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)

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 40, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: Today I am very honoured to have some long-time Cariboo residents in the House: Edna and Bill Telford. Edna was chair of the Cariboo-Chilcotin school board for a few years, and she was a member for 6½ years. Bill, her husband, was with the Ministry of Transportation for 30 years, when our dear Alex Fraser was minister. And they still live in Williams Lake.

With them today are their son and daughter-in-law, George and Alma Telford, from Dubai. Also with them is their son-in-law Bill Myckatyn, from Horsefly, and he’s married to their daughter Nancy.

I ask the House to welcome them here today.

[1005]

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House about a dozen Sikh Motorcycle Club members, many of them travelling across the country to raise funds for pediatric cancer. Among them are Avtar Singh Dhillon, Amandeep Singh Garcha and Aman Singh Khatkar. Please help me to extend a warm welcome to them to be here in their own House.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to introduce six very special guests who join us in the House today. I’d like to introduce my cousin Jane Tylander and her husband Klaus and son Isaac, who are joined by their friends Peter and Mary Ann Aparkinin and their son Alexander, also from Stockholm. This is their first time visiting Canada.

Tomorrow they’re headed to my hometown of Sicamous, which is renowned for its high calibre of hockey and home to 15 pro hockey players, including Shea Weber, of the Montreal Canadiens, and Cody Franson, of the Nashville Predators. Isaac and Alexander will be participating in a week-long hockey training camp in Sicamous next week, and I’m sure they’ll undertake likely the longest commute of any of the other players. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to give a shout-out to someone who’s not able to travel and be here in the House, but we will be sending a message to her. That’s my mother-in-law, Rita Caroline. She turned 95 this month, and I had the great pleasure of spending the weekend in Ottawa with my husband, my in-laws, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for a glorious celebration for a woman who is very smart, very with it, who has raised wonderful children and is so proud of her grandchildren. I’d like to give a shout-out to Rita Caroline, who’s in her assisted-living facility in Ottawa.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome my family here today. You know, when we made the decision to have this rare summer session, there were a few groans, I’m sure, in many of our families back in our home constituencies. So we decided to turn this into a mini–family vacation — for the children, not so much for us.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to this House my wife, Chantelle, and my three little girls, the Stonettes. We’ve got Hannah, Sydney and Caitlin. Sydney kind of groaned again this morning when she said: “It’s so boring. Don’t make me go.” So we need to make sure that she’s not bored today. Could the House please make my family welcome.

S. Hammell: I also rise to congratulate the Sikh Motorcycle Club for their contribution to fighting cancer in our province. Would you please welcome Gurpreet Singh Tung, Rachhpal Singh Dhaliwal and Pravjit Singh Takhar to this House.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m delighted today also to have a family introduction to make. I feel like they’re not strangers in the House, because certainly I’ve been introducing them since the day they were born, but I’m delighted to have them here.

Cooper is already yawning, so I’m not sure what that says about the Minister of Transportation’s family and mine, but I’m very delighted today to have probably two of the most important reasons that many of us do the job that we do. That would be my grandsons that are here. There is Cooper, who is four years old, and there’s Caleb, who is six years old. This is their first physical visit to the Legislature. Of course, they’re accompanied by my fantastic daughter-in-law Christina and my son Chris.

I’m delighted to have them here. They’re a huge part of the reason that I choose to do what I do every day, and I can’t thank them enough for their support and their love over the last 15 years of my career. I’m so proud to have my grandsons here with us today, and I hope that my colleagues would join me in making them most welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to welcome and congratulate members of the Sikh Motorcycle Club for their contributions to the fight against cancer. I’m going to introduce Azad Singh Sidhu, Jatinder Singh Chauhan and Kulwinder Singh Khangura. Welcome.

[1010]

M. Farnworth: Well, clearly today in the chamber, it is family day, so I rise today to talk — I think almost for
[ Page 13370 ]
the first time in 20-some-odd years — about an addition to my family. Late Friday night, after 36 hours of labour, my niece made me and my brothers great uncles for the first time and my sister Christine a grandmother for the first time. My niece Morgan gave birth to a 9½ pound baby girl — Harriette Gene Macaraeg, one of the province’s newest British Columbians.

I ask would ask the House to please make her welcome to this great province of ours and congratulate my niece on a job well done.

R. Fleming: I have a couple of constituents who are here in the gallery today, one of them not for the first time. Jean Medland is here. She used to work for Hansard for a number of years. She’s now a successful realtor at Re/Max Alliance. She’s joined today by her son Grayson, who’s a French immersion student at Lansdowne Middle School. I’m told that Grayson is taking a keen interest in the politics of British Columbia — how government works in British Columbia. I’m not sure if it’s his first time joining us in the Legislature today.

Will the House please make Jean Medland and her son Grayson welcome for joining us here today.

R. Chouhan: I’m very honoured to join my colleagues and to introduce three other members of the Sikh Motorcycle Club. I want to say thank you for the wonderful work that you have done travelling all across Canada raising funds for such a worthy cause.

Please join me to welcome Harjit Singh Gill, Malkit Singh Rai and Mungeet Singh Daliwal. Welcome.

S. Hamilton: Many of us in this House have a tendency to troll Facebook from time to time. I guess I’m one of the guilty as well. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome to the world a great-grandchild of Lynn Klein, sitting next to my wife in the gallery. Lily Anne was born on July 23. I thought the fact that I saw it on Facebook deserves recognition.

Congratulations, Lynn.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MOROCCO AND WOMEN IN POLITICS

S. Hammell: Morocco is an amazing country — North African and bordered and influenced by the North Atlantic Ocean but in climate and culture deeply tied to the Mediterranean Sea. On the lowland, which faces the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, lives the vast majority of the population. Behind this lowland and running through the middle and length of the country are the snow-capped, high Atlas Mountains that descend slowly to the Sahara Desert dunes in the south. There, Morocco has annexed the West Sahara Desert — and, I need to add, much to the displeasure of the local population.

I have been to this amazing country a number of times. Each time I’ve worked with others to strengthen the political skill sets of women, skills that are needed for them to create a legitimate space in a very patriarchal political system.

Morocco adopted a quota system for women years ago, as have many countries around the world. The constitutional amendments of July 2011, which were a reaction to the Arab Spring, increased the quota for women from 30 out of 325 to 60 out of 395 seats. In real terms, that means every party can present to the electorate a list to be voted on nationally consisting of a maximum of 60 women candidates. Each party can do that. The complicating factor is that Morocco has over 30 parties, so the national list is very long.

[1015]

However, if elected, the women can only serve one term. This rule does not apply to the local lists or the 12 provincial lists that elect over 90 percent men, regardless of the stated intention of the 2011 constitution, where women should have equal civic and political rights.

The path to equality is a long one, and the women of Morocco are on that path and are very determined. This gives me pause to celebrate the number of women in our Legislature, at 38 percent, and the number, at 43 percent, in our caucus and the genuine political equality that we have reached in this House.

ASHCROFT CHINESE CEMETERY
HERITAGE REVITALIZATION

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to be back in this chamber and to have the opportunity to speak about a special event that took place in my constituency of Fraser-Nicola several weeks ago. On June 5, I had the honour of attending the unveiling ceremony of two mosaic art pieces at the Ashcroft Chinese Cemetery with my honourable colleague from Richmond Centre.

The Ashcroft Rotary Club and Ashcroft Lions Club have worked for several years to revitalize Ashcroft’s historic Chinese Cemetery. Lying adjacent to the CP Rail tracks in Ashcroft, this historic cemetery has been transformed from a forgotten, weed-infested spot of land to a tidy historic display, honouring both the Chinese culture and the Chinese men who were instrumental in the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway between the years of 1881 and 1884.

Prior to this year, a commemorative cairn and a roofed storyboard were added to the site and provide pictorial and written references. This spring the completion of a very exciting art project has added yet another dimension. Under the artistic direction of local artist Marina Papais, a beautiful glass mosaic of a Chinese dragon was designed, completed and erected in the cemetery. Entitled “Live Forever,” the mosaic is framed and housed under a country temple–style roof built by Daniel Collett.
[ Page 13371 ]

I’d like to thank the Ashcroft Rotary Club as well as the Ashcroft Lions Club for their hard work and dedication to this project. So many of our small communities have historic treasures in their graveyard sites and museums which remind us of the importance of those who came before us. I hope everyone in this House will take some time this summer to discover these special places in their own communities.

WHEELHOUSE BREWING COMPANY

J. Rice: Wheelhouse Brewing in Prince Rupert is a place of refuge, lively discussion, great parties and, often, live music. Three nights a week fishermen, longshoremen, city workers, businessmen and politicians alike congregate there. They might be drawn to the energy, but they stay for the award-winning beer.

Brewmasters James Witzke, Craig Outhet and Kent Orton all have day jobs. Their wives and families have patiently tolerated this basement hobby transformed into a high-calibre successful business. They are a production brewery with a tasting room and a retail store.

Wheelhouse beer is available in most local restaurants and in B.C. liquor stores, and it’s winning awards. The Wheelhouse has three delicious brews on tap. The Flagship Pale Ale is described as a bold citric, hop-forward, medium-bodied west coast pale ale with a multi-backbone. The Gillnetter Golden Ale is described as a crisp, clean, light-bodied German stout kölsch ale, with hints of fruit flavours. The Blacksmith Brown Ale is a full-bodied dark brown, sweet and toasty ale with caramel notes, a true British Columbia brown ale, malt from the old country and hops from the New World. In addition to these three standard beers, the brewmasters craft seasonal beers such as the award-winning Smokehouse Porter and the Scurvy Dog Spruce Ale.

The Wheelhouse brewery is the brainchild of three friends that share a deep appreciation of both the north coast and of high-quality beer. It showcases the vibrant nature of the north coast through quality beer that represents the people and the historical culture of the northwest coast. Indeed, the north coast was well represented this spring, when the Wheelhouse took bronze for their Smokehouse Porter at the 2016 Canadian Brewing Awards. This is quite an accomplishment, and we on the north coast are proud of our local brewery’s success.

[1020]

I want to thank Craig, James and Kent for all that they have given back to our community and for providing a place of refuge with a great atmosphere for when the seas are rough for so many of us in Prince Rupert.

ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF
NATHAN CLEMENT

R. Sultan: Recently I made my way to our rec centre and found a crowd of youngsters surrounding Nathan Clement of the Otters Swim Club. He was signing autographs. Nathan is going to the Olympics.

He was a sweet young child. At age two, he contracted chickenpox, causing a stroke which damaged his brain, which incapacitated his left side. Doctors said Nathan would never walk again. His grandmother thought otherwise. It was a family of athletes. Grandmother Maureen had been a competitive swimmer. His mother, Janet, also swam competitively, spending so much time in the pool her hair turned green. Nathan’s father competed in the Ironman. You get the picture.

Maureen took the young child to our pool and taught him how to swim. Later, he would get up on his own at 5 a.m., walk a mile to the pool until it opened at six and swim and swim. Nathan was one of the first paraswimmers in B.C. high school sports, racing against able-bodied boys even if he came in last.

He earned a spot in the Pan Pacific para championships in butterfly, freestyle and individual medley. Then Nathan made our own Paralympic team going to Rio, joining our own member for Parksville-Qualicum.

After opening ceremonies at the Maracanã Stadium on September 7, teams from 57 countries will compete in 20 disciplines, ranging from tennis to equestrian to seven-a-side football. Go, Nathan, go!

SIKH MOTORCYCLE CLUB

H. Bains: I rise here today to commend the efforts of the Sikh Motorcycle Club — many of them are here in the House today — for travelling across Canada to raise funds for pediatric cancer. The Sikh Motorcycle Club was founded some 14 years ago and since its inception has participated in many community activities and garnered a high level of respect and support.

The objective of the club is to promote understanding and harmony between other communities and the Sikh community. Their motto is: “We are all one community.”

In the late 1990s, Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon, who’s here, and other human rights activists were instrumental in successfully lobbying the government to amend the law so Sikh motorcycle riders could ride their bikes with their turbans on and without a helmet. This allows them to participate without jeopardizing their religious beliefs.

This past month, in their ongoing effort to put their motto and beliefs into practice, they organized, in conjunction with the B.C. Cancer Society, a two-week across-Canada motorcycle ride to raise money and awareness for pediatric cancers. The journey was a great success. They raised in excess of $100,000, well over their $60,000 goal.

B.C. Cancer Society agency spokesperson Mr. Allan Mugford says they were stunned and amazed by the fundraising effort. “This is a totally committed and passionate group of community members,” he said.

The members were greeted in every city with respect and gratitude and appeared on local television and radio
[ Page 13372 ]
stations to share their journey and bring awareness about pediatric cancer.

They were all successful in showing the country that we are all in this world together, dealing with many of the concerns, issues and conditions that may affect us all. They want people to know that the person living next door is one of us.

I ask all members of this House to please join with me, meet with them outside, shake hands with them and say: “Thank you for such a hero’s work.”

MISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford-Mission, it’s a pleasure for me to acknowledge the great work of Mission Community Services, MCSS. Founded in 1972 by Glen Barkman and Barbara Wightman, the society supports a diverse population of children, youth, adults and seniors.

[1025]

Centrally located in downtown Mission, just very close to my office, MCSS is able to spread its vision of helping people, changing lives and building community. Since its creation, MCSS has worked to expand the services it provides. Originally started with emergency transportation and Meals on Wheels, it now includes skills, life development, parent education, support groups, extreme weather housing, a food centre and many more.

Through its newcomer settlement department, the society works to support immigrants and refugees and promotes diversity in Mission by providing settlement assistance, orientation, public education and citizenship seminars. The organization makes immigrant integration into Mission a very smooth one.

Through my role as an MLA, I have had the pleasure of getting to know a couple of individuals in particular. Bob Ingram, of the board, and Sanjay Gulati, executive director, are both constant advocates for their community. I’m very fortunate to be able to work with both of them.

Would the House please join me in congratulating Mission Community Services for the excellent work they do in my community of Mission.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT
AND ELECTRICITY RATES

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked a series of questions of the Premier with respect to the latest massive cost overrun at B.C. Hydro, and it fell to the minister responsible to somehow make a silk purse out of what was clearly a sow’s ear.

Before the last election, the B.C. Liberals cancelled rate hearings by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They’d already taken virtually everything B.C. Hydro did away from the Utilities Commission, but they cancelled the rate hearing, and the minister responsible at the time — the now Deputy Premier — declared that Hydro had been fixed and everything was going to be fine.

That was before the election. What happened after the election? The current minister stood in this place and said: “Dire news, ratepayers. We’re going to see a 28 percent rate increase over the next number of years, but the good news is we are going to slow the growth of deferral accounts or the debt that B.C. Hydro has been accruing on their credit card on behalf of ratepayers. We’re going to see that go down over the next number of years.” What did we see in the annual report this year? We saw a $1.1 billion increase in deferred debt.

My question would be to the Premier, but I’ll ask the Minister of Energy. How is it possible that in a ten-year plan, in the first two years, you’re already out by $1.1 billion?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the Leader of the Opposition is wrong about who the question was directed to yesterday. The question, I think, was directed to me, not to the Premier. In any case, they don’t care much whether they’re accurate with what comes out of their mouths, obviously.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his critic for B.C. Hydro would care to wait about 48 hours, they will be able to access thousands of pages of documentation, either in paper form or electronically, as a result of the filing, the revenue requirements application filing that B.C. Hydro is doing on Thursday with the BCUC.

They haven’t done such a filing in many years; it’s true. And it is time that Hydro did a filing. A revenue requirements application essentially requires the utility to go to the BCUC and explain how they are going to have enough revenue from the rates they are proposing to charge to run their business. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know all about this. I think he advised a former Minister of Energy in this House.

In any case, when they look at that documentation, one of the things that they will find is that, in fact, the amount estimated or forecast to be in the regulatory accounts that B.C. Hydro has is actually $500 million less than forecast. Overall in the regulatory accounts of B.C. Hydro, there is less money, less debt in those regulatory accounts than was forecast, not more.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

[1030]

J. Horgan: Yesterday I noted that it must be a summer session because of all the flip-flops on that side of the House. But now it appears that this is a winter session because I’ve never seen a minister skate like that in my entire life. He says that after 15 years, the Liberals just woke up and said: “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if B.C. Hydro was
[ Page 13373 ]
accountable to the Utilities Commission?” That’s what he just said. Unbelievable.

The last guy who sat in the job said: “We don’t need the Utilities Commission. We’ve got it all figured out. We’re going to cut rates. We’re going to make it safe and reliable for British Columbians.” Nonsense.

The minister talks about 1,000 pages that are going to be dumped on the Utilities Commission. I’ll believe that when I see it. But of course, they’ve been dumping stuff for a long, long time around here, and a lot of it smells like a farmyard. I’ll have to tell you that. A wry look from the Speaker on that one.

The minister talks about thousands of pages. I’ll just go to the page in the annual report that says that the deferred debts are up $1.1 billion. My question to someone over there that will be accountable — maybe not the speed skater that just answered: are you going to tell the people of B.C. how much…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: …it’s going to cost them before the election, or are you going to follow the same script from last time and tell them after the election?

Hon. B. Bennett: What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition — and, more importantly, what I can tell the public — is that the ten-year rates plan that we announced some three years ago is the plan that we have been on for the last three years and is the plan that we will be on for the next seven years.

The rate increases that are published and are common knowledge here in British Columbia…. We’ve already gone through the largest rate increase a few years ago. We’ve gone through the second-largest rate increase, and we’re into a 4 percent rate increase this year. We will be going to a 3½ percent rate increase.

The members all know about this. That’s part of the ten-year rates plan. We will be sticking to the ten-year rates plan for the full ten years, and the filing on Thursday will provide the evidence to show that that is the case.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: A $1.1 billion overrun.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: “We heard that already.” The member from Tonyville says: “We heard that already. Move on. It’s only $1.1 billion of someone else’s money.” Unbelievable.

You’d think that they were playing with Monopoly money on that side of the House, but it’s ratepayer money, and it’s coming out of the pockets of hard-working British Columbians.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It’s going to cost, on average, $500 per ratepayer to make up the $1.1 billion mistake in the second year of a ten-year plan. Last election, the Liberals said everything was fine. They told ratepayers that the rates were going to be low for the foreseeable future. The day after the election, the last guy got dumped, a new guy got put in, and rates went up 28 percent.

So I’m hopeful that this time the B.C. Liberals will be candid with the people of British Columbia and let them know when they’re going to have to pay for the credit card bill that they missed by $1.1 billion.

Hon. Speaker, through you to the government: are you going to tell the people of B.C. before the election? Or are you going to hoodwink them again like you did last time?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, with all due respect to my friend the Leader of the Opposition, what’s coming out of his mouth here this morning is just absolute, total nonsense. It’s just nonsense. He knows it’s nonsense.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: He knows it is. He knows enough about how B.C. Hydro operates to know that it’s nonsense.

[1035]

We have a ten-year rates plan. The rates that are published in that ten-year rates plan will be the rates that are charged to the ratepayers of this province, both before the election in 2017 and after.

COMPUTER CODING CURRICULUM
IN SCHOOL SYSTEM

R. Fleming: In January, we’ll all remember, the Premier made a big, splashy announcement saying that all children in British Columbia would soon take mandatory courses in coding. But as is so often the case with this Premier, she makes the promises and then leaves all of the heavy lifting to school districts. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that when the Ministry of Education surveyed school districts in March, 70 percent of school districts said that the majority of their grades 6 and 7 classes were not ready to teach coding after Labour Day of this year.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Can he explain why so few classes in so few school districts are prepared to implement her big program five short weeks from now?
[ Page 13374 ]

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the things we’re really proud of within the Ministry of Education is the fact that we’re updating. We’re changing our new curriculum to make sure that we stay tops in the world when it comes to the education that we’re giving our students. Part of that is the changes in technology around the world. Part of that is making sure that our students are ready for those changes.

I assume the member opposite was away the day when we talked about the coding and made the announcement of $6 million that’s going to be going towards this.

I’m glad the member opposite finally recognizes the fact that technology is important, that making sure we have funds for our schools is important. That’s why we’re ensuring we have $6 million that’s going towards training. It’s going towards technology. It’s going towards equipment. It’s going towards the schools to make sure that our schools and our students are ready for the ever-changing world and are ready for the jobs of today in the technology industry.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I guess it’s a good thing that the Ministry of Education is phasing out the last of the provincial exams, because this is a failing grade if there ever was one. At eight bucks a kid, the results are in early, and this is what they say. According to the ministry survey, 62 percent of districts said that the majority of their grades 8 and 9 classes were not ready to learn coding this fall. More than half of the districts said that the bulk of their K-to-12 classes were unprepared to learn government’s new coding curriculum.

I want my children to learn the basics of computer coding in their school. I’m sure that most parents feel that way. The minister owes the province, owes the people of British Columbia, owes parents an explanation why the Premier’s January photo op has failed to provide districts with the proper resources they need to make sure that kids actually learn coding in our school system.

Hon. M. Bernier: We’ve been working with all of our partner groups — the BCTF, the BCSTA, the BCSSA — talking about how we’re implementing this amazing new curriculum into the province of British Columbia, one that is the envy around the world.

Part of that new curriculum is making sure we’re keeping up with the changes, making sure we’re leaders in the world. Technology is part of that. Again, I’ll reiterate the fact that $6 million was committed to make sure that we have technology opportunities in the classroom for our students.

I’ve had the privilege of touring around the province and seeing some of the amazing work that’s taking place in the province of British Columbia, in the classrooms, when it comes to technology already, when it’s robotics — the amazing work that’s taking place. This is adding to what’s already taking place in the province to make sure our students are ready.

When you look at 80,000 jobs in the technology industry and 9,000 companies, we want to ensure our students are ready for those jobs that we have here in British Columbia, the strongest economy in Canada, and technology is a major part of that. Our students are going to be ready for those jobs.

[1040]

G. Heyman: Well, it’s apparent that the Minister of Education took honours in fiction.

When the Minister of Education explained his lack of financial support for the new coding initiative, he said: “Students don’t need computers to learn coding.” Well, it turns out he wasn’t kidding. According to the ministry’s own survey, one in three responding districts don’t have the computer infrastructure that students need to learn.

To the Minister of Education, while in the past he flippantly said that students don’t need computers, will he commit today to provide the infrastructure that students need to learn the new coding curriculum?

Hon. M. Bernier: I guess I will have to repeat myself again, because they keep asking for us to make commitments which we’ve already made — $6 million that we’ve actually said is going to the school districts for equipment, for training for teachers, for opportunities to make sure that we continue to stay the best in the world.

Who I also want to thank are all the industry partners that we have, all of the companies in British Columbia that have chosen to make British Columbia home — Microsoft, Hootsuite, major companies from around the world who have all talked about making sure that our students are ready and have acknowledged and have supported the direction that we have here in the province of British Columbia when we talk about the training for our students.

I’m very proud of what’s taking place in our education system. It’s unfortunate the members opposite aren’t proud about us being leaders in the world.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Once again the minister attempts to convince B.C. families that too little, too late is progress.

The problem of B.C.’s tech talent and trading needs have been well known for years. This month Ryan Holmes of Hootesuite, Jill Tipping and a who’s who from B.C.’s tech sector pointed out that between 2012 and 2015, Vancouver fell from fourth to 14th in an international measure of global tech talent. They said we need much, much greater investment to expand computer science
[ Page 13375 ]
and technology-related post-secondary programs in order to meet the sector’s demand for these well-paid jobs. Yet on the cusp of a new school year, this government is completely unprepared to meet even the Premier’s coding commitment from last January.

Why hasn’t the minister ensured that adequate resources and courses are available to educate B.C. youth and support the tech sector’s need for skilled talent today?

Hon. M. Bernier: You know, first, I think it’s really important to acknowledge the fact that if it wasn’t for this government, we wouldn’t have such an amazing, strong economy and the tech sector choosing to be in British Columbia.

One of the things that we’re also proud of is the great work that our teachers are doing in the classroom. That’s why, when we made the commitment around coding, is ensuring that our teachers have the resources, that they have the training. We worked with the BCTF. We worked with the partner groups within education to make sure funding was available. We’re ensuring that we have high-speed Internet. We’re ensuring we have technology in the classroom.

When I’ve travelled around the province and met with these students, I can tell you technology in the classroom is amazing. Our teachers are doing a great job. We’re going to continue doing better, and that’s why this $6 million investment is going to go a long way to help the students in British Columbia.

J. Wickens: I’ll remind the minister that we’re talking about his own survey. I’m not sure why you do a survey if you don’t listen to it.

The survey said a majority of K-to-9 teachers are not ready to implement the new coding curriculum. It said a majority of districts feel that their student and teacher resources are inadequate to teach the new coding curriculum, and a majority of districts are not appropriately organized to deliver the new coding curriculum.

[1045]

We’re going back to school in a few weeks. Can the minister explain, please, how he expects ill-prepared and poorly resourced districts to teach coding to our kids this fall?

Hon. M. Bernier: One fact that the members opposite are leaving out is that that huge survey they’re talking about had 27 responses. One of the things that I think we will say on this side of the House is the fact that we listen to our partner groups, we work with our stakeholders….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: Again, I think what’s important to stress is the fact that our government is recognizing and making sure that our curriculum stays top of the world, that we have investments, that we’re cherishing the great work that our schools do, that our students are achieving in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, $6 million, again, is going towards making sure we have training and technology going into the next school year to help the teachers, to help the students in British Columbia, to ensure that we continue to stay leaders in the world with our curriculum, the envy of other countries.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: Well, I’m just going by the minister’s own data that shows how poorly prepared districts are to teach coding in a few short weeks from now. The reason that districts are in this position is because of this minister and this government’s refusal to give districts the resources they need for our public education system. But instead of giving districts the tools they need, our Minister of Education chose to spend close to $800,000 on advertising.

Can the minister please explain to me and parents and teachers across British Columbia why he spent $800,000 in government ads on education instead of putting those much-needed resources into our classrooms for our kids?

Hon. M. Bernier: What I will say to the member opposite is that on top of the $6 million that we’ve committed to, to help in coding, we just recently announced $25 million going back to school districts to help the school districts. Let me just say for the last 12 months….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Please proceed.

Hon. M. Bernier: I obviously hit a sore spot with the members opposite when we’re giving money to school districts.

Hon. Speaker, $25 million going back to school districts, $45 million we recently announced in the school enhancement fund, $2 million to make sure that rural schools can stay open, $45 million that the teachers pension fund is staying within school districts, $29 million for increased student funding enrolments that went to the school districts. That’s on top of the nearly $500 million that we’re investing in capital in new schools and seismic this year.

The amount of investments that we’re making in education is because of our fourth balanced budget, because
[ Page 13376 ]
of our strong economy — all investments that wouldn’t take place if the NDP were in government.

IHEALTH ELECTRONIC RECORDS SYSTEM

J. Darcy: For months, doctors, nurses, patients, families and the official opposition sounded the alarm about patient safety being at risk with the new IT IHealth system at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. And for months, the minister ignored these warnings that patient safety was at risk.

When the official opposition raised those issues in this House in early May, the minister praised the system. When doctors and nurses and family members went public about patient safety in late May, what did the minister say? “I have full confidence in the system.”

[1050]

This B.C. Liberal government has wasted tens of millions of dollars on IT IHealth fiascos to date, the Panorama system, the CST in the Lower Mainland — also a Cerner system, like IHealth — and time and time again this government has arrogantly refused to learn the lessons from these mistakes. You wouldn’t design an air transport system without listening to pilots about airline safety.

My question to the minister is this: why did it take him months before he finally paid the slightest bit of attention to doctors and nurses on the front line who were sounding the alarm about patient safety in Nanaimo?

Hon. T. Lake: We all agree that electronic health records are a necessary part of delivering safe, quality health care in today’s world. They are incredibly complex systems. The member opposite seems to rejoice in criticizing every health authority when they work with clinicians to design and implement systems like the IHealth system in Nanaimo.

Now, I’ve been very engaged. The member makes it sound like we have not been fully engaged in this file, but in February, I met with the implementation team leadership here in Victoria. In March, I went to Nanaimo General Hospital before the implementation and talked about the change management, about what it would do and their plans to manage that change. We have had several conference calls with Island Health along the way.

Then I took the opportunity last week to meet with a wide array of physicians and other medical health professionals at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. At that time, we elected to ask Dr. Doug Cochrane, who’s our Patient Safety and Quality chair, to come in and, with Island Health, with the physicians, with the health care providers, review the system and provide recommendations to us. That is the responsible way of managing a situation like this, and that is what we will continue to do.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Minister of Health, the responsible thing to have done would have been to not put this system in place in the first place and to ensure that public safety was his first priority, not experimenting with taxpayer dollars — $174 million on an electronic health record system that doctors and patients say puts patient safety at risk. According to one senior physician: “It’s unusable, and it’s unsafe…. I’ve never seen errors of the kind we are now seeing.”

This isn’t the first time this government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technology that doesn’t work — $840 million on the CST mess at Vancouver Coastal Health, $97 million on BCeSIS, $182 million on ICM. We’re almost getting up to Hydro’s big boondoggle. Another $100 million over budget on B.C. Hydro’s new technology system. Oh my goodness, we’ve just caught up.

Finally, this minister was forced to accept that physicians and nurses were correct when they said a review of IHealth was needed. The medical staff need to have full confidence in this system and that all their concerns are addressed. They want independent experts in the field of electronic records to work with Dr. Cochrane in carrying out the review so that they can answer the real question: should this system be salvaged at all?

Will the minister finally listen to the medical staff, the front-line users of this system at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and act on that recommendation?

Hon. T. Lake: The hon. member says that we are experimenting. That is total nonsense, again. Cerner is a system….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: If they would listen, they might learn that Cerner is a system that has added 230 new acute care facilities and 30,000 new hospital beds across 35 countries in 2015.

[1055]

There are seven health care organizations in Canada that have implemented electronic health records to this level of sophistication. Four of those are Cerner systems. The computerized provider order entry system that Cerner uses at IHealth has received 868,800 total orders, including 295,000 medication orders. It’s made over 1,200 drug-patient mismatch alerts. It has alerted to 1,500 drug interactions. It has proven itself to be safe and to keep people safe.

I have talked to the physicians, I have talked to the pharmacists, and I have talked to the nurses. I am confident, and they are confident, that Dr. Cochrane is the right person to do this job. Dr. David Forrest, who is the president of the medical staff association at Nanaimo, says, “We are very grateful to the minister’s attention to this and intervention to facilitate this.... I think this is huge because of the implications” — for the system and the province.
[ Page 13377 ]

We have cooperated, we have listened, and we are moving forward in a positive direction.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE
AND INVESTIGATION INTO
DEATH OF HUDSON BROOKS

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Attorney General. Just over a year ago, Hudson Brooks was fatally shot in tragic and still unexplained circumstances. It’s been more than a year — in fact, almost a year and a half — that the family and friends have been waiting for answers from the independent investigations office.

This case is one of a number that have now stretched to almost 18 months, when the time frame for resolution and getting answers and dealing with these investigations is supposed to be six months by legislation. Some have wondered whether it’s a question of resources. Clearly, there are delays taking place. Can the Attorney General explain to Hudson Brooks’s family and others waiting for resolution of these cases in the IIO: what is causing these delays, and what is the Attorney General and the ministry doing to resolve these delays?

Hon. S. Anton: The loss of a family member is a tragedy for the family, and our hearts are with the family for their loss. When it’s a police-involved matter, the independent investigations office takes over the investigation. Delays in the investigation are, indeed, hard on the family, and they’re hard on the police.

The delay in this investigation…. Part of the problem is that the IIO relies on third-party analysis, from third-party forensic labs, and that is taking longer than expected. They are working on that with the third-party analysts, and they’re working with my office. Nobody wants to see delays of this nature — least of all the IIO — and, certainly, least of all us and myself as Attorney General responsible for the independent investigations office.

They are working to complete this investigation, and as I said a moment ago, our hearts are with the family for their loss.

[End of question period.]

R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

R. Fleming: I’d like to table a petition signed by 3,561 Richmond parents to keep neighbourhood schools open and make them seismically safe. The petition was gathered at the end of last school year by a parents group, Richmond Schools Stand United.

It calls on the government to change the Ministry of Education directive that school districts with less than 95 percent capacity must close or risk not having any capital funding approved. The petition calls this capacity utilization policy arbitrary and unreasonably high and notes that 85 percent utilization rates are in line with provincial standards elsewhere in Canada.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 28.

[1100]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(HOUSING PRIORITY INITIATIVES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move that Bill 28 be read a second time now.

For some time, there has been, obviously, a great deal of interest, debate, discussion, concern and consternation expressed relating to the rapid rise in the price of homes in certain parts of the province. Yes, a lot of that discussion has taken place around Metro Vancouver. But the concerns, in a variety of forms, extend beyond the Metro region and the city of Vancouver — the capital region, other parts of the province.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It has revealed itself in different ways as it relates to the ability to purchase a home and even the ability to access rental accommodations, which, for many people within our society, is every bit as important and every bit as essential.

There has been speculation, conjecture and theories — some of them informed, some of them less so — about the various factors underlying what has been a continued and sustained rise in prices. That is certainly true in and around Metro Vancouver. There’s nothing wrong with theories. There’s nothing wrong at all with people discussing what they think might be contributing to the phenomenon and having theories about that.

I will suggest to the House that it is important that decisions we make in this place about something as fundamental as taxation be based on facts to the greatest extent they can be. That is a key component to the strategy that the government has been embarking upon, not just over the course of this session, but dating back some months and, certainly, to the tabling of the budget when we made some important changes that members in this chamber know about.

If I can talk for a moment about Metro Vancouver and restate, perhaps, the obvious, it has a large and diverse
[ Page 13378 ]
economy, a regional GDP in excess of $100 billion. It’s home to a diverse, educated and, happily, growing population, currently estimated at about 2½ million people. That number is forecast to grow to in excess of three million people in the next ten years.

People are asking — and members of the chamber, members of the government, are asking — a very reasonable question about what is driving the price of residential real estate in the region ever higher. That has led to us being confronted by additional questions, both economic and social.

What is the role that demand is playing? What is the role that supply or lack of supply is playing and contributing to that escalation in prices? The correlation between the two, and the timing around which some of these things are happening, the causation. What’s the role of capital that is flowing into the province from outside our provincial and national borders?

There’s no question that there has been a significant amount of capital flowing into the province in a variety of ways, in a variety of endeavours. It’s not just, happily, the residential real estate market but folks wanting to — and agencies elsewhere in Canada and the world wanting to — invest in British Columbia.

Still, the question persists whether and to what extent the flow of capital into the residential real estate market is sufficient to drive a market as broad and diverse as that of greater Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. Are the most recent rises in price sustainable? Likely not. And if not, what could be the consequences to families that borrowed to enter into this rapidly rising market?

We know, of course, from the data we collect via the property transfer tax, that thousands upon thousands of families have entered, over the course of the last year or two, the housing market.

[1105]

We’ve also been confronted by the challenge of dealing with these issues and these questions in a way that is consistent with our notion of ourselves as tolerant, welcoming people who value our interconnectedness with the world, openness to the world, and respect the privacy of our neighbours and others, and as people who largely, I believe, embrace a free-flowing, wide-ranging modern society and dynamic, diverse economy.

There’s no question that our province and our country are increasingly connected through trade agreements and trade flows to the rest of the world. If we look back over the past number of decades, 30 years ago our province and the city of Vancouver put ourselves on the world stage via that extraordinary event, Expo 86. We invited the world, and they came, they saw, and many of them fell in love with this part of the world that we’re lucky enough to call home.

We’ve worked, as this government, since 2001 to build on our social, cultural and economic ties with the world, and we’ve encouraged relationships with other parts of the world. We’ve encouraged twinning relationships between communities across the Pacific and in other parts of the world. We’ve launched trade missions that created new opportunities and jobs. We’ve opened up new markets, particularly for our forestry products, maritime, aerospace and financial sectors. We’ve made the world aware of us as Canada’s Pacific Gateway. Through that, we have connected ourselves into global trade in ways that other jurisdictions within Canada, quite frankly, envy.

We again established our province as a green gem in the world’s imagination with the drama and the success of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, when so many economies around the world were certainly flagging and faltering.

These are all parts of who we are as British Columbians and Canadians and how we have attracted the notice of the world in a very positive way. Therefore, it is not surprising that so many around the world possess an awareness and, in many instances, a desire to participate in the success that is British Columbia, Canada.

It’s a part of the story that has seen our economy stand as that safe harbour for investment through the challenges and difficulties of the global economic slowdown and helped us emerge from that economic crisis with the strongest economy, four straight balanced budgets, a triple-A credit rating from the three major rating agencies and an economy that is forecast to lead growth amongst the provinces both this year and next. We have a diversified economy that is leading the country precisely because it is so diversified.

Since 2001, economic growth in B.C. has averaged 2.6 percent annually. That’s compared to 1.9 percent for the rest of the country. Yes, we have a strong economy. We have strong migration numbers. People are coming here; they are moving here. Our population is growing, and a growing population looks for homes to live in. This, then, speaks to that dilemma, that problem, that challenge we are endeavouring to confront — one of the two reasons that the House has been reconvened, unusually, this summer.

On that other side of the equation, in the face of that economic growth and rising demand for homes, we have issues of supply. What does that mean? What does “the supply of homes” mean in 2016? When I talk to people about this, historically people have tended to talk about single-family homes — a nice yard and a garden, places outside for the kids to play and lots of space inside, too, because it rains around here sometimes.

I don’t think you can blame people for that. I don’t think there is any basis for criticism of people being attracted to that which they know, which they grew up with. In the vast majority of the cases, it’s the experience we all had growing up, and I think hard-working parents want the same or better for their children. That’s fair. That’s common.

[1110]

That’s the human experience and the human dream that we’re lucky enough to be able to possess and, in many cases, realize here in this country — which is why some of the data relating to that is fascinating, quite frankly.

Just a random selection. There were, in 2011, I am told, about 1,000 fewer single-family homes in the Vancouver area than there were in 1991. So over 20 years, a 1,000-unit reduction in single-family homes. In the same period of time, since 1991, the population has risen by almost one million people, from 1.6 million to 2.5 million. That’s in 2015.

So where do the people go? Everyone has got to live somewhere. They want a home, a secure place to live. Townhouses, condos, other styles of housing — the number of multi-family units has doubled in the same period that single-family homes fell by 1,000.

In the late 1980s, more than half the housing starts in the Vancouver area were single detached homes. By 2015, I am advised that only 22 percent of housing starts were single detached homes, and so far this year, 19 percent, and we are on nearly a record-setting pace — not quite, almost. Only 19 percent of housing starts in the area are single detached.

Based on the current trends, forecasters anticipate the next ten years could see a further half-million people or more move into Metro Vancouver. That represents the magnitude of the challenge and the issue before us.

If we want to provide long-term stability and affordability in a real estate market and help current and future local residents realize the dream of home ownership in our communities, we are going to need to bring more homes to market. There is, I hope, no question or dispute around that. We are going to need to do so with more homes. We are going to need it more quickly. We are going to present those homes in livable communities that are supported by an efficient and cost-effective rapid transit network.

That’s one of the reasons that in Budget 2016, we took some initial steps. We exempted newly built homes priced up to three-quarters of a million dollars from the property transfer tax — to that point, the biggest single change that had been made to the property transfer tax since its inception. We wanted to create an incentive, candidly, for builders to start building more homes at affordable prices.

There has been significant takeup. To June 30, 2016, 3,603 families have saved an average of $7,000 on their newly built homes. Total savings to families — I’m sure members are interested — $25½ million. On average, 189 families a week, or 27 families per day, take advantage of these provisions. The existing first-time-buyers program has helped more than 10,500 families buy their first home this year — again, exempting them from the provisions of the property transfer tax.

With those measures and the takeup and the opportunities that they provide for British Columbian families, it’s a start. But it doesn’t alter the fact that demand continues to outstrip — significantly — supply.

A cursory review of permitting and approvals — and I released this information just about two weeks ago, I think, so it won’t be new to members — showed an estimated 108,000 units of housing are currently somewhere in the development planning and approval process in just six Lower Mainland communities within Metro Vancouver. I’m going to say that again — 108,000. I would ask members to at least contemplate the impact of even half of those units of housing receiving timely approval and being on the marketplace, and the impact that that would have in reducing the pressure that we see today with respect to demand and a limited supply of housing.

[1115]

I mentioned a few moments ago that housing starts are presently trending strongly above the historical average. But there is more supply, and there are more homes available, if governments can work together. I mean local, I mean provincial, and I mean federal. If the three levels of government can work together, work with the private sector and get more of those homes approved in a more timely way, it should not take as long as it is, if we are serious about addressing the challenges that exist today.

There are steps that the province can take to help with that. We’re anxious and willing to work with local governments to help speed up that process. Of course, part of acquiring the fiscal wherewithal to do so is embedded in the legislation that is before the House today and this week.

However much we want to get new homes onto the market, I also understand that there are legitimate and appropriate local governance processes that need reasonable time to follow through, and local residents have to have their opportunity to have a say.

But I will say this. In the circumstances that we find ourselves in, particularly in the Metro area, two, three, four, five years for approval of new units of housing does not qualify as being reasonable. That is the challenge that I again say falls to all of us, in all levels of government, to work together to reduce and to see some of those units of housing approved more quickly. If members take issue with that, I’ll be interested to hear their rationale for so doing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Current prices, current levels of demand…. The long-term solution — and I believe it is — is to see more homes built, more quickly. It is also true that there is a short-term imperative. That relates to addressing the demand side of the equation while housing supply has a chance to catch up. That brings us to the specific changes that the government is proposing in the bill.

Bill 28 creates new measures that are intended to make home ownership more available, more affordable.
[ Page 13380 ]
It establishes a fund for market housing and rental initiatives. It’s intended to strengthen consumer protection and also, of course, give the city of Vancouver the tools it has requested to increase rental property supply.

I’m going to take a moment and speak, firstly, about the changes that have been made to the property transfer tax, and they have attracted a fair measure of attention, to be sure. I should acknowledge, first of all, that we are taking this step after much analysis and careful consideration of the facts and the data that we now possess.

In the budget, in February this year, responding to questions the public was asking, and I think they were asking about foreign ownership of residential property, I announced that the government would begin — I guess begin again, because of course, this was done in a form once before, and a previous government decided not to continue collecting this data — collecting data to identify foreign purchasers and try to better understand whether and to what extent foreign capital was having an effect on residential real estate prices.

That data, and it is still very early in terms of results, is showing some interesting trends and numbers. We now have data from June 10 to July 4. I’m going to pre-empt myself a little bit. I’m going to provide a more detailed briefing around that later this morning, but I can tell members of the House that are engaged in this debate and summarize what that cumulative data reveals.

[1120]

For that period, June 10 to July 14, there were 19,383 residential property transactions in B.C., and 1,276 of those transactions involved foreign nationals, a rate of 6.6 percent. The total investment by foreign nationals was $1.02 billion, and that represented, actually, slightly higher than 6.6 percent — almost 8 percent — of the total investment.

Metro Vancouver accounted for almost 50 percent of all of the real estate transactions and 73 percent of transactions by foreign buyers. By value, Metro Vancouver accounted for a total of $8.8 billion worth of transactions, and foreign purchasers, foreign nationals, accounted for $885 million of that $8.8 billion. The average investment by non-foreign buyers in Metro Vancouver was $911,000, and the average investment by foreign buyers was $946,000.

There are some anomalies between communities — in fact, some fairly striking anomalies. I won’t go into all of those in terms of…. The comparison, for example, between the city of Vancouver and the city of Richmond is very interesting. Off the top of my head, I think the city of Richmond possesses the largest share or portion of foreign national participation in the residential housing market.

Now, some people may choose to question the accuracy of the data or prefer to substitute their own unsubstantiated theories. If they do so, I’m always interested to know why the data that others are proposing is more reliable or more accurate than that which we have begun to collect as part of the property transfer tax system, but I expect I’ll hear more about that over the course of the debate.

Back to the actual numbers. This is not, from what we can tell, overly inconsistent with, for example, Toronto or many other major world-class cities. But I will say this. The volume of capital in the face of our economy’s ability to meet that demand appears to need further measures to help our local residents afford to realize their dream of owning a home.

Accordingly, Bill 28, as we now all know, proposes amendments to the property transfer tax that, effective August 2, would impose an additional tax on residential properties where the transferee, the purchaser, is a foreign national. That is the definition of a foreign purchaser, a foreign national — a trust where the trustee or a beneficiary is a foreign national, as well as corporations that are foreign-controlled.

The additional tax will be 15 percent of the fair market value of the foreign entity’s proportionate share of the residential property. We chose the rate in part because it reflects the rate other jurisdictions faced with similar challenges have chosen. Singapore, as I think many members know, is an example, and Hong Kong. Both of those jurisdictions apply a rate of 15 percent to residential property bought by foreign nationals.

The amendments, as I think members also know, allow the government to adjust the rate as we track the impact, and I think this will have an impact. I won’t pretend to be able to predict with certainty what that impact is, but we will be tracking it.

The act, if passed, once passed, would allow the government to adjust the rate over time to as low as 10 percent and as high as 20 percent of the property value. We could do that by regulation. I should emphasize at this stage of the proceedings that there are no plans to do that. There is no schedule to do that, but it is a mechanism that would be available to the government as we observe what, if any, impact this has on the market in Metro and surrounding areas, because we’ll be watching that as well.

The additional tax, as I mentioned and I think members know, will initially apply to property transfers located in the greater Vancouver regional district, excluding the lands of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

[1125]

I just want to take a moment because I’ve read some very interesting theories — I think, candidly, some very nonsensical theories — about why the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty lands have been excluded. It’s because we have a unique relationship via treaty, and it would not have been appropriate to alter, in the way that this law does, tax law that applies without first having a more detailed conversation with the Tsawwassen First Nation. I am happily advised that they not only understand that but agree that we have taken the right approach in that respect.
[ Page 13381 ]

The amendments also allow for expanding — I just alluded to this — or reducing the areas to which the tax applies should that prove necessary. This is a question that people have raised that I think is very legitimate, in terms of the impact that this measure may have in shifting market activity out of Metro into adjoining areas, and I think we have to be alive to that. Happily, again, we are in a position to track, in nearly real time, the changes in behaviour.

The amendments do provide the government with the opportunity to expand coverage of the additional tax. There is great interest in the southern Island, the capital regional district, where there is a vibrant, robust real estate market. I should say that the numbers I referred to point to a very small fraction of that activity involving foreign nationals at this stage. It will be interesting to see, and we will be careful to watch, if this measure influences or changes that at all.

There will be those, as there always are, who will seek to probe loopholes in these provisions, and our provisions to prevent that can be explored in the committee stage. For now, let me just say this. I hope members who are interested in this will examine the provisions of the amendments that include a specific anti-avoidance rule. It is a very specific measure that ensures that transactions, however they might be structured…. If they are structured simply to avoid the tax, they are caught by the anti-avoidance rule and will be subject to the tax and, most likely, a penalty.

We are establishing a broad six-year provision for audit, recognizing the need to give an expanded group of auditors the opportunity to examine transactions. Additional penalties are being imposed for those who seek to evade the tax, and the government’s intent, as I said, is to ensure that sufficient new audit staff are in place to enforce these measures.

We are proposing fines payable as a result of offences with respect to the additional tax as the amount of unpaid tax with interest plus $200,000 for corporations and $100,000 for individuals. The provisions also include an imprisonment option as well, and they remain unchanged.

This is a significant intervention into the marketplace. It is intended to take effect in a matter of days. There’s no question that that is going to cause some consternation in terms of contracts that are in place now, yet the situation we are confronted by, in the government’s view, deemed it appropriate to move and ensure that there was certainty as at that date.

I expect that I will hear, during the course of the debate, from others in the chamber who have different ideas about how we should address the discrepancy between demand and supply. I haven’t heard a lot, candidly, from my friends on the other side about addressing the supply issue. I have heard different ideas from them about addressing demand and tax measures that might be employed.

[1130]

I am aware, for example, and expect to hear — as I did yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition and, I think, his colleague — about adjustments to property tax mechanisms. I get an opportunity at the end, so I won’t spend a lot of time anticipating what the comments are. But I should, in fairness to the members, say this off the top.

If the argument is that a 2 percent tax levied a year from now will do more to discourage foreign participation in our residential real estate market than a 15 percent tax that we intend to begin collecting next week, then with the greatest of respect, I disagree. I disagree on the relative impact of those two approaches. But we’ll have ample opportunity, I think, to hear about some of the alternative approaches that might be advanced.

The legislation includes, as a second measure, the establishment of a new housing priority initiatives fund for provincial housing, rental and shelter priority initiatives and programs. The fund will primarily receive its revenues from the property transfer tax, and to that end, I want to alert members to the fact that there is an initial amount allocated to the fund, but it is an initial amount only.

I cannot say with certainty — nor will I endeavour to do so — what the additional revenues from the additional property transfer tax on foreign nationals will be, but the intention is to allocate all of those revenues to the new housing priority initiatives fund.

The purpose of the fund is to provide a strategic, central funding vehicle from which priority initiatives may be funded in respect of provincial housing and rental shelter supply and access and support programs associated with that. The fund, as I mentioned, is established with an initial balance of $75 million and will receive periodic transfers, property transfer tax revenues, from time to time, as approved by Treasury Board.

The account is under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. It has the authority to fund operating expenditures, capital investments, loans and loan guarantees related to the supply of housing and rental housing or other shelter access and support programs and initiatives. I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to explore those provisions during the course of these proceedings.

The Real Estate Services Act amendments are also contained within this bill. It is important, in our view, that British Columbians should have the help they need to enter the market to buy homes. And when they’re doing so, they need to know that the process is fair and respectful and that if they choose to engage professional support — and by the way, I think, in virtually all cases, it is entirely appropriate and wise that people do so — that person will act in that client’s best interests and not in the interests of someone else, least of all the agent themselves.

We did see earlier this year that, in the face of an extraordinarily strong real estate market, there were examples of licensees who took the opportunity, apparently, to put their own needs, their own interests, their own gain
[ Page 13382 ]
ahead of their clients and sought to profit at the expense of regular people, vulnerable people, people who were relying upon their real estate professional.

Some in the industry did see what was happening, but I have to say — and I have said this to folks — regrettably, they were too busy to act in the broader interests of their profession and bring that attention properly to the agencies that are in place to protect the public interest.

That is the underlying principle and the inherent challenge of self-regulation, and that’s why the government has chosen to go beyond the recommendations of the independent report commissioned by the Real Estate Council and end self-regulation for real estate licensees.

[1135]

Under these changes, the government will henceforth appoint all members of the Real Estate Council board to ensure that there is a focus on the public interest — consumer protection, public interest — for British Columbians.

Furthermore, members will know from their review of the bill that the superintendent of real estate will assume all rule-making powers that were formerly held by the Real Estate Council. The superintendent is also provided with broad powers, including the ability to oversee and direct the council.

Finally, on this front, the amendments implement recommendations to address the necessary improvements to the regulatory regime, as identified in the independent advisory group. The amendments we’re proposing would also substantially increase the fines for licensee misconduct from $10,000 to $250,000 for licensees and from $20,000 to $500,000 for brokerages.

This measure will ensure that there is a serious deterrent to misconduct, particularly considering the value of commissions derived from the current market. Licensees that contravene the act, the regulations or the rules will also, under these changes, be subject to the forfeiture of any commissions earned and may be penalized for each contravention.

I said this once before, and I want to say it again. The vast majority of real estate agents, real estate licensees, are honest, hard-working people who understand the duty they have to their client but who have had their reputations tarnished by a few unscrupulous actors. These amendments, we believe, will help protect consumers by providing an effective deterrent to misconduct and will adequately penalize those licensees that do choose, unfortunately, to put their own interests ahead of the interests of their client.

The amendments to the Vancouver Charter are also included here. My colleague, the minister responsible, will have more to say, but I will end my remarks by pointing out that the objective here is to enable the city of Vancouver to implement a stand-alone tax on vacant residential properties.

There’s a dimension of this conversation that has only recently, I think, attracted the attention it deserves. Vancouver is facing a record low-vacancy rate of 0.6 percent, and the city council, I think, is correct in feeling that that is putting upward pressure on both housing stock and the cost associated with achieving rental accommodation.

This amendment seeks to respond to, again, the question of supply, and lack of supply, through interim measures that will give time for new supply to come on the market. When I met with Mayor Robertson two or three weeks ago, he spoke to both the need to take measures that create an incentive for new supply while the longer-term issues of encouraging development of rental accommodation could be addressed.

Vancouver’s intent in applying a vacancy tax is to seek to increase the rental housing stock on the market. We are all aware of the recent study commissioned by the city suggesting that there are nearly 11,000 empty homes in the city, 9,700 of which are condominiums or apartments. It’s a significant number, but it is interesting that it’s not a huge change over the past decade in terms of percentages.

The legislation enables, but it does not require, Vancouver to impose a vacancy tax. If Vancouver chooses to do so, the legislation sets out the key elements of the tax but leaves the design details to Vancouver to determine and impose by bylaw. The legislation, I believe, balances flexibility in enabling Vancouver while also providing enough certainty for the taxing authority to be legally valid, which, we agree with Vancouver, should be the case.

In brief, I would say that the authority to tax applies only to residential land and improvements and will not apply to properties otherwise exempt from property taxation. Vancouver, I think, is in agreement with this.

[1140]

The purpose for which the revenues would be collected and received under this vacancy tax is for initiatives respecting affordable housing and administration of the tax itself.

The proposed legislation….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, how much more time do you need to conclude?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m designated. I’m almost done, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: I never thought that.

The proposed legislation allows for a variety of approaches. It enables a self-declaration approach. Vancouver may require information from property owners regarding the status of their residential property and seek verifying evidence as to whether it is vacant or occupied. If such information is not provided, Vancouver has recourse, including considering the property to be vacant and taxable.
[ Page 13383 ]

The changes to the Vancouver Charter are intended to help address housing affordability by enabling the city of Vancouver to implement a vacancy tax should the city choose to do so. I will say that there is still a measure of work to be done for the city to establish the necessary means to levy, collect, administer and enforce the tax.

I’ll repeat again. To the extent that there is information in the possession of the government that is of assistance to the city of Vancouver, in a manner consistent with the applicable laws and with the assistance of the Privacy Commissioner…. I have said to Mayor Robertson that we are anxious to facilitate the efficient flow of that information through the appropriate information-sharing agreements that will be of assistance to Vancouver.

I guess lastly on this point, other governments and other parts of the province have certainly expressed concerns as it relates to the rental market. It is not a phenomenon unique to Vancouver. We do not have before us amendments to the Community Charter. The city of Vancouver made a formal request.

I would say that there is some variety of opinion amongst other communities, which isn’t a bad thing. I’m hopeful that by the time we get to the UBCM, there will be a more formal position taken. It may not be a unanimous one, but we’ll see. Other communities will have an opportunity, at least in the interim, to see the evolution of this within Vancouver.

If we were to expand this opportunity, it would involve amendments to the Community Charter. As I say, I anticipate submissions and feedback from communities and, perhaps, a formal position from municipalities at the upcoming UBCM.

The legislation before us today creates some significant new measures that are intended to make home ownership more available, more affordable. It establishes a fund for market housing and rental initiatives, strengthens consumer protection and gives the city of Vancouver the tools it requested to increase rental property supply within its community.

Owning a home or renting a home should be accessible to families in British Columbia. If they choose to purchase that home, they should be treated fairly and respectfully by the professionals they retain. Those who seek to rent should also have a reasonable prospect of securing that accommodation.

The changes we’re proposing today are about making sure that British Columbians can continue to live, work and raise their families in our communities. It is also about easing demand from the international community, while we in B.C. — our governments, communities, the private sector — work together to do what we do best, which is building prosperous communities where people can live, work and raise their families. I’ll listen with interest to the further submissions in the debate.

[1145]

D. Eby: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Finance Minister, and I wanted to say to him on behalf of the official opposition: welcome to the conversation that’s been taking place in this Legislature for well over a year now. It’s a pleasure to have him here. I look forward to continuing this conversation and discussing his initiatives and improvements he thinks could be made.

Fascinated to hear that he thinks that the proposal we put forward had too low a tax rate for international capital on our housing market. Would love to talk to him about what rate he feels would be more appropriate for an annual tax on international capital. Funny that he never raised that objection in the year and a half that we were talking about this private member’s bill until today. But I’m glad to hear it.

I’m glad he’s here for the conversation. I’m glad we’re having the conversation. This is a very serious issue. It did not deserve the derision, the overt political posturing and the absurdity of the government’s response to our continued questions day after day. We had esteemed journalists and national newspapers covering these issues. We had esteemed economists at the major banks in Canada raising these issues. We had the Bank of Canada raising these issues. And this government, day after day after day: “What issue? No issue. Don’t want to hear about it.”

Here’s a quote from the Finance Minister. “We won’t help you build that wall,” he says, “if, God forbid, you ever get into government, because you would do that.” Then, sure enough, now we’re dealing with a proposal that is doing what this government thinks is exactly what we proposed and exactly what they said they wished would never, ever happen. That’s what we’re dealing with here.

Interesting to hear the Finance Minister talking about a bill that he didn’t put in front of the House — for example, a bill that dealt with housing supply. I read that bill thoroughly. I didn’t see any mention of backlogs in municipalities or what the province was going to be doing about that.

I didn’t see any mention about the ongoing issues with transit and driving unaffordability because people moving further and further away have to pay for longer and longer commutes and gridlock. This government can’t get to yes, as they love to say. They can’t get to yes on transit. You’ve got Justin Trudeau waiting at the border with a bag of cash for us to build this transit. We can’t get there.

The minister was talking about this for an extended portion of his speech. Nothing in the bill about that. Nothing in the bill about working with municipalities together on increasing affordable housing. City of Vancouver — 20 empty lots waiting for affordable housing. Province of B.C. — totally absent, a tent city in the middle of Vancouver right now. Fascinating speech. Nothing to do with this bill.

Now, another interesting theme in the minister’s
[ Page 13384 ]
speech….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can we have some quietness here, please?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: No, no, that’s fine. Thank you.

Carry on, Member.

D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Another fascinating part of the minister’s speech is that this initiative — this sudden about-face, this sudden decision that this is a serious issue — comes from careful perusal of facts and data that the minister has been assiduously collecting, looking at and studying. He was led to the inevitable conclusion that he had to take action. He was forced to take action by all the data — today we got 25 days of data — and compelled to act on those 25 days of data. Heaven forbid that anybody act unless they had at least almost three weeks of real estate data in a market that is certainly a seasonal one and certainly deserves more attention than that.

The minister had another theme. Regularly throughout his speech, he avoided the very clear policy decision that this government made. This government had an option in front of them. The option was to look at what I’m going to call tax citizenship. Where do you pay your worldwide taxes? Instead, this government chose to look at citizenship status and to tax people they’re calling foreign nationals and foreign-controlled companies.

[1150]

Okay. That is a policy decision, but let’s be clear about what that policy decision actually does. It taxes people, not activities. If a Canadian sets up a company that is 100 percent financed with foreign capital and buys up residential housing in Metro Vancouver, that person is exempt from the tax. If a foreign national sets up a company that is 100 percent funded with money from British Columbia and does the same thing, that person pays the tax. So the distinction is not the activity; the distinction is who the person is. I think we really need to think about that.

Let’s say the University of British Columbia recruits an esteemed scholar from overseas, a foreign national, to come and teach at the University of British Columbia. They come here. They hold onto their citizenship to teach for three years, five years, at the University of British Columbia. They buy a condo to live in while they’re teaching at the University of British Columbia.

They’re earning money here, they’re paying taxes here, they’re living here, and yet this government thinks that they should be paying an additional tax. Based on what? Based on who they are — not based on the activity. And this was a very clear policy decision.

The reason why I can say it was very clear policy decision is because there was a private member’s bill in front of this government that proposed taxing an activity which is bringing international money into our housing market. It didn’t matter who you were — didn’t matter if you were a permanent resident, Canadian citizen, foreign national, Canadian company, international company. If you’re bringing international money into our housing market, you would have paid the tax.

So it is profoundly ironic to me to have to sit and listen to this minister say, “Oh, we want to keep an open international community. We want to keep our borders open for trade. We want to be welcoming to everybody from around the world,” when his government made the policy decision to tax people based on who they are and where they come from instead of what they do.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It’s not a good tax. I welcome the minister to this conversation, and I welcome his government to this conversation, but we need to think about it. The suggestion that the best approach to take is to use somebody’s citizenship status instead of where they are living and participating in the economy is a mistaken one, and I believe that the minister will recognize that. It’s a mistaken one for a number of reasons that I’m going to get into in my remarks here today, as the designated speaker to respond to this bill.

There are a number of different sections to this bill, and I wonder whether…. Well, I’ll begin by outlining some of the responses of this government to the suggestion that they should be taking action on this. Then let’s talk a little bit about the action, because this bill comes in a context. It doesn’t come from nowhere, although it certainly seemed that way yesterday.

I had to listen, in May 2015, to the Housing Minister, of all people, tell me that housing in Vancouver was “actually pretty reasonable.” He thought that prices were pretty good in the city of Vancouver. This was the same year that when Vancouver was compared with cities in democracies with liberalized economies around the world, cities around the world, it was the least affordable when local incomes were compared with the cost of housing. To our Housing Minister, that was actually pretty reasonable.

In response to my suggestion that the government might want to be tracking international capital in our housing market and that the government might want to be taking this seriously, May 2015: “There is no initiative at this time in government to go and interfere in the marketplace with regards to housing.” There is no initiative or research that we’re doing from this ministry with regards to that.

Okay, well how about June 2015? How about the Premier, the leader of this government? What did she
[ Page 13385 ]
have to say about the concerns, the cries of the people in Metro Vancouver that their incomes were nowhere near what was happening in the real estate market? What does the Premier have to say to people concerned about affordability in Metro Vancouver?

“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.”

[1155]

For a lot of people, it’s a wonderful option. But for a lot of people in Metro Vancouver, where their families are, where their supports are, where their jobs are, that kind of comment — “Just move out of town if you can’t afford a place to live” — is emblematic of the government’s response to this issue until yesterday.

June and July 2015. The government suddenly realizes: “Well, maybe we should be telling people that we do have some information on this, and that’s why we’re not taking action.” Minister for Housing: “We worked with the real estate guys for years and have got data on sales.” No need to collect any additional information, because the real estate guys are telling the government everything that they need to know about what’s happening in the market.

Okay. All right. I mean, it’s an approach — I’ll give the government that much — but not a very effective approach.

When we suggested that the government take this Metro Vancouver housing issue seriously, the Minister of Finance refused to do so and said: “We make housing policy. I know this will, perhaps, shock some people who call a certain part of Vancouver home.” I flatter myself that he was speaking about me. “We make policy for all of British Columbia, so we’re thinking about the whole province. For people who are fixated or call Point Grey home, I’m sorry. We govern for the whole province.”

That’s why the government wasn’t taking action. It’s because they couldn’t give a darn about Point Grey, apparently. Which is fine, again, for this government to take that position and to be so explicit about it, but incredibly mistaken for an issue that affects all of Metro Vancouver, a significant part of the south Island. Profoundly out of touch.

When was that distant quote? Am I prying this out from some historical artifact? It was the 16th of February of this year. Another old chestnut. May 2016. Nothing is wrong with the housing market, says the Finance Minister, “We’re actually proud of the fact that we have a jurisdiction in British Columbia that people want to invest in.” Talking about the residential housing market.

“Tell us about the vacancy tax. Tell us about the economic wall he and his colleagues would build if, God forbid, they were given a chance to govern British Columbia.” These are the words of the Finance Minister.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place and move to adjourn debate.

D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: The House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada