The Globe and Mail - 13.09.2019

FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER13,2019 | THEGLOBEANDMAIL O NEWS | A

A tax intended to curb B.C. real es-
tate speculation and push home-
owners to rent out their empty
properties has so far generated
$115-million, with foreign owners
and satellite families accounting
for two-thirds of such taxpayers,
according to the province.
That figure includes $58-mil-
lion from the 2018 calendar year
and $57-million from the first
quarter of 2019, when the rate for
owners living outside of Canada
and those who pay little to no in-
come tax in British Columbia
quadrupled to 2 per cent, accord-
ing to data released by the B.C.
government on Thursday.

Finance Minister Carole James

said the first-year declarations

show that the tax is working as

the government had intended.

“It is in fact targeting specula-

tors, people living outside of

B.C.,” she said, adding that 99.

per cent of British Columbians

are exempt from paying the tax.

“It is also helping to encourage

homes to be used to house people

• not to be used for speculation,
  not to be used to create challeng-
  es in our communities.”
  As of Sept. 3, 11,783 homeown-
  ers in B.C. are paying the tax, ac-
  cording to thegovernment. This
  includes 4,621 foreign owners,
  3,060 satellite families, 1,519 Can-
  adians living outside of B.C., 2,
  B.C. residents and 221 others, such
  as properties held through corpo-
  rations and trusts.
  An estimated 17,000 people
  still have not completed their
  declarations.
  The government says that the
  tax is contributing to the “ongo-
  ing moderation” in B.C.’s housing
  market, including a 5.6-per-cent
  decline in home-sale prices based

on the first three months of 2019,

although there is no data to defin-

itively link the two.

Ms. James said the tax is only a

piece of thegovernment’s 30-

point housing plan aimed at im-

proving affordability and creating

more rental homes.

“One measure is not going to

fix the crisis that was left us, but a

combination of measures ... is

having an impact,” she said.

Thomas Davidoff, an associate

professor at the University of

B.C.’s Sauder School of Business,

said the net effect on revenue is

unclear, but that the tax does ap-

pear to have raised revenue and

likely led some homeowners to

sell or rent out their properties.

“I think it’s reasonable to con-

clude that it has had the effects

that were desired,” he said.

The government estimates

that the tax will generate $185-

million in each of the 2019-20 and

2020-21 years; Mr. Davidoff said it

can be expected that that figure

will decrease over time.

“You have to think the beha-

vioural response will take some

time to adapt,” he said. “The only

counter to that is that they might

get better with enforcement, es-

pecially with satellite families.”

Some municipalities have crit-

icized the tax, saying it has creat-

ed uncertainty and hindered new

construction. Homeowners have

also expressed frustration with

having to apply for exemptions

every year.

“We have locally elected may-

ors telling John Horgan that the

speculation tax is not working in

their communities and that it is

reducing the construction of new

and affordable homes for fam-

ilies,” B.C. Liberal finance co-critic

Shirley Bond said in a statement.

Ms. James, who on Thursday

met with mayors of municipal-

ities where the tax applies, said

she will be collecting feedback

and any changes that may be

needed will be looked at in the

fall.

The update in B.C. came on the

same day that Prime Minister Jus-

tin Trudeau pledged to imple-

ment a federal levy of 1 per cent to

curb foreign speculation.

“One of the knock-on effects of

the B.C. initiative is that that has

pushed capital to other parts of

the country where there isn’t that

modest speculation tax,” he told

reporters in Victoria. “That is why

we feel it is important to create a

national measure right across the

country based on B.C.’s success

with it to ensure that foreign

speculation doesn’t make hous-

ing less affordable for Canadians

who, as we know, are looking for

places to live.”

With a report from Michelle Zilio in

Victoria

Speculatortaxdraws $115-millionforB.C.

Nearly12,

homeownersare

currentlypayingthe

levy,whichismeant

toencouragemore

rentalunits

ANDREAWOOVANCOUVER The government says

that the tax is

contributing to the

‘ongoing moderation’ in

B.C.’s housing market,

including a 5.6-per-cent

decline in home-sale

prices based on the first

three months of 2019.

Dougald Lamont says he plans to
stay on as the Manitoba Liberal
Leader even after it lost official
party status, retaining only three
seats in Tuesday’s provincial
election.
Mr. Lamont says the outcome
was disappointing but the future
of the party is secure.
Brian Pallister’s Progressive
Conservatives won a second con-
secutive majority when they cap-
tured 36 seats in the 57-seat legis-
lature.
The New Democrats improved
their seat total to 18.
Mr. Lamont will now face a
mandatory leadership review,
but says he expects to be sup-
ported by the party.
Former Manitoba Liberal lead-
er Rana Bokhari resigned follow-
ing the 2016 election, which gar-
nered similar results for the par-
ty.
“I’m not concerned. I’ll take
whatever judgment people
have,” Mr. Lamont said Thurs-
day.
The Manitoba Liberals at-
tained official party status when
Mr. Lamont won in St. Boniface,

gaining a fourth seat for the

party, in a by-election last year.

A party needs four members

in the Manitoba Legislature to re-

ceive more funds, research staff

and a guaranteed presence in

Question Period and on commit-

tees.

Judy Klassen, elected as a Ma-

nitoba Liberal in 2016, an-

nounced earlier this year that

she is running in the federal elec-

tion.

Her northern Manitoba dis-

trict of Keewatinook was won by

New Democrat Ian Bushie on

Tuesday.

Mr. Lamont said he plans to

introduce a bill reducing the

number of seats required for offi-

cial party status but acknowl-

edged it could be difficult to get

passed.

He said the Liberals will come

out of the election without debt,

but couldn’t elaborate on the

party’s financial future.

The party’s campaign, specifi-

cally focused on Lake Winnipeg

and the methamphetamine cri-

sis, was successfully received, Mr.

Lamont said.

He adding that he thinks the

party “got caught in the

squeeze,” because potential Lib-

eral voters may have cast their

ballots for the NDP in hopes of

keeping the Tories out, or vice

versa.

“People will tell you, ‘Look, if

you work really hard, if you do

these things, if you persist, it will

pay off.’ But that’s not always the

case.”

THE CANADIAN PRESS

LamontsaysheplanstostayonasManitobaLiberalLeader

KELLYGERALDINEMALONE
WINNIPEG

LiberalLeaderDougald

Lamont,above,saysthe

party’sfutureisstillsecure.

JOHN WOODS/

THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Trump administration on
Thursday revoked an Obama-era
regulation that shielded many
U.S. wetlands and streams from
pollution but was opposed by de-
velopers and farmers who said it
hurt economic development and
infringed on property rights.
Environmental groups criti-
cized the administration’s action,
the latest in a series of moves to
roll back environmental protec-
tions put into place under former
president Barack Obama.
The 2015 Waters of the United
States rule defined the waterways
subject to federal regulation.
Scrapping it “puts an end to an
egregious power grab, eliminates
an ongoing patchwork of clean
water regulations and restores a
long-standing and familiar regu-
latory framework,” Environmen-
tal Protection Agency chief An-
drew Wheeler said at a news con-
ference in Washington.
Mr. Wheeler and R.D. James,
assistant secretary of the Army
for civil works, signed a docu-
ment overturning the rule and
temporarily restoring an earlier
regulatory system that emerged
after a 2006 ruling from a sharply
divided Supreme Court.
The agencies plan to adopt a
new rule by the end of the year
that is expected to define protect-
ed waterways more narrowly
than the Obama policy.
The Clean Water Act requires
landowners to obtain federal per-
mits before developing or pollut-
ing navigable waterways such as
rivers and lakes. But disputes
have long persisted over what
other waters are subject to regu-
lation – particularly wetlands
that don’t have a direct connec-
tion to those larger waters, plus
small headwater streams and
channels that flow only during
and after rainfall.
Environmentalists contend
many of those smaller, seemingly

isolated waters are tributaries of

the larger waterways and can

have a significant effect on their

quality. Denying them federal

protection would leave millions

of Americans with less safe drink-

ing water and allow damage of

wetlands that prevent flooding,

filter pollutants and provide hab-

itat for a multitude of fish, water-

fowl and other wildlife, they said.

“By repealing the Clean Water

Rule, this administration is open-

ing our iconic waterways to a

flood of pollution,” said Bart

Johnsen-Harris of Environment

America. “The EPA is abdicating

its mission to protect our envi-

ronment and our health.”

But Mr. Wheeler said regula-

tors had gone far beyond the in-

tent of Congress under the 1972

clean-water law.

“The 2015 rule meant that

more businesses and landowners

across the U.S. would need to ob-

tain a federal permit to exercise

control over their own property,

a process that can cost tens of

thousands of dollars and take

months or even years to com-

plete,” Mr. Wheeler said. “It also

put more local land-use decisions

in the hands of unelected bu-

reaucrats. Many Americans

balked at this idea, and rightfully

so.”

President Donald Trump had

ordered the EPA and the Army

Corps to develop a replacement

policy that has a more restrictive

definition of protected wetlands

and streams.

The Natural Resources De-

fence Council said the adminis-

tration’s action would be chal-

lenged in court. “The Clean Water

Rule represented solid science

and smart public policy,” the

group said in a statement.

“Where it has been enforced, it

has protected important water-

ways and wetlands, providing

certainty to all stakeholders.”

Zippy Duvall, president of the

American Farm Bureau Federa-

tion, said the 2015 rule had gener-

ated a greater sense of urgency

among its membership than any

other issue.

“When you take the private-

property rights from a man that’s

worked all his life ... to grow the

food and fibre for all of us to sit

down and enjoy three times a

day, it’s something he just can’t

stand,” Mr. Duvall said.

But Laura DeYoung, who runs

a sheep farm near Peninsula,

Ohio, said she favoured federal

oversight to protect Lake Erie,

where agricultural phosphorus

runoff is blamed for large algae

blooms.

“Nothing in the Obama regu-

lations that came out prevented

me from farming the way I was

previously farming,” she said.

The question of which waters

are covered under the Clean Wa-

ter Act has inspired decades of

lawsuits and numerous bills in

Congress.

The Supreme Court in 2006

produced three differing opin-

ions, leading the Obama admin-

istration to craft its rule. It pro-

vided federal oversight to up-

stream tributaries and headwa-

ters, including wetlands, ponds,

lakes and streams that can affect

the quality of navigable waters.

The regulation drew quick le-

gal challenges from 31 states and

court rulings blocking its imple-

mentation in some. It was effec-

tive in 22 states, the District of Co-

lumbia and U.S. territories before

Thursday’s action.

Betsy Southerland, who was

director of science and technolo-

gy in EPA’s Office of Water during

the Obama administration, said

revoking its policy would create

further regulatory confusion.

“This repeal is a victory for

land developers, oil and gas drill-

ers and miners who will exploit

that ambiguity to dredge and fill

small streams and wetlands that

were protected from destruction

by the 2015 rule because of their

critical impact on national water

quality,” Ms. Southerland said.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S.killsObama-erawater-protectionlaw

JOHNFLESHER
TRAVERSECITY,MICH.

The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives judiciary

committee voted to intensify its investigation of Republican

President Donald Trump on Thursday, as lawmakers edged

closer to deciding whether to recommend his impeachment.

The 41-member panel adopted a resolution allowing it to

designate hearings as impeachment proceedings, subject wit-

nesses to more aggressive questioning and quicken the pace

of an investigation that is expanding into areas that could

prove politically explosive for both Mr. Trump and Congress.

“With these new procedures, we will begin next week an

aggressive series of hearings investigating allegations of cor-

ruption, obstruction and abuse of power against the presi-

dent,” House judiciary committee chairman Jerrold Nadler

told reporters after a 24-17 vote along party lines.

A more aggressive probe could also increase pressure on

House Democratic leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi,

who has resisted impeachment of Mr. Trump as a politically

risky step for moderate Democratic freshmen from swing dis-

tricts where ousting the President is an unpopular idea.

Mr. Trump and his Republicans allies charge that former

U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian in-

terference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s

possible collusion stemmed from an earlier effort to sink his

candidacy, and later his presidency, by former officials at the

Justice Department.

Republican lawmakers rejected the notion that the panel

was pursuing an impeachment inquiry and dismissed the res-

olution as a “fantasy” intended to distract from Democrats’

unwillingness to have the full House authorize a formal im-

peachment inquiry. Republicans said Democrats lacked the

votes to obtain formal House authorization and denounced

Thursday’s action as a show intended to pander to Democrat-

ic voters who want Mr. Trump removed from office.

Mr. Nadler said that during the Watergate era, the House ju-

diciary committee was already considering impeachment

charges against then-president Richard Nixon and conduct-

ing a related probe when the House voted to authorize a for-

mal inquiry.

Committee Democrats plan to use the new tactics that al-

low an hour of questioning by committee lawyers of Corey Le-

wandowski, a close Trump confidant and one of his campaign

managers in 2016. Mr. Lewandowski is due to appear before

the panel next Tuesday. Democrats expect his testimony to

help lay out a charge of obstruction of justice. But they are also

pursuing allegations of campaign finance violations, witness

tampering and unlawful self-enrichment through his busi-

ness ventures. Democrats aim to decide by the end of the year

whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Mr.

Trump to the full House.

REUTERS

U.S.Housepanelapproves

guidelinesforTrump

impeachmenthearings

DAVIDMORGANWASHINGTON