Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 42, the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

In the Birch Room, Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

B. Stewart: Well, I guess that comes as no surprise to the opposition that closure is being introduced in terms of second reading on these.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I know that there is a lot of discussion on all of these bills in front of the House on committee stage. I think it’s important that people have a chance to flush out concerns, which is really part of what committee stage allows for.

It’s interesting. As I listened to some of my colleagues about the amendments that are proposed here in Bill 37, I couldn’t help but think about the changes in terms of what it is that the government’s objective is, in terms of changing the Oil and Gas Commission and its role. I understand the regulations are being enhanced or changed. But I think more importantly, one of the things that it appears…. I understand that the government is very concerned about communications and the messaging that it provides to British Columbians and the world.

But I do want to challenge some of that. I say that the idea of removing oil and gas out of the role of what the Oil and Gas Commission has been tasked with over the number of decades that it’s existed, I think, is unrealistic. I just think that the fact is that part of the issue, in my mind, and having…. Not that I’m not supportive of the Clean Energy Act, or the carbon tax that we implemented back in 2007. Part of that was to change behaviours and make a conscientious change.

I think that we would all agree that we’re fortunate to live in, probably, a country that is blessed with so much opportunity. The fact that we only have less than 40 million people living on the land mass that we do — just over five million people in British Columbia…. I think that most places would label British Columbia, Vancouver and the communities as being unbelievably clean and not places that are heavily polluted.

Now, I say that meaning that this whole dialogue that’s been going on about the idea of cleaning up the environment, that we can change this on a dime, let alone the fact that Bill 37 talks about changing oil and gas to the B.C. energy regulator…. To be honest, I think that that’s nice to have, etc., but let’s be realistic.

[1:40 p.m.]

I served in this House from 2009. I chose to accept a position to go to Asia and work on behalf of the province in the trade offices that we had over there. I didn’t know what to expect, although, mind you, I had travelled previously into Japan, in terms of international trade, and Hong Kong and Australia. I wouldn’t say that those countries are…. They do take their environment very seriously.

There are different challenges with every geographic region in the world. As the representative for British Columbia in Asia, I can tell you firsthand…. I visited countries that are struggling not only with helping their population out.

I know that the governments…. Both parties in this House are there to try to better the outcomes for British Columbians, whether they’re supportive of the government or supportive of the opposition party, in terms of making life outcomes better. Their children get better education. There’s better health care. The opportunities are better.

I can honestly tell you that these countries are struggling to even scratch their way to a place where there’s an economy where they don’t have to live in substandard accommodation. The disconnect I see, in terms of what is trying to be accomplished through Bill 37, is the fact that we think we can clean up the environment by simply changing some wording, etc.

The member for Peace River South yesterday talked about the fact…. You know, the air quality in Peace River is pretty good. But it can’t be thought that the molecules from China aren’t migrating across the Pacific, with the airstream, etc., and landing in North America.

I have to tell you. I looked today, just before giving these remarks. There’s a measurement that they use. If you have travelled internationally and you have spent time in countries that do have air quality issues…. Air quality is just an indication of particle matters that are in the air that will make you not live as long and certainly make your lifestyle very much different.

You look out at how dark the day is to see what the air quality index is. It happens that in British Columbia today, we’re looking at an AQI index of between one and three. This is on a scale between zero and 500.

It happens that today in Beijing, the air quality is actually pretty good by Beijing standards. It’s 151 on that AQI scale. Now, having been there for 3½ years, I can assure you that 151 doesn’t come along every day. Often the days are 200, 300 and, some days, worse than that.

I’ve actually been in the country or come in from some of the outlying areas. I can remember, on one particular mission, coming back from Tokyo, coming in late at night. The air quality index was so bad that the embassy had shut down all of its operations and put people on remote, even though they had all of these air purification systems within the embassy. It was measured at a number that was above 1,000. They actually can’t measure it, they say. It was so brown, so dark.

I just can’t understand. Maybe it’s a case…. Because of the fact that I’ve had the good fortune of not only having a business that required some international travel, representing the government…. I do think that we’re missing the part about what opportunities British Columbia has to offer to the world.

We’re talking about Asia, not just China. We’re talking about Vietnam. We’re talking about Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Manila, India. These countries are struggling to create an economy. They will do whatever it takes to create energy, to create economic opportunities. The problem with that is that those choices are often what I would consider to be particularly bad choices.

Bill 37 talks about things that we do want to deal with. There are lots of things in Bill 37 that we support — orphan wells, the rehabilitation, the responsibilities. There is a lot of things in Bill 37 that, perhaps, reach too far. I say that. Overreaching is a problem.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’ve just recently had COP 27. Lots of people around the world are talking about what the developed countries have been doing to the undeveloped countries and the fact…. One of the big issues was creating a fund to help them up, etc.

I think that this is one of the things that is a complete shortsightedness of the bill, in terms of what it’s striving to do. By trying to change the fact….

British Columbia has this unbelievable opportunity to provide clean energy. I’m not talking about thermal coal. That’s dirty, and it requires all sorts of extra work to clean it up. I think that there should be an effort to try and restrict or limit the export of that, although British Columbia does export those things.

What we need to be looking at is: how do we do it in the best way possible as a transition? The transition meaning that we can provide real opportunities for British Columbians in terms of what the role of the Oil and Gas Commission is in British Columbia, as proposed, to be the B.C. energy regulator.

The changes that are being proposed are really very shortsighted, in my opinion, in terms of trying to put these into place in a very short period of time. As a matter of fact, we did hear, as you stepped into the chair, Mr. Speaker, the fact that closure…. As a matter of fact, I think we’re less than 15 minutes away from closure on this.

I just want to make certain…. I think, as the minister knows…. He well remembers his decision, as the minister responsible for trade, to close 14 offices in one day because of the fact that it didn’t suit the government’s needs or whatever. I think what’s shortsighted about that….

I know the Minister of Forests was recently in Japan. I know the Minister of Energy has been over, as well, and the former Premier.

I think that what’s important is to look at the differences, the opportunity. We’re so caught up in terms of what we’re doing now, notionally, in British Columbia. We’re talking about the energy emissions with LNG in Kitimat. The gas has to come from somewhere. It’s certainly not the pipelines that are the problem. The output of what the CO₂ or the NOx emissions are is kind of what the big problems are in terms of turning that into energy.

What we really have to measure here is the equivalency of clean LNG, which we already have LNG Canada committed to here in British Columbia, and the fact that we have imposed regulations through the Oil and Gas Commission upon all sorts of energy extraction. I know that this speaks about the people that are going to be sitting on the board, how they were arrived at, etc.

At the end of the day, it’s important to have a broad view of what it is that we’re trying to achieve. I say that meaning…. We want to clean up the environment globally, not just in my riding or in Vancouver or some other place. We’ve got to be thinking on a big scale, and we are not going to do it by just changing some words and language, by changing it from the Oil and Gas Commission to the B.C. energy regulator.

I have to say. What I think is really, unfortunately, lacking is…. Members of the government should be going over. They should be going to places that I refer to as being new, emerging economies in ASEAN countries where there is the benefit of this type of energy alternative on an interim basis.

I think what we should be doing is looking at some of the Scandinavian countries. If I’m not mistaken…. I believe it’s Denmark that has a sovereign wealth fund that is massive. The point about it is that with those types of resources…. I know that when we first brought in the carbon tax, we directed money to clean energy initiatives to help make the opportunity for new technology, clean technology.

We’ve had debates here in the last five years about whether we should be doing hydroelectric. Currently it’s one of the largest and most beneficial clean energy projects that we actually have in British Columbia, let alone….

[1:50 p.m.]

We’re working with companies like Corvus, which is doing energy with batteries in ships that are coming to shore, etc., and storing that energy. That happens to be in the Lower Mainland. There are lots of great companies that are doing things like that.

I think that what Bill 37 really misses the mark on is the fact that it…. We should be celebrating the fact that we have the resources that we have and that we can provide an alternative to these countries that are struggling to actually deal with the pollution, and they’re choking on it. I mean, you only have to…. You don’t have to just watch the news. You go to those countries and you see. I think that that would be certainly something that….

Maybe when the House isn’t sitting, there should be a delegation, and perhaps, maybe, Mr. Speaker, you’d be one of the ones that might want to lead that delegation and come back with the perspective that I’ve tried to explain to the Minister of Energy here in terms of the supreme importance of us trying to understand what our role is in the global scheme of things and being able to make certain that we can make that difference.

We can make that difference in our lifetime with those countries if we’re willing to not turn the tap off and say: “No, no. We don’t have that.” They don’t have the gas — the gas reserves. I mean, knowing what China has…. They have gas reserves, but they’re miles deep into the ground versus in Montney and some of these other places where we have resources in the northeast of the province.

I’m not even certain how many of the members in government have physically been across the Rocky Mountains into the Peace River to see the difference and know what it’s like. Having been, formerly, the Agriculture Minister, I know that there are good agricultural opportunities up there for certain commodities and crops, etc. But there are challenges, and the energy that we could provide…. It could provide the financial alternative to not having the resources to improve health care, education — all the things that we want to do.

We talk about poverty. We talk about those things. These are the things that those resources can help bring. I’m not saying to forget about it, and I think that Bill 37 clearly doesn’t say forget about it. It says: how do we deal with orphan wells? How do we deal with the Oil and Gas Commission or the new B.C. energy regulator?

I just want to digress for a second here. I can tell you that one of my very first official visits as a member of government was to Fort Nelson. Now, Fort Nelson, in that particular time, was a booming community of only 2,500. But at the time, the Oil and Gas Commission, soon to be the B.C. energy regulator, provided Bill 37 passes…. It was a brand-new office, locally, to help make certain that people that are working in this northern region….

You have to remember…. We think of Fort Nelson as being the very far north. Well, let me tell you, the oil and gas fields that are north of that are a far cry, and they need local decision-making. But there are lots of other good services in places like Fort Nelson — Service B.C., MCFD. They’re all there.

One of the things about that particular community is that these jobs are local to the jobs that are being done up there. They’re people that know what’s going on. They understand the problems that have existed from past activities, whether there were financial reasons why a well is orphaned or whatever. But I think that the thing about it is that these local people understand that, and they know, often, how best to address those things.

I really do commend the fact that we want to try to make certain that there’s no such thing. We don’t want that term “orphan well” in British Columbia, if we can help it. But we can’t necessarily, with the stroke of a pen, force and make those things kind of all happen.

I think that the Oil and Gas Commission currently has seven offices. I look at the fact that the changes that they’re proposing here really does….

The concern that we would have if and when we get to committee stage on this is that we’re going to want to talk about the principles of fairness and investment certainty that these changes will make. That’s really what it’s about, right? One of the biggest problems in foreign jurisdictions, looking at a place like British Columbia, is what type of certainty do we have in terms of energy, in terms of extracting it? What are the rules?

[1:55 p.m.]

I know that in my time in Asia, I made it very clear that once you had permits, they were very certain. Now, it wasn’t easy to get the permits. You had to go through the environmental assessment office, the Oil and Gas Commission, or the B.C. energy regulator.

But the principle of having certainty is so important. We need to make certain we do that, not just in oil and gas. We need to do it in forestry. We need to do it in mining. We need to make certain that these opportunities are not snatched away from people that live in the far north up in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek. As I said, how many from this building have actually been to those communities?

I think that the things that are important is that I know that there are complex discussions. With UNDRIP going on, it is very important that First Nation consultation is taking place. We’ve seen that with issues in terms of where the majority of this is going with First Nations.

What’s being proposed here is that we also include, in a new board — the B.C. energy regulator — a First Nation representative as one of the board members, which I have no problem, provided that they come with the balance and experience that is necessary to make certain that we make informed decisions. Poorly informed decisions lead to this uncertainty and wild, crazy things that are going on.

I know the Minister of Forests and I have talked ad nauseam about the changes in terms of the forest deferral act that was implemented a while ago. The bottom line is that I think that the situation is it’s left the companies in a very difficult situation. How do we get to that point? How do we build consensus? How do we do the right thing, making certain at every step of the way? So this is really important that the message to the new board and the changes that we’re making to the B.C. energy regulator are very clearly the type of decisions that are balanced, informed and thoughtful, knowing our goal.

That’s, first of all, what we have to do. The idea that we want to produce LNG for ten years, 20 years…. What’s it going to take for India to clean up and get rid of some of the problems. India is not the only country. The population is so populace. I know the other day that we passed eight billion people on the planet. We have to do something, because we’re not going to get away from energy and the need for it.

You can only look at what’s happening in the situation with Ukraine today in terms of the fact that all of those people that have lost, whether it’s nuclear or natural gas, are turning to any other source that they can just to get through the winter. That’s what those other countries that we’re talking about are actually faced with. They’re looking at any opportunity, and what we need to do is create the opportunity through the regulation of the gas and the things that we have here to make certain that what we’re doing is creating opportunities and an alternative solution.

The other thing that was mentioned in here is the…. I think that the current proposal that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission can hold…. WIP is entirely responsible for obligations under a permit. In the context of an orphan site, regardless of the WIP’s ownership share, that should be concerning. One of the things that….

Sometimes in these investments, or the way that these are shared investments in terms of extracting, getting permits, etc., is that the permitting is either you’ve taken over assumed liabilities from other people…. It will maybe, perhaps, even put such a restriction in terms of these companies that are looking for an opportunity in being able to actually move ahead and actually being able to complete the work that was expected where there is a problem like an orphan well.

One of the things that’s proposed here is that this would fundamentally change how the risk is balanced among the partners. That means the partners, the board of directors. I think that although there is responsibility from boards of directors — don’t get me wrong — they need to make certain that we know what they’re stepping into, trying to make certain that they understand what their risk and liabilities are and trying to work with them to find a solution.

[2:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier, I invite the member to take their seat.

I now must put the question on second reading of Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 39.

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that Bill 39 be now read a second time.

Bill 39 will ensure clarity with respect to the judicial review of decisions made under decision-making agreements under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The amendments in the bill are part of the government’s implementation of the Declaration Act that provides tools for the province and Indigenous governing bodies to develop decision-making agreements. These agreements support predictability for how decisions are made and are a mechanism for Indigenous peoples to fully participate in decisions that affect them.

This bill will ensure shared accountability for decisions made under these agreements by providing clarity to the courts on any judicial reviews of decisions made under decision-making agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

The Judicial Review Procedure Act is a procedural statute that governs the processes that apply to judicial reviews of decisions made by government decision-makers — for example, decisions to issue forest licences or highway use permits. Judicial reviews ensure that decisions have been made reasonably, fairly and within the decision-maker’s scope of authority.

At this time, there have been no Indigenous governing body decisions made under the Declaration Act decision-making agreements. The amendments will clarify that a consent-based decision of an Indigenous governing body that is made in accordance with a decision-making agreement will be subject to the same processes under the Judicial Review Procedure Act as government decisions that followed the consent decision.

At present, our government has entered into a consent-based decision-making agreement under section 7 of the Declaration Act with the Tahltan Central Government. This agreement advances reconciliation and provides clarity and predictability for the Eskay Creek revitalization project.

Because the processes in the Judicial Review Procedure Act already address situations where two or more decision-makers make decisions jointly, the bill does not contain amendments to address joint decisions under the Declaration Act decision-making agreements.

Our government has started negotiations with the shíshálh First Nation, the former Sechelt Nation, on the first joint decision-making agreement under section 7 of the Declaration Act. This agreement, once negotiated, will apply to decisions on dock tenures within the shíshálh swiya — that is, their traditional territory — and will build upon the current model for making shared decisions on dock tenures that was established back in 2018.

This bill also contains a new definition of “Indigenous governing body.” It has the same meaning under the bill of the term found in the Declaration Act.

The amendments provide another option for how service of legal process may be made on an Indigenous governing body where there’s an application for judicial review and service is required. Service may be effectively made in accordance with the rules of the court, if applicable, or in accordance with the Declaration Act decision-making agreement.

The amendments ensure that the procedural rights for notice and participation extend to Indigenous governing bodies where there is a judicial review of a consent-based decision of an Indigenous governing body. The bill also extends the tools available to the court for ordering the record to be filed by ensuring the court can order the record of the Indigenous governing body consent decision under section 7 Declaration Act agreements.

[2:05 p.m.]

This legislation furthers government’s commitment to strengthening relations with Indigenous peoples in the spirit of reconciliation. The amendments were developed in close collaboration with the First Nation Leadership Council, the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations and several section 35 rights holders, such as the shíshálh Nation.

M. de Jong: The topic for discussion is, and I suppose will remain, Bill 39, which is a short piece of legislation that speaks to both some procedural matters and the opportunity to seek a judicial review of certain decisions made by a governing body. Those are important evolutionary mechanisms in the law that flow from the adoption of the UN declaration. They are worthy of consideration. I would say this. Conceptually, they are worthy of support.

But the backdrop against which this conversation is taking place needs to be commented upon, because for people watching, a few moments ago something has taken place in this chamber that directly impacts this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation. That is the motion that the Government House Leader has introduced that, amongst other things, severely limits the opportunity this House will have to consider this piece of legislation but also other pieces of legislation.

The rules around quorum require that members of the government be in the chamber. I rather suspect that many of them would rather not be here, because they must be incredibly embarrassed. If they’re not, they should be. To table legislation in the final three or four days of a session — legislation that the government touts as being fundamentally important to the future of the province — to table that legislation to fit with a political agenda that was entirely within the control of the government and then say, less than 24 hours later, that there will be one or two hours of debate on that legislation is reprehensible, indefensible and an embarrassment.

I don’t know to what lengths this government wants to go to, to chase away support and bipartisan support, but they’re doing a pretty good job. The government stands up. Ministers stand up. “We want to work together. We want to have your support on pieces of legislation that are worthy of that support.” You know what the prerequisite to supporting legislation is? It’s having the time to examine and debate it in this chamber.

Now, that may seem to some members to be funny. I don’t find it very funny. I cannot think of a time in 29 years when a government of any political stripe has done what this government has done today.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Chilliwack seems to have something to say. I’d like to sit down and cede my time. But there is no time, because his party has imposed closure. And he finds that funny. He finds that humorous.

“Here’s legislation,” the government says yesterday. The new Premier. This is the new Premier’s idea of a coming-out party? This is demonstration of his commitment to the democratic process? Signature pieces of legislation, he calls them. Signature pieces of legislation that will chronicle a path forward on an issue that most British Columbians think is very important, and we will have one or two hours of debate.

[2:10 p.m.]

Why has the government chosen to proceed down this path in this manner? We have, over the course of this session, in so many instances, demonstrated what can be accomplished when members work together cooperatively. There’s a bill in another committee room, a 600-section piece of legislation, that was, admittedly, the product of all-party work. And the remaining process to complete that work was for a committee of this assembly to go through it in a responsible way to ascertain whether or not it accomplishes what members hope it will accomplish.

After cancelling an entire week of sitting, the government now says that won’t happen. Couldn’t be bothered. Couldn’t be bothered.

Deputy Speaker: If the member wants to talk about what’s happening in another committee room, of course, he can go there. We are here, of course, on Bill 39.

M. de Jong: Actually, the motion that limits the discussion of this bill is directly on point.

Deputy Speaker: We’re on Bill 39.

M. de Jong: It is directly on point and the motion….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. If you’ll take your seat, please.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if you’re suggesting that we’re not, then I’m all ears.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Take your seat, please.

I was simply asking the member to speak to the legislation, which is Bill 39, the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act. The member was speaking about another piece of legislation in another committee, which is not appropriate as per the standing order. So if the member could draw his comments back to the bill, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

M. de Jong: I’m not withdrawing any comments, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: If the member is trying to get a fight from the Speaker, he’s not getting one. I did not ask him to withdraw. He’s sitting right beside me here. I simply asked him to speak to the bill.

M. de Jong: If the Chair’s direction is that in a case where closure has been imposed on the strength of a motion just tabled in this House, on the bill that is before the House now — that, somehow, that is inappropriate, then I am at a loss to explain how members of this chamber can do their job.

Deputy Speaker: We’re not having a debate here, Member.

The member is free to talk about the bill and the implications of closure on this bill. The member was speaking about the implications on another bill, which is not in front of this chamber. So the debate is over. Let’s continue to discuss Bill 39. The member may continue.

M. de Jong: Well, I can assure you that the debate is not over for me. It will be shortly, because the government says it is.

Mr. Speaker, you and other members of the chamber may discern that I’m a little worked up. I don’t get worked up that much anymore, because I thought I’d seen it all. I actually thought I had seen it all, but I have never seen a Premier in his first week in this House do what has just happened. I have never seen a Premier introduce legislation that he says is groundbreaking…. What did the Attorney General call it? Historic.

These bills, Bill 39…. They deserve an opportunity to be examined. I think any responsible review of the record of debates in this chamber over the course of the last four or five weeks would confirm that the debate that has taken place has been responsible. It has been informative. In most cases, I dare say, it has been collegial.

[2:15 p.m.]

But someone has come along after cancelling an entire week of the session and, with respect to Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation, has said: “No. That troublesome process called democratic debate in a chamber is just a bit of a problem, so we’re not going to do it anymore.” Talk about a legacy forged in the first days in office.

I wonder if any member of the government will stand to defend it. If there is some compelling reason for why the debate on Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation need to be truncated in this fashion, then I’d like to hear it. You know, the whole point of having a parliamentary calendar was so that members could understand, and the government would table, its legislative portfolio, its legislative agenda. All of those bills would be tabled, and then the obligation shifts to the opposition to allocate time as they see fit.

The prerequisite to that is the government needs to table the legislation in a timely way, or it doesn’t work. It was never, ever, ever contemplated, in the creation of what we now call the guillotine motion, that the government would table a bill on a Monday and impose closure on a Tuesday. It was never contemplated, as we see with Bill 39, that the Attorney General of the province would stand up….

I am trying to imagine what the Attorney General would have said, as an opposition member of the federal parliament, if this has happened. I think he takes a measure of pride in being a democrat — a small-D democrat. I suppose he probably takes pride in being a big-D Democrat too. I think he probably…. But today is not a day to be proud of that. Today, with his and his colleagues’ fingerprints on the motions before this House and the impact it’s having on discussion around Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation, is not a day to be proud to be a member of a party that touts itself as a democratic party.

The whole notion…. I said this yesterday. My point was: in circumstances where it was clear that the government intended to go down a certain path, I said, “Be careful,” because I have been around long enough to know that no one sits on either side of the House forever. It might seem like that on some days, but by establishing the pattern and the precedents that this government has in the last few days — procedural precedents around disregard and disrespect for this institution — they may one day rue the day. But they did so.

There are very few people watching these debates. I’m not naive enough to think that there are people across the province tuning in. But they do expect that in the creation of laws — which is what we do here, besides allocating tax dollars — that bind and influence the behaviour of its citizenry, the members of this chamber will devote themselves to the responsible review of legislation that creates those laws.

[2:20 p.m.]

Whether it is around issues of a judicial review on decisions from First Nations governments or housing issues — the rules that people create in their neighbourhoods that those bills, those proposed laws, will be scrutinized and will receive a sufficient and responsible level of attention, and they’re not. They’re not, Mr. Speaker, not because of circumstances beyond the control of this government. I do want to emphasize that again. I did yesterday, and I will do so again today.

Everyone understands that there are circumstances that are beyond the control of government and that require us to be flexible here. Not a single member on either side of the House, I expect, would take issue with adjusting the rules to take external factors beyond the control of any of us into account. We have demonstrated that and proven that in the past.

This is all within the government’s control. This travesty has been manufactured by the government and by the Premier with the acquiescence and support of every member of his cabinet, and it is deplorable. Each one of these members of the executive council and, by extension, members of the government caucus now own a part of that legacy. They have contributed, signed off and endorsed that approach to law-making in British Columbia.

We may or may not have an opportunity to consider Bill 39 in greater detail. It’s hard to say. Things change pretty quick around here. One minute we have a democratic institution dedicated to the responsible review of legislation, and the next minute we have the Premier’s little playpen, his little parliamentary playpen.

Deputy Speaker: I might again, Member, draw you back to the contents of Bill 39. Thank you.

M. de Jong: A parliamentary playpen that the Premier believes he can manipulate, direct and dictate procedurally. That’s what he’s done today. If he did it today, in his first week in office, imagine what he’s going to be like in his second week and his second month. That’s what we’ve learned about the former Attorney General, who is now Premier, the leader of the New Democratic Party.

I wonder if the realization that the new Premier would shut down debate on Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation…. I wonder if that’s a pledge he made to his caucus colleagues, all of whom apparently supported him to become Premier.

That’s where we’re at. I don’t know if we’ll come back to a committee stage. Historically what you will see in a debate like this is…. In terms of the concept of the bill, we either support or don’t support it. Many times oppositions support the bills in principle and say: “Well, we’ve got some questions in committee.”

I don’t know if we’ll have a committee. Why would I think today that there would be a committee on any of the legislation? The Premier may decide that’s just not necessary any longer, and tomorrow we’ll get another one of these.

[2:25 p.m.]

Unprecedented. Unprecedented in the annals of parliamentary democracy, at least in the last 40 years, that a government would conduct itself in this way.

Now, maybe the defence…. I suppose I have to be fair to this extent, because maybe I’m giving too much credit. I am operating on the proposition that this is the worst form of manipulation — purposeful, designed.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the motion that was debated and voted on earlier is not the subject of this discussion. This is Bill 39, the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022.

The Speaker has given the member considerable leeway under our rules. He’s made his statement.

My point is that we have a bill, and that is what we’re meant to be addressing here.

M. de Jong: Always helpful, Mr. Speaker. You just took 47 seconds of the remaining time I have left.

Deputy Speaker: Well, then I would ask you to please focus on the bill.

M. de Jong: And I would ask you to give me the opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of the rules and the motion that pertains directly to the piece of legislation that we are debating today. I dare say we are now engaging in the debate you said you didn’t want to have.

Deputy Speaker: Then please focus on the bill.

M. de Jong: If you’ll let me, Mr. Speaker, happy to.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there’s no need for back-talking the Speaker here. We do have rules here. They’re meant to be followed by every member of this House.

M. de Jong: You’ve now taken an additional 37 seconds of the limited time I have to deal….

Deputy Speaker: This is your time, Member, and you’ve decided not to follow the rules here.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I just want to exercise my parliamentary right as a member of this assembly.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down. Sit down.

I understand the member might be looking for fireworks. He’s not getting them from this Speaker.

I’m asking you to follow the rules, which is to speak to the bill. If the member chooses not to follow the rules, which is to speak to the bill, which is the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, then I’m going to have to move on to the next speaker. It is important we address the legislation in the time that we have.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if the ruling from the Chair — and you can make this ruling, I suppose — is that in a case where the government has imposed closure on a piece of legislation, we’re not allowed to talk about the fact that they’ve imposed closure…

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. de Jong: …then that is a new ruling from the Chair, and you might as well make it so at least we’ll understand what the rules are.

Deputy Speaker: No it’s not.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Enough, Member, sit down.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Sit down, Member, or I’m going to ask you to leave the chamber. Thank you.

I’ve asked you to follow the bill. I’ve asked you to focus on the legislation. You’ve made your case around time allocation, which is not a debatable motion under the rules of this House. It’s debating something that happened in the past. We’re asking you to focus on this legislation.

That is the rules in this House, and at this stage, the member’s wanting to debate me and continuing this. I’m going to ask another member, to give their chance to speak, because the member has decided not to follow the rules of this House.

Point of Order

M. de Jong: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are denying me my right to speak in this chamber on a piece of legislation, then I need to hear that now.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ve asked you to speak to….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down. Sit down.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

I’m asking the member to sit down. I’ve been clear about what I’ve asked the member to do. He’s chosen not to do that, so I’m going to ask for another member to have their chance to speak.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, enough. If the member’s choosing not to follow the rules, I will have to ask the member to withdraw.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please leave the chamber.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member’s decided to try and have an argument with the Speaker. That’s not how this place works. I’ve asked the member to follow the rules, which is to speak to the legislation.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Enough, Member, enough. This is your time. You’ve decided to waste it in arguing with the Speaker. I’ve asked you to follow the legislation and to follow the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Vancouver-Langara has the floor.

Member, what is your point of order?

M. de Jong: The clock indicated that I had a remaining eight minutes left, and I’m at a loss to explain to my constituents why those eight minutes were denied to me.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Speaker has been clear. I asked you to follow the legislation and speak to the actual bill as opposed to other issues relating to the bill that are not in the bill. I’ve asked….

That’s been clear. I’ve stated it multiple times, given the member multiple leeway. The ruling is clear. Thank you.

M. de Jong: I’m still unclear on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please have your seat. Please take your seat, Member.

This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’re back here for second reading of Bill 39. I have recognized the member for Vancouver-Langara, if he had chosen to continue to stand.

The member for Abbotsford West raised a point of order. I ruled on that point of order. It’s not sustained. I’ve made my reasoning clear. So I’m not sure if the member is asking to raise a different point of order, but the ruling is pretty clear here, Member.

The member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker. I am certain it is clear to you, Mr. Speaker. It is unclear to me on what basis the Chair has chosen to deny me the time that would otherwise be available as part of the standing orders to complete my comments on Bill 39.

I understand that the Chair takes issue with some of my commentary. The practice, as I understand it, has always been to afford members the opportunity to take those comments under advisement.

I should say, as well, and I say this with respect to the Chair, that it’s clear upon reflection that my tone was quite heated earlier. The Chair needs to be respected, and believe me, I am alive to the importance of that. And to the extent that my tone, at least, was disrespectful, I need to apologize for that.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for that. It was not respectful and did not respect the role of the Chair to all members, which is to make sure that all members get a chance to speak.

The rules are also clear that the discussion needs to be relevant, and it can’t be repetitious. The Chair asked numerous times for support from the member to discuss the relevant chapters, sections, etc., in the bill. The member decided to argue with the Chair, so I decided to move and request another member to speak to the bill, as we have limited time, as the member stated numerous times.

So at this stage, we’re not going to continue this debate.

M. de Jong: The precedent, Mr. Speaker, then, that has been set is that if the Speaker takes issue with comments made by a member of this assembly, he’ll simply move on and deny the member….

Deputy Speaker: That’s not correct, Member.

The member, if he could take his seat…. The Speaker has made his ruling. I’ve made clear that, as in the rules and as I’ve seen happen in this House many times over, if a member is being repetitious, if they’re not being relevant, the Speaker draws the member to the legislation. I chose to do that with this member numerous times, and then the member chose to argue with the Speaker.

So we’re done with this, Member.

If he could take his seat. The member has made his case, the Speaker has made his ruling, and if the member could take his seat at this stage, it would be appreciated by all other members so we could get back to the legislation and discussion.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I can raise another point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you have another point of order, if you can raise the point of order under the standing orders, I would like to hear it, then.

M. de Jong: The standing orders provide a requisite amount of time for members of this assembly to make comment with respect to a bill.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, happily, although this may change, bills being subjected to motions of closure have heretofore been unusual. That may be changing, I fear. In fact, all indications are that….

Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order, Member?

M. de Jong: That pursuant to the rules of this House, I am entitled to speak for another eight minutes on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the rules of this House, the member is also required to be relevant and to speak to the legislation.

So I’ve made my ruling….

M. de Jong: Now apparently I am unable to make my point of order without interruption.

Deputy Speaker: The member is making the same point of order as he tried earlier.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Speaker has given latitude, has requested relevance, has requested lack of repetition, has requested to get back to the bill numerous times. The Speaker has reminded this member numerous times to do so.

The member has chosen to argue each and every time and has continued to argue each and every time, while claiming he wanted to get back to being able to talk about the bill. When I’ve given him leeway to do so, we go back to the same argument.

I’m not sure we’re going to be helpful to anybody here at this point, Member, to continue this circular discussion when it’s clear…. If the member wants to speak to the legislation, we should speak to the legislation. I respect the member enough to give him the time to finish, but I ask the member to follow the rules of this House and to respect the Speaker as he says he wants to do.

Please proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a shame that the concepts and the principles contained within Bill 39, important and relevant as they are to the evolving relationship with B.C.’s Indigenous peoples and First Nations people, would be compromised and limited in the way that they are. You know, there are aspects of judicial review and how those rules would apply to the agreements that are referred to in this legislation. We won’t have time to discuss that. We won’t have an opportunity to pose those questions.

My colleague from Vancouver-Langara has some very real concerns and questions pertaining to aspects of this bill as they relate to, actually, other pieces of legislation that are before this House, in child protection.

It is incumbent upon members of this assembly and, certainly, members of this opposition to point out to the public that our opportunity to pose those questions, to raise those issues on a piece of legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation that, by his own word, the Attorney General and the Premier describe as historic and unprecedented…. Well, apparently they’re historic and unprecedented for the wrong reasons, because I’ve never seen a government introduce legislation on a Monday and impose closure on a Tuesday.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We know politicians — Premiers, ministers — like the term “legacy.” They like to look back and point to pieces of legislation, legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation that are being considered by the House.

[2:45 p.m.]

But the legacy that has been set today and the pattern that I fear will be repeated over and over and over again is that this chamber now will be relegated by the Premier and his executive council to an, in their mind, insignificant body whose only purpose is to rubber-stamp, at the Premier’s behest and on the Premier’s schedule, whatever legislation he deems appropriate to present here.

That’s not democracy. It has become fashionable, for reasons that have been discussed elsewhere, to refer to the Premier’s ascension to his post as being tainted. There are reasons for that. It probably falls outside of the ambit of the discussion we’re having in the House, but what does fall within the orbit of what we’re discussing is how every bit of legislation this government has introduced and made subject to these closure bills is now tainted.

I will say this again. Believe it or not — and there is ample evidence to support this proposition — there is an ability on the part of members of this assembly to work together to achieve good things. The government has put all of that — not at risk. They have thrown all of that away, because when we take a bill like Bill 39 or other pieces of legislation that are the product of bipartisan work, we ask only one thing.

The public asks only one thing, I believe, in return: that their legislators, who they elect and pay to perform this function have a reasonable opportunity — not a limitless opportunity but a reasonable opportunity — to scrutinize and determine whether that legislation meets the objectives that the government says they are trying to achieve and, in some cases, that the opposition is trying to achieve.

That is all that is asked for in return. This Premier and this government have signalled that we are asking too much. They have chosen, instead, to proceed with an absolute disregard not just for the principles of democracy but the traditions of this place and the importance of those traditions.

Now, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the function of the Legislature as regards Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation — maybe it’s changed because the Premier has decided in all his wisdom to make public the legislative review committee proceedings. I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s inviting the public in to be part of those discussions. I don’t think he’s inviting people in to be part of the discussions that take place around the cabinet table.

The only place the important issues considered by pieces of legislation like Bill 39 can receive an airing is in here, and that has now been eliminated. It has been eliminated. Democracy has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, because the Premier has a political agenda that is all about making the Premier look good. Democracy will be sacrificed in the name of that overarching objective.

As I indicated earlier, my tone at a certain point got — I hope, uncharacteristically — harsh and heated, but the government has put a muzzle on this chamber in a way that I’ve never seen before. I don’t expect we’ll hear any member of the government try to defend that, because it is indefensible, but within the limited time available, I did want to and do want to make the point that the legitimacy of legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation has now been compromised.

If the government expects the opposition to simply stand up and salute and support pieces of legislation that it has been denied the right to properly scrutinize, then I’m afraid they’re dreaming and they’re wrong, because we won’t do it. We won’t do it. We can’t do it. It’s not the responsible thing to do.

[2:50 p.m.]

There could have been a better way, but the Premier and the government have chosen to manipulate this institution of democracy in a way that is indefensible.

M. Lee: I came into this chamber about an hour ago to stand to speak to Bill 37 and was watching the member for Kelowna West, following the lead of our critic the member for Kootenay East, speak to that bill. The Speaker said: “Time allocation, two o’clock. You’re done.”

Madam Speaker, the reason why the member for Abbotsford West was so heated certainly is not out of disrespect to you and your office. It is out of concern for how this government, under this Premier, has completely undermined the democratic process of this House.

Why does that matter? Well, let me give you a few examples. The member for Abbotsford West referred to, of course, in this bill debate on Bill 39, the importance of the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act. It introduces what ministry staff have informed us, the member for Abbotsford West and myself, of accountability measures for First Nations, for Indigenous nations, as to how they use section 6 and section 7 of the DRIPA act. That’s important.

I was not able to speak today about another important issue that’s on Bill 37, and that’s connected to Bill 39. Bill 39 is connected to Bill 38. At 3:15 or after, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and myself will be in a separate chamber. Why? Because we have three simultaneous chambers happening at this time, with extended hours, with closure, with one week less of debate.

Why? Because as the member for Abbotsford West just said, it’s all about the new Premier. It’s all about how he positions himself in the first three days of his 100-day plan. He has undermined the democratic process of this House in such a way that I find it very difficult to participate in this process, to stand here to be cut off from wanting to express the concern about the term “supporting reconciliation.” That is a new term in Bill 37. It’s important to question what that means.

Why? Because supporting reconciliation is a new term that is plopped in the middle of Bill 37. Yet we have, on Bill 39, the accountability measures. We talk about, in Bill 38, the kind of opportunities there are for coordination agreements, joint decision-making agreements, with Indigenous nations to take responsibility for the care of their children.

The implications on this bill is, on Bill 39, that the decision of the Indigenous governing body and any reasons given by it must be provided. Well, I want to raise that as an item of consideration, because we may not have the opportunity at committee on this bill to even ask the questions.

[2:55 p.m.]

I spent yesterday, as I have in previous days, with the member for Prince George–Valemount asking questions on Bill 36. I had the opportunity — thank you to the Minister of Health — to understand the consultation process with Indigenous nations for that bill.

But I can say to you that despite his best efforts to demonstrate the level of consultation, I’m not hearing the same on Bill 38. I hope to ask that question in a moment. But it does raise the question on Bill 39. How many First Nations truly understand that what is tied to DRIPA in section 7 is the requirement that they need to provide the reasons given for their decision?

The Judicial Review Procedure Act is an important review and accountability for certain decisions. If we look at other examples, such as the B.C. Administrative Tribunals Act, there are descriptions in that statute of the kinds of procedures, the standard of review, that would take place. Under this amendment, and under DRIPA, there are no explicit standards of review.

I know that we have the Tahltan Central Government agreement with the province of British Columbia, relating to consent decision-making around the Eskay Creek project. When you look at that agreement, there are no standards of review requirements spelling out the reasons for the consent to be provided.

I think it’s very important for nations that are looking to this government to work through that joint decision-making process under section 7 of DRIPA that they understand what the standards review is that will be applied to them in their decision-making if they were to take on this responsibility, which is a statutory power of decision.

Again, second, it’ll be important for nations and for our chamber to understand the nature of the reasons, the requirements, around the record of that decision by the Indigenous governing body. These are important considerations as we look at this Judicial Review Procedure Act and the amendments that are being provided under Bill 39.

We know that when we have the opportunity to review what an Indigenous governing body will be taking on, we need to confirm what standard will be applied to the exercise of their decision-making ability in order to confirm that they have that discretion that’s granted under the agreement with government. Whether that’s an absolute discretion…. This amendment to this bill, as set out in this bill, doesn’t require that reasons be given. It just says: “any reasons given by it.”

The language does matter. That is the opportunity to have that discussion with the minister responsible for the Attorney General Ministry, who’s sponsoring this bill, as he brings it forward to this House — to have the opportunity to have that reviewed.

I’m very concerned that we may not have that opportunity. We have a situation here where various bills are being provided with short shrift in terms of the level of discussion and review that is available to us.

[3:00 p.m.]

When I said earlier that the shifting of the words, which are important, to section 4 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act…. That section sets out that to address the interests of Indigenous peoples in this province, there’s a recognition to encourage the participation of Indigenous people “in processes affecting them.” Well, processes affecting them, of course, are the regulatory processes around oil and gas, as we look at the expansion of the mandate of the Oil and Gas Commission, to be renamed with more general wording around support and reconciliation.

We have a government here that is ramming through legislation without much review, but these changes do matter. They matter because as we talk about reconciliation with Indigenous nations in this province, we see, time and time again, the rushed nature with which bills are introduced into this House, the overwhelming requirements that are hitting Indigenous nations so that they aren’t able to respond in a careful, thoughtful way as much as they would like. That’s why we need the time, in this House, to review the legislation that’s being presented.

Again, my concern around Bill 39 is that these changes have not had the full line of discussion within Indigenous nations, as to how they consider the rights that they’re going to be faced with under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. As we look at the opportunities that are available to us, we know that, with Indigenous nations, participation and partnership in our resource economy is certainly part of reconciliation. The opportunity that the Tahltan have — to have greater decision-making responsibility for the Eskay Creek project — is a good example of that.

I have had written confirmation with the minister about the usage of this section. We know that, with the mining sector, when this section 7, which Bill 39 pertains to, was introduced, the previous Minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation confirmed that there would be an opportunity for that level of consultation available with the industry, that the kinds of decision-making agreements that pertained to this particular section would focus on high-level strategic decision-making interests and not individual permitting processes, and that the Crown still retains the final decision-making authority.

That final decision-making authority with government is where this needs to be clarified, because as with the agreement with the Tahltan, it seems and appears on its face that there has been a change in approach. I know that, in response, the minister has indicated that government has learned a lot from working with the Tahltan, and future Declaration Act section 7 agreements would benefit from the experience that this government has had with the Tahltan Nation.

As we look at the greater recognition of Indigenous laws relating to self-government, certainly as it applies to children and families, it’s a recognition, under our constitution — that has been ruled on by the courts and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada — that the legislation that this government is presenting to us needs careful review. The implications of the legislation are far-reaching.

[3:05 p.m.]

They’re far-reaching, not just for the nations themselves but for all British Columbians, as to how we look at the sharing of responsibility and the sharing of partnership as it relates to resource development. We know that, even with the oil and gas sector, we’ve seen situations where, for 15 months after the Yahey decision, government froze all permitting in northeast British Columbia across all sectors. We’re still waiting on this government for clarity. Hundreds of millions of investment dollars continue to leave this province because of that lack of clarity.

Both Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities are looking to this government for that leadership. So when it uses words around supporting reconciliation, we need to know from this government what it means by that in the context both of Bill 37 and Bill 39, because these two bills are linked in the respect of how this government is going to work with First Nations to have that level of partnership to develop the resources of our province in a way that will promote economic reconciliation with First Nations themselves.

We know, with the opportunity that is presented here, that when we look at the wording that’s been changed, no longer are the purposes clauses in Bill 37 spelling out the kind of level of involvement that we’ve seen. I’ve mentioned one in terms of encouraging the participation of Indigenous people in the processes affecting them. Well, again, the mechanism under Bill 39 certainly would provide them with that.

Bill 37 already has been tabled, and the debate that’s been cut off…. It sets out important purposes and purposes that relate to fostering a healthy environment, ensuring safe and efficient practices, assisting equitable participation in shared pools, effective and efficient processes for review of applications for permits, ensuring applications are approved in the public interest. Again, encouraging the participation of Indigenous people and the processes affecting them. Participating in planning processes and undertaking programs of education and communication.

These are the important purposes that are being stripped out by this government under Bill 37. They are undermining the regulatory regime that was intended to promote the further development of the oil and gas sector in this province. Promoting that oil and gas sector has meant significant economic benefits to Indigenous nations as well as Indigenous people who are working in the oil and gas sector.

I’ve had good discussions — the member for Peace River South has joined me in this discussion — for example, with the Chief of the Saulteau First Nation, a Treaty 8 First Nation. He himself is a person who has a long background in working in the oil and gas sector.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I just remind you that we’re on Bill 39.

M. Lee: Well, Madam Speaker, as I mentioned — and I appreciate that — the linkage between Bill 39 and Bill 37 is quite significant because it does talk about the importance of supporting partnerships, and how we support these partnerships relate to using the mechanism that is set out in section 7 of DRIPA that’s to be the subject matter of judicial review under Bill 39.

I think it’s important that we understand how this government sees those opportunities for partnership, particularly when it changes the wording, which is a small wording change. But because of closure, I haven’t had the opportunity to actually express that comment in this House.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is the reason why, when we look at the pattern of closure by this government…. Two o’clock today, Bill 37; at 3:15 today, Bill 39; at 6:30 today, Bill 43; and at 8:30 today, Bill 44. In a rapid succession, debate on these very important measures is being cut off.

It puts a member like myself in a position where…. How am I supposed to do my job? How am I supposed to hold the government to account on important measures and legislation that affect Indigenous peoples and Indigenous nations in our province? That is my critic role. Without having that opportunity, this government has cut off not only myself and my role but that voice, because there are a number of nations that have not been consulted. I know that. Nations tell me that. Nations are not aware of some of the parts of this legislation that is being introduced in this House.

It is an affront to the democratic process that each of us hold in this assembly that we’re not able to participate in the way through the first, second, third readings of bills and the committee stages on these bills. It puts us in a position where I, in the time that I’ve had here in talking to this bill, have had to make some points related to other bills.

But why is that important? Because, as I was saying yesterday in committee on Bill 36, there are points in the other bills that relate to Bill 36 as well. There’s a learning around the fiscal framework that is there with First Nations and expectations of First Nations around how we deal with discrimination in our province with the health care system. There is a need for greater resource support and capacity for First Nations and Indigenous nations as they take back responsibility for their children. That is a discussion we’ll have in a few minutes on Bill 38, before closure is brought to that bill as well.

These are important discussion to be having as to how British Columbians and Indigenous peoples will be working forward on their bills. I know that when we look at the two important housing bills that have been brought forward by this government and by this Premier and bringing closure on the very next day that those bills were introduced in this House…. Well, that closure was not just for those bills. It’s been for everything else. It’s been every single other bill that we have right now up for debate, and it is impeding the ability of members of this House to debate and to fully review the legislation that’s being presented at the committee stage as well.

This is something that makes it very difficult for members of this House to participate in the review of this legislation. It makes me question why we are here, because we are not being given the opportunity to have this discussion, to have the response from the ministers responsible for introducing the legislation.

Yesterday, we got to section 110 of Bill 36. There are hundreds of more sections to review — 650 sections. That is a very important bill that has important ramifications for how the health care system is governed through our professional colleges. It also has important ramifications for how Indigenous peoples ensure they have the cultural safety to work with our health care system. The anti-discrimination measures in that bill are spread through many different sections in that bill.

To the extent that I’m involved in another bill on self-government for children and families for Indigenous nations, I will not be able to join the member from Prince George–Valemount on the other bill, debate and discussion. This is just a small example of what happens when this Premier cuts off debate for his own agenda, manipulates the schedule of this House in a way that is highly disrespectful, not just to the members of this House but to British Columbians and other members of our province that rely on us to do the job that we’re elected to do.

As we look at the opportunities to continue to review Bill 39, we know that the Judicial Review Procedure Act is a very important and fundamental aspect of the framework around DRIPA that we have supported in this House.

[3:15 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Lee: I still have five minutes and 45 seconds on the clock there.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier today, I invite the member to take your seat and must now put the question on second reading of Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call second reading of Bill 43, Housing Supply Act.

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

B.C. is in a housing crisis. Housing supply has simply not kept up with demand. Essential workers and middle-income households are finding it difficult and sometimes impossible to afford the housing they need in the communities they work in. While many communities are already working hard to attract and to support growth, more can be done to ensure adequate and appropriate housing supply. This bill will help address the housing crisis by allowing the province to take a leadership role in ensuring municipalities are creating a regulatory environment that supports the creation of new housing supply that meets the needs of British Columbians.

It does this in several ways. First, it enables the minister to receive and review housing needs reports produced by municipalities together with other information related to supply and demand for housing to ensure municipalities are accurately forecasting and planning for current and future housing needs.

Second, it gives the province the authority to work with specified municipalities to develop housing targets that reflect housing need, set timelines to achieve those targets and create performance metrics to measure progress.

Third, it allows the province to review the progress of municipalities toward meeting housing targets and ensuring that municipalities are creating conditions to facilitate new housing development.

Last, if a municipality is not making progress toward its housing target, the province may take further progressive compliance actions, including the appointment of an adviser or advisers to review a municipality’s planning and development processes and practices and to report back to the minister. Actions may also include the minister issuing a directive for a municipality to enact or amend a bylaw or issue or refuse to issue a permit. Finally, the highest level of compliance action: the province directly enacting or amending a bylaw or issuing or refusing to issue a permit by order-in-council.

Taken together, these actions will support the expansion of adequate, appropriate and affordable housing supply and increased housing options for British Columbians. The bill was developed through engagement with Indigenous partners and key sector stakeholders. Ministry staff will work closely and collaboratively with specified municipalities to set targets and monitor their progress. The bill recognizes municipal autonomy. Once target setting is established, municipalities will determine how to best achieve the target through a review of their development policies and practices.

The legislation will have far-reaching benefits for British Columbians, as it will enable the construction of housing across the housing continuum and ensure that municipalities are creating the conditions that will deliver adequate and appropriate housing supply. We expect the development community to view the new legislation as good news, as they should benefit from more streamlined development approvals and knowing what housing targets a specified municipality is working toward. Ministry staff are developing regulations to implement the proposed legislation, which would be brought into force by regulation in mid-2023.

[3:20 p.m.]

This bill builds on the work our government has already done to streamline the development approval processes and is an important step toward expanding housing supply in partnership with municipalities in communities where there is a need for more housing.

The bill puts people first by addressing housing needs of British Columbians. It helps make life more affordable, as increased housing supply helps stabilize price and rent. It makes for a stronger B.C. economy, supporting stable and sustainable communities.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and speak to Bill 43, although it sounds like it’s going to be for, unfortunately, a limited time. Originally, when this government — of course, with only two days after today now left in session — brought forward these pieces of legislation that they say is signature or historic, whatever words they want to use, I was to announce that I was going to be the designated speaker.

We needed time to really speak to this bill, to try to digest what it really means, and to share some of the concerns and some of the benefits that we’re hearing of through this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I won’t have that time now, as we’ve heard, with closure coming in.

I do find it very interesting — the situation that we find ourselves in on just day 2, in this Legislature, of a brand-new Premier: already, a slap in the face for the democratic and legislative process that, I would say, people have fought long and hard to ensure that we have in this Legislature, in British Columbia and in Canada as a whole.

I know this government has already won the award for the most secretive government in Canada. I will now applaud them for winning the award for the most antidemocratic party in Canada. The members, if they want, can allow more time, and we can speak, and they can speak to these too.

I appreciate being heckled. I do wonder how the members of the NDP justify this. I wonder how they go back to their constituents and say: “Yes, we have elections. Yes, we have a democratic process. Through that democratic process, we get a governing body, and then we get an opposition — an opposition to hold government to account.”

When we’re looking at Bill 43, my job, I thought…. Not only as the critic but as a duly elected person in this House, I have the legislative ability to stand up and speak. That process, for me, is to bring the questions to government, to hold this government accountable. I’m curious as to how these NDP members are going to go back now to their constituents, celebrating Christmas, and say: “By the way, it’s a slap in the face for democracy, because we don’t actually want debate anymore.”

The Minister of Transportation can laugh all he wants. The Minister of Transportation can laugh all he wants at the slap in the face of democracy that we’re seeing in this House right now when we’re shutting down debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Actually, yes.

Deputy Speaker: The member has the….

M. Bernier: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to bring your remarks back to Bill 43…

M. Bernier: Actually, Madam Speaker, I am doing just that.

Deputy Speaker: …and continue. Thank you.

M. Bernier: Madam Speaker, I would love to do exactly that, which is what I’m trying to do. I would love to be afforded more time to speak to Bill 43. Now, I don’t know if it’s mismanagement or incompetence of this government, because I’ve never seen this.

When I looked into this, we have only two days now — not counting today; I’ll give them credit — left after today to bring in what they’re saying is key legislation. At the very end of a session, there’s not going to be adequate time, on Bill 43, to ask the questions that the people of British Columbia are already starting to ask, on these specific bills.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Minister of Transportation can try to shut it down, just like his House Leader did, and say we shouldn’t be talking about these bills. But I think it’s really important, when we talk about democracy….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: He can continue to heckle all he wants, Madam Speaker, but this is exactly what we’re talking about. When we want to talk about bills, we can’t. They’ve already shut it down. Now when I’m trying to make a point about the fact that I can’t talk about it, they want to shut that down too. We’ve seen that happen quite a bit already today in this Legislature, when people aren’t given their legislative rights, duly elected rights that I have, to speak in this House.

The Minister of Transportation can continue to heckle and babble all he wants. Maybe the whole point is that he should go back and look in the mirror and want to know why he is okay with shutting down democracy as well. Bill 43 is….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, it’s a party of no democracy, to go to the Minister of Forests.

The whole issue here is that if this government wants to say these are important bills — maybe they are — how do we know? We’re not going to be given adequate time to even debate that.

We know the struggles that people in British Columbia are facing around housing right now — the majority of those created under this government — with the amount of rent going up so that people can’t afford to live here and the amount of available housing going down so that people can’t afford to get into a house.

Obviously, we’re going to have lots of concerns and questions that we want to raise. This government wants us to stand up and support all these bills. How do we know if we can even support the bill when we don’t have time to talk about the bill?

I welcome the Leader of the Green Party, who wants to partake in this.

Look, at the end of the day, the people of British Columbia are struggling in the housing sector, whether it’s affordable housing, rental or market housing. Of course, they could have done this, if it was so important, months and months ago or even years ago. They sat on their hands and did nothing for the last five years, while the crisis continued to grow in British Columbia.

They waited, until just a few days were left in the sitting, to bring forward legislation that could have been done a long time ago. While people have suffered, while prices have gone up, they did nothing. By the minister’s own admission, and as the Premier said yesterday, Bill 43 really isn’t going to come into effect for possibly another six or eight months, yet they have to cram it through with no debate now.

This is another pattern that we’ve seen from this secretive government: “We don’t want to talk about it, don’t want to be held accountable and don’t want to debate it. Just trust us. We’re going to do it behind closed doors and tell you later.” I’ll tell you right now, as a former mayor, I’d be nervous as heck looking at this, not necessarily because of the contents of the bill per se but by this government’s arrogance, of ramming things through without consultation or fair scrutiny.

This bill is specifically about, it says, trying to work with local governments, right after the now Premier — a few days on the job, through his leadership campaign and others — basically blamed everybody but himself. He blamed local governments, blamed foreign buyers, blamed everything for the housing crisis. He’s now only realizing, ironically, after two days of being in this chamber as the Premier, that maybe we do need to collaborate with all different levels of government and the free market to try to build this housing supply.

People have been struggling, and now they’re being told by this government, through this bill: “Don’t worry. We’re putting this bill on the floor, we’re ramming it through with our majority government without real consultation or debate, and then we’re going to go out and consult. Then we’re going to go out and talk to local governments.”

The minister is unable — I’ll ask in committee stage, if we ever have time and if we ever get there — to identify which eight or ten, through his questions. He said they’ve got eight or ten municipalities that they’re going to be targeting. So which eight or ten? If they haven’t decided yet, why are we pushing this, ramming this through without discussion?

What are the outcomes going to be? Well, in this bill, it says we’re going to determine which eight or ten communities are the “bad players” — as I think was one of the terms that the now Premier has used.

[3:30 p.m.]

Guess what. We’re going to now reward them if they achieve certain goals. But what about the municipalities that are already doing a good job? Where is their reward? I’m curious to hear what the minister is going to say about that — if we have time.

It’s, I think, for a lot of us, almost a loss of words on what we’re seeing take place in the Legislature today. My in-box on Bill 43 and, I’m being told, soon-to-be-discussed Bill 40 — because of closure of this government — is full of concerns or questions or clarifications that people want me to raise in this House as critic. But now I have to go back and tell them, “I’m sorry, the arrogance of the NDP will no longer allow me to do that as the critic. I won’t have time to ask those questions on your behalf as a citizen of British Columbia,” because this government has chosen that that’s no longer democracy.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This government has decided that Bill 43 should just be rammed through without discussion or debate. Is it important? Maybe. How are we supposed to know? Do I take the minister’s word for it? Well, we’ve seen the track record of this government when they make grandiose promises or announcements and then fail to deliver. Is this another one? I don’t know. We’re not going to have time to discuss it. I’ll tell you, if this is truly a signature piece of legislation, then I cannot believe the path that we are going down with this NDP government, with a slap of the face of democracy.

When we look through the legislation — and we’ll probably hear it from the minister and others — it’s: “Don’t worry. Cabinet will decide later. There are going to be orders-in-council. We’ll make determinations.” Guess what. In true NDP fashion, those OICs don’t come back to this House either. None of this will get to be debated. None of it will get questioned. None of it will be scrutinized.

For the people out there who are watching today…. As some of my colleagues have said, it’s probably not a lot. People are busy with their lives. I get that. But those that are I’m sure would be shaking their heads right now on the fact that this government is being so undemocratic. For a party that likes to have “democratic” in their name, it does completely the opposite.

This legislation, on face value…. We’ve all talked about how local government needs to pull up their socks in some ways. Nobody is arguing that point. Some have done a great job. Some are struggling in order to achieve the goals. What’s interesting in this piece of legislation, though, is the unintended consequences that could come from that.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has even put out a statement saying that they’re concerned, because of the lack of information, that this could have unintended consequences for municipalities. I’ve got questions and comments I’d love to have on that. I’m not going to have time because this government is going to ram it through with their majority government and not allow that.

Again, I have to report back to UBCM and say: “I’m sorry. I wasn’t able and afforded the time to give the proper scrutiny to the questions and concerns that you have on behalf of local government, because that wasn’t allowed.”

I don’t have to reiterate some of the comments that were made earlier today by some of my colleagues. How disappointed — frankly, I’ll say disgusted — I am to see what transpired today. It’s something that I truly have really never seen before in the history of this parliament, when I’ve researched and tried to find how governments have acted. To bring forward pieces of legislation….

Interjection.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission can keep laughing all he wants. It just shows how seriously he takes this as well.

I do find it ironic that when we try to talk about the lack of democracy and the issues that have transpired today, the members of the NDP chuckle and think it’s funny that they’re shutting down debate and not allowing us to speak to the issues that we want to speak to. That’s appalling, and they should be embarrassed by that.

Again, I’m curious on how the members go back to their constituents. They can keep shaking their heads all they want, even the Minister Responsible for Housing. They can shake their heads all they want, but this is an important issue.

If they truly think these are important bills, then how do they justify not speaking to them? Because we’ve been shut down, even members of government are going to be able to go back home now and say: “These were important bills, but I didn’t have time to speak to them either. I was just told to vote in favour, not even knowing what it was.” That’s what we’re going to see take place.

Local governments are going to find out, under Bill 43, maybe in six or eight months, who the municipalities…. Eight or ten are chosen; that’s what it says here in this bill. Then they’re going to be given an undisclosed time period to put a plan forward to this government — because that’s not in the bill. Then, at the end of that undisclosed time, it goes back to the minister and the government.

We heard today that the new Premier wants to create a new Ministry of Housing, probably to deflect away from six years of him not being able to do it himself. So now, at least, he’ll try to find somebody. I’m curious to see who’s putting their hand up for this one, to take on this role. But now there’s going to be a new minister. Well, that new minister is now going to have, according to the legislation, an undisclosed period of time to review the information that that local government has put forward. Then it goes back….

The reason why I’m saying this is there’s so little detail on timelines. The government wants to tout this as a signature piece of legislation that’s going to bring more housing online in the province of British Columbia. Yet I don’t know. I read through it. There’s not one piece, not one word, that I can find in this piece of legislation that sets any goals, that sets any targets, that will actually have results and that will actually bring housing online to support families that need it. There’s nothing in here.

I’d love to have more time to digest this and also to talk to these groups who are all concerned. Normally, past practice in this House is that legislation is all presented within about the midmark of a session, spring or fall, or sometimes an emergency or summer session. The reason why governments of the past of all stripes would look at bringing all that legislation in, such as Bill 43, by the middle of a session was to allow time for feedback, for scrutiny, for the public to look at a bill like this, to see: what are the implications of this bill? How will it affect me, or not?

It was to give opposition time to really come forward and ask questions and to hold government accountable. Fast-track to today, and that doesn’t matter anymore. Accountability is out the window. Scrutiny — out the window. Arrogance — in the House.

This is one of the problems that I have. The government will stand up and say: “We want you to support all these bills. They’re important bills. Please support them. We’re not going to let you talk about them. We’re not going to let you ask questions about them of any substantial time, but we still want you to support them.”

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m curious. In Bill 43, when we’re looking at the duties of this, back to the heavy hand…. The Premier, to his credit, said that this is something that we want to continue doing, and it’s all about going back to local government.

Well, as a former mayor myself, I do find this one quite interesting, the approach that government is going to take, because as a mayor, I was duly elected to represent my community through that process. I listened to constituents. Through that process, we put together comprehensive plans or housing plans for our community based on those talks with our citizens. This bill, though, says that the minister can establish the housing targets for a municipality.

Now, I understand that because of the frustration over the last couple of years of all the extra taxes that this government has imposed and the amount of investors who have slowed down on building projects in British Columbia, that now has impacted the supply. I get that. That’s this government’s watch. Those are this government’s policies that have created a lot of that turmoil, and now they’re going to put the hammer, as they say, on local government.

I’m the first to say that, as I mentioned earlier, some local governments have done a great job to try to achieve the goals that are required around housing. Some, not so much, and there may or may not be different circumstances, around that, of why. So it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

The reason, again, why I bring that up is if it’s going to be the heavy hand of government, how do they impose, and how do they plan on imposing, legislative-approved targets for each municipality when they may or may not be able to achieve them, when the government themselves, nowhere in this bill, is looking in the mirror and realizing that they’re part of the problem? All the different taxes that they’ve imposed have been part of the problem — their lack of direction and, as we talked about today, some of the problems with B.C. Housing and others, where stock is not being built to the level that is required.

CMHC has said that we need over 500,000 new units in the province of British Columbia within the next, I guess, about five or six years. Curious to see how that’s going to be achieved when this government has only been able to build about 7 percent and open up 7 percent of their promised 114,000 housing units.

I know that the minister and the Premier like to say: “But don’t worry. We’ve got plans for the rest of them.” The minister doubled down today and said: “Don’t worry. Those 114,000 will be built within the next five years.” It’ll be interesting to see how they count that, because I guarantee it won’t be government doing it. They’re now going to have to change how they count.

They’re going to have to look at what everybody in the private sector is doing. Sure, they could probably build 114,000 if we get the heck out of the way and let them do what they’re good at. Then this government will try to take credit for that. They did absolutely nothing, but they’ll try to take credit. I’m sure they will. I’m sure there’ll be some kind of banner announcement of: “Look, we hit the 114,000 houses in British Columbia, through nothing that we accomplished, but we’ll take credit.” I’m sure that’s what we’re going to see take place.

[3:45 p.m.]

This bill, when you look at it, appears to be another level of bureaucracy, basically to monitor bureaucracy. The reason why I say that, again, is back to my point that government now is going to watch what local government is or isn’t doing and then report back. It’s going to be just more red tape, more discussion, more…. I don’t know.

But is it actually going to achieve the outcomes that we all want to see — that is, actually the housing supply built, which is not only needed but what this government also promised? We didn’t need to get more bureaucrats involved. We didn’t need to have more red tape involved. We could have started right from the get-go and just started cutting some of the taxes that this government has imposed and the red tape that they themselves have in place. That could have actually sparked more investment and more building in the province of British Columbia.

When we look at one of the reports that was done by C.D. Howe, for instance, it’s $644,000 before a shovel really even hits the ground. So $644,000 is spent just on taxes and fees for the average house in Vancouver. Think about that one for a second. I know the Chair, who lives in Vancouver…. We’re talking about $644,000 before I’ve even moved in, before I even start building, really, a place.

No wonder people can’t afford to live in Vancouver or many parts of the Lower Mainland. I’d even argue it’s all over British Columbia now, as we watch things play out. I know Victoria, it was just announced, was and is one of the most expensive places now to rent or live in all of Canada. That is unfortunate, because it is a beautiful place, where we’re standing right now. It’s unfortunate that people will continue to struggle when it comes to being able to afford those homes.

Depending on how we get to committee stage or if that even happens, with debate being shut down like we are seeing, I think it’s incumbent on this minister, on behalf of government, to be able to answer these questions. It is going to be interesting. I’m not trying to say I’m in the know, because I’m not. But it will be interesting — I say this in all due respect to the present minister — that in a week from now we’re having a new Minister of Housing.

It may or may not be this present minister. I’m not foreshadowing anything that I don’t know. Maybe he does, and he can talk about that later. I think it’s going to be an interesting position if we get to answering some of these questions that the next Minister of Housing is going to be tasked with delivering on. I say that because as a former minister, I know how difficult that is and how that will be.

I want to end off kind of where I started. I only have two minutes left. I did originally say that I was going to….

Deputy Speaker: There is still time, if you want to be the designated speaker, but of course….

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you weren’t here when I mentioned, at the very beginning, that my original intention was actually to be the designated speaker, which would afford me up to two hours to speak. Unfortunately, we’re in a position where this government has invoked closure, saying that every single person in this House has to squeeze now into two hours. Not just me as the critic; every single person in this House.

We have just over two hours to speak to what this government is saying is signature and an important piece of legislation. I know many colleagues on my side of the House wanted to speak to this bill, because they’ve been hearing from their constituents and their local governments some pros and cons that they wanted to get on the record. They’re not going to be afforded that opportunity now, because of this government.

[3:50 p.m.]

We could have been here last week. Sorry, let me correct that. We were all here last week, but this government chose to cancel four sitting days. They could have brought this bill…. If it’s so important, it could have been brought forward months ago. It could have, at least, been brought forward five, six days ago. But no. They brought it to this House now with only two days left to discuss a multitude of bills. Four bills that we’re trying to talk about are being forced and invoked closure on them today.

It’s a sad day for democracy, and the members of this government should be ashamed for how they’re treating this Legislature.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act. But before I get to the legislation, I want to, as I have a tendency to do, tell a few stories.

When I was little and my parents divorced, my mom was working at a bank in downtown Edmonton. She had three kids — single mom — and needed to find housing that she could afford. At the time, in Edmonton, there was city-owned housing, and it was indexed to a person’s income. So we moved into a three-bedroom townhouse. I guess it was a four bedroom. All the kids got their own bedroom. Brother was in the basement, sister and I upstairs, mom upstairs.

The townhouse, fantastically, was located within a block of my elementary school, an elementary school where I had the privilege and good fortune to go to French immersion, so I was learning French. It was on bus routes, so I could bus from one part of town to the other and easily navigate that.

What it gave to my mom at the time was the ability to plan her finances, to budget with an affordable housing budget and to be able to, over time, save up enough money for a down payment on a piece of land, which she eventually bought — an acreage outside of Edmonton — and built, first, a small little carriage house and then built her own house, her and my stepfather. They ran a B and B.

So it was a was a happy housing story, really, for a single parent. What is missing right now in B.C. and in so many places, but particularly here in B.C., are happy housing stories. And it’s why it’s important for governments to really have a clear vision for housing and to be able to articulate and explain: what does it look like when we have succeeded on the housing front? How do we know that we’ve achieved what we’ve set out to do, and what does it feel like for people when we get there?

I think what this legislation today presents are some tools. This legislation, really, grants the Ministry Responsible for Housing with the power to set housing targets in specific municipalities and, if those targets are not met by the municipality, to force the municipality to take action. As we’ve been hearing from the other comments, we don’t have a lot of detail on that, and I expect we’ll get some more of that detail. But it’s a tool.

It’s fundamentally agnostic on the type of housing. There is a mention of affordability in the bill, but it will be interesting to see what that definition of affordability is.

[3:55 p.m.]

Is it the CMHA definition? Is it affordability as in housing that only costs 30 percent of a person’s income? Is that the affordability? Because that’s a measure of affordability that we should be striving for that is very rare in this province for most people.

The challenge with having tools without a clear articulated vision is that we don’t know if those tools are getting us to where we want to get to.

For us, our vision really is around everybody in British Columbia having a safe, affordable, accessible home to live in and for that home to be in a community that also includes transportation, that includes the kind of infrastructure that brings people together — libraries; learning centres; excellent public transit; walkable, rollable communities; green spaces — and that in that community and in that housing, people’s needs are being met.

These pieces of legislation, both this bill and the bill that we’ll be debating later today, aren’t in their legislation and their tools articulating a vision. We haven’t heard a vision particularly articulated thus far in the presentation of this. We often hear from this government, whether it’s on housing or as it has been on child care, that it’s about spaces, units. But the kind of units, the kind of housing really matters. This is what I would hope to be hearing from this government.

There has been criticism that has come forward in the brief 24 hours that we’ve had this bill before us. The most contentious issue seems to be that this is a legislative stick, not a carrot. It’s a tool that, though the ministry assures us they will not be heavy-handed, can push municipalities into approving housing.

I think it’s really important to recognize that we just had our local elections. A lot of people that ran in those elections would have run on a particular platform. And that platform, in some areas of this province, might have been about limiting density or protecting green space or all kinds of things related to housing or related to the nature of their community. I would expect and anticipate that there’s some anxiety now about this relationship between local governments, municipalities and the province, in light of this bill, around the ability for people who have run on a particular platform to be able to deliver what they promised in their election.

But this isn’t my main critique of this legislation. My main critique is that this change overlooks the key issue that is driving the housing crisis in our province, and that’s the fact that housing is treated as an investment, a commodity, and not a human right. To address the crisis that we’re in, the depth of the crisis that we are in, it is true that we absolutely need more housing. We need more supply. But it is the type of housing that counts.

Currently housing is incredibly expen­sive. It’s expensive because property owners who more and more frequently are real estate investment trusts…. This is one of the things that we’ve been raising concerns about repeatedly in this House: the role that real estate investment trusts are playing in the housing market not just here in B.C. but globally.

There’s a really terrific film, a documentary called Push, about the global housing crisis, and it really dives into the role that these investment bodies are playing in that there’s a significant amount of wealth and capital, and people are looking for a place for that wealth and capital to essentially be stored for investment uses.

[4:00 p.m.]

Out of this has developed this real estate investment trust realm, and these are, essentially, portfolios that include real estate. So instead of having a landlord whose name you know, whose phone number you have and who is a person, ideally, who lives in your community, your landlord is a real estate investment trust.

The goal of that investment trust is to get more profit out of the investment. You, as a tenant in any of these properties, now can be either an impediment to that profit-making or not an impediment to that profit-making.

I think it’s really critical that we recognize that these kinds of market forces at play really take out the human-right-to-housing piece of the equation. We know about how they can charge high prices to tenants. We know that they can incentivize what they call unit turnovers to hike rents, and we know that they’re doing it so they can profit.

I was talking to somebody who’s a renter in Vancouver and who was complaining about some flooding that had happened in their unit. They didn’t want to be in any way a problem. The concern was: “I may be seen as a tenant that’s a problem, and I do not want to lose my housing.”

The expectation…. That relationship between the tenant and the landlord, that reciprocal agreement, is broken when the tenant is in a place of such fear of losing their housing that they will not ask for what should be absolutely expected: good maintenance, repairs, a response to flooding.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I may interrupt you just for a brief moment. We have a committee that needs to report out. If you could reserve your place and adjourn the debate, we will be right back with you.

S. Furstenau moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 42, Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Deputy Speaker: Acting Government House Leader. Oh.

Sorry, Minister. There’s a consultation of the Clerks. I don’t know if that’s what you call a group of Clerks — a consultation — but maybe it should be. Okay.

Oh, the “intituled” part. Yes. The motion for third reading of Bill 42, intituled Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, is carried, and the bill has passed.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call, in the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of the Whole for Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

In this chamber, continued debate on the Housing Supply Act, Bill 43.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think “a consultation of Clerks” sounds just right. You can use your powers for good and declare it so.

I’ll just wrap up. Back to the vision and what I hope that we will hear more about and see in response to this housing crisis that we’re in. What we need, now more than ever, is non-market housing, co-op housing, not-for-profit housing, housing that is specified to the needs of communities and that focuses on providing homes, not profits.

[4:05 p.m.]

The evidence shows that with a significant amount of non-market housing, the prices of market housing actually stabilize. Non-market housing isn’t just beneficial to those who can access. It’s beneficial to everybody, because it reduces the extreme price jumps in rent that we have seen.

I’d argue that the role of government is not to drive its own profits or the profits of private and wealthy developers. I’d argue that the role of government is to serve the public interest, provide essential services and make sure that the conditions for people to thrive are what we are creating in this province.

Housing is one of those conditions. Housing is something that the new Premier once acknowledged in this chamber as a human right. If this is true, then I hope to see this Premier fund non-market housing. I hope to see that he will support municipalities in their housing targets and ensure that these targets are not just met by developers seeking to find ways to create profit but that the Premier will set, fund and meet targets for non-market housing.

It isn’t a silver bullet, but continuing the path that we’ve been on for the last two decades is just going to make the problem worse. It will make those who have the wealth and capital able to continue to benefit from these market conditions and those who don’t continue to struggle.

With that, thank you very much.

B. Banman: I get up today with a heavy heart. This government has decided, after taking a week off, that debate is not worthy in this House. They’ve invoked closure.

For those at home that are watching, closure basically means that debate comes to an end. There is a finite deadline, and all of the bills that are currently being debated in the House end up coming to a screeching halt.

I would say that one of the bills that is before this House right now is one of the largest bills that has come before the House in decades. All of our emails have been flooded. Our in-boxes have been flooded by people who have concerns about that bill, which is Bill 36. I know we’re here about Bill 43, and I’ll get to that.

One of the most important and historic bills and one of the lengthiest bills, over 600 and some odd clauses and over 200 and some odd pages…. This government decided: “Hey, let’s all take a week off. We’re going to be here anyway. Let’s not show up in the House and actually respect the taxpayers that expect us to debate bills. Let’s have a holiday for our incoming new Premier instead.”

I don’t know what the reason was to not be here when we were all here anyway. It’s an atrocity. It is an outrage. I would encourage those that are at home watching to write an email and express your extreme frustration that this government decided not to debate the bills and give them the time that is required. Many of the questions that they sent emails about will never get an answer, ever.

Now we’re here talking about Bill 43. Bill 43 is the Housing Supply Act. I would love, in the committee stage, to ask some questions about that on behalf of many cities that may…. We really don’t know which cities. That’d be one of the first questions. Which ten cities are going to be picked?

Ten cities at random that only the Premier knows, or perhaps the Housing Minister knows, will be picked. I think that those cities have a right to know which ones they are and to phone their MLAs and ask questions on their behalf on Bill 43 and what its ramifications are. They got robbed of that right. They got robbed of it, because we won’t get a chance to do that.

[4:10 p.m.]

Section 1 of this bill includes definitions of specified municipalities to which the act applies, estimated to be eight or ten communities. Now, I was, as some of the rest of us have been, in municipal government. I was a mayor, and I was on council, and I can tell you that our city was quite often frustrated. We wanted to move things forward, but requirements put in by the provincial government were there. Yet this bill seems to be pointing everything at the cities and downloading onto the cities and doesn’t seem to have any inward reflection on what the provincial government can do on their behalf to streamline this.

As was mentioned prior, approximately $644,000 are taxes and fees and requirements — $644,000 for the average single-family home in Vancouver. No wonder that part of the prices are high if that’s what it takes to actually build a home in Vancouver. It’s outrageous.

For the provincial government to now go point at cities and say: “You’re the problem. You’re the problem. You’re the problem.” Some of that is fair criticism. But I would say that when you’re pointing your finger at others, you’ve got three pointing back at yourself.

Rather than give us the time to debate this, this Premier’s first move is to invoke closure and shut down debate, very similar to when he was Housing Minister and ram-railed through, against Penticton’s better wishes…. This “we know better than you” attitude is not going to sit well with these ten communities. It’s outrageous.

The first act is to basically just shoot democracy down. We are supposed to be here in this House to debate these bills, and this Premier is sending a message loud and clear that democracy is no longer alive and well in British Columbia under the understanding of what many of us think democracy should be. Shame. Shame, indeed.

First ruling out of this Premier’s new directive is to shut down and gag debate. It is a very, very sad day, not only in this province but, quite frankly, in this country.

Section 2 enables the housing target orders to be set by the minister. Housing orders must include performance indicators, timelines and any other matters. I’d love to be able to debate in committee stage and actually get some metrics on what that means, because this government, quite frankly, is not really good at measuring metrics. It comes up with all kinds of plans but no way of measuring the outcomes.

I think it is worthy within this House for these eight to ten cities — those lucky ones that are going to get the dart thrown at the board or however they’re going to come about doing this — to have an idea as to what that actually means. They must include performance indicators. Well, what’s that? This government sure as heck doesn’t like using performance indicators on themselves, yet they’re now going to ram that down the throats of cities that they’re going to have to come up with some kind of performance indicators. We don’t even have the chance to figure out what they are.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s going to come up with timelines. Well, what does that mean? Is it six years, six months, six weeks? What are the timelines to get housing going?

Now, I will say that it is refreshing that the Premier has figured out, after denying it when he was the Housing Minister, that hey, supply is part of the problem. It’s a huge part of the problem as to why housing prices are at the levels that they are. Hooray. Maybe through the debate, we could have sunk home a few other indicators as to why housing prices are high as well.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have grandchildren. One is a marine biologist. The other one’s going on for his PhD. My hope, and part of the reason why I got into politics, is that if they chose, they could choose this province to live in. The marine biologist, well, who knows where she is going to go. Her particular area of expertise is sharks and rays.

Now, I said, when I was the mayor of city hall, that there are not a lot of sharks that swim up and down the Fraser. There are a few that swim around city hall, perhaps, and I would say there are a few that swim around the Legislature here. We are closer to salt water here, so there will be some just out there. But up and around Abbotsford, it’s a heck of a long way for a saltwater being to go up the Fraser to get to city hall.

All joking aside, one of my greatest fears is that they would be forced to leave this province because they cannot afford to live here. Sometimes the opposite side of the House loves to paint us as if we don’t care. It’s like they think we don’t have kids too, that we don’t have grandchildren that we care about. I don’t want to have to have the conversation with my grandchildren, as I’m loading up their luggage and their belongings into the U-Haul, when they come to me, and they say: “Papa, I don’t want to leave, but I have to. I have to, because I can’t afford it. You were there. Why didn’t you fight for me?”

We may come to different ideas as to how we’re going to get affordability. But I’ll tell you one thing. Shutting down debate is not going to get us there. It’s outrageous that that’s what we’ve done. It’s insulting to anybody that believes in democracy that the first thing this Premier did was close down the debate. My grandchildren deserve more than that. They deserve better than that. All of our children do.

I don’t know how this side of the House can sit there with a smile and somehow think it’s okay. It may get the bill passed, but it is sure as heck not okay. When you outnumber us practically two to one, it was going to go through anyway. It’s shameful, and it’s outrageous.

There are performance indicators, timelines and “any other matters.” Well, isn’t that a lovely little catch-all. We’ll never know what it means now, until it’s too late to debate.

Section 3 requires the minister to consider housing needs reports and consult with the municipality prior to making an order. I would love to know what that meant. What kind of consultation would that mean? We’re not going to know, again.

This was the same thing that was done during the FOI debate that I was involved in. Closure was invoked then as well. Fifteen minutes after it was closed, we all of a sudden had a fee for the FOI, which we had we asked and asked and asked about. “We don’t know. We don’t know what it’s going to be.” Fifteen minutes later: “This is what it is.” What consultation was done with that? It’s a mockery of democracy. It’s a mockery of this House.

[4:20 p.m.]

The taxpayers deserve better than what they’re getting from this government. We don’t always have to agree, but the one thing we should have to agree on is the process. The rules upon which we apply here and the taxpayers’ right to hear the debate is paramount. It is absolutely unfathomable how this government thinks that to dump a bunch of legislation on the floor and not give it the time required for debate is somehow okay.

Section 6 requires and enables the minister to appoint a housing adviser or issue a housing directive only if housing targets have not been met. Well, again: what are these mystical targets? What are they? I think the municipalities have a right to know what targets this government has in mind and how they’re going to measure those targets. Again, they don’t like measuring any of their own targets. They now want to download targets onto a city, but they don’t have the courage to debate it fully in this House.

Section 8 enables the minister to appoint an advisor to review a municipality’s housing policies and inspect all records required, except for those in-camera records. Well, I’ll tell you what that’s going to do. That is going to force municipalities to do more and more and more in camera. Trust me. I got a great idea how it’s going to…. I was sitting there around the table. I got a pretty good idea. You can talk to some of my other colleagues, and they’ll tell you the same thing. It is actually going to make things worse, not better.

Then, what kind of investigation? Who’s going to be the investigator? How is the investigator going to be applied? How are we going to hire the investigator? What metrics are the investigators going to use?

Section 11 enables directives to be issued, requiring bylaws to be changed or to require the approval or rejection of a permit. Directives are limited to being a last resort and must be in the public’s interest. Well, apparently, democracy doesn’t seem to be in the public’s best interest anymore. Is it not in the public’s best interest to debate this, to figure out what the nuances of this means? It’s a classic case of do as I say, not as I do.

Consultation is not telling people what you’re going to do to them after you’ve already decided to do it, and that’s exactly what we’re getting right now. I am at an absolute loss.

Section 12 enables orders-in-council to override municipal bylaws or issue or reject permits, only if a municipality has not complied with the ministerial directive under section 11. Well, again, what does that mean now? It sure would be nice to have a little chat about it; to investigate it a bit; to, as we’re going through this, phone up the cities that we represent and say: “Do you have a problem with this particular directive? What’s going on in your city now? They want to include you as one of the eight to ten cities. What sort of impact is this going to have on your city? Are you going to be able to comply? What kinds of questions would you like us to ask on your behalf?” Yet once again, that’s going to be ripped away from us.

Section 16 requires an annual report on its compliance actions and orders made by the LGIC published no later than September 30 of the following fiscal year. Well, here’s a news flash. Cities, like everywhere else, are having a manpower problem. So which staff member is going to try and write this off the side of their desk? Is a new staff member going to be required? What are the ramifications of this report? How big will the report be? What metrics does the government want to measure in this report?

[4:25 p.m.]

Those are all things that, in the next stage, we should be asking during the committee stage.

This Premier has decided that he knows better than the rest and doesn’t think that it’s worthy of the cities that he’s going to force this down upon to have any consultation whatsoever and feedback through this process in this House. It makes a mockery of the place, in my opinion.

Section 17 dictates the standards and limitations of judicial review of housing directive and housing target orders, including protecting findings of effect by a minister unless patently unreasonable. Again, it’s a little ambiguous, kind of a lot of grey there, not a lot of black and white. If I was the mayor, as I was, I would want to know exactly what that meant.

Cities that are going to be imposed upon, that are going to be dictated down to by this government, by this Premier, have a right to ask those questions and know exactly what that means. They are being taken advantage of, in my opinion, and don’t have the ability to ask those questions and find out exactly what that means.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Welcome to the chair, Madam Speaker.

Well, I was just going on, Madam Speaker, about Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act, and I was talking about how municipalities and cities — the magic eight or ten that we don’t know because we don’t have the ability to ask that question because of closure — will have some very serious questions that they would want debated and asked so they can actually get some understanding of what this bill is.

The one that I think is interesting is: section 19 makes housing advisers immune from liability. So we can go in, create a wake of destruction and interruption, make things actually worse and not be held accountable. That’s how I read it. Now, I would love to be proven wrong, but that would happen in the next stage of the bill, which, as we’ve all heard, will not happen.

This legislation…. There’s a ton of questions that need to be asked. The track record of this government, it seems, is, as I said once before: do as I say, not as I do. “We’re going to talk from mountaintop on down and tell you what needs to be done, take no responsibility for any of the problems that we create of the $640,000 worth of taxes and fees. We’re not going to take a look at anything the provincial government does. We’re going to download that all onto the municipalities and not have any debate as to what this House can do to make things more affordable for British Columbians.”

They’re not going to do any of that. I noticed that one of my colleagues over here is, as per usual, chirping up in the background, and I would say that if he wants to chirp up, why doesn’t he stop the debate and actually have a chance to debate it properly? No, he’d rather sit there on the sidelines and just chirp away, chirp away, chirp away.

Again, why don’t we go through committee? This government has made lofty promises before and failed. Where’s the $400 renters cheque? That’s only taken five years. If you want to start talking about stuff, where’s that? You can’t figure out how to get a lousy $400 cheque out through the front door. Where is that to help those renters? It was okay to promise it and get the election vote. But here it is, six years later — still no cheque for the people that you promised. Where’s that cheque? Nowhere to be found. Promises, promises — broken and broken and broken.

Interjections.

[4:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ll remind you that we’re on Bill 43.

I would ask members to respect the member that has the floor.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me? Will you withdraw that, please?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Yes. Thank you.

B. Banman: All this bill is going to do is add more bureaucracy and red tape. It’s going to add more bureaucracy. It’s going to add more red tape. It’s going to force cities to comply with a bunch of unknown rules that we won’t have a chance to sort out. It’s going to force municipalities to hire staff, to divert the existing staff they have, to file needless paperwork so that this Premier can make himself look better and feel better.

It’s not going to achieve the goals that they intend, like many of the other things that have come before this House that they just can’t seem to get out the front door, such as a renters cheque, after six years.

The ICBC cheque was brought up. That was a “you paid too much for insurance” cheque, not a gasoline rebate. If it was, why the heck are EV cars getting it?

But I digress. I’ll go back to the bill at hand.

What cities are going to do is they’re now going to be forced to hire more bureaucrats to shuffle more paper to become less efficient, which will increase the fees and the taxes. Here’s a news flash. That all gets passed down on to the taxpayer at the end of the day.

This government decided to close the debate rather than try to figure out and work with. They do a big talk about working with and collaboration, yet actions speak much louder than the multiple, multiple, multiple words and the drivel that comes from the other side of the House.

They overpromise and underdeliver. It’s constant. And the taxpayers and, in this case, those trying to get into an affordable home are going to pay for it. I take a look at the Premier’s track record when he was the Housing Minister. Less than 10 percent of the 114,000 homes that were promised in two elections have now come to fruition. A ten-year plan. Less than 10 percent is done. It’s laughable.

We now know that it’s projected that we’re not going to need 114,000 homes. It’s projected that we’re going to need almost 600,000 homes to meet up with demand. Rents are at an all-time high. All of the metrics that people want to use to be affordable are out the window under this government’s watch.

The price of rent has gone up over $500. Gasoline prices have gone through the roof. Food prices have gone through the roof. They haven’t made things better for renters. They’ve made it worse. They haven’t made things better for the average British Columbian. They’ve made it worse. Every single measurable outcome. When it comes to health care, they’ve made it worse, not better.

This Bill 43, I expect, will be more of the same. Great hopes, but when it comes to actually debating the bill, they don’t want to hear from this side of the House. Clearly, their actions have said: “We’re going to throw it out on the floor. We’re just going to ram it through. To heck with debate. British Columbians don’t deserve any answers. We’re just going to do what we want. Here’s the flavour of the day, and you’re going to darn well like it, and you’re going to eat it.” That’s basically what it says.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s a dark day in British Columbia. It’s a dark, sad day for democracy, and it’s a dark, sad day for this House.

This government had plenty of time to invoke bills. For instance, the health care bill, the largest one, was under no pressure to be done now. It could have been done in the spring. If they thought that this bill was so important, why did they wait until the last second? Maybe it’s because the new Premier was getting beat to pieces in the press because of his inability to get the job done.

Maybe it’s as poorly thought out as the rest of the bills that we’ve had before here that have not come up with answers. They’ve only added to people’s problems. They’ve only added to the unaffordability of this province and the risk that my grandchildren and our children won’t be able to afford to live here any longer. This government needs to step up to the fact that, under their watch, life has gotten worse, not better for British Columbians and that they directly played a role in that, but they won’t do that.

They love to look in the rearview mirror and point at everybody but themselves. I go back to my original statement. When you’re pointing a finger, you’ve got three pointing back at you. I’ve yet to hear this government take responsibility for making life worse for British Columbians, and it is a lot worse. All you’ve got to do is go out there and talk to people. I hear them and get the calls every day.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to what’s left of the time in this bill that we have. Unfortunately, it won’t get to debate. I’ll take my seat.

D. Ashton: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 43. It’s always a pleasure to stand up in this House and to let the House know and let the gallery know and let the viewing audience know about our thoughts on process that takes place in the chamber.

Before I go any further in speaking to Bill 43, I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford West for taking a stand in this House and expressing something that I’m quite sure a lot of us in this House — not only on this side but a lot of us in this House — were given points to think about.

Whether we think about it today or whether we think about it tonight when we’re laying in bed, looking up at the ceiling, trying to get to sleep, we think about the people that elected us to come here and represent them from every point in every corner in British Columbia to make sure that we bring forward their concerns and their issues and, most importantly, not to deliver politics but to deliver good governance.

It was a great day today to have the member, especially a member with the incredible, learned ability that he has from his years of tenure here and his years of serving the people of Abbotsford West, make those comments and, I hope, give everybody in this House some food for thought for tonight about why each and every one of us is here.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Housing Supply Act. I really wish there was an opportunity to hear from each and everybody in this House — those on our side of the House, those representing the Third Party and especially those representing the government — on why they would like to see this bill enacted. What I’m sure each and every one of us want to do is to do our best to provide adequate housing and to provide additional housing for not only the people that are in British Columbia right now, but you heard my peer talk about what’s going to be required in the future in British Columbia.

We’re not talking just 100,000 homes. We may be talking 350,000, 450,000 new homes for those people that are coming to British Columbia, like many of us did come to British Columbia to seek not fame and fortune but to seek a quality of life for not only ourselves but for our families, our children and our grandchildren, as my peers all said, that would like to stay.

[4:40 p.m.]

I have two kids. One’s in the Yukon. One’s in British Columbia. I’d love for them all to be back, especially in the Okanagan, to help me on the farm, if nothing else. But I would really, really, really like to see the opportunity presented for each and everybody that comes to B.C. to have a place to call home, whether it’s a townhouse, whether it’s a condominium, whether it’s a freestanding home. To be given that opportunity.

We all know what’s transpired here in B.C. It is a demanding place for people to come to live in. It’s an expensive place. We, in the essence of a previous government — being a farmer — they took the right step and they preserved land in British Columbia. Sometimes some of the big black marks that they drew on a map are a little bit meh for farmland, but they did. They preserved land that enables people, like my friends at home, to grow wonderful apples, to grow wonderful cherries, to grow incredible peaches.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Apples? Thank you.

Also, as I’ve said before in this House, to grow those little tiny clusters of things about yay big that turn into liquid sunshine in a bottle and coming back in B.C…. Hops again.

An. Hon. Member: Why’d you point at me for that?

D. Ashton: I just had you in mind.

To have the ability to grow hops again because of the incredible brewing capabilities that are being shown in many of our communities. We have such a good opportunity here in B.C.

Now we have a housing supply act that is going to, as far as I’ve been able to see, put a substantial and additional burden onto municipalities that are challenged already. I too had the incredible, fortunate ability to be a councillor, to be a member of a regional district, to be a chair of a regional district while being a councillor and then to be a mayor of Penticton before I came here to the Legislature. And I know how hard the staff in municipalities these days are having to work, not only with the rules and regulations that they’ve incurred on themselves, but also what the province dictates to them that has to be done in compliance with many of the issues that the province has come forward with. Plus federal.

When you take a look at what’s going to happen now, where we have a bunch of “thou shalts….” I was just quickly going through Bill 43. Part 1 is definitions. Part 2(2) is the housing target order. Part 2(3), requirements for making housing target orders. Part 3, housing target progress report and review of housing target progress report. Part 4, compliance. The application, requirements for appointing an adviser or issuing a directive.

Then the adviser, then the duties of a municipal employee, then how that person or somebody in the municipality is going to report to the adviser. Then the directive. I assume that’s the directive coming from the adviser to the municipality — whether or not they’re meeting the requirements of the province of British Columbia.

Then we go down to the order-in-council that’s going to be coming from the government, which is something that we don’t get much opportunity in here to debate or even see until it comes forward — what the rules and regulations are going to be about the Housing Supply Act.

And then there’s the provision of housing information to the minister. Then the submission of housing needs report to the minister. Then the publication of a housing target order, directive or order-in-council. Then an annual report. Then to top it all off, “standard of review — housing target order, directive or order-in-council respecting the permit.” Then “standard of review — order-in-council respecting bylaw,” and then immunity protection for the adviser.

Where is the adviser getting the immunity? Why isn’t it the municipality getting immunity? They’re the ones that are getting demanded to do all this work. Somebody comes floating into the municipality from I don’t know where, appointed by the British Columbia government…. I don’t know. Waltzes in there with diplomatic immunity and says: “Thou shalt.” If it’s wrong, he absconds and maybe heads back to Victoria, or she heads back to Victoria, and the municipality is left there holding the bag. Then the regulations come, which we don’t have a clue of what they’re going to look like. And then the commencement.

[4:45 p.m.]

Look how long it’s going to take to get the Housing Supply Act in. I’ve heard rumours that this isn’t going to be indoctrinated until some time in the spring. Right now councils are up to here. Budget time’s coming. I mean, councils right now do not have the time to look at this. Do councils want the ability to provide additional housing? I’m going to say yes, they do. I know Penticton’s council does. They want to operate within the parameters of what the municipality and the citizens of the municipality and also the surrounding area have to say about that housing.

Now, all of a sudden we’re throwing something else at them, where it’s going to be a “thou shalt, here it is.” And we heard the costs — the incredible costs. I’ve been told in Penticton it’s well over $100,000 right now per lot on it. Now, that’s a lot of money that not only goes to the city but also flows up to the province.

I’ve got to tell you something. Having an application with the province these days, I get…. As I’m sure many of the people here, including our friends in government…. They get calls from people that say: “Where’s my permit?” “Well, when did you submit it?” “Two years ago.” “Where’s my permit?” “When did you submit it?” “Three years ago.” To get a permit to put some pilings in the lake to clear out some invasive weeds so that they can make a better swimming area — three years.

Before we get into adding some more rules and regulations for housing supply, let’s take a look in the mirror as a provincial government. Let’s take a look, especially on the government side, to say: how can we address some of the issues that municipalities are facing? How can we make sure that we go to a regional district — the Minister of Transportation is here — where the ministry does the approvals because of regional districts on it? Are there ways that we can make it so that regional areas right on the boundaries of our municipalities can also lend a helping hand to provide supply?

I can tell you the backlog at the Ministry of Transportation and the approving officer is this high, and they’re challenged for staff also. So, you know, I think before we come running in, in the last couple of days of a legislative agenda, bringing something forward that probably has some really good meat and bones to it but really requires discussion…. Discussion in here at the stage, say, 2 of it and also moving into committee stage, where we can ask those questions and we can get input…. When I say “we,” we can give our input, and the government can hear the input that I’m quite sure we’re going to be getting from the municipalities.

I only let Penticton know about this, this morning. I fired off this morning and said: “Heads up. This is coming at you.” Also, Summerland, which I call…. My home is in Summerland. Just so that they have an opportunity to look at Bill 43 as the CEOs and start planning on…. Because it’s my understanding that, come heck or high water, at 6:30 — am I correct? — tonight….

Interjection.

D. Ashton: At 6:30, the gavel’s coming down. It’s done. It’s off. It’s going to become law. Thursday afternoon, it will become law here. It gave them a window of a couple of days, but I would sure like to have the input. I would really like to have the input from a place that has huge demands. When I look at my peers from just north of me in Kelowna, I’m quite sure they’re going to be in the same boat.

When I look at the incredible growth that’s taking place in the Okanagan and especially in the Central Okanagan, I’m darn sure that the municipalities in the regional district there would love to have an opportunity not only to discuss this with the hard-working staff at the municipalities in the regional district, but also have a chance to discuss it with the elected officials, all those new elected officials who just got elected here less than a month ago, who are right now buried nose-deep in budget stuff, trying to get through so that they can come to the people of the municipalities or regional districts that they represent of what they’re going to be facing with additional taxes this year. I can tell you one thing: it ain’t going down, not with the demands that are being put on everybody today.

I would really like to see some sober second thought. I would like to see some sober second thought from the new Premier of British Columbia, a gentleman that has come in here and said, as of a couple of days ago: “I’m hitting the ground running, and I’m going to be making changes.”

[4:50 p.m.]

Okay. You’re making changes, sir. We’re seeing it right now. But make some changes where at least the people of British Columbia, who have elected representation of each and every one of us who sits in this House, have an opportunity to discuss this, not only with yourself, Mr. Premier, but with your Minister of Housing, with our peers in government and especially amongst ourselves, on the right direction that we should be taking on this — just in case.

Nobody’s perfect. When you bring an act forward, nobody’s perfect. I know that staff have probably worked hard on this over the last little bit of time, probably expediently. You know, there might be a period in the wrong spot; there might be a comma in the wrong spot that can make all the difference in the world.

All that I know we would like to see is the opportunity to sit in the committee stage and go through this line by line — just like my peer from Prince George–Valemount, who’s sitting in another House in this Legislature building right now, going through another incredibly important document, the health act, which has 600-some-odd clauses. I think that after two weeks, she’s on clause 110 or 115 right now. It’s just not right. It’s not right what’s transpiring with this to try and get these things through.

I don’t know what the rush is for, especially when I hear the health act isn’t going to be introduced until sometime in late spring, early summer or early fall somewhere. We’re hearing that the Housing Supply Act isn’t really coming forward for the public, for municipalities and regional districts and for public purview and everything until the government adjusts the things that are required in here, gets more regulation forward and then is able to present it. Right after Bill 43 is Bill 44, which is probably going to get spoken to a little bit later today or else tomorrow.

My phone hasn’t stopped. I live in a town in an area where the average age is 63 to 65. These are people that have given up their farms. They’ve hopefully transferred it to their kids or some relations in order to carry on the family tradition. They’re people that have had larger homes. Where we, most of us, grew up, we didn’t have sewer; we had big lots and septic tanks, right? Well, that has all changed. We have sewer now that densification, infill is taking place.

What I want to be able to see is how that’s going to transpire here, how everybody’s input can make a real difference on an act, a bill that is coming forward and that is going to change things in this in our communities. I just really hope…. Sometimes I’m just shooting hot air, you know.

They don’t want to do it. They just don’t want to do it. They have an agenda, and they want to march forward this, but that agenda, best as it may be for what they think is right, is not right for the democracy that we should be and should be able to practise in this House.

You know, I thank my friends; I do. I thank my friends here, but as I’ve said, politics isn’t my best fit; good governance is. Democracy always rises to the top.

There isn’t anybody here right now in the gallery. There was a whole bunch of people that were intently listening and leaning over the gallery, and I was going to single them out a little bit earlier and say: “This isn’t democracy in action. This, unfortunately, is not. Maybe you’ve come into this incredible place that we’ve all been given a key to….” Amazing. Boy, when I first got here, I actually heard one of our other members say that today. When she first arrived in here, she went: “I’ve got a key to this place. Oh my gosh, the people’s House.”

I think there’s real opportunity to go through this bill in a proper way to say, as a total government: “We are going to more affordable housing to those citizens that don’t have it right now in the province of British Columbia, to those citizens that are coming. We’re going to work incredibly hard, each and every one of us, to ensure that that’s happening. We’re going to take a look at what’s happening to home prices. We’re taking a look at the cost of living. We’re taking a look at how young families have literally been pushed out of the market.”

Again, I had a call from a young lady today that couldn’t afford a single, free-standing home. She just got a strata. That strata is zoned for…. That strata has strata rules that are going to be addressed in Bill 44. But they are taking the rights of that strata away and saying: “No, now you have to have rental units.”

[4:55 p.m.]

She goes: “I didn’t buy in this place. I want this as my home. I want to have neighbours beside me that have kids growing up like what I’ve got. I don’t want to have individuals that maybe don’t look after this place, which I call home, as what myself and the others in the strata unit do right now. I don’t want to have to face the increase of insurance costs in a strata, which are through the roof already.”

We’ve all been debating that for a year or two. I just went through it in a family home. I had my niece living in my mom’s home. My niece went back to England. I was paying an insurance company this much money for insurance because it was “a family member.” All of a sudden, it’s not.

Our family took the step forward, hard as it was. We took the step forward to provide accommodation for another family, with three challenged kids, a wonderful family. But when I walked into the insurance company, which we dealt with forever, they said, “Dan, it’s not family anymore. Your insurance just doubled,” and I went: “Pardon?” This is after we rented it. But your insurance doubled it.

So has the government thought this through for Bill 44 that’s coming, about all those stratas? Who’s going to bear the costs? Who’s going to bear the costs in Bill 44 to address all the new strata rules coming in? I hope the government is going to write a cheque. They’re sending cheques out for people, probably well deserved, to help offset some of the costs for heating their homes over the winter. But those stratas now have also been hung out to dry for additional costs. Who’s going to cover that?

Before you bring a bill in, whether it’s Bill 44 or Bill 43 that I’m talking to right now, what are the additional costs? I can tell you one thing. If I was still the mayor of Penticton, the first thing I’d be doing is saying: “Who’s paying for this? Is it us? Well, somehow we’re billing it back to the province because these aren’t our rules. These are rules that have come down from above. So if you’re going to be sticking advisers into our city halls and working with our staff, who’s going to be paying for it? We’re not.”

If you want this dictum coming forward to try and increase the housing supply in British Columbia, and especially in a community that I’ve been so fortunate to represent in my lifetime, I want to know where the money is coming from. And there better be a stipend, because there are penalties in here if you don’t do it, from what I read between the lines.

Municipalities are going to be penalized in Bill 43 if they don’t do what this bill says that they should be doing. “Compliance” is, I guess, maybe a better word. Maybe it’s compliance. And then if you don’t comply, you get the penalty. But I’m curious what it’s going to be.

Where’s the stick in here? But where, also, is…? If you do step up to the plate — and you go against the will of many of the people that have elected you into that position on a city council or a regional district — to try and help the province by putting additional housing in, by bringing in homes in the back of alleyways, family homes that we used to have for grandma and grandpa…. “Secondary suites” is another word — or legitimizing secondary suites because, unfortunately, there are quite a few that aren’t legitimized. But they’re providing help and providing accommodation to those seeking it. So where is going to be the financial help for the cities?

Believe it or not, it was really interesting. When I was the mayor and electric cars were just coming in, I’ll never forget our electrical department coming to us and saying: “We have a problem.” I said, “What’s the problem?” and they go: “Well, you know those wires overhead? If everybody on the block….” It was actually everybody. If I remember correctly, it was something like eight, the number. “If everybody of those eight people has a Tesla, we’re hooped. We don’t have the capacity on those wires to feed each and every one of those houses that needs a 400-amp service to start charging their Teslas.”

These are the things that are going to have to happen at some point in time. I really don’t think it’s fair. I really don’t think it’s fair for the province to be stepping forward with a Housing Supply Act, which may be a step in the right direction, without consulting those municipalities and those regional districts, without consulting the staff that work in those municipalities and those regional districts and, most importantly, without consulting the people of British Columbia who we represent in this House, on all sides of the House, so that we have the opportunity to ask the members of government some very good questions during committee stage on this bill.

[5:00 p.m.]

Have they thought of everything? Have they thought this through completely without hitting the ground running and stumbling over the first two or three bills that the new Premier, hearing from our side, is already…. Not only from us. Hearing from the people that we represent.

I’m quite sure, if my phones have been lighting up, and my emails…. I was talking to the office today. The great lady that works in our office in Penticton said: “Dan, you’re not going to believe the emails that are coming in here right now.” So they’re coming. When we get back, it’s going to be too late. We haven’t had that opportunity. I know she’s been sending me…. I’ve been phoning. My phone number is listed in Penticton. Retract that. My phone number is out of Penticton, not listed in Penticton.

People are phoning and saying: “What’s happening with this?” Well, here’s what I can tell you. Here’s what I see. But unfortunately, we’re not going to be able to get to committee stage to ensure that what is transpiring here is exactly what the Premier and what the Housing Minister and what the rest of the government actually want.

What I would really like to see is a little bit of slowdown. Let’s take this through properly. Let’s not invoke closure at 6:30 tonight. Let’s wait. Let’s get through this. Maybe postpone it until we get back here for the spring session, which is going to give us lots of opportunity to take input back from our communities, take input from our municipalities, take input from our regional districts, take input from the wonderful staff that work there.

And also have the opportunity to talk amongst ourselves, not only in opposition but also the government, also the MLAs from the government, where most of us carry on great relationships, and say: “Have you thought about this? What do you think about this? What’s happening in your municipality? Are you getting blowback on this? Do you have some great ideas? Maybe it’s not so important right away to address it this way. We can address it that way.”

To the government and to the Housing Minister, who is in the Legislature at this point in time: You know what? Let’s have a sober second thought. Let’s really think about this. Let’s really think about this, not only in the way these bills are coming forward this week. Again, the member for Abbotsford West did such an eloquent job of stating why many of us are concerned. But let’s think about how we can work together on this.

I’ve heard that word. I’ve heard that word here a lot recently, actually, and I’m glad that I’m hearing it. I’m glad that we’re starting to hear more and more of this, actually trying to work together in this Legislature to make a difference for everybody. But if it doesn’t happen, I can tell you there’s going to be some blowback. I learned a long time ago that it’s really hard to defeat government. Really hard to defeat government. They do a good job themselves. So just let them at it. That’s what I’m seeing right now. I’m seeing public discourse, in some of this, coming.

When you hear from people that you never hear from…. You hear from Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones, who you never hear anything from. But all of a sudden, the media have done a good job of getting this out in this new electronic medium world that we’re living in with Twitter and Facebook pages and IHOP. What’s the other one called? Anyway, the younger people are using it.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: TikTok. That’s close. IHOP, TikTok. That’s close.

When that stuff is coming out and it’s instantaneous, all of a sudden they’re getting in touch with our offices and saying: “Whoa, time out. Hang on a second here. I’ve got some real concerns on this.” But I’m in opposition. I’ll justify it to the people I represent that I didn’t have the time. I didn’t have the ability. I was vehemently opposed to the closure that’s taking place tonight on this bill.

I really want the opportunity to be able to take this bill home, along with a whole bunch of other bills that have come in here at the end of last week and this week, to be able to discuss it with my peers sitting on this side of the House, hopefully discuss it with some of the members in government — but really, most importantly, discuss it with the people that I represent and especially discuss it, Bill 43, with the people I think it’s going to really affect: the municipalities and the employees of the municipalities; the regional district and the employees of the regional district; and just as importantly, the people of those municipalities and regional districts; the general population that I’m quite sure are going to have some real, real concerns and, hopefully, some constructive ideas that will make a difference so that we can all come in here at some point in the spring session and go: “You know what? Here it is. Here are a couple of addendums.”

[5:05 p.m.]

Maybe the government would listen to it. Then maybe we could all lift our hands unanimously and pass a bill that probably had some good intent in it, if it had been delivered properly and allowed to be vetted properly, that would make a difference for those people seeking new homes or seeking the ability to have a home in British Columbia, whether you own it or you rent it or you’re like my kids and you bum one — have that opportunity to make a difference, not only in our lives but in their lives.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say thank you again. I want to say thank you to everybody that’s expressed this concern of how this has transpired here. I really, really, really hope the government is hearing loud and clear, not only from opposition but from a lot of people in B.C., that….

The new Premier has hit the road running, and he’s going to be doing this. But I’ll tell you one thing, he’d better look out, because there are going to be a couple of people sticking their foot out and tripping him up on this. And it’s going to be the general public that we represent, because they’re not happy with the way it’s being handled at this point in time in government, at the 11th hour and 59th minute and 59th second. Wrong.

A. Olsen: I’m pleased to stand to speak to Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act, and for the opportunity to talk about our vision for housing.

According to this B.C. NDP government, this bill will help speed up housing development and increase supply by giving the province the power to enforce housing targets on municipalities with the greatest need and highest projected growth. It’s encouraging to see this government begin to take the housing crisis seriously by introducing new legislation.

We need more supply of housing in British Columbia, yes. But when we’re talking about affordability, the type of housing matters. The housing crisis is affecting communities right across the province. To address this, the government needs to be specific about the type of housing supply that is needed. That is missing in this bill, and it’s not been made clear what the plan is by the new Premier.

British Columbians need access to safe, livable, affordable housing. Safe, adequate housing is a critical component of people’s health and well-being. It helps people live with dignity and feel included in communities, regardless of their income. Adding more market housing may improve supply, but it does not guarantee affordability. Communities need dedicated housing for renters that is protected from exploitative market conditions.

The source of the housing affordability problem we have today is that housing is treated simply as a financial asset, a commodity instead of a human right. Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, as they’re known, and other corporations are generating huge returns for shareholders by financializing our housing stock, making housing more and more unaffordable.

Corporations are profiting from the housing market, at the expense of British Columbians. We’re seeing doctors, nurses, teachers and other essential workers who are deciding just to leave our province because they cannot afford to live in their communities anymore.

Our provincial budget and this provincial government is addicted to the revenue derived from real estate taxes, and property transfer taxes in particular. My colleague and I have raised this issue time and again with the previous Minister for Housing — in fact, with both the previous Ministers for Housing. Our province benefits from an inflated housing market. We are addicted, as a province, to the wrong revenues.

[5:10 p.m.]

The housing crisis has been made worse by a lack of federal and provincial government investments into non-market-housing options. It’s time that we as a province turn that around. That’s not in this bill.

We need to supply more housing units. However, not all housing units are equal. Currently, the supply this Premier, his colleagues and the Minister of Housing are talking about are units fully exposed to the market pressures. We need to build non-market-housing units in B.C., including supportive housing, non-profit and co-op housing and housing that meets the specific needs of the communities. We need a clear vision for housing in our province, one where communities and neighbourhoods are thriving and resilient and where health and well-being of residents matters. We cannot simply….

I’ll put it this way. We must be clear about the types of housing solutions that are needed in our communities. It’s problematic when we build housing supply yet those units are vulnerable to corporations purchasing them and driving up the cost of rent for British Columbians. The government must ensure that speculators and investors do not continue to profit from increased supply at the expense of British Columbians.

In the last municipal election, housing was the central issue in almost every single community across the province. This bill signals that these new councils need to act quickly to increase their housing units or face unknown consequences. The details of those consequences and the affordability targets they need to meet, well, are yet to be determined. At some point in the spring, they will find out. Or so we are told.

In doing so, this government has left every municipal council in limbo until those regulations, which will not pass through this chamber for deliberation, come into effect. Community members, developers, planners and councils will be under even more pressure to solve the housing problem without their provincial government’s guidance or support. This is not how we would characterize a collaborative process.

Last year I asked the now new Premier if housing is considered a human right. He responded by saying yes. To live up to that response, his government must move to create progressive housing policy measures that reflect housing as a human right. This bill does not accomplish that. The outcome we must be striving for and measuring is secure, affordable homes for all British Columbians — for the British Columbians that live here today and for future British Columbians.

This government must support this by setting, funding and meeting targets for non-market-housing. That’s not targets for municipalities. That’s targets that this government is willing to set for themselves and is committed to achieving themselves. Without this, this government will be doing as we’ve seen quite a bit recently, and that’s measuring the wrong outcomes.

With that, thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

[5:15 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Today a piece of British Columbian democracy died. I feel this sobriety or this grief, because something that I am incredibly passionate about, have dedicated my entire adult life’s work toward and am really excited about seeing changes within isn’t going to get its due democratic process. This bill being pushed and forced through time allocation in closure is not going to get the necessary debate for us to all make it better, for us to all make it the best that it possibly could be.

Instead, it’s just going to become another indication of a heavy-handed government, one that is arrogantly proceeding, believing that it knows best and it knows better than all of the wealth of experience and all of the voices that each of us represent.

If I look at some of the headlines from the last 45 days…. “B.C. Has the Highest Rate of Unaffordable Housing in Canada.” “Buying a Home has Never Been So Unaffordable in Canada.” “B.C.’s Housing Inventory Lacking ‘Right Supply’ to Resolve Affordable Housing Crisis.” “Housing Crisis on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast Prices out Residents, Creates Staffing Shortages.” That’s one page of Google. That’s the first page of Google.

But here’s a headline from yesterday. To all of this housing crisis, Bill 43 is supposed to be part of the solution, but yesterday’s headline read: “David Eby’s Housing Law Mostly Stick, with Slice of Carrot for Municipalities.”

I’m very pleased that we’re in here talking about housing, because this bill is actually an opportunity to talk about one of the most pressing issues at hand for British Columbians. News flash: housing in B.C. is not affordable. In fact, it’s the least affordable in North America and the third least affordable in the world. This NDP government wears that.

I don’t want these headlines to continue. I don’t want Google to read that we have the least affordable housing in the world. So what are we doing right now? Well, in the absence of democracy, we have to continue. We have to continue to stand and voice whatever possible concerns those outside of this House have.

It is affecting everyone. I spoke with a senior in my community that can no longer afford their rental, but they have to move closer to the health care facility that supplies for their needs and their family. I’ve spoken to young doctors in my riding with crippling debt as they graduate. They can’t afford to purchase in the community that desperately needs them to serve. I’ve got young people in my riding that can no longer afford to leave home.

I spoke with a young man. He must have been in his, maybe, early 30s. He was so excited to brainstorm about housing and housing affordability. I really innocently asked about why he was so passionate about finding a solution, and suddenly he became very emotional. He apologized for his emotion and then spoke about how, despite having a $100,000 income per year, he is sliding backwards, and he and his wife can’t afford to actually have bedrooms for their kids. I’m not talking about separate bedrooms and each having their own separate spaces. He talked to me about how his kids are in closets.

Costs have skyrocketed and are completely pushing housing out of reach. Inflation is out of control, and B.C. again tops the list in Canada for inflation. This is serious. Half of all British Columbians are $200 or less away from insolvency. Time is up. We don’t have a margin anymore; $200 is not a margin. We don’t have any ability for housing to get more expensive.

[5:20 p.m.]

For Bill 43 to come in and be some sort of a saviour to somehow suddenly answer the supply needs of our province is simply not possible. It’s certainly not possible without the deep dive of democracy and all that that would afford us within committee stage and through second reading.

The Premier likes to talk about housing. When he was Housing Minister, he focused almost solely on demand. Taxed housing to death. Taxed housing into our most expensive in Canada, most expensive in North America and third most expensive in the world. He could have fixed it. He could have fixed it two years ago, becoming the Housing Minister. The NDP could have fixed it six years ago, but here we are.

I just want to talk a little bit about the history of housing, because oftentimes, we’re labelled, as B.C. Liberals, as not having cared about housing prices. That is simply, patently false. Here’s the history of housing from someone who has been intimately involved in housing over the course of the last 25 years. In the ’90s, our economy had tanked. In fact, in 1996, when my then-husband and I declared that we were moving out to the Okanagan from Alberta, we were seen as lunatics, because we were leaving jobs. We were leaving a soaring economy to come to B.C., which had the economy in the absolute tank.

In the ’90s, without an economy and without jobs, which…. There were no jobs in the ’90s. I can verify that, because I created my own. Why did I create my own? There were no jobs. Why were there no jobs? We had no economy. Was housing soaring in the ’90s? No. Housing was actually going down. Smirk all you want. Housing was going down. From the ’90s to the 2000s, there were no increases in housing prices. In fact, the house that was purchased in 1997 showed zero gain in 2002. Look at the maps. Look at the charts.

What happened in 2001? The B.C. Liberals came to power. You know what happened to our economy? It started to come back to life. B.C. came back to life. Fiscal prudence was brought back to budgeting, with a professionalism about the dates and times of elections, budgets, bills. Oh, wait. Bills, so that we weren’t forcing closure, were brought back into the Legislative Assembly of B.C., and with that, positive economic growth. Housing did show modest gains, and these modest gains were decimated by the worldwide recession of 2008 to 2010.

The charts basically flatlined during that time frame and actually went down. Did we need Bill 43 back then? No, we didn’t. We didn’t need it. Why? It’s because things had just barely come back to life. Well, thankfully, due to investments from the B.C. Liberal government in infrastructure and in some spending, we did see jobs come back, and along with that, an increase in housing activity.

As housing started to escalate, as we started to see increases in the cost of housing, what was the B.C. Liberal response? Two things. One, we started building rental housing, and number two, we actually instituted the foreign buyers tax. The last six years of the NDP government have changed that.

Right now we’re sitting with a bill in front of us that is supposed to actually help with supply, after six years of a government that hasn’t worked on supply. Instead of actually debating this bill and being allowed to have a democratic process, well, the government is asking for blind trust, a blank cheque and zero accountability.

[5:25 p.m.]

In fact, in reading through and re-reading through and re-reading through this bill, I cannot find one accountability measure for the province. The only accountability measures are actually on municipalities, but I can tell you that right now, four different provincial ministries, sometimes even five, weigh in on developments within my riding. Each one of those ministries can take a year to two years to three years to get through their approval process.

Is there anything in this bill that will actually require the province to deliver? Has the province looked at its own issues within ministries to determine whether or not they could speed up housing? And with the blank cheque…. Come on: $4 billion for B.C. Housing on 7,000 completed units. That’s $575,000 per unit. Having toured some of the SROs, that’s ridiculous. That is ridiculous. That is a waste of money. That is not treating British Columbians the way they should be treated.

Why am I remiss to not actually have committee on this bill? Well, British Columbians don’t trust this government. I don’t trust this government. Why? We don’t see the positive results. The other part is that there’s no plan. What is this unto? No plan, no accountability, nothing that can be measured.

The one thing I know about housing is it’s measurable. It happens in units. It happens in dollars. It happens in households. It is absolutely something that we could have measured. But Bill 43 certainly doesn’t measure it for anyone other than the municipalities. Bill 43 is seemingly designed simply to increase pressure on municipalities but doesn’t do anything with the province.

This legislation is going to increase bureaucracy. If you increase bureaucracy and increase the length of time and increase costs, but don’t actually deliver anything greater, all you’ve done is a bureaucratic process that’s going to further contribute to a lack of housing affordability.

This legislation is actually going to turn housing into reports and binding targets. But what happens if they don’t meet those targets? Well, the minister may appoint a bureaucrat to review zoning practices and make changes. What changes? Which bureaucrat? What zoning processes? Again, it’s do as I say, not as I do. The province has no forms of accountability for themselves in this bill. The province doesn’t get held to anything, but the cities do and our municipalities do.

We’re not going to get, probably, to committee stage. But if we did, oh, would we have questions. We’d want to know the specifics of this legislation, particularly how these new tools for government are going to look and how they’re going to impact our municipalities. If you want to see a change in supply, lower bureaucracy. If you want to see housing at lower costs, lower the costs that you put onto housing.

Seattle had a housing crisis and still has a housing crisis, to some extent. But in 2018, a very masterful city manager, as well as a planning manager, for one calendar year removed all obstacles. They said: “For this particular area, we are desperately in need of housing.” So they removed all the obstacles. They said: “If you meet all of our criteria, it’s approved.” In one year, they went from 2,000 units in that particular zone to over 18,000 units in that particular zone. If we are serious about housing and housing supply and housing affordability, get out of the way. We don’t need more bureaucrats and more legislation and a heavier hammer.

[5:30 p.m.]

Look, we as opposition have been calling for changes. We’ve been calling desperately for changes. Once again, we’re not faced with anything that we can actually get into the meat of.

What are we left with? Well, some lofty rhetoric but a very underwhelming bill. I heard some great promises from the Premier’s housing platform. They’re not in here. This isn’t it. This isn’t collaborative with our municipalities, as the Vancouver Sun calls it. No, it’s a very little carrot, mostly stick.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

If we want to increase our focus on targets, why would we add bureaucrats? I mean, really, are we adding new bureaucracy to monitor bureaucracy? That is simply unnecessary. Instead of hiring more bureaucrats to write reports, the Premier could have immediately turned the focus to cutting taxes, cutting red tape, becoming a Seattle, where we actually release the housing industry to create more housing and increase the supply.

We could also see it reduce taxes. The report from C.D. Howe actually talks about taxes and fees adding $644,000 onto the cost of the average Vancouver home. Think about that — taxes and fees, nearly $650,000. No wonder homes are so expensive in Vancouver. How about a bill to lower taxes? How about a bill to cut bureaucracy and get a faster product to market? How about some carrots to actually aid our municipalities to get better housing results?

I’m finding it very difficult to trust anything that this Premier or the Housing Minister has said that this legislation is going to achieve. They have not delivered results over the last six years, delivering less than 10 percent of the 114,000 homes that were promised, halfway through their ten-year plan, 60 percent of the way through. That’s a failing grade — a failing grade. Even if, pie in the sky, we were able to deliver 114,000, that’s not even going to be a drop in the bucket for the 570,000 homes, by 2030, that CMHC says we need.

Do as I say, not as I do. Using a hammer over the heads of municipalities to make sure that they get their housing goals met without any transparency or accountability from the province or their ministries. Using a stick instead of lowering bureaucracy and taxes to actually make a difference in the cost of housing and the supply of housing.

We have a huge issue. Data show that housing starts have only grown 5 percent under the NDP — 5 percent. The population growth during that same time in my municipality was over 10 percent. Imagine that.

[5:35 p.m.]

Do you know when we did have a tremendous amount of growth in housing? Well, the B.C. Liberals oversaw the largest growth in housing — 70 percent from 2011 to 2017, 70 percent in six years.

I don’t know. Working on supply or working on demand? Demand got us 5 percent over six years. Supply got us 70 percent over six years.

We’re not keeping pace. We’re not keeping up, and our constituents — our beautiful, amazing communities — are the ones that are losing out. Instead of talking about housing, I would love to see housing built. I would love to see actions that actually impact our constituents in real ways.

Where is the $400 annual renters rebate that the NDP promised not once but twice? This last week I got a text message about that. A senior in my community, 72 years old, doesn’t know how he’s going to afford his rent. He was texting me and asking me: “Do you have any idea of when the NDP is going to give that rebate?”

Sounding the alarm bell and hoping that we actually do something, that this NDP government actually does something before it’s too late.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to stand in the House today and continue discussion on Bill 43, which we do understand is a very important piece of legislation that impacts all of us. I’ll take the opportunity to talk about some of the personal impacts that I’ve seen.

It’s too important to be rushed, and unfortunately, that’s simply where we’re going to be. We, I think, have another 45 minutes, and then we’re done pretty much. That’s a real disappointment. I don’t think it serves the people of this province at all well. Nor does it serve this House and the roles that we’re all to play in terms of providing governance and overseeing and criticizing and assessing and looking to improve the pieces of legislation that government brings forward.

Clearly, we are in a cost-of-living crisis. The member for Peace River South sent us, on our WhatsApp, an example of that crisis. If in no other way…. It was a picture of a head of lettuce at the supermarket for $9.39 — $9.39 for a head of lettuce in Chetwynd. Well, that really just speaks to costs that are out of control. That speaks to a cost-of-living crisis.

Homes and rents are no exception to that. Young families have been entirely pushed out of the market or virtually pushed out of the market. I have two daughters that both live in the Sea to Sky. Both want to get a family started, but both have real challenges understanding how they are going to find a place to live, a place to go.

[5:40 p.m.]

There’s a variety of different issues. Obviously, the cost is one. The lack of supply is another. Other limitations also need to be noted. Restrictions on agricultural land limit the ability of my kids to live on my farm, even though they work on the farm. They’re expected to go move off and live in town and take the bus to the farm, I suppose. I don’t know. But it’s constrained, it’s restricted, and it’s just not easy. We’ve got to try and make it work better for everybody.

We need to factor in growth in our province. It’s interesting, looking back. My grandparents were born in British Columbia. When they were born, there were half a million people in this province. When my mom was born in the ’40s, there were one million people. When I was born in the ’60s, there were two million people. Then when my kids were born in the ’90s, there were four million people in this province. Now we’re pushing 5½ million, and we’re well on our way to more.

The other question that’s interesting to pose at times — it would be interesting to pose in this House at some point, when it was full — is, when we look at how many of us were actually born here and how many of us immigrated to British Columbia: how many of us are part of that problem but also part of the solution? Clearly, we have a demographic that’s altering, and it needs some consideration. We need some immigration.

It all adds to the problem; it all creates concerns. It has really come to a head, over the course of the last five years or so. This government did make some commitments, which have been referenced here on a number of occasions today, to build 114,000 units over ten years. That’s a small number. It seems big in the picture, but in actual fact, it really doesn’t come close to dealing with what we need as this province grows.

Unfortunately, there’s little sign that those 114,000 units are on its way. I’ve heard various different statistics, but it doesn’t appear that there are more than 6,000 to 8,000 or 10,000 of them that are potentially occupied right now, recognizing that we’re more than halfway through that ten-year commitment. We’ve got a long way to go.

All of it was a little bit murky to begin with it. I wasn’t really sure who was going to be building those 114,000 units, but it’s a great talking point. Is there any assessment? Is there any checking? Well, I hope there is. There’s some conflicting information, but it seems that we’re six years in and nowhere near close.

What that number highlights to me is an even bigger concern. As I referenced in the growth of the province over the last 100 years or more and what we can project going forward, how do those 114,000 units relate to what we’re going to need?

Current data from CMHC suggests that we’re going to need 570,000 more units by 2030 — not that far away — but 2030 is an attractive date for a variety of reasons. There are lots of promises around 2030. Maybe we’ll have a Massey Tunnel by that time. Maybe we’ll have the beginnings of a plan for rapid transit across Burrard Inlet, which actually makes the Massey crossing look pretty small. We see huge traffic and congestion, and that is very much tied to housing and an ability to get housing in place.

[5:45 p.m.]

I can’t resist saying that maybe 2030 is the date that we’re looking to for B.C. Ferries to solve some of their problems as well. It’s not in the next performance term but in the performance term after next that we will see, it’s suggested, a plan to double the ferry for the Langdale route and stop the traffic chaos going into the Sunshine Coast. Unfortunately, the appropriate minister is not here. But I’ve been on the bandwagon of regional transit for the Sea to Sky for many, many years now.

Deputy Speaker: Of course, Member, we don’t mention who’s in or not in the House.

J. Sturdy: Fair enough, sorry. My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

As part of a housing solution, as part of a transportation solution, we’ve been seeking regional transit for the Sea to Sky for many, many years. Maybe that 2030 date is what I should be looking at. I certainly hope not, but it seems an attractive date.

Anyway, 570,000 new units by 2030. We’re never going to get there, it doesn’t seem. We don’t seem to be making much progress on this. When it comes to affordability, we are in that crisis. There’s no question about it. The comment that nearly half of British Columbians are $200 or less away from insolvency is a dramatic comment — and, very frankly, alarming.

We are in an affordability and wage crisis. We’re in a business crisis. We’re in a triple-net tax crisis. We’re in a taxation crisis. When we see or understand the taxes and fees, at $644,000, to the cost of building a home in Vancouver, that is a number that, again, indicates a crisis. When will we see some action on this? Where is the opportunity? Where is the action that we’ll see from government to help deliver affordability, as promised?

We see some tax shifts, but ultimately tax growth. This sort of sense that big payrolls equal big profits is not something that’s true. Certainly you don’t tell that to farmers or restaurant owners, because it’s not the case. Yet we see big taxation shifts, to those employers, which ultimately contribute to unaffordability. It just seems out of touch.

We have a Premier now, a new Premier who has been the Housing Minister for two years, during which the average monthly cost of a one-bedroom apartment rose $511, in two years — that’s pretty crazy — to $2,412. Vancouver has the distinction of being the most expensive rental market in the country. Honestly, it’s pretty hard to imagine that Victoria is much behind here.

Now this House is asked to — being required to, frankly — trust that there’s going to be action, because we’re not going to be able to examine this bill in detail. We’re going to be just accepting it. It will be done without question, without adequate oversight. So we’ll need to trust.

In two years as the Housing Minister, the most signi­ficant progress I saw was that the minister fired the board of B.C. Housing. That was a bit of a surprise — on a Friday afternoon, naturally. That was the most progress that I’ve seen — incidentally, a board that was appointed by his predecessor. It certainly does not suggest that we should have confidence in this government, in this legislation, in this initiative, especially when we don’t have an opportunity to examine it as it requires and as it deserves.

[5:50 p.m.]

We’re led to believe that this particular legislation before us today is some part of a grand plan, albeit a delayed plan. It’s a plan, honestly, that might even have done some good at some point, but it seems that it was just delayed in order to facilitate a perception of hitting the ground running, as it were — along with a delay in the strategies to make people feel safer in their communities and their homes, for their families.

What has not been done? What has fallen off the table? What has fallen by the wayside as a result of the delay, where we’ve got political ambitions dominating the calendar, where things are for political effect or for political benefit, and where to create the impression of hitting the ground running is more important than taking real action for real people.

“Working for you” is not a term that we hear much anymore, because it just doesn’t seem to be true. It’s delayed, deferred or postponed to further ambition. There could have been…. You know, the beneficiary of delay is, in some respects, unconscionable. It’s political cynicism. It breeds political cynicism. The delay, were it necessary, which works for political advantage….

But has that always been the plan? Have we always been trying to figure out how to time things just right? Well, maybe not. Maybe, over the last two years, under this Premier’s tenure as the Housing Minister, it has just been about cleaning up the mess at B.C. Housing — a disaster, as identified by Ernst and Young, of lack of accountability, of awards of “multi-million-dollar housing contracts with little or no documentation” on how and why decisions were made, according to the Tyee.

“No comment” is what we hear. No comment. But as Ernst and Young says: “No formal evaluation criteria exist for supportive housing projects” or “subjective evaluation criteria and decisions are not documented.” It’s back-of-a-napkin.

You know, this Bill 43 is an enabling piece of legislation, for the most part. Much of it will be through regulation. When we look at the history of B.C. Housing over this last five years and we end up with a condemnation like this — where there are no criteria, no supportive documentation, no evaluation, subjective evaluation or, certainly, no documentation — these are real problems, yet we’re supposed to have faith that what is being proposed is going to be good. “Don’t worry about it.” It’s pretty astonishing, some of the allegations that have been reported. I would say that the previous Housing Minister needs to take some responsibility.

Over the last two years, this type of legislation must have been contemplated. There must have been some work done on this sort of thing. It has been in the public discourse, for a long time, that there needed to be some carrots and some sticks. Now, from what it looks like, it’s mostly sticks, but there does need to be…. People have been talking about this for a long time, so it’s hard to imagine, even if we just look at the two years of the previous minister, that we couldn’t manage to deliver legislation until the last week of the session.

[5:55 p.m.]

I think historically there was general consensus — not a standing order but a policy or just a standard way of doing things — that if you couldn’t get your legislation into the House in first reading before the middle of the session, then you had to wait till the next session. Clearly, that’s gone out the door, because what we’re seeing is that we introduce legislation on a Monday, and we introduce closure on a Tuesday. Well, that certainly….

Limiting debate on this piece of legislation is an abomination, and I don’t think it serves anybody. It certainly doesn’t serve the public of this province.

You could see that there could be an opportunity or could be a need to move incredibly rapidly in a couple of days, but these are on things like floods and catastrophes. This housing issue has been years in the making, and we need to take action on it, but we also need to examine what is being proposed.

Bill 43 is pretty much designed to put pressure on municipalities to meet their targets. Those targets — that’s a little bit unclear to me as to what those targets are, what that means. To my knowledge, it’s rare that there are targets associated with municipal planning for things like housing.

I think there are certainly some exceptions, and one of them I think is worth shouting out. There are communities around the province, certainly, but when we look at a community like Whistler where…. People could see the evolution of the community, see that if we didn’t have housing targets, if we didn’t have targets for employee housing, we were going to have, at the end of the day, a community that was distorted in some respects. It wasn’t complete. And we can see that in other….

I recognize that a place like Whistler is a bit of an anomaly. It’s a global destination, but there are other examples there. We look at a place like Aspen. It’s a similar type of community, isolated to some degree, and they’ve never had a housing target. Well, they’ve recently accepted and understood that they need to have some housing targets, they need to have a more complete community, they need to have their employees live in the community where they work. Their aspiration is 15 percent of the employees living there. The rest of them drive an hour each way to go to a community down the valley.

If Whistler hadn’t put in place, 30 years ago, a housing policy objective of retaining, of encouraging, of bringing back 70 percent of the employees that work in their community into their community…. If they hadn’t put that objective in place, it would not have happened. We would have had people living in Pemberton, people living in Squamish and commuting back and forth, and Whistler itself wouldn’t be what it is today.

They put in place a housing authority. They worked with developers. They worked with B.C. Housing, albeit not very successfully over the last number of years, for some reason. But they have tried to make a complete community and ensure that the people who work in that community belong to that community. If you don’t live there, it’s hard to belong.

That policy objective is one of the few around the province, I would say, that actually is…. This is what we are trying to achieve on the workforce side. And I think it’s important that we…. I have always encouraged a conversation with the municipalities that I represent or work with to think about these kind of things, because even if….

Right now the North Shore, it’s something like 30 percent of the people who work on the North Shore live on the North Shore. That means that everybody else is moving, so everybody’s travelling. That’s why we have congestion in two directions on the bridges.

[6:00 p.m.]

That’s why it’s so hard to recruit and retain employees. That’s why it’s important that we think about these kinds of objectives.

I recognize, as well, that Whistler is unique. It’s isolated. It’s a global destination in a unique and wonderful location. It doesn’t really conflict with the other communities around it, whereas if you look to try and create these policy objectives or housing goals, as referred to in this bill….

How do you look at the North Shore like that? You’ve got three, four, five municipalities, if you include Bowen Island and Lions Bay, all evolving individually and differently, all with different access to services, all with different access to infrastructure and transportation. It is complex.

This bill doesn’t really help me understand how we would…. Even something as simple as setting the housing targets. Set a housing target. How do we do that? Well, it’s broken out, to some degree, when we look at the legislation around making a housing target order. This is for a community, I guess, that doesn’t live up to its housing target, which seems to me is going to be a five-year plan. OCPs are supposed to be renewed every five years. If you don’t have a housing target in place right now, how would the minister determine that you haven’t achieved the target?

Then we have to achieve the target. Then we have to give some time to make progress towards the target, or not. I just can’t see how we’re not more…. We’re five years out from beginning to negotiate a discussion about how to make progress, it seems to me.

Even when you look at just the requirement for making a housing order, as I mentioned before. What are we looking at? We’re looking at…. The minister must consider current and previous housing reports, current and previous official OCPs, current and previous regional growth strategies, information in relation to demand for and supply of housing, including statistical information for current and projected populations, statistical information for household income, information about significant economic sectors and information about currently available housing units, housing units that are anticipated and the types of those units. It goes on from there. There are many more sections here.

This strikes me as being somewhat aspirational, as being a very significant time away, as being a bit of flash, and: “Look at what we’ve done.” But really, it’s hard to imagine how this is going to have much of an impact, if any. Certainly not in the short term, certainly not even in the medium term. Potentially, perhaps, in the long term.

Then again, I go back to the North Shore. How does that work? You have five different municipalities with five different circumstances, yet we’re supposed to set targets that grow these communities to try and achieve our 577,000 units before 2030.

This is an interesting bill. It’s something I think we should have been talking about a long time ago. It’s most unfortunate that we are not going to really have a chance to explore the questions I think this bill deserves and this issue deserves and propose various strategies and solutions.

I will just say one more thing. We’ve looked at our experience in this session, even, this fall. We look at pieces of legislation. For example, yesterday we were completing, I think, committee stage on a transportation amendment bill. For some reason, we’ve got two transportation amendment bills this session.

[6:05 p.m.]

When we looked at that one bill, with 16 sections, which includes the title…. So not a very big bill. Not even with very big sections. Three amendments were proposed and accepted — well, proposed by the minister because he recognized that there were problems with it.

So then we go and look at a bill like this, which is highly complex with lots and lots of moving parts. It needs to effect housing opportunities right across this province that are so important to making people’s lives reasonable: their quality of life, their ability to grow a family, their ability to feel safe. These are all things that need examination, and we’re not going to get that chance.

C. Oakes: I’m glad to be able to stand in the House today and continue discussion on Bill 43.

I’m grateful to have the opportunity, as I am every day, to represent the incredible constituents of Cariboo North. I take that role and I take that responsibility as an elected member of this assembly very serious at all times. I do my absolute best to ensure that legislation that is being brought forward in this House has the ability to have the scrutiny and the ability for us to listen and reach out to the constituents in our ridings.

Today will be a historic day recorded in this B.C. Legislature — historic not in a good way or a celebratory way, but historic in the way of dismantling the rights of members of this Legislature to thoughtfully examine, the ability to understand the consequences of legislation being brought forward and the impact it will have in our ridings as well as to provide a very thoughtful, well-researched ability for questions to be brought forward to this government.

Bill 43, tabled today, has determined to disenfranchise people’s voices from across British Columbia. Look, I come from local government. I’m so proud of that. I’m proud of the experience I had serving in local government, as many members of this House have. I know that many of the members I have talked to know and understand that very unique opportunity to connect on the ground with our constituents. I also understand, as all members who have served in local government do, and have a sense of the challenges, the limitations and the very workforce challenges that exist in communities across British Columbia.

So this bill that is being brought forward — this piece of legislation that, unfortunately, we will not have the ability to examine or provide the necessary oversight on — demonstrates an absolute disconnect. This bill is a complete disconnect of understanding local governments and their abilities and the barriers that they have to implement what the province is saying: “Thou shall now do.”

I also had the great privilege of serving as the minister of local government, and I also had the privilege of serving as the minister for red tape, so I think I have a small sense of some of the challenges that exist within this bill. I feel that there would have been a very…. I would have brought a very thoughtful ability on how we could improve and understand some of the challenges that have been brought forward, to help ensure that housing supply is actually created in this province.

Look, we all come with that basic desire, that knowledge, that understanding that we need more housing in this province. I just don’t think this bill is going to deliver that. This bill is historic, all right, but, unfortunately, I feel a contempt of local governments. Again, it demonstrates the lack of understanding of local governments and of the firewalls that exist.

[6:10 p.m.]

This bill does not understand the Community Charter. It does not understand the Local Government Act, the challenges that regional districts have with firewalls, the challenges that local governments have. And the message that local governments would deliver to this province is: “Now you are wanting us to get into a space that we just don’t have the resources or the ability or the workforce able to contemplate or to deliver.”

This bill was tabled yesterday. I imagine that if I’d had the ability to get out and talk to local governments and have that very important ability to communicate and consult with and listen to what constituents and local governments are saying about this specific bill and how it is going to ensure that housing supply will be achieved, they would definitely say that, again, the government isn’t understanding local government’s roles, responsibilities and challenges that they have.

Look, this bill is providing nothing more than more bureaucracy and more red tape without understanding the fundamentals of supply. Look, 86 percent of all new jobs created in B.C. over the past two years have been government jobs. In Vancouver, when you start looking at bureaucracy and red tape, regulation and red tape account for 50 percent of the cost of a new home, the worst in British Columbia.

The province is saying, “Let’s put the hammer on local governments. They’re obviously where we need to direct all the attention,” without really clearly understanding that perhaps the direction, perhaps housing supply…. We need to look at the province itself. We need to look at provincial regulations. We need to look at the different ministries within the province and how they’re creating barriers and holding up some of the very necessary requirements needed to move housing supply forward.

I’m going to take a few of my minutes, if I may, to provide perhaps a few suggestions from my experience. The first suggestion I have for this government, and to demonstrate really moving forward to achieve housing supply in the province of British Columbia, is that the first step that this province and this Premier should be taking is to be looking at government.

The government, the new Premier could be putting in a mandate across to all ministers to make sure housing supply is something that is articulated in each of the mandate letters and looking at how each of the ministers could be ensuring that they’re not blocking — creating roadblocks, creating red tape — to ensure that housing supply is moving forward.

Now, some people will be saying: “Well, MLA, how do you suggest that’s going to move housing supply forward?” Let me start with the first one. I haven’t heard the Premier or the government talk about workforce readiness and the fact that in order to create housing supply, you need the workforce to build it. You need the trained, skilled workforce to build the housing in order to provide the supply.

You know where a first step would be and where I’d really encourage the government and where I would be a strong champion? It’s understanding that housing construction needs construction trades — and the critical importance of skills development strategy. Where, from this government, is the workforce development strategy to make sure that we have the skilled workforce to deliver these incredibly important housing projects?

What could the government be doing to help support the post-secondary institutions and skills training? Well, the government continues, month after month after month after month, to be doing a review of funding of post-secondary institutions. But month after month after month after month, action is limited. Ask anyone delivering a trades program across the province of British Columbia. They will identify that they’re challenged with the increased cost of consumable products.

[6:15 p.m.]

Consider the construction trades programs right now. Consider the fact of the rising cost of lumber in trying to deliver these critically important training programs, these skilled-trades programs, across the province without any additional support from this government. How do you honestly expect that we’re going to see an increase in trades trading without the fact that this government continues to consult and consult and review without actually putting in the critical investments to make sure that we have the tradespeople that we need to build housing supply in the province of British Columbia?

If the government was serious on addressing housing supply, they would understand the need for a housing workforce strategy that ties training as a critical component into the deliverable.

How about looking at the Minister of Education? There is a significant disconnect in British Columbia between the K-to-12 system and our post-secondary education system. The government needs to be doing a far better job on this. The government needs to understand and significantly increase the funds to dual-credit programs and fund trades pathways. You want to increase housing supply and increase people going into the trades? Understand one of the fundamental abilities to do that is ensuring that our young people have access to understanding the great jobs that are out there in the skilled and advanced education fields.

Why did the government cut the shoulder tappers program, a program critical to introducing young people to the opportunities of going into trades? You wonder why our kids aren’t looking at going into trades and making sure that they’re the workforce that are going to build the necessary housing supply? Start looking at where some of the cuts have come from. Start looking at how the government has cut these programs, so critically important to ensuring that our kids understand the great importance and the great job opportunities that exist within the skills development field.

You could go to the Minister of Labour or Finance. They could do a lot in helping to support housing supply when it comes to training and addressing workforce challenges. Look, the federal policy re international students and work permits to take trades training in B.C…. Look, they could be doing a lot of support right now in ensuring that we remove that disconnect between the federal government and the B.C. government.

How about the ministry of community services? Skills training locally is critical, yet we still have significant geographic areas that do not have significant broadband infrastructure. In rural remote Indigenous communities, 60 percent do not have access to much-needed broadband infrastructure.

How does that tie into housing supply, you may ask? Well again, if we need a trained workforce in order to build the supply, we must, in the province of British Columbia, understand the critical need to have a digital transformation strategy for post-secondary education. We need to look at teaching methods. We need to maximize and optimize the hopes and dreams of young people in British Columbia to understand that wherever you are in British Columbia, you can access education, and you can access education and post-secondary education and skills training close to home.

You can start doing that by ensuring that we have investments in the infrastructure and ensuring that broadband infrastructure is available so wherever you live in British Columbia, you can partake in important training so that you can be a part of a solution to the supply of housing in British Columbia. That’s one piece that I would welcome the government to be looking at.

Again, we need to be looking at opportunities to ensure that there is an ability for all British Columbians to understand, to have a social contract, to know where they fit in, in British Columbia. I heard members earlier today talk about: where is the vision? Where is the vision of this government when it comes to housing? Well, I ask a bigger vision. I ask a vision of this government and this Premier to understand where the workers in British Columbia can fit in to providing the necessary solutions to all of the challenges that we face in British Columbia.

Let’s start with the workforce strategy. We’ve been waiting for the Future Ready report to become…. I think it was announced in the spring. Where’s that report? Look, if we can start tying the challenges that we have….

[6:20 p.m.]

If we can identify where the labour market challenges are in our communities, if we can start identifying where we need skilled tradespeople, we can start investing in the training necessary to produce the necessary workforce to ensure that we have a housing supply. This would be a great place to start.

As I look to close — because I know that for myself, we are in a tremendously unfortunate situation in this legislation, one that I have not been in before — I would welcome the opportunity to go in committee and to utilize the experience that I’ve had to help make this a better bill that will actually produce supply of housing for British Columbians, something that I know all members of this House want. We understand the need in each of our communities, whether it’s Cariboo North or whether it’s in an urban area.

I close with a significant heavy heart, of the disregard, the fact that we’re bypassing such important tools that could actually make sure that we’re delivering real progress and providing real solutions and providing legislation that doesn’t disenfranchise people but makes sure that the bills that we’re debating here in the House actually deliver real outcomes for British Columbians.

B. Stewart: I’m glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act.

Having looked through the bill, I do honestly believe that there’s some effort to address certain things. But when I look at this, and I think about being in business and looking at how to build something up and stuff like that…. The whole problem — where did it come from? How did we get to the point we’re at today? What is the problem that’s causing that?

We heard numbers from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. When he was born, the province was two million. When his kids were born, it was four million. Now it’s 5½ million. It continues to grow.

One of the things that we are going to inevitably face is that we have to welcome in more immigrants, more migrants, etc. If we had even a population base that was growing, we’d still need to have this.

So where is the problem coming from? The part that I see in this particular piece of legislation on a broad basis is that it attempts to try to solve the problem by having rules and audits or advisers and roles around the municipalities about what it is that they should be doing. We’re going to select a small number of municipalities. I believe that it was mentioned yesterday when this was introduced: eight to ten municipalities that are not yet named. I think about…. There are 161 municipalities, 27 regional districts in the province.

This is really a starting point. This is putting all of the problem onto the municipalities, that they have been the problem in terms of…. Forget about affordability, because that is another thing that the province has accountability on. But when it comes to the real supply issue, is the problem the municipalities?

I look at it, and I think: “Well, what about the province?” I live in a community that’s just under 200,000 people. It’s the fastest-growing community urban area in Canada. I know that one of the things that the city of Kelowna has been frustrated by is the fact that the approval process, or getting approvals from the province, is a two-year process in many cases.

Did you know that 800 metres from the centre line on the highway on either side is the required area that cities have to consult before they can give approval? They have firsthand experience with that recently, with the relocation of an existing business — Costco. You probably know who that is. They wanted to relocate. What it required…. Of course, there are new turning lanes and things like that.

[6:25 p.m.]

But at the end of the day, what I see in this is a lot of the bureaucracy and the rules. It’s fine to have rules. But this is not a new process. The Community Charter has been around for over 20 years and has been updated. The Vancouver Charter. Where’s the responsibility for the province in this? What’s the province going to do? What’s the accountability to make the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transportation, the other ministries that weigh in on different issues, etc. — to make certain that they meet the approval process?

What about the Agricultural Land Commission? That’s probably one of the biggest constraints we have in the province. I know that it was talked about. It’s warmly thought of by many people, but it is a constraint. It’s one of the things that puts British Columbia…. It differentiates us, but it also makes us hugely inefficient in terms of being able to get transit.

I don’t disagree, but when it comes to Langley and Surrey and Abbotsford and even the Okanagan, we need to have transportation that meets the need that…. Because of the fact that the agricultural land doesn’t generate the revenue stream that in an urban setting…. You know, take any other city and how we can do that….

But I think at the end of the day, I do worry about some of the things… The member for Cariboo North talked passionately about training. Well, where is it that…? How are we going to speed the process up? We already know that there’s a shortage of tradespeople. It takes years of bringing people along, let alone laborers, to a journeyman kind of status. Where are we going to get those people? Where are we going to house them if we import them? We have to come up with a plan that is much broader about what our end objective is. What’s the target? It’s like a business. I would like to sell or grow or build this much, etc.

We hear all sorts about the costs. You know, the costs are an issue around affordability. We could affect that, but it’s not mentioned in Bill 43 whatsoever. I think that although the aspirational goals of Bill 43 are really aspirational, if we don’t bring these other things in and look at the challenges — labour, the fact that we have to deal with the municipal taxation rates….

Mr. Speaker, you’re in an area where before you even break ground on a single family home, you’ve got costs of over $600,000 in just local costs. And that’s the affordability. Certainly, that’s a barrier. We’ve heard lots about the lack of affordability, but at the end of the day, how do we solve that? We don’t solve it with one piece of legislation. It has to be a comprehensive, collaborative piece of work.

I would encourage the Minister of Housing to take that on with his colleagues to make certain that we can bring this to a head and make certain that his colleagues realize their responsibility. Secondly, we also…. They realize that we have a bigger job to do. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the PNP program, but what about the federal government’s recent announcement of wanting to allow immigration of up to a half a million people per year? Which I think is wonderful, but I don’t know where we’re going to place all these people….

I really do think that the collaborative approach needs to be done. I do think that the Kelowna-Mission MLA mentioned the Seattle example. I think that the Seattle example is something that we have to look at it. On a temporary basis, we maybe have to remove barriers — the roadblocks to getting things done, whether it’s in a specific area like she mentioned. But the situation is that we have to be able to action, get results. There’s nothing about measurables, results, in here. Talks about that the municipalities are the problem in this particular case.

I’ve read through the sections, etc., and what I see is a large amount of extra cost. I see bureaucracy. I see advisers advising, measuring the performance of municipalities that are yet to be named. Then I see the fact is that they carry no liability for whatever they say or do. I mean, I understand that there’s a reason for some of these things, but at the end of the day, the rule-based system is not going to expediate and get us to that point of the hundreds of thousands of houses that we really need on a ten-year basis. We really have to make complete changes to the way that we’re looking at that.

[6:30 p.m.]

I do think that the municipalities…. Although they’re part of the solution, I don’t think they’re the enemy. I think, in this particular case, they’re singled out and identified as being the group that needs to get their ducks in order, etc.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Stewart: As I mentioned…

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member.

B. Stewart: …the province has a responsibility to make certain it gets its ducks in order as well.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier today, I do have to invite the member to take his seat and must now put the question on second reading, Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act.

Division has been called.

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 43 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 53
Alexis	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Furstenau
Glumac	Greene	Heyman
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Lore	Ma	Malcolmson
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Walker		Yao
NAYS — 26
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
Tegart		Wat

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43, Housing Supply Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 44, second reading.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill will amend the Strata Property Act to expand housing options for British Columbians. Strata housing is a key housing sector in our province, with approximately 1.5 million strata residents across B.C. Currently the Strata Property Act permits strata corporations to have strata bylaws that prohibit owners from renting their units out and that limit the age of strata occupants. These restrictions can exacerbate challenges faced by owners, renters and buyers in a challenging housing market.

This bill will make two key amendments to the Strata Property Act to expand strata housing options. First, this bill will limit the ability of strata corporations to enact most age-restriction bylaws. Age restrictions in a tight rental market make it difficult for families to find homes and force people to move if they decide to have children. Age-restriction bylaws with a minimum age of 55 years of age or older will still be permitted, subject to an exemption for live-in caregivers.

Second, this bill will remove the ability of strata corporations to enact rental-restriction bylaws. This amendment aligns with recommendation 9 from the 2018 Rental Housing Task Force, which was a recommendation to ban rental restrictions in stratas. By removing rental bans from all strata buildings, there will be more condos and townhouses available to rent in urban areas.

In addition, this bill will amend the Strata Property Act to allow all strata corporations in B.C. to conduct annual and special general meetings by telephone or other electronic means on a permanent basis. The amendment to strata legislation will ensure that all stratas in British Columbia will continue to have the option to conduct annual and special general meetings by electronic means.

Finally, the bill will amend the Building Officials’ Association Act to enable the Building Officials Association of B.C. to introduce bylaws for the continuation of electronic meetings, helping to ensure that building officials may continue to participate in members meetings by electronic means.

This bill is an important step toward expanding housing options for owners and renters in British Columbia.

[6:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and speak to Bill 44. We know about the affordability crisis that we have right now in the province of British Columbia when it comes to housing.

I don’t want to get into, maybe, the full commentary that we had earlier on about being restricted in our time allotment when it comes to speaking to these bills, especially when the minister and the Premier talk about the importance of the bills. One of the problems about supporting it after second reading, no different than the last bill, is there might be merits in some of this.

But when the government is shutting us down, and we don’t have the time to scrutinize and hold the government accountable and actually get into the proper debate that we typically see in this House when it comes to bills, it’s very hard to support the bills moving forward through second reading right away without giving us that democratic process that we are obligated, I would say, to follow through with as members of this House.

One of the main issues when we look at Bill 44 — and I’ll get into some of the details maybe around the bill and the strata statutes that this government is looking at changing — is about the unintended consequences. I’m going to read out some commentary that I’ve heard from a lot of different people, and I know this is not just me as the critic. I know members in government have been getting the same emails and concerns because I’ve been cc’d on them. I’ll get to some of those in detail a little bit later on in my commentary.

But it’s important, again, that we should have been given ample time to bring those concerns forward. What I fear is that we’re also going to be shutdown at committee stage, because we’re running out of time since the fact that this government cancelled four sitting days last week. So we’re not going to have as much time in committee stage on what this government is saying are important bills that they brought in at the 11th hour of this session.

We’re going to do our best in the short period of time that we’ve been given to try to at least address some of these concerns.

When you look at Bill 44, it’s definitely making changes to the Strata Property Act. Some of them are straightforward. Some of them I can support and make sense. But they’re wrapped into a lot of changes that, on face value, we’re hearing have a lot of…. There are a lot of struggles, a lot of problems with the way this government has put it out and a lack of data to support the decisions that they’re making.

Removing age requirements, for instance. You know, there could be some merits to that in a lot of circumstances. Lifting the 19-plus age restriction — obviously, in some circumstances, that’s very important because nobody should be kicked out of a unit that they own and be forced to move just because they chose to start a family as a young couple. So there are definitely some nuances here that need to be explored, considered and changes possibly made.

But I know for a big portion of this bill, we need to reserve judgment. We need to wait, because we just don’t know, with the limited information that this new Premier put forward on this, what the unintended consequences are going to be.

As I mentioned, we’ve been hearing from people right across the province that have concerns with this piece of legislation, especially in the larger areas where there are lots of strata complexes, whether in Victoria, Vancouver, Richmond. I’ve been hearing a lot from people in Surrey that are concerned with this. Even up into parts of Kelowna and Vernon, there’s a lot of concern. I’ll get into some of the reasons why in a moment.

What’s interesting, though, when we get into this specific bill…. Maybe I’ll actually talk about some of those specific points before I get into some of the commentary that people are concerned about.

[6:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s very vague. Some of the questions we’re going to have when we look at….The bill is changing, basically, two acts: the Building Officials’ Association Act and the Strata Property Act. Again, some of the changes, at quick glance, could make sense. They’re making changes in this bill to allow for virtual meetings, for people to vote for strata council meetings virtually if they’re unable to attend. In today’s world, that could have some merits to allow strata owners to partake if they’re not available for a strata council meeting.

One of the things that I’m hearing right now is the amount of emergency strata meetings around the province with the presentation of this bill this week in the House because of those unknowns and the concerns that people have. But one of the changes in the bill, obviously, is that “the strata corporation must not pass a bylaw that restricts the age of persons who may reside in a strata lot except as permitted by subsection (2).” Subsection (2) says the strata corporation “may pass a bylaw that requires one or more persons residing in a strata” to be not less than 55 years old.

The government says they put this in to allow for strata complexes that cater to seniors to be exempt from this age qualifier. My question, though…. And I’m already hearing this from a lot of different stratas around the province. They’re saying if this bill passes, one of the first motions they’re going to make at a strata meeting is to now restrict the age of people in their strata to 55 or older and then maybe just grandfathering those that are under 55.

What it’s, in essence, done is completely backfired on what this government is saying that they’re trying to implement, unless the minister tells us at committee stage that they’re going to now say “No, no. The way that’s being read is that’s only existing,” and that they’re not going to allow people to quantify, going forward, that stratas are only 55 or older.

This is what I mean by unintended consequences. They could be setting it up now where more stratas around the province are going to cater to seniors only, taking younger adults and couples out of the opportunity to even rent.

Then you look at this one here in section 141. This is one of the concerns we’re hearing. Listen to this one carefully: “The strata corporation must not screen tenants….” Of course, this is following after where it says that they have to allow rentals. So strata corporations are going to be told, “You have to allow people to rent in there now,” but strata corporations cannot screen the tenants. Strata corporations cannot establish screening criteria. Strata corporations must not require an approval of tenants. Strata corporations must not require the insertion of terms in tenancy agreements. Strata corporations must not otherwise restrict any rental of a strata lot.

The reason why that is raising a lot of concerns is you’re completely taking away the role and responsibility of strata councils and those that choose strata ownership.

Now, I think it’s important to highlight that there are around 30,000 strata corporations in the province of British Columbia, and the suite of those is so different. There are some stratas that could be two or three units, where people have bought maybe a house that’s been divided into three suites. It’s now strata’d to ensure that the responsibility of the three individual owners of that house continue to maintain that property. In fact, they purchased that knowing that those were the regulations and rules within that strata.

[7:00 p.m.]

This government is once again taking away people’s rights. They are now interjecting themselves into people’s personal lives on decisions on home ownership or not. The reason why I say that, when we look at some of the stats on this, which I’ll talk about, is how many people were fortunate enough and purchased a strata unit, whether it’s a condo or a duplex or part of an apartment, row housing, whatever it might be?

But they purchased it knowing the rules of the time. They purchased that property knowing whether it allowed rentals already or it didn’t, whether it had age restrictions or it didn’t, whether it allowed pets or it didn’t. People made personal life decisions based on that.

Now this government is walking into their bedrooms and their living rooms and telling them: “I’m sorry. You made” — what this government even continually says — “the largest investment and the largest decision in your life by purchasing a property.” But now they’re going in and saying: “By the way, we are now going to undermine the decision you made. We’re going to unilaterally insert ourselves and change the decisions that stratas have put in place.”

Now, the reason why that’s important is the amount of emails I’ve been getting from people who have owned properties for 15, 20, 25 years, in an ownership situation, in a strata that has not allowed rentals. The property pricing and strata rules are based on that.

The main concern…. It will be interesting, at committee stage, if the minister will go on the record and say this. What if the value of that property now changes? I’ll talk about the rental stuff in a moment. But imagine if you now are told: “We are sorry. There are 20 people that live in your unit, but because we’re now allowing rentals, there are going to be struggles and changes within that complex.”

Right or wrong, on the intention of this government, they are going to possibly affect the cost of that property, which could be negative to an owner or a huge increase for a renter. Again, unintended consequences that we’re going to have to try to discuss.

I guess my big comment is if we’re really trying to help people, if we’re really trying to help renters, where’s the $2,000 renters rebate? It’s no longer a $400 renters rebate. It’s been promised for five years. We’ve seen how this government wants to…. For their pay increase, everything is retroactive. My assumption is they’re going to treat the people of British Columbia the same way. So they owe them $2,000 on a renters rebate now. When are they getting that?

They keep doubling down every election, saying it’s going to happen. So that’s my assumption. I assume they’re budgeting somewhere. The now Premier keeps saying they’re working on it.

I know there are a lot of people that have got a hold of me and our side of the House saying: “Where’s my $2,000 they owe me? And counting. It’s soon to be $2,400 that they owe me.”

When the minister and the Premier put this bill forward, one of the things that they spoke about was trying to increase rental stock. No argument on this side of the House. Where the argument is…. They’ve got no proof, no statistical data, that says that this will do anything to help the rental stock in British Columbia.

In fact, the minister and the Premier, during the announcement, even said that there are about 900,000 — so we’ll say almost one million — strata units in British Columbia. A good portion of those already allow rentals or don’t. There are rules in place for that.

[7:05 p.m.]

The government, by their own admission, has said that out of those 900,000 strata units, there are only — remember that, out of 900,000 — 2,900 units where people applied for the speculation and vacancy tax, through the application, and had to pay the tax because they were not able to say that they lived in it more than six months.

Somehow this government is saying that by the passage of this bill, there are instantly going to be 2,900 more rental units out there. Well, I think anybody in the logical world will know that that’s not true. In fact, many, many of those 2,900 units are cottages, small little lake houses that might be in the Kelowna area or just parts of Vancouver that could be a second suite that people have for a family vacation.

Actually, we know there are many of the NDP members that own those too. Conveniently, most of those are not in areas that are subject to the speculation and vacancy tax, mind you, which is another area for conversation and debate, probably at a later date.

But those that are, do you really think…? Like the one that came to me: a retired, widowed individual up in the Kelowna area who has a lakefront home that the family has owned for 50 years that they now have to pay a speculation and vacancy tax on. That’s one of these 2,900 that the government thinks is automatically going to be now in the rental pool. Do you really think that’s going to happen?

Do you really think that the majority of people that pay the speculation and vacancy tax from Vancouver, Victoria, that are snowbirds, that are fortunate enough to spend a whole bunch of time down south, who come back home for four or five months of the year…? Do you really think, especially with all of the challenges that we’ve seen with the landlord tenancy branch that this government has failed to address…? Do you really think that they’re going to put theirs out for rent for the four, five or six months and then have to evict people when they’re back home and then rent it out again?

Of course not. It’s not appropriate, it’s not logical, yet this government thinks that’s what’s going to happen. It’s not.

If they really want to deal with the issue, then maybe they should be delivering on their promise of actually building 114,000 affordable units. Maybe they should be delivering on their promises of trying to cut some of that red tape and taxes rather than increasing them and making it harder for the private sector to build properties.

I think it’s important, some of the commentary that I have here to read into the record. We have, for instance, the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia, who have sent this out to myself and, I know, to most NDP members as well. It is interesting, as I read through a lot of these emails that went to NDP members that have then come to me as the housing critic….

They’ve come to me saying: “We’re very disappointed that our NDP member has failed to respond to our concerns. We’re sending this to you as the housing critic, since they’re not responding.” That raises some red flags and concerns for me, because I thought the whole point, when we’re in this House, whether you agree or disagree, is to respect your constituents and respond to them. But I’ll leave that for the NDP members to justify to their constituents and voters of why they ignore them on these important issues. Maybe why that is, is because this is of grave consequences and impacts to some individuals.

Again, just shy of one million people live in stratas that are going to be affected. So the condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia…. I think it’s important to read into the record some of the…. I could have almost used this as my speech, because it’s very detailed and, I think, important documentation to highlight for this House.

Again, 34,000 strata corporations with over 900,000 units in British Columbia. Over 75 percent of the strata corporations are actually small and under 50 units. Over 95 percent of those communities are self-managed. By self-managed, it means the people who live in that strata have volunteered their time, put their name on the strata board, said that they will work hard to help put rules, regulations and oversee that facility, to ensure that it’s a nice place for them and other families and people to live in.

[7:10 p.m.]

Since 2010, owner-developers have filed a Form J: rental disclosure of new properties that exempts rental bylaw applications. We have to remember that changes were already brought in by us, when we were in government, for future properties being built that have to already allow for rental properties and rental numbers within a strata corporation.

We have to remember that this bill is addressing properties that were built prior to 2010, which means people have owned these for many, many years. By the exemptions that the government has put forward, approximately 300,000 units, say, will be affected that have been constructed within that period. Most have 99-year criteria built on them. That’s allowable for rentals.

The majority of strata units are in metropolitan areas. I think we can all agree to that. I know smaller communities have smaller co-ops and smaller, little stratas as well, but here’s where I think it’s really important to highlight some of the facts that they’ve put forward, which are 100 percent accurate. It’s backed up by studies that this government itself has done. Interestingly, some of these studies weren’t released early on a Saturday morning, to hide. They actually put them out Monday or Tuesday but still don’t seem to want to talk about them.

The greatest vacancy rate is within buildings constructed since 2010. Now, that’s an important distinction. The vacancy rates are actually higher in places that allow rental units already. They’re not in stratas that are ownership. That’s not where the vacancy issues are. They’re actually in places that already allow rentals.

Reading through this, properties that didn’t allow rentals, with rental bylaws, have a vacancy rate of zero to 4 percent, where those built since 2010 that allow rentals have anywhere between a 20 and 31 percent vacancy rate. Yet this government thinks that putting in rules, to tell all stratas that they have to allow rentals, will fix the problem.

Here’s the issue, again, as I get into some more of the data here that they have. Just because you allow it, where are these people going or coming from? By that, I mean if you’ve got a strata unit that, right now, has 20 units in it, and all 20 units are full, they’re all owners. They all live in there, they’re all happy living there, but now there’s a rule that says you’re allowed to rent.

According to this government, everybody that owns is, I’m assuming, going to now sell their properties, go who knows where and rent them out. That’s supposed to magically fix the rental issue, and it’s not. So again, this is very misleading on how this government thinks that this is going to work.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member is saying they’re empty, yet I just read out stats from his own government. His own government released the stats that said that zero to 4 percent are empty. He might want to listen to all my commentary, because I’m reading out his own numbers: zero to 4 percent are empty, not all of them — zero to 4 percent. The ones that are empty are the ones that already allow for rentals, and they’re struggling to fill those. Why are they struggling? It’s because the rents are so bloody high under this government.

By putting in this regulation, what I’m hearing from the strata councils, from the CHOA and from others is, again, the unintended consequences. What’s going to happen? Well, insurance rates go up. We’ve already seen the highest insurance rates ever for these stratas. One of the ones, for instance, that got hold of me, from Surrey, said: “We already pay $235,000 a year for strata insurance. We contacted our insurer because right now, it’s an owner-only complex.” Owner-only comes with certain parameters of risks and liabilities that insurance companies know.

This group in Surrey said that they phoned their insurance provider, who told them that if their strata rules changed, they could see an increase of almost 75 percent to their insurance liabilities and deductibles by changing it to allow rentals.

[7:15 p.m.]

Now, I’m not saying that allowing rentals, in some circumstances, is wrong. What I’m saying is that this government is not talking about the unintended consequences and costs. Now, if it’s a place that’s going to allow rentals, what’s it going to do? This is going to bring in our speculators. That’s what this is going to do.

This is not our young families who are going to go out there, and all of a sudden, Ma and Pa Kettle, who have lived over here for 30 years, are going to move out, magically, to who knows where, rent out their place to a young family, and say: “Yay. There’s a rental place.” But guess what. They can’t afford it, because the insurance rates have gone up so much, and the deductible rates have gone up so much, which means the strata fees have gone up so much.

The only people that are going to be able to afford these units are now investors and speculators who are going to buy up suites of rental units, increase the rent costs and try to find people that can afford them — again, unintended consequences.

This government, I would say, is trying to hide from the fact of their failure, overall, of all these years of not bringing on the supply to meet that demand, but they’re bringing forward a tool that almost every single person I’ve talked to has said is not going to work. “The intention of getting more available units has merit, but this is the wrong approach,” most are highlighting.

The other issue, which I won’t have a lot of time to get into huge detail on but maybe others will talk about, though, is on the struggles around the residential tenancy branch. People are telling me that they would actually stop renting and want to sell their property because of the struggles with the residential tenancy branch. You’re talking a one-year to 18-month wait just to have a hearing, when there’s a struggle right now with a tenant — or, possibly, a landlord, for that matter.

These are struggles that a lot of people don’t want to get into, which is why, in a lot of areas, we’re seeing fewer and fewer rental facilities being built. This is too bad, because we all, in this House — I’m not saying we don’t need them; of course, we need them — need to have the right tools. We need to have the right approach, to make sure that we’re building the right supply for what’s out there. Instead, this government, it appears, wants to target homeowners and strata people.

What’s next? They’re interfering, in a lot of ways, with people’s life decisions — people who chose to own. I know this government has a really hard time with people owning properties — of course, unless it’s themselves owning multiple units. They seem to be against people owning properties and only want to go to rental.

Again, we need to have a mixture, but the way this government wants to intrude into people’s personal lives, I’m thinking the next thing is going to be an empty-bedroom tax. If you own a house and your kids have now grown up…. I think a member of the Green Party just nodded and thinks it might be a good idea. I’m not sure.

So you own a house, and a couple of your kids have moved out. They’ve gone to university. If you have an empty couple of rooms, the way this government looks at it now is that they’re going to come into your house and say: “You have to now rent out your bedroom, or we’re going to charge you an empty-bedroom tax.” Now I am being a little cynical; I acknowledge that. The whole point is the intrusion that we see from this government.

If they want to put something forward and grandfather, that’s one thing. I’d be curious — we’ll find out in committee stage — what kind of consultation they did with the 900,000 strata owners in the province of British Columbia. The minister had no problem to say: “We consulted with First Nations on this.” Interestingly though, in the bill, it says it doesn’t apply to First Nations or First Nations land — and no different than the last bill as well. We’re talking about freehold, non–First Nations land. I’m curious where the consultation to those people was as well.

As I said, it’s unfortunate the way this bill was presented, where there are parts of it that have merit. There are parts of it that we could look at supporting, but without the adequate time to really discuss it, without the adequate time to debate it because of closure that we’ve seen brought in — four bills today that this government has brought closure on for second reading — that democratic process is really being undermined.

[7:20 p.m.]

I’ll end by apologizing to the hundreds and hundreds of people who have emailed me, who have asked me to bring their issues forward during second reading debate. I have to apologize to them and say: “We’re not going to have time to do that.” I sure hope that they reach out to their NDP members who have not responded to them. Hopefully, they’ll get a response.

H. Yao: I want to take a moment to just express my support for Bill 44.

Before I start, I just want to piggyback off some of the comments made by the member for Peace River South. Like he said, the bill came out on Monday morning at 10 a.m., and today is only Tuesday right now.

If any of our Richmond constituents emailed you, please forward to my office.

I do apologize that we didn’t respond in a timely manner. We will respond as quickly as we can. I do know that some of my constituents did text me, and I have been communicating with them through text. I know he has received hundreds of those email complaints, and as a good MLA from Richmond, I would love to be able to respond to their needs. Obviously, 24 hours might be a bit short, but I will do my best to be supportive.

The second thing I want to talk about is the…. We talk about stratas being authorized to provide attendance for voting with electronic devices. I do know…. Personally, I live in a strata unit as well. It has been difficult sometimes to be able to coordinate with different units and to be able to meet at the same time.

I think being able to have…. Electronic devices allow us to look after child care. They allow us to have family time. They allow us to be able to say…. Instead of us being able to finish dinner quickly, wrap up and quickly head to a meeting room, we could, actually, spend a little extra time with our families, set up our devices and join the strata meeting. I appreciate that it will also increase our democratic engagement rate within the strata council and within our membership as well. I do want to take a moment to say that.

I would definitely support something like that. It has been super helpful during this pandemic. Being able to see it continue after the pandemic…. It’s definitely an asset to both the strata and to the units of the strata owners — for us to really be a part of the decision-making process and to really be a part of the democratic process as well.

I know we talked about Bill 44 removing rental restrictions. I think it’s one of the things that I’m very excited about. I do know…. I actually went from multiple units where I had lived in, moving from one unit to another unit. I think once there was a reminder I received….

We’d often end up going to a strata unit where there was a rental restriction. Some people might even rent out in a way that’s sort of behind the table, with cash, in a sort of false and, unfortunately, a negative economic activity. Sometimes we do also have units left empty. They were just sitting there, waiting for their turn to put a unit into a potential rental opportunity.

I, too, am a strong believer that by removing the rental restriction for a strata, we will increase the number of units that are available for the community. Of course, it is not a solution or a silver bullet to the big housing crisis we’re dealing with, but it is one of a multi-pronged approach that we are utilizing to really engage and support our constituents and support British Columbians as we continue to find different ways to increase the number of available housing units and to allow people to actually have somewhere they can rent and somewhere they can actually call a home too.

I know the member for Peace River South also made a comment about…. Vacancies tend to be more of an issue with places where rentals are allowed. I, obviously, understand…. If you’re not allowed to have rentals, there will be a vacancy issue. That’s pretty straightforward logic.

I think one of the key factors here is…. Even with rentals allowed, I think…. A lot of stratas in Richmond and a lot of stratas in the Lower Mainland area still have a fairly low vacancy rate. That’s one of the reasons why we’re doing this. We’re really looking for ways to increase the potential stock in the community as well.

I would like to share a personal story talking about the age restriction. I will keep my comments short, I promise. I do remember…. My wife and I were…. Obviously, we were married for quite a while. For the first ten years, my wife, personally, was not ready to have kids. We were enjoying our dual income with no kids lifestyle for quite a while. We actually went to check out different units. We were about to upgrade our place to a two-bedroom apartment.

[7:25 p.m.]

We actually found a lovely place. It was central. It was by transit. It was beautiful, even though it was a bit old. It was a beautifully renovated building. There’s something charming about an older unit. There are bigger bedrooms, bigger living rooms and bigger bathrooms, which allow us to feel more spacious. My wife and I really fell in love with that unit. Unfortunately, when we were talking to the realtor…. One thing we learned very, very quickly was that there was an age restriction of 19 plus on the whole complex.

I know my wife. I respect my wife. I was not worried about having kids at that time and respected her position. The sun went down in my heart. I didn’t want to automatically deny myself an opportunity to have kids. I think my wife shared a similar sentiment. We ended up having to say no to that unit. It was a very heartbreaking moment for me to move on from.

By looking at the circumstances and by looking at these age restrictions…. I really wished, at that moment, at that time, we were able to purchase that unit — a large, nice, two-bedroom unit — compared to the…. We ended up purchasing a one-bedroom unit somewhere in the Dover area, in Richmond.

Like I said before, I won’t take up too much time on this. I do want to say that Bill 44…. If it came up earlier, maybe five years earlier, a lot of the journey I took, a lot of the journey my family took and a lot of the journeys my friends took would be completely different.

I do believe it is a strong opportunity for us to provide a multi-pronged approach to address the housing crisis. It is definitely not a silver bullet. I think any one of us understands that. I do believe that by working together, under the Minister of Housing’s support and his leadership, we’re able to truly take a concrete step forward and help British Columbia address the affordability and housing crisis.

A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act.

Every day we hear from our constituents, from all corners of the province, stories about the impact of the housing crisis, from young people forced to leave the province to businesses who are struggling to pay rent and attract workers due to the costs of housing. It’s not healthy for our economy, and it’s not healthy for our communities. Our communities should be places where people of all ages and walks of life can thrive.

Removing age and rental restrictions from strata corporations is a small step that this government is taking, but it’s not an uncontroversial one, I should point out. As the member from Richmond just mentioned, it’s only been less than 24 hours, but we have heard from our constituents from across the province about the potential impacts that this change that the government is making may have.

My concern is that there’s no real method for measurement in this bill. No planned review to see if the changes that have been made are effective or if the outcomes that the government expects to happen are actually being achieved.

Removing age and rental restrictions was one of those recommendations that was made by the 2018 Rental Housing Task Force. It was a bipartisan working group that was created by the former Minister responsible for Housing. It was, as that report was tabled, one of the more controversial pieces that we heard about, even though it did not show up in the former Minister of Housing’s 30-point action plan to address the housing crisis, the housing crisis that we are still addressing here today.

This government clearly needs to articulate a vision for housing in this province. I spoke to this in the previous bill earlier today. We’re in this race to get through this legislative agenda. We’re speeding through important housing policy, including changes to the Strata Act that have had a tremendous response from people, a mixed response from people. People are challenged with this piece of policy, yet it shows up at the end of this legislative agenda that is in full speed ahead movement for this debate today.

Much of this new legislation is not straightforward, and it’s unclear how it will impact my constituents and people across the province. That’s the reason why I wanted to stand here today and acknowledge the fact that this bill is on the table and that we are going to be doing the best we can to get some of the questions that have been asked out loud in the second reading stage of this debate answered.

[7:30 p.m.]

Actually, this change might be part of solutions to housing. In fact, it ended up on that report because we agreed that it was potentially a solution. However, there are nuances and potential adverse impacts that could happen, and it’s important that we have the opportunity to be able to canvass that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I have questions about what will happen to the units and stratas that become available for rent. How many units will be added to the rental market? Clearly, the Minister of Housing must have done some of this analysis work. It’s possible that new strata rules that are contained in this bill could drive up the cost of housing — has the analysis been done on that? — resulting from, maybe, some increased speculation and corporate investment. What kind of safeguards are being put in place to ensure that that doesn’t happen? How will the province ensure that REITs, or real estate investment trusts, don’t prey upon these units and strata complexes for them to be corporatized?

The greatest loss of rental units identified in the past ten years is attributed to short-term accommodation, short-term vacation rentals. It’s time that we, as a government, take a much more serious look at that than we have. This legislation does not deal with short-term vacation rentals.

This legislation potentially also impacts volunteer-run strata boards, who will now act as de facto landlords. This legislation will ultimately download the workload of management of tenants, the tenant relationships, onto volunteers. I wonder how the government has considered and accounted for this. Perhaps there is a plan in place, and if there is, that’s great. It would be important for us to be able to understand that. There is limited data on how many units this change will make available — no plans to review the legislation in the future.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is that there is no method of measurement and no planned review to see if these changes are as effective as the government hopes that they will be. I’d like to see a commitment from the government that data will be collected and a review of these legislative changes within a transparent timeline.

I understand that many strata corporations are concerned about the impacts of these changes. Indeed, I’ve had constituents emailing me about this ever since that 2018 report, well before the new Premier floated these ideas in the leadership event that just ended. So I think it’s important that we are clear to our constituents and to the 900,000 people who occupy the 900,000 units that are within stratas. But we are in a housing crisis, and it is good to see that changes are being made to account for concerns of stratas, such as allowing them to apply to the residential tenancy branch for dispute resolution.

While I welcome the changes and the opportunities to address the housing crisis, this government cannot expect to solve the problems with the same thinking and approaches that created them. We need to meet the needs of a public crisis. Tabling this legislation at the last minute and stifling democratic debate is not a good way to hear the concerns and meet the needs of the public.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the opportunity to join in a shortened version of debate this afternoon on Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act of 2022.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I’ve presented to you many times. I am always proud to stand in this room and represent my constituents of Cariboo-Chilcotin, and it always gives me pleasure and pride to speak to the bills that are before this House. I take almost every opportunity that I can to speak, because oftentimes, my constituents are quite vocal. They have been vocal on Bill 44 and certainly Bill 36. I think there have been many people that have been vocal this past week.

[7:35 p.m.]

Certainly, it’s been an interesting day here today. As a new member to this Legislature — or newer member, only two years — I’m frankly a little bit shocked that we find ourselves with such little time to debate some of these bills.

As somebody that is active, certainly, in my caucus…. As part of the team that helps to put up speakers, I can assure you that there were many people that wanted to speak, not only to this bill, but certainly others as well. They’re not going to be afforded those chances.

Today, for the people that have spoken, we’ve heard terms like “unintended consequences.” We’ve heard the member for Peace River South refer to people paying $235,000 in strata insurance and having questions about that. We just heard from a member from the Green Party, who has suggested that…. His questions were pretty much asked as to a committee stage that we are not sure whether or not we’ll actually have on Bill 44. I think there is a lot of concern about the limited amount of time to discuss these bills.

This bill in particular, I think, has been referred to as historic a couple of times. I think we’ve had one member from the government speak today with respect to Bill 44. I’m shocked at that also, for such an important bill and one that has been referred to as historic.

I am proud to stand here and offer some comments on Bill 44, but they certainly come with some questions in my mind as to why so many won’t be able to offer up that information. As I said before, I think there are often little tidbits in presentations in this room that are important to be heard. I think it improves the legislation. It would improve Bill 44. This is an important topic. It’s an important bill. Certainly we know…. I don’t think there’s any debate in this room that there is a housing crisis and that there is much trouble, and not just in the cities, either. This is a rural B.C. problem. I can assure you of that.

I do want to talk a little bit, just to get started, on what the bill will do. I question, and I certainly hope, that Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, will be all that it’s dubbed to be. But I question whether or not it’s going to create the spaces that the government hopes it will because I just don’t know how that is possible in Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The bill enables virtual strata meetings, eliminates rental restrictions and removes any age restrictions aside from 55-plus requirements. Certainly the impact of that, I think, will be underwhelming. I don’t think that that is going to have the effect that it is hoped to. I can’t help but think that if the goal is to somehow create extra units, if the goal is to lower the cost of rent…. If that is the goal here, what has happened to the renters rebate? What has happened to those things that have been before us? Those have been before us for a number of years now.

The member for Peace River South brought up the fact that strata insurance…. He referred to a building being $235,000. We have condominium units, stratas in my riding that are skyrocketing for the cost of insurance. It’s another piece of the equation that bills like 44 or 43 need to address. It’s an important piece in the cost of this type of rental. I can’t help but notice that that has been omitted.

I think we heard these numbers talked about earlier. The government’s own statistics highlight that less than 1 percent of the units subject to rental restrictions are actually vacant. I know that to be the case in Cariboo-Chilcotin. I just don’t know. I think the member for Peace River South, again, referred to a lot of cabins and that type of thing. But I am fearful that it’s not going to expand the market the way that we would hope it might.

[7:40 p.m.]

We know that housing affordability is a critical issue. I mentioned it before, and I’ll mention it again. It’s obviously facing the entire province.

I can’t help but note this. Williams Lake, Cariboo-Chilcotin — I never thought that I would see rental units like a suite or a basement suite or anything like that renting for $1,400 or $1,800. Honestly, it’s shocking, and it seems like there’s no ceiling on that right now.

I can appreciate what Bill 44 is trying to do, but I think it’s not perhaps enough. It’s just not enough. I think by creating units in this province — and I know that this bill is hoping to do that — it will bring that price down. The problem is, if this doesn’t work the way that the government feels it’s going to, that is going to continue to spiral.

That’s why I think we need an opportunity to discuss this further. I mean, I’m grateful that the minister has brought Bill 44 to the House. I’m grateful for that. But I really hope that we’re going to have an opportunity in what is left of this session, only two days left, to have full debate on this, because this is a crisis.

In my mind, the only way that we can really have a significant effect on the supply out there is to simply build more homes. We absolutely have to increase that, and it can’t be just a matter of building in the Lower Mainland either. This is extremely important, because rural B.C. is suffering this housing crisis in many ways as well.

Given the importance of this legislation, certainly there could be potential ramifications for housing. You’d think the government would want to give this House ample time to do our jobs as legislators here in this building and hopefully, of course, create an opportunity for Bill 44 to be improved, certainly an opportunity for it to be better for all British Columbians. We had the opportunity, and we lost that to a lost week of the legislative calendar last week, so I’m concerned that we’re not going to get the best out of this bill.

Again, I’m worried about unintended consequences with regard to so much of the bill. I think we’ve heard that from a number of members here this afternoon. A couple of the sections that certainly have caught my attention…. I want to go through a few of them.

Section 2 enables strata meetings via communications mediums such as Zoom. Look, I can appreciate how that might be helpful to a strata corporation or people that are in these types of condominium projects, but I’m sorry, I can’t be convinced it’s going to improve the supply out there in any way.

Section 9 further enables electronic strata meetings and requires access to information included in notice of meeting. Again, I just don’t see what that is going to do for supply in this province. Section 11 enables electronic attendance at meetings.

Section 12 repeals the requirement to disclose the number of rental units in a strata to any owner or purchaser. I want to read that again, because I think that British Columbians are going to want to know about this. This is specifically one of the clauses that has been brought up by my constituents. I’ll read it again. It repeals the requirement to disclose the number of rental units in a strata to any owner or purchaser.

I think when people are investing in these types of condominium projects and spending…. Certainly in my riding, it would not be uncommon to see a unit sell for $300,000 or $400,000 or even $500,000 in the nicer units. That might come as a surprise in Williams Lake, but we’re there, and rural B.C. is in the same situation.

[7:45 p.m.]

Certainly in the cities, Vancouver, Victoria, etc., and some of the bigger cities, Kamloops and Kelowna, we’re obviously going to see much higher investment. I think that for the people that are investing in these properties, that’s going to be an important piece of this legislation that needs to be discussed. It needs to be discussed fully in committee stage.

I mean, these are small things in an important bill — a historic bill, in the government’s own words. Section 15 now requires that…. Pet owners are not required to lose their pet or leave if a no-pets bylaw is passed by a strata and further clarifies the definition of guide dogs and service dogs, etc.

Again, it may have no effect on me. It may have no effect on others in this building. I’m certainly a dog lover. I’ve never probably ever said my dog’s name in this House. I’m going to take the opportunity to say it, Mr. Speaker. My dog’s name is Jaxie, and I don’t know if she would agree with this clause. I think it’s important that that is also discussed fully in committee.

Section 16. I think this is the one that likely is going to meet with, certainly, resistance and a question around it. It is going to add limitations to age restrictions in strata bylaws to 55 years and above. It will further clarify that people are grandfathered into new bylaws. Additionally, caregivers for 55-plus persons will be exempted, as prescribed.

I can’t stress enough that there is a lot going on in this bill. I know we’ve had a bit of debate and conversation this afternoon, but it’s frankly not enough. For a piece of legislation that hopes to create a bunch of housing in this province, for a piece of legislation that is touted as being historical…. In my mind, it is wrong that we do not have more time to hear from other jurisdictions in this province, members of the government to speak to this bill, etc. So I think it is extremely important that we carry on.

I do want to point out that this is a primary role of the official opposition, of course. It’s enshrined in the standing orders and centuries of parliamentary conventions to scrutinize the legislation brought forward by the government, to hold the governing party to account and to ensure the best interests of British Columbians are being served.

That is, at the end of the day, what I truly hope for. I hope that when we debate bills like 44…. We’ve got a massive bill in Bill 36, with 645 different sections. The opportunity to debate and have a proper conversation about that is important.

I mentioned it earlier. As a new member to this House, I’m frankly a little bit shocked that this is actually happening right before our eyes. Every member in this room has the opportunity to speak for 30 minutes to these bills. Certainly, someone can be a designated speaker and take two hours, if they wish, to discuss Bill 44. So for so many reasons, there is an opportunity that has been denied to 87 members of this House. I shouldn’t say 87. Probably five or six of us will get an opportunity to speak, but I can assure you that there are more people that wish to speak to Bill 44, and there would be value in that conversation.

I want to talk a little bit about, specifically, Williams Lake. Again, this is an opportunity to perhaps introduce other suggestions as to how the government might help in this situation. I can assure you that in Williams Lake, the government there — certainly in 100 Mile, it’s been a similar situation — has attempted to secure Crown land, school district land, those kinds of lands.

[7:50 p.m.]

In fact, we’ve just had a bit of an awkward situation between the Williams Lake First Nation and the city of Williams Lake. They found themselves pitted against each other in a bidding war, if you will, for a piece of property that could be developed for housing.

It just seems to me that when you’ve got a local city government in a position that they find themselves having to become developers at the local level…. Perhaps there are reasons that that might be good, and certainly there are reasons it might be bad. But it’s certainly not an opportunity to have two groups that should be working together trying to compete for a small piece of land because access has not been granted for development lands to a city like Williams Lake.

We’ve got a similar situation in 100 Mile House. These are sites that local governments are actively pursuing to, hopefully, increase the amount of saleable, rentable units in our communities. These governments are working extremely hard. I think that…. You know, I don’t know what the consultation has been on Bill 44, but I hope you can appreciate that that consultation needs to happen. There needs to be time to discuss that fully with our communities, with other people that might be involved in this, because as I said, it is a provincewide, very serious situation.

When you’ve got that kind of thing happening at a local level in a small community, you can imagine how important Bill 44 could be to those municipalities, to those regional districts, to those groups that are trying their level best to make some more units happen.

Again, I can’t help but go back to parts of the bill that just seem…. I can appreciate that the government’s hope is that it’s going to create a lot of units, but honestly, I don’t see that. And things like virtual strata meetings and whatnot — I guess that’s a great thing for those condominium projects, etc., that might be able to communicate more easily. But at the end of the day, I don’t see how, really, any of that is going to help.

I want to just go on with a couple more sections. Section 19 eliminates consequential sections but will still require landlords to provide notice of tenants’ responsibilities to a tenant. Section 29 is a transitional provision enabling tenants required to revoke a tenancy agreement…. Again, I don’t know how any of that is going to manage to help us through to creating more units. I think that that is exactly what we would have discussed if we were in a proper environment to debate this properly. I think we would have heard other suggestions and other ideas come forth from so many other members.

Again, the concern that I have is that we’ve really only heard from three or four of us. I’m sure there are great ideas on the other side, particularly with respect to rural members that might be able to add some great ideas of how we could improve Bill 44 just in general terms.

I think that we really need to look at the big picture and have that fulsome conversation and discuss at great length all of this.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I’m always pleased to come here before you and speak to bills. I think this is extremely important legislation. I think 43 was, as well, and I didn’t get my own chance to speak to that. It’s not just 43. There are so many bills before our House right now that are really, really important to so many people. I know that with limited time, the coming two days are going to be very busy for all of us in this room, but I really am asking and calling on the government to give the time that’s necessary to this.

Our caucus has been clear about the fact that we may look at ultimately staying longer or doing something extraordinary to get this work done.

[7:55 p.m.]

At the end of the day, when we cast our ballots here and make our votes, they are part of the permanent record, and I don’t feel comfortable, to be honest, casting a vote on any of this. There are just, frankly, too many questions.

I mean, we heard the House Leader for the Green Party rattle off multiple questions that he has about Bill 44. Again, I just can’t help but think that there’s so much more work to be done on this bill and so much more conversation to happen in this room. I certainly hope there’s a chance that we may hear from the government on this bill. We’ve heard one speaker to it, but we have enough people here to certainly finish out the day with some great conversation and perhaps some great new ideas that might improve Bill 44 or 43. I know we’re specifically talking to 44.

I certainly look forward to more debate. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share a few thoughts on Bill 44. As always, I bring happy greetings from Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I appreciate that you’ve given me the time today to discuss this very serious matter.

P. Milobar: I’m happy to rise and speak to Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act. I just want to inform the Chair that I’ll be our designated speaker on this bill.

It’s always interesting watching how legislation advances in this place. Certainly with Bill 44, we’ve heard the minister describe it as historic. In fact, we heard him describe it as historic yesterday, and we heard him describe it as historic today. Now, certainly politicians routinely get accused of being a little over the top, and I would suggest this is one of those cases.

With Bill 44, what is historic about it is that it was introduced on a Monday, we’ll have closure brought about it on a Tuesday, and it will have been rammed through by a Thursday. So I guess it’s all how a minister wants to interpret historic when it relates to Bill 44, in terms of whether or not it’s truly historic.

But when we read through Bill 44, there are certainly a lot of concerns. Again, that is part of the process with a bill that….

Interjections.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Just letting the conversation finish up.

That is a problem when it’s a bill like 44, when it gets brought in so quickly, because it’s just today that we’re hearing from people. And I know the government is hearing from people. We’ve heard that from other speakers as well, the few speakers who will have been graced with enough time from this government to actually put up for this bill.

We’re hearing from them. We’re hearing from the public. We’re hearing their concerns, valid concerns of what they are worried about with this bill. And when you’re talking about people that own their own condominium or their own townhome, whatever it may be within a strata complex, that doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s their home. To that family, that is their single largest investment, just as a freestanding home would be. I think it is appropriate that legislation like Bill 44 be introduced with enough time to do proper checking in with the public and organizations and strata owners and renters to find out what the right mix of a piece of legislation should be.

Now, we could have had eight legislative days to deal with this bill, had it been introduced last Monday, but the four days in the legislative calendar were removed last week. Adding a third chamber does not equate as the same as four days, because you can’t debate a bill in multiple locations at the same time.

[8:00 p.m.]

We’ll have what precious little time we have left, spread out over the next couple of days, to not just deal with this bill but to deal with the other three bills that had closure invoked on second reading today, to deal with the other bills that are still at committee stage.

We’ll see more and more time allocations and closures, and I’m fully expecting that by the time we get to Bill 44 in committee stage, that will happen as well, because we will not have enough time to properly canvass Bill 44 and what work went into it, what discussions went into it, what modelling was done with it, how this is expected to impact people, both positively and negatively, be it a strata owner, be it a strata renter, an existing renter or a possible renter.

We won’t have that opportunity, and we won’t have that opportunity to do that process because of the timing of this bill being introduced to this chamber. It is an important process. It’s an important process that we not have essentially two hours to debate this bill. Why that’s important…. I appreciate why the government didn’t put up speakers. In fact, I was shocked there was a speaker that decided to get up and speak after the minister, because that’s not the normal thing government does after they’ve invoked closure — to then start putting up speakers to chew up the time that’s left and granted to the opposition.

So I was glad that that speaker only spoke for a few minutes and shared his views of the bill, but everyone should have had an opportunity to share their views on the bill, regardless of what those views are — personal views, political views, partisan. All 87 members are supposed to be afforded that right in this place, within reason, to try to speak to legislation as it impacts them or their constituents.

Now, there is around one million people in British Columbia that live in stratas. I’m not sure if those are the same million people that are waiting for a family doctor under this government, but it’s a significant number. It’s a significant number if we were talking about health care and the lack of a doctor. So one million people is a very significant number based on our population in British Columbia, which means there’s a very large population base of strata owners in all of our ridings.

This is the problem with this legislation, when you look at how quickly it’s being turned around, how quickly we’re trying to get feedback from constituents.

Now, I’ll read just a portion of an email I received from a constituent, and it was sent to both myself and the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. It came in at ten to ten in the morning — or at night, sorry, last night. It makes more sense with the opening, when it says good evening. “Good evening, MLAs. Just briefly reviewed the Premier’s proposal to remove rental restrictions on strata corporations. On behalf of and as president of our strata council, I’m appalled and infuriated. Over 50 percent of family homes constructed today are strata. These are our homes, just as a single-family residence. Kamloops likely reflects this demographic. I’m sure Kamloops exceeds the average.”

It goes on. The point being that that’s one perspective. It doesn’t make it necessarily right. It doesn’t make it wrong. It means that there are concerns in our communities about this legislation, and tonight, debate after two hours will be cut off. We won’t know….

Now, our caucus has a lot of rural-based members that have a rural-urban split within their ridings. We certainly have several that have very urbanized, heavily populated areas, but so does the government. We’re not going to hear from their members. We’re not going to hear from the members that are on these emails we’re getting, when you look at the distribution list of who it’s been sent to, and it’s been sent to all 87 of us.

[8:05 p.m.]

I look at areas of the province. I think of the Vancouver West End and the heavy population they have there — highrise, condo-style stratas. We’re not going to be able to hear from representatives on areas like that.

When you look at Bill 44, and you look at some of the sections in it, I think there are areas in there that we can agree that you would want to see modernized, updated. It is, after all, around 60 years or so, portions of it.

One thing we learned through COVID is that you can function reasonably well with Zoom. I’m not the biggest fan in the world of Zoom, and Teams even less so. I know there are other meeting platforms people use. But it can work. It can work for people that maybe have mobility challenges or aren’t feeling well but still want to be able to have their input on something that’s going on within their complex. I say complex because there are a lot of the stratas that aren’t tall, condo-style, apartment-style stratas. There are a lot that are more townhouse, rowhouse, those types, with grounds and everything else.

There’s a wide mix of housing options for strata. In fact, in Kamloops, we have a whole subdivision that’s strata, Orchards Walk. It will literally be thousands of units by the time it’s all built out. Driving through it, it would look like any other neighbourhood, but that was part of the development agreement with the city. At the border, when you first enter, you would think it’s just a regular city street, but it’s actually maintained by the strata. All the servicing in there is maintained by the strata. Yes, they’re on city water. Yes, they’re on city sewer. But all the pipes going up to the property line of the overall development are actually owned by the strata. Those types of housing developments have concerns.

As I was thinking about what to say as I addressed this bill…. Again, there are things in this bill that we can understand. Hopefully, there will be enough time at committee stage graced upon us by the government to actually ask enough questions to get some detail for people, because that’s part of the other missing piece of the debate side of this. When you have so little time to debate that the government, thankfully, doesn’t put up speakers….

This is a bill that we’re worried about unintended consequences. The unintended consequence of that is that the public doesn’t get a better sense of what the government is actually thinking on how a bill, in implementation and in practice, is going to be used. It’ll be left to everyone’s best guess on about a four-minute introduction by the minister, who has described this as historic, and it’s anything but, except for its lack of democratic process.

As I was thinking about how to address this bill, I started thinking about what people are saying in terms of stratas. If you think about stratas, they’re a collective of people that have agreed to a set of rules that they are going to live with, over and above all the city bylaws and ordinances and provincial laws and federal laws. They’ve agreed, and it gets right down to the fine detail. It gets down to whether or not you can have flags off of your balconies, whether you can have barbecues or not and whether or not you can have stuff stored that’s visible. They all agree, as a collective, on all that stuff. It changes as people buy in. You make decisions.

[8:10 p.m.]

It’s a larger collective. Frankly, that’s why it’s surprising to me that a socialist-leaning government is against a collective trying to figure out how to work communally on their living. But again, they’re owners. Some have renters in them. Some stratas allow that, because they’ve made that decision.

I thought: “Well, I personally don’t live in a strata. I have a daughter that did live in a strata. That was their first place they bought; it was in a strata.” I don’t, but I kind of do, as I started thinking about it. I’m an owner, and I’m on title. My wife’s an owner; she’s on title. We have discussions about whether I’m going to hang a flag at the front door or not. After that discussion’s over, I go and hang the flag at the front door. We have a discussion about whether the carport’s getting too cluttered or not. After that discussion, I head outside and clean up the carport that my wife wanted cleaned up. It’s a bit of a one-sided strata conversation, I’ll admit. My winning percentage is not great.

It’s not much different. You’re having a conversation. You’re coming to an agreement. No, there are not minutes, and there are not resolutions and bylaws and all of that. But people in single-family homes do the exact same thing. They do it as a family unit. I did it when my kids still lived at home — how often we were going to cut the grass, who was going to do it. When is the garbage going out to the curb? Who’s going to do it? I know it sounds a bit, I don’t know, sarcastic, trying to combine these two, but it really isn’t much different.

And why I say that is when you look at Bill 44…. Why strata owners are nervous right now is because, although their largest purchase in their life, their home in an area where they have made decisions as a collective for the last 50, 60 years…. They’re now being told: “We really don’t care what you think. We’re the government, and we’re telling you that your neighbour, whether you like it or not, could be a renter.” I have nothing against renters. I’ve been a renter in my life. I have a son that’s a renter right now. This isn’t about anti-renter.

The government doesn’t go to a freestanding house like I live in and say: “You are going to have renters whether you like it or not.” Now, my neighbours are free to have renters. I have people with basement suites right around me. I have others that are renting the house out completely. That’s not a problem at all. But that was a decision made by that individual landowner.

A strata doesn’t have that individual landowner. A strata has a collective of landowners. And when you read through the data backing up Bill 44 and you hear the minister and the Premier talk about how this is intended to radically change the supply of housing, and then you see that there’s less than 1 percent that they can identify of strata units that are sitting unoccupied, and you find out that’s 2,900 units across the whole province, you realize very quickly that this isn’t going to accomplish what the Premier is trying to say it’s going to accomplish. It’s very quick, simple, basic math that just says 2,900 units. It’s not solving our housing crisis.

You can see why the other 297,000 strata units might be a little bit concerned. They feel this is a little heavy-handed. Especially, as my colleague from Peace River South pointed out, a lot of those 2,900 units are family cottages and that, which are bought in a strata situation at a recreational site, be it a lake or camping area or whatever.

[8:15 p.m.]

So that’s a fundamental worry within Bill 44 around how this will actually roll out in practice and how it will actually meaningfully add to housing supply when there are only 2,900 units that might be available for renters.

There’s another unintended consequence of Bill 44. Again, we’re not going to have that time to not only debate it properly and to question it properly in committee stage but also to check in with people within the real estate industry and have them give solid, sound view at this bill — an opinion to inform this. We know the Premier thinks this is a good idea. It doesn’t make it a good idea. We know the Premier thinks this is going to solve affordability. It doesn’t mean it’s actually going to solve affordability. That’s simply the Premier’s opinion on this.

The reality is that we’re already hearing from people on Bill 44. Again, the simple test of logic…. This holds water. This actually makes a lot of sense when you hear this in our communities, within the first day of this bill being passed, which is that this will likely drive up prices. This will likely drive speculators into the market.

I referenced my daughter. Her and her husband’s first place was more of a rowhouse strata type of development. I can remember I had friends that were renting in that development back when I was 19. It had been around for a while then — older housing stock, well maintained. The strata does a good job. There were some rentals allowed in it because they agreed that that could happen, but it was affordable. They actually were able to get into the housing market as they were both finishing up school in the Kamloops market at the time. Now, this was a few years ago, before prices really spiked like crazy, but it was affordable.

I seriously question whether or not that same unit would be affordable if instead of a few rentals being allowed within the complex, the whole complex had turned into rentals, because the age of the housing stock and others…. It would have been prime for investors to come in and buy it up en masse, pick up five or six or seven units, start to control the strata board if they would like, start to maximize their investment….

What happens to the repair and maintenance budgets of these stratas if people that have only bought simply for an investment to have a renter in and a return on their investment start saying the strata fees are a little too high? What’s that unintended consequence? We won’t have enough time to dig into that and what work was or wasn’t done by the ministry in Bill 44 as it was being developed, because we’re going to be cut off of debate, but that’s a very real possibility.

You can understand why strata owners and people that live in stratas are concerned around this, because this is their single biggest investment. We’ve heard about insurance. We’ve heard about stratas already reaching out to our Housing critic, indicating to him that their insurance brokers are already informing them that their strata insurance is likely to spike.

[8:20 p.m.]

Now, I’m no insurance expert by any means, but it strikes me that if this is already on the radar screen of insurance companies and, according to this, Bill 44 becomes law on Thursday, it’s not a lot of time for stratas to start to adjust for a potential spike in their insurance, because they weren’t given proper notice. They weren’t given a proper implementation time frame.

If there is a mid-policy spike in their premiums, because they have fundamentally changed the terms and conditions of their insurance policy, that’s going to be a big bill at a time of record inflation, record unaffordability, record rental prices, record housing prices for purchase — not exactly the best time to start hammering stratas with unexpected insurance policy premium hikes for 2,900 housing units that may or may not even go on the rental market, that may or may not even be affordable rentals. There are probably a great many of those 2,900 that are in those more apartment-style, high-rise, urbanized towers. What’s the rent for those going to be? Especially when you have to start making up for the extra insurance costs.

That’s the critical piece here on Bill 44, and that’s why it’s so galling that the government brought this in on a Monday to start debating on a Tuesday to then say before we even started to debate it: “You know what? You get two hours, and then we’re moving on. Nothing to see here, folks.” Nothing to see in a bill that is going to affect one million British Columbians on Thursday, because it might create 2,900 units of housing for rent — might.

And it’s not all large stratas. I have another email here, and this one went to all 87 MLAs. They don’t say where they’re from, and it shouldn’t matter. They’re from British Columbia. That’s what this chamber is supposed to represent. That’s what members are all supposed to speak on behalf of in a reasonable way with reasonable timelines.

This is on Bill 44, Building and Strata Statutes Amendments Act, 2022.

“As a member of a small four-unit owner-occupied strata property, we were distressed to learn of the provincial government’s plan to remove rental restrictions from strata bylaws. We are a small self-managed strata, where all maintenance and operation of common property is undertaken by the four owners. This allows us to minimize strata fees by not retaining the services of a property management company and ensures that all our ongoing maintenance work is done to a reasonably high standard.

“We are concerned that if one or more of the units in our strata were rented or sold to an investor for rental purposes, this would diminish our ability to economically maintain our property and potentially result in neglect of important health and safety building components, such as building enclosure, plumbing, heating and fire and safety systems.”

He goes on, and he ends with: “We would respectfully request that the government exempt smaller strata corporations from the proposed removal of rental restrictions from their bylaws for the reasons above.”

My earlier analogy of my own household, or anyone else’s household with their family, of being a smaller collective that kind of agrees on what the living rules are going to be, is really not that much different than a four-unit strata, and these are all over the province. But these are going to be treated as if they’re a Coal Harbour tower.

[8:25 p.m.]

So you can see where a strata that’s small like this that was developed years ago as an affordable way for three or four families to try to pool their resources, pool their sweat equity, pool their ability to landscape or do their own self-repairs and things of that nature, to live affordably, are now very worried that the rules that they have collectively agreed to live around are going to be unilaterally changed by the Premier on Thursday, after talking about it on Monday.

Although the Premier will say that Bill 44 was talked about in his robust leadership campaign, where he toured the province heavily, I think it’s safe to say that wasn’t much of a campaign. It wasn’t much of a race, and there was certainly no detail when it came to policy. It was a couple of ideas put out there like this after the manufactured disqualification had happened, but certainly not the detail that people would be expecting, let alone the timeline people would be expecting that we see in Bill 44 as it could impact.

Now, I’ll point out that the email I read doesn’t slam renters. I agree. I’ve been to enough public hearings and things of that nature where people seem to have an aversion to renters. Again, I’ve been a renter. I rented several different places before I finally could afford to buy a home. My parents rented, my son rents, and my daughters have rented. I don’t take issue with renters, and I don’t think all renters are bad. I don’t think all homeowners are great either. There are a lot of homeowners that create a lot of neighbourhood problems for their neighbours. But the concerns raised by that letter on the strata are very specific about their investment.

I’m sorry that I’m entertaining the Premier and some of his ministers to the degree that I seem to be. They obviously don’t feel Bill 44 has a serious impact on people’s single largest investment in their life, as the people who are emailing all of us. That email I read out was emailed to all of us.

Perhaps the Minister of Citizens’ Services could take the time to read the emails and see the serious concern that these people are sharing about Bill 44.

This is going to be an interesting regime. It’s remarkable that during debate, what limited time we have for direction on a bill like this, that’s what the government wants to fixate on, not the concerns of the residents.

Now, there are parts of Bill 44 that we can understand the need to update. As I said, Zoom is one prime example of that, the sections that are being amended, 2 and 9 and 11. It makes sense to modernize for technology. The obvious need to change out some of the procedural things around the number of rental disclosures, if everything can be rented, is a pretty obvious one.

Things like not having to lose your pet if the collective suddenly changes the bylaws…. That makes sense, especially in this day and age, where more and more people are seeking out pets for support and therapy. We’re seeing that more and more prevalent in rental apartment buildings as well, where a great many more people have dogs and cats within those buildings. That makes sense to update that.

[8:30 p.m.]

Certainly, age restrictions, as they relate to you finding yourself starting a family or a family situation, have changed — especially with blended families and things of that nature nowadays. That makes sense that you would want to recognize that and modernize that.

The interesting thing is that with the emails we’re getting, people aren’t taking great issue with all that. There’s the odd email we’re all getting that takes a bit of issue with the age restrictions, but that’s just the odd one. The underlying thing that the bulk of the people are worried about is their investment. They’re worried about their investment. They’re worried about what happens to the market in general if every single unit is allowed to be rented out.

Again, if we had more time to discuss Bill 44 and the impact with associations and strata councils, there might have been things that could have been suggested, where there had to be a mandatory minimum percentage of units within a strata that had to be rented. There might have been a way forward, where people weren’t terrified that they were going to lose the value, based on ever-increasing strata fees, to speculators.

I say that because Bill 44 is all predicated on the government’s own number that under 1 percent of strata accommodations are unoccupied right now. Using a sledgehammer on 100 percent of the units to try to get 1 percent occupied seems a little counterproductive. There might have been a way forward where we could have found agreement, where larger-sized stratas agreed that 5 or 10 percent are in the rental pool. That would have been a good first step. It still would have been five or ten times more than what the Premier’s own reports have told them about available units in stratas.

There, alas, won’t be the time, due to closure and time allocation, to not only canvass that now but to canvass that in committee stage. I’ve lost count of how many bills we still have at committee stage, but I believe it’s in the seven-or-eight range, with a day and a half after tonight to go. I say “a day and a half” because there’s always early closure on a Thursday — we all know that — for royal assent.

Guess what happens at royal assent: Bill 44 becomes law. At about four o’clock on Thursday, this becomes law — introduced at 10 a.m. on a Monday, talked about for two hours at nighttime on a Tuesday. It’d be interesting to see what type of time allocation the government allots for committee stage on this bill on a Wednesday or a Thursday — an hour, maybe two at best — and then it’s law. No clear certainty for owners, but no actual, clear certainty for renters either.

This is being billed by the government as opening the floodgates to housing supply — “historic” is how the minister keeps describing Bill 44 — but this bill does nothing for affordability. It does nothing to address the twice election-promised renters rebate, if this were meant to try to help renters. If you look at the average strata costs — which include things like common areas, property taxes and everything else, and now the ever-increasing insurance costs that we’re hearing about because of this bill — the rents aren’t going to be affordable. People will live in them. It doesn’t make it affordable housing for them.

[8:35 p.m.]

Where in this bill…? We’ve heard, time and again, of problems with the RTB right now. Depending on the file…. I’m sure everyone is getting the same types of files through their office. One file is a nightmare of how the landlord is behaving. The next file is a nightmare of how the tenant refuses to leave and is damaging the place they’re renting. The system is so backed up. They can’t get out. They can’t get evicted. The owner is watching their investment literally get crumbled in front of them.

How does that all equate to a strata building now? It’s one thing if the whole strata had agreed, as a lot do: “We’re going to have 5 or 10 percent rentals in our buildings.” You go on a list. You put your name in. If it’s deemed to be five units in a strata and one of them turns into owner-occupied, the next person on the list has the option to try to rent their unit out.

There are a lot of stratas that do that, and that’s a good thing. They, as a collective, agreed that they’re willing to do that. They’re willing to try to help people out and to bridge, if they’re moving to a different city or trying out a different job in a different town and want to be able to come back in a couple of years and still have their unit in that building.

There’s a lot of that rental that actually happens within existing stratas. They didn’t need the government to come in and say: “Thou shalt rent.” They figured it out, much like homeowners figure out whether they want a basement suite or not. There are people all around my house that have basement suites. They’re not a problem. There are also a lot of houses around my house that don’t have basement suites.

Both those homeowners made a choice, made a decision as to what was right for them, what was right for their family, what was right for their family budget, sense of security. Some have basement suites because they travel a lot. They like having someone else living in their house while they’re travelling. They see it as a good way to actually pay for the travel. That makes perfect sense. But that was their choice.

Bill 44 strips away choice. That is the fundamental worry that we see in this bill. Again, the emails we’re getting are not about “owner good, renter bad,” or vice versa. It’s about control over their own investment and how fast the rules are going to change and what that actually means to them.

It’ll be interesting to see…. There doesn’t appear to be anything in this bill…. We can canvass at committee stage — hopefully, if we get a chance to ask more than three questions at committee stage — whether or not there is any protection, for existing stratas, with insurance right now.

What does happen on Thursday at four o’clock when this becomes law and you haven’t changed your insurance policy to reflect that your building can have renters in it, when you previously got an insurance policy, based on your strata bylaws that said: “No renters allowed”? What happens if somebody decides to act on that right away and actually gets a renter in right away and there’s an incident? Is your policy still valid? Does the government even know? Has the government looked into that?

Those are the types of questions that we could flesh out at committee stage, but we won’t have that opportunity. That’s a pretty significant question to be answered, with the rush of this coming in at royal assent. In Bill 44, it’s very clear that the commencement is on royal assent.

[8:40 p.m.]

Now, we had a used-car tax that changed the way we calculate tax on a used-car purchase in a private sale. Although that bill was passed late spring, it actually didn’t take effect until October 1.

There are all sorts of commencement dates in legislation, when it comes forward. The Premier ought to have a different date for commencement, not being royal assent, so that stratas could do their due diligence with their insurance companies as to what the new legal change means as it relates to their buildings. It could have been to take effect December 1. It could have been to take effect January 1, right at the start of the new year.

Had Bill 44 taken effect January 1, it wouldn’t necessarily, fundamentally, obviously change anything in the bill between Thursday and January 1, but it would give those same people that haven’t had time to be properly consulted about the bill at least enough time to properly digest and find out from various agencies how the new law actually impacts the single largest investment for their family. It would have given them the decency of the time to do that.

Instead, they’re left feeling like this Premier has decided that his first act is to wag his finger at stratas and say that they are the sole reason that we have a housing issue, even though he was the Housing Minister for two years and didn’t do any of this. And then, as a result, the hammer comes down to maybe have 2,900 units rented — maybe — in a style of housing that 20 percent of the population of British Columbia lives in.

After waiting over two years as the Housing Minister and another six months on a protracted, tainted leadership run, we get this on the first day, and it has to be law by Thursday. It just has to be. It can’t be law on January 1. It can’t give people time to digest and process what has just happened, to talk to their banks, to talk to their lenders, to talk to their insurance companies. That seems to be okay by this government, and that’s the scary part. Because this is day two of the Premier’s new reign. We’re seeing closure on two housing bills that have only been introduced a little over 24 hours ago.

It makes you wonder what the future holds for the next legislative session when it comes to bills like Bill 44. Because if that is the lack of respect shown to homeowners and others by this Premier, and this government, moving forward — that they feel people can’t be trusted, over the space of a couple of months, to try to seek out proper advice on what would have already been mapped out very clearly by this….

It’s going to pass. We all know it’ll pass. But didn’t have to be law on Thursday at four o’clock. Bill 44 could have easily been law on January 1.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

No one knew for sure what the Premier was talking about with his strata policies, because there was no leadership race. There were no leadership debates. There was no scrutinizing a platform or a policy. No matter how much the Premier wants to try to spin it, it didn’t exist. It was non-existent. There was no other candidate that was even approved to be in the race. There was no race.

[8:45 p.m.]

To have a piece of legislation like Bill 44 get dropped on a Monday, debated on a Tuesday, committee stage on a Wednesday or Thursday, for a couple of hours, is reprehensible to people and their investments that they do not get the decency, from this Premier, to have a bit of time to actually go and talk to their professionals that they deal with, as a strata, to find out what the true impacts are. The true impacts will be to their insurance costs, which we already know have skyrocketed. And despite kind words from this government that they were going to take action, they took no action.

So these 20 percent of British Columbian citizens continually take it on the chin from this Premier, be it as the Housing Minister or now as the Premier, because they have the temerity to live as a collective, in a way that they can actually afford to live and have a bit of ownership in something, but they’re not afforded the decency by the Premier to have enough time to fully understand, to fully engage with, to fully know what these changes will mean to them in real, practical terms.

It will be interesting to see…. Is the Premier’s intention on Bill 44 to start to reverse things when the inevitable happens and prices in stratas start to skyrocket as investors move in? Ready-built rentals sitting there. Imagine the presales. Imagine what’s going to happen to the presale market, to stratas, when investors can just move in, show a bank a pro forma of what they will be able to make with ten units that, by law, have to be rented in a 30-storey tower in Vancouver next to rapid transit. Just imagine what that’s going to do to the prices of those when new builds that are generated off of presales will be able to have large, speculative buyers come in and buy multiple units in them.

How does that create one piece of affordable housing in British Columbia…

Mr. Speaker: Member, we have to conclude.

P. Milobar: …when the resale on those units is going to invariably wind up costing more and more, if they even go up for sale? If they just stay as rentals, the rentals are not certainly going to be affordable if they go up for sale, because it’s strictly an investment. As occupancy permits start to be given, the price will be even higher.

That’s what this Premier, with Bill 44, is creating. He’s creating an environment that is ripe for abuse, that is not going to get to the core. If the core mandate is to try to find ways to get more rentals on the market, let’s get more actual rentals on the market.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

P. Milobar: Let’s not dive into the home ownership market and turn around and say: “Well, we’re going to take a chunk out of one type of home ownership but not another type of home ownership.” Why go halfway? Why did the Premier only go halfway? Why not go into every freestanding home…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

P. Milobar: …and tell them they must have renters in their basement?

Mr. Speaker: Member, we have to….

P. Milobar: Why are we not allowed to debate the proper process in this place and keep getting cut off by government time and time again? It’s simply not right.

With Bill 44….

Mr. Speaker: I hear you.

Pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier, the Chair has to ask the member to take his seat. The debate was supposed to be ended at 8:45, so we have already provided an extra four minutes to the member.

We now must put the question on second reading of Bill 44, Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

All those in favour, say aye.

Division has been called.

[8:50 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 44 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 55
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Olsen
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
	Yao
NAYS — 26
Ashton	Banman	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Falcon	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
Tegart		Wat

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44, Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:03 p.m.