Today in the legislature I introduced a Private Member’s Bill. If enacted, the Bill, entitled Land Title Amendment Act, 2015 would amend the Land Title Act to reintroduce and expand provisions that were previously in the Act. Such provisions will help determine who is purchasing property in BC. It would allow the government to determine foreign investment flows, the role corporations are playing, and whether we are seeing speculation in our market coming from other regions of Canada.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill that offers government one of the tools it needs to begin to properly assess and act upon the affordability and housing crisis affecting Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district.

There’s been significant conversation in the past few months about the role that speculation is playing in our market. The government came out with a number of documents purporting that foreign investment wasn’t a factor. These studies were vague and lacked any links to clear, rigorous evidence that supported the claim.

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. The bill amends the Land Title Act to provide the government with the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes determining both foreign investment flows, the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

To be clear, this bill is not about identifying what specifically is driving housing prices to unsustainable rates but, rather, to ensure that government is informing itself so that any future policy measures are based on a better understanding of what is happening with our provincial real estate industry.

Video of my Speech

Press Release on Introduction of Bill

Media Statement: July 16, 2015
MLA Weaver Introduces Bill to help inform solutions to Affordability Crisis in Vancouver

Victoria B.C. -Victoria B.C. – Today, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, tabled his private members bill that provides government with a tool to begin measuring the impact that speculation is having on affordability in Metro Vancouver.

“This is not about stopping the flow of investment or preventing growth in the real estate sector,” said Andrew Weaver. “We need to take serious and deliberate steps to smooth the rate of increase in prices to ensure that the region can manage the growth in a sustainable manner.”

If enacted, this Bill would amend the Land Title Act to reintroduce and expand provisions that were previously in the Act, which can help determine who is purchasing property in BC. It would allow the government to determine foreign investment flows, the role corporations are playing, and whether we are seeing speculation coming from other regions of Canada.

“Smart public policy requires good information about what action is needed,” said Andrew Weaver. “I am concerned that this government isn’t taking seriously the challenge of affordability that many people are experiencing in the Metro Vancouver. Strong, resilient communities are worth protecting.”

-30-

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

On Thursday I rose to speak at second reading in support of Bill 3 -2015 Building Act. This is a bill that has been in the works for quite some time. As Minister Richard Coleman (Liberal – Fort Langley-Aldergrove) and Mike Farnworth (NDP – Port Coquitlam), two of the longest serving MLAs in the legislature, noted, the contents within the bill have been discussed and debated since the 1990s.

This bill has three main purposes:

1. To streamline building requirements and ensure that they are the same throughout BC by establishing the province as the sole authority to create building requirements;
2. To establish mandatory qualifications for local building officials in order to improve the interpretation, application and enforcement of the BC Building Code;
3. To expand the province’s ability to review innovative building proposals.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

I must say, I do agree with the member for Nanaimo about the importance of climate and actually having that reflected in building codes. There have been steps made in the province of British Columbia, without any doubt, in that area. I assume and hope that there will be in the future.

The minister points out that the building code has been greening for the past seven years. I agree that there have been advances in that area. My concern, of course, is whether or not this bill will actually limit the innovation that has occurred and will continue to occur at the municipal level.

There’s a lot of good in this bill. I’ve been in contact with municipalities in the area that I serve, and they’re generally supportive of this bill. There’s strength within the streamlining of the building requirements across the province, particularly in a region like the capital regional district, with our multitude of municipalities and subsequent building codes. There does need to be standardization, and that has certainly been conveyed to me.

The intent, of course, is to reduce costs and improve efficiency, productivity and innovation in the construction sector. It’s hard to argue against attempts to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and costs in the construction sector. Of course, builders and construction associations have been lobbying for a streamlined Building Act for many, many years. As a stakeholder in the building business…. Of course, listening to an important stakeholder is of great importance.

Some of the local governments that we’ve looked into, particularly the ones that I represent, have expressed concerns not so much about what they’ve read in the bill, but the devil is within the details, in some sense. They’re not sure to what extent, at this stage, it will actually affect them or affect their ability to take local concerns into their building practices.

There are some concerns about streamlining. But generally, streamlining the building requirements, especially qualifications for building officials, would certainly help reduce confusion and improve the efficiency for builders.

Some of the concerns and questions that have been expressed to me lie in these finer details. In particular, there have been questions with respect to whether or not this bill actually provides a minimum standard or a maximum standard in some cases, whether it will limit innovation or allow for innovation. Again, this is where the devil is in the details. We’ll hear more about that as we go into committee stage.

One specific and very local example that was brought to my attention — and I think this is shared not only in the region of Oak Bay but across British Columbia — was the issue with respect to local requirements for fire regulations, fire sprinkler regulations. There are areas that are not well served by access for fire trucks, access for fire reduction. These areas do have and are required within local areas to have various sprinkler regulations. We only have to look at what happened on Mount Washington just this past week for some of the ramifications of perhaps not having more aggressive fire regulations in a community that is not well served, that does not have good access to fire services.

There’s also some question and concern about the extent to which this bill will retroactively remove some of the unique bylaws within the municipalities. I look forward to exploring that further. Again, it’s important — as the member for Nanaimo, the member for Port Coquitlam and others have expressed — to actually ensure this bill facilitates innovation rather than limits innovation. I’m sure, again, in committee stage we’ll see more of that.

Finally, the big question municipalities are asking is: who’s going to pay the cost? Is the government going to be repaid? Or is this, in some sense, going to be downloading of costs onto municipalities? Or will it be alleviating municipalities?

There is a very real concern out there that while builders will be saving money, the question is: what about local governments? Will they be picking up the bills, or will they actually be reducing their costs as well?

The rationale for this, of course, is that there are far too many pressing issues, as we try to deal with our infrastructure debt in municipalities across British Columbia that has grown over decades of neglect and is now having to be dealt with through year-after-year increases in municipal housing taxes, property taxes. There is simply no more room for growth in these areas to cover downloading of costs onto municipalities.

Once again, overall, I’m very pleased to support this bill at this stage, and I will look forward to seeing more information in the details as we move to committee stage.

British Columbia’s Seniors Advocate Isobel MacKenzie is hosting a senior’s public town hall meeting in Oak Bay on March 9, 2015 from 1:00pm to 3:00pm. The purpose of the event is to engage seniors in a conversation about improving the lives of BC seniors. The Seniors Advocate wants to hear from seniors and their families who live in the Oak Bay, Saanich, Esquimalt and Greater Victoria areas about what is working and not working for seniors in our communities.

The event will be co-hosted by the Oak Bay Seniors Activity Association and it will be held in the Garry Oak Room at Monterey Centre, located at 1442 Monterey Avenue in Oak Bay.

The Office of the Seniors Advocate lists upcoming events on their website and their office can also be contacted by phoning Toll-free 1-877-952-3181 (or 250-952-3181 in Victoria) if you have questions or comments.

Further details are available in the town hall event poster.

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I took the opportunity to question government on their strategy for affordable housing. The Minister of Finance recently announced that there’s more than a $444 million surplus in this past year’s budget. I attempted to provide a compelling case to government that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action. In particular I pointed out that using the one-time budget surplus to make capital investments in housing would reduce ongoing operating commitments in health, social and justice systems.

While the Minister’s response to my initial question was certainly not what I was hoping for, I was very pleased with his response to my supplemental question. Below is the transcript of our exchange:

QUESTION

Victoria’s Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that it costs about $25,500 a year to maintain a shelter bed in the capital regional district. On the other hand, the cost to run new supportive housing is only about $16,700 per unit per year. The cost of providing additional rental supplements, including support, is even lower, at $6,800 per unit annually.

The evidence is clear. Since Utah launched its homelessness reduction strategy, a strategy that involved — you guessed it — giving homes to the homeless, they’ve reduced chronic homelessness by 72 percent, and they’ve saved an average of $8,000 per person in health, social and justice system costs.

The same is true elsewhere. For example, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness calculated that for each dollar spent on housing and supports for the chronically homeless, about $2 in savings is found in health, social and justice services.

The Minister of Finance recently announced that there’s more than a $444 million surplus in this past year’s budget.

My question to the Minister Responsible for Housing is this. Will the government commit to using the one-time budget surplus to make capital investments in housing in order to reduce ongoing operating commitments in health, social and justice systems?

RESPONSE

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I’m always happy to get up and actually talk about housing in this House, which is seldom, because we don’t usually ask these questions. The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia we are home to the most successful housing strategy in Canadian history, right here in British Columbia.

In the last five years alone over 6,000 people that were formerly homeless in this province are no longer homeless because of the outreach workers, the money that’s been invested, and the people being connected to housing and supports by our people across the province.

We’ve purchased over 50 buildings across the province of B.C. and renovated for housing and have also spent over half a billion dollars, just in the last couple of years, in building additional housing supports for people. In addition to that we also, today, in total, have 100,000 households in British Columbia that receive some form of support in their housing in British Columbia.

There are, today, 27,000-plus families in households receiving rent assistance where they live, in communities across British Columbia. The budget for housing has tripled in the last number of years simply because of the commitment of this government to the success of dealing with homelessness, mental health and addiction.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

I recognize that this is not answer period, but my question was not about what the government has done. My question is about what the government will do in the future.

The reality is that recent analysis showed the least affordable cities in the world were Hong Kong and Vancouver. In fact, in the top five in Canada, four of them were in B.C.: Victoria, Kelowna, Fraser Valley, Vancouver. They’re all in the top five. Toronto is the only one that wasn’t from BC.

The reality is that if you’re living on income assistance, you are getting a total of $375 as your housing allowance, whereas the average person on income assistance is paying $501 in Victoria. If a landlord were to actually follow the rental tenancy office allowable rents, rents could have increased 30 percent since 2007, the time that this rental income assistance has remained fixed from.

The evidence is very clear. The costs of inaction are simply greater than the costs of action.

I reiterate my question. When will the government commit to (a) increasing that shelter allowance and dealing with British Columbia’s homelessness problem, and (b) providing more affordable housing to actually deal with this problem, which is a tax on our social, health and other justice systems?

RESPONSE

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, the B.C. Housing budget for capital is actually pretty good for the next number of fiscal years. It has continuously been put in the three-year fiscal plan as we sit down and work with communities like Victoria, identify sites like we have in Victoria for three buildings that we’ve recently done and other buildings we’ve bought and renovated, partnerships that we do with the non-profit sector in order to be able to connect that sector in to being there for the people whose housing they’re going to operate.

I’m happy actually…. To the member opposite, if you want to come and have a visit, we can actually explore some of your ideas. One thing I do know, when we wrote the housing strategy in 2005 — which is, by the way, again the most successful one in this country — we opened it up to being open to ideas.

The whole idea around it was that if we actually saw something in Portland or Utah or somewhere else and we thought it could work here in British Columbia, we were not disinclined at all, in our minds, to steal a good idea that might help the citizens of this province. That’s why the housing ministry, B.C. Housing, has such a dynamic mandate, in order to go out and look for their solutions on behalf of B.C. citizens.

“If we sit down and talk about the problem together, maybe we can come up with some solutions” – Bernice Kamano, Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness Speakers Bureau

Sometimes the most important conversations are the most difficult to have. However, those conversations become much easier when they occur in an open, compassionate and inclusive environment. And that is exactly the type of environment I had the honour of being a part of last night for my Town Hall event — Poverty and Homelessness: The Difficult Conversation. 

Before I delve into what was shared and what we learned last night, I’d like to once again offer my sincere thanks to Reverend Al Tysick for the time and work he put in to ensure that his family could make it to our event.  I’d also like to express my deep gratitude to Reverend Al’s family and friends for sharing their profoundly moving personal stories with us. To  our four wonderful panelists, I thank you on behalf of everyone in the audience for taking the time out of your busy schedules to offer us your valuable insight into the issue of poverty and homelessness. And special thanks to Cairine Green for graciously volunteering to moderate the evening. I am also blessed to be supported by truly incredible constituency and legislature staff and volunteers. Without their assistance, our town hall would simply never have happened.

“We don’t need to come up with new solutions, they are already there. We need to get politicians and policy to enact the solutions.” – Bruce Wallace, assistant professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Victoria

While the discussions last night may not have provided any new, groundbreaking solutions to bring an immediate end to homelessness and poverty in Greater Victoria, they did highlight the best practice solutions that already exist and what needs to be done to put them into practice.

Some of the key issues that were discussed by our panelists included:

1) systemic failures, such as lack of government strategies for ending homelessness (both nationally and provincially) and people falling through the cracks when accessing services that are in place;

2) structural issues, including low incomes, high rents and lack of affordable and supportive housing;

3) personal circumstances, such as mental health, unemployment and family situations. 

Research has found that best practice solutions to these issues include:

1) Housing First policies – like those implemented in Medicine Hat and Utah;

2) provincial poverty reduction plans – as has been proposed by the BC Poverty Reduction Coalition;

3) increasing minimum wage – which is more than $8/hour below living wage in our region;

4) increasing income assistance – which hasn’t changed in almost 10 years despite inflation and higher living costs.

“Solutions are based on philosophies that don’t resonate with aboriginal people” – Bernice Kamano

Another important issue that was highlighted last night and that too often gets overlooked when discussing poverty and homelessness is the disproportionate number of aboriginal people living on the street. In Vancouver, at least 30% of the street population identify themselves as aboriginal. Meanwhile aboriginal people make up only 2% of the city’s entire population. Given these deplorable statistics, there is a clear need for services and solutions that address the unique needs and challenges faced by aboriginal people. But creating these solutions can only be done by giving the aboriginal community a voice when planning and making decision to eradicate homelessness.

To address this need, Bernice Kamano and Andrew Wynn-Williams, Executive Director for the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, shared with us the Coalitions current efforts to create an Aboriginal Coalition to End Homelessness. This new coalition would bring together both elected and hereditary chiefs and other members of the aboriginal community to examine the key issues behind and the solutions to the high rates of poverty and homelessness amongst aboriginal communities.

“I am a messenger for things I have learned from people, including many in the audience tonight” – Charlayne Thornton-Joe, Victoria City Council

While the presentations by the panelists proved thoughtful and informative, the true highlight of the evening was the open discussion that ensued afterwards. It is not often that you find yourself in an at-capacity lecture hall, discussing issues surrounding poverty and homelessness with those who are currently homeless, those working on the front lines to end homelessness, elected officials and other members of the community.

In an open-minded, inclusive and caring environment people were able to express their frustrations, share their stories and better understand what it means to live in poverty. Questions and comments were diverse and included inquiries about Guaranteed Livable Income policies, the need for affordable housing, the reliance on a charity model and use of emergency shelters as housing, and the costs to society of inaction versus action.

The solutions to these problems are not ones that any one person can provide. They require long-term planning, commitment and collaboration from non-profit organizations and all levels of government. However, that does not mean there is nothing that you as an individual can do to make a difference. One of the last questions that was asked may prove most meaningful to many of you: “What can average, everyday people do when faced with homelessness on the street?”

For the answer to this question our panelists directed us to the people in the audience that could respond to this question best — Reverend Al’s family. Their answer was simple and unanimous: be compassionate. Smile, say hello, have a conversation. Don’t act like they’re invisible. Treat them like you would anyone else you pass on the street, because we’re all just people and we all need to know that someone cares.

I made a commitment yesterday — a commitment to continue raising awareness and offering solutions to systemic issues of poverty and homelessness over the weeks and months ahead. And I promised that at our next town hall, we will come to you Reverend Al and family.

Photos Credit: Britt Swoveland