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 1

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

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)

125th 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 McKEEVER

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.

The Premier has been clear that this government supports housing accessibility and affordability by increasing affordable housing supply, linking communities together with smart transit investments, supporting first-time homebuyers who are trying to crack into the market, protecting consumers from shady practices, increasing rental supply and, most of all, keeping the dream of home ownership alive for the middle class.

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.

As you know, hon. Speaker, I currently serve as the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors and, in addition to that, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility.
[ 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 B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit. The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit is a refundable personal income tax credit to assist with the cost of permanent home modifications that improve accessibility or help a senior be more functional or more mobile at home. The maximum credit here is $1,000 annually, calculated as 10 percent of eligible expenses. The credit can be claimed by seniors, whether they own their own home or rent, and by individuals who share a home with a senior relative.

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 March — Kathie Nielsen, who’s been waiting for a response from B.C. Housing for five years. She first applied when she gained custody of her grandson. She’s on a fixed income due to her arthritis, struggling to find appropriate affordable housing for herself and her grandson, who has no choice but to sleep on a blow-up bed. Five years she’s been waiting.

When I wrote to the Minister for Housing on her part, in part what his response back said: “It’s not possible to predict when a unit may become available.” And he talked about lofty plans for affordable housing in the future.

Christian and Connie, who I’ve spoken about before in this House, a wonderful couple who own a Filipino business in town — their combined income is $100,000. They can only qualify for a mortgage of $500,000, and there is nothing that they can purchase at that price. They’re being forced out of the housing market.

The government has chosen to introduce a bill that has some measures, some of which are a step forward. But they are so far from what we need to really address this affordability crisis in a meaningful way.

My colleagues before me have spoken about why we think it’s such a serious mistake to be focusing on foreign nationals, on citizenship rather than the source of the money. This tax will be easy to evade and will,
[ Page 13453 ]
in many ways, place a financial burden on people on whom there shouldn’t be such a burden — skilled workers from abroad who are working in Metro Vancouver, paying taxes here and seeking permanent residency or citizenship.

It does nothing to address the foreign speculators who are already in our housing market. Also, the foreign speculation tax applies only to Metro Vancouver, which will serve to push the issue further out, in the Lower Mainland and the south Island, even the Okanagan.

The issue of self-regulation. We are now having to begin to clean up a mess created by the B.C. Liberal government themselves, a failed B.C. Liberal experiment, because it was this government that deregulated the industry back in 2004. We’ve seen how well that went.

Finally, one of the things this government’s actions does is download responsibility for the vacancy tax to Vancouver. Just three months ago the Minister of Finance ridiculed the idea, referring to it as an economic wall. Now he’s introduced legislation to download the political, economic and administrative costs of this tax to the city of Vancouver. But only Vancouver is able to do it, not other municipalities who may want to do so.

At the same time, this government has chosen to ignore one substantive policy proposal after another from the official opposition.

[1600]

An affordable housing fund and speculation fee — don’t find it in this bill. There’s no task force to fight tax fraud or money laundering — a bill that was introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. No action that would stop all shadow flipping and close loopholes in the property transfer tax — something that was introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition back in March of this year.

Speaking of tenants, as I mentioned, 44 percent of households in New Westminster are renters. No fair tenant relocation policies. Nothing about how we replace rental units and build more rental housing. Again, on July 20, it was the Leader of the Official Opposition who spoke out about the need to address the issue, the rental housing crisis, by updating the Residential Tenancy Act. Again, no action by this government.

The issue of protecting renters from renoviction. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant introduced legislation on this issue on May 9. Again, no action on that. There is no action, period, from this government — not in this bill, not elsewhere — to preserve existing rental stock in our communities.

In New Westminster, our city has taken really strong progressive leadership on this issue, the kind of leadership this provincial government ought to be taking. Our city doesn’t accept rezoning on existing rental buildings. If a three-storey medium-density rental building is going to be taken down, it can’t be replaced by an expensive 40-storey condo tower. Our city also incentivizes new long-term rental housing by reducing costly parking space requirements for developers, allowing greater density instead, rather than paying the density bonus fee.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The result speaks for itself, and it’s a result that we could see not just in New Westminster but in other communities across this province if this government were willing to show bold leadership on affordable housing. The result in my community has been that half of new developments in New Westminster in the last year have, in fact, been rental housing. There’s no reason why the provincial government should not be leaders in an area like this. There’s no reason why it should be left to local governments.

We could also have tax incentives to build rental housing. It was done at the federal level in the 1970s. We know that condos reap about 20 percent more profit than rental housing does. This is certainly something that could be considered provincially. There are a variety of serious, substantive options that this government could have chosen to run with that would have seriously addressed the crisis in affordable housing, and they chose not to.

The revenues from a wide variety of those kinds of actions and measures could then…. Revenues that were generated could, in fact, have gone towards non-market housing. Instead, we have a hodgepodge. We have a not well-thought-out approach dashed off on the back of a boarding pass in the rush to the next election, which we know is now less than ten months away.

It is better than nothing, and I will be voting in favour of it. But it is a far cry from the action that my community needs on affordable housing. It is a far cry from what British Columbians need to address the affordable housing crisis. British Columbians deserve better. Together with my caucus colleagues, we will be continuing to speak out in this Legislature and elsewhere for measures that truly do address the very real crisis in affordable housing for my community and people across this province.

J. Sturdy: It is a pleasure to rise in this chamber today to join the debate on Bill 28 on behalf of the fine constituents of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

As other members before have stated, the problem of increasingly unaffordable real estate prices is one that stretches beyond the Lower Mainland. It’s an important issue to all British Columbians. Many of my constituents in Squamish and Whistler and into Pemberton and beyond and into other communities outside Metro Vancouver have felt the effects as home prices steadily increase in what can only be described as a dramatic way.

[1605]

In addition, rental and vacancy rates have dropped to unprecedented lows in the region as the impacts are felt
[ Page 13454 ]
from multifamily redevelopments and as the impacts of Airbnb and similar services take long-term rentals out of the market.

In many ways, it is really an understandable opportunity, from an owner’s perspective, in a maturing market in a place like Whistler, for example — owners who have paid down their mortgages over the years and just don’t want or need the hassle of a tenant. Not to say that all tenants are not a joy, but sometimes an owner wants the quiet and private enjoyment of their property.

Alternatively, Airbnb and the like are certainly having an impact on the rental supply, as owners can generate the same income in a few days with nightly rentals as they can with long-term monthlies. Clearly, there are also neighbourhood impacts of these nightly rentals.

Our government has an obligation to ensure that British Columbians have the first opportunities to own a home in the community where they grew up and where they live. I think that’s something both sides of the House can agree on.

The issue has come to a breaking point, and British Columbians can no longer endure the uncertainty and financial pressure from the rising real estate market. Something must be done to restore the dream of home ownership for our province’s middle-class families.

I’m pleased to say that this government has been taking concrete action on this issue. In our balanced budget 2016, we introduced new measures to encourage the creation of more housing supply and have made substantial investments in affordable housing throughout the Lower Mainland and beyond.

We also began collecting detailed data on the impact of foreign buyers within the province’s real estate market, and now that we have the numbers, we have a better idea of how to go about solving this pressing issue. There are many separate causes of this trend. Incredibly cheap interest rates that may well extend for years and years into the future, as well as the low Canadian dollar, are driving demand for housing in British Columbia from across Canada and from around the world.

Moreover, British Columbia remains a top destination for tourists, for business owners and for people from around the world who are looking to live in an incredibly beautiful province with a thriving economy, low taxes and an unparalleled quality of life.

What’s clear is that in the Lower Mainland’s real estate market, demand is outstripping supply. That’s why our government needs to take steps that address both sides of the equation here. We need to be able to lower the demand while increasing the supply of housing to ensure that housing prices reach a more affordable level.

I’m pleased to say that in addition to the measures we announced in our last annual budget, there’s more coming forward, and Bill 28 is a beginning. Bill 28 will enact an important number of changes that will likely have a substantial effect on the real estate market in this province.

Firstly, this legislation will introduce a new 15 percent property transfer tax on foreign purchasers of British Columbia real estate. While the data show that foreign buyers aren’t the sole cause of our province’s real estate crunch, it’s clear that they have a significant role to play. This additional tax will help curb demand from abroad and ensure that British Columbians and other citizens of this country are first in line when purchasing a home, not an international speculator looking to simply make a quick dollar or park their capital, while not contributing to the community.

The funds raised by this new tax will be put towards the other side of the real estate equation, which is to increase the supply of housing to the market. The housing priority initiative fund will be established to set aside revenue to increase the stock of affordable housing. The fund will begin with an initial investment of $75 million.

Bill 28 will also restore the confidence homebuyers have in the real estate market sector as being fair and a transparent market.

[1610]

There were troubling and disturbing recent reports of misconduct and shady practices that were being perpetrated by a small number of realtors in the Lower Mainland. The vast majority of realtors are honest, hard-working people who help families and other homebuyers realize their dreams. However, it’s clear that the privilege of self-regulation by the industry was abused by a negligent minority. Bill 28 will end this privilege and put in place a regulatory structure that ensures realtors will act in an ethical and transparent manner.

Finally, Bill 28 will put in place the necessary legal changes to give the city of Vancouver the responsibility it has been asking for in its request to implement a tax on vacant homes. It remains to be seen what the exact terms of this tax are, but that is ultimately up to the city of Vancouver. What’s important is that this measure will hopefully free up homes for rent that many families are so desperately seeking in the Lower Mainland.

British Columbians have been wondering recently whether their children will have the same opportunity to purchase a home and raise a child or raise a family as they did. This simply shouldn’t be the case. Our government has an obligation to keep the dream of home ownership within reach of middle-class families. That’s why I’m pleased that we’re taking concrete steps to ensure this. That’s why I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 28 today.

G. Holman: I’m very pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents from Saanich North and the Islands about Bill 28. I do want to make some comments on the difficult road to Damascus that this government has been travelling of late, this sudden revelation that it’s not just supply but demand that plays a role in skyrocketing housing prices in the Lower Mainland.

Before I do that, I do want to speak just briefly to
[ Page 13455 ]
one initiative that I’ve been involved in on the Saanich Peninsula and to make the point that affordability, in terms of housing, is an issue not just in the Lower Mainland but on southern Vancouver Island as well and, in particular, in my constituency.

What I have been able to do is secure funding to undertake an affordable housing needs assessment on the Saanich Peninsula, the first one ever undertaken for the three municipalities: Sidney, North Saanich and Central Saanich.

The purpose of the study is to document the need for affordable housing on the peninsula, try and focus attention on that need and support affordable housing developers, both non-profit and for-profit, in applications for funding to build new rental housing in particular. Rental housing is crucial. The marketplace tends not to provide rental housing. The purpose of this study is to try and focus attention on that. The study will be made public in August, and I’ll be holding public meetings in my constituency about the results of the work.

The preliminary data indicates a very serious problem around affordability on the Saanich Peninsula. There are hundreds of families on the Saanich Peninsula who are paying more than 50 percent of their income on either rent or mortgage payments. The definition of “core need” that B.C. Housing, CRD housing trust fund, typically use as an indicator of core need is family households paying more than 30 percent of their income on rents and mortgages.

Hundreds of families are paying more than 50 percent. That does not include First Nations because the data is primarily census-based and that does not include First Nations. On First Nations, there are hundreds of more families in even greater need for affordable housing on the Saanich Peninsula.

[1615]

I’m very proud of that work. The consultant doing the work is the Greater Victoria Social Planning Council, a long-standing non-profit research agency. Looking forward to publish the work and communicating with our community about the results of the study and some of the things that we could do to address the problem.

In terms of Bill 28, we must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose. Bill 28 is attempting to address the problems in the housing market, but problems that government has not only ignored but themselves have created in their term of office — not only ignored but, in fact, ridiculed. Ridiculed advocates. Ridiculed UBC economists, researchers. Ridiculed the official opposition when over a year ago, we were raising these issues in the House and being told not to worry. “It’s not about demand; it’s about supply. You’re just fearmongering.” All of that.

I would like to point out some of the thoughtful comments made by the Liberal leadership over the….Well, in fact, just a few short weeks ago. I know we’ve heard in this place some of these comments made before, but I just…. You know, you have to have some fun in making these speeches. To be quite honest, I actually do think it’s very important for people to understand where this government was not just a few weeks ago. Clearly, what’s happening now is they’re responding to polls. They’ve come to understand that the affordable housing crisis in the Lower Mainland, southwest British Columbia…. For them, it’s not really a matter of substance or policy or ideals. For them, it’s a matter of a risk in the upcoming election in 2017.

What are some of these thoughtful comments made by the Liberal leadership just a few short weeks ago? We should probably start with the Housing and Gas Minister. With respect to the issues, the concerns that were being raised in this House, the minister actually said: “You know, house prices in Vancouver are actually pretty reasonable.” They’re pretty reasonable. That was in May of 2015.

The Housing Minister went on to say more recently, in fact a year later, just May of this year: “I guess some people just have to get up and whine every day.” This is the Housing Minister for this government. That’s an indication of how important they thought this issue was just a few weeks ago, until the polling results seemed to suggest that, well, maybe we’d better pay attention to this.

The Finance Minister, similarly skeptical about suggestions being made to address the influx of foreign capital into the Lower Mainland. In response to the private member’s legislation that we proposed — that our housing spokesperson proposed — and how we were suggesting to address the issue, the Finance Minister said, derisively: “Tell us about this vacancy tax. Tell us about the economic wall he” — referring to our housing spokesperson — “and his colleagues would build if, God forbid, they were ever given a chance to govern British Columbia.” Again, indication of the attitude of members opposite and their key leadership on this issue. Things can change rather rapidly in a few weeks. As they say, a week in politics is an eternity. Apparently, that applies in this case.

Then finally, the Premier herself, who in June of 2015, in response to the concerns we were raising and others were raising about skyrocketing housing prices in Vancouver, was quoted as saying: “There are lots of great places to live in British Columbia. We need lots of new people up in Kitimat and Prince Rupert.” In other words, long story short, they can move somewhere else.

[1620]

Those are some of the very thoughtful comments made by the leadership of this government just a few weeks ago and over the past year. It’s pretty disappointing that what we have here is a government that, essentially, is putting out fires. It’s not thoughtful policy development with input from stakeholders and the official opposition. It’s basically putting out fires. And if there’s a bad headline, what do we do quickly to squelch that headline?
[ Page 13456 ]
That’s policy development here in British Columbia today, under this government.

Quickly, to summarize the bill, there are four measures. As others have said, including our Housing spokesperson, it is better than nothing. If that’s faint praise, perhaps the Liberals will be happy with a bit of faint praise. In the absence of nothing else, we probably will be supporting this legislation, although, as our Housing spokesperson indicated, we’ll be proposing amendments to the legislation. Hopefully, government might be a little more interested in listening to those amendments than they have been in the past.

The bill has four main measures. The most prominent one, of course, is the property transfer tax of 15 percent on residential property purchases — just in Metro Vancouver, though, which is another concern.

There will be the creation of a housing priority initiatives fund, which is a good thing, and the member opposite just mentioned that. That is a good thing — that at least some of the proceeds from this tax will be allocated to, hopefully, providing affordable housing. But the devil will be in the details. We’ll see how that unfolds.

Apparently, this fund is under the control of the minister rather than cabinet. So there’s this kind of concern about slush funds. We’ve got the prosperity fund, and now we’ve got this new housing priority initiatives fund, so there are lots of little pots of money that government can access as we get closer to the election in 2017 — and, again, an indication of how they approach public policy.

The third aspect will be — and, again, this is a good thing — that government will be ending self-regulation of the real estate industry, ending self-regulation and setting out new powers for the enhanced position of the superintendent of real estate.

On this issue, in particular, this clearly is a problem created by government itself. It clearly has shot itself in the foot here, and this is the bandage, because, in fact, it was this government that deregulated the industry in the first place — I believe back in 2004. “Oh, it’s fine. This industry can regulate itself. It’s fine.” They’ve come to understand that it’s not fine, so they are fixing a problem that they, in fact, have created.

Finally, amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver and only Vancouver to implement a vacancy tax. That’s the basics of the bill.

As indicated by others on this side of the House, there are some real serious concerns about the effectiveness of the bill and unintended consequences. For example, the focus on foreign nationals rather than international money, international capital — that’s one problem. It’s not only a problem because it has a kind of a faint resonance of the head tax of years gone by — because you’re focusing on people, not on capital — but it’s also going make it, probably….

Our concern: it’s going to be easier to evade. For example, it would exclude, apparently, condo presales. It does nothing about bare trusts. It would be easily avoided if a foreign investor can find a local proxy through which to direct that investment. That’s the real concern on our side — that the focus of the bill on foreign nationals rather than the capital itself is going to make it easy to get around.

[1625]

Secondly, it doesn’t do anything to address money that’s already in the housing market — nothing at all. It only applies going forward, and it’s a one-time tax. It does nothing at all to address speculative capital that’s already in the marketplace.

This transfer tax and the vacancy tax only apply to Vancouver. There are two aspects of that, particularly the vacancy tax. Is it a kind of downloading of responsibility onto local governments?

In fact, while the city of Vancouver did request this authority, they have also made it very clear that unless the government assists with information that they have readily available to them, it’s going to be very difficult to administer, to enforce, to implement this vacancy tax. Of course, the other problem is that since it’s only Vancouver that’s being addressed here in Bill 28, this speculative capital is simply going to move around it. It’s going to come to Victoria. It’s going to go to Kelowna. It’s going to go wherever to evade this property transfer tax.

So you’ve got kind of this domino effect. Government has said: “Well, we’re open to changing the local government rules so other municipalities can apply. Other municipalities can request, and we’d probably be open to allowing them to apply the vacancy tax as well.” Essentially, you’re following speculative capital around the province rather than having a provincewide solution, which is what our private member’s legislation proposes to do.

The legislation also doesn’t really do anything to address the really serious concerns about money laundering. We on this side of the House have suggested establishing a special task force to deal with that very serious issue. This legislation doesn’t address this at all.

Again, our Housing spokesperson has characterized Bill 28 as better than nothing. Many members on this side of the House have indicated that we would reluctantly support the legislation, even though we do believe it’s last-minute. We do believe it’s rushed. It’s just to deal with headlines. We believe there are serious flaws in the legislation, which is not only going to not address the problem but allows the problem to migrate throughout the province of British Columbia. Despite those misgivings, we may have to reluctantly support this as better than nothing. Having said that, we will be proposing amendments in the committee stage.

I did want to mention one thing about this demand-and-supply question. Being an economist by background is something I’m trying to live down as I progress through life. This notion that just increasing supply is go-
[ Page 13457 ]
ing to fix the problem, even with the measures we have in Bill 28…. Finally, government has realized, yeah, it’s not just about supply. It’s about demand as well. This is a really important point. If supply only was the solution to affordable housing in British Columbia, why does Vancouver — why do the largest communities in British Columbia — have a problem with affordable housing? These communities have the largest stock of housing. They’ve got the largest growth in new housing being developed. The reason is because just simply increasing supply, just as with highway capacity and bridge capacity, does not resolve the problem. You need to break the link in terms of affordable housing. You need to break the link with market forces.

Putting a new house on the market that will simply then start to escalate in value over time, just as with all other housing units that don’t have some kind of constraint on that…. That constraint — there are tools to address this. But you’ve got to break that link with the marketplace. One of the most useful tools is something called housing agreements, which actually go on the title of the property. It’s like a covenant on title that moves with the property regardless of ownership. For example, with respect to rental housing, it ensures that rental rates being charged in the new development will always be significantly lower than market rates.

[1630]

Unless you have that kind of tool, if all you’re doing is building more housing and throwing more housing on to the market, sooner or later, that’s going to escalate with the rest of supply. This is a crucial point. Just adding supply in itself, without constraints like that, without restrictions like that, is not going to work.

Again, we’ve proposed private members’ legislation. We’ve proposed other measures. Government has effectively ignored that but has come up with this alternative. We’ll be going through the bill — the devil in the details — during the committee stage.

I really look forward to our Housing spokesperson asking the important questions of the Finance Minister. We’ll be proposing very constructive and thoughtful amendments, and I hope this time — this time, as opposed to the last year — government will actually listen to some of the suggestions we have.

S. Hammell: I rise to support Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016.

I just wanted to be absolutely clear with members in the House that this bill will be supported by me and my caucus. We have been on the record for a while talking about the need for some action in the area of housing. I don’t think there’s a member in this House that hasn’t felt the need, at some point, to address this issue.

I know and have heard loudly and clearly that this issue is not as prevalent in the hinterland or the rural areas of our community. I acknowledge that, and I understand that there are differences in this province. This has very much an urban flavour to it.

There have been a number of descriptions of the housing market, and these descriptions also sort of describe the rental market. I would like to just take some of them that I’ve heard and seen written. People are talking about the housing market as being scorching, red hot, on fire, sizzling, burning. But for a growing number of younger people and families with younger children, hoping to get a toehold in the market, or even just stay where they are, the rapid increasing costs of housing and the rental market have left many, many of our citizens feeling burned.

Then again, it was not too long ago that another political universe was talked about. The Minister of Finance did brag that other jurisdictions would like to have a white-hot housing market. Now, with all due respect to the Finance Minister — and I do have a lot of respect for his skill — I can’t imagine a government or a jurisdiction anywhere that would like to have a white-hot housing market.

I know that most jurisdictions just would not like to see their citizens burned in a city that they called home — their dreams of owning a house or a home up in flames, destroyed while the government fiddled. And to a large extent, this government did fiddle. You can talk about anything you want, but this was on the radar a year ago. People were sounding the alarm that this was an issue that was hurting people in our community, and the government did nothing until about a week ago.

[1635]

If the Finance Minister had looked harder, he would have found many jurisdictions that did not like having a white-hot housing market. One of the places where people have come to this province from is Hong Kong. They instituted a 15 percent surtax on non-residents buying into the city’s residential market back in 2012. That tax was aimed at reducing speculation, mainly by the Chinese community, as reported. Singapore charges a similar tax on foreign buyers.

So we have Hong Kong. We have Singapore. And we have Australia. In response to rising prices in Melbourne and Sydney, they implemented a ban on foreign purchases of housing that was not new housing stock. Now, you could buy an older house if you were demolishing it and you made more rental units or more units out of it than originally started. But in essence, foreign buyers are restricted to buying new houses in Melbourne and Sydney. Temporary foreign visitors can buy existing houses as long as they are resold when that person leaves Australia.

So we have Hong Kong. We have Singapore. We have Australia. And if you look, actually, on the European continent, you will see other countries that have dealt with the issue. Denmark has a law against foreign ownership unless you’ve lived for five years and are employed there and the home is your principal residence. Then, if you
[ Page 13458 ]
are an EU national, you can buy a home.

In Britain, in London…. So now we’re not only in Singapore; we’re in Hong Kong; we’re in Australia; we’re in Denmark; and now we’re in London. In London, their property transfer tax is very, very progressive. There is an added transfer tax on purchases made by non-residents, and foreign owners also pay a heavy capital gains tax when they sell. So you have Britain, in the city of London, putting on some pretty heavy speculation taxes. This is because of a hot market.

Then, finally, there are the Swiss, who impose annual quotas on the number of houses that can be sold to foreign nationals. The Philippines don’t allow foreign nationals to buy at all. They can buy the house but not the land it’s built on, which is interesting. So some jurisdictions have responded to a heated market; other jurisdictions have never let it happen.

Two groups in our communities that particularly stand out that have been just devastated by this increase in price in the market are basically young families and young adults. Now, this, I think, is a really shocking statistic done by a survey. I can’t remember whether it was the city or whether it was Vancity. But nearly two out of three families in Vancouver do not believe they will be there after three years. People do not see themselves staying in Vancouver, because they can’t afford it and they can’t bring up kids.

If you have huge housing costs that you see in Vancouver, and you lay on top of that the astronomical daycare and costs of looking after children if you have to go to work, you’re now just right out of sight. It isn’t abject poverty, but you don’t have enough money to make it through the day.

[1640]

Two out of every three families living in Vancouver do not feel they can continue living in the city that they’re living in now and may have lived in all their lives. This has happened — make no mistake — under the watch of this government. People who live, play and work in the city of Vancouver are being driven out of their city.

The government was warned of this crisis. I don’t want to harp on that, but a year ago this was….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Okay, I do want to harp on it. I’m sorry. You’re right. I do want to make it clear. I do want to go back over the fact that you were told, you were told and you were told that this is coming. Fair enough. Any reaction is a good reaction given that we needed something to go on.

You do remember in this House when you guys — or the people from across the House — were just yelling across at us: “What’s your tax? Tell us your tax. Tell us your tax”? Well, we’ve got the tax. We’ve got a tax that most of us would have been a little shocked at, I think. That 15 percent is something that I think people will wake up over and do what….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Now I would never say tax and spend, tax and spend. But I do think it is a bit of inoculation against tax and spend, tax and spend.

According to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, as of June 2016, the price for a single-family detached home on the city’s east side was $1.51 million, and on the west side, the price was $3.55 million. So your average house in the city of Vancouver is $2.5 million.

Now I just kind of think of that, and I think of the $75 million that’s gone into this housing fund. If you take 75 and you divide it by 2.5, you don’t get many houses. I mean, does that make sense to the people on the other side? You put into a housing fund $75 million, and I bet we’d be lucky if it could buy 40 houses in the city of Vancouver.

I don’t expect for one minute the government to go out and buy 40 houses, but it does give you a big sense of the magnitude of the problem that sits in front of us.

We have people who need to live in a house — or a home or somewhere — for them to live and raise their families and to go to work from. On July 7, the Vancouver City Savings Credit Union stated that the average rent…. Now we’re not even talking about the $2.5 million you need to buy an average house. We’re talking about rent in Vancouver. It ranges from $1,619 in Mount Pleasant to $2,166 in South Granville to $2,656 a month in downtown and to $2,978 in Kitsilano — so $3,000 a month to live in Kitsilano. Three times 12 is $36,000 out of your income before you even get to buy food. No wonder there’s a crisis.

Vancouver may be the poster child for the crisis, but believe me, this crisis has spread out of Vancouver through Richmond, through Burnaby, through New Westminster, through Surrey and out the valley — and where in greater Vancouver the increase in rent has been over 11 percent in one year.

Now, I thought there was a rent cap of 2.9 percent, but the rent increases are managing to squeeze and ooze around any kind of rent freeze or rent cap that’s on. So you have an average increase of 11 percent in the renting in Vancouver.

[1645]

The problem with all this is it impacts heavily on the economy. We’ve had Ryan Holmes, founder of Hootsuite, say this is something we’ve got to deal with, that the most valuable asset of Vancouver is its young people — and not recruiting young people; it is having them be retained and stay.

My daughter has a friend who is a prof at a university in Ontario who was offered a job at UBC and who will not come, because they cannot afford to live in the neigh-
[ Page 13459 ]
bourhood. This crisis is really jamming up the works and is something all of us should be concerned about.

I am very aware of my time. I know that we are trying to contain the conversation so that everybody gets a chance to speak. I do want to put on the record that although I’m supporting this bill, I am very, very disappointed in parts of it. And you know what? It is just disappointing that we don’t get it right. I know the “we” is a big, general “we,” but I just wish that the focus had been a little tighter. We should not be focused on a nationality. We should be focused on what people do. That’s very, very important in terms of ensuring that we have a welcome and inclusive place.

For example, if you have someone who is a major cardiologist in the United States and wants to spend five years up in Canada and buy a house while he’s here…. He’s up here paying taxes. He should be able to buy a house. But if you have someone who’s not living here and we’re not the place the person pays taxes, and they buy property, they should just be whacked in terms of the amount of money they have to pay. So I am disappointed in that part. I’ve already mentioned that $75 million just seems to be a bit of a spit in the bucket when you’re taking on this issue.

I do also want to mention one thing, though. From the other side we hear constantly: “The problem is supply. The problem is supply. And the problem is supply.” Coming from Surrey, I’m telling you that the problem is the supply of schools for the housing that is already built. You can dismiss my comments with a little flip of your hand if you wish, but when you have 7,000 kids in portables — and nothing but growing — and with the announcement made that by the time the schools are built there will be still more kids in portables, and you expect that city to absorb all that growth, then you just are not functioning in a strong, supportive way. You’ve got to walk the talk as well as just talk it.

So the issue around schools for the houses that are already built in Surrey needs to be a major focus when you’re talking about supply.

With that, I’ll take my seat and let the next person speak.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to stand and take my place in debate on Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I’m also hopeful that during the course of debate, the Premier will be able to break herself away from her fundraising responsibilities and take her place in the debate as well.

It’s a critically important issue, and I know that whatever the Premier may have to say today will probably be materially different from what she’s been saying for the past two years, because we’ve been raising the crisis of affordable housing in the Lower Mainland since 2014, and the Liberal response has been uniform nothingness. It has been: “Crisis? What crisis?”

I keep thinking of the Supertramp album, hon. Speaker. I don’t want to date the two of us, but in the mid-’70s, there was a group called Supertramp, and they put out an album called Crisis? What Crisis? And every time I think of the Premier and her responsibilities to meet the needs of British Columbians, to address the affordability crisis, I keep thinking of her and that album cover. “Crisis? What crisis?” That’s been the response from the B.C. Liberals.

[1650]

A. Dix: You’re calling them a Liberal.

J. Horgan: I’m calling them a Liberal. That’s right.

Just two months ago, the Housing Minister, one who you would think…. And I know my colleagues would agree with me. You would think that the Minister Responsible for Housing in British Columbia would have something to say about the only issue that’s on the lips of every single person in the Lower Mainland, whether they’re trying to get into the market, whether they’re trying to find rental accommodation.

The response from the Minister for Housing was: “I guess some people just like to get up and whine every day. I don’t know. You just have to look at the glass as being half-full and not half-empty.” That’s the response from the individual responsible to the people of British Columbia for housing in this province. It’s absolutely unbelievable that someone who has been a member of this Legislature coming on 20 years now and has had responsibility for the Housing file for a decade and a half would have the temerity to say that people are whining about affordability in British Columbia. That’s what he said just a few months ago.

When my colleague the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was grilling him during the estimates debates of the budget for the province of British Columbia, the minister was again dismissive. He said: “Well, quite frankly, housing is really affordable here in British Columbia.”

I thought to myself, “If there was anyone more detached from the reality that regular people are feeling in British Columbia, it would have to be the Premier,” because she also said: “If you don’t like the prices, you can always move north. The views are spectacular.” And I don’t doubt that at all. I’ve been travelling around the province, and every corner of this magnificent place is spectacular. But people like to live where they work, and the commute from Terrace or Kitimat to Kitsilano is quite a distance. I don’t think even the Premier, with her access to private jets, would want to make that commute every day.

While the average housing price in Metro Vancouver has gone from $1.08 million to $1.4 million and prices have risen by 30 percent in the Fraser Valley and 17 percent here in the lower Island, the response from the government has been: “Crisis? What crisis? Everything is fine.”
[ Page 13460 ]

But they couldn’t hide it anymore after the release of the public accounts last week, because there, in black and white for all to see, was a 44 percent increase in property transfer tax revenues. How does that happen? Well, that happens when you miss your mark by almost 50 percent. That’s quite extraordinary. That made up somewhere in the neighbourhood of $460 million of found money.

So why don’t we do something about that? We’re back in the Legislature this week. As I say, I’m hopeful the Premier can break away from her fundraising responsibilities and tell us just why it is that two months ago, when we were tabling legislation in this place to address affordability, to tax capital — not to tax people, but to tax capital — the Premier dismissed it. The Premier said: “Oh, that’s outrageous. There goes the NDP again, fearmongering.”

First, you deny there’s a problem. Then you blame your opponents of fearmongering. And then you come up with a solution, which is a half-baked solution that completely misses the mark and, in fact, will continue to allow foreign speculative capital to come into the Lower Mainland and continue to distort the real estate market while we punish foreign nationals who we’re encouraging to come here, to bring their skills, to participate in our economy and to put down roots — as my father did, an immigrant to this country — and make British Columbia a better place.

That’s what immigration is about. You don’t tax people for coming from somewhere else; you tax people who are coming to make money on the backs of other people. That’s where the government has missed the mark, and that’s….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Thousands of British Columbians are scrambling to find homes. I’m reminded of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. She told the story of her father, a senior who I happened to meet. He’s a wonderful man — quick with a joke, quick with a smile. He proudly told his daughter that he had found three homes to rent in the city of Vancouver — not three homes that were appropriate for his conditions; three homes, period. That’s it. If that’s not a crisis, I don’t know what is.

Young families stuck in a one-bedroom apartment with three kids — that’s a crisis. Again, what’s the response from the B.C. Liberals? “Everything is fine. If you don’t like it, move to Kitimat.” Now, again, the member for Stikine will say he’d be happy to have more constituents. Kitimat is a wonderful place, and if you want to go and set down roots there, I welcome you to do so. But for people who are in the Lower Mainland, 2½ million souls, they’ve been abandoned by this government when it comes to affordability.

[1655]

It’s wrong, and we should have done something about it a year and a half ago. We should have done something a year ago. We gave the government an opportunity to do something about it two months ago, but instead, here we are in the dog days of summer with a last-grasp effort by the B.C. Liberals to dampen down headlines and give the impression that they’re making progress.

I want to talk a little bit about a couple of the elements in this bill. The vacancy tax, which was asked for by the city of Vancouver — I’m pleased that the government is responding to an overture from mayor and council there, but I don’t think they’ve thought it through. I think that, again, the issue is: how do you enforce that?

What the government has done is they’ve opened up the Vancouver Charter, even though there are other communities in the Lower Mainland and other communities in British Columbia that would welcome the opportunity to toy with the notion of trying to find a way to tax non-residents or vacant dwellings in their municipalities.

But what the government have done is they’ve opened up one small corner of British Columbia and given responsibilities to the city of Vancouver within the charter, when other communities have asked for the same thing. Here in Victoria, Oak Bay and the city of Victoria have both asked for that. There are other jurisdictions in the Lower Mainland that would welcome the opportunities.

How do you enforce that? I have this vision of bylaw officers up on garbage cans, looking in windows at the dead of night to see if somebody is home. I don’t know if that’s the type of British Columbia that we expected to come forth at the end of the legislative session in 2016.

I mean, it seems a little bit of Keystone Kops. But when you’ve got a government that’s riddled with Keystone Kops, it’s not surprising that they would say: “Over to you, city of Vancouver. Let’s have your bylaw officers up on garbage cans, looking in windows in the dead of night to see if people are residing in a residence or not.” It seems bizarre to me, and I know the Civil Liberties Association will likely have something to say about that. It’s just a guess, just a shot in the dark.

I think that the government thinks that this is some sort of a reality TV show. It’s like “Fix That House” or Flip That House. This is something that they see on the housing network, and they think that that’s what’s actually going on in the Lower Mainland or going on here on southern Vancouver Island.

What they’ve done is focused all of their energies on the greater Metro Vancouver area. When the Minister of Finance stood to a question from my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, he said: “We’re not here to just focus on Vancouver. We’re here for the whole province — until two months from now, and then we’re going to do something completely different.” It’s like the Wayback Machine. I think to myself: “If I could only go back and ask the question one more time, knowing what I know today, I wonder what the answer would have been from the Minister of Finance?”
[ Page 13461 ]

At that time, he said: “Well, we need data before we make any determinations. We’ll need six months of data. That’s what we’ll need to make a definitive determination on what’s the best public policy for British Columbia.”

Well, they gave us 16 days of data, and they slammed it down and said, “That’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to call the Legislature back, and we’re going to take this issue on,” because the polls look terrible, the headlines are awful, and the Premier is best known for her flying antics and her fundraising. Here we come to this Legislature to pass important human rights legislation, and the Premier couldn’t pull herself away from her fundraising duties to come and vote for that legislation.

I know there’s much more time left at second reading, and I look forward to the Premier’s intervention with respect to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, it’s the convention of the House that the absence or the presence of a member should not be mentioned.

J. Horgan: I agree, hon. Speaker. I was just looking at the Votes and Proceedings from Monday, which is in the past, not in the present. So I don’t know. It’s written down right here. Those who came to vote are shown up, and those who weren’t here to vote are not shown up. But that’s the past. If we dwell too much on the past, we’ll see the holes that are riddled in this legislation, based on the comments of the government before they came in to table this legislation.

What we have now is a proposal before this House from the government of British Columbia to impose a tax on foreign nationals. A tax on foreign nationals — let’s reflect on that just for a moment. And of course, that’s only in one area, Metro Vancouver, even though the Minister of Finance, the author of this bill, said in this House not months ago that he had a responsibility to the entire province.

[1700]

I’ve been speaking to realtors and leaders in my community of Juan de Fuca. They’re somewhat concerned that the focus on Vancouver will drive speculative capital out of that city, out of that metro area, and onto the lower Island. They’re concerned that this focus on Vancouver will drive speculative capital into the Okanagan, and the problem will just migrate to another part of British Columbia. If you have a responsibility for the entire province, one would expect the Minister of Finance to table legislation that would address the entire province, but that, sadly, is not the case.

When I talk to leaders in industry seeking to find skilled workers to fill vacancies in their enterprises, the number one issue that they raise is housing prices. They can’t attract skilled workers. We haven’t been training enough skilled workers. Again, I know that it’s the responsibility of the NDP for that. We’ve only been in opposition for the past 15 years.

The government on that side of the House often says: “We’re training people for the jobs of the future.” I talk to the people who are hiring people for the jobs of today, and they say: “We can’t find people. We can’t attract them.”

In fact, the pipeline of software engineers, for example, coming out of the great institution of the University of British Columbia is going right by Vancouver-based companies to Washington state because the housing prices there are a fraction of what they are here, and they can still get to Whistler with another half-hour drive. That’s it. That’s the only difference.

We have an artificial line at the 49th parallel that on one side, housing is affordable, and on the other side, it is not. What’s the solution of this government? Not to address speculative capital that’s distorting the marketplace but to punish foreign nationals. It’s wrong; it’s wrong; it’s wrong.

I don’t know why a government that should be attuned, after all of the work we’ve done on these issues over the past three years since the last election, would bring forward legislation that focused on someone’s ethnicity rather than on the issue, which is the capital that’s coming here, the money that’s coming here, not the people.

If someone wants to come here…. Whether they be Dutch, whether they be Italian, whether they be Chinese, whether they be Korean, if they want to come here and set down roots and make British Columbia a better place, I welcome them, the New Democrats on this side of the House welcome them, and British Columbians welcome them.

If a Canadian national starts a company that is founded on foreign capital, that’s okay. But if a foreign national comes to British Columbia, based on this legislation, and wants to buy a home to raise a family, they are punished 15 percent. That Canadian-based company with foreign capital as its sole function is not taxed. That’s wrong.

What we proposed, in the last session of this House, was to put in place a tax on capital — capital that comes for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to multiply. Not to put down roots. Not individuals to create opportunity for other individuals.

People who don’t pay income tax are easily found. The government has access to that information now. They have census data. They have access to land registries. They have access to income tax information. They can determine which homes have been purchased for speculative purposes and which homes are there for families. That’s how we should attack this issue: go to the capital, not to the people.

I know there are people on that side of the House that are ashamed of the approach that this government has taken. It’s wrong, and we’re saying it right now in this House. It’s wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing it.
[ Page 13462 ]

I want to talk just for a minute about the challenge that the government had and why, I suspect, for the past 18 months they’ve been saying there’s no crisis. That is twofold.

They talk about balancing their budget based on the robust resource sector here in British Columbia. Well, when we looked at the public accounts tabled last week, we saw a 40 percent decline in revenues from mining and natural gas, a 40 percent reduction in the anticipated revenues from those sources, and then, as I told you already at the top of my remarks, a 44 percent increase in property taxes. So I can well imagine the challenge the Minister of Finance had.

He’s looking at revenues coming in over the course of the year. He’s seeing that the mining sector is tanking, he’s seeing that the natural gas sector is tanking, and he sees all this money coming in from selling property. So why in the world would the Minister of Finance say: “We need to address this”? I can understand that.

Then I go to the Elections B.C. website, as I know many people in British Columbia are wont to do on a summer evening, and reflect on the contributions to the B.C. Liberal Party from the development community. So we’ve got the two-headed Hydra.

I guess I could use that term, couldn’t I, hon. House Leader?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Absolutely. A two-headed Hydra. It’s in my remarks right here.

You’ve got the B.C. Liberal Party windfall profits from the development community, and you’ve got the B.C. Liberal government’s treasury, with windfall profits from speculative investments in real estate. So an easy difficult challenge for the government. What did they do?

[1705]

They said: “First and foremost, we’ve got to keep the money coming in here. We’ve got to keep the money coming in here, and we’ve got to stop the bad headlines. So let’s call the House back in the summer. Let’s bring everybody together. Many of us will be here for the totality of the debates. Others will not. Then we’ll see if we can just sweep this thing under the rug come the fall. We’ll race into the next election, and people will think — they’ll have the appearance, the impression — that we actually did something about it.”

But if we stop speculation tomorrow, we would still have a crisis within the rental sectors. We heard about that today in the Legislature, whether it be on the lower Island…. Zero occupancy rate in Kelowna right now. Out into the Fraser Valley, the same issue.

I’ve been talking to families for the past two years that tell me they got into the housing market, barely, in their one-bedroom apartment, and now they’ve got three children. They can’t get out of their one-bedroom apartment because they can’t afford to go up. That’s a result of the distortion in the marketplace.

It’s a crisis. It’s been a crisis for some considerable period of time. But you don’t address it by bringing in discriminatory taxes when the root of the problem has been there for all to see for some considerable period of time.

We need to attract skilled workers. We need to make the case to people coming here that it’s worth it to pay a little bit more for housing for all of the benefits that you get from citizenship here in British Columbia. This government has gone down the wrong path. It’s a dangerous path, and I think that most British Columbians will see that.

We do need to address the issue. We will be bringing forward amendments to this legislation at third reading. I know my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey has been just tirelessly working on this issue on behalf of the people of his constituency and the people of the Lower Mainland — in fact, all British Columbians.

Housing is a fundamental right. It has been distorted on the watch of the B.C. Liberals. They’ve been indifferent to it for far too long. We will continue to hold them accountable. They’ve taken a step forward — a petty step, I would argue, but a step nonetheless.

We’ll be supporting this legislation. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to improve it at third reading. I want to thank all members who participated in this debate, all members who took their responsibilities as legislators seriously and showed up and made a contribution to this. We’re going to be continuing to do that throughout this session and into the fall, when we come back again for more robust debate, and well into the spring.

I can’t wait for the election, because it’s time for the people on that side of the House to come and sit over here for a while.

B. Routley: Well, it is indeed an honour to be here in the Legislature in the summertime.

I seriously thought I might have to go down to the local pharmacy and get one of those neck braces because they did such a U-turn on their policies and principles. It was absolutely unbelievable to see.

We hear from them all the time: “Oh, you’re not going to use that word ‘jiggery-pokery,’ are you? You’re not going to say this is jiggery-pokery.” Yet I’ve watched them over there squirming and carrying on and trying out their reverse gear, trying to slip around sideways, trying to not look embarrassed. It’s almost sad if it wasn’t so positively entertaining. So jiggery-pokery Liberal style is alive and well.

I want you to know that in spite of what we heard about the socialists wanting to build some kind of a wall…. It was so sad, such a sad story. All of a sudden now: “Oh, well, we’re going to be tough on this deal. We’re going to get right on it, and we’ve got a tax.” The free-enterprisers called back the summer session to implement a tax, of
[ Page 13463 ]
all things. Again, how do you even imagine such a thing happening? But here we are.

[1710]

They managed to dress it up a little bit by having a couple of things, at least, to talk about. They had to come up with one more, at least, to throw in. That’s good. That’s good that they did a couple of things and tried to make it look useful, but I’ve already heard them praying for relief. They can’t wait to get out of Dodge.

That’s the reality of where we’re at today. They want to be out of here just as quick as they can and try to cover up their tracks from the reality of what we had to deal with when people were living in poverty throughout British Columbia. We’ve got a government responsible, sitting over the largest number of people living in poverty in Canada — people living, trying to rent a place anywhere in British Columbia.

It’s almost impossible for people to find a place to live. My own constituency assistant had his relative, who is a geologist, trying to move back here. Do you think they could find a place even to rent? Well, that’s the problem here in British Columbia. These Liberals have gone into it.

I want to shift for a minute. I want to talk about something that I find very serious indeed. That’s this whole business about dim sum and panda bonds. Why would I want to talk about that? Could it be jiggery-pokery?

Well, I had a young man who was so priced out of the Vancouver market. He came over to the Island. He came to me with another friend, a constituent, and sat down and said: “I’m really concerned about what’s going on with these panda bonds and dim sum bonds.” I said: “Well, you know, quite frankly, I’m like Columbo on this one. I really don’t know too much about this. All I can do is maybe put on a trench coat and try to look like I know what I’m talking about.”

The reality is that this is a complex issue. Imagine my surprise when he handed me a document that looked an awful lot like the budget of the province of British Columbia. It says right here, in market summary for 2015-16, in the fine print…. You know, I had to put the special magnifying device on the Xerox to blow this puppy up so I could even read it.

But when you blow it up, when you take the time to actually look into it, guess what it says right here? It says that the market summary…. This is the whole area just before reconciliation and change in debt. It says in the fine print: “It excludes RMB 3 billion — Canadian $667 million — in bond proceeds that have been invested in term deposits, which generates a positive carry.”

Well, you’ve got to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand that, to understand what’s going on. But this young fellow said to me: “It’s right here. It’s on all of the sites, on the website.” He gave me what it says in Wikipedia. Well, Wikipedia — imagine my surprise to read it in Wikipedia. It says right here in Wikipedia — you can look it up for yourself — that the B.C. Liberal government “was the first sovereign entity to buy into panda bonds with the Bank of China…. Many British Columbians are wondering if the issuance of panda bonds in B.C. — and B.C. being the only jurisdiction in the Americas to have them — has caused more problems for B.C. residents/taxpayers and their ability to buy and rent homes in Vancouver.”

Oh, my, my. My, my, hon. Speaker. “There is so much concern about money laundering from offshore buyers.” Really. So we’ve got scandal right there in Wikipedia for all of the world to see, and it says: “There is also much concern about money laundering from offshore buyers in B.C. real estate, which is not being properly regulated.”

This is what they’re telling us in Wikipedia now. I don’t know. Maybe the Premier had a look at Wikipedia and thought: “My, my. We’d better get back in there right away and do something because the journalists are suggesting that there’s a problem.”

[1715]

Then he said to me: “Have you ever looked at the Bank of China website?” I said: “Not lately. It’s not something that MLAs do on a regular basis, especially Cowichan Valley MLAs.” But right there, in the fine print, on the Bank of China website that he pointed out for me, it says, and I really particularly like this line that they have, that they have something called — and I’m going to assure my Chinese is not very good — zhi ye tong service.

It’s a service to provide a total solution package to meet the needs of Chinese customers who did not come to Canada but may have a demand to purchase a house without coming to Canada. “Our strategy is to provide the overseas service for a capital regulatory service, offshore real estate consulting and availability information and remittance of funds and mortgage services.” This is right there on the Bank of China website.

Now, again, that’s good customer service if you’re looking for help on how to invest in British Columbia. But imagine my surprise when he went a little further and passed over the province of British Columbia — December 15, Minister of Finance document — and what does it say? I would encourage everybody to go online if it’s still there, if it hasn’t been hacked by somebody in some country — whether it be Russia or China, as Donald Trump says.

It says: “British Columbia’s entry into the China interbank bonds market.” What does it say? It tells all these great things about British Columbia and what a wonderful market we are. But the page that I want to turn to that’s most troubling to me is a presentation about these bonds. It goes on to talk about the Canadian mortgage rules.

Really? We’ve got a presentation on us getting in to selling bonds. We’ve got, first, the dim sum bonds, and now we’ve got panda bonds. We’re busy telling in our presentation, which you can go to online, all about the Canadian mortgage rules and how that works. Well, isn’t that interesting? It’s interesting, and I find it extremely troubling.

I had no words of comfort for this young person, who
[ Page 13464 ]
had real concerns about what all of this means. He actually wrote down…. He said: “My logic is that the finance act compels the Minister of Finance to act prudently when borrowing to invest. Therefore, he must provide evidence that he has done so. Why is the B.C. government not clear and transparent with the citizens of B.C. and our debt investors? Why is this government not including panda bonds in its total debt summary figure?”

Well, again, this is a tradesman. I don’t know what to tell him. Like, I’m just laying this out, because I’m very troubled.

Ask yourself a question. Ten years ago did we have a problem that millions of dollars….? Like I read here on the front page the other day, it said that foreign nationals snapped up $350 million worth of residential property in Metro Vancouver in just under three weeks back in June. Now, ask yourself: was that happening ten years ago? Was that happening 20 years ago? Was that happening 30 years ago? I don’t think so. I don’t think that there was that kind of money. If there was, I’ll be glad to see the evidence.

But I’m very troubled, and you should be troubled on the other side. Obviously, you are. You can’t tell me that you’ve jumped in your car and raced down here to do nothing. You came down here because you thought: “My, oh my. We’ve got a problem.”

The public of British Columbia are looking around and saying: “Whoa. I can’t rent a place. My kids can’t rent a place. We can’t buy a house, and prices are going through the roof.” Yeah, some folks are going to make out like bandits in downtown Vancouver if they’ve got an older house and if they want to move somewhere else.

[1720]

Guess what. That’s what’s driving up the prices in the Cowichan Valley. People are selling their big, fancy house — well, it could be a rundown house — and buying a big, fancy house over in the Cowichan Valley for half the price, because the prices are going through the roof.

It is international money, as is now accepted by the folks on that side of the House. They finally had an epiphany. They’ve come to their senses on the reality that there’s something wrong and we need to do something about it.

Is it perfect? By no means. Are we going to vote for it? Well, it’s better than the crumbs from the table that we’ve had lately. But it’s a step — a small step, a half-baked, not well-thought-out step. We’re already hearing evidence about people finding ways to go around it. So it’s extremely troubling indeed.

Then he goes on to say that…. Again, what do you say to a bright young guy like this? He says: “I think it’s wrong that the minister has undertaken $3 billion RMB — $667 million — of credit risk in this transaction. The B.C. government is borrowing money to invest in a carry trade with the foreign banks. There’s no free lunch in finance, and the government needs to be clear that the panda bonds’ liability exists.”

He goes on to say that on June 29, Bloomberg reported that the banks in Singapore holding our B.C. bond terms are now in a negative credit watch from Moody’s. The article speculates that the Singapore government would bail out the banks to save depositors. But what contingencies does the minister have in place should United Overseas, the Chinese bank, be unable to pay back our term deposits? What commitments has the minister won from the Singapore government to guarantee B.C. citizens will get their $667 million back?

I have one last question, and then I know we’re running out of time. My last question is: who motivated all of this action? Whose bright idea…? I’m troubled when I hear that there’s $12 million coming from Liberal friends and insiders who are associated with the real estate business, and then I find out that there’s all this activity that has nothing to do with what ordinary British Columbians care about. Suddenly all of these panda bonds, etc.

Who benefited? Who invested? Why is this risk being taken on behalf of British Columbians? Why aren’t we transparent? I don’t believe we’ve been transparent about this whole issue, and it’s not good enough. It’s not good enough for British Columbians. I hope that this thing works out better than it is, but I am not optimistic. We’re still going to have problems in British Columbia, and it’s your actions that are responsible at the end of the day.

J. Wickens: I’m eager to stand in the House today to speak to Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act. Housing is something that affects me profoundly, like all other British Columbians. It’s something that affects Coquitlam–Burke Mountain quite a bit as well.

I’d like to start off with a quote before I go into debating the bill. It’s a quote I think of often when I have to stand up for things publicly that aren’t popular or that garner some criticism. “Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.”

I think that quote is appropriate today. When we have people in British Columbia who can’t afford homes, whether that is to buy or rent, when we have mothers raising their children in campsites and when we have whole generations of people who have given up on the dream of home ownership in a province like British Columbia, that shows a great inaction on injustice on the part of this government.

You see, what this government has done over the last decade in regard to housing is actually cause a great divide. For me, that’s not leadership, and it is not good governance.

[1725]

We have people in British Columbia who have given up on the idea of home ownership, and we have people
[ Page 13465 ]
in British Columbia who’ve obtained huge equity in their homes and don’t want to lose that. I don’t blame them for that. But it’s this type of divisive leadership that we see in the States, in the Trump campaign. This is what we have seen in Brexit. People are tired of it.

This government has been inactive for so long, I believe, because they were counting on most of their supporters to want to protect their equity. Where this government has miscalculated, I believe, is that it’s gotten so unaffordable that doctors, police officers, our children who might want to become civil servants can’t afford to live here, and we have a crisis.

People who have large equity in their homes are saying to me in my community that this might not be sustainable. Where are we going to find our doctors and our teachers and our community members from? Where are we going to populate strong communities if they cannot afford to live here?

A crisis like this doesn’t happen overnight. What British Columbians deserve is a proactive government. That would actually be putting British Columbians first.

What this government has said in the creation of the bill is that they want to make sure that the dream of home ownership remains in the reach of the middle class — the middle class. So let me talk about that for a moment.

What is the middle class? I looked at a number of sources, and I came up with: in Canada, if you have two or more people in your family making $61,000 to $88,000 per year, you are in the middle range of the middle class. None of us in this House are in the middle class, and we are very privileged and fortunate because of that. I think as legislators we need to recognize that privilege, be mindful of it, reflect on it and make sure it guides good public policy.

Let’s keep this new desire from government to protect the middle class in mind, and let’s use Coquitlam as an example. I did some math for the members opposite. We keep talking about the dream of home ownership for the middle class. The average household income in Coquitlam is $82,000 per year. So, arguably, most families living in Coquitlam would fit into this middle-class bracket. Then I went onto some mortgage calculators with banks to find out how much of a mortgage a middle-income family would comfortably be able to get.

I calculated it with zero household debt because I wanted to be generous, although we know families today have more household debt than ever. I calculated at the interest rates we have today. With a $20,000 down payment, a middle-income family can afford a $329,000 mortgage. When I talk about that with my parents and people from previous generations, that sounds pretty astronomical, but today this is what a middle-income family should be able to afford.

I’m not sure if anybody in this House knows what it might cost to buy a house in Coquitlam, but I went on the MLS site to find out what was available for $329,000 in my riding. You know what I found? Zero properties for three-bedroom condos or townhouses at that price. There is nothing available in the ridings of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain or Coquitlam-Maillardville or Port Moody–Coquitlam for $329,000.

When this government talks about keeping the dream of home ownership in the reach of the middle class, I laugh in frustration because I don’t know what middle-income families they’re talking to.

[1730]

What’s happening to these families is a couple of things. Families are moving further away from their jobs, and there are ramifications for that. Our families are living in time poverty. We no longer have families eating dinner together. We no longer have families having enough time to spend with their children. Everything affects our society. It’s a domino effect. It’s no wonder we have some of the highest mental health rates. What kind of a society do we want to build for our children? When housing is so unaffordable, families are affected profoundly by that.

Something else that happens is families have given up on the dream of home ownership. They just have. I live in a two-bedroom basement suite with my family. We talked about it a long time ago and made different decisions with our money. We chose to put money elsewhere. We chose to put money in therapy. We chose to put money in services for our children. So now, because we have no equity, the idea of being able to purchase a home near where my children’s services are is impossible.

Members in the past have said that it’s not a God-given right to live where you want to. It’s not a God-given right to own a home in the place that you want to. But a lot of the people that I talk to say: “I think I should be able to live where my children’s therapists are. I think I should be able to live near my in-laws, so that they can possibly help out with some affordable child care.”

I take serious exception to this government in their new slogan: “British Columbians first.” Last time, it was “families first,” and I’ve talked to many families over the year that understand that was a broken promise. To suggest that this government is putting the middle class and British Columbians first is a complete farce. Reactionary legislation of this type that we are discussing today is not good leadership, and it is not good governance.

We’ve heard many members on the other side of this House talk about supply as an issue. And you know what? I am all for building. I believe that we should continue to build up. Development is good. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a lot of development going on. We are seeing houses pop up, highrises come. Building is good. It’s good for the economy. It will add to our supply.

The thing that the members opposite have forgotten about is if you’re going to supply housing, you might want to supply the amenities that go with that. We have whole neighbourhoods in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain that have been built — there’s the supply — with no school.
[ Page 13466 ]
The members opposite don’t seem to understand that a proactive government might have planned a little better around that.

We have parents and families fighting in Surrey, on CKNW yesterday, saying: “We don’t want development, because our kids don’t even have a school to go to.” So, yes, let’s build. Let’s increase supply. But let’s have a government that also wants to invest in public education so that we can give families and children the amenities they need when that supply comes.

My colleagues have talked in length about the challenges with this bill. I’m going to end with a little bit about the challenges of the bill, the issues. We don’t think it’s going to address the real issue, which is foreign speculation and crime.

Recently, I watched a movie called The Big Short. I know it’s a Hollywood movie based on the housing crash in the United States, but I have to mention the opening statement of the movie because I think it’s important for all of us to remember — not just members on the other side; our side as well.

The quote is this: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

What I’m going to do is I’m going to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to consider listening to some of the things that my colleague from Point Grey — some of the suggestions that he might have for this bill.

[1735]

You see, we were all elected by members of our community. The members in our community elected us to represent them. So there are people in British Columbia, arguably, that believe that members on this side of the House might know a thing or two about what would be good for them. Maybe, just maybe, we could take the opportunity to look at this bill, listen to some of the suggestions that an amazing advocate on housing has, and tweak some things on the bill. Make it better for British Columbians. Actually put British Columbians first, instead of partisan politics.

I will end my speech today. I was happy to come back to Victoria for our summer session. It was nice to see my colleagues. But I am hopeful, I’m still hopeful, that we can work together on this bill to try and make things better, because the people in my riding, the people in British Columbia, are struggling. That isn’t good for any of us, regardless of what side of the House you sit on.

H. Bains: It is my honour to stand and speak on an issue that I believe in our times is one of the most important issues that we have faced as legislators. I’ve been here almost 11 years now, and there have been some issues, very serious issues, that we were involved in and discussing and passing legislation here. But I think this is one of the issues that is ranking right up there, if not the most important issue, because every human being on this earth has the right to food, clothing and shelter.

Every person…. Especially in one of the richest countries in the world, Canada, and one of the richest provinces in the world, British Columbia, we certainly shouldn’t have to face this issue here. But because of dismissal and denial from the governing body here, we are at a crisis level. Unaffordability, especially in housing, is at the height right now. It is a crisis level. It demanded our immediate attention. But instead of realizing that that is one of the fundamental duties that we have, to make sure that our citizens have those basic fundamentals for living — food, clothing and shelter — they continued to deny behind some ideological position that were mired in.

I followed my dream in 1971. I left my home country and came to Canada. I was lucky enough that I was able to find a job in a foundry, then in a saw mill — a good union-paying, family-supporting job. From 1972, when I started working, and I was able to put enough down payment to purchase a home, I bought a six-year-old home, about 1,100 square feet, in Surrey — $55,000.

Now, I was making $8.11 an hour in the saw mill at that time. You figure that out. For calculations purposes and rounding the numbers, you normally work 2,000 hours in a year, times eight — about $16,000 gross. A $55,000 house, a little over three times my gross at that time. I was able to put together $5,000, was able to buy a house at around, I believe, a 9½ or 10 percent interest rate. Then I had other people in the ’80s and ’90s, the same situation — worked five, ten years, and they were able to purchase a home in a community that they wanted to live in and where they worked, or close by.

[1740]

Now fast-forward to now. I was on the phone yesterday and talking to the steel workers who work in the same mills. They are making now about $28.11 an hour. That’s the base rate in the saw mills right now. That will give them about $56,000 gross. The same house that I purchased in Surrey, in the Whalley area, none of them are going…. A decent livable house is over $750,000. So $56,000 gross — that’s over 12 times their gross today.

Now, the opportunity and the dream that I followed is not available to my son who was born here and went to school here. That’s the story here. You think that the government on the other side, who’ve been in power for 16 years, would be paying attention to that issue. They had a dream. Their parents and their grandparents had a dream of owning a home one time. That dream has been snatched away for your children and our children. Don’t you think you should be serious enough about this? Obviously not.

In the last two years, it’s been brought to their attention by our side, by people on the street, by cities like Vancouver. You think they would say yes — at least acknowledge there’s a problem. No. They’ve denied that there’s a problem. There’s no problem. They continued
[ Page 13467 ]
to take that position. Then they would mock those who would bring the evidence to them. Then they would accuse them of fearmongering, and then, when some of the bad headlines hit the newspapers: “Oh, well, there’s an election coming up, and we better do something. At least, we’ll show the people that we’re doing something.” So we’re here today.

Even now, watching these debates here, listening to these debates and commentary that is coming from that side, still it gives you the impression that they’re not serious about this. They’re throwing these heckles: “Well, what are you proposing?” Instead of listening to the experts…. All you have to do is look at the newspapers. Watch the media that I’m watching. The experts are telling you there are deep flaws in this bill. They’re telling you that, and they’re identifying those flaws.

The member for Penticton was chirping away a little while ago, saying: “What do you propose?” Well, we have proposed, if you were paying attention, Member. We have proposed five points. Just read the Hansard. Did anybody come up and say: “No, those proposals will not work?” No.

You had to consult your friends — $12 million — $12 million donations were speaking here. They had to consult them first. They didn’t have the people of the province in mind.

They had money coming to the Liberal Party from all those developers and the money coming to the B.C. government’s coffers in property transfer taxes. They were happy about that, and they wanted to encourage more of that. They went to China and other places, encouraged that money to come here, without realizing the negative effect it’s having on our real estate market.

It is snatching away the dream of our own children of owning a home. How incompetent one can be. How incompetent. How selfish one can be. Here’s an example. The B.C. Liberal Party is happy because the money is coming, because all those international developers are coming in with their loads of money. “Here, we’ll support you. Keep on doing what you’re doing.”

The B.C. Liberal government is happy because now they can go to the people of the province. “Oh, well, we have balanced the budget.” We have balanced the budget, but at what cost? At what cost? You know, we can go over the mismanagement of this government, mismanagement of tax dollars, mismanagement of every project that they have laid a hand on.

Interjections.

H. Bains: The truth really hurts. I’m touching some nerves out there, I’m sure.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order in the House, please. Order.

H. Bains: Let me tell you this. The denial was astounding. Here, the Minister for Housing, what he had to say when it was brought to his attention. Here maybe they will finally realize that: “Yes, we were in denial.”

[1745]

Here’s their own minister: “If you look at the mean cost of housing across British Columbia or the mean of the Lower Mainland and compare it to other major cities worldwide, the reason it is attractive internationally is because it is actually pretty reasonable compared to other cities.” That was the response from the Minister for Housing, who was supposed to be responsible for dealing with this file.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Here’s another one. “Well, there is no initiative at this time in government to go and interfere in the marketplace with regard to housing.” Again, it’s the ideological block that they had and that they couldn’t overcome. No matter that the house is burning, but they’re sitting over there laughing, and nothing is wrong with it.

Here’s our Premier: “Industry experts estimate that most of the real estate speculation taking place in the region is being done by local investors.” Denial, denial, denial again. Now when it’s brought to their attention….

Yes, you don’t like it, Members out there. I know you don’t like it, but it was your responsibility — including all those backbenchers — to come to your cabinet, come to your Premier, and say: “Look, the house is burning. We’ve got to do something. Our housing market is out of reach for our children and their children. We’ve got to do something.” No, they were too busy out there trying to hope that one day they would be in cabinet. That’s not responsible government. That’s not being responsible to your constituents.

I’ve got a lot more to say here, but I’ll tell you, there are so many flaws in this bill. Yes, we want to support this, because something is better than nothing. Our constituents, British Columbians, our children expect us to take some steps to deal with this issue. But no.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I think the Minister of Technology wants to say something, but you know, he can’t bring himself to say: “Yes, we were wrong. Yes, we want to do something right.” He will never be able to say that. He sits in the cabinet. There are three of them from Surrey. You’d think they would be doing something, convincing their colleagues to bring some money to build some schools in Surrey. No, they have no clout, and they chirp away here, doing nothing.

Let me tell you something. The Minister of Technology said: “We brought so many millions to Surrey.”
[ Page 13468 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Members.

H. Bains: Let me tell something to the minister. Let me tell you. They came in $73 million, plus $25 million by the school board, our own school board. Guess what. According to their own numbers, it will create 2,700 spaces by 2020, four years later. But let me tell the Minister of Technology that according to Surrey’s school board, according to all the estimates, we gain 1,000 students every year in the Surrey school system. That would be 4,000 new students coming by 2020, and they’re creating 2,700 spaces. It means that 1,300 more students will be added to 7,000 that are already in portables.

That’s the foresight of this government and these ministers — especially from Surrey. Shame on them for applauding a government attempt that will put us even further behind in four years than doing something to deal with those 7,000 who are already in portables. That’s the legacy of them. I want them to stand up and be proud of that kind of statement. They wouldn’t do that. They’ll throw some numbers out there and think that the people will not actually dig and realize what you are telling them. They’re much smarter than you think they are. You can’t pull wool over their eyes over and over. They’ll tell you, on May 9 of next year, how wrong you are.

I know I have a lot more to say, and they keep encouraging me to keep on talking, but my colleagues have to say something on this as well. I’ll take my space. I’m always honoured to stand here and participate in these debates.

M. Mark: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate and support Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016.

[1750]

There is no question that we are in the middle of a housing crisis. I’ve stated, time and time again in this House, the important measures that need to be in place when you’re dealing with a crisis. That’s to have a strategy. This bill falls short of a strategy, and I will talk more about that in a moment.

Some of the factors that have brought us to this point of no return…. In fact, it’s to the point of corralling the B.C. Liberals to be dragged into this House over the summer to show courage and leadership about their lack of initiatives to address shadow flipping, foreign investment, ineffective regulations, money laundering, developer ties to their donors and a lack of leadership to develop affordable housing and social housing throughout British Columbia.

There is no question that Metro Vancouver has become the Wild West. The new housing gold rush is crushing people in places like Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and squeezing them out of their own backyards. On June 25, the Premier released a video — God knows how much that cost taxpayers — about the six housing affordability principles: (1) increase housing supply, (2) smart transit expansion, (3) supporting first-time homebuyers, (4) consumer protection, (5) rental supply and (6) protecting the dream of home ownership.

This bill that we’re here to debate today doesn’t go far enough to bring these principles into reality. It’s more talk. It’s more rhetoric. It’s more fear-based rhetoric that talks about housing affordability. But let’s get down to business and really talk about priorities when it comes to housing.

There is no mention in this bill around the link between housing and transportation. In fact, the B-line is still in the planning stage, and we have no concrete development plans on when that’s going to materialize. We don’t have really critical equations that link how we’re going to invest in the rental supply. In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, for example, 75 percent of my constituents are renters. I have a keen interest in protecting the constituents of Mount Pleasant.

I believe this bill has fallen short of a comprehensive housing strategy. I am not sure why. Again, we have been corralled back into this Legislature without a robust strategy that addresses all of the needs and meets the six principles that the Premier has brought forward in so publicly stating that she is going to protect all of the interests of British Columbians when, in fact, really, this bill speaks to protecting the dream of home ownership.

Now, there is no question that we should all have the opportunity and right to own a home. But in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, people don’t even have the means to rent in my backyard, in our riding, where some of the lowest-income residents live in this province. So, again, dreams of home ownership are out of reach. Millennials are really taking the greatest hits with increased tuition rates, Hydro rates, camping fees, MSP fees. They, the millennials, the generation that we’re supposed to be investing in, are not getting a break.

The government says this legislation puts home ownership within reach of the middle class. My colleague from Burke Mountain eloquently pointed to the fact: which middle class are we talking about here?

The Premier’s flip-flop regarding her government’s position on the vacancy tax. I’m so glad that we’ve got Hansard and a public record to fall back on just so we can keep the record straight. It is clear that the Premier and this government have succumbed to the mayor of Vancouver, who is facing a crisis for the residents of his backyard who are calling on someone to lead in the Metro Vancouver area to make sure that this dream that the Premier talks about is within reach but also to go a step further to make sure that there are provisions in place for people that can’t afford to buy but need and have every right to have a roof over their head and deserve the right to rent.
[ Page 13469 ]

This bill allows the city of Vancouver those provisions to tax. My question, of course, is: by how much? What are going to be the measures to regulate, as our Leader of the Opposition discussed earlier in his remarks? When I think about this bill, I have many, many questions. My colleague from Point Grey, whose advocacy really should be held on a pedestal for holding this government to account, will continue on with his unwavering questions at committee stage to talk about the how, the when, the where and the mechanics of how this bill is going to unfold. Many questions that I have, of course, are how the money will be used.

[1755]

I want to go back to Mount Pleasant and the residents that elected me to be their representative in this House. The average income of millennials is $40,000, according to the Vancity report. Millennials certainly don’t have $1 million. They don’t have $1 million to buy the $1.5 million that it costs, on average, for a single-dwelling residence in the Metro Vancouver area.

How much are they paying in my riding? I can attest that millennials and renters in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant are paying $902 for a bachelor, $1,619 for a three bedroom, $1,367 for a two bedroom. Back in the day, these would have been mortgage payments. In fact, renters are paying for mortgages throughout their backyard. They are seeing that home ownership is very, very far out of reach.

One-third of households in Metro Vancouver are renters, and millennials are 33 percent of the region in Metro Vancouver. So we have real, dire concerns when we think about our future labour pool and how we’re going to retain them and make sure that they grow up and work in their backyard and keep them here, flourishing and leading for generations to come. I can tell you that this crisis is having an impact, like all of my colleagues have attested to earlier.

I want to speak a little bit to the uniqueness of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. As we know, I’ve got the home of the Downtown Eastside, Chinatown, Railtown, the area up by Kingsgate Mall, Mount Pleasant proper, the Drive, Broadway. People are feeling the crunch. They know that they are not getting appropriate subsidies. They can’t find a place to live with their subsidies from government. They are facing a crisis.

We know that Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is really diverse. There are renters, homeowners, people living in SROs. There are increased numbers of homeless people on the streets of my riding. The issues, we know, time and time again…. There’s no question that the issues are complex.

In our neighbourhood, there are people that live side by side. Someone’s living in a loft in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in Gastown. Others are living in SROs. How do we meet the needs of the diversity in our riding?

This government could have gone a step further and made sure that there were provisions in place for renters. They missed the mark on this opportunity to call this special summer session. We know that they could have gone a step further to have stable housing for people that are low-income seniors, youth, students, kids aging out of care. They missed the mark on any of those measures to protect those citizens of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, Metro Vancouver and throughout British Columbia.

The proposals that we have brought forward as the official opposition. We’ve asked for an affordable fund and speculation fee; a task force to fight tax fraud and money laundering, to stop shadow flipping and to close loopholes in the property transfer tax; a fair tenant-relocation policy so that people aren’t renovicted, providing renters with protections against renoviction — a bill that I brought forward, back in May, that was shut down; and providing protection for manufactured home owners. All of these solutions that we tried to provide and bring forward in this House have been shut down. So here we are, wasting taxpayer dollars to come back in a special session to talk about what the government calls a housing priority initiative.

To conclude my remarks, it is clear that renters are not a priority for this government. It is clear that the diverse people that live in places like Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who have complex and special needs…. Their needs are going to continue to be ignored.

We know that they could have taken measures for rent control in this bill. They could have addressed things like fixed leases and the loopholes that developers are finding to squeeze people out of their backyards. They could have taken some measures for tenancy protection. They could have protected citizens in my backyard to live the dream and not be forced to these ultimatums that this government keeps forcing residents in Mount Pleasant and all over Metro Vancouver to be confronted with under this leadership.

The residual effects, of course, are that when people can’t live in their backyard, they can’t go to their community centres, they can’t take transit, they can’t park, they can’t eat, and they can’t socialize. If they can’t participate in this activity in their backyard, they will be squeezed out. As has been threatened time and time again, Metro Vancouver is going to face ghost town circumstances.

I have no choice but to vote in favour of this bill. I wouldn’t say that I’m oppositional by character, but I do like to be free. I like to have free will when I make a choice. People in British Columbia, if we don’t vote in favour of this, will go without, so I’d much rather see half a loaf of bread than nothing.

[1800]

I have to say that this is an ultimatum — that this government was forced to this House because of the mayor of Vancouver. I’ve been forced to come to these chambers, vote in favour because we have no other choice. But
[ Page 13470 ]
I challenge this government to show courage at committee stage, set aside its partisanship and keep the people of British Columbia at the centre.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act. We find ourselves here in a summer session to address the crisis of housing affordability that is a reality in Metro Vancouver and different areas across the province.

We are here to discuss this bill, Bill 28. It’s come with reluctance from the government, who have spent well over a year denying that there’s any problem, chastising us, chastising renters and individuals who have concerns and have brought forward concerns around the housing crisis that they’re experiencing. We find ourselves here. I guess the government feels forced because of bad headlines.

I want to start my comments with the premise and the guiding principle and value that housing is a right. Certainly, it’s enshrined in international law, and it’s a right and a value that British Columbians hold, that I hold and believe in. British Columbians also feel that it’s a responsibility of this government to ensure that there’s an opportunity for all British Columbians to have access to safe, affordable housing — not just housing but also to have a home. Guided with that value, I’m going to make some remarks specific to the bill that we have before us.

We hear the government has spent well over a year denying that there is a housing crisis, mocking suggestions that international speculation is playing a role and blaming critics for these issues, yet we have before us a bill, Bill 28.

Now, it leads with one of the initiatives to impose a property transfer tax of 15 percent, which is a recognition of the reality of speculation, the reality of foreign capital and the reality of flipping really escalating our real estate market. However, I want to address a number of shortfalls and loopholes that are present in this bill that does not address and, I feel, get to the root cause and that will fundamentally bring us to a resolution to address this housing crisis.

My concern is that with the provisions in Bill 28, we have a focus on foreign nationals and not foreign money. A number of my colleagues have laid that out. It’s a mistake to put the focus on foreign nationals and not foreign capital and to make that the emphasis in terms of bringing an end to speculation. That is one very grave problem, oversight and also loophole that will not address the fundamental issue.

The current bill, Bill 28, does not address the foreign money already in our housing market, so that’s a problem. We see, as well, that the issue of foreign speculation will not be adequately addressed. We know also that there is a shortfall of data. While we have the recognition that data is important and the B.C. government has compiled information based on 16 days of data, certainly that’s insignificant. We need to ensure that data is collected and that the tie should be to putting an end and really putting limits to foreign capital and bringing that into force.

[1805]

As well, another shortfall that we have before us with the bill is that it only deals with Vancouver. We’ve heard many comments and criticisms put out from the government that it’s a privilege to live in Vancouver, and we’ve heard from the Premier that if housing is too expensive in the Lower Mainland, there is housing available in Kitimat. That really shows the disdain that the Premier and the Liberal government have taken to deal with this issue.

I want to address the…. This bill does not close the loophole of speculation. It does not substantively address and put brakes to shadow flipping. As well, we see a recognition that there’s a need to basically fix their own mistakes that they created.

I want it on the record that it was 2004 that the B.C. Liberals deregulated the real estate industry. They claimed at the time that this would cut red tape. What we saw in the aftermath is just the real disaster and the real escalation from that time to currently and the negative impacts on deregulating the real estate industry, the negative impacts on citizens of British Columbia, which have contributed to fuelling these high prices and the lack of housing affordability in our real estate market.

Constituents come and talk to me about the challenges and difficulties of finding affordable housing, families having access to housing. It’s on top of many other fees that are creating a burden on families. Housing affordability is in a bigger context and package that British Columbians are having to deal with.

We know that affordability is not only having to do with housing, which is crushing families. We’ve seen increases year after year in medical service premiums, increases in ICBC, B.C. Hydro, tuition fees, parking, ferries. These are all increases that the B.C. Liberal government is imposing on British Columbians. That is having an incredibly detrimental impact on individuals, and that is creating hardship.

Besides the limited scope of Bill 28, I just want to also recognize that it falls short today. This bill we’re here discussing falls short of addressing the fundamental problems of housing affordability — the lack of affordable housing, rental stock and how home ownership is out of reach for many British Columbians.

The B.C. NDP, the opposition, have put forward a number of initiatives to address these concerns. There’s an opportunity for the government to also implement some of these recommendations. I just want to reference a couple of them that I think are important and are significant.

We need to see leadership to put an end to money laun-
[ Page 13471 ]
dering and the influence of criminal funds really being a part of our real estate industry. We have not seen initiative from the B.C. Liberal government. We need to see leadership to put an end to that.

We need to see a commitment to invest in affordable housing and new units. There’s a shortfall in that. We need to see loopholes closed to really be serious about putting an end to shadow flipping. We need to also ensure that renters have increased protections against renoviction and also that, fundamentally, more rental housing is built.

[1810]

I’m going to be voting in favour of Bill 28. I have a number of concerns. It falls short of what’s needed to take substantive action to fundamentally address the housing crisis and the housing affordability crisis that I see in Vancouver-Kensington, in Vancouver, across Metro Vancouver and our province. Bill 28 falls short of that.

We need to see substantive steps to ensure that British Columbians have a right to safe, affordable housing and ensure that they have the opportunity to raise their families in communities in Vancouver, across Metro Vancouver, across our province. We need to see more substantive action from this government.

B. Ralston: It’s a pleasure to rise here in the summer session. Many have said that these are rare. In fact, we’ve been here in 2013. We were here last year to debate LNG, and we’re here again. Perhaps we’ll be back after the election next year. So I think it’s more a regular summer session than an unusual summer session, and it’s great to be here.

Many of my colleagues have commented on the very grudging and belated recognition of what is a crisis in housing, particularly in the Lower Mainland but in many other parts of the province. I want to talk a little bit about it, because the fiction that members opposite and the government engage in is that it’s only New Democrats that raise these issues. Therefore, they can be dismissed, and therefore, they don’t have any validity. However, this debate has raged for some time, and the Premier is a very late entrant into this debate.

Let’s look at some of the comments that have been made by people who are not partisan actors — and perhaps even from the business community.

Ryan Holmes, the Hootsuite CEO, in an article in the Financial Post back in February of this year, talked about the impact that the housing crisis — that’s what he called it…. I’m going to read a little bit from his article.

“An influx of global capital has affected the local real estate market, though that’s far from the sole cause. The population of Metro Vancouver is growing at a clip of roughly 30,000 residents each year, fuelled primarily by immigration from abroad. Low-cost borrowing and fast-rising home values have driven purchases for investments rather than as a place to live. And Vancouver’s geography, hemmed in by mountains and ocean, with limited space for development, is only compounding the issue.

“The consequence of this is impossible to overlook. Unaffordability is emptying Vancouver of one of its most valuable assets — young people who grew up in the city and who are invested in it. As well, qualified newcomers who could bring talent, drive and vision to Vancouver, are looking elsewhere. The projected closure of more than a dozen Vancouver public schools hints at the scale of the problem. Families can no longer afford to live here.”

This is Ryan Holmes, Hootsuite CEO. He’s not a New Democrat. I don’t think he has any particular partisan leaning. He’s entered into this public debate because he is concerned about what’s going on and how this will affect the future prosperity of the region and, indeed, of the province.

He goes on to say:

“This is worrying for several reasons, chief among them that it makes it exceptionally hard to grow a business in Vancouver. I’ve experienced this firsthand…but it’s hardly unique to the technology sector. Qualified job candidates are deterred from moving to the city, and great employees are leaving because they can’t afford to build a life here.

“Even finding a rental property in Vancouver has become a feat. Vacancy rates hover at around 0.6 percent, worse than in Manhattan, with one-bedroom condos easily topping $2,000 a month.”

He goes on.

“This lack of affordable housing has reached a crisis point. Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town, a city with no viable economy, other than a service industry catering to wealthy residents and tourists.”

That’s a pretty sweeping condemnation of the situation that is faced by a leading business leader in our community. For Vancouver, I think what he means is the region, regional prosperity, which is one of the drivers of the prosperity of the province. And he’s not alone.

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Actually, the CEO is a former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister, much more non-partisan now and willing to hear both sides of the argument.

[1815]

In their recent report, their Scorecard 2016, one of the top two issues that he listed is listed in that report as affecting the future prosperity of the region and, indeed, of the province: transit infrastructure, the underinvestment in roads and public transit infrastructure, which becomes more important as people increasingly can’t find places to live near the centre and are increasingly forced to commute longer and longer distances to get to their place of work or other places that they have to go.

Number 2: housing affordability. This is the Vancouver Board of Trade. It’s not some socialist plot. It’s not some NDP invention. It’s the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Poor housing affordability. They are concerned about the future prosperity of the province.

These concerns are not trifling concerns. They’re not raised by critics. They’re not raised, as the Minister for Housing would have it, by people who get up in the morning and whine. Ryan Holmes is someone who’s an entrepreneur creating jobs and prosperity and looking forward to continuing to do so in this region. Yet that’s the tone that we’ve heard from the B.C. Liberals — de-
[ Page 13472 ]
rision, dismissive, scorn, contempt, failure to listen, failure to consult.

All the arrogance that comes with having been too long in office. The back bench can tell you about that. Don’t worry. They watch the cabinet pretty closely. They watch the cabinet very closely.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Things are tough over there on Woods Avenue, aren’t they, Member?

In addition….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the floor.

There are other solutions that have been offered — assistance for renters. Not only is it difficult to obtain home ownership, as Mr. Holmes alluded to. It’s difficult to attain rental property. These are the people that are working in the economy.

A recent report in the Globe and Mail — again, I think a fairly reputable journalistic source — interviewed, on the occasion of the Vancity and B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association report…. They looked at renters and the characteristics of renters in the Lower Mainland. This is a quote: “‘There’s some perception of renters that we’re largely talking about hospitality workers or minimum wage workers, things like that,’ said Kishone Roy, chief executive officer of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. Instead, ‘They’re the people you see every day, everybody building and developing this city and largely the main focus of our economy over the next decade.’”

That’s another report from, I would suggest, a fairly objective source about who renters are. These are the people that are taking their place in the economy, looking to work and not to have to commute from incredible distances such that it becomes impossible to do. That kind of comment from another reputable source shows the strength, I think, of the issue that’s being raised here by many, many sources.

There are opportunities to fix this. Now, the solutions to a crisis as complex as this won’t be achieved in one piece of legislation. But you have a Minister for Housing who resists and has resisted many, many solutions that have been offered. They all will help a little bit, not necessarily a total solution but will help a little bit.

Fixed-term leases. That was addressed in question period today. A fixed-term lease is where a person, a renter — and there is real inequality of bargaining power when the vacancy rate is 0.6 percent — signs a lease to rent a place for a year. At the expiration of that lease, the landlord is free to increase the rent dramatically — in some cases, 20 to 25 percent.

[1820]

I had a young woman in my office, who is a mother of three and pregnant with a fourth child, who is in just such a situation and is increasingly becoming desperate and worried about being homeless by the end of August. She’s in exactly that situation. The fixed-term lease expired. She can’t afford the increased rent that’s being asked for, and she’s going to be forced to move at the end of August.

I know that my colleague from the West End, my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey and my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings — Vancouver MLAs, because it’s arisen particularly in Vancouver — have raised this issue with the Minister for Housing in the estimates process. Dismissive, just as he was today, not prepared to listen to a solution. It’s something about the sanctity of the freedom to contract, I think, was his approach. That’s one small issue.

There is public land in…. Again, the example that’s given is Vancouver, on the Little Mountain site on 37th and Main. That was land owned by the province, owned by B.C. Housing, with 224 units of affordable housing. In fact, my family lived there. I lived there as a child for a couple of years before my family saved up the money and bought a house later on. So I have some sentimental attachment to that particular housing site.

Nonetheless, what the Minister for Housing did was sell the site to a developer, insisted that all the buildings on it be demolished. That was in 2009, and there’s only been one building built on that site since. It’s a perfect site for housing. It was a housing site for 50 years, and it’s been largely vacant in the middle of a housing crisis. So that’s the tactic that’s been taken by the Minister for Housing on these kinds of issues. When there are solutions offered, solutions are not taken.

The Vancity report had a number of proposals that could be taken up. One was to support the creation of a $250 million social finance infrastructure fund that will leverage a regional network of impact investment funds to provide financing for housing development and other durable social infrastructure.

There’s a whole sector that you could mobilize to invest in housing that wouldn’t be speculative money. It would be for the long term and would be prepared to take a return that a patient investor would take over the long term and for the good of the community. Many solutions in this report, not taken up, not taken seriously, derisively dismissed, arrogantly dismissed by the members opposite.

I don’t have a lot of time, but I do want to talk a little bit about the bill. The bill creates a fund, a housing initiatives affordability fund, I think it’s called — $75 million to seed it. The LNG fund had $100 million to seed it, so I suppose you could say that housing is 25 percent less important than the LNG fund. We’ll see what happens with the revenue, if and when it arrives. But it speaks, I think, to the importance that the Minister of Finance places on this initiative relative to the LNG fund that
[ Page 13473 ]
he created through legislation last summer in a similar summer session.

Finally, the minister talks and some of the B.C. Liberals talk about supply. Yes, building more housing. I support that. I live in Surrey. One of the backbones of the Surrey regional economy is home-building and all the trades and all the businesses that supports. But the government also has to do its part in enabling the creation of supply, and they haven’t done that.

You’ve see the very reasonable — and they’re not New Democrats — Surrey board of education, Surrey school board, school trustees, pass a resolution calling for a moratorium on development. Why would they do that? I certainly don’t support that. But why did they feel driven to pass that kind of a motion? Because the provincial government is….

[1825]

The result of the ongoing development is that new developments are being approved and built, and they’re not approving the money to build the schools for the kids that are going to live in those particular developments. It creates impossible pressure on the school board and torques the educational system, the public educational system, the biggest one in the province, completely out of shape.

Very, very reasonable people. Laurae McNally, a long-time trustee — been through many, many school boards — has made that case passionately and vigorously and regularly. Yet they felt compelled to call for a moratorium on development at the same time when there’s obviously a need for, and there’s a market for, more supply.

The provincial government has to step up and create the conditions that support not simply housing but create the community support that will enable families to live in security and tranquility and with the usual amenities that one expects and has the right to expect in our society.

The Minister of Finance says: “We’re going to put these measures into place, and don’t worry. Don’t worry. We’re going to put in some more auditors.” Now, forgive me if I’m just a little bit skeptical about that. The mechanisms for audit, the funds for that and the vigour with which those investigations will be pursued has not been the case, certainly in the case of scrutinizing the real estate industry over the last ten years.

Indeed, it’s contrary to the very philosophy of those opposite. These are the people that, on a parallel with Holocaust Memorial Day, have Red Tape Reduction Day. That solemn event, Holocaust Memorial Day, is placed in legal and juridical equivalence in the B.C. Liberal pantheon with Red Tape Reduction Day. There is a commitment on their part not to regulate, a propensity to talk regulation but to not do it. If there will be more auditors, if the act is enforced, we’ll see about that.

Other colleagues wish to speak. I’m not given a great deal of time. There is much more I could say on this. I want to commend our critics — the member for Point Grey, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the Leader of the Opposition — who aggressively and vigorously pursued this issue and forced the government into creating this legislative fig leaf to hide the absolute nakedness of their policies heretofore. With that, I conclude my remarks.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to just take a few minutes here to make a few comments in regard to Bill 28, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act. This is a piece of legislation that was brought into play on very short order in the last few weeks, bringing us back to the Legislature to sit for a number of days to primarily adopt this. But where this came from….

This has followed a situation in this province over the last couple of years — clearly, over the last year in particular — where many, many people from across the province from a variety of backgrounds have been raising the danger sign of the situation around housing and the speculation in the market and what’s been happening to the skyrocketing market in, particularly, the Lower Mainland. Increasingly now, we see it starting to occur in the south Island.

It’s a situation that has seen the value of homes just explode, a situation that has seen home ownership absolutely disappear from the possibility or the opportunity for the vast majority of people who are living in British Columbia today. It’s a situation that we raised a year ago, a situation that we talked about — the need for government to step up and play the role that it has an obligation to play around housing affordability.

This has moved from a situation where it simply was who would buy the $5 million and the $6 million and the $7 million houses in Vancouver to a situation where…. Now it’s played itself out where it’s about affordability for people who are struggling to find a place to rent, to find a place to live for themselves and their families. That’s the circumstance we have now.

[1830]

It’s a situation where until this week, this government was telling us and others who were speaking up about this that we were fear-mongering. This is a situation where only in May, a couple of months ago, the Housing Minister — the minister who’s supposed to be paying attention to the issue of housing, to the issue of affordability around housing, a critical question…. This is the minister who said to people “stop whining.” Because he was okay. Stop whining.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Now we have seen the flip-flop of this government. A political flip-flop, without doubt. A flip-flop, as we’ve seen, in numbers of polls and commentary by people that the government finds it hard to ignore, whether it’s
[ Page 13474 ]
the board of trade or the CEO of Hootsuite or Vancity or other institutions — institutions that certainly do not have connections to us as the NDP, but institutions that are very ingrained in what’s going on in the Lower Mainland.

Municipal council after municipal council saying: “We have a crisis situation around affordability. We have a situation that has become entirely untenable. We have a situation that cries out for help. And we have a situation that local government have little or no capacity to deal with on their own.” The province laid the blame at local government’s feet, said that people were fearmongering, told local governments they were taking too much in amenity contributions, that they were too slow in their regulatory regime, and ignored the reality of the situation — which is foreign capital, in many cases. Capital from outside of British Columbia coming to this province.

We now have a situation where the government has woken up to this. Clearly, they have woken up to this because it has become a political problem. This government, that is preoccupied with damage control heading to next May, has discovered a political problem that — I’m sure they’re telling themselves — puts at risk a number of seats in the Metro Vancouver area, if not elsewhere, that they are concerned may be at risk. So now it’s time to put together, cobble together, a series of initiatives in order to get past that political problem. That’s what the Premier and the Finance Minister and the Housing Minister have done. That’s what Bill 28 is. It is damage control and little else.

What it is, is a situation that puts four initiatives in place. It puts in place the 15 percent tax that we have all been talking about, the property transfer tax on foreign nationals. Not on foreign capital. It’s not about foreign money coming in. It’s on the people, not the money. It should be on the money. As they always say, follow the money and you’ll get where you need to go. It should be on the money, but it is on the people.

We know it’s done with a number of loopholes. We can be assured, because we’ve already seen some of the exchanges in the industry, that there will be seeking out of many more loopholes to get around this 15 percent. We’ll see over the next period of time what impact it has, if any, on driving down or at least beginning to control out of control prices.

We have seen the creation of the housing priority initiatives fund — $75 million. I think Tom Davidoff, the well-known and well-respected economist from the Sauder School who’s worked on this, said: “I don’t think that’ll fix the problem. That would buy you 75 condos in Vancouver. That’s not going to fix the problem.”

What the government did with $75 million…. As the Finance Minister told us when he did the recent financial update that we have here, a billion and a half dollars in property transfer tax. A windfall beyond belief; over 40 percent above projections. So we got a billion and a half dollars. What the government has done is said: “We have acquired this windfall” — all from a housing circumstance that has created a desperate situation — “and we’re going to take 5 percent of that money and put it in a fund.” Five percent — $75 million — and put it into this fund.

[1835]

We’ll have to see what happens in terms of new dollars going into that fund moving forward, and we will have to see what happens in terms of how that fund actually gets used to build affordable housing that we require.

We have, all of a sudden, an independent regulator. An independent regulator — and the only reason that regulator is required today is because this government, in 2004, while pounding their desks and cheering, ripped up the regulatory regime that was in place and said: “Go self-regulate yourself, industry.” They ripped it up.

Here we are 12-odd years later, where you have the Premier, as if it’s some revelation, saying: “We have to regulate the industry. They haven’t handled it themselves.” Thoughtful people knew in 2004 that would be the result. The government ignored it then, but it’s political damage control today to get at that issue.

We have a vacancy tax that was asked for by the city of Vancouver because the mayor and the city are desperate to get some kind of handle on this issue. So we will have a vacancy tax that only Vancouver gets — nobody else gets it at this point — and with no commitment on the necessary data to allow that tax to have the opportunity to be successful and effective. Without the data and the information, it does not have the opportunity.

We will see how that moves forward. We will see if the government chooses to deliver that information and data to the city of Vancouver and, hopefully, to other jurisdictions. The mayor of Victoria has said she would be interested in having that tool in Victoria to be able to manage issues in Victoria.

This piece of legislation, I guess, will be called the better-than-nothing bill, because that’s what it is. When you cobble something together at the last minute, you do it for political reasons, you do it for something that you really don’t believe in but you know politically you have to deal with, then you get the better-than-nothing bill. That’s what we have here today.

We need a serious housing strategy in this province. We need a housing strategy that focuses on affordability. We need a housing strategy that says to those people who come into my office…. The mom that comes in with two kids and says: “I got a $20-an-hour job. I make $40,000 a year. I got a couple of kids, and I cannot find a place in Vancouver, in East Vancouver, that I can afford. And if I do find one, it’s not appropriate. What am I going to do?” What are we saying to the person who has an okay job — 20 bucks an hour, $40,000? It’s out of the realm of possibility for them to find appropriate housing. That’s the people that we need to be paying attention to, and they are ignored in this legislation as well.
[ Page 13475 ]

The government has played no role in supporting these people. It’s about increasing stock of affordable housing. The Minister of Finance has a rent subsidy program that he pulls out every time you talk to him about affordable housing, but he has no interest, and this government has no interest, in building the housing stock that’s necessary.

This will be about affordability. It will be about housing. It will be about education over the next few months, and it will be about those issues in much of this province when we get to next May.

That debate will be ongoing. We will see whether the people of British Columbia want a government that understands affordability, that really puts B.C. first instead of Liberals first and wants to move forward. That decision will be made May 9. I look forward to that decision.

M. Karagianis: I’m happy to take an opportunity to speak here in the last few minutes on this bill.

I’m very concerned about the real impacts to the economy of British Columbia, of the neglect that this government has shown against the real estate industry. Real estate — and I’m sure most people in British Columbia are not aware of this — is a primary driver of our economy. Often people think it’s all resource industries and things like that, but it’s not. It is real estate, and we’ve seen that report out.

I think that the government’s irresponsible neglect of the crisis that has been growing in Vancouver is a big concern. I know that the impacts for my community are not far away. I’d like to just talk for a couple of brief minutes here about the impact for the south Island and for the constituents that I have in Esquimalt–Royal Roads.

While the government has mocked us and been in denial about this issue, while we’ve raised it over and over again for the last couple of years, the real concern is: what are the consequences of this new and sort of knee-jerk reaction that the government has finally put in place in Bill 28?

[1840]

We’ve discussed…. I know my colleagues have been quite eloquent in talking about the many loopholes. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley laid out very clearly how all sectors of British Columbia…. The business sector is very concerned about the impact of affordability and the lack of affordable housing.

I’m really concerned about the fact that so much of this now could be driven straight over into the Island. We’ve already begun to see a little bit of that kind of speculation creeping into our market. The south Island has always been a place that has had a very high standard of living but a high cost of living as well.

If we begin to see this speculation driven away now into our communities…. I am most concerned by the fact that the government seems to have bungled one of the most major resources of our economy for the last couple of years. How long will it take for them to wake up and pay attention to what’s happening here? Are they going to wait until the market has become so inflated that we can no longer afford to have our families grow up and live here and buy housing?

It’s already a challenge in greater Victoria, but I am really concerned about the fact that the government has focused very specifically and solely on one geographical area. What will be the consequences to the other areas?

Affordability is on the tip of the tongue of every single person I talk to. Housing is certainly a concern for most people here — the cost of living in the south Island, the cost of rental, the lack of rental opportunities for people, the lack of opportunities to get into the housing market, the expense for most young working people and working families.

It seems to me that the government has shown an incredible irresponsibility around getting on top of this file a lot sooner and putting in effect things that didn’t have so many loopholes, didn’t still cater to a wealthier clientele and to a wealthier class of people than the working families in my constituency. The government has shown that they are really quite bereft of genuine concern about taxpayers, voters, working-class communities.

I will be voting in favour of this bill because, of course, it is, as the government has claimed, the least that they could do. A small thing is better than no thing to try and address this issue, but I think there are going to be consequences in the future. The government will be back in here trying to close loopholes. They’re going to have to be back in here responding to those communities that are going to see the blowback and the overflow from this overheated market in Vancouver.

We will find ourselves in a future that doesn’t allow our children to live in the communities that they grew up in, to afford housing here, and we will have a multi-billion-dollar housing stock that is out of reach for most ordinary British Columbians. That’s the reality of what’s happening in Vancouver; it could come here. I’m sorry that the government didn’t do more to think about the communities beyond greater Vancouver, but I understand that they have to deal with the real emergencies that are occurring there and the pressure that they’re feeling.

On behalf of my constituents, I’d like to say: we’re going to be watching very closely to see what happens to our community. We’ll support the bill, but we could be back in here trying to mop up the rest of the mess that this government has made.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill 28, a bill that will have some significant impact on the real estate industry, the housing industry and on families right throughout British Columbia — not just in Metro Vancouver, which many of the sections in this piece of legislation deal with.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that we’re here
[ Page 13476 ]
in July not because the government has had a sense of public policy that needs to be debated and considered in the spring session or the fall session, but we are here because the government has decided, from a political point of view — and it is straight politics — that we need to be here, because they are in big trouble with large sections of the population in the Lower Mainland and, increasingly, outside of the Lower Mainland, when it comes to affordability issues, particularly around housing.

It is an issue on every street corner, in every coffee shop, in every grocery store, at every family table right around the province. But how has it got to this point that we have had to have a midsummer session?

[1845]

You know, it’s ironic. I use the word “ironic” because yesterday my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano talked about the delicious irony of some of the comments that were being made around the debate on this bill. Much of that has been discussed, and I really don’t want to go over, but I want to just take a second and focus on his comment around irony.

When this bill was tabled and the sections in it that deal, for example, with the Vancouver Charter and the amendments that were made to the Vancouver Charter, many journalists, mayors, other municipalities, said: “Well, what about us?” And the answer they got was: “Well, they didn’t ask for it.” And I thought: “They didn’t ask for it. Wow. Given this government and its record, they didn’t ask for it?”

God, that’s ironic, because when you think about the record of this government and families in British Columbia, they didn’t ask for Hydro rate increases of 28 percent, but they got it. They didn’t ask for ICBC premium rate increases, but they got it. Families in this province didn’t ask for MSP premium increases, but they sure got it. School districts didn’t ask to have their budgets clawed back and put them in financial difficulty, and they had to close schools, but they got it.

Families didn’t expect to send their kids to school in portables in new neighbourhoods, but guess what. They got it. Families didn’t ask for a housing crisis, which has been three years building, to be ignored, but they got it. Families in this province didn’t ask to be told by the Premier that if you can’t afford to live in the Lower Mainland, go live up north because the views are great, but they got it. Families didn’t ask to be told, “No one has a God-given right to live in the Lower Mainland or Vancouver,” but that’s what they got.

Imagine that. A British Columbian raised in Port Coquitlam, for example, and being told: “You know what? You want to live in the community you grew up in? You want to be near your brothers and sisters who are in the community next to you? Guess what. You don’t have a right to do that.” If they don’t have a right, who is this province for?

The people of this province did not ask to be told to quit whining about real estate prices in Vancouver, but that’s what they got. The people of this province deserve better, but they didn’t get that. The people of this province didn’t ask for an opposition that raised issues to be dismissed as not knowing what they’re talking about when it came to the impact of foreign speculative money in the housing market in this province, but that’s what they got.

The people of this province did not ask this government to ignore warnings from academic experts about what was happening in the Lower Mainland and how it was impacting affordability, but that’s what they got. The people of this province didn’t ask for their views to be dismissed. They asked for their concerns to be taken seriously. They asked for a government to understand that affordability is a key question for households in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, they didn’t get that.

What they got was a government that did everything it could to say that there is nothing to see here, that when the opposition raised issues around taxation: “Oh, no, we don’t want that. We’re not putting up a wall. This province will never do that.” This province rejects, for example, the suggestion from Jonathan Winter of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce a number of years ago: “No, we’re not going anywhere with that because there’s no problem.”

[1850]

This was a government that was so focused on the fact that it has failed in every other area that they campaigned on — around LNG, around the resource sector, around the wealth being created in those sectors flowing into the treasury. Guess what. They didn’t want to acknowledge what everybody else knew — that the economy in this province for the last few years has been driven in large measure by the inflow of speculative capital into this province.

They didn’t ask for a government to table a bill that taxes nationality as opposed to money. But that’s what they got.

I could go on for much longer, but I want to stop and reflect for a moment on another comment that my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano made yesterday about irony, and that is: “What is it about Liberals and taxes and the month of July?” Seven years ago, on the 23rd of July, they brought in the HST, and we know how that ended. Here we are, once again, in the month of July, debating a bill….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: It was my birthday, Member. That’s why I remember.

Here we are, in July, debating a bill that puts a 15 percent tax. So much for: “We’re not the tax-and-spend party.” So much for that.

I just want to close with this remark. Someone once said, “Beware the Ides of March,” but when it comes to the B.C. Liberals, all I can say is: “Beware the taxes of July.”
[ Page 13477 ]

We’re at a crisis in housing in this province because of inaction by this government. They have put forward a bill without consultation. They have put forward a bill based on political considerations — only political considerations. Let’s not fool ourselves, because otherwise we would not be sitting here in the middle of July. We would not be sitting here in the middle of July if the polls weren’t telling the Premier that she is in big trouble on the affordability of housing issue. That’s why we’re here. It’s the only reason we’re here. We know it. They know it. The public knows it. Next May, they’ll be judged on that.

In the meantime, we have a bill here which is not going to improve the rental supply. It is not going to — as much as they may want — make housing more affordable. It will have a lot of unintended consequences. I think that’s what they’re most concerned about.

But what we and many people on this side of the House know…. The unintended consequence that they’re most scared of is that the public will see through the veneer that this government cares about them and that on May 9, they will be thrown out. They can sit here, and we will be over there.

I look forward to the closing remarks of the Minister of Finance.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I’d like to thank all members for their participation in and contribution to the debate. I hadn’t actually made the July connection, so I’m obliged to my friend for doing so. But, of course, he neglected to mention another tax that, as memory serves, also took effect on July 1. It was universally hailed as one of the most progressive measures in the western world, and as positive a response as it got, as I recall, the carbon tax very nearly tore the NDP apart, and they’re still wrestling with trying to figure out a position on the carbon tax. That was another measure that I think took effect in July.

[1855]

Look, one is tempted, at a time like this, to go through much of the commentary that was heard — some of it thoughtful, much of it fictional. I expect members opposite wouldn’t welcome that, actually, on this July night in Victoria. I suspect there may be members on this side that would rather be spared that exercise.

I think what would perhaps be more appropriate and more constructive is for the discussion to commence in the committee stage in more detail. I hope that through that exercise, some of the fallacies and some of the incorrect information that has bounced around the chamber during the course of the second reading debate can be dealt with, that members perhaps, if they keep an open mind, can be disabused of some of the biases and the analyses that they’ve taken. But we’ll see.

We will embark upon that process in the next stage of debate. That will, I hope, I believe, commence tomorrow if I move second reading of Bill 28.

[1900]

Second reading of Bill 28 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 7:03 p.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