Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act.

In Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 38, Indigenous child welfare act.

In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call Bill 36, committee stage, the Health Professions Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:24 p.m.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: By necessity, I’ll go quickly. I see the minister signalling for his staff. He’s not going to need them. He’s not going to have an opportunity to answer any questions, because we’re not going to have an opportunity to ask any questions.

I will only say this as, literally, the clock winds down on this piece of legislation, which the opposition signalled support for. It’s unfortunate that an important step like this would fall victim to a procedural measure like this, because there were important questions — illuminating questions.

[1:25 p.m.]

The member for Vancouver-Langara has been engaged in debate on Bill 38. There are important issues that have arisen. He has posed questions that are appropriately to be posed here as part of this discussion. He won’t get that chance.

If I pose a question to the minister now about the types of Indigenous governing bodies that this legislation will cover, if I ask him questions about what the test for securing judicial review will be, all questions that I think the minister would be in a position to answer and that people would be interested to hear answers to…

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: …but he won’t get that chance. The Chair has just told me — by the way, as the Chair is obliged to do, under the motion the government has passed — that our time is up.

We have spent roughly one minute and 45 seconds on the bill. That’s unfortunate.

The Chair: It being 1:25 p.m….

M. de Jong: I’m sorry?

The Chair: It being 1:25 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order….

M. de Jong: It being 1:25 p.m., I thank the minister for his participation in this debate.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier today, the committee will now proceed to a finalized clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022.

In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill. Members, a division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called. In accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would like to now call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:30 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Minister, did you want to introduce your staff?

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I appreciate the opportunity you’ve allowed me to introduce my team to the Legislative Assembly. I have with me, on my left, acting associate deputy minister, Ministry of Housing, Teri Collins; on my right, Doug Page, who is the director of policy and legislation for the Ministry of Housing; and behind me, Bonnie Ruscheinski, who is the acting ADM, Ministry of Housing.

M. Bernier: Welcome to the minister, again, and to the minister’s staff.

I just want to note how excited I am to get up and speak to this bill. By the minister just standing up and introducing his staff, he actually had more time spent already, on this bill, than we just did on the last bill that just saw closure in the House, where the minister didn’t even have a chance to even stand up and answer a question. He, in all fairness, didn’t even have time to introduce his staff who walked into the Legislature to debate the last bill, due to this government invoking closure and giving our critic, in that case, I think all about a minute and a half to say hello to the House before he was shut down.

I guess I will stay on this bill. At least I’m pleased to get more than a minute and a half to be able to speak to this bill.

Now, look, this is an interesting piece of legislation. There are parts of it that we’re going to be able to breeze right through and right past. There are some of them dealing with two different acts here. We have the Building Officials’ Association Act and the Strata Property Act that are combined into Bill 44, into these amendments. There are some important aspects of this bill that we’ll cover off when we get to them, but there are also some real concerns that we want to raise.

I know — at least, I assume; I don’t want to speak on behalf of the minister — that his in-box is probably inundated just like mine is, as the critic, as well as many members of this House who have been hearing from their constituents, from every corner of the province, that have questions and concerns around this bill. I know I will have a little bit of time — again, unlike my colleague before me — where I can actually, maybe, read in some of those questions and concerns and flaws, I will even say, with this bill that we want to have addressed and give the minister his due time to address some of those, to maybe alleviate some of the concerns that I will raise.

Those are just my opening comments that I want to make on section 1. It’s up to the minister whether he’ll respond.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s good to be back with the member as we debate yet another key ingredient in our government’s efforts to address the housing crisis, a characterization which my colleague across the way has also accepted as valid at this point in British Columbia’s history.

We cannot afford to let units sit empty. There are thousands of such units sitting empty today because of unfair rental restrictions, while so many renters tell me that they’re struggling to find any kind of accommodation. It’s our government’s view that rules that prevent people from renting the unit that they own are no longer acceptable in the housing crisis facing British Columbia.

[1:35 p.m.]

The second key aspect of the legislation being debated today, clause by clause, is the age restrictions. It’s our view that rules that prevent families with children from living in a home are no longer acceptable in the current housing market. Families who choose to have children should not be forced to leave their homes due to age restrictions imposed in strata rules.

These amendments will open up more rental and home ownership options for people at a time when they need it most. I know there are other aspects of this bill that we’ll come to, but those would be the main thrusts of this legislation. I would say that any units that can be freed up in British Columbia at a time like this are measures that should be taken, and that, of course, is the intent of this bill.

J. Rustad: I recognize that I’ve just got a couple of things that I wanted to canvass with the minister on this bill. I support what the minister is trying to do in terms of increasing the ability for rental or ownership, obviously, with the housing challenge that we’re facing. With the minister’s indulgence, these questions are probably better put once we get to sections 28 or 29, although I’m not sure if we’ll get there today. So I’m hoping that the minister will perhaps allow me to ask some general questions here at the beginning.

In particular, there is the issue that the minister has raised around the age restrictions on renting or owning a strata that are to be removed, as well as other restrictions in place around stratas. Many of the people that have bought in stratas bought there for a specific purpose, for a specific reason, such as whether it’s no pets or whether it’s age — you know, seniors or whatever the case may be.

These people have invested significant resources in a property to live under those conditions or the no-rental rule. They want to make sure that the people that are there are vested into the place, vested into the strata, and they’re worried that the security or otherwise may change.

What I’m curious about is: has the minister considered using a grandfathering clause for existing stratas so that there would be a way for people to be able to preserve what they have bought into, the intent of what they bought into, but still allow for the expansion of what the minister is trying to do for new units that might be built?

Hon. M. Rankin: I welcome my colleague from Nechako Lakes to the debate. This will, of course, come up later in this sequence, but I am happy to try to answer the question he posed at this point.

[1:40 p.m.]

I can acknowledge that the member is correct in pointing out that a strata is often the largest single investment that a person might have, and concerns are warranted in every situation where there might be an impact on them, in this case by a no-rental rule that has been changed.

His question was: was there a thought given to what he called a grandfather situation for existing stratas? I’d point out to the member that there are a couple of situations already contemplated. For example, if a person is in a building that turns into being a 55-plus building and, let’s say, they’re 45, they would be grandfathered, to use the expression the member used. That is already contemplated in that situation.

But I think his question also was not simply about age restrictions but about rental restrictions as well, if I understood properly. To that effect, I’d point out to the member that since 2010, rental bans of this kind are no longer allowed. There haven’t been any major concerns since 2010. The impact of this proposed legislation, therefore, is on those units that were constructed and operated before 2010. So it’s a narrower compass. I would point out that there doesn’t appear to have been any significant concern, since 2010, with those units when the rule was changed to allow that rental to occur.

J. Rustad: I really appreciate the minister’s latitude in terms of being able to ask this question. There’s just one other question sort of linked to it. I’m wondering. In some of these situations where there could be changes to the strata rules — people had purchased based on the rules that were in place — some people may actually be looking for compensation, because there may be an impact to their homes, to the value of their homes, their ability to live in a location that suits what they were looking for.

Is the minister contemplating, through this legislation or other things, the ability or the potential concern, whether it’s a class action suit or whether there’s an opportunity for compensation or discussion with homeowners that are going to be impacted in terms of shifts in policy?

The Chair: I would remind the members that we are on clause 1.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: In a sense…. In answer to the question the member posed, this is not, in our view, creating restrictions. It’s actually permitting additional activity. What I mean by that is now people who would not have been able to rent will be able to rent. In a sense, one is creating more opportunities. So we don’t think that’s likely to trigger the kind of response the member is anticipating. We could be wrong, but that is how we characterize the change.

Secondly, if a person bought in, say, an adult-only building because they didn’t want children nearby, some would characterize that, I think properly, as age discrimination. I can point out to the member, as well, that across Canada, most provinces have never allowed stratas to enact age restrictions. The two exceptions being Alberta, like us, with 55 plus being permitted. Ontario uses 65 plus for that purpose.

Removing restrictions like these is part of the province’s action to increase accessibility to the existing housing stock in a very tight rental market.

J. Rustad: I just wanted to thank the minister for the latitude to be able to ask these questions up front. I look forward to the rest of the debate, where I may also participate.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: Not so much a question on clause 2. I just want to get on the record in acknowledgment, because there are some similarities, obviously….

We are changing two acts here, the building officials act and the Strata Property Act. There are some similarities between the two in wording, and I don’t want to be redundant, in the two different acts, asking the same questions. So I just wanted to put on the record the acknowledgment. I’ll ask some questions, maybe, when we get to the strata act that will also pertain back to the clause 2 that we have here in front of us.

Mostly what I’m alluding to is the ability to start having electronic means — Zoom, etc. — between the two different acts that are going to be changed. So just acknowledging…. Again, it’s up to the minister how he chooses to respond. But I just wanted to say that I’m recognizing that we do have similarities between the two, so instead of asking him twice, I’ll just wait until we get to it again.

The Chair: Did the minister wish to respond?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will appreciate that, given the interests of time management and preservation…. If the question is: are they the same? Their intent is the same. I haven’t been able, in the time available — nor do I want to take the member’s time — to compare them, but the objective is identical.

Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

[1:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We’re now in clause 9. We’re actually in the section of the bill that’s talking about the Strata Property Act. I’m going to have a few more questions, obviously, when we get to a few more sections in this portion of the bill. But specifically here in clause 9, it is talking about, again, electronic means — really, in some ways, electronic strata meetings requiring access information, notice of meetings. I understand the process of that. I’ve been in stratas before and understand.

Can the minister maybe just remind this House. Obviously, we’re in a new era, trying to allow for flexibility — no different than we have, in this Legislature, allowed flexibility for attending meetings and voting. In fact, we just held a vote a few moments ago and watched one of the NDP ministers who was fortunate enough to be driving her car, wherever she was, being able to vote. So we obviously have allowed extreme flexibility in the Legislature, as well, when it comes to the ability to attend meetings and partake in votes.

I’m just curious. On section 9, if the minister could just give a quick — it doesn’t have to be quick; his choice — summary on the intent in this clause, who was asking for it and how we see this working, going forward.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member giving us the opportunity to put on the record the intent. As the member will know, this ability to have strata corporations hold electronic strata meetings without a strata bylaw was something that was put in as a temporary measure during COVID-19. However, the regulations permitting that come to a close, by statute, on December 31 of this year. It was our judgment that that has worked well and that it ought to be continued.

Many strata corporations have enjoyed the ability and now will have the ability, if this enactment passes, to provide notice to owners of strata units that electronic attendance will be allowed at annual or special general meetings and to provide, in that notice, information as to how to attend. For example, there’ll be a Zoom link or a number to telephone into.

The amendment also requires the corporation to provide basic information about the date, time and place of the meeting if there’s a physical location for in-person participants. In other words, it contemplates that it could be either or both. It could be in person, or it could be on Zoom or the like or together in a hybrid setting.

M. Bernier: I’m taking by the wording…. We know that we’ve put in here what information must be included. We always look at the words “must” and “may.” They’re the two words that get used over and over again when legislation is being crafted. It “must include the following,” and the minister just spoke to some of those. The “may” in the minister’s commentary, or what I’m thinking, going forward — is it still…?

I assume that I know the answer, but I want the minister to be able to put it on the record. Is it still a voluntary decision of a board that if they choose to do a meeting and allow for electronic means, this is the “must” that they must put forward? But will it still be up to the individual stratas on whether or not they choose to do this?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, I think the member has it exactly right.

M. Bernier: A question arises from that, then. If I am a strata owner, how does the minister see this playing out? I know he understands stratas as well. A strata decides they’re holding an AGM. In this case, that’s what we’re talking about. They say, “No, we’re not going to do electronic means,” and there are people in the strata that do want electronic means. What recourse do they have?

This is now still putting it back on the strata. There’s no mandate that government is saying that they have to allow it. So now it still turns into a situation where it will be — I don’t want to use the word “argument” — a discussion between strata owners and the strata board. Is that accurate?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I was just reminded, and I think it’s worthwhile pointing out, that the section we’re dealing with addresses what happens at annual meetings or special meetings. It doesn’t address, in fact, the regular council meetings that a council would normally have in the course of the governance of that strata corporation.

If there were a decision to go one way or the other or to entrench either an in-person requirement or, I’ll call it, a Zoom requirement or some hybrid thereof, that would be a bylaw amendment, and that could be done with the usual three-quarter vote at the annual meeting.

M. Bernier: I don’t want to belabour it. I realize we’re talking about the AGMs and then…. It’s just all the different nuances. As the minister knows, when we’re dealing with stratas, they can be almost more political than we are here in this room sometimes. So we want to make sure that it’s laid out in a situation where everybody understands the rules of engagement, so to speak.

But the way this is worded, the way we’ve substituted…. We’ve repealed the section, and we’ve substituted with the wording we have here. I just want to make sure that we’ve canvassed this point, because in 3(a), it talks about…. The descriptions will be voted on, resolutions. We talk about what it has to include, but we talk about that it must include the proposed wording of any resolution to be voted on, if I’m reading that correctly. In other words, giving notice of the agenda. That’s the way I would read that.

If I’m reading that correctly, my question to the minister would be: what happens and what arises at an AGM, then, if…? I’ll just give an example here. A notice is given of the description of all the matters to be discussed at the AGM. People show up at the AGM, and through the discussion at the AGM, other matters arise that will require a vote, but that was not actually on the original description of the matters to be discussed at the AGM.

Is it now out of order? Do they have to amend the AGM information that was shared? I hope the minister understands where I’m going with this, because that does happen on a regular occurrence. I know, when you get to an AGM…. “Here’s your agenda.” You pass the agenda, but sometimes things will happen, and new information will be shared, and people want to vote on something different at the AGM.

The way this is worded in this new amendment added in here, will they be forbidden to…? Or could it be challenged? I guess that would be the right way of looking at it Could it be challenged by a strata owner if something came up and was voted on that wasn’t on the agenda originally because the notice wasn’t given?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I know the member is concerned about time, so I would start by pointing out that this section has not changed from the previous section. What you’re asking is about the status quo of strata corporations. I’m happy to provide my best answer.

Notice has to be given for those matters requiring a three-quarter vote or 80 percent or a unanimous vote, for obvious reasons. A member may choose not to come, seeing nothing of any particular importance — I think that’s where the member was going — and not have notice of that. That would be something that could easily be attacked in a judicial review, or a court would certainly have something to say about that.

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On clause 12.

M. Bernier: On clause 12 here…. I’ll just acknowledge that we went past a couple of sections because we’ve already covered off some of the answers through the commentary that we’ve had earlier, again, around electronic meetings, etc. But on clause 12, I’m looking for the explanation on this, the intent and the rationale for government to be repealing this section.

This section, section 12, is repealing the requirement to disclose the number of rental units in a strata to any owner or purchaser. Presently, if somebody is looking at purchasing…. We’ll use whatever the strata property might be. Let’s say it’s a condominium complex. Right now, there’s a requirement or at least an expectation that the person can…. It’ll be disclosed to them if there are rentals allowed in that building, and if so, how many presently are rented, because some of those are decision-making pieces that people have when they’re looking at making an investment or a purchase for a strata property.

This section is repealing that. Can the minister just explain what their intent was and why they’re repealing a piece of legislation that actually gives information to a purchaser of a strata that they may, in essence, want to have before they make their decision?

Hon. M. Rankin: As we found in our debate on the earlier bill on housing supply, there’s sometimes back and forth between sections. This is a consequential amendment to clause 17 changes that remove the requirement for owner-developers to file what’s called a rental disclosure statement, because we’ve removed the ability of stratas to have rental restriction bylaws through this legislation. The significance is that this removes the requirement for the strata corporation to include the number of strata lots in the strata plan that are rented.

There are a couple of reasons why that’s been done, to answer the member’s question. The first is that partners have advised us that this particular requirement is currently not functioning as intended, and the information that stratas provide is not considered to be reliable. Strata corporations rely on owners and landlords to disclose rental information and are therefore unable to verify whether the numbers are accurate.

[2:05 p.m.]

That’s the first practical reason. People have told us that it really doesn’t work. And because clause 18, coming up in the bill, will remove the ability of corporations to have these rental restriction bylaws, owners and buyers no longer need to wonder whether the strata corporation has already reached the maximum allowable number of rental units, because rental restrictions are being removed. Those are the practical reasons for this section.

M. Bernier: Hopefully, the minister can appreciate…. He doesn’t draft these bills. I always find it funny, because we’re going to be asked to pass a section that is consequential to something that we may or may not pass later on in the bill. So it’ll be very interesting. Just the timing of it, I think the minister has to appreciate, is interesting. Let’s just say we try to pass this section — it makes sense — but then sections 17 and 18, for whatever reason, don’t pass. What happens then?

Now, obviously I understand the intent of government, and they’re going to pass all this anyway, regardless of any commentary, I’m sure, that I bring forward when we get to section 17 or 18. I do want to just…. I think it’s important to highlight that many, many stratas right now actually have it within their bylaws, I’m told, and I know that if they do allow rentals, it needs to be disclosed to the strata council so that they have an idea….

Some stratas actually have restrictions of how many rental units are allowed right now. I’ll make a number up: there’s a strata with 100 strata units in a complex, and the stratas have voted in the past to say no more than 10 percent are rentals. But those have to be disclosed to the strata council, in order for them to have an accurate count, to ensure they’re following their own strata bylaws — which is why that information is collected and reported.

As a purchaser of a possible strata, that information is then garnered, gathered and can be asked for through the realtor and even through a legal process. I know of situations, even, where legal counsel has required that information in order to give it to a lending body before approval be given for a mortgage, for instance — wanting to know what kind of property that they’re moving into.

I understand what the minister is saying — that they’re removing this in order to match what may or may not be passed in a few moments in other sections. But does the minister not agree with me that regardless of that, it’s still an important piece that should be available to the public that chooses to move into a strata?

By that, I mean, even when we get into 17 and 18, as the minister mentioned, where it talks about some of the changes that government is looking at repealing, on reporting, does the minister not agree with me and, maybe, with many strata owners or possible strata purchasers that — regardless of what may pass today, and that this government pushes through, on the requirement for rental allowability — it’s still a piece of information that would be important for somebody to have before they make a purchase decision?

The minister, under his own commentary in the past, and the new Premier have said, as well as many people in this House, that if people are fortunate enough to purchase a place, it is the largest investment in their life. Before people do that, most people would want to know what they’re getting themselves into, and the more information they could have would benefit them in that decision of whether they’re going to purchase this strata, that strata or a single-family detached home. Who knows?

I’m just curious if the minister agrees, regardless of what they’re going to pass today in this House, that that information is still important when somebody is making a purchase decision.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: As I said earlier, this was a section that the member is referring to that was the product of a lot of consultation. I’m advised that the strata owners association, essentially the trade organization for British Columbia’s strata properties, was anxious to get rid of this section because, as I said in my earlier remarks, it never seemed to be accurate, in any event. So it didn’t seem to add value.

I can advise the member that it may well be that a strata corporation, when a new person wishes to own or to rent, would be able to ask that question and find out, but it’s probably no more reliable than these disclosure statements have ended up being over time.

A. Olsen: Quickly, if the information could be accurate, if there could be a mechanism that’s put in place to get the information accurately recorded, wouldn’t this be information that’s valuable to government, just in terms of the overall success or evaluation of this program, the overall makeup of units of housing and homes in stratas — how many are being lived in by owners, how many are being lived in by rentals?

From a data perspective, it seems to me that rather than removing this from the legislation, enhancing it and making it a requirement might actually be able to inform future decisions that the minister and the Premier may want to make with respect to housing.

Hon. M. Rankin: I welcome the member for Saanich North and the Islands, House Leader of the Third Party, to the debate.

The answer is I think that this particular provision was about information to an owner, not to government. It was ensuring that the owner could know how much rental was in a particular unit in a particular strata and the like. There was never a reporting requirement for the strata corporation to make information available of that sort — how many renters, how many not — to the government. That was never (a) intended by this or (b) seen as an additional burden that one wanted to impose on strata corporations.

I take the member’s point that that information, in terms of assessing how this legislation is working, and so forth, could be valuable — but also to say that Stats Canada, through census data, is already providing that to the provincial government. So we have some pretty good idea, I’m advised, as to the number of renters in various units.

Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. Bernier: This is actually an interesting section here that I think most people could support on face value. I know there are some concerns that I just want to acknowledge.

[2:15 p.m.]

This section here, section 15, for those watching at home, is requiring that pet owners are not required to lose their pets or leave the premises if a bylaw is passed by the strata to change the rules within that strata around dogs or guide dogs. The definitions there are added into this bill.

Can the minister, just for the record, then…? The way I’m reading this, whether it’s a dog or a guide dog and the intent to assist the owners, it looks like the ability is basically grandfathering, in essence. I believe that’s why this is put in here. So if a strata two years from now changes the rules saying pets are no longer allowed, anybody presently living in that strata is grandfathered until they are no longer part of that strata.

I think I understand that, but if the minister can speak to that a little bit and then maybe explain why this was brought forward. Obviously, there have been some challenges, maybe, at the residential tenancy branch or something that he could talk about.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member has it exactly right. It’s to clarify a loophole. The purpose of this is to address a loophole that the member talked about. I asked for an example to be provided, and I hesitate to read it because it’s very complicated. I’ll go anyway.

Say that a strata passed a bylaw in 2010 to prohibit dogs, and then in 2015, they repealed and replaced that bylaw to say no dogs and no cats. Person A has a dog prior to 2010 and should be able to benefit from this legacy provision, but person B gets a dog between 2010 and 2015 and could potentially try to argue that they got a dog before the 2015 bylaw was passed. This amendment will close that potential loophole when a bylaw is repealed and replaced.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

T. Stone: Clause 16 that we’re talking about here is actually an important clause. It’s one of the pieces of this legislation that I would say is something that’s really important for a lot of people right now because 16 is talking about our age restrictions and the age restrictions that are in place right now in some areas.

This section actually is going to limit age restrictions to stratas. You know, if there’s a strata…. It talks about it very specifically in here. Maybe I’ll just put it on the record. A 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).” Then in (2): “The strata corporation may pass a bylaw that requires one or more persons residing in a strata lot to have reached a specified age that is not less than 55 years.”

The minister not too long ago, in a previous question and answer, referenced the age restrictions and mentioned how the province of British Columbia still has the ability for 55 plus. I know when we get to other sections, we’re going to be talking about rentals; this one here is just talking about age restrictions.

I think this one here is really important, because there are numerous existing strata facilities in the province of British Columbia that have strata bylaws that say that you have to be 55 plus. There would be huge angst if this government was looking at getting rid of a 55-plus bylaw within a strata.

It has raised some questions, but it also raises some very valid points. I want to go on the record and say that we’ve been hearing from a lot of people that this is an important piece to ensure that we continue to have the ability for stratas to make that decision if they choose to be a 55-plus strata complex. We’ll get into the discussion about rental and non-rental in a moment, but I’m talking about just the age within that complex. That’s very important, not only, obviously, for government but for opposition as well. We support that. We think this is integral in our society right now to allow stratas the ability to make that decision.

[2:20 p.m.]

One of the questions I have, maybe first, on this section, though, especially around the 55 plus and some of these age restriction changes, is: will stratas themselves now have to go back and hold special meetings? Will they have to wait till the next AGM? What’s the process, which is incumbent on a strata, after this change comes in if they actually have age restrictions within their existing bylaws?

I’ll use the example of, let’s say, the 19 plus. That’s probably better to use as an example, rather than the 55 plus. If they have that wording, does it automatically, with the passage of this bill, come into effect, or does it just say that a strata now must have a meeting to change their bylaws, to come into effect, to represent the new legislation within the Strata Act?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think I’ve grasped the question properly, but I’m going to do my best to see if I’ve done so.

If there is an existing bylaw that would offend the section, that bylaw would be invalidated. No future bylaw can be passed that would restrict age, except, of course, the exception for where…. Let’s say three-quarters of the people vote to go from it being a particular kind of strata to one where only 55 years and over could reside. They could make such a bylaw, because this, of course, exempts that from the current bylaw.

I think I’ve answered the member’s question.

M. Bernier: I believe so. I’ll maybe just even get a nod, if the minister wants.

The question was: when this comes into force, does it automatically…? I guess strata councils’ bylaws will now become null and void. They don’t have to have the expense and the time to hold an extraordinary meeting to change the wording in their bylaws. It will automatically be null and void anyway.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would agree with what the member just said. I would say, just to reiterate…. If it happens that that strata corporation’s members wanted to become, for the first time, a 55-plus strata corporation, they could do so by a bylaw. That would be a bylaw passed. A special resolution would be required, three-quarters plus.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting that the minister twice now has made that point.

We talk sometimes about unintended consequences that come from legislation and changes in law. I’ve been hearing from some stratas that have brought up the exact example the minister has just said. That’s about changing their bylaws to 55 plus, which will be counterproductive to, I think, the intent of what government is trying to do here.

I think what’s really important is…. Not to put words in the minister’s mouth, but one of the challenges that we’re having right now, when we’re talking about age restrictions….

We’ve got two different pieces here that we want to talk about. The 55 plus is one piece, and that’s the strata rules of what they want to allow within that facility. There is the other one because of that, the intent in clause 16 here, 123(1.1), where it’s removing restrictions of age for persons that can reside.

[2:25 p.m.]

That one is not talking about 55. What that one is talking about is…. To give an example, you have a young couple that’s living in a condo in downtown Victoria. They decide that they want to start a family. Now, all of a sudden…. They’re really excited to announce that they’ve got a young little Johnny or Jane on the way. Under the strata rules, they have to move out because there’s an age restriction of nobody under the age of 19.

That, there, is something, obviously, that is very important to so many people, especially when we look at the challenges right now, I’ll say, for our younger generation to get into affordable housing units. Maybe a strata condo is their first start, or maybe that’s what they want for their entire life. That’s their choice, but they’re restricted because of those rules.

I completely understand the rationale of the ministry and government wanting to remove that portion of the age restriction. That is completely supported by, I think, this side of the House as well. We are hearing the same thing — that this is really an important piece of this legislation. The last thing we want to hear is that people are having to make different life choices because they have no choice. If they choose to start a family, now they can’t afford to stay where they are.

I know there are many out there that might have a complex that has age restrictions right now that might be troubled by this, and we might hear from a few of them. I have. I’m sure the minister has. But I think it’s important to acknowledge that, as we’re moving forward, this is an important piece that needs to be considered.

All that being said, it brings me back to my point to the minister about unintended consequences. It was brought up twice, the issue about…. They could make a bylaw of 55 plus.

I have already received numerous emails from strata councils that say: “If this passes, we are going to enact a bylaw that says, going forward, as of tomorrow, we are restricting, now, our complex to 55 plus.” But they’ll consider putting in a grandfathering clause for anybody under 55, to allow them. Good for them. The unintended consequence here is that we could actually see more and more strata complexes or units within the province of British Columbia moving to 55 plus, which, in essence, removes the opportunity for young people to get in. Albeit, some have said: “Don’t worry. We’ll do a grandfathering clause.”

I had one example. They said it was a small 20-unit complex. It has an age restriction of 19 plus, and everybody in there right now is 19 plus. The example they gave me was…. There are three families that are under the age of 55, but the majority of them are in there. They’ve lived there for 20 years plus. They’re all over the age of 55, but their bylaw doesn’t say 55 plus. So now they’re saying that if this passes, they’ll change it. So as soon as those younger people move out, no young person can now buy and move in. Those are the unintended consequences.

I’m curious. I don’t see anything in the bill that avoids that — actually, the opposite. The minister just said on the record twice that with a three-quarter or two-thirds, whatever it was, the words that he said, vote…. To the example I just made — 20 people in the unit. There are only three under the age of 55. Guess what. They’ll lose out on the vote, and they’re hooped.

What does the minister say to those people about the unintended consequences, which actually could remove properties for our young people who are trying to get into the system?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member and I have talked at length about the law of unintended consequences. In our judgment, that is not likely to be a significant one in this circumstance. The ability, I’ve repeated, to do so is certainly there, but it requires a supermajority. Three-quarters plus of the members would have to take that step.

Again, we don’t have…. The member is speculating. I don’t want to speculate. Our best analysis internally is…. We’re not expecting these changes, which the member fears, on a large scale. It would be such a major step for owners of a strata corporation that limits ages to then become a 55-plus community.

[2:30 p.m.]

Again, it would require this supermajority to pass a new or amended bylaw. That is, in itself, likely to be a significant constraint in the real world. Trying to get three-quarters plus of members to agree on anything is, obviously, very difficult in the real world.

Yes, there is a possibility, but no, we don’t think it’s likely to materialize to a significant degree.

A. Olsen: With respect to the comments that have been made and the age restrictions….

Certainly, one of the more devastating impacts of having age restrictions in buildings is exactly as the member for Peace River South just mentioned. That is that people who want to start a family are not able to start a family in a place that they own. That really is…. Well, it’s sad and not something that we should support.

I’ve heard some of the same comments made — that this is something that people would consider in a strata. I’m wondering if the minister has any thoughts or any initiatives, going forward, that are going to measure and report if that, in fact, indeed, is happening.

Part of this is…. It’s fine for us in here, as we’re making this change, to say: the supermajority is difficult to achieve; it’s unlikely to achieve. What are we doing to ensure that we are understanding the impacts that these decisions, which we’re having, are going to have and that those unintended consequences, which were outlined, are not, indeed, occurring and actually making it more of a challenging place for young families to live?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to start by saying to my colleague and friend from Saanich North and the Islands…. Thank you for your apparent support for the notion that people who own condos and want to have children should be allowed to do that in the property that they own. I think that is something with which, I gather, everyone in this place agrees.

The answer is no. We haven’t thought of collecting that data. It might be a good idea. I take it under advisement. We do have census data, as was said — that’s more at the macro level, I concede — that will allow us to see whether this happens. We’ll certainly get anecdotal stories of the kind that have already been recounted by the member for Peace River South.

If this does become an unintended consequence, then, of course, we’ll have the ability to address it.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to say…. I remember when I first got elected in Central Saanich in 2008. I would bring my son with me to committee meetings because I didn’t have child care.

When I first brought Silas in, he was one. The assumption was that he was going to be total destruction in that meeting, that he was going to disrupt everything, that these chambers — it was the council chambers at the time, or it was down at the CRD or at the Greater Victoria Public Library — weren’t built for kids. They’re not built as a welcoming environment for children to be in.

It took a while. In fact, I had to convince a couple of the chairs of committees that I was on to allow Silas into the room with me. I let them know: “We’ll leave if he becomes disruptive.” But what I saw at that table when Silas was in the room was dramatically different than when Silas was not in the room.

We’ve started to allow so-called strangers into this chamber, people who…. Anybody who is not an elected member of this place is, I think, identified as a stranger. What happens when the children come in here is a remarkable feeling. It reminds us of who we’re making decisions for, not just for now but for the long term.

I stand to raise this point to add emphasis to the measurements and reporting aspects of this as being necessary so that, then, we can start to build and have that data and have that information about the consequences, positive and negative — the word “consequences” — and the outcomes of the decisions that we’re making here and to ensure that we are achieving what is expressed as the intent of this bill and that we’re achieving those things.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the point. I appreciate the story, for emphasis. As I say, it’s a matter that is well worth taking under advisement.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We talked about the importance of this. The member for Saanich North and the Islands highlighted that as well — why this section needs to be considered, why it’s in here.

I would argue the majority of people — not all, maybe — who have already made purchase decisions on their condominiums or strata units…. The majority of people, I think, understand, in today’s society, that this is something that’s important and that we need to address and deal with.

I do, though, have to say that there’s always suspicion, when governments are making these decisions, how they pick either winners or losers or why their rules will apply to some and not to others, a case in point being that the Minister of Agriculture had no problem bringing forward regulation that forbids farm families from allowing their families to stay on the farm, for the next generation to stay and purchase a small piece of the corner section of the large farm in my riding.

We got the young couple that gets married, that wants to have a young child and wants to stay on the farm so they can be the next generation to take over and be farmers, but they’re told by this government: “Sorry. You have to move off the farm because now you’ve decided to have a family, and you can’t get a loan, you can’t get a mortgage, you can’t buy a small piece.”

To put it in context again…. I’m trying not to digress, but I just want to make a point to the fact and highlight for the government that if they’re going to do it here, I really hope and think they should be going back to the cabinet table and thinking about the unintended consequences from previous bills that have negatively affected young families, and people who want to start families, and forced them out of their house. That’s what this government did with the regulations and legislation that they put forward restricting people from being allowed to stay on the farm that they grew up on, and being forced to move into town.

That in itself, for agriculture in small areas, is very troubling. I raise that as something this government needs to relook at, because if they’re doing it here, and if they’re truly trying to help the next generation, then they should be helping everybody who’s trying to find the next opportunities that they can to move forward in their lives as they choose.

Now, in saying that, though, what…? I know in the previous legislation, we talked about sticks and carrots. What enforcement, I guess, is there at the ability of the minister or this government if a strata refuses to follow through with this?

The minister has said that they don’t have to change their bylaws, that it’ll automatically become null and void. But if we’re a downtown Vancouver condominium complex, which the Chair would know quite well, because I’m sure a majority of his riding is strata…. A majority of a lot of the people who live in downtown Vancouver, I would argue, is probably strata, rental or purchase regardless, right? There’s a lot of rental, understandably.

If the strata rules right now — the minister knows where I’m going with this — say that they forbid anybody unless they’re 19 plus, they’re now going to be forced to follow this new legislation, what if they don’t? What mechanisms are there? If nobody in the strata is complaining, how would the government even know if they’re following this new legislation or not?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer to the member’s question is that the bylaw, if unenforceable, would be something that could be taken to the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, which deals with disputes between owners and the strata corporation. I would also say, parenthetically, that if there was a corporation that was consistently disobeying the law, then there would probably be market consequences for those who wish to sell or buy in that corporation.

J. Rustad: Part of this is my lack of understanding of stratas and how stratas are structured, but I have just one question around this.

This wouldn’t necessarily be something that every strata would consider, but if a strata decided that they didn’t want to be under these rules, could they not just become a private corporation, that each member, each person who owns a home, would own a share of the company, and the company runs it and can do what they want with the building and, therefore, be outside of the rules of what’s being intended here?

The reason for asking that is there may be some stratas of small or varying sizes that may decide that’s a route that they want to go down so that they would not fall under the rules that are being laid out here under this bill. I’m just wondering if that would be a scenario that could potentially happen.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Necha­ko Lakes for the question, essentially asking if one could end-run the Strata Property Act in order to achieve this goal.

I think the answer is probably technically yes, but the difficulty in doing so would be formidable. It’s a form of land tenure, and to wind it up and dissolve the corporation and start again would be extraordinarily expensive. Lawyers would be very happy with such a choice. It may not be effective. I guess it technically could be done, but it sounds a lot like a sledgehammer-for-an-ant kind of scenario. But I think the member has asked a hypothetical that may well be accurate.

At that point, I wonder if I could ask and make a formal motion, Mr. Chair, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT

Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

In this chamber, I call continued debate on the housing statutes act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On clause 16 (continued).

The Chair: Shall clause 16 pass?

Division has been called on clause 16.

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Clause 16 approved on the following division:

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order, please.

We’ll just take a short recess while those that need to get somewhere else can get to that somewhere else. This committee is in a short recess.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:01 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: Clause 17 is: “Sections 139 and 140 are repealed.” The minister referenced these earlier when we were talking about other parts of the act, the legislation, that are being changed and how they all reference back and forth to each other. When I’m researching this, too, the pieces that are being repealed were measures that were brought in, in 2009, to enable buildings built after 2010 to lift rental restrictions.

What happens to the rental disclosure statements that are out there right now? We talked about the statements that are already…. Under this section, rental disclosure statements were filed, and information was gathered. What happens to that information now, once this gets passed?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer is that the records that exist would be held in the office of the superintendent of real estate. They would, of course, be of limited current utility. However, they may have archival benefit and could be put into the archives.

M. Bernier: With that answer, I’m just curious: it could be, or it would be? There could be, again, unintended consequences. Would the concept or the thought process be that it would be archived, that this information should be and will be kept, or is there a possibility that they would decide that this information that’s gathered and that they have is no longer needed, and that the information could be destroyed?

Hon. M. Rankin: I can advise the member that there’s nothing in the act requiring that retention.

One of the hesitations in giving as accurate an answer as we can is that the superintendent of real estate is essentially an arm’s-length actor reporting to the financial services commission — again at arm’s length to government, to some degree. The question, for which I don’t have an immediate answer for the member, is whether the records retention schedule under the Document Disposal Act applies to such an arm’s-length body. I simply don’t know the answer to that.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. That’s a fair answer. The reason why I raise it, though, is…. Again, the measures were introduced in 2009 to enable all buildings built after 2010 to lift rental restrictions. We’ve talked about that.

The problem is that when you look at some of the documentation after 2009-10, a lot of the disclosure statements talked about 99-year terms. This is not a case where the Financial Services Authority, in that organization, is now the overarching body. You would assume that they would have kept it for 99 years, because right on the disclosure statements there are rental guidelines, guarantees, a lot of things that are built in with the official documentation that was filed around a 99-year….

The reason why I ask if it will be held or destroyed…. The minister, in all fairness, doesn’t have an immediate answer, so he hopefully would take it under advisement, consideration to bring forward. What if, 15, 20 years from now, legislation changes to restrict rentals again? We find that it’s not working, for whatever reason, and all of a sudden, that comes in.

What would happen to those rental disclosure statements? They were for 99 years. If they’re destroyed, how does that…? I’m just trying to understand how that might all work, because they might…. Now, all of a sudden, if the rules change again, are they back in play, and are they valid with the same documentation and guarantees and information that was collected upon the original transaction?

Hon. M. Rankin: Given that the member’s question does not pertain to the sections under the act, I will take it under advisement. The member will know I have staff here who have made a note of his question.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

M. Bernier: I’m going to spend a little bit of time on clause 18. The rest of the clauses really are just changing a few little words here and there. But this specific clause, clause 18, is repealing section 141 under the Strata Act. Now, this is the one that I think that a lot of us are receiving a lot of emails on, concern about on. I’m going to spend a few moments, at different times through this exchange, reading into the record some emails that I’ve received from different parts of the province — ironically, many of them from presently NDP-held ridings.

Clause 18. I’ll just say this. Under the Strata Act, section 141 is repealed, and the following is now going to be inserted: “The strata corporation must not screen tenants, establish screening criteria, require the approval of tenants, require the insertion of terms in tenancy agreements or otherwise restrict the rental of a strata lot.” I wanted to read that in first so we understand what we’re going to be discussing here for the next little bit. This, in essence, is really around eliminating the ability for a strata to restrict rentals.

I’ll start with this question. The minister, in the announcement of this bill, this act, said that this was going to be monumental in a lot of ways in bringing more rental units into the supply stream. How many rental units, when this passes, when this government forces this through…? The minister…. I won’t put numbers in his mouth. I’ve already heard a few numbers. I’m just curious for him to talk about this again so we can get a bit of a dialogue going.

Come Monday, going forward, how many new rental units are going to be available with the passage of this piece of legislation?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d first advise the hon. member that the clause that he read is identical to the existing clause, the current clause, except for the fact that the current clause provides some exceptions under subsection (2). That’s the first point.

On the specific question about how many units, of course, I don’t have any more of a crystal ball than the member opposite does. I can say, however, that…. I thought we agreed that we are in a housing crisis in British Columbia, and therefore, we would hope to create more units in this way.

[3:10 p.m.]

We know, as a point of departure, there are nearly 2,900 empty units in strata buildings with rental restrictions in those parts of B.C. that are subject to the speculation tax, and we know that there are even more empty units in other parts of the province. These empty units will become immediately open to rent as homes for people.

M. Bernier: Can the minister explain to this House how he knows that there are 2,900 vacant units around the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s a relatively easy answer, because those people who would be subject to the speculation and vacancy tax wish to get an exemption from paying that tax if they are in a building that won’t permit them to rent. As a consequence, we have very specific data of all those people who have sought that exemption, so we can tell with certainty that number. But that’s only in those areas of the province that are subject to that tax.

M. Bernier: Is the minister trying to say to this House that because 2,900 people were forced to pay a speculation and vacancy tax, those are actually sitting vacant 12 months of the year?

Hon. M. Rankin: What I can tell you is they’re exactly on point to the purpose of this section. Namely, they restrict rentals of condominiums. They will no longer be able to do that. They will no longer, therefore, get an exemption under the tax because they will have to now make them available because the restriction on rental will be eliminated.

M. Bernier: The minister is very prescriptive, saying that there are 2,900 — it seems to be exactly 2,900 — gathering that information based on people who have been forced by this government to pay a speculation and vacancy tax. Where I’m going with this is that I find it very interesting that the minister feels that just because somebody has applied for or been forced to fill out the documentation and pay a tax to this government, that means that their unit is vacant.

Maybe he can explain this. In order to have to pay the speculation and vacancy tax, does somebody have to check a box to say that their unit is vacant for the full 12 months of the year, and that’s why they’re subject to the tax?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I apologize to the member for not having the answer at my hands. As the member may know, the administration of tax legislation such as this is in the Ministry of Finance.

I can tell you from their website that for owners to be eligible for this exemption, tenants must occupy the residence for at least six months of the year. There are various things that talk about the combination of a number of months and different tenants, and so forth. So the answer may be more convoluted than necessary.

The fundamental point is that we have data that’s unassailable that there are 2,900 units that will now become available. We know that because those people have applied for an exemption and been granted an exemption because they are not allowed to rent their units because of a rent restriction that’s in place. That’s only in the areas subject, of course, to the speculation and vacancy tax.

M. Bernier: On that comment of the speculation and vacancy tax, we have also heard that the new Premier wants to expand the speculation and vacancy tax to other areas. We do know that when this tax first came in, there were areas that were going to be included, then they all of a sudden magically weren’t included, and boundaries changed.

The minister is right that the data he has right now that he’s referencing is only in the areas that they know where people have applied and filled out the documentation to pay the speculation and vacancy tax. So I will acknowledge that he’s using that information, and there could be more out there — that people have places that are not necessarily being used 12 months of the year that are not captured in his numbers of 2,900.

That being said, is the minister honestly telling this House — because there are 2,900, using his numbers, people who are paying the speculation and vacancy tax right now — that with the passage of this bill, he has heard that they are all paying the speculation vacancy tax because they can’t rent out their facility, which means now there are going to be 2,900 units that are going to magically be put up for rent with the passage of this bill?

Hon. M. Rankin: It is the declaration of those strata owners that they cannot rent their unit, and they cannot rent their unit because of a rental restriction bylaw pertaining to their unit. As the member has acknowledged, we’re talking only of those areas of British Columbia that are subject to the speculation and vacancy tax.

It’s true that many other governments, local governments, have asked for their areas to be subject to that tax. There may be such changes in the future. That’s for the Minister of Finance to say. But we think we have a pretty clear bead on those 2,900.

How many thousands more across British Columbia would be applicable? I don’t know, but I can tell you that every single one of those units will now be available because the rent restrictions would no longer be allowed. In a housing crisis, we think that’s something.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to have this House…. I know there are a lot of people watching this, because there are a lot of people very concerned with this part of the legislation.

There are over 900,000 strata units in the province of British Columbia right now — 900,000. Since 2009-2010, there have been approximately 300,000 that have been brought online that aren’t subject to the rental restrictions that we are talking about. But the minister and the new Premier keep referencing 2,900 based on people who apply and pay a speculation and vacancy tax. To the minister’s point, there are probably others.

I’ve got a whole…. I know everybody in this House is getting them, and I’m going to read some of these into the record as we go through this afternoon. I know some of my colleagues have other questions that they’ll want to raise in a moment as well. I’ll give them the floor in a moment.

[3:20 p.m.]

I was reading one that I got this morning, which actually goes right to the point that the minister is trying to make right now around this 2,900 and the speculation and vacancy tax. It’s why most people that are contacting me are saying there is absolutely no way in hell, heck…. Pardon my…. I withdraw that. There’s no way in heck….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, it’s not a swear word we don’t like in the House, I guess. But just looking at the response I got from the Chair, I’ll withdraw the four-letter word that I just used.

In all seriousness, I’m hearing from so many of these 2,900 that the minister keeps referencing that say there’s no way they’re going to rent out their place, not at all. They pay the tax begrudgingly. They don’t have a choice, because this government has brought in the speculation and vacancy tax. They pay for that tax, but they’re not saying: “Just to avoid paying the tax, I’m going to rent out my place instead.” In fact, we’re hearing over and over again the huge challenges and pressures that some people are under.

I got one this morning from somebody who lives in a strata complex in Burnaby who’s upset. I will say again…. They say in their email that they haven’t had a response from their NDP member. I think this one is really important. It’ll get to some of the comments we’re going to have a little later in this section around the problems with the residential tenancy branch, when we’re talking about the speculation and vacancy tax.

This individual, who is a senior, said they’re very fortunate that they have a place in Burnaby. They also spend five or 5½ months with their family down in Arizona through the winter months. Because of that, they weren’t able to disclose that they’re in British Columbia for six months of the year, and they were forced to pay a speculation and vacancy tax.

This person wrote to me this morning and said how they are a senior. They couldn’t afford the speculation and vacancy tax, and this government put them in a position where they were forced to rent out their condo. But here’s the catch. They’re not renting it out for 12 months of the year. They only wanted to rent it out for the six months of the year when they’re down with their family in the United States. They want to be able to move back into it for the five or six months a year when they’re back in British Columbia.

To avoid paying the speculation and vacancy tax, last year they put their condo up for rent and were very specific that they would only want it rented for six months because they needed it when they moved back to British Columbia. Upon moving back to British Columbia, the tenant refused to move out. Not only did the tenant refuse to move out; the tenant stopped paying rent. The tenant’s excuse was: “You were only renting it to me for six months, so I’m only paying you for six months. I have nowhere to go, so I’m not moving out. I am no longer paying you rent either.”

This senior, who’s now back in British Columbia, is now forced to try to find their own place to live because they can’t move into the place that they own. In essence, this person is now squatting. They applied three months ago to the residential tenancy branch to try to have this person evicted and moved out. It’s being challenged because they refuse to move.

Now they say:

“I’m a senior. I now have to try to find a new place to live. I also have to figure out what to do for affording the rent in that place, even though I own a place that I can’t move into. I’m also responsible for my strata fees, property taxes, water fees, sewer, garbage, insurance, the Burnaby rental licence, heat, light, maintenance” — responsible for everything for the facility that they own — “not to mention, again, the rent that I now have to pay in another place so I can find a place to live.

[3:25 p.m.]

“If I had known this, I would never have rented my place out. It would have been cheaper in the long run just to pay a speculation and vacancy tax, which I was forced to have to pay, rather than renting it out to somebody. This government was no longer there to support me when I was trying to get a tenant out of my facility so I could move back home. When I applied to the residential tenancy branch…. They are telling me now the dispute resolution hearing will not be done until next March or April.”

Think about that. They don’t have a place. They can’t move back into their home. They applied to get these people out so they can move back into their home. They don’t have money coming in for rent. They have to pay rent somewhere else. Costs are through the roof.

As they said here: “I do not know how I will be able to survive this and pay for this, as I am on a tight pension. I had a house that was paid for, and I can’t move back into it. I can’t wait until next March or April. That will be another four or five months that I have to pay rent with no rent coming in on the facility I own. The residential tenancy branch and this government have failed me.”

I have a stack. I didn’t bother printing them all off, because we have limited time. I have a stack of similar emails from people that have said there is absolutely no way, from what they’re hearing out there…. If they own a strata or if they own a place in this 2,900 number that this minister and this government want to keep using….

With the passage of this bill, will they be able to rent it? Of course they will. The rules are changing where they will be able to. I guarantee the minister, though, with stories like this from people who have chosen to do that and are now realizing it’s not working, that many of these people are going to refuse to rent it out because they don’t want that hassle.

There will be a question. I still have seven minutes, though, to the minister. If I want to keep talking, I will, because I think it’s important to get this on the record.

At the end of the day, the minister wants to keep using 2,900 as the minimum that are going to be, obviously, rented. I’ve got other stories here, of that 2,900 number that the Premier and this minister want to use, that are cottages at a lake, maybe up in the Okanagan.

One of them was an 80-year-old woman who has a cottage up there and who is paying the speculation and vacancy tax. It’s been in her family for 60 years, and she said there is absolutely no way they’re going to rent it out to anybody, when it’s been in the family for 60 years, and take that chance and risk. Why? For the occasional weekends when they want to go out with the family and have a barbecue or use their cottage, this little place on the lake in the Okanagan that they’ve had for 60 years. They want to be able to do that, and if they rent it out, they won’t be able to do that.

I’m wanting the minister, I guess, to maybe explain to this House and acknowledge, with me, that just because they were going to force this bill through, using a 2,900 number…. It’s a bit of a sledgehammer approach.

When I said there are 900,000 stratas…. They’re changing these rules and regulations using the number of 2,900 that are going to be rentals, when, with the cases that I’m putting forward today and the numerous — I would say hundreds, if not in the thousands by now — emails that I’ve received…. People are saying that they will not rent this out, that government is using the wrong approach to try to fix the housing crisis.

This doesn’t take away from the talk that we’ve had for the last two days of us being in a housing crisis. But I want the minister to explain, I guess, to this House how this bill, using the 2,900 number that he keeps referencing…. Is it fair to say, through what I just said, that that’s actually not the case? Just because they have the ability to rent it by the passage of this bill does not mean that, as of Monday, we’re going to have 2,900 new rentals on the market in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Rankin: A number of points to the question the member asked that I’d like to try to address.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The 2,900 figure he seems to dwell upon is empty units in strata buildings with rental restrictions in areas subject to the speculation and vacancy tax. That’s just the first answer I gave to the member about how I happen to know that that number at least lined up with what we’re trying to achieve in a housing crisis.

[3:30 p.m.]

I point out that the restriction on rentals is an issue pertaining, in this bill, to those rental units before 2010 only. So when the member talks about numbers of condo units in British Columbia, I would hope that he would reference the fact that after 2010, people can exempt any or all units from rental restrictions that a strata corporation may implement. Effectively, after 2010, rental bans from strata councils are no longer in place, very rarely if ever.

Now, the point that I really want to stress to the member, however, is that we are in a housing crisis, and we think that it is significant that these become available. But “available” is the word. It’s the availability. No one is forcing anyone to rent their units. Many people have told us that they are thrilled to be able to do it. I talked to a young woman in my constituency who lives in a building and now wants to rent a second room because it’s a two-bedroom strata and she could use the income and help somebody who can’t find a house to live in.

These things, to me, are what we’d expect in a housing crisis for people to do. But I guess I have to say to the member, no one is saying that there is an obligation to rent units, only that some people will, we hope, in a housing crisis take up the opportunity to do so. There’s no obligation to do so.

Now, to the specific point that the member talks about from Burnaby, I want to say, first of all, I would be happy, after the session, to take the specifics to my office, as Housing Minister, and try to find a resolution to the issue. I undertake that to the member. But I think it’s important to note that people can apply for an expedited hearing where urgency and fairness justify abbreviated service and response times. Their applications are automatically considered for expedited hearings for landlord applications to seek an end of a tenancy early or for tenant applications for an order of possession or emergency repairs.

I accept that there has been, and have said frequently that there is, a backlog. We had a pandemic, as everyone knows, and we found that there was a backlog in so many areas of public administration. The residential tenancy branch was not exempt from that. But we have taken steps to hire an additional number of people, 30 full-time-equivalents within the last year and a half, seven arbitrators.

There is a need to get that backlog addressed, and I’ve made that a priority in my office. So there are remedies available in the circumstances that the member raises. But we think that our best guess is that people will find the additional income useful, that they can now rent those units for, again, strata buildings that were pre-2010. Post-2010 it’s been a fact of life for the last 12 years. Pre-2010 is the only area we’re capturing in this, and we’re saying people should have the right to rent their units to people who are desperate for housing.

M. Bernier: Since the minister brought up 2010, when the rules were changed, I want to reference the Condominium Home Owners Association of British Columbia, who actually has a lot of the data and a lot of the information. I’ll read directly from their press release that they put out just this week referencing this bill — that we need to know.

“Many strata corporations pre-2010 within metropolitan areas of British Columbia of 50 units or more actually do not have, already, rental bylaws or restrictions or permit a minimum number of rentals.” This is their own data.

Just because, as the minister is saying, this law came into effect in 2010 to restrict doesn’t mean that everybody prior to 2010 was restricting rentals. In their own data, it goes on to say how many of them already have rental allowability. Some have chosen not to, but it says many already allow it.

I want to read out this paragraph from their press release. I think it’s important when we talk about facts, because facts are important if we’re actually going to have legislation that this government thinks is going to fix the problem. And a problem, yes, we have. The challenge is, a lot of people are now saying, this is not the right approach to actually fix the problem that was created, and there could be other mechanisms that this government should be looking at.

[3:35 p.m.]

But I want to quote out of here. “With the cooperation of all the strata corporations of Metro Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George and Kelowna, the major condominium homeowner areas and the homeowner associations, which represents 250,000 members across British Columbia, we have been closely monitoring our rental and occupancy rates in our stratas to determine if rental bylaws have had any impact at all on occupancy rates, to the detriment of our housing market.”

It continues: “Our study has found” — which was conducted in 2016, I will add, and then updated again in 2018 and then again in 2022; they’ve done it multiple times, checking into this — “the greatest vacancy rate is actually within buildings constructed since 2010.”

Think about that for a second. The greatest vacancy rates are actually in condominiums, right now, that allow rentals already, It’s not in the ones, the majority, that were built prior to 2010. Again, the greatest vacancy rates are “within buildings constructed since 2010 that have no rental restrictions, and that vacancy rate is averaging between 18 to 24 percent.”

To the minister’s point, there’s vacancy out there, definitely, in some places, but by their own study of all of their 250,000 members, 18 to 24 percent are ones from the newer years that already have no rental restrictions.

I want to finish with this: “At the same time, when we evaluated properties that actually have rental bylaws….” Listen to this one. “The ones that actually have rental restrictions are actually owner-occupied and have a vacancy rate of zero percent to just under 4 percent.” So the expectation that the removal of rental bylaws that this legislation is looking at doing will result in a solution for rental housing actually has no correlation to the statistics that will actually achieve any positive outcomes that this government is trying to say.

I’m wondering what the minister has to say to the 250,000 members across British Columbia that are part of the Condominium Home Owners Association, based on their own data, that says there actually isn’t vacancy right now. Why? Because people are living in them. People own them. People have purchased them. They’re not vacant.

I’ll get into some commentary later on, as I’m sure my colleagues will, on why there is such a high vacancy rate in Victoria and in Vancouver, in places that allow rentals. I’ll get into that one after. But based on the stats that they have collected themselves in the province of British Columbia, does the minister disagree with their numbers? And if he doesn’t, then how is this legislation going to solve anything based on that information?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member raising the study by the Condominium Home Owners Association. We are aware of that study, and my officials have been examining it carefully and trying to make sense of the conclusions that they draw. It is their view that those conclusions are not warranted for broader application because the sample of strata corporations included was so tiny and not at all representative of stratas around British Columbia.

It included just six or eight buildings with rental restriction bylaws and an equal number without rental restriction bylaws. Moreover, all the buildings were larger than 60 units, and all were in Vancouver. The study also didn’t control for significant variables like how old each building was and whether it allowed short-term rentals.

I think it’s important to put this in a broader context. I think the member and I agree that we’re in a housing crisis. I want to refer to a couple of quotes just to broaden the debate. The mayor of Kelowna, Tom Dyas, has recently said: “We welcome the changes to the Strata Property Act regarding rentals and age restrictions. I think it is something that has been good. It creates another option to expand housing inventory in the short term, while other aspects of government plans look to the longer term.”

[3:40 p.m.]

This is what Aaron Jasper, a real estate agent, was quoted as saying on CKNW radio on November 22: “I thought it was great, to be honest. I think that it’s good not only for renters, but I also think it’s good for the people who are living in stratas that have restricted rentals. I think there’s unfortunately a perception that renters are — I don’t know — not to be trusted, but I think that renters, people who are not in a position to buy, should be given a fair shake.”

A. Olsen: There’s a whole lot in what has been said just in the last few minutes. If I can just give my experience as an MLA whose….

Part of my constituency is within the speculation and vacancy tax, and part of it is out. When the speculation and vacancy tax was first brought in back in 2018, I met with a lot — many, many dozens, maybe hundreds — of people who were being impacted by the SVT. There was a variety of different types of people in different situations that were being impacted by the tax. Some of those folks are folks that live part of the time in one part of our country and part of the time in another part of our country.

I guess what I have a difficult time with, in the government using the number 2,900…. This is aside from the policy itself, I think, that we’re moving here and that we’re amending. Using the number 2,900 units in buildings in SVT areas as a way to build momentum on a policy….

When you get underneath the surface a little bit, you realize that, actually, there are a number of those units that are not empty, as the SVT criteria outlines. They’re empty because for six months of the year, people don’t live in them. So they’re charged the SVT.

Now, what has happened here is the minister is conflating that situation as an opportunity for future rentals. What it’s done…. I’ll tell you what it’s done. It’s made life really difficult. It has left the impression that we’re doing something that we might not be doing. It’s got a whole lot of people excited who are actually scrambling to find houses. It’s, potentially, got their hopes up that something is going to be coming of this that may not actually be there.

My question to the minister is this. How many units of…?

We collect the SVT in a number of areas. The minister and the Premier yesterday…. They have all identified that there are 2,900 units in pre-2010 buildings that have rental restrictions on them that will be available for rent — this is their language — starting tomorrow or starting whenever this bill comes into force. That’s the rhetoric behind the promotion of this bill.

How many units identified in the SVT tax of post-2010 buildings that are empty, not the condominium owners association numbers, the Ministry of Finance numbers, post-2010 buildings that are paying the SVT and that have to fill out the paperwork and pay the SVT…? Exactly the same number that the minister is using, for clarity…. Exactly the same criteria that the minister is using to talk about 2,900 pre-2010…. I’m looking for that exact same number post-2010.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. I think the point that I would try to emphasize is that we’re trying to use this as merely one indication of what might be out there in potential rentals, given that, post 2010, members of strata corporations could rent, and are allowed to rent freely, their units. So we’re dealing with a universe that’s pre-2010, I think, to a large extent.

We said that we have people who are in the areas such as where the member represents, who are part of the strata, who are applying for an exemption under the speculation and vacancy tax, and 2,900 of those people have done so, but they are all in the pre-2010 strata corporation world.

I understand that there are single-family issues, and so on, but this is only with respect to strata corporations. That is merely a point of departure as we try to get a handle on just how big an issue this could be. It’s one indicator, but we expect — since there are many other condos that predate 2010 and that are subject to rental restrictions — that others will now take advantage of the opportunity to rent them.

I don’t want that to be the sole issue, because that’s only the first point of departure to answer the question that was asked — about how many people are there likely to be helped as a consequence of this amendment. It’s not easy to know that, because we don’t have all the data. So I use that as merely a point of departure. What I do know is that many people who are in the real estate world have said very positive things about their predictions for success.

I have another Re/Max agent, a real estate agent in Vancouver, who, again, on CKNW on November 22, said this — Glenn Warren: “Buildings that are 20, 30 or sometimes 40 years old — most of those are very restrictive on renters, and it’s very hard to rent those units. There are lots of empty units in those buildings, just because people can’t rent their unit out.”

We are expecting this to create more units. In a housing crisis, I can’t predict with accuracy — any more than anyone else in this place can — exactly how many units would be liberated and available for rent, but I reiterate: we have a housing crisis. This is merely one tool in the toolkit to make a difference in people’s lives.

A. Olsen: I don’t dispute that. That wasn’t the point of the question, and I think the minister understands that he just answered a question that I didn’t ask. At least I hope he does. What I was trying to identify was that the approach that has been taken here is to dangle a large number in front of British Columbians and say: “These are the potential number of units that we are going to liberate, because these are units that are currently behind rental restrictions.”

We are then supposed to follow the logic that the government is using that, then, by removing those rental restrictions, those units will become available for rent. That’s the thing that people who are looking for a place, specifically an affordable place, are latching onto. But I’ve sat for many, many 30-minute meetings in my constituency, knowing that many of those people — not all of them — don’t have any intention to rent it. They have an intention of living in one part of Canada for one part of the year and another part of Canada in the other part of the year.

That is their intention. They’re bitter about having to pay an SVT. That’s why they came and met with me in my constituency office. But suggesting that those people’s units are available for rent after this…. Yes, we can suggest that that’s the case. The point that I’m making, in asking the question…. Again, this is not about the policy. This is about making a point, about how the government is communicating this.

Yesterday we had a Premier that stood up, pointed across and said: “Yeah, you didn’t support a housing initiative.” So it’s been politicized. There has been treachery created in this, and part of that treachery is in how the numbers are being framed.

[3:50 p.m.]

The reason why I asked the question about how many empty units are paying SVT in post-2010 buildings is because I want to be able to put one number here and one number next to it, to show that there are people in our province that are making a choice to own a building and pay the SVT, even in buildings where there’s a potential for rental.

That doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not I’m going to support or not support this initiative. That’s just to show that this government’s communication of this is what is dangerous. It is the politicization of a very, very challenging, and desperately challenging, housing crisis that people are experiencing every day in our province. For us to put a number out there, 2,900, people go: “Wow, we’re going to have a massive solution to a problem.”

What I am trying to get to in this bill, at the very last few moments of the waning hours of the waning minutes of this session, is: what kind of analysis was done?

Frankly, it’s coming out that not much analysis was done. Maybe the point was only the point made at the end of question period yesterday in this, where we have a Premier that stood up and said that there were members in this place that voted against housing — at second reading, by the way. They voted for housing later. But that’s not the point. The point is political communications, right? The point is political communications.

How many units are within the SVT area, post-2010, equivalent to the 2,900-unit number that the Ministry of Housing received from the Ministry of Finance? Please get the other number, from the Ministry of Finance, of the post-2010 buildings that are remaining vacant for six months less a day, or whatever that exact frame is, so that we can put these numbers side by side. Again, this is just about the numbers.

Hon. M. Rankin: To the member, thank you. I regret if the communication was problematic in the member’s eyes. We’re trying to find a particular answer to a question that is at the core of this, which is how many units will be liberated as a consequence of this.

We took one measure from one data set that we did have. Other measures are hard to predict because we do not, I believe, know exactly how many units are subject to rent restrictions at the present time in all parts of British Columbia. But people, as the member will well know, with empty units can choose to add their units to the rental market or pay the speculation and vacancy tax.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Rankin: The people with empty units can choose to add those units to the rental market, or they can choose to pay the speculation and vacancy tax — begrudgingly, as the member has acknowledged.

Of course, when they do that, that goes directly into funding. Both of those options are helping us in the housing crisis. To the numbers, we expect that there will be many, many people who will take advantage of this new ability to rent condos. I’ve given examples, just from my circle of people, who are now able to do that and who weren’t before.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister just give us the information on the revenues thus far from the speculation and vacancy tax?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. That’s, of course, data that the Ministry of Finance would have. I believe there was an annual report tabled just yesterday on the SVT, or not. I had understood that it was to be made available.

I don’t have current data, since it’s not pertinent to the bill under debate.

S. Furstenau: All right. I’ll ask the question. My understanding is it’s $78 million, but the Minister of Housing, perhaps, can give us data on how many affordable units have been created since the speculation and vacancy tax has come in. As Minister of Housing, I would hope that that data would be available.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I have no idea how to answer the member’s question. I don’t know what the definition of “affordable” is in a market like ours, which varies, of course, from one part of the province to another. Her term of reference for affordability is something for which I don’t think there’s universal agreement — on the definition of that term.

Of course, it’s not pertinent to this specific section that we’re debating. So I’m not prepared to answer that, since I cannot answer a question on the section that’s at issue here — perhaps in another venue, but not clause by clause on this particular bill. I’m sorry. I’m not able to do that.

M. Bernier: I just want to maybe assist in the conversation here, based on some of the questions that came from the Third Party and to help put things into context. I have the government’s own data that was just released and that the minister didn’t have available, but I want to put it in context, because this is based on people who, as of this year, are paying the speculation and vacancy tax — part of the 2,900 that this government is using.

Just to go with what the minister said earlier, I’m not the one using 2,900. It was the minister and the Premier that actually used the 2,900 number in their announcements with this piece of legislation. They stood, just on the other side of these doors here, and actually made an announcement that they were bringing in this amazing piece of legislation. When the media asked, even the Premier referenced 2,900 people who pay the speculation and vacancy tax that this will make available — I want to make sure that I’m accurate in my wording to agree with the minister — if they choose to rent. That doesn’t mean they are going to rent.

Let’s put some of this in context for a moment, if I can, when we talk about these 2,900, to kind of go along with the Third Party’s questions here. Let’s look at the greater Victoria area, here, and around this region. In central Saanich, 11 units applied for the speculation and vacancy tax. In Colwood, nine. In Esquimalt, a few more, 26.

This is the one I love. In the past Premier’s riding, in Langford, zero. View Royal, eight. Oak Bay — quite a bit more in the actual minister’s riding compared to anywhere else in the region here — 84 people who applied for the speculation and vacancy tax were paying that.

I don’t know if they’re cheering as much as the minister is. He wants to celebrate the fact that 84 of his constituents are forced to pay a tax because they don’t live in their house year-round, probably. They’re fortunate enough to have other places that they live in, in other parts of the year. Again, in Maple Ridge it’s only 19; in North Vancouver, 40; city of Langley, only ten; Chilliwack, 61; Abbotsford, 99. Abbotsford is the highest in that list. Again, to put it in context, we are in a housing crisis.

In the greater Victoria area and the entire south part of Vancouver Island — I didn’t do the math as I was reading it out — it sounds like it was probably about 150 to 200 units of people in this entire region that pay the speculation and vacancy tax, say 200. To the Minister’s own admission, he can’t tell us for sure that any of those 200 will actually be rented out and create an opportunity for a family to go into as of next week. All he’s saying is that this bill may allow them to rent it.

I think what I’m hearing — through not only the people who are paying the speculation and vacancy tax but everybody else — is: “If you’re going to change anything, stop charging us the speculation and vacancy tax.” That’s the issue for these people. Hardly any of these people are saying: “Thank God, this bill is coming forward. So I can now rent my place out for five, six months a year.” I’ve already referenced why so many of them don’t want to. They’re not the astronomical numbers that we actually need.

[4:00 p.m.]

I mean, if you look at downtown Victoria here, I’m saying that there are only, like, 20. Well, even if 50 percent of them come out on Monday and say, “This is great. I can now rent my place for half the year,” that’s ten units. I’m sure the minister and anybody else in this crisis would say that’s ten more than we had yesterday. Fair enough. But how far does that go to actually solving this housing crisis that’s been getting worse and worse under this government?

My point, that I just want to reference, is that it’s unfortunate, the political narrative and dialogue that we’ve heard, that the members of the Green Party talked about, of politicizing this crisis where we’ve got to, especially in a situation where we’re talking about 2,900 units.

What we should be talking about is what we are going to be doing to build the supply to meet the demand that’s out there. This bill has nothing to do with it. If we’re all, in this House, collectively acknowledging we’re in a crisis, bringing forward a piece of legislation that may or may not do anything at all doesn’t seem like it’s going to hit the mark.

Now, I’m going to allow a few people to ask a few more questions before I get into some other problems that I see with this, because I want to get to the point — I’ll just flag this for some of the next discussion — of unintended consequences for people who have massive investments, the largest investment in their life, as we’ve all acknowledged and as the Housing Minister has said and others in the NDP, who are now fearing that their investment is at risk.

Who is going to be responsible if that happens? I’ll save that question, when we allow other members to maybe finish off on this topic first, depending on if the minister wants to rebut anything I just said.

Hon. M. Rankin: What we know about the speculation and vacancy tax seems to be at issue here. So 20,000 units have become available for rent. Some people, as the member suggested, are choosing to pay the tax, and that money is going directly in to help address the housing crisis. But there are 20,000 units that we know of that have been made available. We think that’s significant in a housing crisis. I understand that the party opposite does not support the speculation and vacancy tax, notwithstanding that that result has occurred.

No one can force people to rent, and no one is intending to force people to rent. That’s not the point of the bill. Options are being created as a result of removing rental restrictions on condominiums before 2010, where they were a fact.

I’m not here to discuss the communication of this measure. I thought we were dealing with the content of the measure. The content of the measure is to say that people in condominiums, townhouses and rowhouses, all of which are strata property, are now able to rent their units that wouldn’t have been able, in the past, to do so. We think that will make a difference. We’re not trying to suggest it’s the only tool in the toolkit. It appears that the party opposite does not believe that is a tool worth applying to the crisis. We do.

S. Furstenau: While I realize it’s a little bit out of the scope of the actual bill, we are talking about housing and we are talking about the speculation and vacancy tax. Yes, I agree. It has delivered units in the way that the minister has explained, and the minister just indicated that the revenues are meant to go directly into ensuring that there is affordable housing. That was one of the pieces of the story around the speculation and vacancy tax.

I just want to ask the question about: where is the accountability to ensure that those revenues are actually resulting in affordable housing, as was the intention, and what the minister just reiterated, of the revenues from the speculation and vacancy tax?

Interjections.

The Chair: Could I ask members who are having side conversations to step outside the chamber, please? We have very little time in here, and it’s important that we not interrupt.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks about accountability for revenues, as I understand it, under the speculation and vacancy tax, a tax administered by the Ministry of Finance. We are here as the Ministry of Housing to discuss sections of the Strata Property Amendment Act, so I’m really not prepared to talk about that. Nor do I know, again, what her definition of “affordable” is in this market.

I can say that $7 billion is being made available to B.C. Housing over ten years to address the housing crisis, as one component of the work that needs to be done.

A. Olsen: I think this is probably where we depart from the comments that have been made by the official opposition, because I actually think that there is potential for this to be part of the supply response — potential for this. What I’ve been trying to get to is to understand the numbers that the government has been putting out as the potential supply that’s there.

The analysis has been done to understand what the real supply is. I think that if a law is changing, that removes a restriction on a certain part of the housing stock and puts them into rentals, that is actually increasing the supply. I think that’s probably what the minister has been saying all along in this.

However, I guess the…. In addition to that, I think that when it comes to this policy, probably the most effective communications tool — and you’re welcome to borrow it, if you want — is the post-2010 condo units, strata units, that are in stratas. They are the greatest example of the success of what this could be.

We’re getting these emails from people. They’re saying to us that they’re uncomfortable with this change, fear of the unknown. We don’t know what the world is going to be that we live in after this. We can say, “Look to the post-2010 buildings,” because I can tell you that as a constituency MLA, in my constituency, I have not had an overwhelming number of people coming to me and saying that all of the issues that have been raised here as concerns are a massive amount or a huge burden, some amount of concerns, on my constituency.

Now, I might be inviting a whole pile of emails that I hadn’t previously…. But I think that the problem when…. I really want to put this out there, because the big issue in terms of supply of affordable rental housing in my riding is not in this bill; it is in short-term vacation rentals. This government has not moved to regulate short-term vacation rentals. Inside the SVT area, outside the SVT area, in the southern Gulf Islands, short-term vacation rentals are eviscerating the long-term housing stock, and this government has done nothing.

If we want to put units of housing into the market for renters long term, we would be moving with great speed, much greater speed that we’re moving on this bill even, to put meaningful restrictions on short-term vacation rentals. But we’ve not done that. Why has this minister chosen to deal with this particular policy area in removing this and not have in this bill…? This bill is dealing with two policy areas. Why not make it a third policy area and also include restrictions on short-term vacation rentals, which would do a great deal of help in my communities in the southern Gulf Islands?

Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to start by saying thank you to the member for such a clear presentation and one that I sympathize with a great deal, I just want to say. I want to thank the member for the advice, frankly, on how to better communicate the need for this. The world didn’t come to a screeching halt in 2010 when rentals were allowed in condos. I haven’t got any note. I have not received a single letter about that, so I tend to share the perspective and the experience that the member has.

[4:10 p.m.]

I also would take advantage of this opportunity to thank the member again, because I believe, and he will correct me if I’m wrong, that he was a member of the Rental Housing Task Force in 2018, and that recommended banning rental restrictions at the time. I appreciate when the member said he may be parting company from the official opposition…. I suspect that may be what he was signalling; I don’t know. But I appreciate his work on this subject.

I have a concern about short-term rentals, as does the government. Two things. One, it’s clear that stratas can still limit short-term rentals should they choose. Two, the Premier has said, as recently as three days ago, that it is one of the things that desperately needs to be examined, and in particular areas. However, he was quick to say…. He referenced, I recall, Tofino as an example where in that community, short-term rentals are important as a component of the tourist housing stock. So one size does not fit all.

I know the member represents some of the Gulf Islands, and I’m acutely aware of the problem to which he refers and, frankly, sympathize enormously with the point he’s making. But the Premier is seized with this issue, as he has indicated publicly, and again, I stress that stratas can still limit short-term rentals, and I hope they do.

A. Olsen: Finally for me on this policy point, I think, as a member of that Rental Housing Task Force, we were seized with a variety of…. We had 30, 40…. There were a lot of recommendations. The enforcement piece that the government did in 2019 was a big part of that, and if I had more time, I would take more time to understand how effective that enforcement body that was brought in, in May of 2019, has been.

The government has not moved on the removal of rentals from the pre-2010 buildings for four years — more than four years, because it’s now October of 2022. I think I got that right. But anyway. So I guess for me, when I….

I know that we put that as a recommendation, but we didn’t specifically do much in terms of the analysis of the impact. We didn’t have the capacity to do a deep dive in the analysis of what that impact might be. So when I came here today, I came here prepared to ask questions largely around what work has been done in addition to the work that we did in making those recommendations. We put a suite of proposals. The government took them away and did analysis on them and moved the suite, brought in the 30-point plan, then brought in the enforcement piece a little later on.

My hope was to hear today from the current minister and from the government that there has been some more deep analysis done on what the impacts of this could be because, actually, those emails that my colleague from Peace River South had been talking about are people who are living in a place and who are now experiencing fear that the place that they’re living in is changing. We have a duty, as people in this place who are responsible for making those laws, to be able to clearly articulate to them information that will ease their fears.

They are people that purchased a situation. They purchased a dream. I used the example yesterday. What ethical responsibility do we have as legislators when someone buys a blue cube with hopes and dreams filling it and we tell them now that it’s a yellow pyramid with undefinable content inside it? That’s essentially what’s happening here.

We as legislators need to be able to explain to people what the impact is, and we need to be able to reassure them, when we’re making these changes, that we’ve done the necessary analysis that things are going to be okay with their living situation — with, as has been pointed out, their number one investment and, in many cases, the only thing that they have.

I think that’s the duty that we have here when we’re making these changes, and fear is driving a lot of the emails that come in about the unknown. What we are hoping to do in the committee stage of these debates is add a little bit of definition and contour, a little bit of texture to the unknown so that we can go back to our constituencies when this place adjourns, in just a few minutes, and reassure people that government has done their work, done their homework, answered the questions and given us the reassurances.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: To the member, again, I know that he was a core member of the 2018 Rental Housing Task Force, which made recommendations to no longer allow strata rental restriction bylaws. I thank him for that.

I know he, in the process of that, did a considerable amount of consultation with not just the rental community but the strata community as well. Certainly, staff consulted with key strata organizations since then and conducted additional research and policy analysis.

I should tell you that ministry staff, however, got somewhat deterred or diverted along that route because of COVID. Of course, their responsibilities for finding housing, particularly for the homeless, etc., became a key priority. That was something that might…. Perhaps this could have come in earlier without the COVID pandemic. I’m not able to speculate on that, but I suspect that’s the case.

The member talks about the fear of change that people are responding to here and a need for better communications to address those fears. I think that’s very fair commentary, and we will take under advisement the member’s suggestion that we can do better on that. The most significant part of that is that after 2010, this has not been a thing for any condos that have existed.

The fear of change, which this member is pointing to, is something we need to do a better job of alleviating. I can say that we have that point. We understand that. No one is requiring anyone to rent their condo units if they choose not to. However, we expect that, given the housing crisis, many people will stand up and do the right thing and assist us, on a one-to-one human basis, to address that.

S. Furstenau: My colleague raised the issue of short-term rentals, which are a form of financialization of housing, of commodification of housing, and one of the problems we have that has led us to this crisis. We’re all agreeing that there is a pretty significant crisis — that financialization of housing.

Is the minister concerned that these changes will open more units up for investors and investing bodies — like real estate investment trusts — and corporate investors to see these units as, yet again, a way to increase their investments, which keeps housing as this commodity? Will there be monitoring of this issue?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for her question. This is something that, of course, we’ve been alive to.

I’m very pleased to say that the B.C. Real Estate Association has said that they think it is unlikely that would occur. They are on record as saying that they do not believe it will drive up the sale of units.

Stratas formed after 2010 already are unable to ban rentals. This is levelling the playing field and opening up new housing.

One of the major pressures, of course, on prices has been supply. We need more housing of all types. We are building more supply under the legislation that I just referred to.

Global TV asked the B.C. Real Estate Association that on November 22. They said the scenario of investors swooping in and artificially pumping up the prices on this unit was “unlikely.”

S. Furstenau: Does the minister expect that his government would introduce any measures to specifically prohibit REITs from making greater incursions into the real estate market in this province?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, are entities that have been mostly involved in our community in purchasing rental buildings. Their exposure to the strata market appears to be less pronounced because of the complexity of purchasing an entire strata corporation. Rental buildings, of course, are a different matter because there’s one owner. That transaction occurs, and REITs have been an increasing component of the market.

The Premier has said, as part of his plan…. I stress to the member, again, that what we’re discussing today is only part of a larger plan, many parts of which will continue to unfold. He’s on record as opposing flipping and talked about a deterrent tax on the flipping of houses, as other jurisdictions have done. He has also talked about REITs.

That is not, of course, what we’re here to talk about today. I can advise the member, on the issue of strata property, that REITs don’t seem to be as significant a part of the market as they are in the rental building market.

S. Furstenau: Along with these changes that are proposed in these amendments, is there any expectation that there will be additional measures to support volunteers on strata councils?

Hon. M. Rankin: One of the things that we hope will occur, thanks to the amendments that have already been addressed here today, is the ability for people to vote electronically.

You might think: what does that have to do with the member’s question? I know people who have child care responsibilities, who can’t easily go to an evening meeting of a strata council, who have told me that this will really make a difference for them. They can call in and participate, become part of the community that they’re part of, as a member of the strata council, in a much easier way.

They won’t have to find child care, go to an evening meeting, come home. They can participate online, and I think that will make a big difference to a lot of people.

S. Furstenau: I hope that does, indeed, make a difference for people.

I’m just going to wrap up our questions on this and hand it back to the official opposition.

All of the conversation we’ve had around these proposed changes, the kind of communication that’s coming out around the 2,900 units, the questions that have been raised on that…. Can the minister commit that an analysis of this change will be done and that data will be released a year from now providing an accounting of how many rental units this has added to the market so that the public can know what changes have been effected by this legislation?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for her question and thank her for her participation in the debate today. She indicated this was her last question. So I wanted to say that.

She asked if we could commit to an analysis and release of data one year from now on how many units were added as a consequence of these changes. I think that’s a question that’s worth taking under advisement and considering. I think it makes good sense if we could do so.

I’m advised by my staff that getting data for that may be difficult. We had the data under the speculation and vacancy tax. That’s no longer, of course, going to be pertinent. So how one would acquire that data, exactly how one would do that, the experts are telling me, is problematic. But definitely, I think it’s something to consider, if it can be done.

I think the member makes an excellent point. We’ll take it under advisement.

M. Bernier: Thank you to my colleagues from the other party, the Third Party, for their good questions as we kind of tag-team back and forth here on this important issue.

I want to pick back up on the Airbnb short-term rental conversation. The minister, under his own acknowledgment, has said that this is a huge issue. In fact, I’ve got some documentation and statistics around that that are quite alarming. To the minister’s own point, there are some circumstances, which he could reference and which I’ve heard, where maybe it is beneficial in certain areas, but over and over, we see this as a problem. In fact, one of the studies that was done — again, combining a few things here….

With the Condominium Home Owners Association, after I read out their stats, even since rentals have been allowed, since 2010…. As I mentioned, 18 to 24 percent of the units constructed after 2010, with no rental restrictions, have the highest…. That’s where the highest level of vacancy is, according to their data. When they’re using that, they’re talking long-term rentals.

It’s followed up by saying that the greatest loss of rental units identified in these last ten years is actually attributed to the short-term accommodations, as the number of potential rental units has actually been pulled out of the stock, really, helping local men, women, families be able to rent. Now they’re with investors, for the most part, that are using them for short-term rentals to make money.

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing in the whole concept of “we need to ensure that there’s flexibility out there for investors as well,” but not to the extent of the fact that we are actually so negatively impacting our rental stock. That’s hurting our young and, I would say, old — anybody who’s trying to get into either rent or a strata situation.

[4:30 p.m.]

I won’t ask the minister the obvious. Where in this bill does it say that they will be dealing with short-term rentals? By his own acknowledgment, it’s not in there, which, I guess, raises some concern. The question then is: did this government choose to rush this bill through, without doing its due diligence to actually try to hit the mark on where a lot of the major issues are that could be resolved or assisted?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

In fact, I’ve got another one here from Victoria, dealing with stratas in Victoria. This organization said:

“It baffles us to understand why the government has failed to limit, restrict or end the epidemic of Airbnb and short-term rentals when here, in the southern part of Vancouver Island alone, there are thousands of units that are being used for short-term rentals, taken away from the rental stock, from locals who need it, continuing to build on the housing crisis that we have, with fewer rental stocks. We need to remember that these are investors that are flipping a property every three days for their own benefit, rather than helping out local people.”

Then I’ve got one here, too, from another person in Victoria, a strata manager. I won’t give the name of the strata that they manage; I don’t want to get to that detail. They did not give me permission to do that, but they asked me to reference this in the House. They’ve been monitoring their strata here in Victoria. “Without exception, every sale of a unit that has happened in our building over the last six years has been to investors, who have then turned around and used them for short-term Airbnb.”

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The minister is saying “exactly.” That is what we’ve been talking about as a huge part of the problem.

We are losing thousands and thousands of units right here in the Victoria area, not because we’re not allowing rentals. In fact, it was because we were allowing rentals. I’m raising that because the government is trying to convince people that having this piece of legislation that, to their own narrative, talked about 2,900 units in speculation and vacancy tax, using those numbers, but never referenced the thousands of units that are even right here in downtown Victoria and area that are being used for short-term rentals.

Now, some would argue it’s been great for the tourism sector, but that’s an argument for another day, on the pros and cons of short-term rentals and Airbnb. What we’re talking about today is trying to solve the housing crisis in the province of British Columbia.

If that’s the case, if that’s what we’re trying to do…. I just acknowledged and the minister agreed with me that we have thousands of units that are being scooped up and not being used to help the young men, women and families in this area that are looking for rental accommodations, and these are already units that allow rentals. Why did the government, when they put through this piece of legislation, not add or consider some kinds of changes in the legislation to either prohibit or at least address the short-term rental situation that is negatively affecting the people of British Columbia?

This was their chance. It sounds like they almost want to. They’ve talked about it. Why did they rush this legislation and not wait, maybe until the spring, and do it all at once and actually, truly have a piece of legislation that maybe everybody could support because it was going to help people right away?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks why we didn’t do certain things, as if we had the ability to do everything all at once in a crisis. We’ve taken two significant measures in two bills today that have been under discussion. First, the Housing Supply Act — I’m pleased that the opposition chose to support that at the end — and then this bill, which will eliminate age restrictions on rentals, something that we’re almost alone in the country in permitting but no longer will be doing. Families will be able to stay in their units.

[4:35 p.m.]

It sounds, from the member’s comments, that he is recognizing the importance of getting more rental units and condos onto the market. At least, that’s what I thought he was saying, but he signalled earlier that he doesn’t agree with getting more rental units onto the market at a time of a housing crisis. But he’s now asking us why we didn’t we do something else and then something else again. I’m the first to acknowledge there are many things that need to be done. I’m the first to acknowledge short-term rentals are an issue. Indeed, the Premier has made a commitment to address that issue.

It is complicated. The member himself acknowledged that in his reference to questions in Victoria, where I happen to live. He made the comment that there may be complexity because of the tourism industry. Yes, there is. People are divided on that in this community. They are divided on that in Tofino. They’re divided on that in Whistler.

There are many places where we need to be granular in how we deal with short-term rentals. I think that’s his message. Therefore, it takes time to get it right, so we don’t fall into what the member has referred to several times today: the law of unintended consequences.

Do we think this is important? Yes. Do we accept the example that the member gave? Yes. I know the building, I suspect, that the member is referring to, and it’s troubling. In a housing crisis, it’s troubling. Steps will be taken, is what the Premier has committed to.

But in the specifics of this bill — which is, after all, what we’re talking about — short-term rental strata bylaws are independent of strata rental restriction bylaws. Stratas are still entitled to prohibit short-term rentals in their building, and they do so rather routinely.

The second thing that this government has done already on short-term rentals is the fact that they have raised the maximum fine for violating a strata short-term rental bylaw from what was $200 a week to $1,000 a day. I think that’s a pretty concrete recognition that the government gets it.

M. Bernier: I apologize if I didn’t hear the minister correctly. I don’t believe, at any time, I’ve said I don’t support increasing our rental stock. Of course I do. On this side of the House, we recognize that we are in a crisis. And under the NDP government, it hasn’t gotten better; it’s gotten worse.

Of course we understand that we have to look at all aspects. We’ve always supported a diversity of housing that’s needed in the province of British Columbia, whether that’s supportive housing, housing that has wraparound services to help vulnerable people in our communities, whether that’s rental that’s required, whether it’s strata purchase, whether it’s single-family detached homes.

Obviously all of this, and all of the spectrum…. In fact, in the last bill we talked about, about the housing supply, we talked about the diversity that’s required. I spoke, I thought, at the time about my support for making sure that we build that diversity. So of course, making sure that we have the opportunity for rent and rental units is a large component of that.

I’ve got family members that have rented their entire lives. They don’t actually want to buy. They want to rent. That’s a choice that people make. But speaking of choice, there are a lot of people who have made the choice to purchase into a strata, and that strata, when they purchased it, did not allow rentals. Now they’re worried that their investment is at risk. Even though the minister tried to reference a couple of real estate agents that said it may or may not happen, they’re worried about the pressure that they will now have, as rentals come on, of developers or investors purchasing those, whether it’s for short-term or long-term rent.

But the biggest concern that I’m hearing from a lot of people, even in some of these ones that are 55-plus, for instance…. These are people, in some cases, that have lived in them for 20 or 30 years, and they made their investment purchase based on the rules at the time that there were no rentals allowed in that complex. In fact, not only was their purchase based on that, but they’ve continued, year after year, to have strata meetings to discuss whether they would change to allow rentals or not. These strata owners have decided that no, they don’t want rentals.

[4:40 p.m.]

As I said earlier, there is zero percent to 4 percent, at the high, of vacancy in places that don’t allow rentals. Again, why? It’s because people have chosen to use that as a place that they want to live, raise their family, be part of a community. They know their investment. They’re invested in that facility.

You look at some of these places where you might only…. Small stratas where there are ten, 15, 20 units — it’s a community. It’s their own community. They work together. They ensure that they upkeep that facility as a group.

One of the unintended consequences, since we’ve been using that terminology a fair bit over the last couple days, is if all of a sudden somebody sells a unit and it’s allowed to rent, and a developer or an investor comes in, they don’t have that vested interest in the upkeep, maintenance or the loyalty, I’ll even say, to the infrastructure of the building or the people who live in it. What are they worried about? “Can I rent it, and what’s my rate of return on my investment?” That can have negative effects now on the complex or the people who choose to live in it.

I believe it was asked a little bit earlier, possibly from the member for Nechako Lakes. But I want to ask again. I know the answer, but I want the minister to be able to say this.

In a small strata situation, for instance, where it’s 100 percent owned right now and everybody is committed to that facility and they don’t want rentals, will they be allowed to grandfather themselves and say: “We do not allow rentals as long as we are all living in here, because we are vested. It is our facility. We want to ensure that we respect each other as neighbours in this facility, because we’ve been living together for 20 or 30 years already, and the last thing we want is to have an investor slowly nipping away and taking over our building that we actually cherish, love and hope to live and possibly age, maybe even die in”?

Hon. M. Rankin: I may have misunderstood the member and inferred improperly. I inferred, from his questions, that he opposed the amendment under consideration that would remove the ability of strata corporations to have rental restrictions. That is what we’re talking about. If I improperly inferred that he, in fact supports this, I apologize.

We do have a rental housing crisis. He’s acknowledged that. He mentions the community of Victoria, which has a 1 percent vacancy rate — 1 percent. It’s beyond my comprehension that people wouldn’t see that change is needed to address that, at a time like this. We hope the community would recognize that and step up.

The member has made a number of suggestions as to how other things involving short-term rentals and other things would make a difference, yet I still think he appears to oppose this measure. If so, he doesn’t seem to include that in the list of things — the tools in the toolkit, as I put it — that need to be taken at this critical time. We just simply believe that these provisions would make an important difference.

I’m not entirely sure what the question is, but if I’m wrong in inferring from his commentary that he opposes section 18, which is the section under question, I stand corrected.

M. Bernier: I know we’re running really short on time here, so I’m going to try to make a couple of comments, because we still have a few sections that I want to make sure we get to on this.

I think what I’m trying to highlight here is the fact that this is not, in any way, the silver bullet on fixing the housing crisis that the government appears to think that it is, because of the impacts that I think it will have on the people who are existing. I gave data and stats and numbers of the people on the ground. These aren’t my numbers. I’m sharing the experts and the people in the know on the fact….

The ministry even said that there’s only 1 percent vacancy. I believe the minister said 1 percent vacancy here in Victoria, and he’s nodding. So allowing rentals doesn’t necessarily fix that either, in Victoria. If there’s 1 percent vacancy, that means people are living in the facilities, because we already talked about the very, very few that are vacant because of the speculation and vacancy tax. So allowing rentals is one thing.

[4:45 p.m.]

What I’m saying is that this is going to have a huge impact on people’s lives and investments who don’t want this changed. Some people have chosen to have it, but there’s a lot that actually don’t want this, and they figure it’s a heavy hammer, based on the investment that they’ve made.

As I said, some have made this investment 20 or 30 years ago, based on rules, and now this government is unilaterally coming in and telling them: “Sorry about your investment. Sorry about the decisions that you’ve made in life. We as government are actually overriding those.” That’s what I’m trying to raise.

Not the fact that we don’t have a crisis. Of course we do. Not the fact that we need more rentals. Of course we do. Those are all important things. But this piece of legislation, what it’s actually doing is, I think, targeting the wrong thing. If we have 1 percent vacancy and we need more rentals, then this government needs to continue getting out of the way and making sure that we have more supply, that we have more places built so more people have the opportunity to rent.

I might not have another chance, Mr. Chair. I know we only have a few minutes left, and we still have quite a few sections. On that, I just want to thank the staff. I probably have one more opportunity to get up, towards the end of this, but I want to give the minister a chance, while we still have a few moments, to make sure that he can comment on the comments that I’ve made.

Hon. M. Rankin: I do appreciate that the member gave me that opportunity. I think we are running short of time, but I would like to begin by thanking the member for a spirited debate on a difficult bill. I appreciate very much the tenor of our debate today, and I thank him for that.

The member said in his last remarks that somehow we were portraying this issue of rental restrictions being removed in strata corporations before 2010 as somehow, to use his term, “a silver bullet.” I believe if the record were checked, I’ve said it’s one tool in the toolkit perhaps a dozen times, maybe more. So to suggest that I’ve ever suggested that it was a silver bullet is misleading in the extreme.

Let’s talk about real people. I was at a press conference with the Premier when a woman named….

The Chair: Of course, Minister, I don’t think he was intending to mislead. But please, I would ask you to maybe use a slightly different terminology.

Hon. M. Rankin: My apologies. Yes. I mean, to suggest that I could be properly understood to say that this was the panacea, or to use the member’s term, a silver bullet will not bear scrutiny if the Hansard record is checked.

To be practical for a moment, Omama Shoib is a nurse who moved here from Edmonton to our community with a very good job — a front-line health worker, desperately needing her services; unable to find any place to live in this community; and thankful that we removed rental restrictions to give her more opportunities to find a place to live in a housing crisis.

It was the expert advice of the 2018 rental task force, of which the opposition member for Saanich North and the Islands was a full participant, that recommended unanimously that rental restrictions be banned.

This is an important initiative. The people of British Columbia want action. This is one key measure that will assist us making progress to that end.

Clause 18 approved on division.

Clauses 19 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

M. Bernier: It just gives me an opportunity to stand up one last time. Clause 31 is commencement.

I just want to highlight. I do find it interesting, to the minister’s comments yesterday, that it’s very normal under this government — he said it’s normal practice — to bring things in at a later date due to regulation or changes that they may want to make. Yet we have a piece of legislation in front of us that we had, I think, basically about an hour at second reading to discuss. We had all of two or three people that were afforded the time to get up and speak.

This could have actually waited, as an exposure bill, and been discussed in the spring. According to the minister’s own narrative, that’s quite normal, to just actually bring things in through regulation at a later date. But in front of us, we have a piece of legislation that actually, if passed in a few moments, comes into effect at royal assent, which I understand is later on today.

[4:50 p.m.]

I just want to flag that as an interesting piece, due to the fact that the government themselves like to do so much in regulation. Now they have one that they want to rush through today. I just wanted to flag that.

With that commentary, again, before we sit down, I want to thank the minister. It has been a busy but informative, in a lot of ways, couple of days.

Again, to the minister’s staff, thank you for putting up with us and for your assistance.

The minister did a great job, as always, trying to be as accurate as he could with answering the questions that I gave him. I thank him for that.

Clause 31 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would move that the committee rise and report the bill passed without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 44, Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[5:05 p.m.]

BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete with amendment, read a third time and passed.

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND
OCCUPATIONS ACT

Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called.

The House has agreed to waive the time.

We can proceed; time was waived.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members. We are done.

Members, both sides. Member, please.

Members on both sides will come to order. Shhh.

[5:10 p.m.]

Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Mr. Speaker: Members, I understand Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated, and as soon as we get further instructions, we’ll let you know.

Question of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano earlier today, which was taken under advisement. In the interests of time, the Chair’s ruling will be brief.

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano took objection to remarks made by the Minister of Children and Family Development during oral question period on November 23, 2022. The Chair thanks the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for her submission and the Minister of Children and Family Development for her response.

The submission of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano does not address an alleged breach of privilege but, rather, disputes remarks made by the member and asks the member to withdraw the remarks. Upon review of the member’s submission and the minister’s response, the matter at hand appears to be one of disagreement or debate between two members and is therefore not a matter for the Chair to weigh into or adjudicate.

As such, it is the ruling of the Chair that prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[5:15 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Health Professions and Occupations Act

Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act

Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022

Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Housing Supply Act

Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you, Kate.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

I have to say that it’s absolutely wonderful to see you all here today.

[5:20 p.m.]

I want to take a moment to express my appreciation to Premier David Eby and to the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Falcon, for the leadership roles that you have both assumed on behalf of all of the citizens of British Columbia.

I very sincerely want to tell you what a pleasure it is to be able to come and see you all and be able to express my personal appreciation for the extraordinary work that you do and for the many sacrifices that you make for the privilege of serving all of us.

I wish you all the very best over the next few months, and I look very much forward to seeing you again in the new year.

Take care, everyone. Enjoy the holiday season.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we adjourn, I would like to take a moment to thank all employees of the Legislative Assembly administration who have worked to support us throughout the fall session. Maintaining the work of three concurrent chambers during extended sitting days is no small task. It requires professionalism, dedication and good humour. Those qualities were evident throughout this week.

In particular, I would like to recognize my staff in the Office of the Speaker, the procedure team in the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Committees Office, our chamber and gallery teams within the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and our Hansard Services team.

Please join me in expressing our thanks and appreciation to all of them.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: Two things before I do the long adjournment motion.

I have the honour to table the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch Annual Report 2021-2022.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind all members that the staff are not your parents, and you will clean out your own desks. It’s not their job to clean your stuff out, so please make sure you empty your desk before we leave.

With that, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just hold on, hold on, please.

Hold on, hold on.

Shhh. Don’t make any noises.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move, one, that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker after consultation with the government that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 42nd parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon, the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date.

Two, that by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or public health measures and that such agreement constitute the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it forth to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

Three, that in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. And in the event of the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House do now adjourn and wish everyone a very happy and pleasant time off over the holiday season.

Mr. Speaker: Should we take a vote on it? [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for all your support and cooperation. Have a wonderful Christmas and new year.

The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.