2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M238 — Public Health Protection Act, 2016

M. Farnworth

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

125 th anniversary of District of North Vancouver

J. Thornthwaite

Gladstone Secondary School

A. Dix

Summer Reading Club

L. Larson

The Kettle Society

M. Mark

Gordon M c Keever

J. Sturdy

Achievements of B.C. students in international math competition

D. Eby

Oral Questions

Condominium presale contracts and changes to property transfer tax

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Fixed-term leases and affordable rental housing

M. Mark

Hon. R. Coleman

Automobile insurance rates and ICBC revenues to government

C. James

Hon. T. Stone

A. Dix

Youth custody services and incident at Burnaby facility

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

Income assistance policies and legal action by recipients

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Gun violence in Surrey

H. Bains

Hon. S. Anton

Petitions

Hon. P. Fassbender

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

V. Huntington

Hon. N. Yamamoto

K. Corrigan

D. Plecas

S. Chandra Herbert

L. Throness

J. Darcy

J. Sturdy

G. Holman

S. Hammell

J. Horgan

B. Routley

J. Wickens

H. Bains

M. Mark

M. Elmore

B. Ralston

S. Simpson

M. Karagianis

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

[ Page 13431 ]

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature today, in the public gallery, two good friends who I’ve known for many years. They actually live in the riding of Langley and joined me for lunch today, had a chance to say hello to the Minister of Environment, their MLA. John Galvin is a retired school principal and Wendy Galvin a retired teacher. They’re visiting Vancouver Island, spending time today in Victoria.

Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

H. Bains: There are a couple of introductions. First, my good friend Kuldeep Gill with his family and children. They are here with a guest from Ontario. I don’t know whether they have made it up to the gallery yet. They were really worried that the children they have may make a lot of noise. I said: “I doubt it. I don’t think they will make more noise than the people down below here.” But he being from Surrey and humble, he said: “I’ll pass.” Please help me welcome him, his family and the guest to this House.

The second one is…. I’m sure the Minister for TransLink will be making that introduction as well. Udham Hundal is here. He’s a person very, very active in the community. They organize one of the largest, if not the largest, field hockey tournament, inviting players from all over the world. We sometimes call it mini field hockey Olympics. He’s here with his friends. I would like you to please extend a warm welcome to him to this House as well.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To my colleague across the way, I do want the House to know that Mr. Udham Singh Hundal is here. He’s a great supporter of sports and activities in the city of Surrey and has done an amazing job over the years.

He’s also joined today by Mr. Gurbaj Singh. He is an Olympian who represented India in the men’s field hockey at the 2012 London Summer Olympics as a midfielder in the right half position. He and his team also won gold at the 2007 Asia Cup as well as silver medals in the 2010 and 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Also joining us in the chambers is Mr. Gurpreet Singh Guri. He’s a national hockey player from India and a goalkeeper for the Air India hockey team. He’s also played on a number of other national and international teams.

Finally, joining them and us today is Mr. Gagandeep Singh Tung. Mr. Tung is from Surrey. He’s a member of the West Coast Kings Field Hockey Club. He is opening a couple of new businesses here on Vancouver Island.

I would ask the House to make them all feel very welcome.

C. James: We have a group of Victoria area residents who are in the gallery today. They’re both renters and homeowners, and they’re concerned about the affordability crisis in our province. Many are also supporters of the Generation Squeeze and the code red campaign, which is seeking bold action from all members of this House on addressing the affordability crisis and support for a policy principle which is called Homes First. I know they’d all be quite happy to talk to members of all sides of the House about this issue.

There’s a large group, so I won’t introduce them all. I’d just like to recognize Eric Swanson, who arranged for the group to be here today. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by my beautiful wife, Georgina. She’s joined by her cousin Anne-Marie, who’s here travelling from the U.K. It’s her first time back to Canada in about 25 years. She’s joined by her husband, Andy, and her two children, Luke and Hannah.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1340]

M. Karagianis: We have some very special guests with us today, and they are from away, not local constituents. We have in the gallery today Helle and Lynn Hertzberg, visiting us all the way from Norway. I’d like the House to give them a special good welcome here today to our Legislature.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M238 — PUBLIC HEALTH

PROTECTION ACT, 2016

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Public Health Protection Act, 2016.

M. Farnworth: I move that a bill entitled Public Health Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read now a first time.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: A few short months ago, as part of addressing the opioid overdose crisis, the Legislature of

[ Page 13432 ]

Alberta passed legislation that exercised provincial powers in order to restrict the availability of certain pharmaceutical equipment, including pill and tablet presses that can be used to illegally manufacture and distribute fentanyl.

These presses are heavily regulated in the United States. They are now heavily regulated in the province of Alberta. In the rest of the country and, in particular, here in British Columbia, there is no regulation around them.

These presses are contributing to the crisis of fentanyl overdoses that we have in the province of British Columbia. This legislation will use provincial powers to regulate them and allow the province — and the police in particular, who have been asking for these powers — to crack down on these machines and shut down the operators in this province who are producing these pills, who are complicit in the fentanyl and opioid overdose crisis in this province.

This legislation I am tabling today contains similar measures to those adopted by Alberta. It is my hope that it will receive all-party support and thus become part of B.C.’s public health strategy, addressing the fatalities and overdoses that we are facing in this province. I am of the view, like Alberta, that British Columbia should be using its jurisdiction to target the illegal manufacture of these products. This bill will do that.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M238, Public Health Protection Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

125 th ANNIVERSARY OF

DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER

J. Thornthwaite: On August 10, the district of North Vancouver will celebrate its 125th anniversary. Over the years, the district of North Vancouver has evolved into the vibrant community we see today.

In 1891, with 250 residents, the district became the first municipality on the North Shore, stretching from Horseshoe Bay to Deep Cove. But due to reasons that no one can realistically explain, the region today we call the city of North Van left in 1907, and West Vancouver left us in 1912. Although there has been much desire over the years to amalgamate the two North Vancouvers, mostly from the district of North Van, no one is saying we could possibly marry into our affluent neighbours in West Vancouver. But I digress.

This year, MoneySense magazine rated the district of North Vancouver the eighth-most livable place in Canada, making it one of only two B.C. municipalities to crack the top ten. The district of North Vancouver has also gained a reputation as a worthwhile place to visit, attracting tourists from across the globe. Capilano Suspension Bridge, Grouse Mountain, Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge and the quaint Deep Cove are some of the top attractions to #explorebc.

North Van waterfront moves more tonnage than any port community in Canada. The district of North Van is the only deep-sea port community where alpine fauna and wildlife interface within eight kilometres of downtown Vancouver, something our heroes in North Shore Rescue know too well.

The district is hosting a number of events to celebrate this milestone, including a parade, a book launch, and celebrations at Cates Park. For more information on these events, visit the district’s website and attend the wrap-up party September 17.

Would the House please join me in wishing the district of North Vancouver a very happy 125th birthday.

[1345]

GLADSTONE SECONDARY SCHOOL

A. Dix: Yesterday Gladstone alumni and students held an impressive flash mob in support of their school and its future. Gladstone is an extraordinary public school in East Vancouver, recognized by a national magazine as one of the top ten schools in Canada.

It has a world championship–winning robotics program that has transformed the lives of its students and the culture of its school. Gladstone has led a robotics revolution in B.C. schools, leading to the creation of robotics programs in other districts and other communities.

Gladstone is home to the largest high school dance program in the city, an award-winning program with many trophies from competitions. But more importantly, it’s a program that allows students to express themselves in ways that words cannot. It offers free dance education to 200-plus kids per year who cannot afford dance classes in studios.

Gladstone has one of the leading creative writing programs in British Columbia. The Gladstone review publishes a publication every year that demonstrates the quality of the work done by its students.

Gladstone has the largest learning assistance program in the city, with an innovative tradition of involving all of its diverse students in school life. Gladstone has a remarkable and inclusive culture. As one of the students put it: “At Gladstone, you’re not limited to excelling in just one area. You can overlap in interests. Everyone works together.”

Gladstone has over 1,000 grade 8-to-12 students. No school that size has ever been considered for closure in British Columbia — enrolment so large that the student body would have to be broken into four schools if it were

[ Page 13433 ]

to be closed. In addition, there are seven classrooms that are used full-time for adult education and six for learning assistance. Those 13 jam-packed classrooms are counted as almost empty in the capacity assessments of the Ministry of Education, but they are 100 percent full, in fact, in time and in space.

Gladstone’s success is a tribute to its extraordinary teaching staff, to its parents, support workers, community and, most of all, its students and graduates. It’s an example of all that’s great in public education in B.C. for almost 60 years, and as the students said yesterday: “It will do in future.”

SUMMER READING CLUB

L. Larson: School is out for the summer, but that doesn’t mean kids aren’t continuing to use their book smarts. Across the province, children are embarking on journeys of the imagination with the Summer Reading Club. This year’s program theme is “Book a trip,” encouraging kids to tour the world, discover the universe and explore their own backyards through weekly sub-themes.

In Oliver, the Summer Reading Club has been active for 31 years, and upwards of 200 kids register annually. This year, boys and girls will, in addition to their reading record and contest entries, receive a special Oliver library passport to collect stamps and win even more prizes. As such, this program plays an important role in connecting children with their local public library.

Across the province, 247 library branch locations serve more than 360 communities. Through the support of the British Columbia Library Association, B.C.’s public libraries, the RBC foundation and the province, this free program is available at every public library branch.

Each year, this program is enjoyed by 85,000 British Columbia kids between the ages of five and 12. Through taking

part in the Summer Reading Club, these kids develop a positive association with learning and become more confident in their reading abilities. By forming good reading habits at a young age, kids are more likely to experience future academic success and become lifelong learners.

Read a book this summer.

THE KETTLE SOCIETY

M. Mark: It is my pleasure to rise in this House to shine a light on an outstanding organization that is making a real difference in the lives of people living with the stigma and challenges of mental health.

The Kettle Society has been a beacon of light in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for the past 40 years. They provide 26 programs, including outreach, advocacy, housing and health services, including a free medical clinic. They currently have 200 housing units and 150 more under construction, plus a transition house for women fleeing domestic violence.

If you’ve visited the Kettle, you’d know that the heart of their organization is in their drop-in centre. Every time I have been there, the space is full to capacity. The centre is open every day, providing hot meals — in fact, 800,000 per year — plus showers, clean clothing and rehabilitation support.

According to Dennis: “The Kettle has definitely saved my life. They showed me self-esteem, have given me stability and confidence and a reason to continue on in life. They have taught me that I am not alone, that there are other people like me that have problems. It’s my sanctuary.”

[1350]

According to Emily: “The Kettle is a place of empowerment where members are welcomed into an accepting and genuine environment.” After being homeless for four years, suffering from severe depression and PTSD, she says people treated her like she was a lost cause. She says the Kettle helped her to find a place to live, enabling her to go back to school and get a job. Emily says the Kettle has been essential to her in her journey towards recovery.

For Stephan: “There are so many youths like me who have been without so much that they just stop believing in themselves. Without the Kettle Society, so many like me would still be living outside. Now we have a home to come back to.”

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to share about the important contributions the Kettle makes in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

GORDON M c KEEVER

J. Sturdy: Last Sunday at the Whistler Secondary School, there was a celebration of life to recognize the premature loss of a Sea to Sky trail-blazer, Gordon McKeever.

Born to a military family, Gordon never really settled down before arriving in Whistler in 1991. Civically minded but with a natural lens, Gordon left his mark on many aspects of the community. Aside from his terms on Whistler council, Gordon chaired the Whistler Housing Authority at a critical time, as Whistler struggled to be a complete community and realize solutions to the acute need for a range of affordable housing options. To Gordon, it was about balance and what was right. As he said many times: “It doesn’t matter who gets the credit, as long as it gets done.”

To me, one of his greatest community legacies will be his contribution to the Sea to Sky trail — the formalization into an accessible trail of a historic First Nations trading route from the coast to the Interior, and now part of the Trans Canada Trail network. As project manager, Gord was instrumental in its development, and without him, it’s unlikely that the latest segment would ever have come to be.

Gordon was able to finesse into existence the Sea to

[ Page 13434 ]

Sky Marine Trail, the first saltwater segment of the Trans Canada Trail, complete with six kayak campsites connecting the islands of Howe Sound with Horseshoe Bay, Gibsons and Squamish.

While Gordon leaves behind his wife Libby and daughters Meghan and Katelyn, he also left the gift of life to many others as a donor to B.C. Transplant. At the service on Sunday, we heard Lord Byron quoted, and it is apropos:

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,

There is a rapture in the lonely shore,

There is a society, where none intrudes…

I love not man less, but nature more.

I ask that all members of the House join me in extending our sympathies to his family and in saluting Gordon’s legacy.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF B.C. STUDENTS IN

INTERNATIONAL MATH COMPETITION

D. Eby: I’m thrilled to share with this House that 33.3333 percent of Canada’s top-six math students call my constituency home.

Vancouver native Andrew Lin is 16 and has just finished grade 10 at UHill Secondary School at UBC. This young man dedicates his spare time to coaching 40 young math students at Norma Rose Point elementary school and was selected to be one of six Canadian math students to represent Canada in the International Math Olympiad held in Hong Kong just a few weeks ago.

He entered his first math contest when he was in the fourth grade and took top honours with the highest score. For Andrew, “Math is truly about creative problem-solving.” He’s clearly very good at problem-solving. Andrew was joined at this international competition by Ruizhou Yang, also from University Hill Elementary School, a new arrival to our community from China coming to Vancouver in 2013.

Ruizhou has taken top honours in numerous math competitions across Canada and has participated on Team Canada before in 2014. He’s also a badminton enthusiast. Ruizhou was enthusiastic about representing Canada internationally and also about the problems he faced in the Canadian Math Olympiad to qualify. He says: “I enjoyed the logical flow and the comprehensiveness of the questions. For example, the third algebra question could be solved by polynomial factoring, even though the question appeared convoluted at first glance.” I couldn’t agree more, hon. Speaker.

Representing one-third of the entire Canadian team, my constituents played a key role in making our whole country proud this month. Team Canada placed 12th of 109 countries, putting them in the top 10 percent. Andrew received an honourable mention for his placement and Ruizhou received a bronze medal.

It’s important to note that another member of team Canada also hails from B.C. — William Zhao, who received a gold medal and lives in Richmond. Congratulations Andrew, Ruizhou, William, all of Team Canada, all your coaches and parents, for making us so proud of your work internationally.

[1355]

Oral Questions

CONDOMINIUM PRESALE CONTRACTS AND

CHANGES TO PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

D. Eby: When we said it was a serious issue that presale condo flipping was excluded from the government’s new tax, the Premier’s public relations team swung into action. “Not true,” they said. “Nothing to see here.”

I guess they thought we’d be out of session before the problem actually materialized in the community. Unfortunately, it’s already obvious — the implications of leaving this out of the new tax. Vancouver realtor Mike Stewart has circulated a note to clients saying: “For our clients and others who have bought presales we do offer a solution. It is possible in many cases to assign the presale contract to a family member or friend who is a Canadian citizen or resident. For those of you who do not have that option, we may be able to sell the presale to a third party at a profit to you.”

Can the Finance Minister tell the House why he left this massive loophole?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m sure we’ll pursue this in the days ahead as well.

I’m aware of the specific report. I can also advise the House that I’ve been advised that the Real Estate Council and the office of the superintendent have already commenced an investigation of this matter, including the realtor involved.

There are very strict rules contained within the legislation. There are very strict rules contained within the legislation that govern both anti-avoidance by a purchaser and, of course, very strict rules that govern anyone that would attempt to counsel someone to avoid, contrary to the law, the provisions of the additional tax that are before the House today.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister is the only person in the province who still has confidence in the Real Estate Council. Besides which, it’s not clear what this guy did wrong. He’s just telling his clients the truth. The government left it out of the bill. It’s not in the bill.

Tellingly, it’s not just this proposal that leaves the flipping of presale condos out of B.C. law. The Premier also exempted presale condos from her supposed crackdown on shadow flipping.

[ Page 13435 ]

Now, there’s a pattern here. The pattern is that the Premier’s fundraiser-in-chief, Bob Rennie, who raises and donates the money used to pay for the Premier’s $50,000 annual stipend…. This critical person on the Premier’s team sells, almost exclusively, presale condos through his various companies.

Again to the Finance Minister: will he tell the House whether the Premier’s chief fundraiser and major donor Bob Rennie told her to stay away from taxing the flipping of presale condos?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t have all of the material with me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is obviously reading a different reaction to this from the development community than I am reading. We took steps dating back to the preparation of the budget in 2016. We created changes — to that point, the largest single changes in the property transfer tax: exemptions for British Columbians, additional amounts for higher-priced properties.

We collected data. We began to collect data that hadn’t been collected since the 1990s.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve always found it instructive when the opposition jeers at the notion of collecting facts. It is, I understand, far more convenient politically, always has been for them, to develop policy on the basis of theory, conjecture or ideological choices.

We collected that data, and we have made a choice. It is a significant choice to impose an additional tax on investment by foreign nationals into the domestic real estate market.

[1400]

We should be very clear, and I have tried to be very clear, that the purpose is to discourage investment by foreign nationals to ensure that while we take steps to increase the supply of housing, British Columbians — people that live here, Canadians and permanent residents — have a better opportunity at an affordable price to either purchase or rent accommodation and homes.

FIXED-TERM LEASES AND

AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING

M. Mark: Renters across Metro Vancouver are struggling to find affordable housing. Even if they manage to find somewhere to live, some landlords are taking advantage of fixed-term-lease loopholes to raise rents far beyond what’s allowed by the annual increase.

When Michael Rattray, a Vancouver renter, came to the end of his fixed-term lease and it was time to sign a new one, his landlord told him his rent was going up by 20 percent. Such drastic increases put renters like Michael in an impossible situation. They either sign a new fixed-term lease and pay a huge increase in their rent or try to find a new place to live in a desperately tight rental market.

My question is for the Minister for Housing. You’ve known about landlords taking advantage of this loophole for years. Why haven’t you fixed it?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two options for people who want to enter into a residential tenancy in British Columbia. They can use the residential tenancy agreement that is on line and adapt it with the landlord and a tenant in an agreement on a month-to-month lease. In actual fact, that’s probably where 90 percent or plus of all the rentals in British Columbia fall, with that particular agreement in place.

There has always been in the marketplace the opportunity for people to sign a fixed-term rental in a lease for specific reasons. In some cases, it could be somebody that’s going to be here for a year and decide they only want to go into a one-year lease and do not want to have issues with regards to it. Other people sign longer fixed-term leases of three years plus. That is actually a business arrangement with two agreeing parties to do it. That has never ever been an issue in and around the Residential Tenancy Act.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: In the middle of the housing crisis, big developers know this loophole, and they’re exploiting it. I’ll remind this House that fixed-term leases can and are being abused by landlords to jack up rent and put renters in dire situations.

My question is for the Minister for Housing. What is the minister going to do to fix this problem and ensure that affordable rentals stay affordable?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes people are entitled to enter into a contract between two parties where there’s a willing person on either side of the contract. That’s what these leases are. When they expire, they expire, and the opportunity to enter into an agreement between the two parties can continue if they wish to reach another agreement.

I do get a kick out of the member saying about all the affordability. I will remind the member of this. There is $150 million a year spent in the city of Vancouver. There are thousands of units in her own riding of affordable rental that were saved by this province when we bought 24 SROs and renovated them and put them back in the marketplace….

[ Page 13436 ]

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 2,000 units that have also been built in the city of Vancouver in affordable rentals as we’ve gone through this.

We recently announced another project that is in a partnership with the city of Vancouver and some other trusts and B.C. Housing on affordable rental in another area of Vancouver. We’re going to continue to work on the balance of the sites with the city of Vancouver to apply additional affordable rental as we go forward.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES AND

ICBC REVENUES TO GOVERNMENT

C. James: It’s very clear that this government is determined to wring every last cent out of the pockets of British Columbians. Yesterday we talked about the government’s billion-dollar blunder that’s going to put B.C. Hydro ratepayers on the hook for an additional $500 each. That’s on top of the existing increases in B.C. Hydro that this government has put in place.

Today we learned that the Minister of Transportation is planning to hike ICBC rates. Customers are going to face rate hikes in the coming weeks. Why? Because the Minister of Finance is once again taking money from ICBC to pad the budget, and drivers are on the hook for $150 million.

Could the Minister of Transportation explain why he expects ICBC ratepayers to pad the government’s bottom line?

[1405]

Hon. T. Stone: The mandate that ICBC has, very clearly, from this government — and we’re working very closely with them to deliver on the mandate — is to do everything that they possibly can to keep rates as affordable as possible for British Columbians. We are working very closely with ICBC on a wide range of initiatives, everything from enhanced fraud detection to a whole wide range of other efficiencies and strategies that we are confident are going to ensure that, moving forward, we’re able to keep rates within the rate-smoothing framework at the lower end of that scale.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The Minister of Transportation conveniently left out the fact that he is taking money and giving it to the Finance Minister and leaving ICBC with the debt that he then expects drivers to pick up. That’s what’s happening. That’s why drivers are paying more.

We’re at a time where life is more and more unaffordable for families. The Minister of Transportation is making this worse. He is funnelling the cash from ICBC to his colleague to pad the government’s bottom line.

My question, again, is to the Transportation Minister. Why won’t the minister give families a break and stop his government’s raiding of ICBC’s budget?

Hon. T. Stone: It’s interesting to hear, from the members opposite, this conspiracy theory that they continue to spool for British Columbians — that somehow there is this transfer of cash from ICBC that goes into some big, dark black hole somewhere.

The net income that is generated on the optional side of ICBC’s business, which is the competitive side of the insurance corporation’s business…. They operate in a competitive environment on the optional side.

Over the years, there has been net income available that all is consolidated on the government’s bottom line, across government. Those dollars have been critical to invest in education and health care and other services that British Columbians really need.

Let’s talk about the rates for a moment. The hon. member opposite conveniently leaves a few of the facts out of her question — as they often do. When the NDP were in power for a decade, the combined increase in rates…. That’s the combined rates, the basic and the optional together. Actually, compared to increasing a combined amount of 8 percent over the last ten years under our government, those rates under the NDP went up 34 percent.

A. Dix: The minister will be signing up for some coding classes soon.

The minister will recall that it was only a couple of months ago he wouldn’t answer questions about ICBC’s anemic, pathetic performance under his guidance. He said: “Wait for the annual report.” Just after the session was over, they put out the annual report. The performance was so bad in comparison that he made the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro look like Warren Buffett.

So $180 in annual rate increases for each motorist under this Premier, a 14 percent increase in claims costs, a $500 million increase in unpaid claims — that’s a lack of service because this government decided to cut front-line staff. A net income loss of $250 million, a $560 million drop in equity — that’s his record — and $1.8 billion, in the end, in his plan, taken into general revenue under his plan. You know how much money was taken from ICBC in all of the years up to 2010? Zero. Roughly the equivalent amount of time they spent on housing policy before 19 days ago — $1.8 billion.

[1410]

Why doesn’t he, for once, act in the public interest and tell the Minister of Finance that ICBC motorists can’t afford to give more money this year?

Hon. T. Stone: The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is working very hard, with our support, to do

[ Page 13437 ]

everything they can to ensure rates are affordable moving forward. That includes strategies around fraud. That includes strategies around executive compensation, the hiring of more claims staff and a wide array of other initiatives.

The member can cherry-pick the numbers that he wants to throw out there. He conveniently, again, in addition to neglecting to mention their record in the 1990s…. Again, a 34 percent increase in the combined rates for ratepayers, compared to just under 8 percent for motorists over the last decade.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: In addition to not wanting to talk about their record and how poorly it stacks up to the last ten years, the member also conveniently neglects to talk about the very real pressures facing the corporation when it comes to the cost of claims. Claims are up over 7,000 over the last year-over-year. We’ve seen a dramatic increase in the cost of bodily injury claims, both as a result of increases in severity and frequency. This is not simply a British Columbia reality. This is happening in jurisdictions all over Canada and all over the United States.

We’re proud of the fact that here in British Columbia, we still have amongst the best insurance coverages for the best value of any jurisdiction in North America.

A. Dix: The minister doesn’t just want motorists to pay for his incompetence; he wants to blame them for it as well. Just to be clear…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …$1.8 billion they’re scooping up that was paid for by ICBC customers — $576 per car. That’s what we’re talking about here. Oh, I know the Minister of Energy thinks it’s unfair in this House to quote from their annual report.

All of the governments in B.C. history didn’t take any money. They considered ICBC a non-profit that was designed to support motorists, to ensure that people could afford to buy auto insurance. This government has turned it into a slush fund — for them.

Given that the annual report…. Let’s just argue…. Let’s just say that the annual report says they’re losing money. If they’re losing money, why should motorists have to send money that doesn’t exist to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the optional side of ICBC’s business is a competitive environment, and the motorists of British Columbia have a choice. They can opt for the optional coverages that are purchased through ICBC, or they can opt for competitive optional products which are provided by the private sector.

Profits at ICBC are generated on that optional side of the business. The profits that are generated there are not taken from British Columbians. Those are profits that are actually given back to British Columbians in the form of investments in health care and education. It’s all consolidated on the government’s bottom line.

[1415]

We are working very hard to continue to keep rates as affordable as we possibly can, notwithstanding that ICBC is operating in an environment where there are tremendous pressures on their costs. We continue to have amongst the best coverages, the most comprehensive coverages, for the best value that you’re going to find in most parts of North America.

YOUTH CUSTODY SERVICES AND

INCIDENT AT BURNABY FACILITY

D. Donaldson: Just days ago teenagers at B.C.’s youth super jail in Burnaby rioted, taking over the facility for six hours and causing extensive damage. Corrections staff had to seek refuge in a secure office until the RCMP emergency response team got things under control. Sadly, this was predictable and preventable. Experts warned….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

D. Donaldson: Teenage jailhouse riots are a big yuk-yuk on the other side.

Experts warned cuts to services in Prince George youth detention centre and the closure of Victoria’s youth detention centre two years ago by this government would lead to violence at the Burnaby centre.

How can the Minister of Children and Family Development possibly justify cutting services that led to a riot and put the safety of youth and corrections officers at risk?

Hon. S. Cadieux: You know, it’s fascinating to listen to someone talk about something they have absolutely no knowledge of. Obviously, they haven’t read the statement issued by Andrew Cronkhite, the director of programs for the Burnaby youth secure custody centre, in response to that incident, to let the public know about what actually happened.

In fact, let’s just talk about youth custody for a second, because it’s actually a story in British Columbia that is very positive. We have the lowest youth incarceration rates in the country. We are now operating two facilities. For the past three years, the average number of youths

[ Page 13438 ]

in the facility in Burnaby has been 42, which is 51 percent of the capacity that that centre has and is staffed for.

We provide excellent youth custody services in British Columbia. We provide excellent youth deterrence programs in British Columbia. We will continue to do so.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: In this minister’s world, excellent youth custody facilities includes riots.

The minister denies her service cuts are to blame for this violence. But no one believes….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

D. Donaldson: No one believes this minister. The public does believe the independent Representative for Children and Youth. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond said the minister’s decision to create one super jail for youth from across the province in Burnaby produced this highly volatile situation.

The head of the union representing corrections officers said people predicted there would be increasing violence with the closure of the Victoria Youth Detention Centre. Now we’ve had a violent jail riot by teenagers.

The minister was warned. Why did you not choose to listen to the experts?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, in fact, as I said, we have had either the lowest or the second-lowest youth custody rates in Canada for decades. In fact, the decline in the number of youth in custody over the last decade has been 65 percent.

[1420]

I actually think it’s laughable that anyone would refer…

Interjections.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Let me finish. Otherwise you won’t know what I’m referring to.

…to a super jail, when a jail that is only 51 percent full — with 42 youths but fully staffed — is hardly super. And, in fact, to insinuate that this is because other facilities have been closed, that a riot did occur because of that, would also be incorrect, given that not a single individual involved in this incident was from the Island.

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICIES AND

LEGAL ACTION BY RECIPIENTS

M. Mungall: Last week the Minister of Social Development had this to say about how her government makes policy for people with disabilities: “I think sometimes government is made aware of situations when lawsuits are brought forward.” She actually goes on to suggest that it helps government to think more critically when these lawsuits are brought forward.

My question to the minister is: why do vulnerable British Columbians have to lawyer up before this government will even address their mean policies?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows, we have some of the most progressive policies in all of Canada for people with disabilities and those receiving assistance from my ministry. We actually ensure that we have a comprehensive social safety net in place for those people who rely on assistance from my ministry. It doesn’t change the fact that people are required to pursue all other forms of income before relying on provincial assistance, including CPP or EI or whatever the other benefits might be, at which time my ministry then helps assist individuals to reach the provincial matching amount.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: People with disabilities in this province have a lot of words to describe this government’s policies for them, and “progressive” is by far not one of them.

Moms like Samantha Hilliard and Jessica Alford are fighting the maternity leave clawback — not a top-up, as the minister is trying to suggest. It’s a clawback. And rather than just do the right thing, this government is forcing these moms, moms who are struggling to put food on the table…. This government is forcing them to take the issue to court.

The thousands of families who are fighting the bus pass clawback are wondering if they have to lawyer up too, because this government has been ignoring them for months. Why is it that the B.C. Liberal government is so committed to its poverty-creating policies that only threats of lawsuits will get them to address these issues? Or, in another way: why is this government so mean?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If we want to talk about mean, perhaps the member should look at how she’s not supporting her own constituents to ensure that they are being supported with the transportation allowance that we are now providing for them. So 100,000 individuals around this province…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: …who rely on disability assistance now have a transportation allowance added to their

[ Page 13439 ]

monthly cheques, starting September 1.

The mere fact that she’s arguing that we do not have the progressive supports in place is absolutely not true. It is this government that has invested in the single-parent employment initiative. It’s this government that is helping fund those individuals to go to school to get the education they need while they stay on income assistance, while they have their child care paid for. It’s those individuals that we are helping. It’s the first of its kind in all of Canada. No other province is doing it. We are leading the way. There is no doubt.

[1425]

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

H. Bains: According to police, Surrey’s latest shooting victim was not involved in any gang violence, had no record and was not an intended target. His death can only be described as horrific and a tragedy.

It is also tragic that shootings in Surrey have become so commonplace that no one is even surprised anymore when we see another report of shots ringing out. Last year there were 55 shootings. This year it looks like it’s going to be more than that. It’s 49 shootings this year already, and we’re just only halfway through the year.

My question is to the Attorney General. When will they finally start to take this issue seriously and put an end to this gun violence so that people in Surrey can feel safe in their own homes and in their own neighbourhoods?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member opposite is referring in particular, in this case, to a young man who was shot the other day. This is a terrible tragedy for his family, and it’s something that everyone in this House, in the community, grieves for. That is why our government has been working so closely with Surrey city, with the mayor of Surrey and with the police department in Surrey on the guns and gangs strategy and on ensuring that people in Surrey can feel safe.

People in this community deserve to feel safe. People in Surrey deserve to feel safe. Our government has committed an additional $23 million to support the guns and gangs strategy. It’s a provincewide boost to current resourcing. It’s a number of added resources, including adding two dedicated Crown counsel.

Our hearts are with the family of the young man who was shot. Our thoughts are with Surrey, and our determination is to make Surrey a safe city.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to table a petition, on behalf of my constituents and others, that the Minister of Justice consider replacing the Family Compensation Act of 1996 with a wrongful death act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 28.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(HOUSING PRIORITY INITIATIVES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

V. Huntington: As I ended my comments yesterday, I was reading a letter I had received from a constituent. The letter discussed this individual’s concerns regarding the current state of the real estate market. I read it in this place because it intelligently and with compassion outlined what so many of us are feeling.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To reiterate quickly. A fear that young people are being marginalized, with a resulting stress and anxiety that could so easily be followed by despair and apathy. A growing resentment toward foreign buyers who not only have vast wealth but who enjoy favourable tax systems and who are spending discounted Canadian dollars. This is creating an unfair advantage that prevents our young citizens from buying real estate.

A disruption of community and neighbourhood relationships as buyers leave their homes vacant. The lingering question about how cash is being brought into this country and why authorities are failing to enforce rules and regulations surrounding money transfers. The treatment of houses as a commodity, traded as if they were a futures contract, ignoring the concept of pride in ownership for our young people.

These are incredibly important issues, and they are real. We must ask ourselves whether this legislation extends hope where, now, there is so little.

At least government has finally agreed to let Vancouver do something. It may be too late, and time will tell, but at least the city, alone among local governments, is finally being granted powers to act on vacancies.

[1430]

So we can thank the province for that small mercy. I hope Vancouver is successful and is able to incent landowners to provide rentals where, now, there are none. It isn’t going to be an easy tax to administer, and negotiations over data sharing will require consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. While this legislation should have been passed long ago, we’re, at the very least, inching forward.

[ Page 13440 ]

The tough job of satisfying other members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities still lies ahead. Not the least of our problems may be the impact Vancouver’s tax will have on other jurisdictions.

Then we arrive at the surprise new property transfer tax, the 15 percent boost to the tax if foreign nationals, entities, corporations and trusts are purchasing the home. I’m glad we are trying something, anything, to stem the tide of foreign money, money with which none of us can compete.

I am cynical enough to feel the province isn’t doing this because of concern for the lack of affordable housing and the impact that is having on our constituents. It is doing it because the polls show that while they better try to do something, they can’t afford to tinker with the province’s bottom line. Without LNG and without a booming resource sector, the province has turned to the teat of foreign money so that it can still say we’re number one.

I’m sure a great deal of thinking went into what rate of tax increase foreign capital could absorb before it stopped flowing and whether the increase would achieve any relief in the price of homes. It is a balancing act, an important one. But if owning a home remains unachievable, will the province move quickly and decisively to protect our citizens and their dreams of home ownership? We can only hope.

Ultimately, the success of this legislation may depend in large part on the resources devoted to catching evasion and uncovering avoidance. There are welcome anti-avoidance measures in the bill, but individuals will continue to purchase through proxies and to find other ways to skirt the new law. If the province is not prepared to devote serious resources to catching deceit, this new tax may have little effect.

Like so many others, I welcome the fact that Bill 28 removes self-regulation from the real estate industry. As the Premier herself said, the industry had ten years to get it right, and they haven’t. However, one could be forgiven for wondering where the government has been all this time. Surely, our government deserves some responsibility for this failure to protect consumers.

Nevertheless, the changes, including the increased penalties, are good ones. I wish the new superintendent the best of luck. He or she has a big and important job ahead. Restoring public trust in the real estate industry is of critical importance.

The final piece of this bill is the housing priority initiatives fund, a new fund with an initial investment of $75 million that will be devoted to provincial housing initiatives and which will be topped up by property transfer tax revenue. It’s a worthy goal, if an unstipulated one. It’s also an interesting and rather limited initial investment, given the unexpected $500 million windfall the government received from the existing property transfer tax. Still, I hope the fund is used wisely and actually helps the people who need it most.

Before ending, I would like to talk about where the government might take action in the future, especially if we find Bill 28 does not slow down a wildly heated market. The government is aware of the housing affordability fund proposal put forward by nearly 50 economists and business school professors at both UBC and Simon Fraser. It is an idea the Premier dismissed as prepared on the back of an envelope. It is an idea she should actually read.

Such a fund would catch the type of evasion that the new vacancy tax and the property transfer tax cannot. As the opposition critic has stated, it would focus on money, not people. While I recognize a scheme of this nature would take more time to consider and put in place, I urge the government to look closely at the merits of this proposal, especially if the rising price of homes does not slow down.

In closing, British Columbians want and expect strong action commensurate with the scale of the challenge we face as a community. Most people are deeply concerned for the future of their family and to date have not felt government has acted in their best interests. That needs to change.

[1435]

I am hopeful that Bill 28 will help cool off this real estate market. If it doesn’t, then government must act quickly, else despair will be the result. The government has joined the conversation, and I’m glad it is finally taking action. If the data doesn’t support its choices, I hope, for the sake of our citizens, it won’t wait as long to act again.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It’s my pleasure to stand today in support of Bill 28, which was introduced in these chambers by our Minister of Finance. Bill 28 will give us some of the tools we need to make housing more affordable and more available in urban B.C., and in particular Metro Vancouver and in my riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

It’s not new that the west coast is considered the best coast in Canada. With our vibrant communities, our thriving arts and culture, our business sectors, our temperate weather, our rugged and alluring outdoor playgrounds, people from all over Canada, in fact all over the world, are drawn here. And you know what? We’re proud of that.

In the early 2000s, when a then have-not province made a turnaround, people wanted to come back home. They wanted to come back home to B.C. They wanted to live here. They wanted to work here and invest here once again. We’re seeing that increase even further as B.C. leads the country in economic growth. We’re leading Canada in economic growth because of work we’ve done to grow B.C.’s economy, to increase trade, tourism, strengthen the resource sector and support sectors like film and tech.

[ Page 13441 ]

We put B.C. on the map in 2010 with the Olympics, and this province is widely recognized as being one of the best places to live in the world. But managing that growth, that success, really has its own challenges — in managing transit corridors, services and providing a way into the market for British Columbians.

Now, I was raised in North Vancouver. I live in a condo, would like to live in a house, although — the job that we have right now — it’s probably better that we live in a condo. There aren’t any lawns to mow. But like some people in Metro Vancouver, I actually have chosen to live in an area of high density and in proximity to services. I’m over a single-family home with a yard, but I do have family and friends that have difficulty getting into the market.

I’m supporting this bill and other efforts that we have taken as government in order to better regulate the market, collect better data and help plan better for the growth that we expect to continue to see throughout southern B.C.

The city of North Vancouver is rich in culture and community. I think, arguably, it has the best backdrop in all of B.C., with its mountain and water views. It’s really one of the most livable and walkable communities in the Lower Mainland. And that sort of quality lifestyle, actually fostered by an alluring community, does come at a price. A million dollars is not unusual for a starting price for a house in North Vancouver on the North Shore. In fact, the average price of a house is probably well over $1.5 million.

All across the Lower Mainland, in communities like mine, there were many examples of young people and families who want to grasp hold of home ownership but just can’t do that. I believe that Bill 28 will help them reach that dream. Bill 28 looks to help normalize demand, to stabilize the sector, to incrementally decrease costs and help to ensure that middle-class British Columbians can buy property in the places that they call home.

So what are we going to do? We’re going to be charging a 15 percent premium on wealthy foreign buyers in recognition of the fact that British Columbians deserve to have the first chance to enter the market. We’re going to use that money to increase housing supply with the proceeds of the tax, seeding it with a $75 million investment that helps kick-start the housing priority initiative.

It will not make B.C.’s most desirable cities any less appealing. They will continue to attract people and business. But I think it will help close the gap. It will help British Columbians get into the market and strengthen our already vibrant cities.

It will help level the playing field, because it’s not just about the foreign buyers tax. Bill 28 also strengthens the work already being done to increase affordable housing options in B.C. and builds on regulatory work already undertaken that dissuades market manipulation and shadow flipping.

It forces back the curtain and demands transparency from the industry. And it will help renew the integrity of an industry — the real estate industry, which was bruised by a few bad apples — by appointing a real estate secretariat with new rule-making powers and providing punitive measures to ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules.

[1440]

Bill 28 will also allow the city of Vancouver to collect tax on empty properties and perhaps act as a proof point for the rest of the municipalities in B.C. in how to regulate the market. The work to improve housing affordability and availability does not stop at a luxury tax or a vacancy tax or taxing foreign ownership, and it doesn’t stop with the work being done by us in this House. It will require coordination and cooperation with both the federal and local governments in order to provide better opportunities and access for the people of British Columbia.

I want to read an email that I received from a constituent who emailed me with quite a bit of anger at the inability for his employees to buy a house in or homes in North Vancouver. He couldn’t see a future where his children could buy a house and remain on the North Shore.

I met with him, and we had a good discussion. We didn’t have enough time to finish that. I invited the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to join me and my constituent, who invited somebody else, for a further discussion. This was probably about two weeks ago.

I received an email from him on July 25. He said:

“I just needed to send you both an email to tell you how thrilled I was to hear about the new changes to the real estate rules. They are excellent, and I believe that they will have a positive impact on the housing affordability crisis.

“I really like the idea of the new 15 percent foreign ownership tax, combined with the fact that the revenue will be funnelled into an affordable housing fund. I also like that the rules are location-specific and that they can be expanded if need be. Finally, I was glad to hear that the government is making provisions to allow the city of Vancouver to implement the vacancy tax.

“I believe that all of these changes are very positive. I suspect that some work will need to be done to make sure that the foreign buyers are not able to circumvent the tax, but I know that this is likely in the works.

“Thank you for your hard work in dealing with the situation. I am so pleased with what you have done and for representing us so well.”

I want to make sure that we continue to provide means by which my family, my friends and neighbours on the North Shore and people throughout British Columbia can reasonably expect to secure their own home one day. Bill 28 is about putting British Columbians first, and that’s why I encourage all members of this House to support this bold legislation.

[ Page 13442 ]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act. That’s a bit of a mouthful.

This legislation purports to address what we’ve had in the Lower Mainland particularly, but also spreading to other parts of the province, which is a housing affordability crisis that has been going on for some time — well over a year.

In fact, we on this side of the aisle have been raising the issue for well over a year, while at the same time, the B.C. Liberals on the other side of the aisle ignored the problem until, coincidently, very recently, when polls revealed that housing is the number one concern of residents and high levels of dissatisfaction with how the B.C. Liberals were handling the housing crisis in this province, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

We knew that, because we on this side of the aisle were hearing it from our constituents regularly — people coming to our offices who were unable to find houses. We had a mother coming at four o’clock on a Friday afternoon, saying: “I can’t pay my rent. I don’t know where I’m going to live. I’m getting kicked out of my apartment.”

We’ve seen these issues for a long time. Because of the large increase in housing prices, the lack of rental space in our communities, we’ve known that this is a crisis for a long time. But the others on the other side of the aisle, the Liberals, continued to say that there was no problem.

As my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey said…. I do have to congratulate him for being the one who was raising the issues repeatedly about the housing crisis in Vancouver. As he said yesterday when he was responding to this bill, welcome to the conversation about affordable housing. It is better late than never.

[1445]

Having housing — reliable housing, affordable housing, housing that is okay for our families and for our children and ourselves and individuals — is perhaps the most important thing to all of us in life.

I remember that back in the early 1980s, I had a toddler and a newborn. I was living in an apartment in Burnaby. We again had a superheated real estate market with sky-high mortgage rates, but I was determined to buy. My husband, not so much, but I was determined to buy. I had two little kids. I wanted a place to live that was ours.

We had one income then because I’d left our law practice in order to look after the children, went on maternity leave. We were a small business. I remember months where we were making mortgage payments with our Visa because it was just that tight every month. We lost our equity as the market crashed in the early 1980s, and we essentially had to borrow 100 percent as our family grew — 100 percent — to move from our little townhouse to a small home.

We are now, my husband and I, one of the lucky ones. We got into the market decades ago. We paid off our home in Burnaby. We’ve done well, very well.

I do not begrudge those other people, older people primarily, who have been in their house for a long time, have worked hard all their life in order to buy those houses and now do have houses that are worth a lot. But, you know, many of them are losing their homeowner’s grant. They may have low income. They may be seniors with a low income, but they’re losing their homeowner’s grant.

On the other hand, three of my four children live in the Lower Mainland. It is a lot tougher — or, in some cases, perhaps impossible — for them and others in their generation to own a home.

One of my sons and his wife, both working hard, are looking forward to starting a family. They’re interested in living in a co-op. That’s a great solution for housing. Unfortunately, the provincial and federal governments have not invested in co-op housing for decades. The existing stock is getting old, and there is virtually no new supply as the population grows. They are finding it incredibly difficult to find affordable housing in Burnaby or New Westminster or Vancouver, where he’s lived all his life.

A second son and our daughter-in-law came and lived with us for three years — they took a different route — while they saved up money to buy a home, and we were glad to help them do that. They did. They were lucky to get in a couple of years ago before the market really, really exploded. Now with this proposed tax, they could see — possibly, if house prices go down — their equity gone. Certainly, they’ll lose some of it. If they had bought a year later, they wouldn’t have been able to do it at all, in fact.

My daughter, my third child that’s living in the greater Vancouver area, is entering her third and final year of law school this fall and will be coming back here next year to do her articles. I’m proud of her accomplishments, and I’m thrilled that she is going to have a job, while many aren’t. She has no hope of purchasing anything over the next years and, in fact, is dealing with what many are dealing with, which is high student debt. Even as a young lawyer, she’s going to struggle to even find an affordable place for her to rent.

I’m telling you about my family because I don’t believe my family and some of their situations are all that different than some other families. There are many families. I know my family is lucky, but my kids are going to be struggling in the housing market. That is just one family.

There are so many families across this province, particularly in the Lower Mainland, that are not even thinking it’s possible that they’re going to be able to buy a home in this superheated market. They’re just hoping to find a place that they can rent.

It’s a complicated issue, with many different people in many different situations. I don’t think our family is that unusual, but it does represent just some of the range of housing concerns in Metro Vancouver and other communities.

[ Page 13443 ]

Kennedy Stewart, who is the Member of Parliament for Burnaby South, wrote a column in the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago. He said the “out-of-control housing market is causing extreme anxiety for renters and those looking to purchase a home. It is so bad that a recent Angus Reid study finds more than 150,000 families are considering leaving Metro Vancouver due to high prices and rents.”

[1450]

He also goes on to point out: “A Bank of Canada report in June flagged our housing market as a ‘national economic vulnerability’ caused by migration, high employment, limited land on which to build new housing, and provincial land-use….”

We do have to recognize that the incredible popularity of living in the Lower Mainland is part of the problem, and we do recognize that. We do have a housing crisis, though, and we need to see what we can do about it. It is part of a larger affordability crisis in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Where did this problem come from? Well, I mentioned a couple of minutes ago that part of it comes because of the fact that it’s a very attractive place to live and we have a limited amount of land. However, there are also some reasons we’re in this housing affordability crisis that point directly back to the provincial government, to the B.C. Liberal government. Much of the mess was created by this government, and in fact, I find it a little bit ironic that they’re now looking for congratulations after being forced to take action.

One of the reasons for the problem, the crisis that we’re in right now, was the fact that the provincial government allowed the real estate industry to regulate itself several years ago. They have regulated themselves. They’ve been allowed to regulate themselves. It was

an act of this government, and it’s created a mess.

The advisory board report that was recently written says, among other things — this is talking about the real estate industry:

“In recent months, reports of conduct of real estate licensees, and unlicensed parties engaged in exploitative activity, have increased public concern, including licensees failing to disclose the assignment of contracts for personal gain” — an issue that was raised in this House repeatedly and fell on deaf ears — “licensees putting their own interests ahead of those of their clients, and licensees failing to comply with federal and provincial tax laws and anti-money-laundering reporting requirements, including collusion with clients to avoid reporting requirements.”

Again, issues that we raised repeatedly in this House and fell on deaf ears, and, in fact, were met with…. We were mocked for our comments. We were dismissed for our comments. The report says there were critiques that the regulator, the real estate board, “is passive in identifying risks to the public and not intervening to prevent harmful practices, does not levy sufficiently large penalties and sanctions to create meaningful deterrence and consequences for misconduct, lacks adequate investigative and enforcement capabilities, interprets its jurisdiction narrowly and is not accessible and responsive to the public.”

Again, all of those issues that were cited in the advisory board report were issues that we had raised repeatedly over the last year and which were ignored by this provincial government.

As a former lawyer — actually, as anybody with some kind of sense of what is wrong — you know that you can’t do things like play both ends of the deal — in other words, representing both the buyer and seller. If you were doing things like that in the legal industry, as a lawyer, you would be turfed out. If you were in conflict, you would be turfed out. Yet in case after case, real estate agents were doing these kinds of things, we were raising them, and the penalties and the attention paid by this government were negligible or missing altogether.

Here’s a second reason that the provincial government must take some responsibility for the housing crisis that we’re in right now. This is one that was pointed out, again, by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. The question is: how did we get into such an extreme situation with regard to FICOM?

[1455]

Real estate in this province is regulated by the Real Estate Council, which is then overseen by FICOM, which is a provincial government agency. It’s the Financial Institutions Commission. The problem with FICOM is that this government knowingly, systematically underfunded FICOM.

A recent report by the Auditor General of British Columbia this time refers to credit unions, which is another branch that FICOM oversees and regulates. Because I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, I remember dealing with that report, reviewing that report and questioning witnesses with regard to that report. Thirty-five percent of the positions identified at that time were unfilled. They were vacant, because this government underfunded FICOM.

No wonder we ended up in this situation. The agency responsible on behalf of this government, FICOM, the Financial Institutions Commission, was regularly and intentionally underfunded to the extent that it was unable to provide the oversight and the supervision that it should have been providing of the real estate industry. Not only that, but the money that was being paid in as fees was regularly clawed back by this government.

Now, the vast majority of real estate agents are hard-working, they’re honest, and they work with the best interests of their clients in mind. I know that. I’ve had a few of them work for me, and their behaviour is beyond repute, very ethical. And those realtors are also. I’ve had them come to my office or seen them in the neighbourhood.

They were happy, actually, about the issues that we were raising, not only about the overheated market but also about the fact that there were unscrupulous dealings

[ Page 13444 ]

being done by some realtors, which has also, of course, fuelled this market. When you have people making deals unscrupulously, making money off it, that also raises the price of houses.

The existing rules supposedly would have prohibited this behaviour, but the problem was largely with enforcement, both by the Real Estate Council and then secondly — the second problem that I talked about — by the failure of FICOM to appropriately supervise and regulate. That’s important when you have allegations, for example, of money laundering. Even more recently, we find out that nobody seems to know who’s supposed to be investigating. The most recent case was the investigation of SunCom.

I want to mention what I think is a third reason for the housing crisis that we have in the Lower Mainland right now. That is the lack of investment in social housing by both the federal and provincial governments, who have legal responsibility for housing. I’m not just talking about social housing, although there has certainly been a huge lack there, but I’m talking about a lack of investment in public housing for the middle class.

I mentioned MP Kennedy Stewart, who is a colleague, a Member of Parliament in my community, in Burnaby South. He did a little research, and in the

article I was referencing earlier, he pointed out that national governments in other countries invest in much-needed shelters and social housing, but they also invest in homes for the middle class, such as high-quality rental buildings, cooperatives and for-purchase homes with resale restrictions — places where average families can afford to rent or own when the market fails to provide the kind of housing they would prefer.

Here is what I believe are the interesting statistics that were provided by professors Penny Gurstein, Kristin Patten and Prajna Rao from UBC. They tracked the percentage of public housing found in various countries around the world.

[1500]

As Kennedy writes in his column:

“The results shine a bright light on Canada’s housing problem. In Singapore, 82 percent of all housing is public housing; in Hong Kong, 45 percent; Sweden, 35 percent; the Netherlands, 31 percent of all housing is public housing; Denmark, 25 percent; Austria, 25 percent; France, 20 percent; United Kingdom, 18 percent; China, 18 percent; Ireland, 10 percent; South Korea, 9 percent. Yet in Canada, only 5 percent of Canada’s current housing stock is public housing. Only 5 percent of all housing in Canada has any kind of government support, with 95 percent of all homes being provided solely by market forces.”

This means that when you have housing markets heating up in big cities, like Vancouver, average people must take on huge mortgages, pay high rents or leave. While the federal government and the provincial government used to build public housing, largely co-ops, in places like Burnaby Mountain in my community, federally, it all ended in the 1990s. Provincially, the NDP government made the decision that it would continue to invest in social housing, in co-ops, public housing, and continued do that and build hundreds of units a year.

So 25 years of failure by the federal government. You add another 15 years of failure by this government to invest in social housing, and that is part, a large part, of the problem that we have, the housing crisis that we have, in the Lower Mainland, which is now spreading farther out.

Of course, with this tax that’s been proposed, there are concerns that what’s going to happen is that investors are simply going to move their money out past the Lower Mainland, past Metro Vancouver, because the tax that is being proposed only applies to housing in the Lower Mainland, in Metro Vancouver, and this is going to create a housing crisis in Abbotsford, perhaps on the lower Island.

The Minister for Housing often talks about the money in housing, but the vast majority of that is not investment. It is financing. So when the Minister for Housing talks about putting $100 million into a project, it’s very misleading. Usually, the vast majority of the time, what the ministry for Housing is doing…. They’re not investing in social housing. They’re lending the money to somebody else and getting the interest. It’s low interest, but they are lending the money to somebody else. They’re more like mortgage brokers as opposed to investors. For the most part, they lend. They do not invest.

What we need is investment, and it’s been sadly lacking at both the federal and provincial levels for decades.

What we do now could have a great impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people. Because of that impact on the lives of families all over the Lower Mainland and beyond, the impact on the overall livability and attractiveness not only to families but to businesses, I believe the response has to be thoughtful, it has to be careful, and it has to be balanced.

My fear and my belief is that this legislation is a hurried and harried response, based on political expediency, and not done on the basis of what is good public policy. How can it be otherwise? It’s not possible. For more than a year, and up until two months ago, right up to the end of a four-month spring session, when much could have been done, much could have been discussed, much could have been planned…. When we were raising the issue of the housing crisis in British Columbia in this Legislature, and were the year previously, the response from the B.C. Liberals….

When they could have been listening, could have been consulting and crafting careful legislation, they instead were ignoring the growing housing crisis in the Lower Mainland.

[1505]

I find it quite ironic that suddenly this week, in the middle of summer, we’re called back, and we’re hearing heartfelt speeches about the dream of home ownership. Not a word for a year. Denials for a year or more. No action when we asked month after month: “What are you going to do about corruption in the real estate industry?”

[ Page 13445 ]

Not a word. “What are you going to do about shadow flipping?” Nothing.

The responses, instead, that we got…. Here are some of the responses we got. From the Minister for Housing, his answer was that housing prices are reasonable. “It’s pretty reasonable compared to other cities,” he said.

The response of the Premier was, essentially, that if you can’t afford to buy in Vancouver, then leave. Tell that to a senior who has been living here all their life. She said: “There are lots of great places to live. Fort St. John is booming. And it won’t be long before you see.... We need lots of new people up in Kitimat and Prince Rupert. The views are amazing, by the way.” Thank you, Madam Premier, if the answer for the housing crisis in British Columbia is a statement like that. That was a year ago.

The Minister of Finance — here’s what he said a year ago: “Tell us about the vacancy tax. Tell us” — he was referring to our response — “about the economic wall he and his colleagues would build if, God forbid, they were ever given the chance to govern British Columbia.” So it was dismissiveness, it was derision and not taking the issue seriously — an issue that was very serious for many people in British Columbia.

Oh, here’s another one, a year ago, again, by the Minister for Housing: “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day. I don’t know. You just have to look at the glass is half full, not half empty, right?”

Of course, the Premier, again, — this was much more recently; this was just a month ago — blamed it on the cities and said, as usual, that the cities needed to look after the problem. “The real heavy lifting,” said the Premier, “needs to come from the cities,” and then suggested that municipalities needed to add $100,000 or so to the cost of newly built homes, adding that they were putting excessive fees on homes and permitting delays and rezoning hassles and so on, and blamed it on municipalities.

I mean, even this tax that is being proposed, this 15 percent tax on foreign owners, is something that is, in some ways, easy for this government, because they’re always willing to have somebody else paying the price, and this is going to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the provincial coffers and isn’t going to cost them anything. So I can understand why they would see that, once they’ve changed their mind, as a possible solution.

What’s sad is that, once again, we seem to have an entirely political decision being made. What we know happened is that there were some polls done recently that said that housing concerns were the most important concerns of the public and that they believed that the Liberal government had been handling those issues abominably.

This, of course — the fact that we’re here now, in the middle of summer — is completely consistent with what has been an incessantly politically motivated government. And as I said, the response that we received was mocking, derisive, pompous and dismissive.

But because of the polls, I presume, and the fact that government was taking heat and the fact that we are going to have an election in about ten months…. I suspect those are the reasons that we’re having sudden action now — this about-face. They were forced to take action.

The government has been, for a little while now, getting people to tick off the box on the forms indicating they were foreign buyers. If somebody bought a house, they were having to tick off on a box if they were foreign buyers, if they were not Canadian citizens or residents.

[1510]

It seemed odd that the Minister of Finance held a press conference several weeks ago and said, “We have three weeks of data,” and it indicated the number of foreign buyers was quite low. He was still saying: “It’s not a problem. Nothing to see here. Move along. We don’t need to do anything.” But what we know now is that he had other data which showed, a few weeks later, that the problem was much worse. There was a high percentage…. A significant portion of the money that is going into real estate in the Lower Mainland is from foreign investors. Suddenly, I’m sure, the legislative drafters were working at a feverish pace.

Then we had another press conference, after we came in here this week and saw the legislation at about the same time, saying that, in fact, the data is a lot worse. Now they have a piece of legislation.

What’s in the bill? I can see, from the time, that I’m not going to get a chance to talk about it, so I’m going to summarize. For a year, we raised the issues of housing affordability, an out-of-control housing market, shadow flipping, international money laundering through the Vancouver real estate market, unscrupulous behaviour by some agents, a lack of oversight and the failures of self-regulation.

The Liberals ignored the issues, said there were no issues, mocked and belittled us for raising the issues until finally it became clear, less than a year before an election, that the housing crisis was critical, particularly to Metro Vancouver residents, and that they were furious about the lack of action by this government. They were forced to do something, so we get this legislation, which is an about-face. It is weak, it has loopholes, but we are going to reluctantly support it because, frankly, it is better than nothing.

D. Plecas: I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in this debate on affordable housing. We know it’s an important issue for people of Vancouver. It’s also an important issue for my constituents in Abbotsford South. In fact, as we all know, it’s an important issue for people all across this province. It’s especially important for those who need to relocate for one reason or another.

[ Page 13446 ]

In these capacities, I have a great opportunity to travel around the province and speak directly with seniors about what are concerns for them, and I have a chance to listen to their concerns about affordability.

I know one thing that seniors all agree on. It’s a universal desire to stay in their homes as long as possible and to stay in their communities as long as possible. We agree with them. That’s, in part, why we’ve compiled a list of all services and supports that seniors in this province are eligible for. The B.C. seniors guide is comprehensive and available on line to advise seniors, their families and caregivers about what programs are available on a variety of issues — in particular, as I’m going to speak about now, relating to housing affordability.

In terms of housing, there’s a whole

section dedicated to housing, including the home owner grant for seniors, property tax deferment, the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, the Home Adaptations for Independence program, Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, affordable housing for seniors, seniors supportive housing and subsidized assisted living. Let me just talk about each of those.

Home owner grant for seniors. The home owner grant for seniors reduces the amount of property taxes seniors pay each year on their principal residence. By applying for this grant as a senior, their property taxes can be reduced as much as $845 a year. If your property is located in northern and rural areas, you as a senior can save up to $1,045.

[1515]

We also have the property tax deferment program. This is a program that provides low-interest loans to seniors to defer paying all or part of their property taxes on their principal residence if they’re 55 years or older. It could also apply to a surviving spouse at any age or a person with a disability.

If the application is approved, the province pays municipal and provincial property taxes directly to the taxing authority on the senior’s behalf. This allows seniors to defer their taxes until such time as the property is transferred to a new owner, at which time the taxes are then repaid to the province.

We also have the Home Adaptations for Independence program. This program helps low-income seniors and people with disabilities finance home modifications for accessible, safe and independent living. Eligible homeowners and landlords with eligible tenants can receive up to $20,000 per home in the form of a forgivable loan. The exact amount is based on cost of materials and labour necessary for the required adaptations.

We also have the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, also known as SAFER, program. This program provides monthly cash payments to subsidize rents for eligible B.C. residents who are 60 years of age or older and who pay rent for their homes. Shelter aid for elderly renters provides monthly cash assistance to more than 18,000 senior households, helping them stay in their homes.

We also have yet another program — affordable housing for seniors. Low-income seniors, able to live independently without support services or with the assistance of home care, may apply to live in affordable housing developments. There are three types of affordable housing developments in British Columbia: public housing, which is managed by B.C. Housing; non-profit housing, which is managed by non-profit societies; and co-op housing, which is managed by residents.

Many affordable housing developments are listed on the housing registry, a centralized listing and application service maintained by B.C. Housing, and I would encourage British Columbians interested to look to that registry. The housing registry includes public housing and some non-profit and co-op housing providers. Other non-profit and co-op housing providers maintain their own registries.

Then, of course, we also have seniors supportive housing. This program provides specifically modified rental homes in selected subsidized housing developments, primarily to low-income seniors who need some assistance in order to continue living independently. The program provides support services such as daily meals, 24-hour response, weekly housekeeping and linen laundry, and social and recreational activities. Those eligible pay 50 percent of their gross household income to live in these units.

We also have, of course, subsidized assisted living. Subsidized assisted living units are for seniors and people with disabilities who require some support but do not need 24-hour institutional care. Assisted living offers a middle option to bridge the gap between home care and residential care, providing accommodation, hospitality services and personal care services, such as assistance with grooming, mobility and medication.

Our goal is to make housing more affordable for all British Columbians. Again, I encourage all seniors to consult the B.C. seniors guide to find out if they are eligible for any of the programs I have just outlined.

[1520]

Speaking specifically to Bill 28 and generally with respect to the current legislation, it is designed to keep the dream of home ownership within the reach of middle-class families and to ensure that those who are in a position to rent are able to find a suitable home. It is based

[ Page 13447 ]

on six guiding principles for affordable housing: (1) increasing housing supply, (2) smart transit expansion, (3) supporting first-time homebuyers, (4) consumer protection, (5) increasing rental supply and (6) protecting the dream of home ownership. All of these are given attention by this government. Based on these guiding principles, this bill creates new measures to help make home ownership more affordable.

In conclusion, we know that much remains to be done. As others have said here, this is a very complicated issue, but we are taking positive steps to help keep the dream of home ownership alive and within the reach of middle-class families. We are interested in ensuring that those who are in a position to rent are also able to find a suitable home.

Certainly, we are dealing with issues that will require a number of different solutions, but we as government are determined to get to those solutions and keep British Columbia the best place to live in Canada.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, you know, this bill is interesting. It’s a bill that I’ve been…. Claiming to take action, says the bill, claiming to pay attention to the housing affordability crisis — when, in fact, I think the very first thing I talked about in this Legislature when I was first elected, in 2008, was a housing crisis facing my constituents.

Over seven years later, the government has said: “What? There’s a housing crisis?” Oh, wait. No, they don’t say there’s a housing crisis. They talk about keeping housing affordable, as if there’s not really a problem, but maybe there could be down the road.

Well, I’ve got news for you. In my constituency, one in four people pay more than 50 percent of their income towards rent. How can you save for university? How can you save for your parents? How can you save for your retirement? How can you pay while you’re retired when more than half of the income you receive goes to just paying rent?

Speaker after speaker on the government side has not even acknowledged renters at all, as if they didn’t exist in this great province of ours, as if that housing choice — for some, it’s not a choice at all, because they can’t afford to buy — is somehow not worthy of even reference, when the housing crisis hitting renters in some parts of our province is even worse than the housing crisis hitting owners.

One in four in my constituency is paying more than 50 percent towards rent. For the people trying to buy a condominium in my constituency…. Well, here’s one example which might shock people in other parts of this province. A constituent of mine this weekend went in to bid on a condominium in my community. It wasn’t a fancy condominium. It didn’t have an ocean view, didn’t have anything fancy about it. Its view was of a dumpster. It was a one-bedroom.

I’m told that it was put on the market at $425,000 — for a one-bedroom no bigger than around 600 square feet. My constituent bid $50,000 above the asking price. They’re desperate to find housing, as they’ve been evicted from their rental accommodations as the owner wanted to move back in. So they thought: “Well, we’re tired of being evicted, evicted, evicted. Let’s go after this condominium.” They didn’t want to face multiple evictions. So they offered $50,000 more than the $425,000 for a 600-square-foot apartment looking at a dumpster.

How much did that one-bedroom, 600 square feet looking at a dumpster, sell for? It sold for over $600,000 — $600,000 for 600 square feet looking at a dumpster. That’s the reality that too many people are facing as they try to get into the housing market.

[1525]

The rental market is just as tough. When you have 0.6 percent vacancy rates, landlords are able to charge whatever they want, and people desperate to get a roof over their heads have to pay it, otherwise they’re sleeping in vans. We see that in our community. They’re sleeping in the bush. We’ve seen that in our community. Clearly, that’s not acceptable either.

But what does this government say when we talk about these issues? Well, the Housing Minister, the minister who is supposed to have an eye on the ball, supposed to be looking out for everyone when it comes to housing…. He said that housing prices were pretty reasonable — that $600,000 for a 600-square-foot unit looking at a dumpster is pretty reasonable.

Oh, what else did the Housing Minister say when people said that kind of response was outrageous and ridiculous? Well, he said, “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day. I don’t know. You just have to look at the glass as half full, not half empty, right?” Right.

Looking at paying more than 50 percent of your income towards rent, not being able to afford food in some cases, constituents are telling me, or paying outrageous amounts in order to just have a roof over your head — that’s a housing crisis. That’s not pretty reasonable.

It’s not whining to say that you can’t make the basic necessities of life work because of your income. Many peoples’ incomes have not increased. We’ve had some of the lowest income increases in this province out of Canada. Yet we’ve had some of the highest housing cost increases in all of Canada — a 30 percent housing price increase, if you were able to try and get into the market in the last year. This government says that’s pretty reasonable.

The Premier also decided to be helpful to my constituents when she offered them the advice of: “Well, you can’t afford housing in Vancouver? Move to the far north.” Well, my constituents come to me, and they say they actually are paid a really good wage. Some of them are paid very well. They look at their jobs, they look at where they live, they listen to the Premier’s suggestion, and they say:

[ Page 13448 ]

“Sure, move north and lose my job. Move north, lose my family.” That’s not a reasonable response to this issue.

We on the New Democrat side have been calling it what it is: a housing crisis, an affordability crisis, not just for homeowners or those who want to buy homes, but for renters too. This is impacting British Columbians all across the housing spectrum.

What have we proposed? Well, the government has refused to acknowledge there’s a problem for years. We proposed an affordable housing fund and speculation fee. We realized that some people were buying homes, buying condominiums, in our province to speculate on them, to watch as those 30 percent price increases gain, grab the profit, cash out and get rich in some other jurisdiction.

What did we say? We said: “Well, if you’re going to leave your property vacant, if you’re not actually going to use it — you’re just using it as a place to park your money — we’re going to put a tax on that,” because we believe that that housing, which was built for housing, should be used for housing.

I’ve had business people in Coal Harbour, in my community, not exactly known for being a low-income or an average-rent, average-housing-cost community…. It’s very high end, but business owners in that community are upset. What do they tell me? They said that when they bought their business, when they moved their business into Coal Harbour, they expected a certain number of residents, because that’s what the city had planned for.

But the city’s study shows that one-quarter of the housing units in Coal Harbour sit vacant. They were bought as an investment. Nobody lives there. You talk to people in Coal Harbour. They’ll say: “No, I’ve never seen a light turn on in that unit, ever, and I’ve lived here for years.” We think that that should be used for housing. When you have a vacancy rate of 0.6 percent, we need every housing unit we can get.

What would the profit of that tax go into? Affordable housing for middle- and lower-income people, because the market is not able, and has shown itself unable, to provide housing for people in that spectrum. We need those people in our communities. These people need housing. Our job as government is to work for all people, not just the elite, as seems to be the case across the floor.

What else have we called for? We’ve called for a task force to fight tax fraud and money laundering. Why? Again, because in too many instances, we’ve seen where somebody is able to buy a house — sometimes million-dollar mansions, multi-million-dollar mansions — but has no income to show for it. How is that possible — no income that would suggest you’d be able to buy that property?

[1530]

Something fishy is going on. I think the system is being gamed by a few people who know how to play the regulations, to cut through, cut around and play games that cheat this system and cheat communities out of the money that they are owed for the services that they provide. Again, no, the government’s not interested. “We won’t do anything about it.”

For a long time, we’ve talked about closing loopholes in the property transfer tax so that where, right now, some people are using things like bare trusts to get around again from paying proper property transfer tax…. They’re not paying their share, and yet the property values keep shooting up. They get wealthy while everybody else’s taxes have been going up under this government, whether or not it’s MSP, hydro, ferry fares, camping fees.

On and on you go, this government has been creating an affordability problem through their fees while the affordability crisis is getting worse through housing, while incomes stay flat, and this government says: “Everything’s pretty reasonable. Ho hum. Nothing to see here.” No, we think we need action there.

Now for renters. The forgotten group. The people this government doesn’t seem to know exist, or if they do, they turn away and ignore them. We think that we need to fix the Residential Tenancy Act. There are huge challenges for renters — and landlords, I might add — in the way that this act has been applied. We think there needs to be fair tenant relocation policies. We need to replace rental units. You can’t just get rid of them when you have a vacancy issue, as we do. We need more rental units.

We need to help incent a private sector as well as others, the non-profit sector, to get into building more affordable middle- and lower-income housing. Because without that increase in supply as well, we still can’t fix this challenge.

On the RTB side, we also need action against those that cheat the system. You know, some landlords…. And I would say some, not most; most are good. But some have realized that they can cheat the system by evicting, jacking up rents through the roof through false evictions, through doing things like trying to extort more money out of people, through gaming the system again and again and again. Maybe three out of ten times they might get caught. Well, the government doesn’t fine them. They don’t hit them for breaking the law in that way.

No, maybe it’s just a little letter saying: “Next time, don’t do it again.” Well, you know, hon. Speaker, it’s a business decision. Some people see it as a business cost. “Oh, I get caught a few times. Those other times, nobody fought. I won, and I got wealthier and wealthier.” That’s not how it’s supposed to be.

People are incredibly upset that a few people seem to be able to game the system again and again and again, while they, in their own lives, are finding their housing gone, their communities ripped away. This government, when I ask the Minister for Housing, looks away. Looks away. “Oh, everything is meant to be the way it is. It’s all working.” It’s not working. It’s broken. I said that when I first came to this House — that the Residential Tenancy Act was broken and not working — and I’ve been fighting ever since.

[ Page 13449 ]

This government still refuses to act for renters, still refuses to act to acknowledge that when that rental system is broken, some of those people are becoming homeless. We’re seeing that. A homelessness spike in my community again this year. In communities all across B.C., we’re seeing tent cities again in this province. It’s all connected, but this government seems to be only focused on the high end.

What else might help fix this housing crisis? If we banned corporate and union donations. Why do I say that? Because this government has made millions over the years from large corporations who’ve managed to get rich off of this housing crisis. Whether it be some real estate firms, some developers, some landlords, they give very generously. It’s not just out of the good of their hearts. They give because this government has done things like consider getting rid of rent control completely.

The Housing Minister, I’m told, told the rental sector: “We might get rid of rent control, so you can set the rents at whatever you want.” When it got out to the press — oh my god — people were upset. Of course they were upset, because that could…. Again, when they’re already facing an affordability crisis, to say, “Well, actually, each year, your landlord might be able to set the rent 50 percent higher, or whatever they want” — that’s a real problem.

After the public outcry, the government went, “Oh, oh, oh. No. No. We’re not going to do that. We’re not going to do that.” But that’s their kind of will. That’s because they get the support from a few well-heeled insiders pushing them to do certain things. We’ve got to ban that influence so they have to look out for people, not corporations.

[1535]

What else could we do? We could end the fixed-term tax cheat. We could end the fixed-term cheat of landlords on renters. What is that? In a tight rental market, people are now being told: “We won’t rent to you unless you sign this contract, which says you can only live here for a year.” When people are desperate, they may sign that, and they have signed that.

What happens at the end of the year? Well, for a new rental building in B.C., in Vancouver, the Aquilinis — big donors to the government — have decided the whole building will be fixed-term leases.

What is a fixed-term lease? Again, live here for a year. At the end of your year, we’re going to tell you we’re going to increase the rent 50 percent, 30 percent. Maybe we are kind, we’ll give you only a 15 percent rent increase. Unless that you’re evicted, and you have to leave.

That’s becoming more and more common as landlords have found this way to get around the Residential Tenancy Act, around the clauses around the rental increases that are currently allowable under the law — 2 percent plus inflation, which is, I might add 2 percent higher than what they allow in Ontario.

It’s pretty rare that people are getting that kind of income increase every year. This government seems to think that’s okay, for one sector of the population who donates to them very strongly. It’s a real challenge. I get it. Costs increase for landlords too. We have to make sure…. The act defends that and already has provisions in place to make sure that those costs can be covered, but this government continues to make it harder for constituents of mine and for renters in general.

We would act on the Residential Tenancy Act. More protections against renovictions — another thing that this government seems to turn a blind eye to, where people get kicked out because of phony renovations. Slap a nice coat of paint on there, maybe replace the cupboard doors, and then increase the rents maybe a couple hundred dollars a month. That continues to go on, and this government looks the other way. Those are some areas.

Obviously, investing in new housing is key, working with industry, working with local governments to ensure we can increase the supply of housing. But that doesn’t do it all, unless of course, we deal with the other side — the outside forces that are jacking up prices with foreign money.

I say “foreign money,” not foreign people. This government has decided to focus on people rather than on money. That’s a challenge. It’s tough when we talk about this foreign-money issue, given B.C.’s history of racism, given B.C.’s history of focusing on the other in a number of circumstances. That’s why we on this side have decided to focus on the money, not the people.

We’re a proud province of immigration. We’re a proud province of diversity. We need to be focusing on the money, which is distorting the market in a huge way. I’m concerned that this government has allowed this legislation to have so many loopholes that you’re going to get around it in all sorts of ways. I’m also concerned that this government, in their mad rush to pretend to be doing something, are going to create unintended consequences which hurt British Columbians who may have longer closing terms on the properties that they are selling and create a whole lot of lawsuits — again, something this government has not considered adequately, I think, in this legislation.

There’s lots we have to do. We have to treat this like the crisis it is. Not treat this like an opportunity to pretend to care, and tell people: “Don’t worry. We’re going to keep things affordable” when they’re not. Things are not affordable now unless you’re a millionaire.

I will support this legislation with reservation. But I will keep fighting, as I’ve been doing ever since I was first elected into this House, for my constituents, for affordable housing, for renters and for a more prosperous and egalitarian, a more equal, a more fair, a more just province.

L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak about the great things that our government is doing for British Columbians. We’re doing some-

[ Page 13450 ]

thing else that’s good. In this case, the Housing Priority Initiatives Act. It’s Bill 28.

I want to develop the context of this bill by talking about the ways that government meets social objectives. We’re so used to the many ways in which government does this that we really don’t even think about them anymore.

I would think, for example, of our health care system, which meets its social objective — providing health care not based on one’s ability to pay. The government is the single payer and collects all that money through taxes.

This is not how health care used to function. Up until the early ’60s, if you didn’t have cash or a cheque and you went to see your doctor and your doctor wasn’t a charitable person, you didn’t get treatment. But our society made a major shift in the early ’60s when we began public health care. I say “major,” because today over 40 percent of our entire provincial budget is devoted to this one program.

We could also think of many other things that we don’t hardly think of anymore that also accomplish social objectives. We think of seniors pensions, social assistance, disability pensions, employment insurance. All of these programs were really foreign to our culture until World War II, when the Beveridge report in England first proposed them.

[1540]

What do all these things have in common? They all depart from pure market principles, they soften the harsher edges of the market, and they have become routine and even expected. They all slightly alter the concept of free markets in order to attain a social objective.

Over the last year, it’s become apparent that there’s a social problem in Metro Vancouver: the problem of housing affordability. Our government is a strong supporter of free enterprise, unlike the members across the way. So we’re very reluctant to act in this area.

B.C., of course, was founded on investment from around the world. We welcome foreign investment. We trade with many different nations. Our economy has been fed by foreign investment for generations. So we’ve been loathe to act in this way. We’ve waited for a long time to see if the social issues would ease, but it’s come to the point where we feel the market needs to be mitigated.

This is a judgment call. It’s based on data that we began to collect at the beginning of April. About 90 percent of our residential housing market is driven by local demand, but there is a certain amount that is driven by foreign demand. So we feel we can have an impact on this.

I’ve heard from constituents in Chilliwack. I’ve even heard from constituents in Hope, which is as far away from Vancouver as you can get in the Fraser Valley. I have one constituent who could only afford a house in Hope. He bought in Hope, but he’s now commuting all the way to Vancouver every day. Can you imagine that? That must be a very difficult life.

In addition to the property transfer tax, we’re going to collect an additional tax through this bill. The government has decided to bring in a tax of 15 percent on new purchases. I would point out that we have limited the effect of this tax in a number of ways so that we can reduce the freedom of markets as little as possible and have as little impact on the free market as possible.

First, in the

definitions, in the beginning of the bill, under “specified area,” we’ve restricted the tax geographically so that it only applies to Metro Vancouver. This is really a very small area of a very large province. People will be able to buy everywhere in the province except in Metro Van and not have the tax applicable to them.

I have already had one constituent ask what this might do to housing prices outside the GVRD. What might it do, for instance, to housing princes in Abbotsford, Chilliwack or Hope?

There is a solution here. The government has given itself the power and the flexibility to change the definition of the specified area. If prices spike in Chilliwack, the government could actually include Chilliwack in the area in order to mitigate the effects of the market that would make housing less effective in Chilliwack, in my own city.

A second way. The government has also limited the tax to apply only to residential properties, not to commercial ones.

A third way. We’re limiting it to apply to foreign nationals, not Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

Finally, a fourth way. The tax can be varied. If it’s too high, it can be reduced to 10 percent. If it’s too low, it can be increased to 20 percent. This is a very carefully limited and bounded tax. We hope that it will achieve its social purpose: to make housing more affordable in Metro Vancouver.

Further, the government has done, I think, a smart thing by creating a housing priority initiatives special account — it’s a special account in government — and seeding it with $75 million to begin with. Plus, the proceeds of this tax that we’ve just announced are going to go into it. It’s going to divert the high energy of the market in Vancouver to create more housing supply, which should further reduce prices. We’re dealing with supply, and we’re dealing with demand. We hope that municipalities will move on the over 100,000 development proposals that are awaiting approval with municipalities so we can get the machinery moving so we can further increase supply.

The government has not specified how this account is going to be used. We know that there will be $75 million in it. There will be lots of options. It could be that we would help a non-profit society build affordable housing. We could, perhaps, alleviate the purchase price of a home for a first-time homebuyer. It could help to build shelters or other accommodation for homeless people. There are lots of options, and the government is going to be looking at a range of options to help to increase sup-

[ Page 13451 ]

ply through this fund.

The beauty of this is that our social objective of making housing more affordable for British Columbians will be accomplished either way. We’re going to wait and see what the tax will do. If it works to reduce demand, very little money will flow into the account. But demand will be reduced, and homes will become more affordable. If the tax does not reduce demand, there may be a lot of money in that account, which will then be used to help create even more affordable housing. I think this is a tool that is going to improve conditions in Vancouver, whether or not it serves to dampen demand.

[1545]

I’ve specifically asked, on behalf of my riding of Chilliwack and Hope…. It encompasses 11,000 square kilometres. It has 30 different place-names in it, many of them very small communities, including areas that are not wealthy at all which could use a larger supply of affordable housing. I’ve asked if the account will be specifically targeted only toward Vancouver, and I’ve been assured that, no, money from that account can flow anywhere in the province. That means that the very hot Vancouver market and the money that the province will take in through the tax will be able to benefit all British Columbians rather than just Vancouverites. I think that’s something that I support.

One final thing before I relinquish my place. I’ve been approached by a number of realtors about limited dual agency, which is something that the government has promised to get rid of. It’s defined as where a brokerage or an agent acts for both buyer and seller with informed consent. It’s not in this act, but the power to make rules on limited dual agency will be given to the superintendent.

As I said, I’ve been approached by a number of realtors in different places in my riding. As well, I’ve received a letter from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board. It could be that the elimination of dual agency could have a different effect in smaller communities and in northern communities than it has in Vancouver. I want to read a paragraph from the letter that I received from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board. It goes this way:

“Real estate looks different in the north. Home prices are significantly lower than in Vancouver. Most real estate offices have fewer than five realtors, and most communities have fewer than three real estate offices. Tiny offices are not as profitable as larger offices. Thus, most brokers in the north and north central area of the province also act as agents in listing and selling property. Successful realtors in smaller communities develop close relationships with their clients. These realtors have the opportunity to know their inventory in a way often not possible to realtors in larger cities.

Moreover, they may have been involved in the sale of a particular property numerous times, sometimes over decades. The knowledge of a local realtor can be invaluable, especially in smaller communities where municipal records may not be as expansive as they are in larger cities.”

We’re going to involve the government in a continuing dialogue on this issue of dual agency.

On the whole, I support this act. I think it’s going to work to make housing more affordable in the Lower Mainland, so I’ll be voting for it. I thank you for the time.

J. Darcy: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 28 and to speak in particular about how the crisis in affordable housing is affecting my community in New Westminster, which has been, relatively speaking for the Lower Mainland in particular, one of the more affordable places to live but is no longer the case.

Contrary to what this government has claimed for many months now, this affordable housing crisis is not just a Vancouver crisis. Far from it. It has been building throughout the Lower Mainland and elsewhere for at least a couple of years now and is spreading rapidly.

Time and time and time again in this House, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and others have been trying to get this government’s attention on the issue of affordable housing with no response, to no avail. The government flatly denied that there was a crisis in affordable housing.

They also continue, to this day, to deny that there is a crisis of affordability for British Columbians in general, whether we are talking about tuition fees going through the roof, increased costs for MSP, people having to pay out of pocket for health care services that they didn’t have to pay for before, parents having to pay school fees, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries — you name it. We have an affordability crisis for working families in this province, no question about it.

When the government isn’t denying the crisis in affordable housing, despite the fact that the benchmark price for a house in the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver, has risen by 32 percent in the last year…. When they weren’t denying the affordability crisis, they were mocking or showing callous indifference to what’s happening in people’s lives.

[1550]

My colleagues, several of them, have quoted from several ministers opposite that reveal this profoundly disrespectful attitude, this callous indifference, this mocking attitude towards very, very real crises in people’s lives.

The Minister for Housing: “If you look at the mean cost of housing across B.C., the reason it’s attractive internationally is because it’s actually pretty reasonable compared to other cities like London, Singapore, Tokyo. There’s no initiative at this time in government to go and interfere in the marketplace in regard to housing.”

The Premier, in June of last year: “There are lots of great places to live. Fort St. John is booming. And it won’t be long before you see…. We need lots of new people up in Kitimat and Prince Rupert as well.”

On getting more information about what’s happening in the real estate market, June and July of 2015: “The real estate industry has all the information we need on foreign investment.”

[ Page 13452 ]

One of the members opposite who just spoke, in February of this year: “No one has a God-given right to live in a particular place.” The Finance Minister: “We make policy for all of British Columbia. So we’re thinking about the whole province, not just those people who call Point Grey home.” It’s ignoring such glaringly obvious signs that it’s not just Point Grey, not just Vancouver. All of the Lower Mainland and much of B.C. are affected.

Finally, one of the most outrageous comments of all, from the Housing Minister: “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day. I don’t know. You just have to look and see if the glass is half full, not half empty, right?” How completely disrespectful.

Now we see a flip-flop, a complete flip-flop. With an election coming in 9½ months, with every poll and every focus group showing that affordable housing is the number one issue in the Lower Mainland and is getting bigger by the day across British Columbia, finally this B.C. Liberal government slaps together some ill-thought-out proposals, writing policy on the back of a boarding pass.

While I have to say that this bill is better than nothing, it’s better than what we have now, it does not begin to address the depth and the breadth of the housing crisis that is facing people in my community in New Westminster or across British Columbia.

I want to speak for a few minutes about people who come into my constituency office. They come with many different problems, but there’s a level of desperation that relates to housing that has just grown steadily, no matter what issue they come to see us about — whether it’s a young family wanting to buy a new home and not being able to afford to, or whether it’s renters, who make up 44 percent of our households in New Westminster.

People with disabilities, seniors, people on wait-lists for B.C. Housing and people who live in co-ops are very, very worried about the axe that’s going to fall, the enormous increases in their costs, which will shoot up because of a lack of provincial and federal investment in co-op housing.

It’s not just the constituents who come to my office who raise this issue with me. I was meeting with firefighters not long ago when they were in the Legislature. They work in New Westminster for the fire department. When I asked them where they lived in New Westminster, they said: “Well, we can’t afford to live in New Westminster.” These are firefighters.

Or young business people. I went to a young business, young entrepreneurs networking event recently in New Westminster — people involved in the knowledge economy, restaurant owners. Even before the official business of the event was over, all the talk turned to affordable housing. All the talk turned to the generation squeeze. These are young business people. All of the talk turned to their inability to own their own homes.

Another big issue is when ministers opposite make comments about: “Why don’t you just move to the north?” Well, my community is very proud of its history, very proud of its roots. We have a lot of people who have newly come to New Westminster, but we also have many people who’ve lived there for generations. It’s one of the things that contributes to the real richness and the strength of our community as a community — great-grandparents, grandparents, parents.

[1555]

Parents now raising children are saying: “I want to stay in the community where my parents and my grandparents lived. I want to keep those support networks. I want to keep my extended family strong.” And they just can’t afford to do it.

The cost of housing in my community is shooting way up as well; $1.2 million for a modest bungalow or a modest three-bedroom home would have been unheard of a year or two years ago. It’s now beginning to become the norm.

Seniors. I’ve had conversations with the Seniors Services Society, the housing outreach folks there. In the last 12 months, the number of seniors who come to them who are homeless or at risk of homelessness has gone up astronomically. We’re talking about people who receive OAS, GIS, CPP — budgets of $1,000 a month or less. They have an intake now of about 200 seniors per month, and as I mentioned, the numbers are going steadily, steadily up because there is no place for so many of these seniors to go.

B.C. Housing. I had somebody write to me, and I wrote to the Minister for Housing about her situation back in