(1) 250.472.8528

Calling out BC NDP for botching up tax measures & nonexistent legislative agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speculation Tax and Employer Health Tax both need the introduction of legislation prior to them taking effect. Such legislation is expected in the fall. Fortunately we have time to pressure government to fix the problems embedded in their poorly thought out approach to deal with speculation.

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


  1. Lou F.-
    March 11, 2018 at 5:42 pm

    To tax such an outrageous amount to domestic (Canadian) buyers who are not speculating but retiring or have family homes here in BC that have worked hard all their lives and have given to BCs economy “without” using its services is act of disgusting measures and could only be thought of as welcome by those who do not understand busimess and investments in thisprovince. The existing government continues to alienate and make enemies with other provinces. Let me ask you…is it acceptable now for Alberta to demand that all income that thousands of BC workers obtain in Alberta be paid to Alberta of they can no longer remain employed? Honestly Tourism, and investments in new or old property in BC by Canadians is a large part of BCs income including the ferries. This government has no insight on being a Canadian province. They are making residents of BC look like selfish children not wanted to with the rest of the family. Watch prices go up on oil and gasoline as well. Of course US can lso fit the bill. Thats a good Canadian partnership for this province with other Canadians. And the method of transport would somehow be better as well. Of course when the US tankers show up every day the BC govt will not say anything because its not about the people, more about their own accomplishments. The existing coalition was not even voted in. Soon though people will see the returns of accepting this situation.

  2. Claude Uzelman-
    March 11, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    I am totally impressed with your support for your constituents vs the easy way out which is always available. Your article of March 8th has certainly placed you and your party in a new light, in my mind. Wow! Ignoring the politics and having the fortitude to public call out the NDP and call a spade a spade. “pop a mole”, perfect summary of proposed area selection for the revenue grab labeled “speculation tax”. Congratulations Andrew Weaver.
    Now the tough decision. Can you allow this to be introduced into legislation or bring down this government, which has demonstrated it is incompetent and totally out of touch.
    The best decison is not always the easist but based on this article you have my trust to do the right thing. A gov’t demonstrating such incompetence and such shallow short term thinking should not be permitted to continue to govern.

    Claude Uzelman
    Stressed, abandoned and if I understand this right, Very Angry. Working man/family of 45 years, BC resident and small business man working very hard and residing in BC for 25 years, suddenly finding my retirement dream, a little house on the water on Van Island, trashed by Provincial government revenue grab legislation.

  3. Randi Masters-
    March 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm

    Hello Andrew,

    Thank you for calling out the NDP on its ill-conceived “Speculation Tax”! You articulated the utter stupidity of this tax well and I appreciate you going to bat for all of BC including those federal income tax paying “foreigners” from other Provinces who have secondary homes in BC. Remember: those taxes contribute in part to the federal transfer payments to our Province.

    Thanks again, Andrew.


  4. Dianne Varga-
    March 9, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    I’m not sure why Dr. Weaver considers that the economy of Kelowna is somehow threatened by the speculation tax, especially as he’s expressed it: “The city of Kelowna, where the rental accommodation right now is critically dependent on owners renting their houses to students for eight months of the year and using those houses in the summer for either vacation rentals or to live in themselves. This is critical for the Kelowna economy, yet we call that a speculation. No, they’re playing a critical role to rental properties there.” It’s my understanding that homes that are rented out or owner-occupied will be exempt from the speculation tax.

    I know former real estate agent, current mayor of Kelowna Colin Basran is breaking sweat trying to convince local folks of the possibility that the local economy will be devastated by the speculation tax, and I see that Dr. Weaver repeats this, but as an absolute certainty and not a possibility. On what basis does he think this?

    What I’ve found is that Mayor Basran thinks tax could have an adverse effect on the local economy, in particular on construction and construction-related jobs. “Investment from other parts of the country is a good thing,” said Basran, adding it helps stimulate the economy through development, tourism, job creation and helps small business. But that could all be impacted by the implementation of the new tax here” (https://www.kelownacapnews.com/…/west-kelowna-council…/).

    Justin O’Connor, president of the Central Okanagan chapter of the Canadian Home Builders Association, again focuses on the perceived value of out-of-town owners to the local economy. “These developments bring hundreds of thousands of dollars into our community, and the proposed speculation tax will become a huge detriment to our community should this pass. B.C. is home to many vacation areas, all of which rely on these annual visitors to support the local economy” (http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/…/article_2912bc6a…).

    Kevin Edgecombe, chair of the Kelowna builders’ Urban Development Institute, jumps on the same train. “We are certain that jobs will be lost in the Okanagan, and there is a concern that this tax, while intended to create affordability, will unintentionally harm the tourism sector, many forms of small business and the B.C. economy as a whole” (http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/…/article_2912bc6a…).

    Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board president Tanis Read elaborates that the local economy will be affected “not because of the intended changes to real estate prices, but due to the unintended loss of revenues generated by those homeowners who take advantage of local services such as car dealers, wineries, restaurants, gas stations and the resulting potential job losses” (https://www.kelownacapnews.com/…/real-estate-board…/).

    Doesn’t that seem counter-intuitive? Doesn’t that seem irrational? Why would two-week vacationers from Alberta lend greater incentive to build housing units than local workers or families in search of housing? Why would two-week vacationers contribute more to the local economy than locals who might live here 365 days a year, if they could only find a place to live?

    Let me be clear: local employers have long been complaining that they can’t attract the workers they need because of the shortage of affordable housing, including rentals. A survey of 200 businesses conducted by the Central Okanagan Economic development commission in October 2017 found that the problem extends to all sectors of the regional economy (http://www.cbc.ca/…/kelowna-economy-rental-housing-1…). Rental vacancy rates are currently 0.2 per cent in Kelowna, which is far below the crisis-level provincial average. Meanwhile, 25 per cent of downtown waterfront homes sit empty, and 17 per cent of Lower Mission homes share the same status (http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/article_e92dfe1c-1803…).

    What hasn’t been answered – what hasn’t even been asked by the local media – is why the narrative of a speculation tax putting in peril the local economy is preferred to a narrative of a speculation tax encouraging the housing of workers and families in need. You’d think the Chamber of Commerce would be happy to represent the views of those local businesses that are having difficulty hiring, but they pretend mystification over how a speculation tax could possibly free up housing for families or the homeless. You’d think the mayor would at least give a nod to the 2018 UBCM report, A Home for Everyone, that states domestic speculation is as much a problem as foreign speculation, but he’s too busy lamenting the possible loss of the two-week visitors and a wrecked economy.

    What is going on here? I have two theories. First, all those out-of-towners pay property taxes, but by and large they don’t use services – schools, roads, transit, and other stuff that costs municipalities money. Who wouldn’t prefer out-of-towners to local residents when you’re looking at the balance sheet?

    Second, the local economy will be affected by what Tanis Read denies — the “intended changes to real estate prices.” I believe the very thing mayor Colin Basran and his developer and builder friends want is that the housing market should stay red-hot. I believe that’s the local economic activity they’re interested in protecting. After all, the car dealers, wineries, restaurants, gas stations, and other small businesses would be better supported by people who live in the community 365 days a year than by those who drop in for a two-week or even two-month vacation. There’s no threat to this economic activity should the homes of Kelowna become occupied year-round.

  5. Darren Snider-
    March 9, 2018 at 9:28 am

    Your comments on the speculation tax is spot on. The academics suggested a vacant property tax in just Vancouver and the NDP made a mess by expanding it. Push the NDP to develop a true speculation tax in the other parts of B.C. and drop the out of Province/ second home tax because it will wreck economies.

    Stick to your guns or force an election.

  6. Questo-
    March 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    Do you think an inheritance of over $10 000 000 in net value assets could be taxed as a way to prevent hoarding by people?