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

Over the course of the last few months I have been working to raise awareness about the regressive approach British Columbia is taking to fund health care via flat-rate MSP premiums. I’ve been pressuring both the government and the official opposition to support a more progressive approach like that in place in Ontario.

I’ve written about this earlier and tabled a petition in the legislature of 6,662 British Columbians who agreed. Furthermore, during question period, I asked the Minister of Finance if the government would empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged. The Minister responded that he believed the mandate of the committee was sufficiently broad for “members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to”.

Following up on the Minister’s response, I formally wrote to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on April 17 asking two specific questions regarding the possibility of initiating a conversation with respect to the funding of MSP in British Columbia.

I received a response to my letter today.

The response was, to say the least, most disappointing. The Chair of the committee stated that “they consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Legislative Assembly”. Given the Minister’s response to my question during question period, this statement is most perplexing.

What’s even more troubling is that further in the letter, the Chair of the committee states:

“The Committee is currently working to identify potential strategies to ensure the sustainability and improvement of our health care system while ensuring its financial sustainability.”

Moving MSP premium funding from a regressive to a progressive system of funding is precisely one of the key ways we can ensure the financial sustainability of our healthcare system. I am astonished that the Committee has apparently not recognized this.

For those interested, the Select Standing Committee on Health has the following members:

Linda Larson  Liberal, Boundary-Similkameen (Chair)
Judy Darcy  NDP, New Westminster, (Deputy Chair)
Donna Barnett Liberal, Cariboo-Chilcotin
Dr. Doug Bing Liberal, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
Sue Hammell NDP, Surrey-Green Timbers
Richard T. Lee Liberal, Burnaby North
Dr. Darryl Plecas Liberal, Abbotsford South
Jennifer Rice NDP, North Coast
Bill Routley NDP, Cowichan Valley
Dr. Moira Stilwell Liberal, Vancouver-Langara

In January of this year I wrote about the importance of transforming our regressive approach to funding health care via flat-rate MSP premiums to a more progressive approach like that in place in Ontario. A month later I tabled a petition in the legislature of 6,662 British Columbians who agreed and then, during question period, I asked the Minister of Finance if the government would empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia. In his response, the Minister noted that he believed that the mandate of the committee was sufficiently broad for “members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to”. He further offered “and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.”

On April 13^th I followed up by formally writing to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee and asking two specific questions regarding the possibility of initiating a conversation with respect to the funding of MSP in British Columbia. Below is the text of my letter. I await a response.

Letter to the Select Standing Committee on Health

April 13^th, 2015

Mrs. Linda Larson, MLA and Chair
Select Standing Committee on Health
Room 224, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia
V8V 1X4

Dear Mrs. Larson,

I am writing to you with respect to the question that I raised during question period earlier this session concerning Medical Services Plan (MSP) premiums. Minister de Jong’s response suggested that this Select Standing Committee on Health’s mandate could include a discussion regarding how MSP Premiums are collected.

Every month single British Columbians earning over $30,000 pay $72 in MSP premiums. This health insurance plan plays an important role, providing funding for medically required services, however in the last fifteen years fees have doubled. Furthermore the cost remains the same whether someone makes $30,000 or $300,000 a year. British Columbia’s regressive approach to collecting MSP Premiums unfairly burdens those least able to bear it and increases pressure on small business owners.

I believe that it’s time for B.C. to replace MSP premiums with a more progressive and equitable approach to funding our health care system. Overhauling our current, regressive approach would be a positive step in addressing poverty and income inequality, and ensuring a sustainable health care system for now, and future generations.

With this in mind I stood in the house and asked the Finance Minister to expand the Select Standing Committee on Health’s terms of reference to allow for the committee to examine more progressive and more innovative ways of charging MSP Premiums. He responded,

“I think the power exists now. I think the committee, charged as it is to ‘examine the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians’ […] I think that’s probably sufficiently broad for members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to, and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.”

He pointed to two specific sections of the terms of reference. The committee has been empowered to:

Outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers identified in the Report on the sustainability and improvement of the provincial health care system;

                  Consider health capital funding options.

I recognize that the committee has already begun reviewing submissions regarding rural health, addiction recovery, integrated teams and end of life care. I also recognize that the committee has decided to first look at the submissions it has received, in fairness to those who have given them. Going forward I have the following questions for the committee:

1. The Select Standing Committee on Health has been given the task of examining the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians. Their terms of reference came from the Finance Minister who has stated that, in his opinion, they are sufficiently broad for members of the discuss MSP Premiums. This regressive tax generates 2.3 billion dollars in government revenue, comparable to corporate income taxes. This tax can be charged in a more equitable fashion. I believe this is a conversation that British Columbians deserve and that this committee is an appropriate venue. Will the Select Standing Committee on Health agree to include MSP Premiums as part of their next discussion and call for submissions?
2. When first given this new mandate the committee was given the option to consider both the original and the new mandates, concurrently. This option is still available. The committee can begin discussing their new terms of reference without taking away from the submissions review. This would allow for more clarity and could allow the committee to begin a new call for submissions while still reviewing those they have already received. I recognize that proper deliberation requires time and should not be rushed. With this in mind would the committee be open to discussing their expanded terms of reference at the same time as they review their current submissions?

I look forward to the committee’s response and thank the members for their time.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Cc: Judy Darcy, Deputy Chair

Earlier today the BC government announced that they would be increasing the minimum wage by $0.20 and implementing a process to further increase it every September, based on increases to B.C.’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).

While I am sure we can all agree that minimum wage needs to increase and that tying it to the CPI is a good thing, in my view, this announcement is merely the latest iteration of a highly politicized process for determining increases to the minimum wage.

I think it’s time we changed the way minimum wage is determined. We need to get politics out of the process as much as possible. This isn’t wishful thinking – we only have to look at the steps Ontario is taking to develop a better way forward.

In June of 2013, the Ontario government struck a Minimum Wage Advisory Panel to examine Ontario’s minimum wage policy and provide advice on an approach for determining minimum wages in the future. The panel was made up of two business representatives, one organized labour representative, one non-union employee representative and one youth representative. They engaged in a wide sweeping consultation with Ontarians from all sectors of the economy. They held town halls in ten cities, and accepted submissions online, through mail and on their website.

This process culminated in the January 2014 release of the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel Report and Recommendations to the Minister of Labour.

This is a substantial document and I encourage anyone interested in this topic to give it a read. It is very thorough provides the reader with the research and debates surrounding minimum wage policy. It is not an ideological document, but rather willingly highlights controversial issues and the need for further study.

What is important to note right away is that the public feedback the panel received contained a “near universal agreement on making the process of revising minimum wages more transparent, predictable, fair and arms-length from government’s own near-term concerns.”

This was missing from today’s announcement about the B.C. increase — it was yet another political move that wasn’t actually addressing the full extent of the problem. Annual increases tied to inflation will only ensure minimum wage doesn’t fall further behind, rather than asking whether it still has some catching up to do before indexing minimum wage to the B.C. Consumer Price Index.

The Ontario Panel wasn’t tasked with determining if the minimum wage should go up, or what the baseline value should be, but rather to advise how a process could be developed that would address multiply stakeholders concerns. For business, predictability and gradual increases (as opposed to big increases all at once) are important; for labour and those employed at the minimum wage, it’s critical that a process be established that would protect them from falling behind while ensuring careful consideration was being taken to set a rate that improved quality of life.

The fact is, changes to the minimum wage can have wide spread, and not always obvious impacts on the economy. This report does an excellent job of canvassing the research on the economic impact of minimum wages on a variety of factors, including wage distribution, low-wage workers, education and poverty. Almost universally, the research available about the impacts of minimum wage increases is not overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, but instead suggests the need for careful and considered policy, rather than using the minimum wage to accomplish political ends.

This is particularly true when it comes to using minimum wage policy to fight poverty. For this purpose, minimum wage is a very blunt tool.

For starters, the demographics of people earning minimum wage limits its effectiveness as a measure to fight against poverty. A large number of those earning minimum wage are in fact students, many who are still living at home with their parents. Furthermore, the report points out that many minimum wage jobs are often taken as stepping stones to higher paying jobs.

This is not to suggest that minimum wage policy has no role to play in fighting poverty. Rather minimum wage is just one of a suite of policies that could and should be advanced, including housing first, skills training and taxation reform, etc. As the panel noted:

“Any linkage between the minimum wage and poverty needs to be situated within the context of various other measures to address poverty…”

It is also important that we don’t limit the description of poverty to those earning the minimum wage. There is a large gap between the minimum wage in British Columbia and the living wage – that is the minimum wage needed to ensure you are meeting your basic needs. We need to ensure that we are providing the supports for people throughout this range of incomes.

The report from the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel concludes with 4 key recommendations:

Recommendation #1: Minimum wages should be revised annually by a percentage equal to the percent change in the Ontario Consumer Price Index.

Recommendation #2: Minimum wages should be revised annually, and a minimum four months’ notice of any wage change should be provided. The effective date of minimum wage changes should be April 1 of the following year. This would result in notification by December 1 of the previous year.

Recommendation #3: The Government should undertake a full review of the minimum wage rate and the revision process every five years. This review should be conducted by a panel of stakeholders and a neutral chair. The mandate of this Panel would be to review Ontario’s past experience with minimum wage revisions within the context of Ontario’s social and economic progress and prevailing practices in other jurisdictions to recommend changes that could better serve Ontario’s future needs.

Recommendation #4: To aid the full review process, and to ensure that Ontario’s minimum wage policies are in step with the needs of it’s citizens, the Government should establish an ongoing research program for data and information gathering its subsequent analysis to address policy-relevant minimum wage issues.

Some of these recommendations will look similar to today’s announcement in British Columbia – and indeed there are flashes of good policy in what the British Columbia government has proposed. Committing to an annual increase to the minimum wage tied to the British Columbia CPI is exactly what was recommended in Ontario. However the policy in British Columbia remains incomplete until we properly de-politicize it. That will take a commitment from the government to empower a properly independent panel to conduct the necessary consultations to determine what the appropriate minimum wage level is, and how future increases will be achieved and reviewed as time moves forward.

At the end of the day, my own view is that the minimum wage is certainly too low. However, I wouldn’t be able to point to a specific number that I believe is the “right” place for a minimum wage. We need an independent, non partisan British Columbia panel to conduct an exercise similar to what was done in Ontario, but expand its mandate to recommend a new minimum wage that puts the needs of British Columbians first.

Rather than pulling a number out of a hat, advancing clear, evidence-based policy on minimum wage that is arms-length from government would end the cycle of putting politics first, and instead start making working people the top priority.

Today in Estimates I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation two questions concerning poverty, homelessness and affordability. I ended up not asking the third question. Earlier in the day government announced changes to the support for single parents on income or disability assistance; yesterday government also announced changes to the support for families with children who receive income assistance.

My third question would have been:

“In the Premier’s mandate letter to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation on June 10, 2014, the Ministry was mandated to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide options to Cabinet that will ensure barriers are removed for single mothers looking to develop their skills to secure long-term employment. Given that lone-mother families are at a much higher risk of living in poverty than lone-father families and couple families, this mandate is important for addressing BC’s growing child poverty rate. What has the Ministry done over the last year to ensure that this mandate is met and what steps does this budget take to improve upon the work that is already being done?”

Based on the disappointing answers I received on my first two questions, I expected that I would simply be told about the two recent announcements government made.

Below I reproduce the exchange between the Minister and me.

Question

On plans to increase income assistance rates

A. Weaver: I recognize that a version of this question may have been asked. I’ve just got three questions. I am trying to put together the answers so that I can use them in the further work that we’re doing in my riding on the issue of poverty.

The first question is with respect to income assistance rates in B.C. which, as the minister will know, have not increased since 2007, with maximum monthly shelter allowance for a single individual on income assistance set at $375.

As of April 2013 the average monthly rent paid by someone on income assistance in greater Victoria was $501. These monthly rent rates are consistent throughout the province, if not even more in some jurisdictions.

My question is this. Does the minister have plans to increase income assistance and shelter allowance rates in order to keep up with inflation and market pricing? If not, why not?

Answer

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member: I expected you to provide questions to me ahead of time like you give everybody else, but thank you for your question.

We acknowledge that it is very challenging for people who are living on income assistance, and we have definitely made the commitment to raise the rates when the fiscal situation allows. But most importantly, we continue to refine the policies that we have within my ministry and within other ministries, as we saw today with the announcement we made for single parents. We’ve also made the announcement a few months ago about the annualized earnings exemptions for persons with a disability, the child support exemptions, the increase in exemptions that we saw yesterday. There are ways that we can refine the policies in the meantime while we continue to try and make life better for those individuals who rely on us most.

Question

On plans to increase support for brain injury survivors

A. Weaver: I do apologize for not providing questions in advance. I normally do that. I’m just not that organized now because there are so many bills that are coming before us so quickly. They’re coming up so fast that I’m unable to actually stay more than, like, half a day ahead of this.

Here’s my second surprise question. Studies have found that 52 percent of people on the streets have brain injuries. Approximately 74 percent of those individuals had their brain injury before becoming homeless. Given these findings and the fact that responsibility for social assistance programs falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, has the ministry considered working with the Ministry of Health to address the need for improved supports and services for brain injury survivors?

Answer

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, we do actively work with and in partnership with the Ministry of Health but also with health authorities, other non-profits, B.C. Housing, multiple partnerships around. When it comes to the Ministry of Health, we use our ACT Teams with the outreach to ensure that the homeless, including those who are brain-injured, are actively brought into the income or disability system.

Most likely, a person with a brain injury would qualify for PWD, and we would have expedited services for access to the Medical Service Plan and the PharmaCare plan as well. I certainly recognize and acknowledge the concern that you’ve brought forward.