Today in the Legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction why the government had yet to increase the $375 shelter allowance for income assistance. This rate hasn’t increased in a decade yet housing costs have risen dramatically.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In September, government raised social assistance rates by $100 per month. Not only, of course, do I support the move, but I also commend government for implementing this increase. Rates had been frozen for a decade, leaving people worse off year after year, as their buying power eroded with inflation and the affordability crisis exploded.

Nevertheless, while support payments have gone up, the shelter allowances have remained the same, at only $375 a month. This is far, far below what it actually costs to find shelter.

For example, the organization Raise the Rates found that in Vancouver, even a single-room-occupancy hotel, known as an SRO — the cheapest form of housing available — cost $548 a month. And a number of advocates and journalists have documented the appalling and unsafe living conditions that people are forced to endure in many SROs in Vancouver.

My question to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: do you agree that $375 does not come close to reflecting the true cost of finding shelter in B.C., let alone shelter that is safe and secure?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the Leader of the Third Party, though I did lose the bet on getting a question-free session.

I agree with the Leader of the Third Party. Persons on income assistance, persons with disabilities and hundreds of thousands of other people who are living vulnerable and living poor are struggling immensely in this province today. I’m proud of the $100 increase that we put in place, the first increase in over a decade for people on income assistance.

As I said, there are significant numbers of working poor in this province who are struggling as well, and I’m excited that at the end of this week, we’re going to have a $1.30 increase in the minimum wage, the first step on the way to a $15.20 minimum wage.

On the issue of housing, the member is correct: it is challenging, as we move forward, but we have many steps that we’re taking. I’m excited about the biggest investment in housing in the history of British Columbia in the February budget. I’m excited about the increases around rental assistance programs and SAFER grants. I’m really excited about the 2,000 modular units that are out there being built today, that are being occupied today, that are helping the most vulnerable people in the province, people living homeless, and giving them a place to live. That’s progress, and that’s leadership.

The last thing I would say is: we’ll bring in the poverty reduction plan, and yes, we’re going to deal with housing.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: There certainly was a lot of pent-up answer waiting for a question there.

A substantial gap remains between social assistance rates and what is required to maintain a dignified standard of living. That’s why during the election the B.C. Greens committed to transitioning people to livable incomes, starting with an increase in social assistance rates by 50 percent above 2017 levels by 2020.

The previous critic on this file said last year: “Every year I ask the minister how on earth they come up with $375 as the shelter allowance for income assistance, because there’s nowhere in B.C. that’s available for $375.” I would agree with her, but unfortunately, this remains true today, and the average rent of a bachelor apartment in Vancouver is over $1,000 a month.

My question, again, to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: will you increase the shelter allowance as part of the forthcoming poverty reduction program and strategy?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: We have 557,000 people living in poverty in this province. We’ve had the highest rates of poverty for over a decade and a half, pretty much every year, and certainly the highest rates around child poverty.

We have challenges. We need to deal with the affordability questions that the member’s talking about. We need to create opportunities for people to break the cycle of poverty. We need to deal with the issues of social isolation and social inclusion for people struggling in poverty, whether they be the 100,000 children living in poverty, the Indigenous and the disabled who are living in poverty.

We’re going to do that. We’re going to bring legislation this fall that will legislate the poverty reduction plan, and British Columbia will no longer be the only province in this country without a poverty plan. We will end that this fall. We will bring the plan shortly after, and we will address those issues of improving the lives of people in this province, including on the housing issue.

Today the BC Green and BC NDP caucuses celebrated the one year anniversary of the signing of our historic Confidence and Supply Agreement.

The Premier and I took the opportunity to celebrate the event at the offices of Alacrity Foundation in Victoria. This was a fitting venue since Alacrity represents a stellar example of innovation in the new economy.

Alacrity has helped bring over $225 million to B.C.’s technology ecosystem through its investor readiness program and on April 19, 2018, the Province announced that it was investing more than $711,000 over the next three years in the Alacrity Foundation of B.C.’s Cleantech Scale-Up program.

Below I reproduce the brief remarks I gave at the event as well as our joint press release.

My remarks

I am delighted to be here to celebrate the one year anniversary of the announcement that we had reached a Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC NDP.

The 2017 election was historic for our Party. We doubled our popular vote count and tripled our seat count.

When the results came in as a minority government, we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided BC needed a change. It was clear that most British Columbians wanted things to be done differently.

There was a clear desire for bolder, forward-looking policies on a range of important issues:

affordability;
environmental protection;
investments like child care and public education that will give our children the best possible future.

CASA is the result of two distinct parties coming together around shared values.

Ultimately we want the same thing:

to improve the health and wellbeing of British Columbians;
to make government more responsive to the challenges and opportunities they face in their everyday lives;
and to set our province up for success.

There have been ups and downs in the first year, but like any relationship our Agreement has required us to work through our issues and come together to find solutions that we can both support.

This is a special opportunity – under majority governments, a party can get 100% of the power with as little as 39% of the vote and push through its agenda without having to consult or collaborate with any other parties.

This has often left British Columbians feeling disconnected and like their government is not listening to their concerns. In just the first year since signing our agreement, we have worked together to:

ban big money;
reform the lobbying industry;
make historic investments in childcare and public education;
advance key elements of the BC Greens’ economic vision for the province.

And we’re just getting started.

Right now, I am hard at work with Minister Heyman to develop a climate plan that puts a bold vision for BC’s economy centred around innovation at its core.

We have a unique opportunity to make BC a leader again in climate action.

While climate change poses significant risks and challenges, there are opportunities to be had as the world transitions to the low carbon economy.

But the benefits will only flow to those who are leaders – not the last adopters.

BC was once a leader in climate action, providing an example to the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible.

I am looking forward to unveiling our plan to make BC a leader once again.

There are challenges that lie ahead, but I am deeply encouraged by our ability to come together to work through our differences.

John and I both know that there is more at stake than the future of our two parties – we are united in our love of this province and we want to set it up for the best possible future.

Our caucus remains committed to doing everything we can to work collaboratively to advance more solutions so that we can deliver on our shared commitments to the people of BC

Thank you.

Joint Media Release

Over the last year or so I have twice (February 2017 and October 2017) introduced a bill to protect agricultural from continuing to be subject to speculative investment activity.

Today during budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance I asked the Minister why her government had neither applied the foreign buyers tax nor the speculation tax to land in the ALR. In particular, I sought answers to why her government is not stepping in to stop prime farmland being carved up and converted into mega mansions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I just have a couple of questions in two areas to finish my estimates questions to the Finance Minister. The first is in the area of ALR protection. The ALR was left unprotected from the measures announced in the budget to cool the market for the residential real estate sector, which has encouraged speculation in ALR. My first question is: why didn’t the foreign buyer tax and the speculation tax apply to the ALR? And why was, for example, foreign ownership not restricted to the ALR, like has been done in areas across Canada, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and PEI?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think there are two pieces I just want to focus on.

I think the first one is…. As the member will know, there’s a comprehensive policy review going on with the Minister of Agriculture right now in looking at a whole range of issues related to agricultural land. We’re doing our policy work — side by side, I guess, is the best way to describe it — along with the work that’s being done in the Agriculture Ministry. So we don’t want to either get ahead or be duplicating work that’s going on.

As the member will know, there was a large consultation done, and so people were giving their feedback. To look at further work that needs to be done around the agricultural land, we’re doing that policy review, as I said, along with the Agriculture Minister.

But I think it’s important to note that both the foreign buyers tax and the speculation tax do apply to houses, to the residential property that’s on agricultural land. I know the member’s speaking about a broader base when it comes to the agricultural land, but in fact, those taxes do apply to the class 1 residential housing that is on agricultural land if they’re in the areas that are covered by those taxes.

A. Weaver: Yes indeed, I was concerned about the broad, bare land of agricultural land that can be purchased that does not have a foreign buyers tax. Then Richmond council can be approached, and that land could then have a mega-mansion put on it, which was the subject of the concern being expressed here.

In the budget, the minister stated that she’d be changing the tax treatment of residential property in the ALR in order to close property tax loopholes. My question is then: how are you changing property tax treatment, and when can we expect to see this done?

Hon. C. James: We’re looking at the changes. These are draft changes to the School Act to exclude ALR properties that are in the residential property class from the 50 percent land exemption. We’re going through that process right now, again, as I said, in tandem with the work that’s going on in the Agriculture Ministry. This would require changes, so we certainly hope it’ll come by the fall.

A. Weaver: Again, the review. We’ve been talking about the review, and the Minister of Agriculture is indeed undertaking such a review. But in fact, we’re not waiting for the results of the review before changing the tax treatment on residential property.

We know what’s happening in an ongoing fashion in Richmond is that the speculation and mega-mansions are devouring ALR there. For example, last year, Richmond lost 50 farms due to mega-mansions. We can’t, frankly, afford to wait a year to see more action.

Why are we not taking immediate steps now to impose the foreign buyers tax and the speculation tax on the ALR land? What is stopping the minister from doing that?

Hon. C. James: I certainly appreciate the urgency of this issue. I appreciate the examples that have come forward, particularly in Richmond, as the member mentions. They are issues right now and challenges right now. But there is, as I said, the comprehensive review going on. We need to make sure that…. Many of these changes have to happen through different acts, not through one act.

For example, the changes to the school tax related to the school tax on agricultural land also have to be changes to the Assessment Act. Again, we don’t want to piecemeal it. We want to make sure that the changes that we make are really going to make a difference. That’s why we’re working together with the Agriculture Ministry.

There is an opportunity, hopefully, in the fall to bring forward those changes, to have coordinated with the feedback that people gave and to be able to make a comprehensive change that will prevent the kinds of examples that the member has raised.

It’s been more than four years now since I started calling on government to close the bare trust loophole which is being exploited to provide cover for anonymous real estate transactions as well as to avoid paying property transfer and, potentially, capital gains taxes.

A bare trust is a legal entity that allows for the separation of beneficial and legal ownership. The beneficial owner of a property is the person or persons who make all the decisions concerning such things as rent, repairs, management, sale etc.; they are also the person or persons who receive all the revenue from and arrange financing for the property. The trustee of the bare trust has no substantive decision-making capacity as they simply act upon the instructions of the beneficial owner. Typically the trustee is a corporation that has no other purpose but to act as a trustee for the bare trust and for which the beneficial owner owns all the shares.

Now here’s the loophole. Suppose you own a home or apartment building that you want to dispose of. If you simply transferred title, like most of us do when we sell a home, the purchaser would have to pay the property transfer tax.

But if instead the property is in a bare trust where the trustee is a company, then you will pay no tax. All you have to do is sell your shares in the company for 1$ (the company has no assets anyway), and sell the “beneficial ownership” rights of the property to a third party via a “bare trust agreement” which is not registered at the Land Title Office.  Since no change in title occurs, no tax is paid.

Today during budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance I asked the Minister once more as to what the hold up is. While I appreciate that government is now collecting data on beneficial owners and sharing that data with the Canadian Revenue Agency (thereby potentially giving the CRA the ability to crack down on capital gains evasion), she is still resistant to do what Ontario did ages ago and apply the property tax to transfer of beneficial ownership rather that to transfer of title.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I’d like to pivot to the issue of beneficial ownership and bare trust, a key issue and aspect of both the B.C. NDP and B.C. Green election campaigns. As the minister will know, I’ve been calling on government — both past government and present government — to close this loophole for years now.

In this budget, we’ve taken some steps, which I recognize, requesting more information about beneficial ownership on property transfer tax forms, as well as establishing a beneficial ownership registry. But we need to do more than this, frankly, and rather than just collecting information on the beneficial ownership, we need to take steps to actually close the loophole — as was done decades ago in Ontario in direct response to seeing some shenanigans occurring in the real estate sector.

We know that the market has already discounted this, and the market had expected government to announce that the measures would have been taken in their budget.

I have two questions in this regard, and then I’ll conclude. What information are we currently collecting about beneficial ownership on PTT forms — that’s property transfer tax forms — and what additional information are we collecting now? When do these changes come into effect, and what are the purposes of collecting this additional information? What do you expect the impacts to be from gathering this information?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. This is an issue that the member has been raising for a while, and it’s certainly a piece that we’re keen on moving on. I think there are some lessons to be learned from the Ontario example, where Ontario, again, didn’t do the collecting of the information and so had some challenges when it came to implementing the tax that they’re looking at.

We will be starting, as the member has said, with changes coming in the fall on information that’s collected. The best way probably to describe it is it’ll basically be look-through rules, so it will provide an opportunity for us to look at the owners of the land, regardless of what structure they’ve put in place. All that information will be held by the Ministry of Finance.

We will be bringing in, as well, information-sharing rules that will be put in place, particularly with the CRA, so we have the immediate opportunity to be able to look at tax loopholes or tax fraud if it’s there. That’ll give us a chance to be able to do that. Then, when we have the information, that gives us the next step to be able to look at. Whether it’s Ontario or other jurisdictions or other ideas and approaches, it’ll give us an idea of the challenges and the ability to be able to determine further action.

A. Weaver: To be fair, I frankly don’t think that’s good enough. We are, right now, proposing a speculation tax, which is causing chaos in the real estate sector because we don’t have information, and we’re making exemptions as we move along.

We have a clear understanding of what the bare trust loophole is being used for in the residential property. We know you don’t have to go and collect data to know exactly what’s going on. Talk to realtors. Talk to commercial developers. Talk to bankers. Talk to accountants.

We know that properties are being purchased in trust. Those shares are owned by a corporation, and those corporation shares are flipped and switched. We know that that’s happening with offshore companies as well, and we know that that is fuelling the speculation that we truly want to deal with in the housing market.

The spec tax is not dealing with speculation. The spec tax is a paper wealth tax. Whereas a measure that we could take to actually deal with speculation, a measure that was dealt with in Ontario…. I’m told it was dealt with in Ontario precisely because of concerns about money laundering that was happening at the time in the housing market there in Ontario. The tax went on to the beneficial ownership transfer.

It is critical, because you buy at home, a mega-home, and you buy it for, say, $2 million in a trust, and you can flip that five times. You can launder money in this flipping, and there is no record. You’re collecting information, sure. But there’s property transfer tax avoidance, which should be there to discourage this behaviour.

Now, the bare trust existed…. There are reasons historically why it was important to have these properties in trust, particularly in commercial properties. But it is being abused in the residential market.

I’ll conclude, then, by saying I don’t think it’s appropriate not to close a loophole now. I think we have a measure to truly deal with speculation right now. The Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey in opposition, pointed this out. The government said they would do it. They campaigned on doing it. Here we are a year later. We’re collecting data about hypothetically doing it down the road while implementing, at the same time, a speculation tax that is actually not dealing with speculation.

So it’s a plea. Why is the minister not standing up and closing this loophole that is being exploited right now in British Columbia and is leading to speculation — instead, taking the steps to introduce a tax that doesn’t actually deal with speculation but instead conflates two issues? One is the issue of satellite families; the other, the issue of vacancy.

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member’s urgency around this. We feel the same urgency, but we also want to make sure, as I said, that we provide the opportunity to really get at what we need to get at and to get at the individuals we need to get at. I think, as the member has described well, there is all kinds of discussion out there. There are all kinds of people talking about examples that they know of where people who are very sophisticated at tax planning are utilizing these opportunities.

What we’re doing first is figuring out who owns what. That’s a critical piece because right now there isn’t a registry in place. There isn’t an example in place that gives us that. The work we’re doing right now will help us to do that. It’ll help us to build a registry to determine who’s incorporating where. It’ll require people, when they incorporate, to actually register that. So again, we’ll have a tracking around where things have occurred, where people are utilizing the opportunity to be able to avoid paying the correct taxes.

Then the next step, obviously, is to take action. But this will still give us the opportunity to share that information with the CRA and go after existing taxes that are not being paid. I don’t want the member to believe that this does nothing. In fact, it provides us with the opportunity to share that information with the CRA to be able to deal with taxes that aren’t being paid now or opportunities that people are trying to utilize to not pay taxes now. This will give us a chance to do that by the fall.

Further steps then can come after we’ve got the registry in place and we have the opportunity to address it.

Once more, during budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance today, I rose to ask the Minister about the elimination of the MSP. This time, rather than focusing on the government’s approach to replace the revenue through the creation of an employers’ health tax, I asked about the savings that the province will realize as a consequence of eliminating the MSP.

It looks like the province will save about $175 million annually through eliminated MSP premiums.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have two questions on this subject of the employer health tax. When the B.C. Green Party called for the elimination of MSP premiums a number of years ago, we were basing our decisions on how we would move forward on the Ontario model. One of the big reasons, as well, that we thought that — and one of the issues that I haven’t heard canvassed yet — was that there’s an enormous waste in the MSP system. We know that monthly bills go out month after month to people all across British Columbia. We know that credit agencies are given files where there’s a lot of debt that has never been paid.

My two questions to this: how much money is being saved by eliminating the monthly billing of the MSPs, and how much of the outstanding liability exists with respect to MSP premiums that have not been collected? What is the government planning to do to get some of that money back — if they have a possibility of getting it back at all?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. I think the member has described exactly one of the many reasons, certainly one of the large reasons, that it’s important to eliminate medical service premiums.

I don’t think there’s anything that people have described as worse to administer. The member mentioned the challenges of administering it for government, the challenges of administering it as employers and then the individuals. So it trickles down.

I’m sure the member has heard the stories, as I have, of people who’ve left a job where they were paid their MSP premiums, gone to a job where they aren’t, trying to get back in — or the other way around — and be able to manage to figure out what they owe and have the billing be correct.

Seniors. I think the member mentioned this issue before, and I’ve certainly heard it — seniors in my office crying because they’ve received the collection notice. This was first time they received the notice. So I think it’s clear that that is something that has to be taken care of.

The contract it services will be about a $60 million savings, to end that contract for managing the medical service premium. The debt expense right now is $115 million, so that would be debt, obviously, that would need to be written off or collected. That’s roughly the amount each year. So that’s, again, a savings when you look at the bad debt that has to be covered each year.

Video of Exchange