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.

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 6 – Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill provides new, extended and more flexible maternity, parental and compassionate care leave provisions that would meet or beat standards set across Canada.

Below is the text and video of my short speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I, too, rise in support of Bill 6, Employment Standards Amendment Act, which makes a number of substantive amendments to the existing Employment Standards Act — in particular, with respect to issues of compassionate leave, paternity leave, maternity leave, family leave, as well as matching these with federal legislation that was passed late last year, in November, I believe it was.

In fact, one of the things that happens, as this bill is being debated and discussed, is that we’re proposing here to mirror the federal legislation, which essentially extends employment insurance benefits to those with newly adopted children or parents of newborns from 12 months to an extended 18 months. They’re allowed to have their EI benefits.

B.C., by passing this legislation, would ensure that not only federal employees that are subject exclusively to the federal legislation but also in British Columbia, here, we would be protected both for job security and be eligible to be part of this extended EI. It doesn’t actually give people more money. It allows families to determine if they wish to take the amount of money that would be spent and just distribute it over a longer period.

Some have actually criticized the federal legislation, which we’re proposing to adopt here, by arguing that it is not doing enough to actually support new families by not providing additional resources. Nevertheless, I would argue that’s an EI issue and a federal issue and not one in the purview of our jurisdiction here. So I think it’s important that we actually do follow the federal lead in this area.

One of the most important changes, of course, in this legislation is the additions that are truly provincial with respect to extending the amount of leave that is eligible for those whose child, most unfortunately, happened to be taken away in an incident. My colleague and friend, the Minister of Education and the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake knows the Dunahee case here, a very famous case here in Victoria. And I’m sure such leave…. I can only imagine the hurt that the parents of Michael went through and continue to go through. But were such leave available to them at the time, I think it would have been very beneficial. Hopefully, nobody needs to claim this benefit. I’m sure that’s the hope of all of those in this House, but it’s critical that it be there for those who do need it.

The amendments to compassionate care leave are triple the length of the leave, from eight to 27 weeks — again, a very important addition.

In terms of the other issue…. Heaven forbid. I can only imagine the loss of a child, and it would be something that would be devastating to any family. To give extended leave, protected leave, job security on that leave, over an extended period of time to parents whose child under the age of 19 were to be tragically lost is the sign of a government that recognizes the importance of putting families first, of being there for families to support them in their times of greatest need.

I applaud government and, in particular, the minister who brought this piece of legislation forward.

Other highlights within this piece of legislation, of course, are that maternity leave can start two weeks earlier, 13 weeks prior to the due date rather than 11 weeks, and that it can go longer after birth, where the employee requests leave after birth, from 17 weeks rather than six weeks. It also increases leave from 37 weeks to 62 weeks for adoptive parents and allows that leave to start no later than 78 weeks after the child is born, instead of no later than 52 weeks after the child is placed with the parents.

There are many, many reasons why this bill, I’m sure, will be passed and wholeheartedly supported by all sides of this House. The fact that it doubles unpaid leave time is important. It doesn’t address the financial barriers, the affordability issue for parents who have to spread out the benefits over a longer period of time, and I look forward to the government continuing to develop and implement its strategy to deal with the affordability crisis here in B.C.

I’m not sure whether this bill actually has provisions to deal with stillbirths or miscarriages. I would seek to ask the minister, during committee stage, whether, in fact, the bill, as constructed, does recognize stillbirths or late-term miscarriages as grounds for leave, based on the fact that death of child might be considered there, where, here, the child was born, in the case of a stillbirth, sadly, dead on birth or, in a late-term miscarriage, sadly.

I mean, we all know people who have had a traumatic effect on their lives, and perhaps government might be open to thinking about that over the coming days — about whether (a) this is dealt with in the legislation or (b) if, in fact, changes need to be amended or added to account for that.

With that, I have spoken with my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands and also my colleague from Cowichan Valley, neither of whom will speak to this bill. We collectively support this bill and look forward to bringing it forward in legislation.

Video of Speech

Earlier this month I was very critical, of the government’s ill thought through attempts to curb speculation in the housing market. In fact, I was entirely unsure as to what outcomes the government was seeking with the introduction of their so-called “speculation tax”. To the government’s credit, the Minister of Finance declared that she was willing to listen to British Columbians and make adjustments to her proposed policies. This was the opening that we were looking for.

Over the last few weeks we worked hard to solicit, listen to, and respond to the concerns of British Columbians about this tax. We brought these concerns directly to the table with the NDP and worked closely with them to identify and offer solutions to many of the unforeseen consequences that had arisen. In particular,

• We wanted to ensure the tax did not unfairly impact British Columbians, including people with vacation homes, who are not speculating in our market.
• We wanted to ensure the tax did not apply to rural or vacation areas, where there are many part-time residents and they are significant to the local economy.
• We wanted to ensure that this tax truly targets speculators – people who park their money in our real estate market as if it’s the stock market – and that it effectively deals with satellite families and offshore money.
• We wanted to ensure adequate flexibility for rentals, allowing people to avoid the tax by renting their home out part of the year, and stay there the other part of the year.
• We wanted to ensure that people who can’t rent their place out, through restrictive zoning or strata bylaws, aren’t hit with the tax.
• We wanted to ensure that the tax actually reduces speculation, and does not provide a revenue windfall for government.

Yesterday Carole James, the Minister of Finance, announced revisions to the proposed speculation tax that will be introduced this fall. While the BC Greens would have taken much more aggressive action focused largely on foreign capital through a New Zealand style offshore buyers ban, as well as targetting speculation through a flipping tax and closing the bare trust loophole on residential sales, the government’s proposed changes go a long way to dealing with a number of concerns with the tax.

Below I reproduce the Media Statement that we released in response to the proposed government changes.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus responds to government’s speculation tax changes
For immediate release
March 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement in response to the government’s announced changes to the speculation tax.

“It’s a positive sign that this government is willing to listen to British Columbians and to make adjustments to policies,” said Weaver.

“In a minority government, we have an opportunity to do things differently by collaborating to improve public policy. We worked hard to champion British Columbians’ concerns and bring forth evidence-based solutions to this policy’s shortcomings. We agree with the B.C. NDP that we need to take action to address speculation in our real estate market. However, we have been clear that we needed to see changes to this tax in order to support the forthcoming legislation. In particular, the government’s policy must target speculation and empty homes in our urban centres without undue adverse effects on rural areas and on British Columbians who aren’t speculators.

“These changes go a long way to dealing with our initial concerns with the tax – they make it much more targeted and limit the effects on British Columbians with vacation homes. We look forward to the full details of the legislation to ensure it truly limits unintended consequences. We will continue to advocate for bolder policies to address speculation, including a flipping tax, the closing of the bare trust loophole and a New Zealand-style ban on foreign capital.”

Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands added that he was pleased that many of his constituents’ concerns were addressed.

“I heard from many concerned Gulf Islanders who were worried about how the speculation tax might impact them and we kept pressure on the government to address these issues,” said Olsen.

“I’m glad that the government has recognized that this tax doesn’t make sense for rural areas like the Gulf Islands. The diversity of concerns in my riding demonstrates the need for a nuanced approach to the housing crisis. We have serious housing challenges in the Gulf Islands that need to be addressed, while recognizing that seasonal residents are valuable members of the community who contribute to the local economy. I will continue to work closely with the communities in my riding to bring locally-appropriate solutions to the table.”

-30-

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

Today in Question Period I took the opportunity to see if I could get more details from the Minister of Finance on the BC NDP’s so-called “Speculation Tax”.

Last week I was very critical of the way the BC NDP introduced this tax. Ironically it doesn’t even address speculation in the real estate sector.

I remain unconvinced that the BC NDP know what outcome they are trying to achieve with their tax measure. It’s clear to me from the Minister’s responses to my questions (reproduced in video and text below) that they don’t understand the difference between a vacancy tax and a speculation tax.  In fact, under the Vancouver Charter, that city have already imposed a vacancy tax.

A better way forward would be to enable all local governments (not just Vancouver) to introduce vacancy taxes if they felt it was in their community’s interest. At the same time, a speculation tax could be applied exclusively to properties owned by offshore individuals and entities, the bare trust loophole could be closed and a flipping tax could be applied when the same property is sold multiple times in a short time period.

Fortunately there is still time to fix what the BC NDP have proposed.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: There’s no doubt that we need to take bold action to address the drivers in our housing crisis. A fundamental component of this is clamping down on speculation. But the government’s botched speculation tax doesn’t in fact target speculation.

A speculator is someone who buys a property solely to flip it. A speculator is someone who parks offshore money in our real estate, hoping to protect themselves from the turmoil in global markets. A speculator is someone who uses bare trusts to avoid paying property transfer taxes, thereby allowing multiple sales and resales with no change in title.

A speculator is not someone who pays taxes here and owns a vacation cottage. These folk are not trying to capitalize on our out-of-control housing market.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. The minister has said that her aim is to make sure she gets speculators out of the market. Does the minister consider British Columbians with vacation homes to be speculators? Or will she ensure that they are fully exempt from this tax? If so, how will she do it?

Answer

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, the Leader of the Third Party. I appreciate the question, and I appreciate his support for a speculation tax.

We were left, in this province, with a crisis when it comes to the housing market, because the other side ignored the issues and the crisis that people were facing around affordability. We’ve seen rents skyrocket. We’ve seen families who can’t afford to live in the community that they work in. So our goal is to ensure that British Columbians can afford to work and live in their own province.

We’re including measures in the speculation tax that will protect British Columbians. We are looking at getting people out of the market who are using our housing market as a stock market. The specifics will come. We’re continuing to listen to the issues that people raise, including the member at the end. We will make sure that housing is affordable for British Columbians. That’s our aim, and that’s what the speculation tax will do.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: The government has had years to consult with British Columbians. Instead, it brings in a poorly thought out tax measure whose interpretation seems to change every time the minister or Premier is in a press scrum.

As far as I can understand from the tax information sheet still on the government’s website, British Columbians with second homes have to pay the tax, and then they get a non-refundable tax credit after the fact. Low or moderate-income British Columbians will, in many cases, not even be able to use the tax credit. But if you’re very wealthy, you get the full benefit of the credit. That doesn’t make any sense. It penalizes people with moderate and low incomes and further entrenches the idea that home ownership is reserved only for the wealthiest.

Hon. Speaker, my question, through you to the Minister of Finance, is this: will the minister reconsider this tax credit model to ensure that British Columbians with vacation homes are actually protected from the effects of this speculation tax?

Answer

Hon. C. James: I would say to the member, once again, that we introduced the speculation tax as part of our 30-point plan to address affordable housing in British Columbia. I said in the budget lockup and on budget day that the details would be coming. We are listening to British Columbians, including the member and other people who have put forward ideas. We have been working on those issues since we introduced the speculation tax.

The specific concerns that the member raises are issues that are already on the table, which we are reviewing and looking at as we implement the tax. As I’ve said all along, details will come. The aim is to make sure that we get speculators out of the market.

I would say to the member that if you are an individual who owns four empty houses and you’re leaving them vacant in Vancouver, you are speculating in the housing market. We will be addressing that, and we will be addressing affordable housing for British Columbians.

In the legislature today, second reading of Bill 8 – 2018: Supply Act (No. 1), 2018 was up for debate.

The Supply Act is the bill that allows government to spend money. It is typical for the Supply Act to have two parts. The first, which was debated today, provides government the power to spend money for the next two months (April and May, 2018). The second, which will be debated once budget estimates have concluded, will allow government to spend for the rest of the fiscal year (to March 31, 2019).

There is a long history of all parties in the legislature supporting Supply Acts (both the BC Liberals and BC Greens continued the tradition with this Act). The reason is obvious. If they are not supported, government cannot spend money. All services stop and government shuts down. While this occurs periodically in the United States, it is not common in Canada.

Nevertheless, I took the second reading opportunity to outline how concerned my BC Green Caucus and I are with the lack of vision and legislative agenda these past 8 months. We are also profoundly troubled with the fact that the government has badly botched two recent tax measures which have created uncertainty and chaos in market.

I spent a fair amount of time specifically highlighting the “Speculation Tax” which is actually not a speculation tax. Rather, it is a “paper wealth tax” that has been poorly thought out, doesn’t deal with speculation, and hurts British Columbians. The BC NDP have badly botched this measure and its interpretation by the Minister has been changing on a near daily basis.

The BC Greens understand the importance of tempering exuberance in the out of control housing market and have specifically called for a New Zealand-style ban on foreign purchases as per our call for bold action. We also outlined numerous other measures that could be implemented including the importance of closing the Bare Trust loophole as was done in Ontario.

The Speculation Tax and Employer Health Tax both need the introduction of legislation prior to them 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.

As evident in the speech reproduced in video and text below, I specifically ask the Minister of Finance to stop making up tax policy on the fly, in press conferences. Continuing to do so creates nothing but uncertainty and chaos in the market chaos. British Columbians deserve better.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the Supply Act. I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for her comments and the minister for her introduction of the bill.

This bill, as the member for Prince George–Valemount pointed out, is, essentially, following tradition, where, after the budget is announced and estimates are brought forward, a portion of the budget getting us through this legislative period is requested up front to ensure that people get paid, in essence — that government can operate, that capital projects can go forward.

In this Supply Act, we’re approving 2/12, or 1/6 — quite remarkably, not to do fractional division, 2/12 is 1/6 — of the total amount of the main estimates, as well as one-third — you could have said 4/12, if you wanted, as opposed to one-third — of the capital budget. I won’t be proposing amendment on that, although I think it is sloppy mathematics.

On a slightly different note, I do have a number of concerns, serious concerns, with respect to the Supply Act because the Supply Act is making assumptions with respect to the implications of the budget. And, of course, the budget, which we’ve discussed, has got some assumptions in it.

You know, I and my colleagues are frustrated here in the B.C. Green caucus. We’re frustrated because on July 18 of 2017, this government was sworn in. We are now nearly eight months since government was sworn in, and we’re still questioning what legislation is going to be brought forward. In the 19 days of debate — we’re in our fourth week now, of debate here — here we are, and what’s being brought forward?

We’re getting the Supply Act to debate — fine. Fully four of the eight bills that the government has introduced, including this Supply Act, are really housekeeping bills or bills that every government has to bring in. We have the bill, of course, to ensure the supremacy of the parliament. I won’t talk to that, obviously, because that’s a different debate. We have the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Of course, I’m not going to speak to that bill, either. It’s another debate.

And we have the now famous Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which we’re all waiting with bated breath to debate as we define things like Pacific daylight-saving time. These are what the government’s agenda is. This is troubling.

Let’s go back to 1972 — July 24, 1972, when an election was called. On August 30, 1972, a new NDP government was formed. In the first session of that 30th parliament in the fall, they sat for nine days, and they passed 13 bills. In the second session, they passed 93 bills in 61 days — 93 bills.

This government has had 16 years in opposition to come up with an agenda, and now we’re being asked to approve a supply act when we don’t actually know what that agenda is. We’re 19 days in, and we’ve seen precisely four non-traditional bills to debate, one of which is the supply act.

You know, we’re troubled about a number of the assumptions in this bill that are leading to the supply act. We have seen government talk about an employers health tax. We’ve seen government talk about a speculative tax. We’re not sure what they mean when they’re talking about it.

I had thought, after conversations and reading the media, that a speculation tax wasn’t going to apply to British Columbians. Silly me for actually listening to the Premier and the Finance Minister say that in media scrums. But then I see an interpretive bulletin that actually says that what’s going to happen, leading to estimates that we have to approve here, is that in fact, if you’re a B.C. resident, you’re getting a tax credit. That’s what the interpretive bulletin says: you’re going to get a tax credit.

You tell that to the constituents of mine or other colleagues across who aren’t earning any income but happen to own a family cottage on a lake that happens to be in the boundary of Nanaimo regional district or on one of the Gulf Islands — that now that person is going to be charged $12,000 a year as a speculation tax. They’ll get a tax credit, sure, but they’ve got no income on which to apply that tax credit. How’s that a speculative tax?

This government clearly believes that this real estate market is a market from which they can sap revenue. We’ve asked: what is the outcome? What are the outcomes you’re looking for your measures? That has yet to be defined.

We see projected budget increases, and then stabilization of revenue, coming from things like this so-called speculation tax. If it was a speculation tax, you would hope it’d go to zero. It’s being applied, in our sense, as a paper wealth tax. We feel that what’s happening here is that policy and finance and tax measures are being made up in press scrums.

The market needs certainty. What are your outcomes? We have got a supply bill that’s made budget estimates assuming income from a speculation tax whose implementation has literally changed three times since the budget was announced.

Is it going to apply to Gulf Islands? Is it going to apply to the city of Kelowna? The city of Kelowna, where the rental accommodation right now is critically dependent on owners renting their houses to students for eight months of the year and using those houses in the summer for either vacation rentals or to live in themselves. This is critical for the Kelowna economy, yet we call that a speculation. No, they’re playing a critical role to rental properties there.

We understand that Vancouver’s out of control. We understand that the Vancouver market’s completely out of control, and we understand that it was far too long to deal with it. But the revenues here, we’re uncertain of. We’re frustrated, because we don’t know what the agenda of the government is, we don’t know the direction that they’re going in the housing market, and all they’ve done is signal to the market that it’s going to be chaotic times ahead because we haven’t articulated what this critical new measure is to broader society. That’s not how tax measures are going to be brought in.

We proposed, of course, dealing with the problem, which was the foreign capital that’s flowing into this province. This would have given certainty here, because we would have assumed that, when you start to tax that foreign capital or you actually eliminate the source, you know those revenues are going to go to zero.

But this government, in the supply bill, is actually counting on those revenues and basically taxing the grandmother in Oak Bay who happens to have a house from 150 years of family on Saltspring Island that they want to leave to their children.

How many MLAs here have properties on the Gulf Islands? How many government MLAs have properties on the Gulf Islands? Well, one just has to look through the disclosure. I can tell you it’s a number of them. Are they getting a surprise, knowing that they’re going to pay $12,000 a year, if it’s worth 600 bucks? So $12,000 a year, but they’ll get a tax credit. They get a healthy salary here. Okay, that’s fine. But most of them don’t.

We’re very worried down here. We’re worried that the government is actually falling into the trap that they have branded on themselves over many years, which is one of not being able to be fiscally responsible with the money, the hard-earned taxpayers’ money, in our economy. That is troubling. It’s very troubling.

You know, obviously, we support the supply bill. Obviously, we must have a continuation of the government operating and all the schools and hospitals around this province. Obviously we must support this bill. But we want government to stand back and reflect upon what it’s been doing.

It has had 16 years — or the dreaded 17 years, depending on where you count; 16 or 17 years — to develop a legislative agenda. We are now 19 days into this session, and we’ve had nothing.

We stuck our necks out. We recognized that British Columbians wanted a change. We recognized that they wanted to have people put first. We recognized that they wanted a child care plan, which we see in the Supply Act. We recognized they wanted real measures done in the housing market. We recognized that they wanted bold action in the housing market. What have we got? A tepid response that, frankly, is botched up from its first introductions through the present day we are here.

I’m worried, because let me say that the measures that are being brought forward are not dealing with the problem there. If you want to tax speculation, tax speculation. But we’re not actually taxing speculation here. You could still here: buy a townhouse; take possession; flip that townhouse four times; pay zero property transfer tax because you bought it in a bare trust.

Government has known about this for months and years and railed on the B.C. Liberals to close that bare trust loophole. Have they done it? No. Why? Because they have to collect more data. How much more do we need to study these issues? How much more studying do we need? Clearly, too much, in that case, but what about the employer health benefit? Well, we don’t need to study that, even though we have a MSP tax panel to actually do just that.

We decide, as reflected in this Supply Act, that we know what the answer is. We struck a panel of distinguished academics who put their careers and credibility on the line to write a report on which government is going to base decisions, and government determines the way it’s going to deal with before their interim report is there. And it had to, because you don’t make budgetary decisions two days after an interim report is done.

What does that say that government is actually doing? Is it listening to the experts? Only on what it wants to listen to. Only on what it wants to delay, what it wants to kick down the road.

It’s not listening on the employer health premium — again, a piece of tax policy that, as far as we can tell, was introduced, realized it was done inappropriately. Now we’ve got the MSP panel coming in with their final report clearly articulating that they don’t approve or recommend the direction government has taken. How’s government going to respond? They’ve boxed themselves into a corner. They’re going to respond in a way that going to hurt schools and hospitals all across this province.

Now, they’ll say: “Okay, we’re going to cut it for the average person.” Yes, they will. They’ll cut it for the average person. And I get that there are unions out there — I was one of those negotiators — who’ve negotiated MSPs as part of a collective agreement, and it was costed against the settlement. I understand that. But what you do then…. I mean, there are also unions right now going back to their employer, saying: “You’re not going to have to pay that. Give us the money back.” Now the employer is getting doubly hit, because they’re going to get a health care tax. Not only are they going to get a tax, they’re going to get an increased tax.

I don’t understand the logic of this government not thinking this through and not recognizing that there are models out there and that you don’t hit the economy with a baseball bat. You recognize that there are problems. You send a signal to market, and you do so slowly, and you don’t make policy up in each individual press scrum.

I will quote one of the legislative reporters here who accurately assessed some emails, which my constituency office was sending out, suggesting that in fact the speculation tax wasn’t going to apply to British Columbians — because we heard, in press conferences, this government say just that.

They said just that — that it’s not going to apply to British Columbians. But in fact, it does. It’s applying, through a tax credit, not only in the problem area of Vancouver but in downtown Kelowna, which will absolutely devastate their economy, and in Parksville. The member for Parksville-Qualicum talked about a development that likely won’t go ahead. Parksville is a community that caters to — guess what — snowbirds, people from the prairies who are trying to escape the cold winters and come to Parksville for four or six months a year to live. Sometimes they rent out their home in the summer, for summer vacations. It’s a community whose entire economy is based on tourism — snowbirds and others.

What about if we go to Cultus Lake? I had a passionate plea from a citizen from Langley who said they just bought a house. They’ve been saving their life for a place in Cultus Lake. They’ve entered into a contract, and now they have to move from the contract and get out of it, out of fear that the speculation tax will apply to them. They’re afraid that they’re going to be sued, because government hasn’t given the market certainty as to the direction it wants to go. This is unacceptable.

We’re debating the Supply Act, where the government is asking: “So give us 2/12.” It should be 1/6. That’s actually a beautiful demonstration, Hon. Speaker, of what I’m saying. Get the numbers right. British Columbians deserve that. They deserve a signal. They deserve a real estate sector that actually deals with the problem — not Whac-a-Mole, where you put a foreign buyers’ tax in Victoria, and one in Nanaimo regional district. Guess what. You go to Cowichan Valley regional district.

There’s no difference between Cowichan Valley, CVRD, GVRD and Nanaimo. There are just a few arbitrary roads in between. So we Whac-a-Mole down here; we Whac-a-Mole up there. When you Whac-a-Mole in Nanaimo regional district, you’re going into the rural communities of Coombs and Errington regions. They’re not actually communities that have any housing problem. You’re going into these rural communities and Whac-a-Moling there. Meanwhile, you’re leaving Cowichan Valley open — pristine farmland that is being bought up and turned into mansions. But you’re not dealing with that.

The CEO of the Royal Bank has identified what the problem is. We know what that problem is. CIBC has identified the problem, by clamping down on foreign mortgages. This government is actually not viewing what the problem is. Instead, they’re viewing this tax, to generate revenue in the Supply Act that we’re debating, solely as a form of income to fund its other expenditures. That is reckless, and we deserve better. We deserve government to declare its agenda. We’ve given them a full eight months now, and we are waiting. We continue to wait to know what direction: what are they going to introduce? You promised a bunch of things. I sat here for years and watched private member’s bill after private member’s bill being introduced.

I come back to Dave Barrett. Ironically and sadly, we celebrated his life last week. In his first session in the spring, his government passed 93 bills, many of which are around today — one bill every three days over the short term. Here we are, government saying: “Trust us. We have an agenda. Give us some money now. We’ll kick it down the can, and we’ll vote again later. But we’re not really going to tell what you that agenda is, even though we’ve had so much time to do so. What we’re going to do is make up tax policy, on the fly in press scrums, creating chaos in the market.”

We deserve better. So while I stand in support of this Supply Act, because we must pay the government, I could say we have very serious issues with the budget implementation.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Well, people are joking: “Well, you have to support the Supply Act.” We have to. If we don’t support the Supply Act, basically, nobody gets paid, whether it be in schools or hospitals. The government shuts down. I mean, they do that in the U.S. all the time, and it seems to be okay, but we don’t want to do that here. We don’t want to do that here in Canada.

With that said, I say that now we have very serious issues with the way government is implementing the speculators tax and very serious issues with how the government is implementing the employers health tax. We have nothing now before us in legislation. We’re told it’s coming in the fall. Government has months to fix it. I expect them to fix it, because frankly, right now it’s unacceptable. Frankly, right now we need to have certainty.

I plead on government to stop making up tax policy on the fly, in press conferences. Give us certainty, so we know what’s going on, and stop scaring people across the province. They’re contacting me. They’re contacting our colleagues across…. They’re contacting members here. We deserve better.