Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
FOR RURAL B.C.

L. Larson: I am pleased to speak today on the importance of public transportation in rural British Columbia. The Greyhound Bus service that so many of my constituents in Boundary-Similkameen have come to rely on is about to end.

[10:05 a.m.]

The termination of this service will leave them totally reliant on friends and family for transportation when Greyhound ceases operations on October 31. They will no longer be able to commute between neighbouring communities. Many will no longer have access to major centres that have necessary amenities like schools, hospitals and, in some cases, jobs.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There is no reason for this last-minute scramble. Greyhound significantly reduced service to the northern parts of the province this summer, after warning the government almost a year ago that they would be cutting back and ultimately stopping all service in B.C. Now there are no viable replacement options for our residents.

The minister had also stated that government would not be providing subsidies once this bus service halts on Wednesday. The rural residents are also taxpayers and, through their tax dollars, are supporting transportation in the Lower Mainland.

Time is running out. The current proposed plan of using reservation-based companies, with departures that only happen once or twice a day, is no way to serve the residents of this region. Some of these routes, like Highway 3, will leave everyone living along that corridor without transportation options at all.

It is important to note that in every community where Greyhound stopped, a small business was also benefiting, like a coffee shop or a restaurant.

The change in service will have the most significant impact on our rural seniors. Some would wonder why there are all those seniors out there in rural B.C., not living closer to major centres. Well, they didn’t start as seniors; rather, they have aged in their communities, which they have called home for most of their lives.

As younger residents, they were able to drive themselves to other communities. They worked in mining and forestry and other related industries. Now as seniors, they have come to rely on the transportation that Greyhound had offered, especially those who need consistent and reliable transportation to major centres to receive vital health care. Many of these seniors require care that can only be given in major municipalities. Many travel to Vancouver or Kelowna on a regular basis for ongoing cancer treatments and major heart surgeries. Now they will be facing a logistical nightmare in order to receive crucial care.

It’s not all about seniors. Many of our communities offer an affordable place for those on lower fixed incomes to live and raise their families. This government has stated many times that their number one priority is helping those on lower incomes in British Columbia. Where is the transportation help for rural B.C.? Should these residents who are on a fixed income be forced to move? Should they simply stand on the side of the road and hope for the best? Taking a taxi is not an option. There is no solution to the transportation crisis that these residents will now face.

We have been fortunate in the South Okanagan to have a B.C. Transit system subsidized by individual communities and the regional district, which does move people up to Kelowna and back a couple of times a day for medical appointments. But most of the residents of the Boundary-Similkameen live in areas that will not be served by any of the proposed routes.

The newly proposed routes by the company in Alberta will not fill the needs of the citizens of most of rural B.C. and will not offer any service to my riding. For those who work outside of their communities, some may even be forced to move, find new work or rely on less trustworthy forms of transportation.

Without a subsidy or a more thorough plan of action from this government, the cost of obtaining even basic access to services will be out of reach for those who are of lower socioeconomic status. Absence of an affordable mode of transportation means that these individuals will have to turn to total dependence on friends, neighbours and family. This is not in the best interest of our citizens. We need to do better.

Rural transportation in B.C. is a priority for students who need to get to training in larger centres, for seniors needing to get to doctors’ appointments and connect to families, for those who work in other B.C. communities. A safe and reliable form of transportation is not a luxury but a necessity.

[10:10 a.m.]

I stand in this House today on behalf of rural residents across this province and let the government know that our transportation needs should be a priority.

J. Rice: Thank you to the member opposite for outlining a lot of the similar challenges that we both share, being rural MLAs, around transportation in rural British Columbia. This is an issue that I’m quite passionate about.

I remember my first question period as a neophyte MLA in 2003. I was quite distraught about the confrontational and rowdy format that it was. In fact, after my first QP, my first question period, I informed the caucus Whip at the time, Maurine Karagianis, that I would not be participating.

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member.

J. Rice: She’s a former MLA.

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine.

J. Rice: I informed the former caucus Whip that I was simply not going to participate in question period. I had to explain that I understood being an MLA was a big commitment and meant doing a lot of things, but QP was not going to be one of them.

Now, that short-lived statement was true until I received a letter from three Indigenous women who had, tragically, lost or had a missing loved one along the Highway of Tears. These women reminded me of the 2006 symposium on the Highway of Tears, where the recommendation was that urgent action be taken to provide safe, reliable public transportation along the Highway of Tears. It reminded me subsequently that six years later former Attorney General Wally Oppal had reiterated that this was an urgent need and it still had not been met, with his inquiry into the murdered and the missing Indigenous women.

These women simply requested: “Please don’t forget us and our loved ones.” This letter moved me in more ways than one. It moved me into action, and I felt compelled to ask my first question in question period. I have to say that after four years in opposition and many, many question periods, I have lost count of how many times I’d asked the question, “Where is the bus,” or a form of that question. Where’s the bus, and what’s government doing to improve the situation for women and girls along the Highway of Tears?

Now, I’m proud to say that this government has been working hard to provide northern B.C. with safe, reliable transportation. We’ve expanded the intercommunity transit along Highway 16. We’ve introduced B.C. Bus North, and we’ve also expanded the Northern Health Connections service to include more people that can take advantage of the health bus service. We’ve also improved cell service along the corridor, which improves safety not just for women but for everyone travelling Highway 16.

This weekend the Minister of Citizens’ Services was in northern B.C. to announce that another 22 kilometres of the highway, serving over 5,000 people, will now have cell service. Witset, the community known as Moricetown, is the last remaining First Nations community along the corridor to gain cell phone service. As I just said, increased cell service not only benefits the community of Witset but improves the safety for all travellers along the Highway 16 corridor.

Now, in just over a year and a half, the new intercommunity transit service along Highway 16 has provided safe, affordable travel for approximately 12,000 passengers in northern British Columbia. The B.C. Transit program has been so successful that we introduced three new larger-capacity buses into the Burns Lake–to–Smithers and the Burns Lake–to–Prince George routes this past May.

Popularity of the community vehicle program is growing, with approximately 2,200 rides happening each month. This program allows local communities to run community-based vehicles by First Nations, local governments and not-for-profit options. By stepping in with B.C. Bus North, a provincially funded, base-level interim service, government is helping people travel safely, affordably and reliably between northern communities. B.C. Bus North is a service for people, and not for packages, with affordable fares to make sure people living in northern B.C. will not be isolated or left stranded in their communities.

Understandably, the news of Greyhound’s full withdrawal from western Canada and parts of Ontario has understandably resulted in people feeling worried and uncertain about what that means for their everyday lives and how they will continue getting around safely, affordably, especially in rural communities. We, this government, share this concern, and we want people to know that their government hears them and that they will not be left stranded without access to transportation.

[10:15 a.m.]

A federal-provincial-territorial working group has formed to find solutions, and B.C. is an active participant. There are encouraging numbers of new requests to the Passenger Transportation Board from existing private operators.

L. Larson: Thank you to the member opposite. I’ll just point out that an awful lot of work has been done on Highway 16 by the previous government as well.

On November 1, there will be many residents with little or no bus service because there’s nothing in place to cover the same areas as Greyhound. Believe me when I say that the list is not short.

To give you an idea of just how severe the problem is, I’m going to put into the record the names of a few of the communities affected: 100 Mile House, 70 Mile House, Armstrong, Avola, Ashcroft, Blue River, Bridesville, Cameron Lake, Canal Flats, Christina Lake, Clearwater, Clinton, Coquitlam, Cache Creek, Cranbrook, Creston, Castlegar, Boston Bar, Dawson Creek, Elko, Enderby, Grand Forks, Greenwood, Hedley, Hixon, Invermere, Jaffray, Kaleden, Lac la Hache, Osoyoos, Okanagan Falls, Penticton, Princeton, Quesnel, Radium, Revelstoke, Rock Creek, Salmon Arm, Salmo, Sicamous, Sorrento, South Slocan, Sparwood, Summerland, Valemount, Vavenby and many communities on Vancouver Island as well as many more in the East and West Kootenays too numerous to mention.

This is unacceptable. How is it possible that this government could allow this to happen to so many of our communities and not have a plan to reconnect those communities? I know announcements are being made this morning, but the new service from Edmonton will not help the communities mentioned. Nor will anything be in place for this winter travel. These British Columbians need safe, reliable and accessible transportation. We cannot leave these residents out in the cold this winter. More needs to be done.

STUDENT HOUSING

J. Brar: I rise in this House today to make a private member’s statement on the student housing affordability crisis at our universities and colleges. The housing crisis hit British Columbians really hard, and it is and will remain the most important public policy for a long time. Housing affordability became a real crisis for a lot of people under the previous administration because they failed to take timely action. In fact, they refused to take action even after strong warnings by many stakeholders about the emerging housing affordability crisis in the province.

Our students also became victims of the overall housing crisis. Students who couldn’t find student housing at universities and colleges were forced to find housing in really challenging private markets that are far outside of a student’s budget and in which vacancy rates are very, very low. The cost of housing in the private market is so high that a large majority of students cannot afford to pay it. Therefore, students were looking for help from the previous administration at that time.

Instead of doing everything they could to help students find homes and get them out of the crowded private rental market, the previous administration did the opposite. They made it nearly impossible for universities and colleges to build affordable housing for students. Since 2003, the outgoing government refused to allow universities and colleges to take on the mortgages to pay for student housing, which made most institutions unable to build new housing for students.

In other words, the institutions were willing to build new housing for students, but the government of the day said: “You cannot take a mortgage to pay for that housing.” That was the policy of the government of the day. The public policy of the previous government at that time caused a housing affordability crisis for students. Despite promising again and again to fix it, the previous administration did absolutely nothing to build affordable housing for students.

[10:20 a.m.]

We are actually listening to the students, and we are building affordable housing to meet the needs of students. Our government has developed a 30-point housing plan to make housing more affordable for the people of British Columbia. That also includes students. We are taking real actions, real steps to address the student housing affordability crisis ignored by the previous administration. Our government has announced a new program, a $450 million student housing program that will now allow public post-secondary institutions to borrow directly from the province in order to help finance an estimated 5,000 new on-campus student housing beds. We are on the way to building 5,000 new on-campus housing beds for the students, which was not permitted under the previous policy.

In addition, 3,000 beds will be built, through grants, institutions’ self-financing and other partnerships. As a result, students in our universities and colleges will now have more access to affordable housing on campus, including housing for students with families, as part of the British Columbia government’s 30-point housing plan. We are opening the door to opportunity by helping people find an affordable place to call home while they pursue their studies.

Building student housing will help young people, families and people from neighbouring communities access post-secondary education and skills training. At the same time, this investment will ease pressure on the off-campus rental market, creating more housing options for B.C. residents. Students throughout the province have told our government that lack of affordable housing has stood in the way of their education. When students have access to a home they can afford, they can focus on their studies without the stress of trying to find a suitable place to live.

At the end of the day, the benefit of this investment will be felt by the entire community. More on-campus spaces for students will increase the availability of rental housing in the wider community outside the campus. That will help to improve the availability of rental housing for everyone in B.C. We’re doing our best to make sure that we make life more affordable for our students in the province of British Columbia.

R. Sultan: Having spent almost a quarter of my life in universities, I know a little bit about student housing — such as living at home and driving an ancient Dodge from East Vancouver to UBC every day; such as living in student apartments at Harvard, heated in frigid winters by your own wood-burning furnace in the basement, put there by a philanthropist who believed that this built character; such as the assistant dean hiding behind the bushes, outside all male dormitories at Harvard Business School, to catch young ladies leaving after 11 p.m., under the rules.

Fast-forward to my UBC engineering–student granddaughter renting, with six others, a teardown in immaculate Dunbar, buying a huge church organ on eBay and entertaining the neighbours with definitely untutored concerts. Some student housing must be approached with an open mind. Unfortunately, government’s response — governments of all persuasions — is often too little, too late. Our university student population is closing in on one-quarter million, putting a huge strain on housing resources.

My friend Andrew Parr, director of student housing at UBC, demonstrated one new idea: a double bed, bathroom and kitchen, all squeezed into 140 square feet.

Wow. Under new LAMC rules, I think MLAs can see what’s coming.

UBC has about 50,000 students, a 20 percent growth in ten years. To accommodate them, UBC has added about 3,000 housing spaces on campus, but I figure that about 80 percent of their students live off campus and compete for space in the city.

[10:25 a.m.]

Not to worry. Our intrepid Minister of Housing has promised 114,000 new housing units over the next decade. Unfortunately, rental accommodation is, by some measures, actually shrinking due to rent control, humongous taxation and development fees in Vancouver, which have added about 25 percent to development costs.

Thank you, Gregor — a great legacy.

Why don’t universities simply build more accommodation? Lenders are eager to lend. One reason is that university debt is government debt, and our Minister of Finance is measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio. To overcome this, a few years ago I proposed a student housing trust to engage in non-recourse financing off the government books. When I ran this brainwave past the ministry, they were horrified, and a guru from the comptroller’s office seconded the motion. Sad to say, non-recourse project financing is not part of the curriculum in that conservative corner of our government. When it comes to universities, the de facto housing policy of governments of all persuasion seems to be: “If we don’t own it, you can’t have it.”

I will gladly sell my scheme to the NDP, should they be interested. Putting back on my Royal Banker hat, I would be glad to arrange financing for the much-needed new dormitory space at Capilano University on a non-recourse project basis without impairing the superb balance sheet that we left behind for this new government. It has been done in Australia. Why not here? Heaven knows.

On the North Shore, we desperately need lower-income housing. To reduce the army of CapU sofa surfers, I have in mind my first CapU project-financed student housing site right there at the corner of Lillooet and Mount Seymour Parkway in the riding of my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour.

Let’s do it.

J. Brar: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for his thoughtful response to my statement. I have high regard for the member, because the member has tons of experience sitting here and also tons of life experience.

I do value the comments made by the member here. But it’s not about him; it’s about the two different sides of the House. The reality is very clear. The member on the other side of the House has a different perspective when it comes to housing affordability overall, and particularly when we talk about student affordability.

The reality is the students associations and the management teams from B.C.’s universities and colleges have been making presentations to the Finance Committee, and also making presentations to the respective ministers, MLAs, caucus members and to the previous administration. They were asking only one thing. These are universities and colleges, and these are educated people. We trust their judgement.

They were asking only one thing: that because of the housing crisis in the province of British Columbia, they want to build more housing on campus themselves. What they need, though…. They need support from this government and the change in the policy. The policy was that the government allow colleges and universities to have mortgages to build that affordable housing for the students.

The previous administration said basically a flat no to that. And that’s the difference. They said no, but we said yes to allow them to build affordable housing at campus. So that’s the difference.

[10:30 a.m.]

The result of that is pretty simple. There was no on-campus new housing since 2003 because of the policy of the previous administration, whereas under the new plan, which is a 30-point housing plan, we have announced a new $450 million student housing program that will allow public post-secondary institutions to borrow directly from the province in order to help finance an estimated 5,000 new on-campus student housing beds. The member said it’s too little too late.

The reality is that the previous government had no response at all, but we are acting on it. We are building 5,000 now, on campus, through student housing. In addition, 3,000 beds will be built through grants, institutions self-financing and other partnerships.

It’s very important for us that we do everything possible that we can do within our means to help students, to help the institutions to build affordable housing for students on campus.

THE COST TO BUSINESSES
OF DOUBLE-DIPPING

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to speak about a very serious issue that will soon impact the businesses that form the backbone of our economy. It has to do with the costly tax plans of the current government, particularly in the year 2019, which is fast approaching.

I’m talking about the practice of double-dipping and the negative impact this will have on our hard-working entrepreneurs, many of whom have spent years, if not decades, building a successful business. They range in size, but a lot of them are small, family-owned and –operated and loyal to their communities. They want to stay in those communities and continue to employ local people and support their local economies, but their viability and success are being threatened by a number of factors, including the new payroll tax that will come into effect on January 1, 2019.

This tax is intended to replace MSP premiums which are being phased out by government. But instead of eliminating those premiums entirely, at the same time the new tax comes into force, MSP premiums will continue to be collected during 2019. For businesses who pay MSP premiums for their employees, they will be paying twice. For those organizations who didn’t previously pay those premiums for their workers, the payroll tax will be a new expense.

Businesses are understandably upset about the impact this new tax will have on their bottom line. Many of them now face a large tax bill and have a tough choice to make. Do they either lay off staff or raise prices for consumers to cover off the new expense?

I’ll give you an example from my home riding of Shuswap. I met with a local manufacturer this past April and toured his facility, and he brought up the payroll tax and how much it would cost his company. Once implemented, it will cost the company an extra $44,000 per year. This is not including the year that the government will be double-dipping by collecting the new tax before phasing out MSP premiums, which will hit them with an additional $107,000 in taxes.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique story across our province. Most businesses don’t have an extra $40,000 lying around, which means employers will be forced to eliminate jobs, slow company growth or charge their customers more for their goods and services that they provide.

Coming from a riding comprised of some pretty small communities, I can tell you the loss of jobs can be particularly devastating, given that employment opportunities simply aren’t as plentiful as they are in larger centres. Again, it puts a tough choice in front of business owners who would rather reward their employees instead of hurting them.

The businesses facing double taxation in 2019 are particularly frustrated and stressed by this situation. Truly, the government can’t be surprised by this kind of reaction.

In the interim report of the MSP Task Force — a task force appointed by the Minister of Finance, I might add — the minister was advised: “Whatever mechanisms are chosen to replace MSP revenue, we feel strongly that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures and phase out of MSP. Rather, we suggest that MSP be eliminated at a specific date and that the new revenue measures take effect fully at the same time.”

That was the advice of the experts, who did consult with some businesses, stakeholders and citizens, but clearly, that’s not the route that was taken by the Finance Minister. Instead we see a plan to double-dip. Employers in B.C. will have to pay reduced MSP premium rates as well as new payroll taxes in 2019.

Not only is this cause for concern for entrepreneurs and workers here in B.C.; it could impact our international reputation as well. This new payroll tax is just one of a number of tax measures that will hurt our province’s reputation as a great place to do business.

[10:35 a.m.]

Again, I go back to the words of the MSP Task Force, which warned: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitive challenges, including expected increases in the minimum wage, CPP increases and recent tax reform in the U.S., which improve the competitive position of many U.S. businesses.”

B.C. business owners who will be scrambling to pay these new tax bills don’t want to be forced to raise their prices. For businesses competing internationally, doing so would reduce their competitiveness, resulting in lost sales.

We should be supporting our business community instead of working against it, but in double-taxing business owners in the coming year, the government is sending the opposite message. It is a move that will no doubt hurt the organizations and the people that form the backbone of our economy.

Although 2018 is quickly drawing to a close, there is still time for the government to do the right thing and reverse this course of action of double-dipping. It’s what’s best for the B.C. business community and for our economy.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House, particularly on this issue, because for so many years in opposition, our government members, now the members in government, fought to get rid of the most regressive tax in the country, because in fact, we were the only province that still imposed MSP premiums on its constituents. We were the last province to get rid of this regressive tax.

If the members opposite would remember the clone speech that their own former government delivered only a year ago…. They were proposing 50 percent reductions in MSP premiums. Well, we’ve gone further than that, and they complain about us going further. They want us to walk backwards, as they did. They want us to increase the most regressive tax in the country, as they did.

This member would distract us from the former government’s actual record of doubling MSP premiums on the families, on the individuals and on the businesses of this prov­ince — doubling, a 100 percent increase, the most regressive tax there was. And now the member would interpret the fact that we’re going to give a 50 percent reduction on the way to a 100 percent reduction as double-dipping.

Well, I hate to break it to the former government, which prided itself on the balance sheet, that there are two sides to a balance sheet. We’re giving a break to those same employers, and we’re giving a huge break to all of their customers.

Each family, after 2020, when it’s completely eliminated, will save up to $900 to $1,800 per year. That won’t go off as a tax break to the wealthy, as under the former government — off to holidays in foreign countries. That will, by and large, stay in our communities, and it will serve to help improve services.

Simply eliminating the MSP premium will save $50 million per year in administration costs alone. Now those resources can be directed to supporting families in British Columbia. That’s our aim: to support families, not to burden them.

The aim of the former government seemed to be to raise fees. MSP premiums, hydro, ferry fares — everything was going up. Hidden tax increases. We find out later the damage that was done to ICBC.

We can’t forget the economic impact of eliminating the MSP. It is a 50 percent tax break to employers who pay MSP now. We are going to eliminate, and 80 percent of businesses won’t pay the employers health tax. All those savings will go towards growing our economy and growing their businesses. In fact, when fully implemented, it will be the lowest employers health tax in the country.

So when the member points to this government and says that we’re reducing competitiveness, the opposite is the case. We’re delivering the lowest employers health tax in the country. That’s a good thing. We’re walking forward, making different choices, not walking backward towards regressive taxes that hurt the most vulnerable.

We are lifting the burden off the most vulnerable. We’re going to share that, and all British Columbians will thrive and prosper fairly because we are taking steps to reduce costs and improve their services. This is one very big piece of that.

[10:40 a.m.]

It’s unfortunate the member would characterize it negatively, coming from a movement that prides itself in tax advantages. Well, this is a tax advantage for the little guy. We’re proud of that. Reducing costs, increasing services — families prosper and British Columbia thrives. We all benefit.

G. Kyllo: Well, the response from my member opposite there is political spin at its finest. In fiscal 2018, total MSP revenues received by this government will be $1.3 billion. Next year in 2019, they will continue to collect the $1.3 billion in MSP premiums and an additional $1.8 billion in the new employer health tax — $3.1 billion. So they’re increasing revenues from $1.3 billion in 2018 to $3.1 billion in 2019. That’s affordability. That’s NDP math for you.

The fact remains that this new payroll tax will hurt B.C. businesses, particularly those who already pay MSP premiums for their employees. The double taxation that they will be faced with in 2019 will have huge impacts on their businesses, their workers and their customers. If only they’d been properly consulted by the government and provided with the openness, transparency and collaboration that they deserve.

I do laud the Finance Minister for appointing the MSP Task Force, which did talk to businesses and stakeholders, but I think more business owners would have welcomed the opportunity to add their voices and concerns to the discussion, instead of being surprised not only with a new tax but a year of double taxation. Here’s what the general manager of West Coast Gardens in Surrey had to say: “The NDP, with their new tax burdens, has made us uncompetitive. It’s unfair in a time…. That it was put onto us so quickly, without us being able to have any input or consultation, is just unfair.”

I think it’s fair to say that First Nations, and municipalities also, would have liked to have had their say in the matter. We just elected a number of new mayors and councillors across British Columbia who are now going to have to grapple with this new tax and who may have to raise property taxes for their residents as a result.

This may well prove to be the single-largest exercise in downloading costs to municipalities that we’ve seen in recent history. Perhaps they’ll hold off hiring new staff in their civic facilities or delay improvements to them. Tough choices will need to be made by these officials and by business owners across our great province.

We need to support our entrepreneurs who pour their hearts and souls into their businesses. They spent years building them, often sacrificing family and leisure time to do it, and are often the last to take a paycheque. It’s grueling work to be successful. It takes passion, dedication, energy and guts. When folks have spent a lifetime building up their business, taking pride in all they’ve achieved, the last thing we should be doing is unloading an unfair tax scheme upon them, slowly chipping away at the success that they have created for themselves, their families and their communities.

EFFECTIVE THERAPEUTIC CENTRES

M. Dean: I was honoured to be the emcee at an announcement on Friday in View Royal, in the heart of Esquimalt-Metchosin. We announced the opening of an innovative therapeutic community for men who have repeat experiences with incarceration, homelessness and addiction. This is a new evidence-based model of care and support that will connect many more people to their own pathways to hope and recovery.

We were joined by the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, other officials, members of the neighbourhood and, in particular, Ryan L’hirondelle. Ryan told his story of how he had ended up in a detention centre, where he had also been offered recovery services to deal with his addictions issues. The first time he was there, he did the minimum required and relapsed within three days after he left. The second time he engaged a bit more and lasted six months once released.

He told us all that the third time he entered the centre, when he realized that he had motivation and also the appropriate support, he was able to successfully benefit from the recovery community. He worked through the process, including attending university, and is now a peer support worker at the new therapeutic recovery community in View Royal.

Run by Our Place Society, the therapeutic recovery community offers a peer-supported therapeutic recovery community for residents to develop life skills, tackle addictions and receive holistic care. The goal is that every individual who graduates from this program will be in control of their addiction, have a place to live, a job and all the life skills necessary to not only survive in the wider community but to thrive in it.

[10:45 a.m.]

All supports and services will be provided through the professional guidance of a clinical team comprised of a physician, psychiatrist, nurses and clinical counsellors.

The therapeutic recovery community movement was founded on the principles of respect for life, one’s self, others and the environment. The San Patrignano therapeutic community in Italy is the model for Our Place’s therapeutic recovery community and is recognized as the world’s leading rehabilitation model, with a full recovery rate of over 70 percent for residents who complete the program.

The community members work all day at skilled sectors in the vineyard, the dairy shed or with the pigs that get used to make salamis that are now sold in shops across Italy. All their facilities are staffed and run by either those on the drug program or former residents who have stayed there.

As one resident said: “I started opening up, having a real dialogue with people. I discovered friendship. I learnt to face my problems, not to leave them behind, because they grow up like debts if you do not solve them. Happiness is not a complex and faraway, abstract thing. Happiness is made up of small things — going to bed at night and knowing that you have done your best. Stop craving for something outside yourself and looking for something you might not even want and that, for sure, would not satisfy you.”

Our Place will model this approach and build peer support and mentoring into the community. Already, they have four residents this week.

The primary goal of a therapeutic recovery community is to foster individual change and promote positive growth that helps an individual return to society and lead a productive life. By using a community-as-method approach, all community members have a responsibility to hold both themselves and others accountable, challenge criminal thinking and learn how to embrace pro-social behaviours and relationships.

The healing power of the community speaks for itself too. The sense of belonging that residents experience while preparing food and eating together — food that they themselves will grow — is beneficial in itself.

The therapeutic recovery community in View Royal will fill a gap in our community by providing effective, long-term recovery for people who have had multiple failures through existing addiction and mental health services. Critically, it will provide the opportunity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals who have had multiple engagements with law enforcement, health services and jails to heal and to contribute to society.

The success of this model is in addressing the underlying issues of addiction, such as trauma, mental health issues, acquired brain injury and/or criminal and violent behaviour.

This community will contribute to our homelessness prevention approach by redirecting men released from jail into a long-term recovery program, instead of releasing them onto the street. It’ll provide a therapeutic recovery alternative to incarceration for people struggling with severe addiction.

All community members will be given the opportunity to develop skills in construction, woodworking, cooking and other areas. Developing these skills will give residents a stronger sense of purpose, while also increasing the opportunity for meaningful employment outside of the recovery community.

Community members will live on site for up to 24 months, with access to culturally appropriate and safe therapeutic recovery programming, including counselling and the integration of Indigenous and non-Indigenous healing approaches. By using a community-as-method approach, all members have a responsibility to hold themselves and others accountable and to learn how to embrace pro-social behaviours and relationships. In the long term, alumni will become the champions and the role models for peers still needing support in their recovery.

Ultimately, a therapeutic community provides its members with self-esteem, a sense of belonging, purpose and meaning, as well as really, really important skills that can be used for the rest of their lives.

[10:50 a.m.]

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the community and the neighbourhood around the Our Place recovery community and the staff and board members from Our Place Society as well, and the elected officials of the View Royal community too. They all worked together in positive partnership and collaboration to make this happen. Everybody has been working tirelessly to build this model and to serve our community.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the member’s remarks on the therapeutic recovery centre in View Royal.

The public funding of long-term recovery centres is something that I’ve been advocating for ever since I was appointed critic of Mental Health and Addictions. In fact, I have spoken in this House about empty beds that are sitting in these many, many facilities provincewide. In April, I had one of my staff actually do a spot check on empty beds provincewide, and on that one particular day in April, I believe it was 126 beds that were sitting empty, unfunded.

I also happened to discover that there is a weekly snapshot availability report by health authorities, and I have one from a couple of weeks ago for Fraser Health. Out of the 27 facilities that were listed, only 11 of them were full; 16 were not. That means that 60 percent of the facilities that are currently available in Fraser Health actually have empty beds that are not funded.

I’d like to mention about the therapeutic communities, which is a participative, group-based approach to long-term mental illness, personality disorders and drug addictions. Therapeutic communities have gained some reputation for success in rehabilitation and patient satisfaction in Britain and abroad. Many of my colleagues joined me when we went for a tour of the John Volken Academy in Surrey, which is a long-term facility that works for those students there.

Our province is in the midst of a crisis. The opioid crisis is so pervasive in our province, with four people still dying every day. They’re mostly men, mostly young, and they’re mostly dying at home where harm reduction measures cannot help them. A recent report from Canada’s chief public health officer showed that we have such a sustained and devastating opioid crisis that it is actually causing life expectancy in our province to drop.

Life expectancy is dropping. Let’s take a moment and think about that. Health officials in this report note that diminished life expectancy in developing countries is often the result of premature deaths in early childhood from infectious diseases and other illness. It shouldn’t be happening here in Canada.

March 2018 was declared the worst month in the history of the entire opioid crisis. There were deaths: 162 people died in December of 2016, but the number of deaths in March 2018 is 162.

The Ontario government, despite only being in power for two months, has already released their plan to deal with the opioid crisis. And there was a report published by the B.C. Centre on Substance Use this spring that urged the government to change the focus from its crisis response of harm reduction to long-term recovery.

Therapeutics could be part of that solution. Harm reduction, while vital, is not capable of solving the crisis. We need further pillars of our strategy, such as therapeutics, recovery, prevention and education. We cannot simply rely on harm reduction. Our health care system depends on a new and comprehensive approach.

Certainly, I have spoken several times in this House about the so-called Portugal model. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession and consumption of certain levels of drugs, transferring the issue into the health system from the legal system. Portugal is successful not because of the decriminalization but because it has immediate treatment options available that offer people hope to get off drugs and rid themselves of their addiction.

When Dr. Goulão from the Portuguese commission for drug dissuasion visited Vancouver a year ago during the recovery conference, he couldn’t believe what he saw in the Downtown Eastside. Our statistics show that the rates of overdose and deaths have gone up since then. In 2016, there were 27 overdoses in Portugal. In B.C., 993 people died of overdoses in 2016 and 1,422 last year, and doctors say we are headed for the same death rate in 2018 as there was in 2017.

[10:55 a.m.]

Is Portugal something that we should consider here? Maybe. But at least we should be trying, because what we are doing here in British Columbia isn’t working. Government needs to make mental health, addictions and long-term recovery a priority and work together to give people hope and opportunity for their lives and their families. It just takes some understanding, some empathy, and some political will.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–​Seymour. Yes, treatment and recovery are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Providing a range of options is important so people have access to the most appropriate treatment for their specific circumstances where and when they need it. Ask once; get help fast.

It’s impossible to categorize addiction and to say that everyone who is dependent on drugs follows one type of behaviour. We know that people have different pathways to hope and recovery. We need to provide as many treatment options as possible for people with mental health and substance use issues.

For example, there are currently 13,011 community mental health beds and 3,047 community substance use beds throughout the province as of March 31, 2018, and that’s only 11 percent of the total. It is important to note that these beds represent a small portion of a broad continuum of treatment options available and generally are most appropriate for people who require a higher intensity of services and supports to address complex or acute mental health or substance use problems.

There’s evidence that community-based treatment is associated with substantially better outcomes than in-patient treatment and care — such as supported housing options. Supported housing for people with mental health and/or substance use problems includes a variety of safe, secure and affordable accommodation options within the community, including supported independent living units, block apartments, congregate housing, group homes and low-barrier housing.

People in supported housing units have access to clinical mental health and substance use services such as counselling and psychosocial rehabilitation services, including assistance with daily living skills like cooking, money management and communication. Low-barrier housing is targeted for individuals with substance use disorders who are continually at risk of being homeless or who are homeless and require a safe place to live, and they’re provided an opportunity to become connected with health, social and other community social services.

I’d like to take this opportunity to say how incredibly grateful I am for everyone who is taking action to respond to mental health and substance use issues in the community, especially the overdose crisis. The best way forward is working together. Lives are being saved, but too many are still being lost.

Hon. C. James: I now call for consideration Motion 29 by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 29 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 29 — LISTENING
TO LOCAL VOICES

T. Stone: None of us have a right to be here. Rather, this is a privilege stemming from a democracy which all British Columbians cherish. Today, with pride, I am privileged to move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening to local voices.]

We have the honour to represent all British Columbians in this Legislature, regardless of political persuasion. But are those voices we all represent truly being heard? Regrettably, under this government, the answer is no. With unwavering support from the weebling, wobbling Leader of the Third Party, who displays a remarkable skill of talking the talk without walking the walk, the speculation and vacancy tax is being rammed down the throats of British Columbians as a critical piece to moderate the housing market.

Here’s the problem. There’s absolutely no evidence that it’s going to work, let alone that this tax has anything to do with speculation. To quote Neil Moody, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia: “Who are the speculators?” Reporting an ever-growing number of cancelled contracts and lost jobs, Mr. Moody, an expert in the housing sector, correctly describes the speculation tax as “nothing more than a tax grab, a blatant attack on British Columbians and all Canadians who have worked, who have saved to own a second home, a cottage, a cabin or even a condo in Metro Vancouver where they might live for a few months every year.”

[11:00 a.m.]

As Mr. Moody points out: “Each home-building contract allows crews to stay busy year-round and support their local workforce and families. Each contract makes a difference. What doesn’t make a difference to rental accommodations in areas where they are most needed is a cancelled contract for a home or cabin in rural B.C.”

What about those “right-to-be-heard” local voices? Right now this government has those people on mute, while the Leader of the Third Party has simply deceived them on the speculation tax.

Take, for example, the premier’s own community of Langford, which has gone above and beyond in terms of accommodating new housing starts for years. Mayor Stew Young’s vehement objections to the speculation tax — they’ve gone unheard. Responding to the recent so-called NDP and Green compromise, these changes “mean nothing,” says Mayor Young. He knows full well that his community’s objections to the tax were blown off, despite his now-realized fears about housing investments being deferred, delayed or, worst of all, outright cancelled.

In Nanaimo, a similar reaction. “What changes?” said former mayor Bill McKay, who also lamented: “If they haven’t listened to any of the input we provided to date, why is it going to make any difference to have a once-a-year meeting when nothing happens?”

Expect “unintended consequences,” warns Kelowna’s mayor, Colin Basran, who has witnessed a dramatic slowdown in his city’s real estate market, a community where typically one in five home sales represent vacation homes for out-of-province buyers.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Equally frustrated with the NDP’s speculation tax and this government’s refusal to listen, the outgoing mayor of West Kelowna, Doug Findlater, has noted a dramatic slowdown in economic activity. To paraphrase Mr. Findlater, this is anything but a speculation tax.

And speaking of former mayors, the weebling, wobbling Leader of the Third Party will be keenly aware of Nils Jensen, the now former mayor of Oak Bay. Yes, while Mr. Jensen also expressed initial concerns about the speculation tax, he was the only mayor to view the NDP and Green compromise as a positive. “Very supportable,” he described the meaningless but politically convenient concession.

That was on October 18. Two days later the longtime mayor of Oak Bay, seeking re-election, garnered only 2,138 votes or just 29 percent support, while the new mayor, Kevin Murdoch, rolled to victory with over 5,000 votes, or 62 percent support. Mr. Murdoch ran, in large part, on a platform of steadfast opposition to the speculation tax. One can only wonder what this could mean for the future political fortunes of the local MLA in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Speculate on that.

Elected by the people to represent the people, we are sent to this chamber to make this province a better place. It is our duty and our responsibility to the people, including local governments, to work collaboratively to find solutions. For ultimately, every issue is local, requiring that local voices be heard and respected.

R. Kahlon: It is my pleasure to stand to speak to this motion of valuing and listening to local voices.

I’m shocked to hear the member across the way stand in this House and lecture this side of the House about listening to people, local voices in their community. I’m shocked.

The Province actually wrote a story when that member from Kamloops was running in the leadership race. He said himself that they didn’t listen when it came to the needs of communities, especially in Metro Vancouver, where the Liberals were punished last spring in the last election.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: He should come back. He should hear this.

He said: “There’s no downplaying this. We have learned some tough lessons.” The Liberals took the wrong path on transportation issues in the Metro Vancouver area, alienating local politicians and residents on the issue that impacts their daily lives — of people.

He also said: “Too much political calculation. We need to stop telling local communities and regions what is best for them. We need to start engaging with them to improve places where we live, work and play.”

I have good news for that member. We have learned at their expense, after 16 years of being in government, in particular the last four years, where they failed to listen to people throughout this province.

[11:05 a.m.]

We learned from those lessons, and we’ve been consulting the public on various issues. We’ve actually been consulting so much that they heckle us. They say: “Oh, another consultation.” Now they’re lecturing us that we should be listening to people. I find it quite interesting that they would take that position.

Let’s talk about listening to people when it comes to money laundering. Let’s talk about money laundering. People in our communities have been telling us that there’s been an issue in the casinos. People in our communities have been telling us for years that there have been issues in our real estate market. Where was the listening when they were in government?

In fact, a simple Google search, searching for “B.C. Liberals listening” — the first thing that pops up is this gentleman, Joe Schalk, who was a former senior director of investigations for the B.C. gaming policy and enforcement branch. The 69-year-old saw his old office get a shout-out from Peter German in his report.

He was fired in 2014. He was fired without cause. This is what he said to the local papers. He said: “And to be called in one day and told I wasn’t coming back to the office, and I couldn’t even say goodbye to many of the people I worked with…directly involved in hiring — yeah, it was a painful experience.” All he did was ask questions. He asked questions such as: “Who has $200,000 in $20 bills wrapped in elastic bands in $10,000 bundles?” That’s all he was asking.

He also went on to say…. In 2009: “Stop the money from coming in.” Government and BCLC, the service providers, didn’t do all they could. He said: “We were insistent that something had to be done, and I think we got to the point where they didn’t want to listen to us anymore.” He went on to say that the previous government didn’t want to hear what he had to say. The previous government didn’t care because the money was coming in; the money was good. Where was the advice that we should listen to local people at that time?

It’s easy to sit on that side of the House now and give advice about listening, but they were in government for 16 years. There was no listening on local issues. I haven’t even gotten to how this money laundering affected the casino industry. It affected the housing industry. People in Australia were teaching the Vancouver model at the same time the money was flowing into our communities, disrupting our housing market. People died. A lot of people died, and guess what. There was no listening from that side of the House.

Let’s talk about ICBC. The member that raised the issue was responsible for ICBC. At no point did he listen to local issues. Debts were rising continuously. He was given report after report that something needed to be done. Nothing was done. Where was the listening at that time?

I am proud that our side has been listening, despite the heckling from the other side that there has been too much consultation. That is what the people require us to do. They want their voices to be heard, whether it’s human rights, whether it’s every single initiative we’ve taken, whether it’s listening to Indigenous people throughout this province having their say.

I’m proud that we’ve taken action to listen to the people of British Columbia in every single aspect that we’ve taken, whether it’s addressing money laundering in casinos, whether it’s addressing speculation in the housing market.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat. I look forward to listening to my colleagues tell them more.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Delta North, please be reminded that commenting on the absence or presence of members in the chamber is not permitted. Thank you.

M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak to the importance and the value of having local voices.

Having the privilege and honour to be here in the House as the MLA for Parksville-Qualicum gives me the ability to act as their voice. I certainly hear from my constituents these days that they do not feel that this government is listening to them, especially when it comes to the speculation tax — the so-called speculation tax.

I actually wonder where the name came from when they came up with this tax. I would presume — as many others, I am sure — that a bill with that name would actually address speculation in one way or another, and that certainly is not the case. What this bill does instead is penalize the citizens of British Columbia who have worked hard and saved for years to buy properties in our beautiful province.

[11:10 a.m.]

It penalizes people who have bought property with the eye to spending time in two parts of our province or have that dream of retiring here, somewhere like the Island or the Okanagan, or even those Canadians from other provinces who have purchased properties here in B.C. for retirement or for holiday and weekend getaways. Parksville-Qualicum is a retirement destination, and many people plan ahead by buying a home or a cabin. They start spending their summers and their holidays in Parksville-Qualicum.

Properties are purchased by our own residents, and they’re now being subject to a petty tax that does nothing to bolster new developments or encourage any kind of investment in this province.

There will be 32,000 people penalized by this tax. More than two-thirds of these people are from this province. Other Canadians — yes, other Canadians — make up 10,000 of that total. They’re not the international speculators that this tax claims to target. Only 2,000 of the 32,000 people are from outside of Canada.

Speculators are those who purchase a property, wait for the price to rise and then within a year sell it. This may be referred to as house flipping or perhaps a wise investment to some, but at the end of the day, that is what speculation actually is. Speculation is not spending money on a legacy property or a second home that citizens can and should rightfully enjoy. This tax, simply put, is a tax on wealth, on inheritance. It’s a cabin tax. It’s not a speculation tax.

This tax unfairly targets our own residents, as only certain regions have been selected to pay this tax. The tax claims it was created in an effort to create affordable housing in B.C. It’s supposed to increase the amount of housing available, which will then drive down the price of housing, making it more accessible for the hard workers in our province. But that’s simply not the case. There is no evidence that it’s going to work. Instead, what we’re seeing is $1 billion in housing investments cancelled — postponed since the tax was introduced in the budget.

Macdonald Development cancelled 600 new homes in Langford and 110 lots in Kelowna, worth a staggering $500 million. With so much construction halted, many apprentices won’t be able to get the skills and the training and the valuable stuff that they need so desperately. Countless projects are being sidelined, resulting in no homes being built and wages being lost.

What is actually being taxed here is the livelihood of our residents. The biggest impact is being felt by the people who have worked hard and have invested in this province. They should be rewarded for continuing to contribute to our economy, not punished for unfair taxation.

The dream of affordable housing for new families or any young people who are looking to build a life for themselves here is getting further and further away, out of reach.

Voices are not being heard. Mayor Stew Young of Langford has expressed his objections loud and clear in the Premier’s own riding, and he’s not being heard. The Nanaimo regional district states: “This tax has been identified…as having negative impacts where it is proposed, including creating an unequal playing field for real estate development and property investment between jurisdictions.”

Again ignored, no changes coming for these communities. But if you have a retirement home in Parksville and happen to be the leader of the opposition Green Party, not to worry. The government listens to you.

S. Chandra Herbert: I must say, I don’t often participate in this private members’ debate. I listen to it. I watch it. Sometimes it really seems to be just two sides talking past each other, focusing on specific issues to try and paint the other side in a bad way.

Today we were asked to speak on the value of listening to local voices, which basically means — according to what I’ve heard from the opposition side — listening to only those voices you agree with. If you happen to have people….

For example, I know there are members and people in every one of our communities who support the speculation tax and people in our communities who might not. So I think the question, when you’re talking about listening, is: do you hear? Do you agree? You can listen and not always agree. The opposition decides that you’re not listening if you don’t agree.

[11:15 a.m.]

Well, in my community, year after year after year I heard from constituents telling me: “We want action on affordable housing. We need support for renters. We need action on speculation.” Our government is now delivering.

I’m hearing from my constituents, a large number — not all of them, mind you. I know others on the opposite side like to pretend that they speak for 100 percent of their community, as I think the member preceding me just did. But she would have to acknowledge that not everybody agrees with her either.

I think that’s one of the values. We have to consider these things, weigh them out and land on where we believe the evidence is, while still acknowledging we are fallible. We may not always get it correct.

If you want to value listening to local voices, you actually have to value all of them, not just those you agree with and pretend that there’s some sort of 100 percent majority in every community that just thinks one way or another. That, of course, is not true. If that were the case, well, I don’t think we would have a functioning parliament.

Of course, we work to get to agreement on things by listening to each other and learning from each other, agreeing to disagree on occasion and trying to be respectful about it. I know we can use this time to just bash at each other and talk about how horrible one side is or the other, but I would hope we’d try and actually raise above that and learn from each other. I know that’s a high bar. I fail at it a lot as well.

In this case, I wanted to speak about the value of listening to local voices and the value of listening to every one of our MLAs. We’re one of the few legislatures, I believe, that does not have a scheduled time for private members’ bills debates. We have time for motion debate, which we do every Monday morning, like today, where we will agree to disagree and speak past each other for about an hour. And then we won’t vote on whatever the statement is, and then we’ll move along.

This is the way it’s been in this House, largely, since about 2001 and possibly preceding that as well. I haven’t got the history on that, as much as I’d like to.

I think we need to be looking at other parliaments and figuring out how we do bring a lot of those local voices. I know members on all sides have good ideas that they’ve raised through private members’ bills that come for first reading and don’t seem to go beyond that. I know it loses a bit of control if you actually allow these things to get to debate and discussion, but I think it would make this place richer, because every one of us has something to add.

If you’re not in cabinet, as much as you can argue behind the scenes or through the introduction and first reading bill debate…. I think we need to open this democracy a little bit wider. I’ll continue to push that, as I did when I was on the opposition side as well.

For years I’ve moved private member’s bills that were never addressed, never acknowledged until the voice of local communities was so deafening that the government had to acknowledge it. But instead of bringing my bill forward, they brought a version themselves on human rights for transgender people. I was glad we got there, but I think we’d have got there a lot earlier, as they did in other provinces, if private members’ bills were actually allowed to come up for debate and discussion and vote.

We each have a vote. We each have a value. We each have advice and ideas. Not every one of the issues we raise is going to fit neatly in a partisan box. I would hope that we might consider going forward.

Maybe it won’t get there this time. It didn’t get there, I know, hon. Speaker, when you yourself brought forward recommendations, while you were on the government side, for advice and ideas on how to make this place work better. But a man can hope. A person can hope. A woman can hope. We all can hope.

Hopefully, we can listen to each other as opposed to speaking past each other, as we too often do in this place. We might learn something. We might find that we have agreement on a whole lot of things that we didn’t know we did before. We might be challenged. It might delay things. It might make it harder. But I think you would get a greater value to the democracy than this show that we have of debate that passes by each other.

Full respect to everybody who engages wholeheartedly in it. There are horrible things that the other side did when they were in government, and I’m sure they’re going to say there are horrible things that we’ve done when we are in government. I get it. That’s how this place can work. But I hope we actually value local listening and try to get more out of this chamber than we have done.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to stand here in support of the tabled motion. Now, some of my colleagues on this side of the House are going to be speaking to this in the context of the speculation tax. I’m actually taking a slightly different perspective on the importance of local voices.

As members of the House, we have to be careful that we don’t lose sight of what is really important and what matters to the constituents we serve. It’s a privilege to serve them, and it is our responsibility to stand up for their needs in the House. That’s our job.

This makes me believe that the motion being put forward is very timely indeed. The relationship between public office and constituents is a symbiotic one. As elected officials, if we keep what our constituents want and need at the forefront of what we do, chances are we will be re-elected.

[11:20 a.m.]

We’ve just witnessed historic municipal elections in our province. In some communities, voters upset with the incumbents sent a very clear message to leaders that they were not satisfied with the status quo. In the two cities that I’m close to, Surrey and White Rock, this is a case in point. In Surrey, voters sent a very clear message. They elected a new mayor and a completely new council, who promised to establish a local police force and bring SkyTrain to frustrated Surrey commuters. In White Rock, all but two of the council members are new to politics.

All governments have to stay close to the constituents. Those that do otherwise do so at their peril — unless, of course, British Columbia moves to proportional representation. Under PR, a significant number of members will be appointed by the parties they serve. Their loyalty would move from their local constituents to their party. The proponents of proportional representation are, in my mind, perpetuating a terrible fallacy to British Columbia voters: that under proportional representation, every vote counts. Any student of politics knows that that is not true.

If anything, under PR, voters have less influence on what happens in governments than under our current first-past-the-post system. That’s because, in order to meet the proportions of the general vote, a number of seats have to be appointed by the party. These appointed MLAs come from anywhere. They could be a person that lost their riding to another; they could be someone that has never had to work to get elected in a city or a riding. Again, since they are appointed by the party, their loyalties are to the party, not the voters.

The disenfranchisement of local voters under PR is also perpetuated further once the votes are in. That’s because under PR, typically, there are only coalition governments as, usually, no one party has sufficient seats to gain a majority. Then the backroom deals begin, often taking months — or, in the case of Belgium, two years and one election — in order to form government.

The party with the most but insufficient votes to form government typically has to work with smaller parties to cut a deal to get into power. These smaller parties are often one-focus parties with very narrow agendas. If the smaller party makes a deal with a larger party to form government, that smaller party wields a heavy influence that they can use to get their narrow agenda across. It is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

These systems are being proposed to British Columbia right now without full facts. I believe this is wrong. The direct relationship between voters and the elected officials should be paramount. Under our current system, I know that if I don’t work in the best interests of my riding constituents, I will likely not be re-elected. Moreover, I have a direct connection to them, regardless of whether they voted for me or not, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Under a proportional representation system, I could lose my riding but still be appointed by the party to sit in the House. How does that reflect the issues of the voting public? How does that represent local voices?

No, local voices do matter. Local connections matter, and my local voters matter to me. I, for one, will never vote for a system that flies in the face of that. That’s why I am supporting this motion that recognizes the importance of local voices and local constituencies. We have a historic referendum in front of us that could take that all away.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to stand and speak to the motion moved today: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening to local voices.” When I was first elected in Vancouver-Kensington in 2009, that became very clear to me.

The issue in Vancouver-Kensington that I heard from parents, from teachers and from students was the effort and the pressure to close down one of our local schools, the McBride Annex. This was an issue that really galvanized our local community. We saw students, parents and teachers come together and really talk about the value of the McBride Annex to the community, the important central role it played and the importance of keeping it open. That was in my first term. I supported those local folks, those voices coming forward. It was through my second term as well.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m very pleased now to be standing here and to be saying that due to the community coming together and raising their concerns, the McBride Annex continues to be open. I’ve been very proud, as the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, to support folks in the community, to stand behind the school and to see the school continuing to remain open and be an important resource for the community.

In addition, as the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, I have, just down from my office, the South Hill Education Centre. Through my terms, I’ve had students come to me to talk about the value of adult basic education — students from right across the continuum who, for one reason or another, weren’t able to complete grade 12 but appreciated the opportunity to continue their education, get a grade 12 equivalency, upgrade their skills, have the opportunity to pursue post-secondary or vocational school and reach the academic requirements.

It was those students and teachers coming forward when the previous government cut funding to adult basic education, imposing very onerous fees for students to upgrade their skills. Often I met with these students. Many of them were very committed to education but through no fault of their own, through life circumstances, found that they needed to upgrade their skills through adult basic education to continue to fulfil their career goals.

I’m very proud to be standing here now, having stood with those students and those teachers and the community, talking about the importance of supporting access to education and the important role of adult basic education. For our government to have reinstated that funding to ensure that all students have access to upgrade their skill — I’m very proud of that.

As well, the previous government cut funding to the Arts Studios, which is a nationally recognized organization that provides comprehensive supports for folks dealing with mental illness. It’s not only renowned across British Columbia and Canada but around the world as being just a great example of an effective organization that uses peers who have gone through and have recovered from mental illness and uses the arts as a way to address reintegrating to the community. It’s a terrific organization that suffered cuts from the previous government. That’s an example of a program that does great work.

I want to address, as well, the feedback from my constituents around the challenges of affordable housing. We know that there is a crisis in housing through 16 years of mismanagement. I don’t have enough time to go through the record of the previous government. I just want to talk about what commitments our government is making to listen to British Columbians and to address the crisis in affordability of housing. We have implemented a 30-point plan that addresses affordable housing and seeks to make housing more affordable. We are protecting renters.

We’ve heard from the other side. They are speaking against the speculation and vacancy tax. This impacts 1 percent of British Columbians. This is, I think, also a contrast in terms of the priorities that our government feels to address the housing crisis, to look at providing more rental units and to address the fundamental principle for all British Columbians to have access to affordable housing.

S. Cadieux: As I take my spot to speak to this motion, “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening to local voices,” I’m going to take a second to digress and say that I’d like to think the member for Vancouver–West End and I agree on much, and that includes the workings of this place. I appreciate very much his comments today.

There is much going on in the world today, and much of it, I don’t think any of us like. Hate is taking centre stage. Mistrust is all too common, especially when it comes to mistrust of politicians. I actually believe that all of us came here to represent our constituents. We came here to make a difference for British Columbians. We have differences of opinion, and that’s okay.

[11:30 a.m.]

What we’re seeing in places south of the border and in Ontario is not a focus on listening, and it’s not listening being done by the voters either. As citizens, I believe we are more and more, all of us, content to listen to a sound bite and to make our decisions without facts, reasoned arguments or detail. It’s not healthy.

That’s why, when I go to my comments today, I hope you keep that in context. We did have a municipal election just a few days ago, and in my community, at least, there was a wholesale change, not because the people are that much more qualified or that much better but because the people hadn’t felt heard, so they voted for the opposite.

The government has given testimony that they cancelled, for example, the Massey Tunnel replacement project because the mayor of Richmond didn’t like the plan. In fact, the Transportation Minister said: “I find it very interesting how the opposition can so disregard the views of other elected officials. The mayors…have a vision for their communities.” She also said: “Unlike the previous government, we are working with people and working with the mayors to develop fair, long-term solutions….”

Well, I hope that’s true, and I hope that reasoning will prevail when the new mayor of Surrey comes to say, “Thank you, government, but I don’t want LRT. The people of Surrey have told me they want SkyTrain” — or a municipal police force or more schools to replace the added portables.

When the minister says she wants things to be fair, well, certainly it hasn’t been fair for my community. There’s nothing fair about the fact that Surrey has paid more towards transit than any other Lower Mainland community yet hasn’t seen a transit investment of any scale since the four SkyTrain stations 30 years ago. I don’t see that as fair.

We’re the fastest-growing community in the Lower Mainland, but we’re not getting schools any faster than any other community. The government, while in opposition, certainly felt it necessary to criticize us on that front on a daily basis, yet we see no different action from this government.

I hope that the government is listening to the people. I hope that the government is listening to the mayors. But I’m skeptical, because we have a government that says one thing and does another. We have a government saying, “We need proportional representation so that people can have better representation,” yet proportional representation puts less accountability in place for local MLAs. Why would an MLA be overly concerned with the wishes of the people when they are appointed by a party?

Then, of course, we have a government that professes….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Singh: It’s my pleasure to speak on this motion about listening to local voices. In my community of Surrey–Green Timbers, I’ve heard people talk about how life had become so unaffordable for them and how just living was so difficult. I can say that our government is listening to them. One of the first promises that we fulfilled was in tackling affordability. We did away with the tolls, which was a big tax — I think it was unfair — on people south of Fraser, definitely, but especially on the community of Surrey–Green Timbers.

[11:35 a.m.]

We reduced the MSP premium by half, and we plan to eliminate it in the next year. That is what listening to the local voices has meant. It’s good to hear from my colleagues on the other side, but for the last 16 years, I think they were not listening to the local voices. That’s what we hear when we go and talk to the people in my community — it’s not just affordability — and we look at any fees.

I heard the member for Surrey South talk about education and the schools. In the last years, how many times was the other government listening to the people? People were so concerned about their kids’ education, but the other government was busy fighting with the teachers and not putting the resources in the schools.

We know that it is…. I totally agree with you. Surrey is the fastest-growing community, and we need the resources. That’s what our government has done. It has put historic funding in education since we came into power in 2017. We are trying to get rid of the portables. As we know, it is something that cannot be done overnight, but we are in the process of doing it. We have put the funding into the capital projects, and many new schools are in development.

Talking about health care, that is also another thing that I hear from my constituents. Surrey, with the fastest-growing population, just has one hospital. For so many years, people were demanding more resources in health care funding. The other government, rather than listening to the people…. In fact, there had been land allocated to build a hospital, but they sold that land. The present government — our government; I’m very proud — our Health Minister has put in the resources, has put in the funding, to do the research for a new hospital. Also, Surrey would be the first city to have an urgent care centre.

I think this is all from listening to local voices. I’m so proud to be part of a government that is listening to the people and listening to their local voices.

D. Barnett: Quite a few of the members of this Legislature sat on local city councils or served with regional districts before coming here. While not a requirement for provincial office, it does comes in handy when it comes to listening to people on the ground and keeping in touch with the needs of your constituents.

I know because I served as a local mayor for 17 years. That taught me one thing overall: there is only one taxpayer. Taxpayers are subject to a bunch of taxes coming from all three levels of government, but somehow that message gets lost once a political party gets into office.

Political leaders seem to think that only their taxes matter most and disregard the fact that taxpayers get hit on all fronts. This is certainly the case with this government — an out-of-control tax agenda designed to make good on a whole bunch of campaign promises that will probably never see the light of day. For example, lots of people voted for $10-a-day child care or a $400 renters rebate. This government hopes people will forget about those things, but I can assure you that people remember when a government fails to deliver on its promises.

Instead, we are left with a huge lift of taxes this Finance Minister keeps piling on British Columbians: four planned annual increases to the carbon tax; the poorly planned and executed employer health care tax that has business owners up in arms; the so-called new school tax that has nothing to do with schools; and, of course, the deeply flawed real estate speculation tax.

The speculation tax is one of the best examples of a provincial government that has turned its back and stopped listening to regional districts and municipalities. We saw that last year at UCBM, at a gathering of local governments. Resolution after resolution called for the ability of municipalities and regional districts to opt out of the Finance Minister’s ill-conceived speculation tax.

[11:40 a.m.]

When it was first announced in last year’s budget, the Finance Minister declared that she was going to chase away foreign investors responsible for vacant housing in this province. Little did people know that 20,000 of the 32,000 housing units in question were in fact owned by British Columbians who live and work in the province. After much outcry, the Finance Minister did exempt some regions from the tax, but in doing so, she divided B.C. into have and have-not tax regions. Municipalities and regional districts that get hit hard by the tax are naturally upset. Why should tax laws apply to some parts of the province and exclude places like the Gulf Islands or Juan de Fuca? How is this fair?

I can tell you that as a municipal leader, we are the first to hear when people are unhappy. Most British Columbians don’t mind paying their fair share. But when some parts of the province are required to pay tax while others are exempt, you have a problem. Any government, mayor or councillor who stops listening to local voices will hear about it at the next election. Taxpayers want to see value coming from their hard-earned tax dollar. We owe it to them as elected officials.

I’m not the only one who wants to axe the speculation tax. There are lots of municipal leaders out there who are calling on the Finance Minister to do exactly just that.

Let’s hope this government perks up and listens to local voices for a change.

J. Routledge: I thank the member for moving this motion: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the value of listening to local voices.”

I wholeheartedly agree that this House should be listening to local voices, and I welcome this opportunity to engage in the debate. But what does it mean to listen to local voices? This is something that I’ve actually spent quite a lot of time thinking about, reading about, writing about and talking about. It’s one of the questions that motivated me to seek public office. What I saw happening was a growing number of people — a disturbing number of people — that had come to believe that their voices were being ignored, so they stopped voting. Declining voter turnout, coupled with our first-past-the-post electoral system, means that an ever-shrinking minority of voters is making decisions for the majority. Nothing good can come of that.

Listening to local voices, listening out for local voices, keeping our ear to the ground and amplifying local voices must be the essence of democracy. It’s something that we as legislators must do purposefully, proactively and enthusiastically. It’s a commitment that I made to the people of Burnaby North: that I would do everything in my power to ensure that their needs, their dreams and their priorities are reflected in government decisions.

While I do agree with this motion that acknowledges that legislators should be listening to local voices, I also wonder what particular local voices members on the opposite side are listening to and what it takes to get their attention. Because in 16 years in office, I don’t think they heard increasingly desperate voices. Did they hear the voice of the mother who lost her son to a drug overdose but who tried desperately to get treatment and was being turned away?

Did they hear the voice of the kindergarten teacher struggling to prepare her kids for a successful life in an overcrowded classroom, kids who spoke nine different languages, two of whom had special needs? Did they hear the voices of an elderly couple who after 50 years of marriage were being forced into two different care facilities or the young student who doesn’t qualify for the living expenses portion of her student loan because she’s on persons-with-disabilities assistance so has less money to put into rent than other students and can’t find a roommate? These are just some examples of people who have felt that they were shut out, that their voices were not heard.

[11:45 a.m.]

Since becoming an MLA, I have heard tragic stories of people who have been let down by the system. Now, the tragic stories don’t surprise me, but I’ll tell you what does surprise me. What did touch me deeply is so many people who ended their story by saying: “It’s too late for me. You can’t help me bring my son back. You can’t get my job back. You can’t reinstate my life savings. But I’m telling you this because you can make sure it doesn’t happen to anybody else.”

Now, for constituents like that to come to us in our offices, approach us on the street…. It takes a lot of courage for many of our constituents to speak up. Their stories are hard. They’re often shy. Many of them are in awe of the power of elected officials.

There are some voices that are louder. They are more confident than others, and they know how to get our attention. But if we wait for our citizens to come to us, if we only listen to the voices that take the initiative, to the voters that take the initiative, who believe they have the authority to speak, then we are getting a very distorted view of what matters to the people we represent.

In conclusion, I am quite confident that our government is listening and that local voices are being heard and that our government is weighing what they heard. I’m confident that we will continue to find new ways to assure the electorate that their voices are welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion in support of listening to local voices. It gives me even greater pleasure to stand here today in the place representing the local voices of Kelowna West, local voices that sometimes feel that they aren’t heard with this government’s narrow focus towards Victoria and Vancouver, local voices drowned out by the Lower Mainland crowd.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My constituents have been rallying together since day one on the speculation tax’s existence. Before the media was calling this a controversial speculation tax, I, along with Mayors Findlater and Basran, was asking the government to reconsider. My office alone has received over 800 letters, thousands of emails and a petition of over 15,520 signatures from constituents worried about the harmful effects of this so-called speculation tax. City hall has received hundreds as well.

This tax was sold as a way to curb speculation in British Columbia’s real estate market, a noble goal. But the reality is that the so-called speculation tax fails to address speculation in any serious way.

In response, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the Strata Pre-sale Contract Flipping Act, 2018, in May. It was a guaranteed way for the province to enact a policy that ensures people who treat our housing market like a stock market would not only pay the regular federal tax but also be subject to a provincial capital gains tax. I thought for sure this government would embrace it, but instead they did not bring it forward.

Instead, the speculation tax was doubled-down on. As a result, new housing starts have decreased by over 40 percent in the Lower Mainland and 60 percent plus in the Kelowna area. The construction industry has experienced a slowdown, and developments are being cancelled or put on hold — over eight months of no details on this tax, no listening.

In West Kelowna, over 1,000 units at Goat’s Peak have now been scrapped, with the developer directly citing the speculation tax. Other developers, the Mullins Design Group: “In just the last two months, we’ve had 12 clients cease their plans, an estimated $20 million to $25 million worth of work from my small firm.” McKinley Beach, Staburn, Wesbild, Westcorp.

The minister said last spring one of the key factors was we were going to look at housing starts. Well, we’ve seen the results of what this tax has done. Now that the chill from the tax has set in, we’ve seen annualized starts fall.

[11:50 a.m.]

This just isn’t a loss to businesses and families looking for homes. This is a loss to every single person who would have worked on that project or others like it similarly scrapped across the province. Not only is this tax failing to make life more affordable, but in fact, it’s putting people out of work and not addressing the more affordable housing supply — again, because of not listening.

Hard-working painters, plumbers, electricians, drywallers, contractors and countless others are already feeling the negative effects of this speculation tax. I predict that this is the start of the next crisis, by just not listening to local voices. As if those people aren’t hurting enough with their rights to work on public projects curtailed under the union benefits agreement, many of their employers are going to be hard hit with the double-dip in their pockets next year as they pay MSP and the new employer health tax. Those are important local voices that are often lost in the conversation.

The people of West Kelowna are being negatively im­pacted. From day one, they’ve been saying that about the speculation tax. West Kelowna city staff produced multiple reports on the effects of the speculation tax before the prov­incial government had. After reading that study, Kelowna and West Kelowna have asked for exemptions and were joined by municipalities from across the province asking for exemptions — thousands of local voices at UBCM asking to be heard, asking to be respected. But once again, those local voices were being ignored.

Concluding on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House who have spoken, I am proud to stand up in this House to say that I am standing up for local voices. As the MLA, I represent those local voices every time I rise in this House to speak. Today I stand and ask for those voices to be respected and listened to. Thank you very much.

Noting the hour, I would suggest that we adjourn.

B. Stewart moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.