set out policies to gather better data on the impact of foreign purchasers on our real es- tate market. Th is is indeed a complex issue that requires a number of innovative approaches towards solving it. Now I’m pleased to say that we are taking the next steps. Bill 28 will implement a number of important

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13399 changes aimed at bringing home prices into a more af- fordable range for British Columbia’s next generation of homeowners.

Ending the privilege of self-regulation for the B.C. real estate industry will put an end to some of the unscrupulous dealings motivated by greed, which un- fortunately have damaged the reputation of realtors and shaken consumer confi dence in the industry. [1455] Additionally, giving the city of Vancouver the legal tools it needs to implement a tax on vacant homes will help free up idle properties to add to the rental stock and allow more people to rent throughout the city.

Finally, a property transfer tax on foreign nationals purchasing property in Metro Vancouver will help slow demand from abroad and ensure that our province’s cities are not simply another product for fi nancial speculation but a place where people may live and raise their fam- ilies. Th ese measures will be complemented by a housing priority initiatives fund to increase the supply of market and aff ordable housing. Th is fund has already received an initial investment of $75 million.

I must, unfortunately, note that the debate surround- ing the issue of real estate aff ordability in Vancouver has taken on, at times, a vicious tone. Many have resorted to fi nger-pointing, and the Chinese-Canadian community has undoubtedly endured a degree of bigotry as critics re- sort to generalizations while looking for groups to blame for the problem of higher home prices. I would remind those critics that it is Chinese-Canadian families who have been some of the longest-standing homeowners in the Lower Mainland.

Th ey have felt the negative impact of rising home prices just as much as any other families in the region, and they are just as eager to see measures to address this problem. I hope that the measures contained within this bill will keep the dream of home ownership within the reach of middle-class families, as well as ensure that individuals and families seeking a home to rent will be able to do so. Th e province is working on additional measures to address the complex causes of rising housing prices in Metro Vancouver, as well as in other regions of the prov- ince. Th e core of the issue is on the supply side.

I urge both the federal and municipal governments to work together with the provincial government in increasing housing supply so that together we can address the hous- ing challenge for British Columbians. We have a duty to ensure that our province’s cities re- main aff ordable for our children and for our future gen- erations. I’m confi dent that Bill 28 will help forward this goal. Th at’s why I’m pleased to support this legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise in debate today.

My grandmother was fond of saying, and I don’t know whether she had a prejudice against geese or not, that the goose woke up every morning and rediscovered the universe — which, I suppose, is a rather exciting prop- osition. It must make the world a very interesting place.

I wouldn’t wish to compare all of the members opposite to geese, but from a governmental perspective, it’s just like they woke up yesterday morning and discovered there was a housing aff ordability crisis in British Columbia. “Oh my goodness, we have to call the Legislature back into session as quickly as we possibly can and put some- thing out there, because fi rstly, we’ve got the photo op with Justin coming up, and we didn’t want to muck that up.

So we’re fi nally going to agree to do what the oppos- ition has been asking to do for ages, even though it causes chagrin for the member for Chilliwack-Hope” — who, I want to say, spoke eloquently in expressing his views here yesterday and shouldn’t be criticized for it unnecessarily. “Th e second thing is that, of course, we have to politic- ally respond to the obvious” — which is that people who live in the Lower Mainland in particular, and southern Vancouver Island, have come to realize that aft er 15 years of B.C.

Liberal government, the basic Canadian dream of home ownership may well be a fl eeting mirage they see disappearing over the horizon of rising prices all over the province. Th at’s really why we’re here.

Th e geese woke up, and the geese are still actually clever enough to realize, though, that they have a real problem: that the people of British Columbia are starting to fi nally understand that it really is politics all the time. [1500] Th ey didn’t care about aff ordability or issues the oppos- ition raised until, obviously, their own polling numbers started to show that people were genuinely concerned about this issue, that people in British Columbia were realizing that they weren’t better off . Now, those folks who actually owned a home already are better off . Life looks pretty good for them.

We had to respond to legitimate concerns of British Columbians around housing aff ordability. We had to do it quickly, because, aft er all, we’re in that election- year countdown now — well less than a year until May 9, which is going to roll around pretty quickly. So we get the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016. Sometimes, I make little jokes when we get the old misc bill from the Attorney General. I make a little joke about it being tricky. It’s usually just a joke, of course, and no disrespect to the Attorney General or the hard- working legislative draft ers.

But this one, arguably, is a little tricky because it’s all about the politics of it. It’s tricky in this sense. Although it may be draft ed well within one sense of the term “draft ed well, ” it is draft ed extremely quickly and in a way that didn’t give thought to what the proposed solution and its impacts might ac- tually have on housing in British Columbia. Let’s just throw out a simple example. UBC has just cele- brated the arrival of a new president, a distinguished aca- demic. Imagine for a moment that the new distinguished

British Columbia Debates13400 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 president of UBC was an American citizen or a citizen of the U.K. or France or Syria. And presumably, they wanted to come here and buy a house. Would, in fact, this legislation mean that if they want- ed to buy a house, they’ d have to pay an extra 15 percent tax, even though the province of British Columbia and the board of UBC wanted this person to come and head up our largest and most prestigious university?

Does one of these wonderful tech companies that are operating in the province of British Columbia now have to say to the people they want to hire from abroad who maybe work in their London offi ce or their San Francisco offi ce: “Oh, by the way, we’ll cover the special tax you’ll pay as a foreigner coming to British Columbia”? As a for- eigner. We refer to foreign nationals. Now, I don’t want to suggest for a moment that the B.C. Liberals, in desperation, are turning to a Trumpian response to the political problems they face.

But Donald Trump has made a great deal of progress in the United States by talking about what used to be referred to as “the other, ” those other folks who aren’t like us. We’re going to blame the foreigners for our rising real estate prices. We’re going to say to them: “Y ou have to pay a special tax. ” I listened to the minister speak earlier. I appreciate this province has a long and rather sad history of racism.

I think of the Chinese head tax and how members here and members in the federal parliament have acknow- ledged what a dreadful stain that is on the history of this great country and this province in particular. But this bill just has that rather ugly element of that. What are we really trying to stop here? Are we really try- ing to stop people who aren’t citizens or don’t have status here from coming to British Columbia, from purchasing businesses? Are we trying to prevent them from oper- ating here? Are we trying to prevent them from creat- ing employment for British Columbians who happen to enjoy citizenship?

What is the point of this legislation? I would suggest, cynically…. Th e member for Victoria– Beacon Hill very kindly simply referred to me as “ the member” when I muttered during her eloquent remarks earlier today about being cynical. I think I’m cynical enough to think that this really isn’t about good public policy. Th is is ultimately about the politics of the prob- lems the Liberals have seen growing and developing over their 15 years in power. Th e fact is we have watched house prices, particularly in the Lower Mainland, start to rise. On the one hand, you can say: “Th at’s a wonderful thing.

It shows confi dence in an economy. It’s a benefi t to those homeowners who were smart enough or able enough or lucky enough to purchase in the Lower Mainland. ” By defi nition now, the greater Vancouver regional district has become a special investment zone now in British Columbia, based on this legislation. [1505] When we talk about that and we do it in the context of foreign investment and foreign nationals, what really are we talking about? Do we really want to discourage talented people from coming here?

Does this mean — in an eff ort to ensure or attempt to ensure that house prices will either diminish or stop rising so dramatically — that now public institutions…? I use UBC as an example again. Does that mean now that public institutions will have to take taxpayer dollars or money they raise from a foundation related to the university to pay the extra tax that the new president or the vice-president or the distinguished professor or who- ever’s coming to teach there…?

Does that mean they’re now going to have to use taxpayer dollars to pay and compensate them for the fact they’re paying an extra 15 percent simply because they come from another place? Y ou know, I would feel a little bit guilty if I was trying to play what some might call the race card, but, gosh, it was the Minister of Finance, himself, in Hansard on May 10, 2016, who said: “Tell us about the vacancy tax. Tell us about the economic wall he and his colleagues would build if, God forbid, they were ever to be given the chance to govern British Columbia. ” Th ere are brick walls and there are metaphorical walls.

What is being created here, I would suggest, may create some metaphorical walls that will prevent some of the best people from coming to British Columbia. I’m looking around this chamber today. I can’t com- ment on the absence of any members, but let me just say that most of the people here are descended from immi- grants who may have come in very diffi cult times and very diffi cult circumstances. I’m just not sure that this response to the B.C. Liberals’ political problem is neces- sarily the appropriate one. What does the bill do? It does four things.

It’s going to levy a special 15 percent property transfer tax on resi- dential property in Metro Vancouver. It’s going to create this new housing priority initiatives fund. It’s going to implement the “independent advisory group’s” recom- mendations ending self-regulation for the real estate in- dustry. And it’s going to amend the Vancouver Charter to provide Vancouver — and Vancouver only — with the authority to implement a vacancy tax.

Now, I’ve got to tell you — you don’t have to be an economist or a rocket scientist to figure out that if Vancouver levies a tax on vacant property, that might actually have a consequence for the citizens and voters in Burnaby or Richmond or West Vancouver or North Vancouver or Delta or Ladner or all the surrounding communities in the Lower Mainland that happen to form part of the GVRD. When I heard the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development use the language…. Th ese were his words talking about this ap- proach: “Measured and well-founded steps. ” I’m going to come back to Donald Trump.

Y ou know why Donald Trump is doing well in the States? Because people are sick and tired of hearing the language that politicians constantly use to hide what really amounts to

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13401 the facts before them. To describe this as “measured and well-founded steps” is absolutely preposterous. Th is is anything but measured and well-founded. To suggest for a moment that you’re going to be able to make a diff erence in housing prices and not have signifi cant economic impacts — many of them negative on surrounding local governments in the Lower Mainland — by giving this authority to Vancouver is just utterly preposterous. It is ridiculous. I’m afraid that notwithstanding….

Th e city of Vancouver appears to be grateful for having been given this oppor- tunity. I want to assure the minister — and I know that he’s heard it already from others around the province — that there are many other communities who are not too pleased with this approach. I mean, what is this? Is this some…. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Y ou don’t have to do it. L. Krog: Th e member says we don’t have to do it. Th at’s absolutely right. Th e member’s absolutely right.

I’m always delighted to hear his interruption, because I know he’s an international guy who studied abroad and is very concerned about ensuring we have a free fl ow of ideas from around the planet. Th at’s a very import- ant thing, which is why the B.C. Liberals are bringing in a special tax to ensure that foreigners — it’s made very clear to them — aren’t particularly welcome in British Columbia, unless you’ve got an extra 15 percent. [1510] It’s rather like going to one of those fancy nightclubs where you have to slip a tip to the bouncer to ensure you can get in for an evening’s fun and frivolity.

Again, I’m just not sure that this is good public policy. Because it’s…. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th at’s NDP thinking. L. Krog: Oh, NDP thinking. Well, I’m glad that the minister credits the NDP with thinking, because it’s clear the B.C. Liberals didn’t when they were bringing in this legislation.

What possible logic could there be to responding only to the city of Vancouver instead of all of the municipal governments of this province? “Oh, ” the minister says again, “it’s a measured and well-founded step. ” So you can go trotting off to the UBCM this fall — all you municipal politicians — and go on bended knee to the B.C. Liberals and remind them that, actually, MLAs get elected from all around the province, not just the great city of Vancouver. Maybe you can persuade the minister that this is a political disaster and the B.C. Liberals will reverse it in the spring session.

I’m not entirely sure of that, because if there was ever a party that never admitted they were wrong or made a mistake, it’s the B.C. Liberals. We’ve seen that over and over again. Aft er all, it was only a few months ago when we were assembled in this chamber for a full spring ses- sion that the very concept of the vacancy tax or acknow- ledging there was a housing aff ordability crisis or an aff ordability problem in British Columbia generally was pooh-poohed by all of the B.C. Liberals. I don’t want to go through all the boring quotes that have been assembled by our excellent research depart- ment.

I don’t want to throw all the words of the B.C. Liberals back in their faces and remind them of what they had to say. I see some of the members are smiling. I know that when they’re smiling, it’s not because they think I’m funny. It’s because they recognize the truth as it’s coming home. Having stated that, one of the fundamentals that I hear from the business community is that they talk about an even playing fi eld. What’s the even playing fi eld now? Let’s set aside for a moment the minister’s cogent argu- ments about Vancouver not having to implement the tax.

Let’s talk about the greater Vancouver regional dis- trict. Th at’s the subject of a big chunk of this legislation, and that’s where the 15 percent tax is going to be levied. So how is that fair? What does that mean? What are the consequences for other municipal governments? I see some of the intelligent members over there who actually paid attention in class when they were young. I see some of the intelligent members over there look- ing quizzically. Maybe the gears are starting to turn, and they’re starting to realize there will be signifi cant con- sequences. Again, they’re not all going be positive.

In fact, they may disrupt the economy more than they care to. I look forward to reminding the voters of British Columbia, come May 19 and when we’re in the full swing of an election campaign, that this was their brilliant response. In a cynical world, one might suggest that perhaps this was all about politics. And far be it for me to say it, but I do notice that when we come to the housing priority in- itiatives fund, in particular

section 43 of the bill, we have, among the abilities: “Despite sections 21 (3) and 45 (1) of the Financial Administration Act but subject to the pri- or approval of Treasury Board” — that’s the government, by the way, for those of you who are listening and pay- ing close attention — “the Minister of Finance may pay money out of the special account for the following pur- poses…. ” Th is sounds sweet: “(

c) supporting the acquisi- tion, construction, maintenance, renovation or retention of housing or shelter or the acquisition or improvement of land intended to be used for housing or shelter. ” It sounds like the B.C. Liberals are actually going to build some public housing. Now, who could argue against that? Th at’s a good thing. But then comes the sweet and the sour of all of this. Here’s the potential sour: “(

e) making loans to persons in relation to the acquisition, construction, maintenance, renovation or retention of housing or shelter or the acquisition or improvement of land intended to be used for housing or shelter. ”

British Columbia Debates13402 Tuesday, July 26, 2016 Now, I’m sure the Minister of Finance is going to stand here at some point and say: “Oh, that would only be for non-profi t institutions. Th at wouldn’t be for any private developers whatsoever who might be donors to the B.C. Liberals. ” [1515] Interjection. L. Krog: Well, I must say to the hon. member: I guess I’ve lived in British Columbia long enough and have been bitten oft en enough to know there are snakes under a lot of those rocks. Let’s be straight about this. Does this mean we have a new $75 million slush fund — a $75 million slush fund for the B.C.

Liberals to start awarding contracts to good friends and good supporters, all in the name of satisfy- ing their political problem? A bit disappointing and a bit sad. I would’ve expected more. Again, it’s giving enormous power to the minister, es- sentially, to dip into a fund, again subject only to the ap- proval of Treasury Board. It’s not even subject to cabinet approval. It’s just Treasury Board alone. Th e power is get- ting narrowed down here. I mean, at least in cabinet, I as- sume, you have a bigger debate than you do at Treasury Board. It’s got more members. Perhaps I’m being, again, too cynical.

If the vacancy tax is a good idea, and it’s just enabling legislation, what possible excuse is there not to allow it to be given to all of the municipal governments in the province? I mean, don’t we want a fair playing field? Don’t we want the same opportunity to be given to British Columbians across the board? Th e Lower Mainland is not the only part of the world — and the city of Vancouver is not the only part of the world — that, from time to time in this province’s history, has seen signifi cant growth in speculation or house prices.

It wasn’t that long ago you could have bought a town, virtually, in the north of this province, let alone a house, for virtually nothing. Th en, of course, when the mine gets announced or the mine comes back into production, suddenly prices go through the roof. I didn’t hear the B.C. Liberals showing any concern about those communities over their 15 years in public offi ce. I haven’t heard any great concern, but that’s because that might only have aff ected one seat. Now, suddenly, we’re talking about the whole of the Lower Mainland. Th e whole of the Lower Mainland — there are a lot of seats there.

Suddenly the B.C. Liberals are listening. So what was formerly bad public policy, or good public policy, depending on which side of the coin you’re going to fl ip here…. Suddenly the B.C. Liberals, as so eloquently stated by our leader the other day…. Summer season — we’re back into the fl ip-fl ops. We’ve got a little fl ip-fl op going here. How can it possibly be good for only one part of the province instead of the whole of the province? If this is enabling legislation, and it’s important, then give that possibility to everybody else.

If we’re going to impose a housing tax of 15 percent in Metro Vancouver, why not impose it every place else? I can tell you. I come from a community that’s the third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia. Th ere are a signifi cant number of Chinese families who are investing in Nanaimo, buying businesses, raising their kids there, paying their taxes, buying their groceries. I’m not sure my community wants to discourage those folks from coming and building it, because there was a signifi - cant history of Chinese contribution to my community. Th is tax has a nasty little ring to it.

A nasty little ring to it. If we’re going to carry on with this charade, and it is a bit of a political charade, I must tell you that the oppos- ition has no alternative but to support it. Sad as that may seem, it’s a step forward. At least the B.C. Liberals have acknowledged the problem. Th e next question is: how much money are the B.C. Liberals going to spend adver- tising that they’ve solved the housing crisis in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia? How much money are they going to spend on that?

We know they’ve spent $800,000 talking about the new coding program in school. “We’re going to teach all the kids to jump into the 21st century and spend $800,000 telling the world that that’s a good thing. ” I would be astonished if, in fact, we don’t see a massive advertis- ing campaign coming out of the surplus of taxes paid by hard-working British Columbians, telling them what a great job this government is doing, all at the same time, as other members have pointed out, that they’ve watched their MSP premiums rise, their ICBC rates rise. [1520] Interjection. L. Krog: Th e member could give my speech.

Perhaps he will. Imitation is the sincerest form of fl attery. Th e reality is that British Columbia families are pay- ing more and more and getting less and less. Th e rea- son they’re really angry and frustrated now is because that basic Canadian dream of home ownership is dis- appearing for them. Th e B.C. Liberals fi nally woke up, and now this is the best solution they can come up with in a hurry, because they’ve ignored it and ignored it.

Even by the minister’s own statistics quoted earlier today about the number of foreign purchasers and the percentage it represents of the value of land that’s being transferred…. Frankly, I think many British Columbians will be surprised to fi nd it’s not that big a number. I come back to my point. Is this really about a solution for families in the Lower Mainland or anywhere in this province who can’t aff ord a house or to buy real estate or to buy a condominium? Is this really a solution for them?

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, July 26, 2016 13403 No. It’s a political solution. It’s all about the politics of this. It’s all about shift ing the burden, because the real beauty of this 15 percent tax — I’m again being somewhat cyn- ical — is that it’s levied against people who don’t have the right to vote. Now, how clever is that? Th is isn’t going to apply to wealthy British Columbians who are speculating on the real estate market and may be making it harder for other folks to buy a house. It’s only going to be levied on people who can’t vote themselves, because you have to be a foreign national.

Th at’s the real beauty of this tax. Let us go aft er the foreign nationals. Let us go aft er the other. I’ve got no problem with taking money from rich people and distributing it to people who have a lot less. Th at’s a good thing. I quote the Bible many times in this place. “Easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ” I’ve got no problem with that philosophically.

I do have a problem with it when it is done not out of a sense of virtue or devo- tion to community, but it’s done cynically as part of a lar- ger political scheme to deal with a political problem only. As many British Columbians watch that dream of home ownership disappear, the B.C. Liberals have re- sponded in a way that was ill-thought-out. It was any- thing but measured and sensible. It is, in fact, creating two British Columbias: the greater Vancouver regional dis- trict, or Metro Vancouver, and the rest of us. It isn’t right.

Moreover, all during the course of this — and I think it’s not unreasonable to say it — they have at the same time both inferentially and directly attacked the realtors of this province. We just had Bathtub weekend in Nanaimo. It’s a big event. It’s gone on for a very long time, and it’s the realtors in our community who work hard to ensure that event comes off every year. It’s a signifi cant economic con- tributor, and I can tell you that many of those realtors are not overly happy with the way they have been attacked.

Th is government had the responsibility to ensure that the RECBC had those public seats fi lled, and what are the realtors circulating? Th e information I’m getting from them: they had to beg the government to fi ll those seats. If they honestly had concern about the state of the indus- try, why weren’t they at least fi lling those seats? If you look at the statistics, I’m advised that in ten years, the real estate discipline aspect of it is 5,531 com- plaints resulting in — wait for it — 411 suspensions and 203 fi nes.

Th at doesn’t sound to me like a body that’s not taking things as seriously as it possibly can within the confi nes of the legislation under which it has to operate. Th at legislative initiative and power could have been changed and improved and expanded at any time in the last 15 years, as this housing crisis has grown and grown. Th is just didn’t happen since last May. Th is didn’t hap- pen in the last couple of months. We have watched this develop and develop. [1525] I think there are a number of realtors in this province who don’t feel very good about this government. And as they wisely say…. One of them wro

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160726pm-Hansard-v40n10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160726pm Hansard v40n10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	900406e3ddd5a960a1cecadae6a6406f1a2ff118

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).