Over the course of this week, Bill 45 – 2018: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) was being debated during committee stage. During this stage, the BC Green amendments were all approved.

Those who have been following this file will know that I have spent an enormous amount of time on it over the last year. When this tax was first introduced in the February budget it was, in my view, poorly thought through and seemed to be an overly blunt instrument that did not effectively target its key overarching goal of dealing with speculation, affordability and vacancy rates. As I noted in March,

“The Speculation Tax … need[s] the introduction of legislation prior to [it] taking effect. Such legislation is expected in the fall. Fortunately we have time to pressure government to fix the problems embedded in their poorly thought out approach to deal with speculation.”

The bill that was ultimately introduced in October was certainly tempered from that which was originally offered through the first intention paper released by the government earlier this year. Many of the concerns we brought to government had been addressed. While it is still not the approach I would have taken, our amendments improved the bill further and will mitigate many of the key issues I had identified.

During committee stage I rose to ask questions and speak to amendments far too many times to reproduce all the Hansard records. However, I took the opportunity to raise a few specific, yet illustrative examples that were brought to my attention from the myriad emails we received and responded to. Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Minister on these specific examples.

What’s important is that if you have specific questions as to whether or not the speculation and vacancy tax applies to a property you may own, please note that details information is available at gov.bc.ca/speculationtax. Alternatively, you can email: spectaxinfo@gov.bc.ca or phone 1-833-554-2323.

The bill eventually passed on Thursday.

---

Videos of Exchanges

---

Video 1	Video 2
Video 3	Video 4
Video 5	Video 6

---

Text of Exchanges

---

Example 1 (Video 1): Belcarra – only accessible by air or water

A. Weaver: I enjoy this line of questioning. I think it’s very important to get clarification on the intent of the legislation before us. I have three questions on the definition of “specified area” in this section.

The first is with respect to item (l) in specified area. It refers there…. It just says: “…an island, if any, within an area referred to in paragraphs (a) to (j), if the island is usually accessible only by air or water throughout a calendar year.”

The first question is: why was the term island used there as opposed to a general area within these (a) to (j) that are generally accessible only by air or water? I’ll come to a specific example. Within the broader area, there may be, in fact, regions that are only accessible by air or water, even though they lie within the areas covered in (a) to (i).

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, the exclusion, when we looked at how to refine the geographic areas and looked at, as I mentioned in our discussion yesterday, the issue of how you make sure that most vacation homes are excluded…. We took a look at a number of different options, and one of them was to look at refining the geographic area.

That’s why we’ve said that we exclude islands that aren’t accessible, or that only are accessible by air and water — to be able to address those areas that, again, are difficult for commuting and, therefore, in most cases, are not people who are commuting and buying second homes. They’re mainly vacation homes, which is why we’ve listed it under (l) in that way.

A. Weaver: I very much appreciate the answer and the intent of actually including islands.

Why I raised it is that I heard from a resident of Belcarra, which, as the minister will know, is a lovely piece of the Lower Mainland across from Deep Cove. This person actually owns a property in Belcarra that is not accessible by road and is only accessible by air or water.

It seems that the intent of the legislation was to actually ensure that we’re dealing with urban areas where there are issues of commuting and issues of a rental market that’s being at ease here. Clearly, I would have thought the intent of this legislation would not have been to include somebody with a home in Belcarra that is not accessible by road and only accessible by air or water.

My question to the minister is: to what extent does a person who lives in the region — in one of these designated, prescribed areas — have an ability to actually get government to recognize that the spirit and intent of this legislation probably wasn’t meant to apply to an area which is only accessible by air and water but happens to be in one of these geographical regions?

Is there a mechanism that this person, recognizing the spirit of the minister’s previous statement, could go forward to actually determine whether or not this really is appropriate and they were meant to be covered under the government’s intentions?

Hon. C. James: We did specifically look at Belcarra. Part of the logic was, again, looking at the commuting distance. In fact, the commuting distance from Belcarra…. It’s a very short commute to downtown Vancouver. In fact, it’s a shorter commute from others that go from the Fraser Valley or from other distances — North Vancouver, for example. Five minutes away.

It is a municipality though, and I think this is important. As the member asked: what opportunities are there for discussion around these issues? Belcarra, in fact, is a municipality. I met with the Belcarra folks at UBCM. They will have the opportunity, in an informal setting anytime, but in a very formal setting, as the member knows, with the amendment coming forward, to have an opportunity to be able to argue either the strength or weakness of having the municipality included.

The Chair: Noting the time, we’ll take one more question.

A. Weaver: On this topic. I have one more question after this. I don’t know whether….

The Chair: Of course. As long as the minister can address the questions, we’ll do them.

A. Weaver: It’s just to follow up on that further, very briefly.

I’m not talking about the entire region of Belcarra. But within the broader section of Belcarra, there are parts of Belcarra — properties that happen to have cabins on them — that are only accessible by water or air. Therein lies the issue here.

It may be that the municipality itself meets the intent that the minister sought of a commutable distance. However, it’s not a commutable distance for some aspects of this municipality that extend into areas that are actually not an island but are only accessible by air or water.

Again, my question for a specific individual within this broader municipality: is there a mechanism for that individual to seek an exemption, as per my earlier remarks?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, again. I think we did, in fact, look at the commuting time from some of the areas that were only accessible by boat — five to eight minutes to get to the Lower Mainland — so there are commuting pieces there. There aren’t opportunities other than, obviously, coming forward and raising the issue.

There aren’t opportunities built into the legislation, but I expect that people will have the opportunity to argue that changes should be made, if changes are going to be the made to the tax, including the mayor, who, I’m sure, will represent all the members of the municipality.

Example 2 (Video 1): Mudge Island and Nanaimo

A. Weaver: My final question is very brief. It’s from another concerned couple who approached me. I’m just giving a sampling of them because they illustrate the variety of concerns out there. I believe I know the answer, but I’d like to get confirmation from the minister.

The couple lives on Mudge Island in the Nanaimo regional district. They’re concerned that the tax could afford them and that it could kill the property values on Mudge Island. Can the minister confirm — they live in their home full-time on Mudge Island — that Mudge Island is not included in the regions that are prescribed under the specified areas?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that the member raised is primary residence. If it’s a primary residence and they live there full-time, then they aren’t captured. It isn’t captured. It’s only second or third homes. But Mudge Island is not captured by the speculation tax as well.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Example 3 (Video 2): Owned by couple in different countries

A. Weaver: I wasn’t planning to step up here and ask this question, but I’m very pleased the member for Prince George–Valemount did address this specific issue that I was going to raise under section 8.

I’d just like to ask a follow-up on this. I have the same letter, and we’ve been in communication with the same person. A good example that highlights some of the complexity of the application of this legislation — this particular case. The partnership is a partnership where one of the…. They’re not formally married. They’re living separately. One lives in a jurisdiction other than Canada. That person owns 20 percent ownership in the property that is the condo that is owned by the other partner.

So my question to this: given the fact that this couple are not formally married, if the person living in the foreign jurisdiction were able to rent back to her partner here in Canada, would that exempt her from the speculation tax? Yes or no?

They are not married, according to the court of law in Canada. The one person owns 20 percent of the property that the other person lives in full-time. She’s a 20 percent equity owner in the property. They are not married. That 20 percent equity owner lives in a foreign country.

If they rent that 20 percent share of the property to the partner — who they’re partners with but not legally married — would that exempt them, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that I want to state is I’m not going to give tax information, as the Minister of Finance, specifically to an individual case. I think that’s really important.

I think individuals…. We are working on exactly the same letter that the member has and that the member from Prince George has as well. We are working through those pieces. There are so many unknowns around where the taxes are paid by the individuals. We don’t know that information. It wouldn’t be right for us to be asking that information, unless they were asking for tax information.

We’re quite happy to look at the situation. There may be a number of pieces that fit, but I don’t want to, as I said, jump on something where I don’t have all the information. But we have committed to making sure that we get the information for them.

Example 4 (Video 3): Extending over two lots

A. Weaver: I have a specific example I wish to offer the minister to seek some clarification. It’s a real-world example.

Let’s suppose that there is a person who happens to have a property that’s very old and lives in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. That property is a small house on a lot, but it’s actually two lots. One lot has the house; the other has an orchard that’s been in place in perpetuity. For the purpose of speculation tax, this might be considered as two properties. However, it’s only one property. It’s always been one property, and it will remain one property.

The question is: is the extra lot to be viewed, in this category here, as part of a whole property or not? Is there a means and ways that this person would be exempted by the administrator, and how would they be exempted by the administrator in this situation?

Hon. C. James: That would be an example where the individual could take it to the administrator and have it examined. I think the key around rules relating to the property is that the residential property — so if it’s the additional parcel, as the member describes — is used for the residence or for purposes ancillary to or in conjunction with the residence.

So as I said, I wouldn’t give the advice. That’s the job of the administrator. But that would be an example where they could take something to the administrator.

Example 5 (Video 3): Extending across two specified areas

A. Weaver: Thank you. That’s very helpful. I have a final question, and it’s relevant to the riding that I represent and part of the municipality that the minister represents.

There are properties in the capital region district where the actual property spans two municipalities. This is quite common along Foul Bay Road, in Oak Bay, where there are many houses that have part of the house in Oak Bay and part in Victoria. I suspect, without going through all of this, that there may exist properties in the province of British Columbia that actually span a jurisdiction that’s in and a jurisdiction that’s out. How would those be treated, if they do exist? And would the administrator automatically treat them in the in or out district?

Hon. C. James: We had a little bit of this discussion earlier. We found one property in the province, in the areas for the speculation tax, that spans inside and outside.

If a portion is inside, then they will be taxed — or subject to the speculation tax. I shouldn’t say they’ll be taxed, because they may have an exemption for other reasons. But it’ll be included as part of the speculation tax.

A. Weaver: Would the component of the property that’s subject to the speculation tax be the percentage of the lot that’s in the property or the total lot? Why I ask that? Let’s suppose there’s a 12-acre parcel of which 100 square metres is in taxation and the rest is not. Would they be collectively subject to the taxation? Again, these are not examples that I know of, but I know of them in Oak Bay–Victoria, as I’m sure the minister does. But there may be some that we’ll find out about.

Hon. C. James: Again, we found one property that fits that example. It will be the case that if a portion of the property is in, the entire property is subject to the speculation tax. But again, we think that this will be a very rare example. We found one. I don’t expect that there will be other examples.

Example 6 (Video 4): Couple – one in Kelowna, the other in Vancouver

A. Weaver: I have three personal stories I’d like to read and see if I can get the minister’s response. The first concerns a UBC professor I have been in touch with who has, most recently, been teaching at the Okanagan campus in Kelowna. They’ve had a home there since 2013, but they have a condo in Vancouver. His wife is teaching at the Okanagan campus, but he’s now teaching at UBC. They’re both UBC professors, but UBC has two campuses, one in the Okanagan and one at UBC in Vancouver. So he teaches in Vancouver; she teaches in the Okanagan.

He was teaching in the Okanagan. He was hit by the city of Vancouver’s empty homes tax last year and has since moved his primary residence to Vancouver as part of it. So now his primary residence is Vancouver to avoid the Vancouver vacancy tax, and his wife is still teaching at UBC Okanagan. His wife spends much of her time at UBC Okanagan.

My question to the minister is this. Can you confirm that this couple would be exempt because of the commuter marriage exemption that we’re discussing, when this fellow’s wife spends a good deal of time in Kelowna for work purposes?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’ll always put the caveat around: based on the information that’s here…. I certainly encourage people to make sure they phone the tax department and talk to the tax department to get the specifics. But on the information that the member has provided, yes, it appears that if one is working in the other place and one residence is the principal residence of the spouse, yes, they would qualify.

Example 7 (Video 4): Couple – live in North Saanich, work & rent in Vancouver

A. Weaver: Thank you. That’s very helpful.

This one’s a little more complex. And that was my understanding as well. I do appreciate hearing the confirmation, subject to the caveats, of course. They’re, of course, subject to caveats.

Another example is…. This one is very interesting. A couple that I know have been in touch with me. They own a house in North Saanich, which is in the covered regions of the capital regional district. They live in the house on weekends. That’s the only house they own. It is in North Saanich. However, they both work in Vancouver, and they rent a property in Vancouver during the week, although they live in North Saanich. This is relatively common these days in Victoria, where people cannot afford to actually own in Vancouver, so they live in the North Saanich area. They take the ferry on Monday to Vancouver. They work there, and they come back on the weekends. They plan to live permanently there, in North Saanich.

My question is: are they eligible for an exemption in this regard?

Hon. C. James: Again, based on the information provided, it would appear that they would be subject to the tax because it wouldn’t be their principal residence. The home in North Saanich would not be their principal residence. It’s not where they’re spending most of their time, so it does appear that they would be subject to the tax.

But I want to make sure that I’m clear on the caveat that everybody has some additional information, and when people talk to the tax department, they often provide further information that a person wasn’t sharing with an individual when they were talking to them. I would encourage people to make sure that they phone, for those kinds of examples, to make sure that they get the information from the tax department.

Example 8 (Video 4): Live in Surrey, work in Vancouver

A. Weaver: I very much appreciate that. I’m not trying to trap the minister at all. I’m trying to get some clarification and some advice that we can actually provide to these people who are rightfully concerned. Members of the opposition have been doing exactly the same thing. We do understand, of course, that the minister cannot provide tax advice.

It’s a bit odd asking questions in this marriage section, but people have asked us how marriage relates to this. This is a complex tax bill, and where people fit in with their individual cases is quite difficult.

The final example here is another woman. Again, she’s not covered under the commuter marriage, I don’t think. However, it’s odd, so maybe we could get kind of a general sense of the minister’s thinking on this issue.

This is an example of a woman who lives with her ailing mother in a family home in Surrey. So she lives in Surrey, her mother is ailing, and she lives there with her. But the woman actually works in Vancouver. She doesn’t want to take the tunnel, along with the member for Surrey–White Rock, so she has a condo in Vancouver, where she works during the week.

She owns the condo, and she also lives in the family home that she owns with her mother in Surrey. They’re clearly not married, but there clearly is a kind of commuter relationship there.

I’m wondering whether she could be exempt if she rented the family home to her mother? Is there a temporary exemption for something like that? I don’t know how this plays out.

Hon. C. James: With the caveat — I think that’s really important to state. If the individual works in Vancouver and has the Vancouver condo as her principal residence, for example, then her mother would be considered a non-arm’s-length tenant. She doesn’t have to rent; she can live in the house. She would not be paying the speculation tax. But again, lots of caveats around that to make sure it’s based on the principal residence — how much time she’s spending between the two places as well.

A. Weaver: Again, I don’t want to ask the minister to give tax or advice on buying or selling property, but I do think it’s important that we have this discussion and make it available to people so as to hear the kind of thinking of where things are going. The reason why I say this is that this particular person, also the condo that I mentioned in downtown Vancouver, is subject to a strata with a no-rental clause in it. So it gets even more complex there.

Unfortunately, this woman is selling her condo in downtown Vancouver. What I would like to get confirmed is that in fact there is place an exemption for 2018 and 2019 for any strata unit that has a no-rental clause in place. So rash decisions about putting a condo on for sale, when the condo is in a strata unit that has a no-rental clause, are not being forced by this legislation.

Hon. C. James: The member is correct. There is a two-year exemption for condos and stratas that have a requirement that you cannot rent the place out.

A. Weaver: I just want to thank the minister — this is very, very helpful — and the opposition for asking these questions. These are important issues, and having these answers on record is going to be very helpful.

Example 9 (Video 5): Strata accommodation properties & Oak Bay Beach Hotel

A. Weaver: On section 27, we’re talking here about strata accommodation properties. I’m wondering if the minister could please give the members here an idea, an estimate, of what type of properties these are, with some examples?

Hon. C. James: Strata accommodation properties that are classed as residential under the Assessment Act would be strata accommodation property short-term rentals, hotels, strata hotel accommodation that has been classed as class 1 or partially class 1 or partially class 6.

These hotels, a number of years ago, were given favourable property tax treatment, for example, to encourage the construction of these short-term occupancy time-shares, hotels.

I guess a way of describing it would be a cross between a strata complex and a hotel — that’s kind of a description — made up of individual strata lots that are pooled together for the purpose of being rented. That’s, I think, kind of the best description I could give.

A. Weaver: I can give some examples, then. Oak Bay Beach Hotel, for example, is a hotel in my riding that has a long history as a hotel, but it’s actually strata units that are rented out through a property rental agreement, and the zoning actually precludes any other use.

There are others in the minister’s own riding. Some are zoned tourist commercial. There are others in the province of British Columbia. In the tourist commercial zoning, for example, which some are zoned as, you actually have restrictions put on by your municipality, and those restrictions actually limit the ability for you to rent more than six months. So I agree. I think we’re on the same page as to what units are there.

My question, then. I understand that there’s no problem for the next two years — well, through 2019, because 2018 is exempt, as well, for these properties. My concern is: what is government’s intent for afterwards?

These properties are significant economic drivers in the region. Oak Bay Beach Hotel, for example, is one of the single biggest suppliers of property tax to the municipality of Oak Bay. They have very little commercial property in the riding, as well as in other jurisdictions. I’m sure there are, in my friend’s riding in Kelowna, tourism commercial properties that have similar zoning, as well.

Hon. C. James: The member, I’m sure, knows this, but the commercial portion is already not classed as residential, so therefore isn’t covered anyway because it’s often class 6 property.

I think the further review around how we deal with these properties is really the time that we gave, in this act, for two years. It gives an opportunity for discussions with the municipalities, with the property owners, etc., to find a long-term solution. This gives us the opportunity to have those kinds of conversations.

Example 10 (Video 6): Medical Exemption in Nanaimo

A. Weaver: With respect to section 33, I have a personal story I’d like to relate to the minister. I’m not asking for tax advice. I’m recommending people go to the information that the minister provided yesterday on the record, and that will be here. But I’ll just give a sense of the intent, because this is an illustrative example.

This is an example of a couple who recently bought a second home in Nanaimo. They live on a small island nearby with their daughter, and they spend several days a week at the Nanaimo property. They bought it so they could be closer to the hospital. They’re elderly.

The property is worth less than $400,000. It’s a $300,000 property. They don’t want to rent it out, because they’re elderly, they’re concerned about medical issues, and they want to go there if they have to be there for medical reasons. Right now, they only have to be there on and off, but they might have to be there at any time for a more extended period of time.

I’m just asking if the minister could please confirm to me that the couple is not covered by the medical exemption, yet they are covered by the fact that the property is $300,000, which is under the $400,000 exemption.

The idea here is that while they have bought a property to go every now and again, it’s still not being used full-time. They’re not needing it full-time. But because it is

The idea here is that while they have bought a property to go to every now and again, it’s still not being used full-time. They’re not needing it full-time, but because it is under $400,000, they are exempt.

I’m wondering if the minister, without providing tax advice, could confirm that the general spirit of this would be that they would have an exemption because it’s under $400,000, but they’re not eligible for the medical exemption.

Hon. C. James: I appreciate that I must have said it often enough. Based on the information that the member provided — recognizing that the individual should make sure they get tax information from the taxes people — yes, if it’s less than $400,000 there, that will cover it, and they will not pay the speculation tax. As the member says, from the information he has given, they wouldn’t appear to be covered under the illness, but they would be covered under the $400,000.