By: Mark Westwood
If all goes as planned, finance minister Mike de Jong will be out of office by the end of the month. But for many, including parliamentary sentinel Democracy Watch, now is the perfect time to raise final doubts against de Jong and the BC Liberals.
Many people allege that de Jong implemented the Metro Vancouver foreign-buyers tax knowing full well that his Abbotsford property holdings would increase in value. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has stated that de Jong and other MLAs can “profit from their own [tax] decisions,” and that this “loophole should be closed.”
Such allegations are baseless: de Jong did not contravene the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act when he implemented the tax. The current conflict of interest procedures remain adequate for similar cases involving broad economic policies.
De Jong’s introduction of the tax was not a pet project meant to favour Abbotsford residents. In fact, nearly all of the MLAs from both parties voted for the legislation, in response to widespread public support. It was a case of MLAs acting on behalf of the communities in which they live — as they are supposed to do.
At first glance, de Jong’s personal stake in this provincial community may seem unfair. According to CTV, the total value of his residential and property investment mix is about $1 million, and it has gained about $52, 000 since the tax was introduced. Yet the tax was meant to address single Vancouver properties worth much more than any one investment of de Jong’s.
More importantly, many other MLAs residing outside of the target Metro Vancouver area voted for the act. None of these other MLAs are being accused of acting primarily in self-interest. As mentioned previously, each MLA (including NDP MLAs) appeared to have voted according to the best interests of their electorate.
Every MLA pays income tax, so any tax-related legislation an MLA votes for has the potential to change the amount of tax they pay. If those in a position to vote upon issues of economic concern had to recuse themselves merely on that basis, then, at present, there would be no fair way for our government to address such issues at all.
The “loophole” cited by Conacher — that MLAs can “profit from their own decisions”— is merely a sign that MLAs are a part of their communities, and invested in them. If BC residents are subject to the housing market’s pressures, their elected representatives should also be subject to those pressures.
Some may say that such a stance could lead to MLAs legislating inequitably in favour of their own regions. This is fundamental to our provincial democracy: a majority of members get to decide the legislation that benefits their electorate. In the current case, all property values outside of Metro Vancouver experienced a faster rate of growth after the implementation of the tax. This effect was not isolated to the properties of de Jong, or even just other MLAs.
Ultimately, cases such as this should not be viewed as conflicts of interest; rather, they should be viewed as moments of united interests between government and its citizens.
Of course, a strong democratic process must be free of conflicts of interest. When real conflicts arise, more stringent procedures may be necessary. But in cases of broad economic well-being, MLAs should not be forced to be completely disinterested from their electorate’s economic concerns. Such a position is both unwarranted and distracting.
This isn’t the first time Democracy Watch has made arguments against Paul Fraser, BC’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner, that have been ultimately found lacking. In 2016, when Democracy Watch petitioned BC’s Supreme Court to disregard Fraser’s conclusion that “certain Liberal Party of BC fundraising activities” were not “a real or apparent conflict of interest.” The court determined the plausibility of their argument to be “superficial” at best.
BC politics has other real issues at play, such as the need for more affordable housing, and a renewed focus on affordable government services. For the provincial government to work for British Columbians, government members must also be British Columbians.
