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)

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 41, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2016

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Statements

B.C. OLYMPIC AND
PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m honoured today to rise in my capacity as the minister responsible for Sport. As everyone in the House knows, the Rio Olympics will start on August 5, and the Paralympics start on September 7.

B.C.’s Olympians and Paralympians are a source of pride for all of us in British Columbia. The performance of B.C. Olympians and Paralympians will inspire us all to participate in sport, and it encourages young people to choose to live healthy lifestyles and look forward to their future, wherever that may take them.

B.C. strongly supports high-performance sports development, and we provide funding for athletes, as we all know, every step of the way, whether it’s at the community level or leading to the podium. Madame Speaker, as you know, the government has spent over $1 billion in Sport since 2001 and roughly $50 million this year alone. There are 313 athletes on Team Canada, and 142 of them have connections to British Columbia. That’s 45 percent of the total Canadian team. I think we in British Columbia can be proud of their efforts and the efforts of their coaches — and all of the people that support them, their families and the entire network in this country.

It’s very clear that British Columbia is leading the way nationally when it comes to activity in sport, and we’re proud of that. There are 68 athletes listing hometowns in British Columbia. We have provided all of the members of the House with the names of those people that are in their communities. On behalf of the government of British Columbia, I want to say to all of the athletes on the road to Rio that we’ll be watching and cheering for you.

I’d also like to acknowledge the gold-medal Paralympian in our midst. That’s the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation. She has shown incredible determination and commitment to her sport over the years and since she has been fully engaged as a minister of the Crown. Her dedication to her sport is admirable — an unprecedented example of what excellence can be, as one of the country’s finest Paralympians. We are with her as she awaits confirmation that she will be part of Canada’s Paralympic team once again.

I just want to say…. On behalf of the people in my community — Christabel Nettey, who is going to be involved in the long jump; Sukhpal Panesar, who is involved in field hockey; and Richard Weinberger, swimming and long distance — I would ask all the members of the House to join me in saying: “Go, Canada, go! Go, British Columbia athletes! We are proud of you, and we know you will make all of us proud no matter where you place in the competitions.”

S. Robinson: I’d like to join with the minister. On behalf of the opposition, I’m the spokesperson for Sport. I, too, want to join the minister in his remarks in congratulating all of the athletes for their hard work, their sacrifices, their commitment to their sport and their commitment to representing British Columbia and Canada in Rio in just a few short weeks.

[1010]

I just want to add that in our eyes, every single one of those athletes is a winner. I want to wish them all a good games. I think they should all go out there and play like a girl.

R. Sultan: In line with the long roster of British Columbian athletes, I would like the House to recognize two outstanding women from West Vancouver who will be going to Rio.

Nikola Girke will be competing for the fourth time in the Olympics, sailing a Nacra 17 catamaran with her partner, Luke Ramsay. I’m sure you’re all familiar with catamaran sailing. The trick is to keep that one hull in the water. They’re going so fast. And Emily Overholt, about whom I’ve previously given a two-minute statement, is an outstanding freestyle swimmer who won silver at the Commonwealth Games and bronze at the world championships. We wish them both well.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I try to make a habit of asking at least one tourist in the building each day where they’re from and why they’re here. Today I was speaking to a woman named Margaret Martin from Georgetown, Ontario, a Quebec City native, and Pauline Langlois from Montreal, also a Quebec City native — as they both found out, as did I.

I did leave them armed with the words of George MacMinn, former Clerk of the House, in watching question period, to understand that there’s passion and anger in this chamber so that there isn’t blood on the streets. That explains the behaviour here, at least for these few moments.

Let’s welcome these two people, tourists to British Columbia — and along with them, symbolically, all of the tourists who visit our province and this place.
[ Page 13480 ]

L. Reimer: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to recognize an athlete from my hometown of Coquitlam. Haislan Garcia will be headed to Rio this year to represent Team Canada in the 2016 Olympics. This will be Haislan’s fourth Olympic Games, competing in wrestling on behalf of Team Canada.

Will the House please join me in wishing Haislan and his fellow Team Canada athletes a very happy and successful Rio 2016.

J. Shin: It’s always wonderful to have visitors to this House, but even more so when it’s a surprise visit from my constituents.

Joining us this morning in the gallery is my, perhaps, youngest and most eager volunteer, Megan Dayson, who must have grown at least a foot taller since the 2013 election. Of course, she’s accompanied here by her parents, Monique and Paul Dayson, who are also wonderful supporters of mine as well as dedicated community leaders.

I ask the House to please make them feel very, very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s also a pleasure for me to introduce my constituents, Mr. Guy Black and Ms. Serena Lee.

Guy has been a stalwart member of our community in Port Moody, having participated in the education around war, and was one of four who marched from Port Moody to Victoria to remember those who have sacrificed all and those who continue to serve.

Would the House please make Guy and Serena very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, would like to welcome with greetings to an Olympian that’s going to Rio.

Lauren Wilkinson is hailing from a rowing family. She won silver in her Olympic debut at London in 2012 as a member of the Canadian Women’s Eight. She’s competing in this family tradition by competing in the women’s eight in Rio. Her brother, Michael, was also a member of the Olympic rowing team.

She won, in 2014, a silver and, in 2015, a bronze at the world championships, but one of her highlights was winning the NCCA title with Princeton varsity eight in her senior year in 2011.

Can we please wish her great luck when she heads to Rio.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to wish an Olympian well wishes from the city of Williams Lake.

[1015]

Kayla Moleschi was born and raised in Williams Lake. She started playing rugby in grade 9, when she was 14. She was part of Canada’s gold medal–winning team at the 2015 Pan Am Games. She is of 12 women nominated for the first-ever Canadian Olympic women’s rugby sevens team. Let us all wish her well.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess if we’re mentioning Olympians, I should — with a great deal of pleasure, even though she needs no introduction, really — congratulate a woman who I knew as a young girl playing soccer on the fields of Burnaby, playing with boys who were two or three years younger, including one of my sons, and thumping them.

I would like to congratulate the incomparable, wonderful leader and, perhaps, the top soccer player — or football player, if you want to call it that — in the world, and wish her all of the best in Rio, Christine Sinclair.

L. Throness: I’d like to recognize a world-class athlete in my own constituency, along with others. Canada’s top-ranked female table tennis player is Mo Zhang. She debuted at the Olympics in Beijing in 2008. Recently, she has dominated her continental competitors, winning the singles title at North American championships in 2009, ’10, ’11 and ’14. She won the North America Cup in 2014 and ’15. She appeared in the Pan Am Games in 2015.

We think she’s going to sweep the table in Rio. We in Chilliwack wish her every success.

Hon. A. Virk: Since we’re on the subject of world class, I’m joined by some world-class volunteers today that are new Canadians that make our community strong. Some of them have arrived already, and others are filtering in between now and this afternoon.

We have with us Michelle Lu from the Fraser Valley Neighbourhood Association, who’s joining us. There’s going to be a whole entourage that’s going to continue to join us here today. Thank you for coming here today. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Donaldson: I would like the House to acknowledge the accomplishments of Antje von Seydlitz from Smithers. She’s part of the women’s eight rowing team going to Rio. She was a medallist in the quadruples world championships. Now she’s in the eights.

I don’t know if she began her career rowing on the lakes around Smithers, but she’s made it a long way. Would the House please give her a good going off to Rio.

R. Lee: Last night at the Victoria convention centre, I was delighted to watch a great performance by a group of musicians and storytellers. The Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism was there as well.

This morning they are in the gallery. I am pleased to introduce the delegates from Shanghai. I am pleased to introduce the delegates of the Shanghai Pingtan Troupe: Jianguo Qin, Renhua Shen, Xiaoping Zhang, Shunming Chang, Xiaocheng Hou, Xinyi Wang, Biyun Sheng, Yuhong Wang, Wen Liu, Qianqian Zhao and Jon Cheng. They are accompanied by Yongjun Zhang and Jielun Yan.
[ Page 13481 ]

This performance is one of the programs to celebrate the 46th anniversary of Canada-China diplomatic relations and the 2016 year of China-Canada cultural exchange. Would the House please join me to give them the warmest welcome.

J. Sturdy: It’s my pleasure to rise today to recognize an athlete from my riding. Cynthia Meyer, who I understand hails from Bowen Island, will be headed to Rio this year to represent Team Canada. This will be Cynthia’s fourth Olympic Games representing Canada in target shooting. Would the House please join me in wishing Cynthia and the rest of Team Canada the best of luck in Rio.

[1020]

S. Sullivan: I would like to introduce to the House two special guests, George and Gisele Pollak from Los Angeles. They are the parents of Tom Pollak, who is a true friend of British Columbia. He has a key role with the Annenberg Foundation and explore.org, which have brought so many benefits to our province. Please welcome George and Gisele Pollak.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NEW WEST CULTURAL CRAWL
AND PRIDE CELEBRATIONS

J. Darcy: When I was growing up, my siblings and I often envied other kids who got to eat steak and roast beef, something my family, recent immigrants, couldn’t afford. My father’s philosophy was simple: “For the price of a few steaks you’d eat, you can buy a good book. For the price of a few roasts of beef, you can buy a painting.” According to my husband, this explains two things: my love of red meat and my love of art.

Fortunately, I have the privilege of representing a city with a thriving arts community. I’ve seized the opportunity to display the work of wonderful local artists on my community office walls year-round. When the 13th annual New West Cultural Crawl takes place soon, my office will be on the crawl again, this year featuring the fascinating work of award-winning quilt artist Terry Aske.

Terry’s art is contemporary, colourful and infinitely creative, with subjects ranging from forests to rainy-day people with umbrellas to abstracts and portraits of people and pets. For those looking for unique local designs, Terry has a quilt map of New Westminster and a quilt of the SkyTrain bridge and — who knows? — someday maybe the Pattullo.

Terry Aske is one of 50 talented artists showcasing their works in 23 different venues. The New West Cultural Crawl kicks off at 5 p.m. on August 12 with a reception at the Anvil Centre that marks the opening of the New West Pride group exhibition, Uncover.

I hope that you’ll join us for what will be the biggest and best New West Cultural Crawl, August 13 and 14, and for the biggest and boldest New West Pride celebrations ever on Saturday the 13. If you’re a meat eater like I am, you can find lots of delicious food in our local restaurants too.

HEPATITIS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

L. Reimer: July 28 is World Hepatitis Day. Established by the World Health Organization in 2010, World Hepatitis Day is one of only four official disease-specific international health days.

Hepatitis is an inflammatory disease that affects the liver and is often caused by a virus. There are several strains of viral hepatitis, with types A, B and C occurring most commonly in Canada. While most cases of hepatitis A and B may be effectively prevented by vaccination, there is no vaccine currently available for hepatitis C. Hep C is a communicable and potentially life-threatening disease that affects an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 British Columbians. In North America, hepatitis C is the most common cause of premature death from reportable infectious diseases.

Though modern treatment protocols for hep C are highly effective, with cure rates of over 95 percent, approximately 35 percent of people living with hepatitis C may be at higher risk for recontracting the disease after successful treatment. Further, many British Columbians have been infected with hepatitis C for years but do not believe they are at risk for the virus and have not been tested.

In April, our government gave $5 million to the St. Paul’s Hospital Foundation for hepatitis C research. Under the leadership of Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, this research seeks to reduce new hepatitis C infections in the province and improve the lives of those living with the disease. Through the dedicated efforts of B.C.’s world-class researchers, it is my hope that we will one day be able to permanently eradicate hepatitis C.

BETTY AND BOB SMITS

D. Routley: I would like the house to help me celebrate the life of Betty Smits. When I submitted the title, I submitted “Betty and Bob Smits,” because to speak of one of them without the other seems impossible.

Betty was born March 5, 1950, in Kamloops, B.C. In 1974, she and Bob married. Betty went back to school and became a care aide and, later, a full-scope licensed practical nurse. She had a strong sense of social justice, becoming chief steward for her union, the HEU.

[1025]

She served as treasurer for at least four organizations, at least three of those simultaneously. Bob served similarly
[ Page 13482 ]
as treasurer for a number of organizations, both of them being long-time supporters and volunteers for the NDP.

She and Bob organized the annual Labour Day picnic for many years, and nobody has given away more hot dogs than Betty Smits.

Betty spent countless hours at the Nanaimo SPCA as a volunteer. At one time, the number of cats she brought home on a temporary basis was as high as 14. Both Betty and Bob have been long-time volunteers at the annual Bathtub Race. Betty was an avid gardener and grew vegetables, while Bob grew ham radio antennas.

After losing her care job when her facility was restructured, Betty moved to her last job as my constituency assistant. Now, as every MLA here knows, we walk through our communities and frequently are thanked for work which duly should be credited to our assistants. We benefit from their service, as do every one of our constituents. Betty was certainly no exception.

One time she fought tooth and nail for a young girl who had a disease very similar to another condition for which there was a treatment, a very expensive drug not approved for her illness. Betty fought and fought — and I represented her fight — and saved that young girl. The drug was provided to her.

This is what Betty Smits was: a caring soul who never gave up caring. Thank you, Betty Smits.

HUNGARIAN-CANADIAN COMMUNITY AND
ANNIVERSARY OF UPRISING IN HUNGARY

J. Yap: This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956, a dramatic event that has had a profound impact on the Hungarian-Canadian community across our country and our province.

What began as a peaceful uprising by the people of Hungary calling for freedom and democracy tragically ended in brutal suppression by the Soviet military. Over 2,500 Hungarians lost their lives in this senseless violence, and 200,000 more would flee their country as refugees; 38,000 of these refugees arrived in Canada. Many of them settled right here in British Columbia.

Hearing news of their tragedy, the already closely knit Hungarian-Canadian community sprang into action to assist with the arrival of these so-called 56ers to our country. With support from the general public, the community welcomed the 56ers into their homes and helped them to build a new, free and prosperous life here in British Columbia and across Canada.

Though many of the original 56ers have since passed on, their legacy of struggle and triumph remains an important one. In fact, the community response to their plight reminds us of the outpouring of support that was shown by British Columbians upon the arrival of Syrian refugees earlier this year.

Today the Hungarian-Canadian community remains a strong part of Canada’s cultural fabric, with over 315,000 people in Canada claiming Hungarian descent. This community has undoubtedly been enhanced and enriched by the revolution’s refugees in the decades since 1956, and organizations like the Hungarian cultural societies of greater Vancouver and Victoria continue the legacy of compassion and generosity shown by the community six decades ago. I thank them for all of the work they do and for reminding us of the important contributions of Hungarian-Canadians.

Finally, I’d like to thank Ambassador Bálint Ódor of the Hungarian embassy in Ottawa for his efforts to remember the 56ers’ tale of struggle and triumph. I ask all members of this House to join me in reflecting on their story.

30th ANNIVERSARY OF WEST COAST
DOMESTIC WORKERS ASSOCIATION

M. Elmore: This year marks an important anniversary for an organization that is among those at the forefront of advocating for the rights and welfare of live-in caregivers and temporary foreign workers, the workers who are most often marginalized and exploited in Canada.

The West Coast Domestic Workers Association was established in 1986. Since then, they’ve been facilitating access to justice for current and former live-in caregivers to the provision of legal assistance, legal information, public legal education and advocacy. They are a membership-based organization, caregiver-driven. They’ve assisted thousands of clients with their individual legal cases. They hold numerous programs, ESL programs and workshops around the province to educate and empower migrant workers and caregivers on their rights at work and also their human rights.

Some of their highlights include…. They’ve made gains under the Employment Standards Act to ensure that caregivers have access to minimum wage and overtime guarantees. They have conducted numerous research to highlight the gender-based analysis of the live-in caregiver program. They’ve brought changes to immigration law to benefit and recognize the contribution of caregivers.

[1030]

They continue their advocacy. They’ve advocated against the cancelling of the live-in caregiver program and the subsequent removal of the direct pathway to permanent residency for caregivers, and they are calling for permanent residency for caregivers and open work permits in the most recent review.

They are partnering with the B.C. office for the prevention of trafficking in persons to bring an end to labour trafficking in our province. They’ve produced a public service announcement, conducted workshops across our province and have an upcoming documentary.

They do a lot with a very modest budget, supported by the Law Foundation, the B.C. Government and
[ Page 13483 ]
Service Employees Union and the labour movement, and they undertake test case litigation for law reform. They’re a member of the International Domestic Workers Federation. And they have a lot of fun. They hold annual picnics and dances.

To conclude, I’d like to leave you with the words of their executive director and staff lawyer, Natalie Drolet. It’s time we recognize the critical value of caregiving work for our economy and for Canadian families. The temporary foreign worker caregiver program needs to ensure that caregivers have the same rights as other workers in Canada and issues open work permits and permanent residency. Domestic work is work, and all domestic workers deserve the same rights as all workers.

COLLEGIALITY AT WOMEN’S WORLD
FASTPITCH CHAMPIONSHIP IN SURREY

G. Hogg: In a world that so often seems divided by anger, intolerance and even terrorism, we sometimes see signs of optimism and hope, sometimes see it as Abraham Lincoln phrased it to be: “The better angels of our nature.”

The better angels appeared in Surrey last week at the Women’s World Fastpitch Championship. Thirty countries sent their teams. They represented different cultures and beliefs, developing and developed countries, and they each showed a passion for the game and a compassion for each other. Each competed on the field and bonded off the field, and they set an example for the world.

Team New Zealand players pooled their money and bought cleats for Team Kenya. Surrey businessman Dave Mann outfitted Team India. A Surrey family donated over 200 gift packages to players from developing countries. After the terrorist attack on Nice, fans arrived at the park waving French flags and presented flowers to Team France. Surrey resident Addison Hubert donated the money to fly Team Venezuela to the tournament. A Surrey resident donated ball equipment to Team Uganda. The Irish Club of White Rock feted Team Ireland, and Famoso Pizza hosted a dinner for Team Italy. Each team had a host family that assisted, supported and cheered for them. Just a few of the examples of kindness and collegiality that were evident.

Teams from developing countries gave their enthusiasm, excitement and gratitude and also their perspective. Some teams had not been on an airplane before. When they arrived and showered, they asked where the water was going and why we weren’t saving it.

The better angels of human nature — the natural, unbiased, untempered connectedness that people can make — were evident and present. Understandings and friendships developed, and 30 teams went home to tell stories of people’s caring, support and tolerance, all inspired by the openness and hospitality of thousands of British Columbians. The better angels of our human nature arrived in Surrey and left everyone with a new sense of understanding, optimism and hope.

Oral Questions

CHANGES TO PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
AND IMPACT ON FOREIGN WORKERS

J. Horgan: Well, here we are at the end of the first week of our flip-flop session, the summer session brought forward by the B.C. Liberals, desperate to get in front of an issue they’ve been ignoring for a year and a half. Illustrative of that is a headline from Bloomberg news on April 21, 2015, and it goes: “Forget Gold, Buy a Vancouver Condo if You Want to Stash Your Wealth, Says Top Money Manager.”

That’s the issue. It’s speculative investment. It’s not foreign nationals and skilled migrants who want to come to British Columbia to put down roots and create an opportunity for themselves and to participate in the broader economy. This tax is being put forward by the people on that side of the House. It addresses nationality. It does not address speculation.

There’s no better example than Mac Kerman, who came from the United States to work here in Metro Vancouver in the high-tech sector. He wanted to stay here on a work permit. He’s put down roots. He’s got a job. He’s paying taxes. He put in a bid for a presale on a condominium, and now the cost of that condominium went up $90,000 because of this government.

[1035]

What is Mac’s option at this point? He’s in financial disarray because of the B.C. Liberals. They’ve done zero to address speculative investment. They’re, instead, targeting skilled workers who want to come to British Columbia and make this a better place for all of us.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: It’s easy to laugh.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

This House will come to order.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Should I wait for the Finance Minister to compose himself? He didn’t think it was a problem two months ago, and now he’s got the temerity to laugh at it.

Living example of a discriminatory policy being brought forward that will not address the issue, which is speculative investment, stashing money. Instead of buy-
[ Page 13484 ]
ing gold, they’re being told to buy condos in Vancouver. That’s what the B.C. Liberals have ignored for a year and a half, and now Mac Kerman and people like him — people who want to come to British Columbia, skilled workers that they’re not training fast enough to meet the need and demand in the marketplace — are going to be scared away because of bad policy.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: You can always tell when you’ve touched a nerve with these people. For those in the gallery, the braying reaches new heights.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Ministers.

J. Horgan: It must be tough in caucus these days.

I’ll just pose my question to the Premier, the Premier who said two months ago that there was no problem. What does she say to Mac Kerman and people like him who want to come to British Columbia and put down roots and now are going to be taxed 15 percent while offshore speculators continue to come into this marketplace and distort prices for regular British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: I am very much looking forward to seeing whether the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus will be voting in favour or against this bill when it finally comes to a vote, after months of saying that we should be raising taxes.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. C. Clark: After months of saying that the government needed to change tax policy….

On April 14, this leader, or perhaps it was the incoming leader of the New Democrats, said that we should be implementing an idea that would increase the property tax and rebate it to everyone who wasn’t a foreigner in British Columbia. Just in April, they talked about how they supported a tax on foreigners. Perhaps they are embarrassed that their tax was a 1.5 percent tax that wouldn’t even be levied for another year, that it would be levied on all Canadians in our province and only rebated if people asked and the government decided to grant their request.

On this side of the House, we’ve taken a very different approach. What we’ve said is we are going to put British Columbians first. We are going to make sure that British Columbians get a better crack at housing in the Lower Mainland. We want to slow down the incredible increases in a very silly market. We are determined to do it. We are matching the tax rates in cities like Singapore and Hong Kong, because on this side of the House, we are determined to make sure that we put British Columbians first in the housing market in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: I’m not surprised the Premier doesn’t understand the contents of the bill we tabled here two months ago. She doesn’t even understand the contents of the bill she tabled two days ago.

Now, I spoke at second reading on the bill before the House, so I’ve laid out for the people of British Columbia my views on the matter. I’m anxious to hear…. No, I’m sorry. We’re past second reading, so we won’t be able to hear that from the Premier, but we will be able to hear rhetoric, because that’s where the Premier really excels.

I would rather come back to reality and back to the reality in the real estate market in the Lower Mainland. It is not foreign workers coming here to make a better life for themselves. I’m the son of an Irish immigrant. Many people in this House, save for the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, came from somewhere else. Its unfair to tax people because they want to put down roots here. A better course of action, proposed by this side of the House, was to tax the speculative capital.

[1040]

Tax the capital that’s coming here for no other reason than to make money, which is very well known to the members on that side of the House, because fundraising is more important to them than affordability for British Columbians.

To the Premier, why did she choose to penalize people rather than go at speculative capital when bringing forward a solution to the affordability crisis she ignored for a year and a half?

Hon. C. Clark: I have to say I think this is going in a different direction than I’d expected. The NDP used to support an idea to make sure that we tax foreign buyers in British Columbia, and now they’ve flip-flopped. As the member from Kamloops said, this is even more interesting than the Kinder surprise.

Their proposal, though, to tax….

Interjections.

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

Hon. C. Clark: The difference, of course, in the proposals is that theirs was much, much smaller. It wouldn’t have kicked in for a year, and it would have been a tax
[ Page 13485 ]
on every British Columbian and every Canadian. Ours is a 15 percent tax. It is focused specifically on foreign buyers.

British Columbia is the number one economy in Canada. We have created more jobs than anybody else in the country. The reason we wanted British Columbia to be number one, the reason we’ve worked so hard for that designation and that distinction in this country, is because we want British Columbians to be able to share in that wealth and share in that opportunity that comes from being the strongest economy in Canada. This is how we are going to make sure we continue to put British Columbians at the front of the line.

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

J. Horgan: Well, let’s just tote up the score on affordability on the Premier’s watch. Housing prices completely and utterly out of control. The rental market in Victoria, Vancouver and even in the place she often visits, Kelowna — absolutely out of control. Hydro rates up 28 percent. A $1.1 billion mistake on deferral debt that’s going to mean more increases in the future. MSP fee premiums up every year on the Premier’s watch. She found the opportunity to give a $240 million tax break to millionaires, but now we learn that the minister responsible for ICBC is going to ding drivers in B.C. for another $150 million.

So when the Premier talks about affordability for British Columbians, it’s pretty thin ice we’re talking about here. I know the Minister of Energy likes to skate on these questions, but perhaps the Premier will put down her flip-flops and answer the question to British Columbians. When are they going to have to pay more for car insurance because of the bad policies on that side of the House?

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate the second question, but I think I’d rather talk about housing, which is the one that British Columbians are most interested in, particularly in the Lower Mainland, particularly with respect to an opposition that is constantly, consistently changing its position about what should happen in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: In our determination to make sure that we put British Columbians first when it comes to housing, we have introduced a luxury tax. We have reduced the property purchase tax for new-home buyers. We have ended shadow flipping in British Columbia. We are enabling the city of Vancouver to bring in a vacancy tax. We have ended self-regulation for realtors in the province. And now we have brought in a very significant change to tax policy that will focus on making sure that British Columbians get a better crack at buying housing in their own community, making sure that homebuyers, British Columbians, don’t get squeezed out of their own cities.

We’ve introduced this tax that will apply exclusively to foreign buyers, at a rate that is consistent with those in other major cities around the world. But here’s the thing. You can’t say you want to put British Columbians first and then oppose all the legislation that would support that.

I want to make sure — because British Columbia is number one — that British Columbians, particularly in the Lower Mainland, can have a chance to share in that wealth by continuing to be able to have the dream of living in their own city within their reach.

[1045]

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND
INCOME TAX SYSTEM

D. Eby: Now, a student bought a $31 million home in the Premier’s old constituency, which is my current constituency. Nobody can explain….

Interjections.

D. Eby: She’s always welcome back.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

Please continue.

D. Eby: Nobody can explain the source of funds for this from someone who has no job and permanent resident status. The money won’t be taxed or tracked under the Premier’s so-called reforms on international money in our housing market, although it would under ours. A researcher has shown that disproportionately, in Metro Vancouver, people with poverty-level incomes are buying million-dollar homes — even excluding retirees who are house-rich and income-poor.

Why is the Premier refusing to link our income tax system with real estate transactions in the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, to be fair, has been advancing this particular idea for some time. We have opted for a different approach that, to be sure, applies more quickly. It applies, I would suggest, more dramatically.

The example the member cited at the beginning of his question…. Of course, in a situation as was described, the student visa would attract the additional property transfer tax. That 15 percent tax would apply.

Now, the member, I understand, favours an approach that would see a 1½ percent increase on everyone’s prop-
[ Page 13486 ]
erty tax. In certain circumstances, they — a Canadian or a British Columbian — may qualify for a rebate. In many cases, they would not. Pity the poor small business person who carries forward a loss and doesn’t pay income tax in the scenario that the member has described.

We have taken a very purposeful step to discourage foreign investment in the residential real estate market.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: We have applied a 15 percent tax with the express purpose, while we ramp up building in British Columbia and the jobs that go with building, to give British Columbians a fair and more reasonable crack at the existing housing supply that is here right now.

CLOSING OF CAMPSITES

G. Heyman: The Environment Minister claims that the difficulty accessing campsite reservations is a supply problem, yet it was her government that reduced the number of campsites in B.C. by nearly 25 percent since 2001.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Why did her government close 3,000 campsites when her minister says we need more?

Hon. M. Polak: As usual, the NDP become challenged when it comes to numbers. In fact, we have seen, in the last five years, an additional 200 campsites developed.

The real challenge we are facing, though, is that in that same five years, we have seen an 80 percent increase in demand for reservable campsites. We have also invested, over the last five years, $60 million in capital upgrades in our B.C. parks, and we will continue to do so.

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

G. Heyman: The minister is welcome to her own spin, but she doesn’t get to have her own facts.

Forty-five campgrounds had camping seasons cut short by the Liberals since 2009. British Columbians used to love camping at Skutz Falls Campground in Cowichan River Park and at Koksilah River campground until the B.C. Liberals closed them. Those campgrounds are still closed to overnight camping. Park fees went up last year. They went up this year, and this government plans to raise them again.

[1050]

Life in B.C. is getting more expensive every day. Families looking for an affordable vacation are paying more money for reduced access to their own park system because of this government’s policies.

Will the Minister of Environment restore full camping seasons in B.C. parks and reopen the campsites that she and her government closed?

Hon. M. Polak: At every turn, in every interview, in every exchange that we’ve had, the member raises various issues around camping which turn out to be not entirely accurate. In this case, in having reviewed with staff the supply of campsites and those that have been altered or closed, it is apparent that the only time those decisions have been taken is when there are issues of safety and when there are issues of campsites that are no longer feasible to be maintained.

FERRY SERVICES

C. Trevena: This last week has been chaotic on the Sunshine Coast, with lineups for ferries snaking for kilometres along the highway, people waiting for up to eight hours, vacationers and tourists stranded, businesses frustrated and losing money, and events like weddings and festivals being hit. It has hurt the economy, it is hurting tourism across the area, and it was preventable.

The ferry, the Queen of Burnaby, broke down. Its replacement, the Queen of Chilliwack, was sold last year for cents on the dollar after $18 million of public money had been spent upgrading it.

To the minister responsible for Tourism: since this is a recurring problem, will she tell the House why the Queen of Chilliwack was sold when the people who paid for it still need it?

Hon. S. Bond: We are acutely aware of the importance of the connection between transportation opportunities and tourism in British Columbia. I can tell you that today British Columbia continues to experience record tourism numbers in this province. In fact, we can tell the member opposite that, for the first time, in the first five months of this year we’ve seen 1.6 million international visitors. Our domestic tourism numbers are up as well.

We will continue to look for constructive ways to work to ensure that British Columbians have access but so do our international visitors.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think these are many frustrated tourists who come to see our marine highway grind to a halt — the marine highway they’ve had to pay a huge amount to use and then to be stuck in lineups for many, many hours, along with the residents and the businesses.

It’s not just these ferries. The newest ferry in the B.C. Ferries fleet, the Baynes Sound Connector, has had count-
[ Page 13487 ]
less problems in its first six months, including getting stuck in the middle of the channel between Denman Island and Vancouver Island. Its backup is being used to help to clear the backlog on the Sunshine Coast, potentially leaving the Denman-Hornby routes, also very popular with tourists, without a ferry.

The government’s negligent approach to a vital part of our transportation network has left B.C. Ferries, which is our marine highway, with no backup. The new, untested Polish LNG ferries are late. They’re not going to be in the water for another six months.

To the minister, what is she going to do to ensure that coastal residents and businesses, as well as those tourists, have access to the marine highway?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, we fully recognize the importance of connectivity for tourists and residents alike to ensure that we have appropriate services. I can tell the member opposite that it was a very difficult decision to deal with the Queen of Chilliwack. As the member opposite well knows, the Queen of Chilliwack…. That route was losing $7.35 million a year. There was a $2,500 vehicle subsidy and less than 30 percent utilization. One of the things that we on this side of the House want to ensure is that B.C. Ferries is sustainable, both today and in the future.

[1055]

One of the things we want to celebrate today is that we have B.C. Day weekend coming up. We know that tourism numbers are up right across the province. We couldn’t be more excited about that. We’re having record numbers. We are seeing people choosing British Columbia as their destination of choice. Not only that, we want to ensure that British Columbians make it their choice to explore B.C. this summer.

LOCALLY GROWN FOOD AND
FOOD SERVICES IN HEALTH FACILITIES

L. Popham: It’s a wonderful time of year for agriculture in B.C. Harvests are coming in. Farmers markets are overflowing. Sales are being made, and B.C. consumers are enjoying an incredible bounty of choice. It’s not the lazy days of summer for farmers. They are at their busiest.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the question.

Please continue.

L. Popham: The Okanagan, represented by both the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, is boasting an incredible season of fruit.

Given this bounty, can the Minister of Agriculture tell me why patients at their Vanderhoof hospital are being served fruit from China?

Hon. T. Lake: There is no question that B.C.’s agricultural sector is enjoyed across the world. In fact, over 200 commodities are exported around the world.

We recognize that using local products in our health care facilities does provide important health, economic and environmental benefits to British Columbians. Because of this, health authorities across the province do provide a variety of local products whenever possible. For example, all contracted food providers in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley are using local food sources like chicken, eggs, beef and in-season produce.

The Ministry of Health also funds a variety of programs that support British Columbians’ access to fresh fruit and healthy local foods, including the farmers market nutrition and coupon program, one that is very popular; the school fruit and vegetable nutritional program; and the farm to schools B.C. program.

The Health Ministry and the health authorities believe in local products and use them whenever possible.

Madame Speaker: Member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: The Minister of Health can dice it, chop it, slice it, dehydrate it, freeze it or blend it any way he wants, but it won’t make plastic fruit cups from China any more appetizing in the B.C. hospital system.

When are the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Health and the Premier going to start supporting B.C. farmers and B.C. food processors?

Hon. T. Lake: Whereas British Columbia does have over 200 agricultural products, not all food that people like to enjoy are practicably grown here in B.C. There is a wide variety of food choices that are prepared, but all health authorities make great efforts…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: …to source food whenever it is practicable.

Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence have the following food contracts with companies that use local food sources. Gordon Food Service is their primary food distributor. They use local eggs. They use hothouse produce, and fresh produce when in season. Island Farms uses milk from the Fraser Valley.

[1100]

The examples across the province are countless on the ways in which health authorities are using local products from British Columbia.
[ Page 13488 ]

PAID-DONOR PLASMA CLINICS

J. Darcy: Canadian Plasma Resources wants to set up private pay-for-plasma clinics in B.C. Paying for plasma is illegal in Ontario and Quebec. The CEO of Canadian Blood Services, Dr. Graham Sher, made it clear recently that his agency has no intention of buying plasma from Canadian Plasma Resources. Dr. Sher also expressed grave concerns that this company is likely to draw donors away from Canadian Blood Services at a time when they’re aiming to double the amount of blood gained from voluntary donors.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Has he instructed his ministry to go ahead and enable private blood clinics in B.C., yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: The short answer is no. The Ministry of Health has not instructed anyone to do anything. We support voluntary donations of both whole blood and plasma.

We work very closely with Canadian Blood Services. We fund Canadian Blood Services to the tune of about $165 million a year. I met with them recently. We discussed this issue. The member well knows that about 70 percent of the life-saving plasma proteins that are used by Canadians come from foreign sources, which, in the majority of cases, are paid donors.

Now, the Canadian Blood Services is putting forward a plan to increase the amount of voluntary donation of plasma products. We are very interested in seeing that plan. We look forward to having that plan before us very soon.

RELEASE OF PRINCE RUPERT
AIRSHED STUDY

J. Rice: To the Minister of Environment: your ministry has put off numerous times releasing the Prince Rupert airshed study report that was announced in 2014 and was due to be completed in May of 2015. It’s now July of 2016, well past a year overdue.

Where is the Prince Rupert airshed study report your government promised, and why is it taking so long to be made public?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we’re always interested in making sure that we can provide British Columbians, residents of local areas, with assurance that their air quality is the highest that it can possibly be. We conducted, of course, the Kitimat airshed study, have then moved into the Prince Rupert airshed study, and as I understand it, that study should be available very soon.

ACTION ON MONEY LAUNDERING AND TAX
EVASION IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

M. Farnworth: A year ago a B.C. court heard about a remittance firm that specializes in routinely bringing in money from corrupt officials from China into British Columbia, a network discovered by police only when a fake kidnapping plot went awry. Six months ago British Columbians read about the B.C. Securities Commission investigating a local Ponzi scheme and accidentally finding a real estate agent assisting with and laundering the proceeds in West Vancouver real estate. Last month, we read about a businessman who frauded a bank in China and bought local real estate in Surrey undetected until the Chinese bank tracked him down and sued him in Vancouver.

FINTRAC, the federal anti-money-laundering agency, has said that Metro Vancouver real estate is particularly vulnerable to money laundering. Despite story after story about the vulnerability of our housing market to money laundering and tax evasion, why does this government still refuse to limit the income tax system with real estate transactions to detect and prevent money laundering and tax evasion?

[1105]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member’s question, I think, highlights the complexity of the issue that we’re confronted by. He has mentioned, I think accurately, the number of agencies that are engaged in reviewing and then, ultimately, investigating — whether or not it is the Securities Commission, which addresses securities issues from the perspective of the province; whether it is FINTRAC, which is the agency. Then, of course, the control on currency flows between Canada and other parts of the world is a federal responsibility via FINTRAC.

There are obligations that exist on various sectors of the economy, including the real estate sector. There is the Real Estate Council itself. The member knows we have legislation before the House that is designed to address that.

All of these agencies are obliged to coordinate with one another. On top of that, there is specific work taking place between the province of B.C., the province of Ontario and the federal government, including the cities of Toronto and Vancouver, focusing directly on the issue that the member has addressed in his issue. We attach great importance to that work.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, Progress Audit: Credit Union Supervision in British Columbia.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition signed by over 3,000 people, mostly from the Kootenays, but also from
[ Page 13489 ]
all over the world. They are calling on the government to choose Balfour for the Kootenay Lake ferry landing.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal annual report, 2015-16. Also, I am tabling today a discussion paper from the Chief Electoral Officer on the disclosure of political contributions from May 2016.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 17, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 17 — JUDICIAL JUSTICES
COMPENSATION

Hon. S. Anton: I move Motion 17 standing in my name on the orders of the day. Motion is:

[Be it resolved that —

1. The salary for full-time Judicial Justices for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 be 4.9% higher than the salary in effect from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013;

2. Commencing April 1, 2014 ad hoc Judicial Justices shall receive the same per diem rate as the per diem Judicial Justices; and,

3. That #1 and #2 replace the salary provisions contained in the resolution of the Legislative Assembly respecting the 2010 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission recommendations and the resolution of the Legislative Assembly respecting the 2013 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission recommendations which were adopted by the Legislative Assembly on May 30, 2011, and March 24, 2014, respectively.]

I will take a few minutes to speak to this motion, which affects the compensation paid to judicial justices of the Provincial Court. Judicial justices have broad responsibilities. They sit in Provincial Court to adjudicate traffic and bylaw ticket matters, and they staff the justice centre, hearing applications for search warrants and judicial interim releases, also known as bail applications.

Judicial justices deal with a large number of matters day in and day out, both in Provincial Court and at the justice centre. We rely on them to dispense justice both quickly and fairly.

As constitutionally and statutorily required, an independent commission issued a report and recommendations with respect to the judicial justices compensation. The reports of the Judicial Justice Compensation Commissions for 2010 and 2013 were considered by this House on May 30, 2011 and March 24, 2014, respectively. Motions were passed accepting some of the recommendations of the commissions and rejecting others.

The Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on March 17, 2016, wherein they sought to set aside the Legislature’s responses to the commission’s reports and recommendations. In the interim, related litigation took place between the government and the Provincial Court Judges Association respecting the response of the Legislature to their 2010 commission process.

[1110]

That litigation resulted in changes to the salaries and benefits of judges and could inform the proceedings commenced by the judicial justices. The government has filed a response in court to the judicial justices, but the matter has not yet gone to a hearing. Rather than pursuing the matter to a hearing, government and the Judicial Justices Association considered whether there was any common ground which might avoid the need for litigation over this matter.

As members may know, it’s not permissible for government and independent judicial officers to negotiate compensation matters directly. Therefore, the former Chief Justice of British Columbia Lance Finch, QC, was retained to determine whether there was any common ground between the parties. The meeting with the former chief justice resulted in the judicial justices putting forward a proposal, which I viewed as acceptable. The motion before the House today mirrors that proposal.

This motion is unusual in the sense that it does not immediately follow a report from the Judicial Compensation Commission. Instead, it results from a carefully supervised process by an independent third party that, if accepted by the House, would avoid the need for further litigation. It effectively asks the House to change two of its decisions from a few years ago based on court decisions in the interim, respecting court judges and on the facilitated process I have just described.

Adopting the motion would bring finality to the issues raised in the Judicial Justices Association’s court proceedings and reflects an outcome that is reasonable and is supported by government. It would provide the ten full-time judicial justices with a salary increase of 4.9 percent in 2013 to ’14, which is identical to the increase the Provincial Court judges received following the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the judicial review of their 2010 commission process.

The salary of a full-time judicial justice for the year 2013-14 would change from $99,525 to $104,400. The increase would flow through to salary adjustments for the next three fiscal years covered by the 2013 commission process.

Effective April 1, 2014, the motion would also provide the same per-diem rate to the three ad hoc judicial justices as that which is paid to other per-diem judicial justices, as both classifications of judicial justices perform the same work. The per-diem amount is determined by a formula based on a full-time judicial justice’s salary. For the 2014-15 year, the per diem for ad hoc judicial justices would increase by approximately $225, then be subject
[ Page 13490 ]
to the same annual increases received by other per-diem judicial justices.

In summary, this motion would bring finality to a compensation matter that has been outstanding for some time and would do so in a manner that is acceptable to all the parties and avoids costly and unnecessary litigation.

L. Krog: Firstly, I want to express my gratitude to the Attorney General and her deputy for giving me a briefing yesterday on this issue.

I realize it’s not the most exciting matter before the House today, but I’m very conscious of the fact that the Attorney General has made full disclosure of the legal issues surrounding this particular problem. I’m reminded of what the late Judge Cashman of our Supreme Court once said to me that was passed on to him by a senior Vancouver counsel: “A poor settlement is better than a good lawsuit any day.”

With that in mind, I can affirm that the opposition will support the government’s motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I call committee debate on section 1 of Bill 28.

[1115]

Committee of the Whole House

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

On section 1.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would like to introduce staff that will be supporting me in committee: Jacquie Dawes, my deputy minister; Kara Woodward, the director of policy, research and legislation; and Nicola Marotz, the executive director of governance and structure.

We are ready to proceed.

D. Eby: This initial set of questions will relate to the proposal brought forward by the city of Vancouver, that they would like to be able to tax vacant properties in the city. This is enabling legislation that will enable the city to implement this kind of tax.

The first question I have…. The minister surely has heard from other local governments — I know I have — that are interested in similar enabling legislation so that they can choose whether or not to participate. Is there any section in this bill that allows other local governments to participate, and if not, can he explain why that decision was made?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member knows clearly that this is dealing with the Vancouver Charter. We have had some submissions from other local governments, and that would be dealt with in subsequent days or months ahead as we look at the Community Charter. But this deals only with the Vancouver Charter.

D. Eby: I would like to move an amendment in relation to this bill, to add to section 1 the following words, to also amend the Local Government Act as follows:

[Section 1, with the exception of 618. (e) of the Bill (No. 28) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act enabling the taxation of vacant residential properties apply to all local governments subject to this Act.]

On the amendment.

D. Eby: The intention of this amendment is to allow local governments other than the city of Vancouver to benefit from the provisions in this act that enable the city of Vancouver to do this vacancy tax. The amendment would allow other local governments to do that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Needless to say, we will not support the proposed amendment for a couple of reasons. We can’t use the Vancouver Charter to reach out to other local governments. The bill that’s before us today deals with only the Vancouver Charter.

[1120]

We have a legal opinion that any proposed amendments to the Community Charter would be beyond the scope of the bill.

D. Eby: I certainly understand the technical objection of the minister, but if he wants to, by agreement, allow this to go ahead, I certainly would be amenable to that proposal. I see absolutely no reason why other local governments could not be included. This is enabling legislation. Municipalities can choose whether or not to participate. Will the minister, by agreement, allow this amendment to go ahead?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, we will not.

D. Eby: I will move on to the definitions in this….

The Chair: Let’s deal with the amendment first.

D. Eby: Pardon me. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Eby: Section 615, including the definitions, appears to leave much of the definition of what is a vacant
[ Page 13491 ]
property to the city of Vancouver. Is that correct? Why has the minister decided not to describe what a vacant property is?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The city of Vancouver did ask for enabling provisions in the Vancouver Charter so that they could enable and define the vacancy tax, and that is what this bill does.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

D. Eby: I was done just with 615 there. We’ll do all of section 1 together.

With respect to section 616, it says the proceeds from this tax are to be used “only for the purposes of initiatives respecting affordable housing.” What does that mean? What is affordable housing under the terms of this act?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, in the discussions that the Minister of Finance had with Vancouver…. They will determine how they define those purposes, but it will be for affordable housing that they will define, whether it’s capital projects or otherwise. But again, because it is enabling, the city of Vancouver will make those determinations within that scope.

D. Eby: I was startled to read the provisions that the minister has included in this legislation, in section 618(e) and section 621, that actually permit city inspectors to enter onto a residential property to inspect whether or not the property is vacant. Fortunately, I guess, they say they can’t enter your house without your permission. So that’s something, I guess, but the idea of a city inspector standing on a garbage can looking in your windows from your property is not a particularly inspiring one in 2016 in British Columbia.

Can the minister explain why he would ever allow city inspectors to enter property for such a purpose when, clearly, documentary evidence should be more than enough to establish vacancy or not?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, in discussions with the city of Vancouver and in other cases, municipal governments have the authority to enter onto property to determine if their bylaws are being complied with, and this allows the city of Vancouver, in this case, to enter onto properties as well.

[1125]

D. Eby: I think most of the residents of the city of Vancouver and any municipality that adopts this would find this to be a most offensive provision. As a result, I move the following:

[SECTION 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out

Permissive vacancy tax by-law powers

618. A vacancy tax by-law may do any of the following:

(e) authorize employees of the city or other persons to enter onto residential property in accordance with section 621 [entering onto residential property];]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We do not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Eby: On a similar note, I propose another amendment. This is affecting section 621 of the bill. I move that we delete the text of section 1 as follows:

[SECTION 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out

Entering onto residential property

621. (1) The authority to enter onto a residential property may be exercised by an authorized employee of the city or other person authorized by the city only

(a) in relation to a residential property for which a property status declaration may be required under a vacancy tax by-law,

(b) for the purpose of determining the status of the property and whether the property is subject to the vacancy tax,

(c) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, and

(d) after reasonable steps are taken to advise the registered owner and the individual occupying the property, if any, before entering onto the property.

(2) An authorized employee of the city or other authorized person may enter into a residential property that is a private dwelling only if the individual occupying the property, if any, consents.]

All that text is to be deleted under this motion. I so move, hon. Chair.

On the amendment.

D. Eby: The basis for this is simply the idea that even if it is at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, city inspectors entering onto property in the city of Vancouver to look into windows to inspect to see whether or not you’re home is incredibly offensive and probably, given that less invasive means are available, raises questions of constitutionality. Subsection (2), limiting inspectors from entering your private home by requiring consent, is not sufficient, I believe, to save this provision from being incredibly offensive, if nothing else, to the residents of the city of Vancouver. That’s why I’m proposing that we remove this from the bill. It’s not necessary.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is clear in the bill is that because of constitutional issues, the wording is “onto the property.” As a result, we do not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Eby: I looked and I looked, and I couldn’t find any provision in here that talked about the province sharing data with the city of Vancouver in order to be able to actually make some use of this tax. I don’t know what the minister hopes the city of Vancouver is able to do without
[ Page 13492 ]
information from the province about primary residents and so on that the province has.

Yet there’s no mention in this bill of any type of data-sharing agreement between the province and the city. I looked, and I couldn’t see it. I welcome the minister to draw my attention to it, but I didn’t see even a regulatory power that might enable that kind of data-sharing to take place. Can the minister explain to me why that hasn’t been written into the bill?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, the legislation currently does not authorize Vancouver’s access to, or agreements around, third-party data — for example, provincially held personal information such as homeowner grant claims or a driver’s licence or BCID information. Tax equity and fairness, the reliability of data and significant privacy interests around personal information are all challenges that would need careful consideration.

[1130]

This would also require detailed consultation with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and as Vancouver undertakes the design of the tax and identifies specific data needed for specific purposes, there is an opportunity to undertake the necessary discussions and consider the potential for future provisions regarding access to data.

D. Eby: Let me first note the irony of allowing city inspectors to enter onto your property to look to see whether it’s vacant and then, in the next breath, saying that you’re concerned about privacy. Pretty striking. So that’s interesting.

Why is there not, then, a regulatory power here that allows the government to go back later and approve data sharing? Has the minister just given the city of Vancouver an empty gift here? Is this a big gift-wrapped box of nothing? They can’t actually implement the tax without the data.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I indicated, the legislation does provide the framework under which the city can proceed with the vacancy tax. If any other data is requested, of course, consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner to make sure that that is appropriate will be done. The Minister of Finance, in discussions with the mayor of the city of Vancouver, did make the commitment to address those issues as they move forward on defining the tax and how they wish to proceed.

D. Eby: If I’m an investor in property and I see that the minister is enabling this new tax with this legislation and I have an empty condo in the city of Vancouver, why wouldn’t I just sell the condo and buy a condo in any of the other Lower Mainland cities that face the same issues as Vancouver? What impact, if any, has the minister considered that this will have on areas surrounding the city of Vancouver?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is clear is…. The city of Vancouver had been asking and said that if the government was not prepared to move forward in providing the enabling provisions in the Vancouver Charter, they would proceed on their own. What we’ve done is meet their request. This legislation will enable them, under the Vancouver Charter, to move forward. That is the issue that’s before the House today.

D. Eby: I’m trying to understand the implication of these provisions on municipalities surrounding the city of Vancouver.

Again, to the minister: what consideration, if any…? What analysis has he done about the impact of this on municipalities surrounding the city of Vancouver?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly, I have had discussions with other leaders and other local governments. We are today, if the bill passes, enabling the city of Vancouver to move forward with what they’ve asked for.

My understanding from discussions the Minister of Finance had with the mayor and the other reports that I’ve seen from the city of Vancouver is they have done an analysis. They were prepared to move ahead on their own if the government did not provide that enabling provision, and that is why we are here today.

I will say this. In my discussions with other local government leaders, I’ve clearly said that we will be watching, as will they, as to how this unfolds in the city of Vancouver. Should that experience bring us to the place where we might consider changes to the Community Charter, we’ll deal with that at that time.

[1135]

D. Eby: We could do it right now, if we wanted to. We’re all here. It’s the summer. It’s nice out. We’d get all the cities in on this, if we wanted, right now, with a very simple amendment.

You know what? I think that brings to an end my questions about section 1 here.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can alert the committee to the fact that we are joined for the next section of the bill by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Athana Mentzelopoulos; Paul Flanagan; and Steve Hawkshaw to help provide answers to the questions that will follow.

D. Eby: This is the section of the bill that introduces what the government is calling a foreign national tax, a tax on people who are not permanent residents or Canadian citizens, which we’re told will be a 15 percent tax on purchases going forward — August 3 and forward,
[ Page 13493 ]
if we pass the bill as proposed today.

There are a number of questions I have about this, but I have to say that none of them relate to section 2. So we can go ahead with that one.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Eby: My questions relate to section 3.

I want to start with a real focus on the definition of “foreign national.” Government made a choice here, and the choice was to incorporate the definition from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to define who is foreign and who is not foreign, for the purposes of the tax.

That decision, as we’ve seen in the news, has affected a significant number of people in Metro Vancouver who are working, who are paying taxes, who are at some point in the immigration process, who are contributing to our community, many of whom are skilled workers who were recruited to come here, who now have to pay the government’s tax.

We heard quite a heart-wrenching story about a young man hoping to make a future in Vancouver, a talented animator who was recruited here, who now faces a $90,000 tax bill if this passes, even though he’s living, working and paying taxes in Metro and wants to settle here. He says that his dream of staying in Vancouver is dead if this bill passes as it’s currently written.

So the definition of “foreign national” incorporates an immigration definition instead of that you pay your worldwide taxes in British Columbia, which is a recommendation that was made not by the official opposition but by a group of economists — the number in excess of 40 — at UBC and SFU. Yet the government refused to listen to them and, instead, decided to label everybody “foreign” who doesn’t meet a certain citizenship test.

I’d like to begin this process by proposing an amendment to this bill. The reasoning behind the amendment is quite straightforward. It strikes this text that says: “Look, if you’re working here, if you’re paying taxes here, if you’re contributing to our community, we don’t care. You have to pay the tax anyway.” And it replaces it with the definition: “‘Foreign national’ means an individual….”

[1140]

The motion is:

[SECTION 3 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown

Definitions in relation to additional tax imposed

2.01 In this section and sections 2.02 and 2.03:

“foreign national” means an individual who has not paid his or her worldwide income tax in British Columbia for the most recent complete taxation year; who is a foreign national as defined in section 2 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada)]

On the amendment.

D. Eby: It’s not perfect. But the closest proxy to full participation in our economy that I’ve heard of is this proposal that comes from the Sauder School of Business, the SFU economists, who say the closest proxy we have to participation in our economy is paying your worldwide income tax here.

If you change that definition, you change the entire impact of the act. People like Mac, who we saw on the news — that talented animator I told you about — would be exempt from the tax. But somebody bringing in truckloads of international money to buy up homes, who happens to be a permanent resident or happens to be a Canadian citizen, would have to pay an additional tax.

We propose this amendment. It’s a very serious amendment because it goes to the core of the government’s philosophy here to tax people who they deem foreign based on who they are rather than on what they do. This changes the bill into one that taxes people based on what they do. Do you pay your taxes in British Columbia or not? That is a much fairer thing, because it’s very hard to change who you are. It’s very simple to change what you do. That’s why this amendment is so important.

I move that section 3 be deleted, the text shown struck out be struck out and adding the underlined text as shown, as I’ve already read into the record of Hansard.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that the member has articulated a preference for the manner in which to address this issue. Our purpose here, of course, is not to dissect other options, although I should say I’m not offended at the notion that the member or others have created other options.

I should say, as a matter of principle, our purpose is not to penalize other Canadians. This would. Our purpose is not to penalize a Canadian who would take a temporary posting overseas. This would.

None of these structures or systems is perfect. I will be the first to concede that. The proposal from the member is not. And undoubtedly, the use of the property transfer tax in the way that we are proposing, with the distinction that we are proposing, particularly through the transition, will create some challenges for some people. Yet we have, after careful analysis, including careful analysis of the workability and ability to administrate the ideas that the member has brought forward, opted for the approach.

The member has proposed an amendment that, I would say, seeks to move in a different direction. It is, I believe, incapable of existing functionally within the construct of what is before us. I understand the purpose behind the amendment to articulate a different view of how to approach this, but after careful analysis, we have decided to adopt the approach that we have. I don’t think the member will be entirely surprised to hear me say that we, therefore, are not supportive of the amendment as proposed.

[1145-1150]

The Chair: Hon. Members, there’s an amendment proposed by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on section 3 to change the definition of “foreign national.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Eby: I have another amendment which will follow very shortly, so the members may wish to stay here.

It’s unfortunate that the government is pursuing this course, but if they insist on pursuing the course of measuring citizenship by what the Immigration Act says rather than what people do in our local economy, living and working here, at least, perhaps, we could amend the provision of foreign national to exclude people who are in Metro Vancouver on a provincial or federal work permit of any kind allowing that person to live and work in British Columbia.

We all saw the terrible story of this young animator who was recruited to come and work here, a skilled worker in our tech sector who is now facing a $90,000 bill even though he wanted to stay and live and work here and has been paying taxes and is clearly not the target of the legislation.

Let’s clarify the legislation as follows. The motion is to amend the act:

[SECTION 3 by adding the underlined text as shown

Definitions in relation to additional tax imposed

2.01 In this section and sections 2.02 and 2.03:

“foreign national” means an individual who is a foreign national as defined in section 2 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada), but does not include an individual who would satisfy that definition but holds a provincial or federal work permit of any kind permitting that person to work in British Columbia;]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: We had an earlier discussion about the rationale behind the definitions that the government has opted for with respect to consistency with federal legislation as well. Rather than repeat all of that now, it is on the record, and the options and the rationale for why the government has proceeded and proposes to proceed in the way that we have articulated in the legislation.

Therefore, though I appreciate the member has a different view and a different approach that he would propose to take with respect to that, we have opted for the property transfer tax mechanism in the way laid out in the legislation. For that reason, I can indicate that we’re not supportive of the amendment.

[1155]

The Chair: Do we have an agreement to waive the time? Okay.

The proposed amendment is to change the definition of “foreign national.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

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

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