A new report was published today which examines and assesses the government’s response to the 2017 flood and wildfire events. The report, entitled: Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia was written by former MLA George Abbott and Hereditary Chief of the Sq’ewá:lxw First Nation, Maureen Chapman. It provided government with 108 recommendations that will assist it to improve existing systems, processes and procedures.

Below I reproduce the media release we issued in response to the release of the report.

Media Release

Weaver: Wildfire and flood report demonstrates need to prioritize adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction strategies
For immediate release
May 10, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, says that the new report on the 2017 flood and wildfire response underscores the need for B.C. to meet our climate targets.

“Chief Chapman and Mr. Abbott have provided excellent recommendations for how the government can better support communities that are affected by wildfires and floods,” said Weaver.

“The effects of climate change are having nuanced impacts on every corner of the province. We must do everything we can to ensure British Columbians have the resources they need to respond to the ‘new normal’ of extreme weather events. In particular, the province should adopt the report’s recommendations to work more closely in partnership with First Nations and to develop better preventative measures to support communities that are vulnerable to floods and wildfires.

“These rising costs also demonstrate the urgent need to keep our commitment to the next generation to meet our climate targets. Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world is coming together to do their part to prevent an increase in global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. We are seeing historic investments in cleantech and renewable energy from countries diverse as China, Germany and Saudi Arabia as the world transitions to the low-carbon economy.

“B.C. was once a leader in climate action. After enacting the carbon tax in 2008, British Columbia showed the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible. By seizing the opportunity to reclaim this leadership, we can position our province to develop a thriving 21st century economy centred around innovation, sustainable value-added resource development and entrepreneurship.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Over the last two days I have  been exploring some of the ramifications of Bill 20: Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018,  In particular, I asked the Attorney General several questions during committee deliberations in order to get a sense of his intention for the proposed changes to legislation.

I have received a number of emails from people expressing concerns with section 29 of this act where “minor injuries” are defined. Some have implied that all psychological and psychiatric conditions are being prescribed as minor. This is incorrect (as my exchange with the Minister unpacks).

Below I reproduce the text and videos of our exchanges. The exchanges are helpful as they correct several misconceptions that are out there.

The bill ended up passing 43-31. What’s remarkable about the vote is that 11 BC Liberal MLAs were not present. It’s likely that they decided to head home early. Had the three BC Green MLAs voted against the bill it still would have passed as the BC Liberal caucus didn’t bother to show up.

Text re: Section 1 Questions

A. Weaver: We’re trying to do some coordination across…. On this actual theme of definition of “health care practitioner,” I have four specific professions. I’m wondering if they’re included within the present definition of health care practitioner and, in particular, the sub definition of a medical practitioner.

The first one is registered psychologists. The second one is psychiatrists. The third one is chiropractors, and the fourth one is physiotherapists. Would those four be considered health care practitioners under the definition of “medical practitioner” here?

Hon. D. Eby: Physiotherapist, psychologist and chiropractor will all be in the regulations, so they would be under (c) in the definition, “a person in a prescribed class of persons….” And then a psychiatrist is a medical practitioner so is captured by section (a) of the definition, “a medical practitioner.”

Text re: Section 8 Questions

A. Weaver: I just have a couple of quick questions for clarification on section 8. Section 8 deals with section 28.1, and in particular, it says several criteria that a health care practitioner referred to in subsection (1) must provide.

My question to you is: does this, by any way, enable ICBC to not accept the results from a single health care practitioner and insist that the patient go and see another health care practitioner or not?

Hon. D. Eby: All insurers have the ability, in relation to personal injury or disability, to compel insureds to attend a certain medical practitioner. The intent of this section is to avoid that where possible, where you are going to your own physician or your own physiotherapist or your own chiropractor, and ICBC can get that information directly from them. That’s what this section enables.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. If said patient were to not like the opinion that was received by one practitioner and went to seek an opinion from another practitioner, would both of those opinions be required to be sent along to ICBC — yes or no?

Hon. D. Eby: If an individual went to multiple practitioners to get a different opinions, in theory, yes, ICBC could ask for those opinions from the different practitioners that an individual saw. Whether the individual is motivated by wanting a second opinion or simply feeling that they weren’t receiving adequate service from one service provider and switched to another service provider, ICBC could get records from both under this provision.

A. Weaver: With respect to the section 28.1(2), and then the number (c) in there, it talks about “the injured person’s condition at the time health care was provided”. This is rather broad. What are the limitations upon such a request? Are there any such limitations?

Are these persons’ conditions relevant to the accident, or is ICBC able to get the entire medical history of a patient as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC is legally restricted to only asking about information that’s relevant to the claim — so the person’s condition at the time health care was provided relevant to the accident, injury.

A. Weaver: My final question is: to what extent is the information that is being sought from the health care practitioner protected by the personal information and privacy act? Is there a requirement for ICBC to work within the context of that act? And is that agency or is the Privacy Commissioner being consulted as part of this process?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, ICBC is bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is, in part, as a complaint mechanism overseen by the Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Text re: Section 18 Question

A. Weaver: I just had a couple of questions on this section to seek clarification. The questions are with respect to fees charged by health care providers or practitioners under three potential scenarios.

My question to the minister is this. Let’s suppose there are three people. One person goes to a health care practitioner, and that health care practitioner agrees to charge a certain amount that’s well within the fees, as prescribed under this act here.

A second one goes there and is willing to charge a little bit more. But the person actually has a benefit plan of some form that is allowed to step in or works with WCB or works with ICBC in some manner.

And the third goes to a physiotherapist, who decides that they’re going to get the service, but ICBC is only willing to pay a certain amount. They’re going to have to bill and charge the additional amount.

Is this covered in some way so there can be no additional billing, no additional attempts to tap into third-party insurances? What does this section do with respect to those health care practitioners who don’t agree to pay the price as set by this regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: In the first scenario, where the person goes in and the benefit level paid by ICBC either exceeds or is equal to the service charge, then obviously, there’s no issue there.

The second scenario. Where someone’s got a long-term disability arrangement of some kind or insurance of some kind that might top up benefits — so they go into the service provider and then there’s an additional charge — that would be dependent on the person’s insurance terms and whether they covered that kind of thing. It’s certainly possible that that could happen. There is no rule against that happening here.

In the third scenario, where someone goes in and the service provider is charging what could be called a user-fee or an additional charge on top of what ICBC will pay in benefits, we looked at saying, “No. You are not allowed to do that” — just to ban it outright in the act. The risk of doing that is that you may limit people from accessing the health care provider of their choice. We decided to leave it as, okay, ICBC will pay market rates, and then people can choose their provider. If they want to pay extra to go to practitioner X when practitioners Y and Z are charging at the ICBC rate, then they can choose to do that.

There are a couple of ways in which ICBC can encourage providers to charge at the market rate. One is direct pay, where ICBC pays the provider directly. It’s invisible to the individual who comes in for the appointment, and it’s much easier for the provider to administer. ICBC could easily say to someone who’s charging in excess of their rates: “Look, we’re not going to do direct pay with you, because you’re charging beyond what we’re willing to pay.”

The other is that ICBC can provide a list of providers that are offering services at the set rate in the area of the person who is injured in the accident, and in order for the practitioner to be on that list, they need to be at the rate set by ICBC. That’s a fairly significant stream of customers.

So there are a couple of ways for ICBC to motivate that through carrots. We looked at the stick, and we decided not to do it out of a risk that someone may be denied access to the health care practitioner of their choice because the health practitioner says: “No. We don’t do ICBC at all. We refuse to do that.”

A. Weaver: I just wanted to quickly follow up. I do note the hour. I would like to thank the minister for taking this approach of focusing on the patient as opposed to focusing on litigation. I do notice that that is a theme that we’re seeing through here, and we’ll exploring this further at committee stage. The focus is on recovery and the patient now as opposed to litigation and getting funds after the fact, which is historical. There’s no comment here.

I do want to stand and note the hour and suggest that perhaps we would like to adjourn for the day and continue at some other time.

Text re: Section 25 Question

A. Weaver: Just for the record, I’m wondering if the minister might provide some context as to why this section, to limit health care costs, is being included so that an independent person looking at this clarification here would be able to get a sense of what the minister is thinking of in terms of the purpose for introducing the definition of “health care loss” so that that can be limited.

Hon. D. Eby: What it does is it assures British Columbians that they’ll be able to get the health care costs covered, as they need them, going forward. And it restricts expenses associated with time, administration and expert opinions on future cost of care awards, where the judge gets out the crystal ball and tries to determine how much health care is going to cost in the future and tries to figure out how much a person’s going to need and how much it’s going to cost and provides an award based on that projection.

This provides some level of certainty to the individual and to the court about the fact that future cost of care will be covered and that the rates will be reviewed. And there are the safeguards with inflation, which we talked about previously, on a go-forward basis.

Text re: Section 29 Questions

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions here. It will give the members opposite a little break. I think we’re going to be canvassing section 29 for a fair bit. They can compose their thoughts.

I have four quick questions with respect to the issue of injuries here. Section 29 — in 101 here — defines three types of issues. One is “minor injury.” It also defines “permanent serious disfigurement” and “serious impairment.”

My understanding is perhaps consistent with the minister’s, but I do note that there is an awful lot of confusion out there in the general realm with respect to the intentions of the minister with bringing in this legislation. So I’d like to pose a couple of specific examples to determine whether or not they would be covered under “minor injury,” or whether in fact they would be eligible for further litigation down the road.

The one that’s been the most common is the concern that’s expressed with respect to psychological or psychiatric conditions. Now, my understanding of this…. I’m hoping the minister can correct me if I’m wrong. Let us suppose we have two individuals. The first individual is in a car crash. That first individual gets very depressed after the car crash. It’s been declared by the medical practice that that depression has arisen as a direct consequence of that car crash. It was a depression-and-anxiety issue that responded well to medication, and six months later, the person bounced back and actually was able to continue forward. That’s case 1.

Person No. 2 is the same person who enters into a much, much deeper depression, perhaps with PTSD, and a year and half later, they still have not been able to recover. My question to the minister is: how would both of those individuals be treated in light of the definition of “minor injury” and “serious impairment”?

Hon. D. Eby: The second one is easier, in that it is definitely not within the cap. On the first one, there is a definition of “minor injury” that has two parts. First of all, the first part of the definition of “minor injury” is a negative definition. It says that it’s an injury that “does not result in a serious impairment or a permanent serious disfigurement.” So if it results in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury, then it’s out of the definition of “minor injury.”

 If it doesn’t result in a serious impairment and it’s a psychiatric injury or another type of injury that is within the second part of the definition, then it would fall within the “minor injury” definition. So the other types of injuries are abrasions, contusions, lacerations, sprain or strain and pain syndrome — we talked about psychological or psychiatric conditions — or an injury in a prescribed class of injury captured in the regulations.

Serious impairment — the question of whether or not it’s a serious impairment — is also a defined term. A “serious impairment” is an impairment that “(a) is not resolved within 12 months, or another prescribed period” — by regulation — “if any, after the date of an accident, and (b) meets prescribed criteria” — by regulation. So you’ll see there are two pieces to this, and there is space within regulation for additional definition.

I’ve posted a paper on the Ministry of Attorney General website about our intentions related to the “prescribed criteria” around “minor injury.” It might just assist the member to know that next week, there is a meeting with the Doctors of B.C. — the B.C. Psychological Association has also been invited — to assist us in determining how the regulations could narrow the psychological or psychiatric conditions even further than is already the case for the current minor injury scenario.

A. Weaver: Another two examples that I’d like to give. Let’s suppose that there is somebody who was driving somewhat excessively over the speed limit — and maybe didn’t get caught, but there was some inkling that that person was at fault — and that that person gets into an accident with two cars. In the one car, you have an individual who’s got brain damage and becomes a quadriplegic, and they’re seeking pain and suffering, etc., and also legal process for them, as a result of this.

In the second person, you have a few broken bones that lead to some chronic issues. Perhaps it’s a broken hip, and there are some chronic pain issues that last beyond a year. They don’t just last a few months. They last beyond a year. How would both of those be treated?

Again, I’m seeking clarification for the purpose of communicating the intent of this section to a broader audience. How would both of those individuals be treated under the classification of minor injury? I suspect the brain damage and quadriplegic doesn’t apply, but perhaps the broken bones, where you actually lead to a chronic condition that lasts — say chronic hip arthritis or something — after an accident.

If the minister could expand on that.

Hon. D. Eby: No individuals with brain injuries or individuals with broken bones are subject to the limit on pain and suffering awards or the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: Let’s suppose it isn’t broken, but in fact you have a sprain with a cut, and that cut gets infected. You get a flesh-eating disease response that doesn’t leave you permanently disfigured, but it leads to a substantive, long-term injury. That infection gets into your bone. You get chronic arthritis. How would that person be treated in this example?

Hon. D. Eby: If it meets the definition of serious impairment — so it’s beyond 12 months and the prescribed conditions — then there would be no cap. In addition, I guess it depends on the laceration that resulted in the flesh-eating disease or the impact on the individual, because a permanent, serious disfigurement of the claimant would also remove it from the minor-injury definition.

A. Weaver: My final question. Let’s suppose you have a drunk driver who’s driving along and runs into a number of people. Some people get serious injuries that are very extensive, a couple of other people minor injuries, as defined here, and one person has a psychological disorder as a result. How would the issue of these three different classes of people be treated under these definitions when a drunk driver or somebody texting was involved?

Hon. D. Eby: Each individual would be assessed based on their own injuries, whether or not they fell within the definition of minor injury or not.

As for the driver, for anyone that was driving dangerously, there are Criminal Code and Motor Vehicle Act provisions relating to that — insurance consequences, potential jail time and so on — that flow from that, if they were engaging in dangerous conduct while they were driving — drinking and driving and so on.

Videos of Exchanges

Kathy Tomlinson from the Globe and Mail recently uncovered a system of speculation and insider trading that is fuelling the red-hot condo market in Vancouver and crowding out ordinary buyers. I sought to explore this further in Question Period today. In particular, I asked the Minister of Finance what she was doing to clamp down on this egregious behaviour.

I was very pleased with her response.

In my supplemental question, I asked the minister if she would consider stepping in to rectify a problem that has arisen from the upcoming ban on limited dual-agency transactions in the real estate sector. The BC NDP inherited this problem from the BC Liberals’ “sledgehammer” approach to dealing with what was largely a Metro Vancouver issue. There are profound consequences for rural BC if this ban goes ahead.

I remain optimistic that the Minister is aware of the problem and is sympathetic to taking action prior to the June 15 deadline. I will raise this issue again during Ministry of Finance estimates.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Kathy Tomlinson from the Globe and Mail recently uncovered a system of speculation and insider trading that is fuelling the red-hot condo market in Vancouver and crowding out ordinary buyers. A few select realtors and industry insiders are getting preferential access to new condos under construction, and some individuals are flipping the right to purchase these condos multiple times prior to anyone actually moving in, a process that artificially drives up the prices for the eventual homeowner.

Industry insiders and speculators shouldn’t be granted preferential bidding rights on new condo units. Ordinary British Columbians and young families trying to get their foot in the door should have the same access.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. What is your ministry doing to end this egregious practice and to stop the preferential treatment of industry insiders over regular British Columbians? And will you end preferential treatment and require that developers market their condo developments at the same time and at the same price to everyone?

Answer

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question, and thank you for pointing out one more area that has to be addressed in the housing crisis that we are facing in British Columbia. I’m sure the member, as we all do in this House, hears the stories, the heartbreaking stories, every single day of people trying to get into the market. Then to hear about this kind of action — the insider flipping of presale condos — is very troubling. It’s very troubling, I’m sure, to everyone. It’s certainly troubling that that legacy has been left, and it is something we’re taking action on.

We have regulatory authorities, right now, investigating those reports. The member can be assured that this is a top priority for our government. We’re also taking action to actually clean up this mess. I think one of the things, and I’ve mentioned this before…. One of the real challenges is that the old government collected no information, so there is very little information to be able to take a look and get to the investigation piece.

We are doing that. We are taking action to actually require information on presale condos, on flipping of condos, to be gathered by developers. It’ll shine a light on this sector. It’ll ensure that we can share that information, then, with the tax authorities so that people are paying their fair share of taxes.

Then the one other piece I just want to mention to the member is that we’ve also initiated a review of the real estate regulatory system to also ensure a level playing field. It was a system left to us by the old government. They put a structure in place that clearly needs some work. There are questions raised about who has what authority, where that authority sits. So we’re going to be looking at the roles, the responsibilities, clarifying the issue of education to ensure consumer protection, which is the primary issue in this example and so many other examples in the housing crisis.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that very constructive response.

As the ministry knows, much of the dubious behaviour in the real estate sector has taken place in the overheated Vancouver real estate market. I think we can all agree that it’s essential to put in place new rules to end these abuses and to protect consumers, and I’m thankful that the minister is taking steps in this regard.

Yet it’s also crucial that any new rules don’t impact businesses and communities in smaller communities across British Columbia. Scores of realtors and brokers from smaller communities across rural B.C. have contacted me with serious concerns about the government’s plan to ban limited dual-agency transactions. In many small towns in rural regions, the new rule may be unworkable for small businesses. It will have a profound negative impact on consumers as well.

I’m worried, frankly, that this government inherited a sledgehammer response to reform from the B.C. Liberals that could have serious unintended consequences for realtors and consumers in rural B.C.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the minister consider delaying the implementation of the ban on limited dual-agency to enable a task force to review the effects of the proposed changes on small communities and to provide a way forward that protects consumers and doesn’t harm people in rural B.C.?

Answer

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, and thank you for raising the issue. I’ve certainly heard the concerns directly, but I know members on all sides of the House have heard those concerns in their communities as well and heard the concerns from realtors.

Just to be clear, the office of the superintendent is an independent regulator. And as the member said, they’ve introduced new rules banning dual agency designed to protect the public that are effective June 1. As I’ve said, I’ve certainly heard those concerns. I’ve met with the superintendent. I’ve met with the real estate board to raise those concerns, to make sure that they are well aware of them.

We want to make sure that the regulators are working as effectively as possible. As I mentioned, we’re also doing a review of the regulators themselves. But my expectations are clear. Consumers have to be protected, and all consumers should have the right to representation whether they live in rural B.C. or whether they live in urban B.C., whether they live in a small community or whether they live in a large community. I made that very clear to the superintendent and to the real estate board.

Today in the legislature we debated, at second reading, Bill 28: Public Interest Disclosure Act.

This bill proposes legislation based on the recommendations of the B.C. Ombudsperson’s report entitled Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters, that was published in April 2017. The Misfire report examined the wrongful termination of seven Ministry of Health workers in 2012.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand to speak at second reading in support of Bill 28, Public Interest Disclosure Act. This act is a direct response to the recommendations from the Ombudsperson’s report Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters, which was published in April of 2017.

While I sat in opposition over the last few years, similar types of pieces of legislation were proposed by the then opposition. It was termed whistle-blower legislation at the time, and this is the latest manifestation of that, clearly passed through legislative drafters in a quite substantive matter to give us the form we see here.

The Ombudsperson’s report that formed the basis of driving this bill here investigated the dismissal of seven employees by the Ministry of Health after an initial complaint incorrectly suggested a wrongdoing. That complaint gained rather a lot of momentum and instigated a rush to, some would argue, an inequitable and inappropriate investigation. At the end, there were clearly far-reaching consequences for the individuals involved. In one particularly tragic case, an individual committed suicide as a consequence of the whole process.

The purpose of this act is to provide protection and to develop processes for current and former public service workers who wish to make a disclosure of serious wrongdoing. Public service workers protected under this act are those who are employees of a ministry, a government body or office, including a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under the Public Service Act. Again, it’s important that civil servants be given such protection in the case of the desire to actually protect the public interest and to be able to bring forward to the public significant matters of public interest when, say, a wrongdoing is noticed.

You know, in the United States right now it’s a bit of a free-for-all in terms of whistle-blowers disclosing left, right and centre. I suspect they should have such legislation, if they do not. In British Columbia’s case, and Canadians in general, we take these matters very seriously. We’re respectful, and typically Canadians, by our very nature, are sometimes…. We don’t like conflict. We don’t like to actually create conflict, but we like to be protected when we see an injustice being done that needs to be brought forward so that injustice is dealt with.

In this particular case, we are seeing that protection will be given in the province of British Columbia to civil servants who might witness such injustice or inappropriate activities that are happening. Right now a person who discloses information must not experience reprisal, according to this act, and will also have the option of disclosing it anonymously to further protect their information. This, too, is important if an investigation is occurring and a whistle-blower to be protected under this act does not want to disclose himself or herself publicly. It’s important to have the protection.

While the bill actually does authorize investigations to occur and it also provides protection for such a whistle-blower, a person in the public service, the problem, of course, is not necessarily the direct response but also the whisper chat. So anonymity is important to avoid the cold-shoulder treatment, the “nobody’s talking to you,” the high school or, should I say, middle school bullying and harassing that sometimes happens. So anonymity being protected is important.

The act is based on other legislation. In particular, there are two pieces of legislation. One is the Manitoba law, which is the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, which was assented in 2006 in the province of Manitoba. There is some similarity between these two as well as in the province of Alberta, where the Public Sector Disclosure Act is also a similar act in that province, too, I understand.

The Health firings. Again, some of the issues that perhaps need to be brought forward may not also have been highlighted or thought through in this bill, in particular the pervasive issue of harassment, bullying and intimidation in the workplace. We’re hoping that protection for whistle-blowers from such behaviour is also included in this.

Of course, the bill does put a lot of faith in the Office of the Ombudsman or the Auditor General. It seems to me that if we’re giving them so much responsibility as per the matters of the bill, we should ensure that there are safeguards in place that ensure equitable operations in all of these as well. Again, this is a bill that the Green caucus is proud to support. We thank the Attorney General’s office for bringing it in, and we look forward to further expansion in committee stage of some of the details contained in this report.

Today in the legislature we debated, at second reading, Bill 25: Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act.

This bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act to require developers to collect and store information on pre-sale condo assignments. This will enable government to track pre-sales and to tackle tax evasion. In particular, the bill proposes a number of changes that will:

1. require real estate developers to collect and report information on pre-sale condo assignments;
2. require developers to include terms in their contracts to inform buyers of the new collection and reporting requirements;
3. ensure that information will be reported to the provincial administrator designated under the Property Transfer Tax Act;
4. ensure that information will be shared with the Federal government to enable collection of capital gains taxes;
5. increase administrative penalties and offences substantially.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading on Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act. This bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. It requires developers to collect and store information on pre-sale condo assignments, which will enable the government to track pre-sales and to tackle tax evasion.

To start, I wish to thank the minister for bringing in such legislation. It is timely, and it addresses a very important issue. Also, to the member for Prince George–Valemount, I appreciated her careful analysis of the bill and look forward to her questioning at committee stage, where I too share some of the concerns she raised. Overall, my colleagues and I in the Green caucus down here do support this bill and the intentions.

You know, I’ve heard many a story from British Columbians frustrated with watching their condos or townhouses in their developments being sold multiple times without people actually moving in and questioning who is actually buying and who is actually selling and, in fact, raising the question as to whether taxes are being collected during the process. But more importantly, asking the question: how is this allowed in the province of British Columbia?

While this bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and makes a number of changes, it doesn’t, as the member for Prince George–Valemount said, actually get to the fundamental essence of why people are flipping and how we put in place measures to disincentivize that flipping. One of the things we could talk about — I won’t now, but perhaps in future bills brought forward — is the introduction of something like a flipping tax, a tax that actually targets people who are buying and selling on a rapid time frame with no intention of actually moving in.

Or we could talk about the potential problems that we see in British Columbia where certain developments are marketed offshore at prices that are below what you could buy them for onshore. In fact, I’ve got stories and articles of properties that are marketed offshore something to the tune of 20 percent below the price you could get them for here.

The purpose to do so, of course, is that you could get lots of mass pre-sales done all at once and then these…. Who knows who ends up? They could very quickly and very rapidly be flipped multiple times for a short-term gain, and only if the person doing the flipping actually decides to declare, in Canadian income, that this is a capital gains would they actually pay tax.

So the bill requires real estate developers to collect and report information on pre-sale condo assignments. Developers now will have to include terms in their contracts to inform buyers of new collection and reporting requirements. The information will be reported to the provincial administrator designated under the property transfer tax, and information will be shared with the federal government to enable collection of capital gains. Increased administrative penalties and offences are also being incorporated in this bill.

This is actually one of several bills that the government has brought forward since the fall which is designed to get Revenue Canada — CRA — more information on which they could actually enforce existing legislation. So I do thank and commend the minister for bringing in yet another piece of legislation that ensures that information is present for CRA to actually get taxes when taxes are owed.

Most of the bill is contained in a major section, which is section 4. It creates a new component of the act with provisions for the requirements of developers. That will be the subject of the most extensive canvassing, I suspect, during the committee stage.

You know, I’ve gone over a bunch of the media’s reporting on this to see what reaction we got from various stakeholders. It’s interesting that…. To say this is uncontentious would be a very fair statement. A diverse number of business leaders as well as developers have stepped in. For example, Anne McMullin, as we know, the CEO of the Urban Development Institute, an institute that represents a collective of developers, particularly in the Vancouver region — or she represents, at least.

She said her real estate lobby group supports the measures that are brought forward by the minister, although in fact, she characterized this as a small problem — 3 percent. I would argue that we might not know what the percentage is if we’re not collecting the data, so I would suggest that that would be an estimate. That was reported in the new Vancouver Star, the Toronto Star version of the paper that’s emerging in Vancouver.

She says the following: “We had been talking about this before the budget: if you really want to address speculation, this is where you had to address it.” That’s a pretty strong statement — in fact, endorsement — for the legislation here.

Another in a Castanet article coming out of the Okanagan. Cameron Muir, who’s a chief economist of the B.C. Real Estate Association, also said that compiling data to track presale condominium sales is a long overdue move — again, some high praise for this bill from a relatively well-connected individual in this particular industry.

Again, there’s Steve Saretsky. He’s quoted in the Vancouver Sun. He’s a Vancouver real estate agent who suggests it would bring more transparency to that part of the market, which currently lacks it.

Another Vancouver realtor, a fellow called Rick Clarke, in the same Vancouver Sun article, argued that they should do this. “A lot of people are not reporting and not paying tax and making big capital gains.” He further went on to say that there’s “a select group of agents” that have tight relationships with developers who rely on them for being able to sell chunks of presale condo units, describing one “known for just having signed 51 contracts in a half-hour.”

So, hon. Speaker, this is a very fine piece of legislation designed to provide government and, in particular, taxation agencies information in which to ensure that existing taxation laws are enforced. It’s very timely, particularly in light of some of the more nefarious, almost, incidences that are coming to light from investigative reporting by such journalists as Kathy Tomlinson in the Globe and Mail, who highlights some of the oddities that are happening in certain segments in the Vancouver real estate market.

One thing I would caution, though, is that as we continue to take steps to address what could only be described as an out-of-control real estate sector or housing market in Metro Vancouver, we be careful not to hit this whole province with that same sledgehammer that’s hitting there in Vancouver.

For example, there’s no question that this is important information that needs to be shared across the province, so implementing this from north to south, east to west is not a big deal. But there are other issues where previous governments, for example, brought in measures targeted specifically on limiting dual agencies. That was a direct response to problems that were out of control in Vancouver, but it had unforeseen consequences in rural parts of British Columbia, where you may have very small offices or you may have one broker in the whole town now facing strife and troubles, not knowing how to actually represent clients, both buyers and sellers, when there’s not the capacity.

So as we move forward in dealing with these issues in the housing market, it’s important to recognize that not always does one size fit all. In this particular case, I think it’s clear that reporting is a good thing. I think that it’s critical that people pay taxes when they should pay taxes. As we move forward let’s hope that we start to look even more closely at the concept of flipping and discouraging that through means possible.

Again, I thank the minister for introducing this bill. We are proud to support this bill, and I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount who brought in very fine comments that we’ll look forward to seeing explored further in committee stage.