Today in the legislature we debated at second reading Bill 45 – 2018: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act.

Earlier in the day the Finance Minister and I held a joint press conference (see press release reproduced below). In this press conference we provided details concerning the agreement that we had reached in order to assure that the bill passed. In particular, government has agreed to support three BC Green amendments:

• The first amendment requires that mayors from affected municipalities be part of an annual review process with the Minister of Finance;
• The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from;
• The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British Columbians – it brings the rate for Canadians down to 0.5%.

As I note in my second reading speech (reproduced below), these amendments, combined with the modifications government has already implemented in its tabled legislation, are such that the BC Green Caucus will now support the bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Please let me start by acknowledging the remarks, and thoughtful remarks they were, from the member for Kelowna West. I hope to be addressing some of the concerns he raised in the process of him outlining some of the issues from his particular riding and some of the concerns he received which were similar to some that I received. I also want to acknowledge the talk from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast who also brought some important information to this debate.

In this debate, I’ll say to start, I’m the designated speaker on this issue. I’m not going to be too long, but I will probably go just beyond the half-hour mark. I’m going to outline my comments in a number of ways, in a format that starts with a broad introduction to what I would argue is a crisis here in terms of affordability in British Columbia. I’ll follow that up with a little bit of a discussion about how the speculation tax was rolled out.

I think my comments will jibe with some of the comments made by the member for Kelowna West in particular. I’ll highlight some statements made in the messaging early on and some of the subsequent changes that occurred leading up to the actual legislation being introduced. Then I’ll move, in my address, to discuss some of the concerns I’ve raised consistently, such as treating Canadians equally, as well as the concerns I’ve had with respect to meaningful consultation with local governments.

And some of the concerns I’ve had with the ability of some strata, for example, or some districts that have no rental, secondary suite or tourist commercial zoning, so you can’t actually, even if you wanted to, rent out your unit because of existing laws, legislation or bylaws. Then I’ll talk a little bit about some of the land under development issue, an issue that I spent a good deal of time on, as the member from Kelowna West raised, specifically with respect to the uncertainty that this created in the development sector. Some of the other issues I raised were the impacts on British Columbians who, frankly, aren’t speculators. I’ll go through a number of personal stories. I’ll then move towards the whole issue of reaching this agreement with respect to amendments that I’ll be putting forward with government, and trying to address how those came about, to provide a public record of the process.

Then finally, I’ll conclude with what I believe is critical: the need for ongoing monitoring of what’s being implemented, to ensure that we are not, as legislators, overly interfering in the market but rather that we ensure the purpose of this tax. This, fundamentally, is to recognize that leaving homes vacant in a market with zero vacancies creates a social externality that should be internalized, somehow, to those leaving the properties vacant, until such time as vacancy rates improve.

To the introduction of the housing crisis: without any doubt in my mind, there are a number of communities where affordability has reached crisis proportions. Those are, predominantly, the urban centres in our province — in particular, the regions of Victoria and Kelowna — Vancouver is the poster child of this issue — and Nanaimo. This is a crisis facing an entire generation of millennials, who literally cannot find a place to rent, who literally cannot afford a place to purchase, who are struggling to actually live anywhere near where they can work.

We’re seeing a generation starting to move away. We just had the community move into Oak Bay — the tent community, just yesterday, of homeless people in Victoria who cannot get a place to live. This is an issue that’s moving around the province. We’ve got, in talking to business, a crisis in terms of attracting and retaining highly skilled workers. If you talk to those in the tech sector, the single biggest issue for the tech sector is the attraction and retention of highly skilled workers. They cannot pay the salaries that other jurisdictions are paying, yet the cost of living has gone through the roof.

This isn’t a problem in parts of British Columbia. There’s no doubt that for some parts of British Columbia, this isn’t an issue, but certainly, in some of our urban issues, affordability has reached crisis levels. We know the offshore money that has been flowing into our market — both in terms of speculation as well as through some nefarious activities that the Attorney General has been looking at — needs to be dealt with, but I’ve always argued that in doing so, in trying to treat the issue of foreign capital coming into British Columbia, we need to be sure that we protect Canadians and British Columbians.

Now the government’s approach was to introduce something called a speculation tax, initially. It’s now changed, and I’m actually pleased with the change of the name. I think it’s far more appropriate. It’s now called the speculation and vacancy tax. The vacancy component is critical, because the speculation component, in my view, largely applies to the offshore money.

We wouldn’t have done this. I’ve already pointed out that the approach of our party would have been to bring in place a New Zealand–style approach — to actually say: “You know what? If you want to own property in our nation or in our jurisdiction, you must be paying taxes here.” This is what New Zealand does, this is what Australia has done, and this is what many European countries do.

The idea here, of course, is that we are not living in a free market for investment in real estate and land. You and I cannot buy a home in New Zealand. We cannot buy a home in Denmark. We cannot buy a home on the coast of Mexico. We cannot buy a home in Australia. The idea here, of course, is that these other jurisdictions have recognized that when there are small local population centres and seven billion people in the world, the influence of external capital on small domestic markets can be profound. This happened in British Columbia.

Our approach was to be different from what was the government’s approach. We wanted to initiate that ban on foreign purchase. When I say “foreign,” it doesn’t matter what passport you own. It means where you’re living and paying taxes.

Now, we’re not government. There are three B.C. Green MLAs in this Legislature that got elected by 17 percent of the popular vote in British Columbia. We recognize that in not forming government, we are not able to actually initiate a ban, New Zealand–style, on foreign capital flow.

But we’ve certainly supported, and I have certainly supported all the way through, government’s efforts to deal with some of the aspects of foreign money coming in, whether it be through dealing with money laundering, whether it be through the foreign buyer tax and, more importantly, dealing with the issue of satellite families.

Now, satellite families are defined in this legislation, and we’ll be exploring that further at committee stage…. These are families where you might have one person in the family working elsewhere, paying all their taxes elsewhere, living in, say, Point Grey or Oak Bay or Vancouver-Quilchena, living in a $5 million home and declaring taxable income of $20, accessing our health care system, accessing our social services, accessing our education system but paying taxes in other jurisdictions which are not declared here in British Columbia.

To me, this so-called satellite family is actually…. Again, the cost of them actually being part of our society and living in these homes is not being internalized. The taxes are paid elsewhere, but the benefits are collected here. The government’s approach here — I wholeheartedly, and I have done so since day one…. This is dealing with the so-called satellite family.

Over the months, I’ve pointed out numerous concerns to government. This decision we came to today to introduce three amendments was not something that was taken lightly. I saw this legislation for the first time when it was introduced…. It’s likely…. It’s been such a blur with these, like burning the midnight oil. It could have been yesterday or the day before now. It’s just been one big, long blur, in terms of negotiation.

But when it was first introduced, I saw this, and I was pleased with some of the additions. One of these critical additions was identified by the member from West Kelowna. As the member from West Kelowna pointed out, when government first introduced this speculation tax, I would argue the details had not been thought through.

One of those critical details was: what about development of land? What about, if you have accumulated some land and you’re going to build townhouses and condos to sell to British Columbians, to Canadians, and, in doing so, you’re waiting for permits, you’re waiting to actually ensure that you get construction built? It takes a few years. That’s not speculation.

I’m absolutely thrilled — after meeting with the UDI, developers in Vancouver and Kelowna and all across B.C., bringing these concerns directly to government — the government listened and the government has actually included in here exemption, during the development of land, of a speculation tax. That was critical.

I suspect some, but not all, of the correspondence that the member from West Kelowna had — with respect to uncertainty and construction on hold — is a direct consequence of the uncertainty. We have now seen certainty.

I agree with the member from West Kelowna. It would’ve been awfully nice if, when the tax was first implemented or announced back in March, the certainty had been given to the market. Because I, like the member from West Kelowna, believe that market uncertainty is not a good thing, because you have projects going on hold. You have projects potentially walking. You have people then speculating on the uncertainty. So I completely agree there. But I am pleased that this has been dealt with.

Not all the concerns have been dealt with. Not everything has been addressed. I spent, after seeing this, a bill come out — and I’ll come to some of the things that have been addressed — many, many hours. My staff spent many, many hours trying to actually get to the a fundamental position where we could actually support the overarching structure of this bill, recognizing that there’s still work that needs to be done. I’ll also identify some of those things, and there is time to fix some of these things.

In my view, good government works when people work together. I recognize that it’s a much more difficult position for official opposition, and I recognized that when this government now was in opposition. It’s more difficult for official opposition to actually constructively work with government because of the setup we have in our legislative structure.

As a small third party, we have a duty and a responsibility to British Columbians to be responsible with the so-called power, the so-called influence, that we have. That duty and responsibility is to ensure that we listen and communicate our concerns and do what we can, through collaboration and compromise, to come to a situation, to come to development of good legislation, to policy that we think tempers some of what was introduced and reflects some of the concerns, but not all, that allows us to support the policy moving forward — with the recognition that this is not what we would have done. This is not what we have done.

What happened with the speculation tax and the budget rollout? Again, the member for Kelowna West articulated this quite well. When it was first announced, nobody knew the details. I didn’t know the details. The member for Kelowna West didn’t know the details. In fact, government suggested to the media — the Premier suggested — that British Columbians were fully exempt from the tax. I thought they were fully exempt from the tax. In fact, my constituency office sent out an email assuring my constituents and those who contacted me that British Columbians were exempt from the tax, based on the information I received directly from listening to the Premier.

Well, you can imagine I was a little bit surprised when I read Vaughn Palmer’s article pointing out that I was sending out incorrect information. He was right, and I acknowledged he was right. He was right in that an information bulletin had been put out that was inconsistent with the messaging and the language that had been said by government. This is not good for certainty.

This was, quite frankly, from my perspective, somewhat embarrassing. I don’t like to send out wrong information. We did our best to correct it, to do that, and, at that point, realized that we were going to have to spend a lot of time on this file.

We started pushing government to fix some things. We recognized that the issue of the housing crisis is not a rural issue. It is largely an urban issue. So in the act, you’ll see that, for example, we pushed to get some of these islands out. There were islands in the Nanaimo regional district — which was excluded — that had no electricity and no power and no rental market which were included because of what was done in the metrics to determine it. They were used, basically, over broad, regional districts, instead of over urban areas.

What we were able to do was to get government to focus this initially on the urban areas, where there is more of a problem. Some areas, like Saltspring Island, do have rental issues. However, it’s a very complex issue there, as well, and ongoing work with the rental task force, I understand. My good colleague here from Saanich North and the Islands will be discussing that, I’m sure, when he speaks to this bill. There are issues that still need to be worked out.

In March, government announced a few changes that it had made. These included reducing the rates for British Columbians and Canadians,  and ensuring, in particular, that the tax didn’t apply to rural and vacation areas. One of the issues, again…. This was very relevant to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Cultus Lake, in the initial version, was included. I think Harrison Hot Springs may have been included as well.

Again, these we pointed out. We directly took the emails from your constituents — I’m sure you probably did as well — do not pass go, to government, saying: “How does it make sense for Cultus Lake, which is not an urban centre, for Harrison Hot Springs, to actually be included in a speculation tax, when their markets are quite different from, say, South Surrey or Tsawwassen or Burnaby or Nanaimo or Victoria?”

So government did remove much of the rural aspects and focused on the urban. That was signalled out in March.

Even since then, I pointed out that I’m struggling, because the speculation tax was first introduced in the budget. I’ve heard scores and scores of stories of individual cases, over the last eight months or so, of people who’s asked: “Am I included? Am I not included? Am I here? Am I not there? What does this mean?”

This took a lot of work, honestly. It took a lot of work to try to put together a detailed understanding of the complexity of this issue, of the complexity of what government was trying to accomplish with the introduction of a tax that essentially says that we want to create an internalization of that externality associated with leaving vacant property in areas that have low vacancy rates.

Many of these examples were brought forward. Many, many meetings were had. But the issue, of course, was that we didn’t know to what extent government was listening. We didn’t know to what extent government was listening until this bill was actually introduced, sometime in the last 72 hours, which have been a complete blur to me based on the fact that…. When was it?

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Tuesday. Thank you. This was introduced on Tuesday.

When this came out, I was, as I mentioned, glad to see that government had listened — in many, but not all, examples. For example, there were exemptions for people who obviously should not be hit, where being hit with the tax would cause significant financial hardship. Some of the specific cases I raised to government were included.

For example, people that own a second home in a city because they need medical treatment. There are people in British Columbia who have to go and own a home in a particular area because they’re required for medical reasons to come and report periodically to that area. They have been exempted.

People who have secondary suites. For example, if you are in the community of Kelowna West and you live in Alberta and use your home in the summer but you have a secondary suite on your property, that secondary suite would grant exemption for the entire property. This isn’t without its own problems. For example, in the district of Oak Bay, where I am from, or where I represent, rather, the district does not allow secondary suites. So there are some issues there that we still need to canvass.

Government listened in terms of examples brought forward about couples who own two homes. One home is where one spouse works; one home is where the other spouse works. They don’t work in the same city, but they’re still together. It seemed outrageous to penalize married or partners who happen to come together and formally, you know, take vows and commit to marriage — to penalize them because they had two properties, one of which was being used by one spouse and one by the other. Government listened.

The issue of strata properties, areas zoned as commercial, where you can’t rent out places. Again, government listened. Lands that are vacant or under development. Again, government listened. I’m pleased that the UDI, whom I met with numerous times on this file…. Ann McMullin recently said that when they saw the legislation, they were pleased that government committed today that they will exempt lands under development from this tax. So the UDI is actually pleased. This is a very, very important exemption, because we cannot address affordability if we start passing on a speculation tax to purchasers of condos and townhouses which were actually being built for affordability purposes. It’s a good government lesson there.

There are still issues to deal with. Let me go through a few personal stories first, because I think it’s important to get a sense of some of the issues that I’m going to canvass more extensively in committee stage. Committee stage, as is known in this House, is critical for us to get interpretation of this legislation for broader application. There are some real subtleties as to how this tax will be introduced that government obviously has yet to capture.

In a briefing we had on the introduction of the tax plus some hours in72…. Again, it’s been a blur. I was asking some of the issues directly in the briefing. It’s clear that government has attempted a commonsense approach not to harm people who are not speculating. However, there are going to be examples that have yet to be dealt with. I can think of one example that needs to be discussed where, for no reason other than you’ve actually got a house that’s old, your house happens to be built on two city lots. In terms of the registration of your city lots, you have one house, but there are two lots. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to pay a spec tax because 100 years ago the lot zoning was the way it was. So there are some oddities there where we have to look out.

I don’t know to what extent there are other jurisdictions out there where boundaries of actual lots span multiple zones. For example, there are houses in Oak Bay that have some of their property in Oak Bay and part of the property in Victoria. Now, to what extent does that exist in the province of British Columbia on the edges of the areas covered? I’m sure there are properties in Nanaimo, in the CRD, in Kelowna West and elsewhere where most of the property is in the contained area but some of it isn’t.

These are issues that government may have not yet thought through and that hopefully will be canvassed during committee stage to get some clarification.

I’ve had people who own a house, a strata building that doesn’t allow rentals, contact me. I’ve had people who’ve invested in Victoria, in places that are zoned tourist commercial — specifically designed for short-term rentals. The zoning actually requires short-term rentals and doesn’t allow long-term rentals.

Again, this was partly dealt with in this legislation, essentially by saying that in the affected years 2018 and 2019, these areas — tourist commercial–type zoning or stratas with no rental clause — are not going to be subject. I still have issues there with respect to secondary suites in municipalities that don’t allow secondary suites officially to be zoned. Can you officially declare a secondary suite when, officially, you’re not allowed to have one? There are issues there that I hope to canvass.

I’m hoping that my good friend from the riding of Vancouver–West End and also my good friend from the riding of Saanich North and the Islands will be thinking about the issue of stratas and actually whether or not we in British Columbia are getting close to getting to where Ontario already is. In Ontario, you cannot actually have a no-rental clause, a long-term rental clause in a strata. Stratas are empowered with the power of eviction. That’s important. You can say — and it has been tested in court — no short-term rentals. But you cannot own property and put a no-rental clause on it.

I’m hoping that this committee takes a good, hard look at that because it is an issue. It’s an important issue. If you’re going to apply a speculation tax on somebody because they’re not renting it out but the strata has said you can’t rent it out, there are two components here that are important. One, there’s a real investment opportunity here for British Columbia, if we’re able to invest in new construction in strata units that allow rentals, there’s the ability to attract capital to our province to create new investment. But secondly, there’s a lot of stock in the market that potentially could be sold, if people are friends of this speculation tax, and that would otherwise not be sold and would be rented out. So it’s win-win-win, if we start to think about this in greater detail.

One of the other issues I’ve had e-mails on is…. There have been issues with respect to transition of home ownership. I’ve had couples who own two homes, in the midst of trying to sell one and move to another. One example was a constituent that had a house in Surrey, moving to Saanich. Actually, the housing crisis in our area is largely associated with people saying: “I can cash in, in the Metro Vancouver region and get a lot more over here and live well thereafter.”

This particular family had a house in Surrey and one in Saanich. They wanted to move, both areas subject to a spec tax. They were concerned that in trying to sell their home, they would be subject to a spec tax on one of their homes. Well, in fact, here we have that transition clause, which I think is important to canvass further in committee stage but which does address this particular issue.

I’ve had similar ones with a couple coming from Kelowna, moving to Victoria. Again, same thing. We seem to get a lot of people coming to Victoria to retire, and they’ve lived in other parts of B.C. They’re really worried about selling a home in one place and buying it in another. That transition amount is actually critical there, and we’re seeing that legislation brought forward in what we were shown on Tuesday.

A couple of people have told me similar stories, from the Kootenays, buying in Victoria to retire here. They recently bought. They’re worried that they’ll be hit by a speculation tax. Their child is actually living in the home now, but they’re worried that they’ll be subject to this. There are issues here with respect to whether or not that arms-length or non-arms-length allowance of the son living in the house while he might be attending the University of Victoria, for example, while they’re planning to return, was considered speculation or not.

It turns out, again, people like this have some coverage as per the legislation. Again, we have to canvass this further in committee stage.

One of the most profound issues brought to me was Canadians saying that this is not fair. “I am being taxed at a different rate living in Ontario, compared to living in B.C. Why is it that the rate is 1 percent for me in Ontario to one-half a percent for me in B.C.?” This one really struck it hard. I’m a Canadian first, I’m a British Columbian second, and third, I am actually a person from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. We are all Canadians, and to me and our party it’s critical that we treat Canadians equally.

One of the issues here that really took midnight oil being burned was working with government to ensure that they recognized that the tax rate for British Columbians and Canadians — making that difference was simply not acceptable.

This, again, will not deal with all of the issues raised by the member for Kelowna West, but I can say that when it goes 1 percent to one-half a percent, that actually affects a lot of decision-making for people that I know who have homes in West Kelowna but may live in Alberta and spend four months of the year there. The one-half a percent makes a significant difference in terms of the amount that one would pay. It’s not perfect. It’s not what we would do, but it’s significantly less than what would otherwise be.

One could argue, as government does, that what it’s doing is while it’s still encouraging development through this exemption of land under development, at the same time, it’s saying: “You know what? There’s an external social cost to developing property that is vacant that needs to be internalized by those who leave the property vacant.”

That external cost now is not differentiated between the rate…. It’s not differentiated between British Columbians and other Canadians. That is one of the amendments, which I’m working on now with legislative drafters, that we’ve kindly been given access to through this government to ensure it’s brought forward at committee stage for this bill.

I agreed with these Canadians that they pay taxes. They may not have paid taxes in B.C., but they pay taxes in Canada. I have a problem with the way the taxation system is in Canada, and we can come to this more in question period. I’m sure we will. Right now we know that a lot of people retire in British Columbia. Part of the reason why we have an affordability crisis is that we are the destination of choice in Canada for retirement.

If you look at the amount of money spent as a function of age in the health care system, it’s also really clear that you spend more as people get closer and closer to the end of their life. The older they are, the more they cost the health care system. We also know that the demographic of places like Vancouver Island and B.C. as a whole is older than other jurisdictions in Canada. So people are paying taxes in other jurisdictions and accessing our health care system here, but our Canada health transfer does not recognize age. It is not weighted by age.

Our Canada health transfer shorts British Columbia to the tune of $200 million to $300 million. Based on a simple calculation, we should be getting age-weighted cost transfers, not per-person cost. Had we been getting $200 million to $300 million more in health care transfers under the Canada Health Act, we’d have $200 million to $300 million more we could put directly into health care.

It means $200 million to $300 million more not coming out of other budgets and going into health care. It means we could have been spending $200 million to $300 million more in affordability and housing every single year. This needs to be dealt with, and this is something we will continue to push on in the years ahead.

I’ve had lots of people contact me. I have a good deal of sympathy for the member for Kelowna West. I’ve had a good deal of his constituents contact me as well. I understand some of the issues that are there, and it’s put us in a very difficult position. We’ve done many, many hours of trying to ensure that we reflect the values that we’ve been trying to instill, that Canadians are treated equally. I’ll come back to that the mayors are consulted, as well as that money stays in the local community.

Examples have been given. There are two professors in the family. They’re not hurting financially. One professor works at UBC, one professor works at UBC Okanagan, and they have two places. They were both initially living in one place, and the other would have been treated as spec tax. They were getting very confused. Now we have a recognition that with married couples there’s an exemption for them.

Again, I had a very compelling email just today from a woman whose family home is in Surrey. Yet this woman was a teacher who worked in downtown Vancouver. This family home in Surrey had her elderly mother staying in it. She didn’t want to sell it. Clearly, it was in her name. But she had a condo in Vancouver because she couldn’t fathom that commute every day to teach in the elementary schools or the school system in Vancouver. So she stayed in a condo during the workweek and lived with her mother in her home on the weekends and during the summer. The question is: would she be covered under a spec tax?

I’m virtually certain, based on the exemptions that have been put here based on government listening to the numerous feedbacks that have been given to it, that they will not be covered. They are exempt. Again, I’ll explore that story in detail during committee stage.

I could go on and on with other stories. But I think you’ve got the point that in fact, there are many examples — secondary suites — that can’t be listened to, that have to be dealt with and so on, so forth. The stories are endless. Again, I’m sure other members opposite will provide more stories. I believe the member for Chilliwack-Kent may be speaking very shortly. I’m sure he has similar stories to offer as well.

The concerns I’ve had coming back to this issue that have not been addressed in this bill as of now, I have highlighted on an ongoing basis over the past eight months. Honestly, this bill does not deal with flipping. It still doesn’t deal with somebody who buys a home, leaves it vacant for nine months, flips it out — they’ll have to pay a capital gain — buys another home and flips it out.

We’re not dealing with flipping here. So we’re going to continue to actually do what we can to ensure that this aspect of speculation is actually looked at. We’re collecting data now on British Columbia in terms of the presale of condos offshore.

Again, we’re not dealing with some of the aspects of presale flipping as well. There is some that can occur. I know that members opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, introduced a private member’s bill that would require the flipping of a presales condo. If you actually did that, that you would have to report 50 percent of the actual profit as income.

That, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, isn’t going to do anyone any good because, essentially, that bill says: “If you’re going to break the law, you shouldn’t,” because you already have to declare 100 percent of that flipping income as a capital gain.

So this isn’t dealing with the actual issue. We need to have realistic solutions. That is the difficult position we’ve been put in as a small, three-member caucus working in between two large parties, one which is government and one which is not. We see our role as working to ensure that government policy is better, at the same time as doing what we can to continue to move forward this issue to deal with some of the real aspects of speculation.

Government has taken some steps with respect to hidden ownership to get at trust, beneficial and corporate ownership. We, frankly, don’t think they’ve done it as aggressively as it should be done. We know that government has taken steps to actually deal with potential money from nefarious activity entering real estate. We don’t think they’ve done it fast enough. We have been pushing for more progressive action on no rental clauses with, of course, a provision that the power of eviction be granted to strata.

Government, we think, also needs to ensure that people know that they’re dealing with a common sense approach in this legislation. We haven’t given up on this.

In the briefing that I had yesterday, plus some hours the last little while, one of the questions we asked is: what is the intention? You’ve made these changes. Why these ones, and not these ones? The information I got, which we hope to explore further in committee stage, was that government is trying to take a common sense approach to ensure that most things most people who are just regular people are not captured by this speculation and vacancy tax.

But it’s really targeting the overall goal of affordability, which is when you leave homes vacant for no other reason, you’re creating an externality of social cost that is going to be partially internalized.

We know one of the things that does exist here is in the legislation, there is an appeals process. But again, appeals processes that aren’t publicly brought forward, aren’t communicated, aren’t demonstrated, will not be known about. So we’re pushing to ensure that the public understands that they may have certain criteria that government hasn’t actually realized exists.

The one I just gave an example of is a property that may straddle two regions. I’m sure there are some, because there are properties in Oak Bay where half the house is in Oak Bay and the other half is in Victoria. Go figure that one. But they exist. There must be properties on the boundaries of some of these urban areas that have similar issues.

There must be a mechanism that people know that they can bring these issues forward and get a response in a timely fashion, subject to the commonsense kind of approach of ensuring that regular people are not being hurt.

With that said, after reading this bill, after going through many months…. This has been not just one or two meetings. It has been months. I’m sure, again, the member from West Kelowna, as somebody who’s quite passionate on this file, has also spent many, many hours on this file. After many, many hours, seeing this legislation…. In my view, in our view as a caucus, it still needed to go further. It still needed to go further in three more ways.

Over the past number of months, inspired by those myriad stories in my in-box and the many conversations with people in industry, with homeowners, mayors of affected areas, I’ve consistently raised concerns with government’s proposed approach to the speculation tax.

In particular, I say it again, I had these three critical areas. The first is that need for local governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens in their communities. The second is the fact that Canadians should not be paying higher rates than British Columbians. The third is the need to limit the unfair impacts on Canadian homeowners who are not speculators.

Again, these have come through the myriad stories, the hard work…. I thank the constituents, the other British Columbians, the member for Kelowna West and all of those people who emailed from across Canada for their input on this.

I do regret…. I agree, again, with the member from West Kelowna that the uncertainty that has been created has not been helpful, has not been helpful for the investment in Kelowna, has not been helpful for investment in the capital regional district.

However, I think today we have certainty. We have certainty in the legislation in terms of the land being developed. We have certainty in terms of our support for this legislation, subject to government’s supporting the three amendments we’re going bring forward. And we have certainty in allowing us to move forward.

Let me come to the three amendments, and I’ll speak to each of these in detail, that I’ll be bringing forward.

The first amendment requires mayors from affected municipalities be part of an annual review process with the Minister of Finance. Now, at cynical first look, you might think that that amendment is just saying: “The minister has to meet with mayors.” That is not the intent of the amendment. The amendment will be far more thorough than that.

I’ve publicly said I would’ve preferred to have a local government opt out automatically. We would’ve done that. That would’ve been our approach. We brought that into conversations. I recognize that that would’ve given the mayors and communities a clear channel to making a case, based on evidence, as the member from West Kelowna has done with the commissioned report that they have from West Kelowna. That evidence would’ve been able to show how tax applied to their communities. We would’ve then allowed them to opt out.

What we’ve done instead is say: “Okay, government, you say you know best. We understand where you’re coming from. We have the same shared value. But we critically believe that you need to ensure that you have metrics — affordability metrics, rental vacancy metrics — that you actually put together in a meeting with mayors every year to ensure that the ongoing application of the speculation tax is done through consultation — with data, with evidence, with mayors annually.”

It’s not just about a meeting. It’s also about the metrics that must be brought and argued at a meeting, and we’re grateful that we’ve got the full support of the minister on that. That comes from a case where no such other than informal meetings were going to occur, and that was the position of government, to our position where we wanted a full opt-out. That was where we ended up.

Now, why the role for local government is critically important — and why the annual review process must ensure government is looking at community impacts and considering whether vacancy and affordability metrics within affected communities warrant removal of the tax — is that communities know best what is in their best interest.

I recognize now is an odd time for this discussion, in light of the civic elections occurring in two days. But once the dust settles from those civic elections, it’s critical that mayors and new councils or incumbents actually have informed discussions with government, informed by metrics that are relevant to their communities.

The second amendment put forward here is a requirement and a recognition that we did not want this to become a tax grab, basically a central government tax grab for broad, undefined housing affordability issues. We felt that if you’re going to go and have money raised in a community — in the community of Nanaimo, Kelowna or West Kelowna — that that money needs to stay in that community. That money should not flow back to revenue of government coffers.

In fact, that money — the reason and the justification for this tax — is in essence an internalization of that social externality caused by the preponderance of vacant properties. It’s important that you use that revenue in a neutral fashion to actually offset and deal with the affordability issue.

We’re pleased to come to an agreement on that issue, and while there was broad recognition in this legislation that it will go to broad affordability measures, here it’s very specifically, in the amendment that we’ll be bringing forward, going to direct affordability issues in the communities from which the money arose.

The final amendment that’s being worked through right now will be to equalize the rates that Canadians and British Columbians pay. It’s saying that if you’re a British Columbian or an other Canadian, you’re Canadian first. You’re all paying the ½ percent.

Again, this is an important issue of fairness, from my perspective. Punishing Canadians in a differential way like that didn’t seem to be fair. Again, we know that this will meet…. In some of the exchanges I’ve had with people across Canada, people don’t mind recognizing that there is an externality there that they can internalize with this small extra, additional tax. They recognize that. They recognize they’re not paying provincial taxes here, perhaps, and they don’t mind paying a little bit more. I’ve got examples where people have said that.

However, they do mind egregiously being charged twice the rate as British Columbians, because they ultimately are Canadians first. We agreed with them.

Government did not want to move on this. This took a lot of work. This amendment is actually being supported by government, but it’s not without government, essentially, having to compromise on the intent of this, because government came into this very much trying to differentiate between those who live and pay taxes in B.C. and those that live and come to B.C. We felt it was important to treat Canadians the same.

Again, coming back to it, this bill is not how I would’ve approached the issue. It’s not how the B.C. Green caucus would approach the issue. But with the amendments that we’re bringing forward and the work done that has been done by government to limit the impacts of this tax on Canadians who are not speculating, I feel, at this stage, subject to the approval of those amendments, I’ll be supporting this legislation.

There are still key elements, such as implementing the tax on satellite families and foreign owners who do not pay income tax in B.C., that I’ve always believed are critical to support. In fact, the government, I don’t believe, has gone far enough. We need to crack down on foreign money flowing into our real estate market, pushing housing far beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians.

There are 4½ million people in British Columbia. There are 7 billion in the world. There’s an awful lot of capital out there looking to park itself as an investment in this province in real estate solely for the purpose of speculation. Here, in our caucus, we think that that actually needs to be clamped down on even more than is being done.

The components of the tax that deals with foreigners and satellite families — always supported that. We believe that this will have a significant impact, as articulated in the bill, in terms of dealing with this issue. With that said, one of the key aspects of this legislation is that we need to have ongoing, continual, rigorous monitoring of what is going on in the housing market.

My worry is…. We all know the issue of supply and demand. Right now, we know that there is not a lot of supply in the rental market. In fact, there is very little supply in the rental market. We have begun to see increasing supply in some of these urban areas in the market for sale. We’ve started to see a softening of demand in some of these areas, not so much the low end, but at the high end of the market — softening of demand. The very careful step in monitoring that needs to be done as we move forward is to ensure that in a time of reduced demand, we don’t suddenly initiate a massive influx of supply, because that can lead to market instability.

What I mean by that is we’ve got to ensure that the communication to those people who are being exempted here, communications to those people about the importance of an appeal process, the importance about a process to ensure that situations that may not have been thought through can still be addressed. People who are in no-rental clauses — the communication to them that there are two years, and government has two years to get to the bottom of this. For people who are in tourist commercial zoning, who recognize that there are still two years to come, to play, before government has to fix this. This needs to be communicated so we don’t see people rushing to sell properties out of lack of knowledge of what this legislation is actually doing.

At a time of decreasing demand and slightly increasing supply, if you put in a bunch of supply, it’s troubling. So I’m pleased in the discussions and the technical briefing we had with respect to this bill that government is committed to doing this ongoing monitoring, and the ministry staff are committed to doing this ongoing monitoring. I, too, will be watching the market closely and how this tax affects the market closely in the months ahead.

My hope is that the amendments will give us some tools to ensure that local governments have a clear role in a review process on an annual basis, to ensure that we’re having evidence flow into the decision-making going forward, to ensure that uncertainty is removed from, actually, this decision-making process, to ensure that we actually can move back towards a situation where developers in Kelowna, Victoria, Metro Vancouver and Nanaimo have confidence that they won’t be hit with escalating costs to produce, knowing that they’ll end up producing supply that will not be actually ever purchased because the cost will be too much.

It’s critical that we monitor vacancy rates. It’s absolutely crucial in these meetings that happen with mayors annually that vacancy rates are monitored, because if we move to suddenly the removal of no-rental clauses, and we see, for example, the sudden construction of thousands of units on a university campus for students, we might see an increase in rental rates, an increase in rental rates such that you can’t rent your property. So it would seem unduly punitive if you’re paying a tax for not being able to rent a property because there is no demand for it.

Again, the critical aspect of this is monitoring in an ongoing fashion. The enabling legislation does allow for timely order-in-council responses to this, which again is important and something that we felt was important to communicate.

It’s critical that while we seek to improve affordability for British Columbians, we take the steps we should do. We ensure that in doing so we take steps that do so responsibly and avoid a significant market downturn.

With that, I’ll say…. While again coming back to the overall summary of this, this is not something we would have done. I will give government credit for listening in many areas we brought to government. I think we get a little bit closer with these three amendments.

I recognize it’s not exactly what we would have done. I recognize that members from the opposition may have gone farther, but I think, at this juncture, this bill, as amended, will be something that the B.C. Green caucus will support, and we’ll be watching carefully as we move forward.

Video of Speech

Media Release

The Government of British Columbia and the B.C. Green Party caucus have come to an agreement to ensure support of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, a key piece in the government’s plan for housing affordability in B.C.

“We are in the midst of a housing crisis and we need to act. Once the legislation is amended, the Green caucus has committed its support in passing the bill so that we can tackle out-of-province speculation in B.C.’s housing market and help turn empty properties into homes for people,” said Carole James, Minister of Finance. “When we formed government, we made a commitment to put people above politics and work collaboratively with the Green caucus. Both sides are showing compromise in order to put housing solutions for British Columbians first.”

“While this is still not the approach I would have taken, these amendments will improve the bill and will mitigate many of the key issues I have identified,” said Andrew Weaver, Leader of the Green caucus. “The housing crisis is British Columbians’ number one concern and our caucus is committed to working with government to address the role that speculation has played. One of my key issues with this tax is that it was a blunt instrument applied to communities with unique circumstances. My amendments to include local governments in an annual meeting to review the tax and to dedicate any funds raised from this tax to affordable housing in their communities, strike a far better balance.”

The decision on how to collectively move forward on this legislation was reached by following processes laid out in the Confidence and Supply Agreement. It will result in the Green caucus introducing a series of three amendments to the bill, which government will support in the legislature.

The first amendment will create an annual meeting between the Minister of Finance and mayors in the affected areas to review the tax and relevant performance measures. This is an important way of ensuring the tax remains focused on the communities facing the greatest affordability challenges.

The second amendment will further target revenues raised by the tax, with all funds being directed to affordable housing projects in the impacted regions: Nanaimo-Lantzville, the Capital Regional District, Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and Kelowna-West Kelowna. This will ensure residents of those areas will be able to see the benefits of the tax in their own communities.

The third amendment will permanently set the tax rate for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who reside outside of British Columbia, and who are not satellite families, at 0.5%.

“While we strongly support the intent of the first two amendments, we are of the view that the third amendment lessens protections against out-of-province speculative investment,” said James. “We believe it is fair to ask those who do not pay income tax in B.C. to pay their fair share, but in the spirit of compromise we will support this amendment.”

“Another key concern of mine was that Canadians should be treated equally. We are one country and even if they don’t pay income tax in B.C., Canadians pay federal taxes that benefit our communities,” said Weaver. “The third amendment was an area of compromise and I am pleased that it will lessen the impact for Canadian homeowners, while keeping other critical provisions of the bill intact.”

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 40: Electoral Reform Referendum Amendment Act. This bill requires a second referendum to occur, should the proportional representation referendum pass, after two general elections conducted under proportional representation. It gives the electorate a chance to determine whether or not they want to stay with the new system of proportional representation.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in support of the bill. I was very surprised to listen to the BC Liberals strongly oppose it. Whether you are in support of, or opposed to, proportional representation, it seems to me that it is important to give British Columbians a say in their democracy.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Well, that certainly was half an hour of righteous indignation on display for us today. I had not planned to start my speech with this quote, but I think I will, because it’s fitting after the member from the Langley area just went on that diatribe.

This is a quote from a video by Justin Greenwood, named the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party. This is with reference to Bill 40, which is before us, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, and which is, in essence, adding a new, second referendum to elections after now, within 13 months, to validate, if proportional representation passes, that British Columbians want to stay with the system.

This is what Justin Greenwood said, and I think it’s apt and fitting for me to read this into the record. On a video available on YouTube, he said this on behalf of the B.C. Conservative Party:

“As a party, we have chosen not to take a stance on the referendum at this time, other than to ensure our membership and fellow British Columbians have the information needed to make their choice. I felt it necessary to make this video because of the vote ‘no’ side, which is mostly supported by” — he used the name; it’s the Leader of the Official Opposition — “the B.C. Liberals by using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote. This is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only.

“Those attributes and tactics are not the ones I would support in a party leader, let alone someone who is assuming to be the next Premier of British Columbia. Indeed, the Leader of the Official Opposition should be helping spread the information needed for British Columbians to make an educated vote on an electoral system that suits them best, a choice you can make by using your freedom and agency.

“The Liberals have stated that the ballot is very confusing and lacks direction. Luckily,” he says, “I’ve gathered an elite team of problem-solvers which consists of a crossword puzzle superstar, a word search champion and a sudoku master to help crack the code of the confusing ballot.“

Therein, he went on to show quite clearly how easy it is for British Columbians to read the ballot.

I, frankly, am shocked at the language I’m hearing from members opposite. I’m shocked that they have so little respect for the intelligence of British Columbians that they feel they need to try to mislead, to fearmonger and to stand up and ensure that they vote the way the B.C. Liberals want them to vote, without actually trusting that British Columbians might actually be interested in learning.

What’s also remarkable about what I’m hearing is…. If I take you back to the throne speech of June 22, 2017, this is what the B.C. Liberal throne speech said. It said the following:

“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature.

“Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform.

“With the confidence of this House, your government will enable a third referendum on electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to develop a clear question and will ensure rural representation in the Legislature is protected.

“It is vital that the referendum reflect the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties.“

This is precisely the process that government has gone through over the last many months in an unprecedented consultative process leading to, I believe, 91,000-some-odd submissions — incredible consultation. What’s remarkable, too, is that we hear the rhetoric emanating from members opposite. Let me take you back a few months to what these same members, two of whom have already spoken, said in response to the throne speech.

Here, for example, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who hasn’t spoken yet, said in response:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — it’s grammatically incorrect; it should be “referenda” — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly. The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform.“

That’s the member for Richmond-Steveston arguing passionately for another referendum on electoral reform.

Here’s what the member for Chilliwack-Kent said:

“We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that.“

The member for Abbotsford-Mission said the following:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. The discussion about electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue, and it’s been a source of discussion around the province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something we make a top priority.

“We are also looking,” he went on to say, “at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends….

“We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a clear question, which reflects the needs of British Columbia, but protecting key populations and ensuring that rural areas are treated fairly here in the assembly….“

Precisely what government has done.

How about the member for Penticton? He says the following:

“We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building…. There is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 30, 2018. I hope we work together” — I love those words — “through that extensive consultation that should take place, to develop a clear question that British Columbians can understand….“

Sidebar. Do you want…? And this is part of the parody in the interim B.C. Conservative deputy leader’s video. He shows the ballot. “The question is, basically: do you want proportional representation, or do you want to stay with first-past-the-post? Yes or no?” Pretty clear, if you ask me.

This question, in this other referendum, Bill 40 — we haven’t seen the exact wording — will essentially be: do you want to stay with the system we just went through, assuming that prop rep passes? These are pretty clear questions.

Coming back to what the member for Penticton said, he said:

“A clear question that British Columbians could understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth and also that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important, because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten.“

I agree with the member for Penticton. In fact, that is being reflected in the options that have been put forward.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who was over the top with his enthusiasm — opposite — for this referendum today, rhetoric that’s screaming out of the windows and off the ramparts, said the following in the throne speech:

“We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.“

Seemed okay at the time.

The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who spoke first in this debate, said:

“For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider, once again, what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we listened, and we’ve acted.”

On and on and on it went in the response to the B.C. Liberal throne speech — quite frankly remarkable. You would never have known it, given the vitriol that was thrown government’s way today.

Again, coming back to the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, Justin Greenwood, he says it all. He says…. Here again it summarizes the reason why he felt he needed to speak. He needed to speak out because he felt that: “The B.C. Liberals are using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote, and this is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only. Those are not the attributes and the tactics that one would want in a leader.”

I’ve listened to the arguments. I’ve attended a debate with the member for Richmond-Queensborough, a debate on prop representation. I’ve listened to the no side. What saddens me is that these debates — not the case of the member for Richmond-Queensborough; he did a very fine presentation — are not constrained by facts.

Even today, we heard statements of truth that are nothing more than conjecture, fearmongering about boundaries. I don’t know what the boundary is going to be for my riding if there’s a first-past-the-post election in 2021, because Elections B.C. periodically reviews the boundaries. I found out that I had parts of Victoria in this election not too long before this past election. It happens all the time that we look at electoral boundaries.

They talk about rural B.C. and “can’t draw maps.” Well, in fact, if they actually read the document, you would see that it’s quite clearly outlined about how ridings would likely double in size. You basically bring two neighbouring ridings together in most of the cases, with the exception of the rural-urban one, where you would have slightly different changes. It’s very clearly described what would happen there.

It’s also very clearly outlined as to how a process would go forward to determine open versus closed lists. My own preference is open list. Open list is my preference. They, the members opposite, seem to suggest that somehow it’s pre-decided that it must be closed list, that somehow there’s party elite that are going to be put in to become Premier without ever being elected.

In the world, there are — I’m not counting Myanmar and Venezuela — only a couple of examples of western democracies that still retain first-past-the-post: the United States and Canada. Even in Great Britain, Scotland is on a form of proportional representation, whereas England is not. New Zealand. Australia, in the Senate, and it has a preferential balloting system in the House. Virtually every single democracy in the world has a got a form of proportional representation.

Heck, the latest result in Bavaria showed a doubling of support of the Green Party there, a surge of support in the Green Party in Bavaria, a state within Germany that has proportional representation. Prince Edward Island went through the referendum. It passed. They decided not to do it.

B.C. has the potential here of being a leader in Canada if the people of British Columbia want it to change. It’s very simple. Do you want to change or not? If it changes, two elections from now, there’ll be another referendum to say: “Do you like what you saw? Shall we keep it?”

We go back to the New Zealand example. The ballot here in British Columbia is very similar to the ballot that was done in New Zealand when they went for proportional representation.

I can tell you, from somebody working in the Legislature in a minority government, that it is hard working with another party. It is not easy at all when you come together with very different backgrounds and ideas. But you get better policy, better public policy, when you’re forced to collaborate, forced to listen. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, and sometimes you get to take more than you thought you would get. But it’s about collaboration and cooperation. It can get testy at times. People can be firm in their positions.

But good public policy arises when politicians are forced to work together, and we’ve been demonstrating that here in this Legislature for the last 18 months or so, much to the chagrin of members opposite, who can’t fathom the fact that different political parties can actually work together.

Instead, they have to create some fearmongering approach that somehow the world as we know it is going to end and evoking the raiding of Normandy, for heaven’s sake. I mean, this is just so offensive — evoking the troops in Normandy as somehow being affronted. One member opposite talked about how the people who made the greatest sacrifice wouldn’t be able to vote. Of course they can’t vote. They’re not here today. They made the sacrifice. The rhetoric that was coming was just outrageous.

This is really about a referendum, and do we trust the people of British Columbia, as we have twice before in two votes on the single transferable vote? Do we trust them to have enough information? Do we trust them to be able to determine what’s in their best interests? The B.C. Liberals don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians to actually think for themselves. It’s not the B.C. Liberal way. The B.C. Liberal way is: “We’ll tell you because we know best. Not only that. It’s a small section of us — the elite in the party.” Even the backbenchers: “We’ll tell you the way it is, and it shall be that way.” This is what we’re seeing modelled here in the objections of the members opposite to this referendum.

Remarkable. Even if they didn’t like proportional representation, why would they not support this? This is giving British Columbians a way out if they don’t like it. Even if you don’t…. Again, I understand that there are 17 years of nefarious kinds of activities and backroom deals and conniving. For them, everything that’s done has to have a Machiavellian outcome. I recognize they think that this is some kind of Machiavellian approach to actually influence things. How about: it’s actually listening to what people have said? People have actually said they wanted a chance to have an election.

Have they ever thought that maybe government is listening to people? I know that the B.C. Liberals had a difficult time listening to people, but here we have a government listening to people, bringing in legislation that says: “You know what? If you do vote for this system and you don’t like it, we will give you a way out two years from now.”

I’ve heard so many examples of misinformation being put forward on this referendum. For example, I’ve heard people say that somehow party elites will choose who’s coming in. Well, let me tell you right now, if you were in a number of ridings in British Columbia where you could essentially run anybody from a particular party and you know they will get elected, the person who actually gets appointed is from the party. It is the party right now that already determines which members represent that party in certain ridings. In some ridings, getting the actual nomination from the party is pretty much a shoo-in to being elected. So right now….

Frankly, we just have to go back to the referendum when the Premier at the time lost her seat in Vancouver–Point Grey and was parachuted into Kelowna West, where she was able to get a seat. This is already happening in terms of the claims that the members opposite are making.

The other things that they have said are things like: “Well, you’ll lose local representation.” The irony — to hear that coming from the members opposite about losing local representation. How do the people in the Okanagan feel right now, knowing that there is not a single MLA sitting on the government side? Not very good about that, I can tell you. How do you think the people of the Okanagan, who didn’t agree with government policy, felt — not ever having somebody sitting on the opposition side for the previous 17 years? Not very happy.

While some of these Liberal MLAs might think that they represent all people, I can tell you, as an MLA serving the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, that I was inundated from emails, from constituents in Liberal ridings, because their MLAs would not take on the issues because they contravened the political party of the day’s policy.

This isn’t about access to health care systems. You know, maybe you have a person who needs help accessing. All constituency offices work in that regard. This is about…. Perhaps there’s an overpass in a region where there’s a concern for a natural ecosystem, and the MLA for the area is not willing to actually entertain meetings with concerned citizens. They come to us.

If, in these regions, you had representation from both opposition and government, you’d actually get better local representation. The Okanagan. Pick nine MLAs who are serving in the Okanagan right now. You probably would have had…. Of those nine, five of them would have been B.C. Liberal. Three of them would have been B.C. NDP, and one of them would have been B.C. Green. The Okanagan would be served by members in opposition, members in the Green and also members in the government. Healthy for democracy.

Vancouver Island right now has but one representative in Parksville-Qualicum. There is nobody in opposition from the Victoria region, and prior to that, there was nobody in government in the capital regional district. That’s wrong. Liberals in the capital regional district need representation. They need representation in this Legislature, but they don’t have it.

Again, it comes back to what was so succinctly pointed out by Mr. Greenwood, the B.C. Conservative Party interim deputy leader, who essentially says: “The fear is really an internal fear that the B.C. Liberals know that their loosey-goosey coalition of conservatives and liberals is going to fall apart.”

To be honest, there’s hardly any Liberals left, actually, over on that side, but that’s okay because they’ve been…. I know there’s one over there. I know there’s one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do have a lot of time for that one federal Liberal over there. But there’s not many left in that party.

This would be healthy for democracy. It would be healthy for there to be a party that actually represented the views, the prevailing views, of people in the Fraser Valley, front and centre when issues come up that they feel are not being dealt with. It would be healthy for people to feel like their views in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and elsewhere were actually represented in a manner that puts…. Not having to be diffused by competing interests, by certain ridings here and certain ridings there, but are actually able to speak out passionately for these issues in both opposition and in government.

If you’re an opposition MLA, you can speak out directly. If you’re in government, you can’t speak out directly. It’s much more difficult.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I like the chippery over there.

I understand that the Liberals….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s 8:30, true. Whose idea was this to go till nine o’clock?

Coming back to the point, much of the information that has been put forward, I fear, is actually doing the no side an actual great disservice. I have talked to many people, and people feel very suspicious as to information that they can quickly check today themselves on the Internet to be factually incorrect.

When factually incorrect information is put forward, it does a disservice — talks about these splinter parties somehow rising out of nowhere when you need to have 5 percent of the vote in order to actually get representation. Again, a misrepresentation that is being put there.

People have talked about the fact that there would be party lists — that all these people will just be appointed from backroom deals. Misrepresentation there.

People talk about loss of local representation. Again, misrepresentation there, because you have the constituents. People somehow think that this is unique in the world when, again, what’s different is actually the fact that in British Columbia we are very much unlike the rest of the world where forms of proportional representation exist.

With that, I really, truly cannot understand why members opposite…. I feel they have lost their moral compass. Why they would not vote in support of a bill that actually gives British Columbians a choice to go back to the system if they don’t like proportional representation and it passed is really mind-boggling to me. I wish I could understand it. I look forward to some more of the commentary coming our way in the debates of this bill.

Video of Speech

Today and yesterday during committee stage for Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3) a debate ensued regarding the process by which college and university boards are populated. I provided some further detail in my second reading speech.

The first three sections of the bill dealt with streamlining the process of board appointees for staff and faculty representatives. Initially, I had some questions about the rationale for these changes and so I sought a briefing from the Ministry. It turned out that the changes brought British Columbia in line with what is already in place in every other province in the country other than Alberta.

The official opposition (BC Liberals) were relentless in their attack on the Minister by suggesting that somehow the proposed amendments were enabling conflict of interest situations to arise. The Minister was somewhat testy in her response to many of the questions and I felt that a more thorough unpacking of the issue was warranted.

Below I provide the text and videos of the exchange which occurred over the span of two days.

You’ll notice in this exchange that I turn the conversation into identifying what I believe is a very real problem with the governance of colleges and universities in British Columbia. That is, I note that British Columbia is unique in Canada wherein all of its college and university boards are dominated by Order in Council (i.e. government) appointments.

The independence of college and university boards is critical. These institutions are places that allow for innovation and creativity to flourish. They’re not places for government to facilitate a top down imposition of its ideology. Unfortunately, under existing legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine their autonomy. That is why I have twice introduced a private members bill aimed at rectifying this situation.

I will continue to pressure government to adopt the proposed governance changes identified in this private members bill.

Text of Exchange (October 3)

A. Weaver: Now, I do appreciate the official opposition questioning and the line of questioning. I would suggest that there seems to be a misunderstanding, a fundamental one, as to how colleges and institutions operate in the province of British Columbia, which I would have expected not to have occurred in light of the fact that they have been in government for 17 years.

Please let me go through a series of questions. We’re clearly not going to make it though today. But the first question is with respect to section 1. I do realize that there’s been some kind of flow-over in sections 1, 2 and 3 when issues with respect to Royal Roads and universities have been discussed. So I ask some lenience, here, of the Chair. I will focus initially on the colleges and institutes.

My first question to the minister is: could she please describe the existing makeup of boards of governors as outlined in the College and Institute Act?

Hon. M. Mark: For the college boards, they’re composed of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — one person on the faculty of the institution and elected by the faculty members, two students elected by the students, one person who is part of the support staff and elected by the support staff, the president, and the chair of the education council of the college.

I’ll add that the board of the Justice Institute of B.C. is slightly different. It consists of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the president.

A. Weaver: Now, this is where it gets a little bit…. I was just wondering — just for the sake of clarity and comparison, not dealing with section 3 but here — if the minister could say what the makeup of the board of the University of British Columbia is?

Hon. M. Mark: I feel like I need to say this really quickly so that we can get out of here on time.

The board of governors of the University of British Columbia is composed of 21 members in order to reflect that it has two campuses: the chancellor; the president; a faculty member who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Okanagan; two faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver; 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, two of whom are to be appointed from among persons nominated by the alumni association; a student who studies at UBC Okanagan, elected from students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Okanagan; two students who study at UBC Vancouver, elected by students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Vancouver; one person who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Okanagan; and finally, one person who works at UBC Vancouver, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Vancouver.

A. Weaver: Would it be true, then, if I made the statement…? This is a question to the minister. In every case, in every college and institute — Royal Roads — and university in the province of British Columbia, the composition of each board has more order-in-council appointments than it does elected members of the university.

Hon. M. Mark: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please describe any other province in the country of Canada for which there are more order-in-council appointments at the university level over the elected or other members from the institution?

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t have the detailed information in front of me at this moment, but I can get the information to the member.

A. Weaver: We’ll be resuming this later, and I would hope we can start the questioning with this.

I do note the hour, and I move that we rise and report progress.

Text of Exchange (October 4)

A. Weaver: Yesterday we left off with a question that the minister had suggested she would be able to provide the answer for: the question I had asked as to what other provinces in our country have boards that are comprised of more order-in-council appointments than those elected by or participating in the institutions. I’m hoping she has the answer this morning to share with us.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a few examples in other provinces where, like British Columbia, LGIC appointees have a majority over non-appointed members. But across the country, the number of government appointees to university boards generally do not exceed the number of non-appointed members.

For example, the University of Manitoba has 12 appointed members, three of which must be students, and 11 non-appointed members. At Memorial University of Newfoundland, they have a majority of 21 appointed members, four of whom are students, and nine are non-appointed members.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the very few examples that exist. It’s interesting to note in those examples that exist that the appointed members are, indeed, also comprising students. So British Columbia is rather unique in the number. And as the minister pointed out yesterday, in the colleges act, there is a boardroom made up of one elected faculty member, two elected students, one staff elected, one president, one chair of the education council and eight appointments through order-in-council — at least eight.

My question is to the minister. Does she believe that students are in a conflict of interest if they are on a board, in light of the fact that it is the board that determines tuition fee increases? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mark: The response is no, but there are bylaws and measures in place to address any conflicts of interest. Again, through the board, there are some institutions where students are allowed to participate in the room. There are institutions where they’re not. The test of conflict of interest is always being measured. Again, the law, the act, states to act in the best interests of the institutions.

A. Weaver: Every college in the province and every university in the province has students on its boards. Those students are elected, and those students are governed by conflict-of-interest proceedings and regulations as outlined by the minister. So I very much appreciate that answer.

In the same vein, of the staff and faculty that are on all boards, everyone, as is noted by the minister, is elected. The question I then have is: how are order-in-council appointments made? Who actually makes those appointments?

Hon. M. Mark: Orders-in-council are approved by cabinet at the recommendation of the minister. As the member knows, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of appointments that are made across all ministries throughout government.

A. Weaver: On these boards, some of the institutions…. We’ve had some leeway in these discussions because sections 1 to 3 are virtually identical in scope. They just apply to three different things: College and Institute Act, Royal Roads Act and University Act. The official opposition and I have been a little loose across the references, but it’s all bearing on the same theme.

My question is: how is a chancellor appointed at a university, and how does a board appoint the chancellor?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Under the University Act, “chancellor,” defined under section 11, part 5: “There must be a chancellor of each university, who is to be appointed by the board on nomination by the alumni association and after consultation with the senate or, in the case of the University of British Columbia, after consultation with the council.

A. Weaver: The chancellor is the public face and the representative of an institution. The chancellor, as noted by the minister, is elected by the board. The government appoints the majority in British Columbia on all boards of colleges, Royal Roads and universities.

Does the minister believe that there’s a potential conflict of governance if it is the government that ultimately, through its appointments and dominance in all of the boards actually determines the voice of an institution? This is unique in British Columbia, unlike any other province in our nation — that the government appointees make up dominance of the boards, who then select the chancellor, who is the public institution. This is why we’ve had scandal after scandal in British Columbia, most recently at the University of British Columbia and also UNBC, with respect to appointments.

My question to the minister is this. Is she concerned that the conflict of interest that actually arises in the appointment of the boards in British Columbia is not through the elected people who are on the board but rather by the potential for government to influence the academic governance of a board by stacking the boards with their party elite? Does this concern the minister at all? And the subsequent question: is this an issue that she believes could lead to conflict of interest with government?

Hon. M. Mark: I do agree with the member that elected members are not in a conflict. However, the broader discussion of an appointment of a chancellor is, with all due respect, out of the scope of the discussion today with the amendments that we have on the floor. I am happy to discuss the bigger picture of the amendments that I am aware — which the member opposite has raised — need to be changed.

I’ve heard from other stakeholders what areas might need to be changed under the University Act or under the College and Institute Act, but with respect to what is on the floor today, we are proposing amendments to section 59, part 8 about the eligibility of appointed members to the board that are elected faculty or staff.

A. Weaver: I’m fine with that answer, actually. I’ll come back to that.

I have two more questions.

My question to the minister is this: to what extent do these proposals conflict or agree with similar legislation that exists in every other province across this nation?

Hon. M. Mark: The only other province that has similar legislation is currently Alberta. Through these amendments, the only province that will have those rules in effect will be Alberta. So we will be bringing ourselves in line with every other province in Canada.

A. Weaver: That concludes my line of questioning, and I very much appreciate the response from the minister and her staff.

To summarize what has happened here is that we’ve realized and had a full discussion as to the makeup of these boards, how there are certain elected members, which is comparative to other provinces. In fact, where we differ is we have so many order-in-council appointments here, whereas they have the majority on each and every board.

I appreciate that the minister pointed out that this is not the subject of today. But what I’ve tried to point out through this line of questions is that the amendments that are put forward here are not actually controversial. They’re in place already across the nation in virtually every other province except Alberta.

But Alberta is also quite different from B.C. because in Alberta, they do not have order-in-council appointments dominating the boards. So B.C. really is an outlier in this. We have, if I would suggest— I’d like to discuss this further with the minister, and I look forward to those discussions —— that if there is any conflict of interest in the boards, it’s not with the elected students. It’s not with the elected faculty. It’s not with the elected staff. It’s actually with the order-in-council appointments wherein government can actually have its agenda imposed on an institution by appointing the board, both in terms of the selection of the chancellor, who is the public face, as well as the governance within the programs in the institution.

That is very dangerous in a democratic society where we rely on the free exchange of ideas. British Columbia is unique.

I support this section wholeheartedly, as somebody who spent a lifetime in universities, as somebody who served as a chief negotiator for the faculty association, as somebody who couldn’t do that and be on the board — because there’s no time — as someone who supports the electoral process that puts students, faculty and staff on the boards, as someone who supports the governance of institutions in a free and democratic society but actually has very real problems with what is happening, again, in British Columbia, the Wild West, where order-in-council appointments dominate boards, potentially leading to — and in some cases, demonstrably leading to — decisions being made that are government-related that actually impinge upon the academic freedom of an institution.

With that, I thank the minister and her staff for the attention of the questions that I put forward.

Videos of Exchange

Yesterday in the legislature I rose to speak in support of Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). This is a non-controversial bill that makes myriad small changes in a number of existing pieces of legislation.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of this bill, Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — (No. 3), no less — 2018.

I thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek for the welcome to speak to this.

Now, those who have been riveted to Hansard videos for the last five years will know that I’ve made it a frequent occurrence, speaking to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. This one actually is quite remarkable in that it is somewhat unlike a lot of the acts we see in that there are a lot of quite meaty changes that are brought in and a diverse array of bills. You know, sometimes we’ve joked in this House about spell-checker and comma acts when they’ve been the whole bill. Important changes are made, but these have meatier changes.

I would like to start by speaking to part 1, the Advanced Education, Skills and Training amendments. Now, I understand where opposition are coming from in their concern about this, and the very first thing I did, as well as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who spoke so eloquently earlier on this issue, was raise a flag. The first thing I did was pull out my conspiracy theory hat, thinking that perhaps we were seeing a political payout for union friends here and perhaps this was a way to try to get negotiators on the board of governors.

I actually requested a briefing. I was delighted to have that briefing this morning with ministerial staff who I was able to ask and probe some questions as to where this emerged from.

To give you some context of this, I was the president of the UVic Faculty Association when I was at the University of Victoria, and I was chief negotiator in two bargaining sessions spanning about five years. At that time, when you look at what’s being removed here, you might suggest that perhaps by removing the language, I could potentially put myself in a conflict of interest by being allowed to serve on the board of governors of an institution while at the same time serving as chief negotiator for the faculty. In essence, you would be negotiating with yourself. I understand where the concern was coming from with the opposition.

Now, therein lies the source of what I believe is some further necessary comment. To get there first, I think it’s important to see what has actually been repealed. In the College and Institute Act, the University Act and the Royal Roads University Act, the same bit of language…. I’ll only read the one, because it’s slightly and subtly different in the University Act from the College and Institute Act. This is what’s being removed. Language presently exists, and it was recently added by the previous government….

“A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board if the person is:

(a) an employee of its institution, and

(b) a voting member of the executive body of” — that would be like a president, a vice-president or someone like that — “or an officer of, an instructional, administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to

(i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or

(ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff associations of that institution.“

My Spidey senses were raised when I saw that being removed. I thought: “Well, hang on here. Is this some nefarious backroom deal to pay back friends?” Was this one of these “good faith, no surprises” kind of step-asides?

Again, coming back to the briefing, it turns out that what I was able to learn from this briefing was that we are the only province in the country that has language like this, and we are unique in that regard because in essence we already have a requirement. Again, the previous government put in place very fine conflict-of-interest measures, and demanded that with institutions, that exist that would not allow the negotiator like me, for example, to negotiate with myself on the board.

So again, this is not what I had originally thought it would be, as some kind of payback. It wasn’t. It was actually trying to streamline a process that was already being dealt with, which is the issue of conflict of interest. But in fact, it is making it more accessible for some smaller institutions, particularly in rural B.C., where there are some difficulties to actually get qualified members on the board.

What this has laid out as is a broader ability, particularly…. I mean, this is not an issue for the University of British Columbia or the University of Victoria. But it is an issue for some smaller rural colleges subject to this act, and this is clarifying that the existing conflict-of-interest legislation is sufficient and the responsibilities that are governed by board members are sufficient to ensure that you can’t negotiate with yourself, in essence.

So while initially very suspect about this component, I’m pleased to say that I was very satisfied. Again, I’m very grateful to the ministry staff who provided the briefing at such short notice and did so in such an informative manner — and to the government, frankly, for arranging a briefing on this important topic within literally 24 hours. Because as we know, this bill was only brought before us two days ago, and ministry staff were able to get the briefing this morning, shortly after QP.

I wasn’t the widest awake of all days, having been up since four in the morning, preparing questions and other things, because it was rather a lot of things that have been going on here today in the B.C. Legislature. Nevertheless, though, I am grateful that we were able to do this.

I look to part 2, and this is changes to the Milk Industry Act. I suspect the Minister of Agriculture will speak quite passionately as to why these changes are necessary, required and fundamental to good governance here in British Columbia.

But I’d like to say…. Obviously, I support it, but this is important and timely that we start to talk about the dairy industry in British Columbia. Why is it important and timely? Because we’ve seen recent signing of a NAFTA agreement where our supply management component of the dairy industry has taken a little bit of a hit. They’re not happy losing 3½ percent of their supply to potential U.S. milk products.

I will say to British Columbians who are riveted to the television, watching Hansard today, I’m not worried about that. The reason why is that in Canada we don’t put hormones in our milk. In the U.S., they do.

Why would anyone go to a supermarket and choose to have hormone-laden milk from somewhere else when you can get Vancouver Island Dairyland cows or Island Farms cows? You can buy milk made in B.C. that doesn’t have steroids, that’s supporting local farmers.

I’m not worried about this supply management, so I say good on Canada in their negotiations with NAFTA. I think we’ve done well in the auto industry. I think we’ve done well in other aspects of that, in order that we’re ensuring that labour standards in Mexico, for example, are up to the same, or at least better paid, compared to us here, which ensures that the so-called Dutch disease doesn’t occur by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore.

Again, with the small changes to the definition of a dairy plant…. I didn’t go into a detailed briefing as to what those were. Clearly, the civil service would have identified, in consultation with the minister’s office, issues that have arisen in recent years where the definition of dairy plant has been troubling in terms of legislation. Again, small yet important changes have been put in here.

When we move on to part 3, we see a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act, the Offence Act and others. These are all under the purview of the Attorney General’s office. Again, these are relatively minor yet potentially impactful.

The first, of course, the changes to the Mental Health Act, are, in essence, saying that a retired medical practitioner can now serve on a review panel. It doesn’t have to be a current practitioner. Why this is important is that I understand there have been some issues, historically, where perhaps a retired member has been on it, and then panels have made deliberations, and there’s some question as to whether this person was allowed to be on it.

Frankly, it’s hard enough getting a GP in our present system here in British Columbia. It’s hard enough getting access to a medical practitioner. Let’s actually use those and allow those who are no longer practising but actually have the ability to make informed decisions to serve on these panels, to free up our doctors to actually spend the time in the health care system that they so want to do. Again, that’s another small yet important change.

There are slight changes here to the Offence Act, slight changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. On that note, I would like to raise — on the Public Guardian and Trustee Act — some issues that I think government needs to further explore.

This is especially relevant to an ongoing case I have in my constituency, where there are examples in British Columbia where you might have a child who’s taken into care in one province, into the foster care system, and then is adopted, legally adopted, by a family member in another province. The system that we have set up in Canada makes this extraordinarily difficult for that family care provider to actually get the services that they need in the province of British Columbia if, in fact, the case or the child originated from a seizure — whatever the word is.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Apprehension. Thank you to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast who has worked in the field. If there’s an apprehension in another province.

This is an important issue. In the one particular case we’re working on right now, this person, this family member has stepped in where the system has failed and given a home to two young children from a family member, two children who were apprehended from another province and now have a safe home here. The irony is if the children were apprehended in that province and put in care in that province, there would be funding for the caregivers in that province. If their children are apprehended in that province and given a safer way forward in another province — in particular, in this case, British Columbia — there are barriers to access of funds.

I’m hoping, as we make small amendments here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, we might keep a view of what the bigger picture here is and look at other barriers that exist for existing issues here.

Section 9 — and through 16, frankly. Changes, again, are being made with respect to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, roles and powers of chief justices. My colleague would have addressed these issues in further detail.

Then we move on, of course, to the important changes in part 4. These are the Finance amendments. I had the pleasure — the distinct pleasure, no less — of hearing the Finance Minister talk so eloquently and so passionately about these changes that have been added to ensure that there’s consistency amongst myriad acts with respect to recent changes in the Business Corporations Act.

What do I mean by that? In the Business Corporations Act, there is a new requirement or, essentially, a definition in there as to who is authorized to act as an auditor for a company. The need for this has clearly arisen from issues that were brought to government’s attention with respect to auditing and non-qualified auditors serving as an auditor in the cases of the business corporation.

In the act, what is done in the Business Corporations Act is actually mirrored in a series of acts to ensure consistency across legislation in British Columbia. We see changes that mirror the definitions as to who can serve as an auditor occurring in the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Societies Act, and the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. We got into the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Notaries Act, the School Act, the Vancouver Foundation Act.

That’s a lot of acts, but now we have consistent definitions or, in fact, regulations as to who can serve as an auditor. You can’t just phone up Uncle Bob and say: “Uncle Bob, can you audit my accounts and give me your stamp of approval?” That’s no longer going to be approved. Although Uncle Bob may be qualified to do so, there are proper and more rigid measures that are now put in place.

We turn finally to part 5 of this act, a number of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments. These are, again, providing some regulatory powers, changes, some minor language adjustment, some standardization of terminology. All in all, not very controversial — housekeeping — yet important changes of various act under the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. And then, of course, we have the concomitant amendments, some related amendments, in the Safety Standards Act at the end.

All in all, this is not, in my view, a controversial bill, although on my initial reading of sections 1 to 3, flags were raised. I understand where opposition is coming from. I had exactly the same concerns. I had the benefit of a briefing from ministry staff. I feel comfortable now, knowing that this is actually bringing us in line with what every other province in the country has done, as well as the fact that this has been already covered under conflict of interest and fiduciary requirement and other existing rules that apply to governance of boards in our colleges sector.

The importance of this change actually goes to rural B.C. where there are some issues in terms of getting qualified board members representing various institutions in some of the colleges that we have. This has been asked for, as well, by other representative organizations that have pointed out some of the difficulties that arise.

With that, there’s not much more, I think, in this bill that needs to be addressed. I do suspect we’ll see other miscellaneous statutes amendment bills coming forward. I do commend government on providing a substantive bill here, of substantive amendments. It’s much easier to actually go into the depth and detail of these with briefings. I hope that the support that we’ve given to this — that I’ve given to this bill and also reflected in the support of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — is recognized by government as: we’re happy to support this through second and final reading.

Video of Speech

Over the last few months, I’ve been contacted by numerous constituents concerning the BC Government’s proposed “Speculation Tax”. Constituents who have contacted my office would have received an email outlining my views on this proposed measure. As the BC Green critic and spokesperson on the demand side of the affordability file, I felt it was instructive for me to make these views more readily available. Below I reproduce the contents of the email constituents would have received.

A group will be hosting a town hall on the speculation tax at the Dave Dunnet theatre at Oak Bay Secondary School from 19:00 to 21:00 on Thursday, June 28th. I look forward to hearing your views on the issue.

Text of Email

Thank you for writing to me about the government’s proposed speculation tax.

The speculation tax will be proposed in legislation that is to be brought forward in the fall.

In accordance with our Confidence and Supply Agreement, government consults with our Caucus on many matters. All input we provide government is aimed at producing evidence-based public policy that will deliver outcomes that are in the best interests of the province as a whole.

The BC Greens have indicated to government that we do not support the speculation tax because 1) it doesn’t address speculation; 2) there are too many unforeseen consequences; 3) it is administratively burdensome.

The speculation tax targets two distinct issues. The first is vacant properties. The second are satellite families — families who pay little or no taxes here in Canada.

The BC Greens recommended several alternate approaches to government on how to better deal with the housing crisis. First, we suggested that government introduce enabling legislation to allow local governments to implement a vacancy tax if they felt it was necessary for their communities. Victoria, for example, has asked for the powers to introduce such a tax. Enabling the ability of local governments to introduce a vacancy tax is relatively straightforward. The legislative language already exists in the Vancouver Charter.

Three benefits of this approach are that any monies raised would remain in the affected community, its implementation would be highly focused, and the issue of double taxation in the Vancouver area would be addressed. Should vacancy or rental shortage issues no longer be a problem, local governments could also respond rapidly without the need for provincial legislation.

Another recommendation of the BC Greens was to introduce a New Zealand-style ban on foreign purchases in the secondary housing market unless trade agreements prohibit this. New Zealand, for example, excluded Australia in its offshore buyer ban due to existing agreements.

In addition, we recommended the closure of the bare trust loophole and the introduction of a flipping tax – a tax levied on people who flip properties, buying and selling them in a short timeframe for significant profits.

The information that we provided government regarding the speculation tax was that it should be as targeted as possible in addressing speculative activity in the housing market. We also communicated that government should work to minimize unintended consequences on people and activity we don’t want to target, without fundamentally undermining the impact of the tax.

The BC Green caucus also articulated a number of problems with the proposed speculation tax. We pointed out that it made no sense to have a vacancy tax applied to strata units that had “no rental” clauses in their rules.

In areas that are disproportionately home to vacation property owners (e.g. Cultus Lake prior to its exemption), the local economies are dependent on seasonal visitors and part-time residents. Therefore, implementing this tax would have negative consequences on these economies that likely outweigh the benefits. This remains a problem with the proposed inclusion of Kelowna and West Kelowna in the Speculation Tax.

We noted that in some areas covered there is no substantive rental market (e.g. islands with no ferry service). And we continue to remain concerned that Canadians from different provinces will be treated differently. We remain committed to the notion that all Canadians should be treated equally.

We look forward to seeing the government’s legislation in the Fall. We remain committed to our shared goal of taking action to address the housing affordability crisis.

I hope this helps to clarify my position and the actions I am taking on this tax. There is so much uncertainty still out there on this speculation tax and it is not something the BC Greens would have proposed.

Best wishes,
Andrew