Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 54 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 54 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGES
TO COMMITTEES

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 54 with respect to membership on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts standing in my name on the order paper:

[That Bruce Banman be removed as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, and after that completes, we’ll move to second reading of Bill 36, the Police Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, in Committee Room A.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The Chair: We’re just working through a short technical issue, Members. We will be with you shortly. We’ll be in recess until…. Okay, we’re done. I think we’re ready to go then. Okay.

All right. Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, to order. We are on clause 177.

I do wish to inform the committee that the Law Clerk has made a correction to paragraph (4)(b) to add the missing “the” pursuant to the authority granted to the Law Clerk under Standing Order 94.

When the bill is next reprinted, of course, this correction will appear.

On clause 177 (continued).

M. de Jong: I want to put my comments in context. This is not a contentious section. We happened upon, during the course of the committee, a rarity. A typographical…. What we think is, apparently, a typographical error. No issue there.

As a matter of principle, though…. I have just been informed of the mechanism that we are purporting to use to address that. I have to put on the record, as a matter of principle, when the committee discovers an issue with a bill before the committee, I think it should be the committee that fixes it.

I understand the use of the power of the Law Clerk to address matters after the fact. If we had discovered this a day or two or a week afterwards, I have no issue with the Law Clerk making use of the authority provided to her. But it strikes me that the obvious way for this kind of matter to be addressed, when the bill is still before the committee, is for the sponsoring minister to stand up and say: “I have to amend this section. I have to add the word ‘the.’” We all say yea, and it’s done.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think coming back into the House when the committee is in a position to address it, and I can assure the committee that it would…. There’s no issue about the change that needs to be made. It’s not contentious. But I think it sets a dangerous precedent when a bill is still before the committee for the committee to be informed: “Yes, we found a problem, but the Law Clerk has dealt with it in her office.” I think that is setting a dangerous precedent.

For the record, I’m prepared to move the amendment to add the word “the,” and it’s done, and the problem is fixed. I think the committee should deal with it when it is still before the committee.

The Chair: We’re going to sit in recess for a moment.

The committee recessed from 2:56 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll come out of recess so that we can go back.

Hon. N. Sharma: I would start by commending, again, the member for finding this error, which was buried in the large bill that we had. There’s another round of applause for that.

I would say that I think this is a pretty minor correction in there, and I think we do have provisions that are in place for that, for the Clerk to do it. But in the….

We should just take a recess. We can draft an amendment. We can do it that way, if that’s the better way to do it. It’s fine with me.

The Chair: Okay, hearing that agreement, the Chair will put this House into recess until we’re ready for that amendment. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I’d like to call the committee back to order. Of course, we’re here in Committee of the Whole, Bill 27.

We’re looking at clause 177. The Member for Abbotsford West raised the question around a need for an amendment as opposed to using the Law Clerk’s powers under Standing Order 94. We’re going to deal with that now.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move:

[That Bill (No. 27) intituled Money Judgment Enforcement Act be amended in clause 177 (4) (b) by deleting the phrase “paid to officer,” and substituting “paid to the officer,”.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 177 as amended approved.

The Chair: That was the last we had to deal with that. I return to the Attorney General.

Hon. N. Sharma: The member asked a question of me last time we were talking about this bill, and I committed to providing an answer. I’m here to provide that answer to close this off.

The question was whether this would be equivalent to a court-ordered sale and exempt from the property transfer tax. My team did further research on that, and we were able to confirm that there’s no general exemption for court-ordered sales, so the property transfer tax would be applicable.

I move that the committee rise and report Bill 27 complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACT

Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: I would like to call Bill 36, please.

If we could take a five-minute recess.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:19 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right members, we will call the House back to session. We are here looking at Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to close debate on Bill 36, the amendments to the Police Act, which, as I said at the introduction of the bill, will ensure that no Solicitor General has to go through the challenges of a police transition ever again. These amendments spell out and, most importantly, clarify roles and pathways for local governments who want to transition to a different model of policing.

I would like to take a moment, because I heard many of the comments of the opposition in terms of what they thought about the bill…. There were a lot of terms used — sledgehammer, that it was unnecessary. The reality is that these amendments to the Police Act, Bill 36, bring us, in many ways, in line with other provinces that already have those particular tools, amendments that are in this bill. I think it’s important to recognize that. When I hear terms such as “overreach” and “sledgehammer,” that’s not accurate. We’re ensuring the bill has the ability to do what it’s supposed to do.

I also want to address some of the comments that were made by members of the opposition, mistakes that were made. I will start…. I know my colleague from Kamloops inadvertently made one of those mistakes in his comments. That was around increased cost, in terms of the admin costs. That’s simply not the case. I know that has been out there, and it’s erroneous.

Those costs are actually done on a per-capita basis. The only way that it would be to what I know that the member has heard about, on the admin costs, is if you removed every RCMP officer and put them into another province. Then the figure that the member and others, in particular, from Surrey like to talk about, would in fact be the case. But it’s not, because those officers will be staying here in British Columbia.

The other mistake that I noticed was that some said that the bill is retroactive. The bill is not retroactive. It is not retroactive.

The other mistake that was talked about by, I think, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who said that we would not be filing a response to the city of Surrey’s suit…. That is simply false. We will be filing a response. So to suggest this is being done so that we don’t have to do that — again, that is erroneous.

But that’s the kind of thing that happens in debate. It can often get heated. I understand that, but I do think it was important to put that on the record. I just wanted to put those few points on for right now.

[3:30 p.m.]

What I do know is that this bill will bring certainty to the city of Surrey in terms of their transition. I think that’s important. People want the transition to take place. They wanted a decision. They’ve got a decision. The decision is now in legislation. It makes it absolutely crystal clear, and that is the goal. There can be no ambiguity. No somebody saying: “Oh, well, I just don’t want….” No. It will be the law of the land.

I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, so with that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Those in favour?

Division has been called.

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 36 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 54
Anderson	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Furstenau	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mercier
Olsen	Osborne	Paddon
Parmar	Phillip	Popham
Ralston	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 26
Banman	Bernier	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Paton	Ross
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
Tegart		Wat

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting after today.

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023.

[3:45 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 33 be read a second time now.

These amendments make updates and technical corrections to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which became law in 2015. The act is the result of a comprehensive rewrite of pension standards by British Columbia and Alberta, based on the 2008 report of a joint expert panel. The current standards are highly harmonized and designed to improve workplace pension coverages in both provinces.

Improving pension coverage involves a balance of applying standards to protect members and minimizing costs for employers. It’s up to employers to decide whether to offer employees a pension plan. Employers who choose to offer a pension plan incur the costs of contributing to the plan and complying with both pension standards legislation and federal tax legislation.

The amendments in Bill 33 update pension standards in three main areas.

The first set of amendments enable variable life benefits to be offered by defined contribution plans. This new, innovative type of pension was authorized by federal income tax legislation in 2020 in response to submissions from major pension industry stakeholders from across Canada.

Variable life benefits are designed to prevent retirees from running out of money in retirement. Currently members of defined contribution plans receive their account balance when they retire as a transfer to a locked-in RRSP. The individual retiree bears 100 percent of the risk that the invested funds won’t last for their life.

Members who have the option to choose variable life benefits will receive a lifetime pension from a separate fund in their plan. Payments will vary based on the fund’s investment returns and the mortality rate of participating members.

Harmonized pension standards for variable life benefits have been developed by a federal-provincial committee that includes pension regulators. Variable life benefits will be implemented in jurisdictions that enact enabling legislation after regulations have been developed. Enabling legislation has been enacted by Quebec, Saskatchewan and the federal government. We expect that consultation with our federal and provincial partners on a regulatory framework will take place in 2024.

The second set of amendments reduces the administrative costs of offering, administering and transferring benefits from a pension plan by reversing changes made in 2015. One amendment reduces the cost for private sector employers to offer pension plans to certain employees. A defined benefit plan registered under federal income tax legislation for a specified individual who meets an annual earnings threshold will no longer be required to register under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Provisions that protect members will continue to apply.

We have heard that the cost for private sector employers to comply with registration requirements since 2015 has caused many employers to stop offering these plans. This amendment makes these plans subject to the same pension standards that apply to defined benefit plans registered under federal income tax legislation for specified individuals who are significant shareholders in the company sponsoring the plan.

Another amendment reduces the cost of administering a multi-employer pension plan established through a collective agreement. Each plan is given new options for setting conditions for plan membership that work for that plan. We heard that these plans are highly variable. Each plan may involve many collective agreements, with employees working for different employers at different times.

[3:50 p.m.]

Tracking each employee’s earnings for two years to meet the current requirement imposes unnecessary costs for plans that do not need to track this information to determine benefits. Benefits may be based on hours worked or on the dollars of contributions received under each collective agreement.

Finally, another amendment reduces the costs incurred by members when they transfer benefits from pension plans. All plans will be required to offer direct transfer to a registered retirement income fund or to a regulated Canadian life insurance company to purchase a life annuity. If one of these options is appropriate for a member’s retirement planning, but their plan does not offer it, the member must make an initial transfer to an RRSP. This extra transfer may involve unnecessary fees.

The third set of amendments made by Bill 33 is intended to address low member contribution rates and to improve the financial situation for surviving spouses when members die before retirement. The amendment to address low member contribution rates implements a recommendation from the 2008 report of the Alberta–British Columbia Joint Expert Panel.

Defined contribution plans may implement automatic escalation for automatically enrolled members if members fail to opt out of the increase to their contributions within a certain period after receiving the required notice. Automatic escalation has been shown to help members who want to save more for retirement but who tend to postpone the paperwork involved.

Recent research on defined contribution plans regis­tered in British Columbia indicates that a significant percentage of automatically enrolled members are not contributing enough to take advantage of matching contributions from employers. This amendment to improve the financial situation for surviving spouses when members die before retirement gives spouses the right to choose a pension from the plan instead of a transfer to a locked-in RRSP. Small benefits and benefits in a defined contribution account continue to be subject to the plan’s general ability to require a transfer.

The remaining amendments made by Bill 33 make technical corrections identified since 2015. One example in­volves defined pension benefit plans that choose to manage the plan’s funding risks by purchasing life annuities from a regulated Canadian life insurance company. A technical correction explicitly permits these plans to purchase annuities for surviving spouses who become entitled to deceased members’ benefits, subject to the same conditions that apply to members.

Technical amendments to the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act ensure that British Columbia’s legislative framework continues to operate seamlessly with the federal pooled registered pension plan legislation, which is adopted in British Columbia as well as in five other provinces. The amendments in this bill ensure that federal amendments made in June of this year apply in British Columbia.

Pooled registered pension plans will be permitted to offer variable life payments to workers who are em­ployed or self-employed in British Columbia. The legislative framework is also improved by minor clarifying amendments.

Finally, this act makes consequential amendments to the Family Law Act to specify how the rules for dividing a pension between spouses who separate apply to variable life benefits.

Hon. Members, we have been attentive to our commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples in developing this legislation. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The amendments proposed by Bill 33 do not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described by the UN declaration.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 33. My comments will be very brief.

I agree with how the minister has characterized this bill and the changes, and how it will better align things and recent changes with the federal pension provisions. Pensions for people are such a critical part of their post-work life. The changes, in trying to ensure that spousal survivorship rights are maximized, are always very important.

It’s something that, a lot of times, people maybe don’t think that long and hard about when they’re in their younger working years, but as they get closer and closer to retirement, they start seeing what’s happened over the last year and a half to the cost of living and those pressures. Realizing they might just be living on a much more fixed income than they previously had, with much less flexibility as they get into their pension, it becomes more and more critical, obviously, in their realm of thinking as to what their future looks like.

[3:55 p.m.]

How will they afford rent, or continue to live in the home that they have? Depending on how their pension would be structured, any changes to keep things much more cohesive and in line with what’s going on federally is a good thing, and it should be happening.

I will just say, though, that I am a little concerned. We just had an amendment on Bill 27 on some missed language that happened. We’ve heard the Solicitor General, on Bill 36, say that they’ve had to now remove a complete section of that bill because of a lack of consultation with outside agencies. Then I noticed on the orders of the day today that there’s already an amendment for Bill 33 as well that the government is having to present.

I guess this is my way of letting the minister know that as we get into committee stage, actually reading through, there are several other areas that I will be seeking clarification on, on various clauses, because there appears to be missed language or incorrect language within this bill as well.

I think it’s just a concern I throw out there that three out of three bills in a row here today that we’ve been dealing with are all requiring amendments. These are all government-initiated amendments. It does raise questions on how much scrutiny is happening right now within government by the ministers across the board, and their legislative drafting with their legislation, when we’re seeing this level of errors, literally in bill after bill.

As we go into committee stage, the public may wonder why we in opposition might be questioning: should it be an “and,” an “or” or a “the”? It may not seem like a major piece, but when you read it in the context of an overall clause or section in a bill, some of that simple language can have huge ramifications moving forward, especially on something as complicated as pension language.

We’ll do our best as opposition to do our job, to properly have read through the legislation and to be asking those questions, not so much as a gotcha moment, more so to make sure that we have accurate and correct language for the public on interpretation moving forward. Certainly, I may have misread. That has been known to happen as well. We’ll sort that out in committee stage.

As I say, I just wanted to note I did pick up — the minister didn’t mention it in her comments, but I did notice it — the orders of the day. Ironically, I was searching for the changes that the Solicitor General was talking about in Bill 36 when I went to the orders of the day, and to my surprise, I found that Bill 33, the bill we’re talking about right now, already has a proposed amendment on notice.

I look forward to committee stage, where we can work through these issues. I do hope, for the rest of this legislative sitting, that other government bills do not continue to have the level of amendments that we’re suddenly seeing over the last three bills that we’ve dealt with in this chamber.

Thank you for the time, Madame Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members, Minister of Finance.

Hon. K. Conroy: With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: We will now call Bill 29. If we may request a five-minute recess, please.

Deputy Speaker: We will go into five-minute recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 29 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

This bill proposes amendments to the Environmental Management Act in order to enhance protection in our province by ensuring that owners of large industrial projects are bonded, moving forward, so that they will pay the full cost of environmental cleanup — even in those instances where their projects are abandoned.

The amendments represent the first phase of the public interest bonding strategy, which is an initiative that my ministry was first asked to take on in 2020.

The concept of financial security, or bonding, related to industrial activity, is not a new one. We already require financial security for major mines under the Mines Act as well as for some sites that are proven to be contaminated.

By aligning with the polluter-pays principle, these amendments to the Environmental Management Act seek to protect taxpayers from costs when industrial cleanup obligations are not fulfilled.

To give you a sense of what this has meant for British Columbian taxpayers, our overall financial liability in this province is over $485 million for contaminated sites. Each year, the province spends over $12 million to do the cleanup that polluters should be responsible for.

This bill will strengthen B.C.’s existing financial security framework in three ways.

First, it will ensure that responsible parties pay for foreseen environmental cleanup costs up front rather than at the end of project life, when funds may be unavailable or where the project owner may no longer be in the province or may be bankrupt or for whatever other reason that usually ends up with the province and the taxpayers, who support the province, being on the hook for the cleanup costs.

Second, the bill will create the authority for government to require decommissioning and closure plans for high-risk industrial facilities, including the authority to require financial assurance for those plans.

Of course, the final principle I’ve already mentioned, and that’s that the polluter should pay, not the taxpayer.

This will lessen pressures on B.C.’s fiscal plan.

[4:05 p.m.]

It will ensure that in order to remediate contaminated sites or protect the public and the environment against forms of releases of toxic or other environmentally hazardous substances, those moneys that would otherwise have to be spent are put in place in advance by proponents so that the taxpayers’ dollars can go to important services like health, like education, like child care, like security for children and the many other things that people expect government to do.

These enabling amendments to the Environmental Management Act provide for a clear regulatory framework that we will implement in a way that supports environmental protection and economic growth. These amendments complement the Contaminated Sites Regulation that we already have in place.

This is the first phase of the project, and it deals with foreseen costs. But we will in future expand the changes to deal with a broader range of financial securities that we will expect operators to offer to protect against unexpected catastrophe. We will of course be taking that out to the public and to industry and to stakeholders for consultation.

British Columbians deserve accountability. They deserve greater enforcement of the polluter-pay principle to strengthen environmental protection. There are no consequential amendments proposed as a result of the bill, but by requiring industry to proactively prepare decommissioning and closure plans, our government will incent high-risk industrial projects to reduce their environmental liabilities, by putting in place planning to build their facilities in such a way that the risk of disaster or environmental cleanup or the costs of closure at the end of operation will be less. Therefore, at the same time, the public and the public interest and the environment will be better protected.

It’s probably useful to talk a little bit about the background that led to my ministry bringing these legislative amendments forward. Most recently, we had to intervene and address active and imminent spills from an abandoned pulp mill site, Neucel in Port Alice, beginning in 2019.

To date, my ministry has incurred spill response costs exceeding $116 million, because the owner of the site simply left it and left the country. There was no one from whom to seek support, damages, costs or expenses to protect what was an imminent environmental catastrophe from aging infrastructure, toxic chemicals near marine life in which the community and Indigenous and First Nations were dependent.

If decommissioning and closure plans, if security and cost recovery requirements had been imposed and used in relation to the Neucel pulp mill site at the front end, the province would have had a legal basis to have recovered our costs. But we don’t.

There are other, and many, good examples of industries conducting proactive site cleanup in working with my ministry, which these amendments would make a requirement for all high-risk industry. In other words, we’re leveling the playing field so that the many, many industrial operations and companies that take their responsibility for environmental protection seriously are not at a disadvantage to those who do not.

Let me give you an example. The tiskʷat pulp mill in Powell River ceased production in 2021 and announced permanent closure in 2023. Paper Excellence is the project owner and has conducted proactive environmental clean­up over recent years and is working to properly decommission the site to ensure that the environment and the people who live in that environment are protected.

These amendments to the Environmental Management Act will not require the owner of tiskʷat to do anything, other than what they’re already doing, other than in future to prepare plans to indicate that they are going to do what they’ve already clearly demonstrated they are doing, they accept as their responsibility. They’re doing as a responsible corporate citizen.

[4:10 p.m.]

What it will affect is those industries, those industrial site owners and other proponents who might not, in fact, have undertaken these important proactive and socially and community responsible actions to ensure that the consequences of their industrial operation — the leftover hazardous substances or toxins or effects on the land, contamination, other effects on their sites — will, in fact, be cleaned up, not at the taxpayer expense, but at their expense, as it should be.

I don’t have much more to say on this bill. I look forward to hearing from spokespeople for the official opposition and other parties if they have comments to add. I look forward to committee stage and getting into some of the detailed questions that I know will come, but I’m pretty sure that all members of this House support the principle of corporate responsibility and polluter-pay. Thank you very much.

R. Merrifield: It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Kelowna-Mission. I just want to take a pause, as I start here, to envision the breathtaking expanse of British Columbia — those towering mountains, the sprawling forests, the serenity of our coastlines. This natural beauty is not just an asset, but our inheritance and our legacy. With this splendour does come responsibility.

Today I’m on my feet in this place, on behalf of the constituents I represent and all of British Columbia, to discuss the implications and aspirations of this Environmental Management Amendment Act, also known as Bill 29.

First and foremost, let me express my gratitude for renewed attention to our environment that this bill exemplifies. I am somewhat surprised that the minister didn’t choose to take his full time and go a full two hours in talking about the merits of this bill. But having said that, his brevity allows me to stand to my feet a little bit quicker.

At the heart of Bill 29 lies a principle, and it’s fundamental in its essence but profound in its implications. Those who create environmental challenges bear the onus of their rectification.

In an era where British Columbians are continuously challenged by environmental and climate concerns, it is reassuring to see a piece of legislation that seeks to address a portion of those concerns, especially in an era where our federal government has telegraphed a focus on the mining industry, as well as the desperate need for rare earth minerals due to our press towards electrification. It is so important that we protect our environment while moving forward our economy.

Held in balance, it is also imperative that industry has as much certainty as possible with respect to legislation and regulation, and that these are done in a timely manner to ensure that investment dollars continue to come to B.C. That’s not the case right now, and we see capital investment dollars lacking and our industries shrinking. That’s going to severely affect British Columbians and their pay­cheques. It will severely affect British Columbians and their futures. Economists estimate a decrease of $28 billion yearly due to NDP policies.

Central to this bill is the principle that those who pose environmental risks and challenges must shoulder the responsibility and cost of mitigating those challenges. But we tread a thin line between the demands of in­dustry and the sacred trust of environmental sustainability. It’s heartening to note that Bill 29 seeks to balance this delicate equation. It fortifies the ethos of the polluter-pays principle.

To delve deeper into the specifics, the bill also presents provisions that are not just pragmatic, but also pertinent. It aims to repeal the holder’s authority to abandon a permit or approval, and instead, it furnishes the government with the authority to order the preparation of a decommissioning and closure plan; the actual decommissioning and closure of a facility; the posting of security to safeguard the costs of these procedures; and, if a facility is judged as abandoned, the government has the right to undertake decommissioning and subsequently recover any associated costs.

[4:15 p.m.]

Those are commendable steps. However, there is an un­canny sense of déjà vu, as I reviewed them. Diving deeper, this bill actually represents and presents certain mechanisms that, while pragmatic, strangely felt familiar. The proposal to repeal a holder’s casual abandonment of their commitments and the empowerment of the government to enforce measures for responsible decommissioning echo the tenets of the Spill Cost Recovery Regulation that was put into place by the B.C. United, a regulation that, while we sat on that side of the chamber, we introduced, understanding its sheer necessity.

It saddens me to remember how, in a swift move, this commendable regulation was repealed by the NDP government in the early days of their first term. Yet today, history seems to have come full circle. The essential provisions of that regulation are being introduced in this bill, now specific, and, as the minister introduced, phase 1 on decommission and closure — almost seven years, two terms and two Premiers later.

The pertinent question is: why the initial repeal, then? The efficacy of the polluter-pays principle was evident then and remains evident now. Well, then, it means that politics and bureaucracy were at play, politics that we saw evidenced in Site C when it came to a complete shutdown after taking over government, resulting in more time and cost but no greater outcome or increase in power generation — clean power, power needed by British Columbians and industry.

The repeal of the previous bill resulted in the same: more money, more time and maybe even more pollution, and, as the minister, in his introduction, talked about, more cost to the taxpayers, with nothing but delay and politics. Nonetheless, it’s a positive sign that this government is realigning itself with what we, the B.C. United, believed in and acted upon in our tenure.

As the minister noted, I, too would like to draw attention to a few significant clauses in the bill: the flexibility of suspending a permit or approval if warranted, the repeal of a permit holder’s authority to merely abandon their commitments, then a new division focused on decommissioning and facility closure. It sets out procedures, expectations, responsibilities and government involvement if facilities are deemed abandoned or non-compliant. Lastly, an illumination of the broad strokes of regulation-making powers, including consultations with Indigenous communities and local governments.

Now let’s shift our focus just for a moment to the critical implications of Bill 29 on the economic drivers of British Columbia, which are deeply entwined with our natural environment. This legislation holds the potential to re­shape industries that have long been the lifeblood of our province. Both the potential to help and give certainty could also harm with undue bureaucracy and cost.

Firstly, the mining industry. British Columbia’s mining sector has been a cornerstone of our economy for generations, and as we move towards a future increasingly reliant on electrification and technology, the demand for rare earth minerals is skyrocketing. Bill 29’s commitment to environmental protection is commendable, but we must tread carefully to ensure this transition does not stifle the growth of our mining industry. The mining sector needs clarity on the timelines for implementing these changes to plan and invest wisely.

Secondly, the natural gas industry. We’re going to hear more from one of my colleagues in just a little bit on how this impact could be seen, but it’s an economic powerhouse in our province. In fact, we see that the deficit that’s being created is actually because LNG is down somewhat in the province. As we look towards a cleaner energy future, natural gas can serve as a transition bridge.

However, this industry faces uncertainty about how Bill 29 will impact its operations and commitments. We must strike a balance between environmental responsibility and the economic benefits derived from our natural resources.

Three, forestry. Our forests are an essential part of British Columbia’s identity and economy. The forestry indus­try has faced numerous challenges in recent years, from wildfires to pest infestations, and Bill 29’s provisions for decommissioning closures of facilities raise questions about the forestry sector’s ability to adapt and remain competitive. We need a clear understanding of the implications of this bill on forestry companies and the communities that rely on them.

[4:20 p.m.]

Four, our Indigenous nations. Indigenous partnerships are finally starting to really see economic gains, as they’ve played a vital role in our resource sectors. Bill 29 acknowledges the importance of consulting with Indigenous communities, but the specifics of how Indigenous partnerships work — and how that liability, security and bonding will transfer — still remains to be seen. The ability for Indigenous nations to partner effectively in economic ventures must be protected, and their voices must be heard in the regulatory process.

Fifthly, bonding requirements. Another critical aspect of Bill 29 is the requirement for posting security to cover the costs of decommissioning and closure. The question arises: how large will these bonding requirements be? It’s crucial that these requirements are reasonable and transparent and do not create undue financial burdens on in­dus­tries that are already navigating a complex landscape.

It’s undeniable that Bill 29 raises important questions, and it’s incumbent upon us to seek answers. While the intent behind this legislation is noble, the devil is often in the details. We cannot afford to leave too much to be determined by regulations or allow uncertainty to paralyze our industries. However, while we welcome the framework, there is still an elephant in the room that we cannot ignore. We remain concerned about the time frames of implementation. How soon will these provisions be actualized?

With businesses, particularly in the natural resource sector, grappling with multifaceted challenges, how will this transition pan out? The timelines are blurry, and the actual bearing of this bill on high-risk industrial projects remains ambiguous. Implementation is the real game-changer.

Consider another anecdote of a mining company currently operating in northern B.C. This is a fictitious mining company, by the way. They’re aware of this looming legislation but are unsure of its enactment timeline. This uncertainty might lead them to postpone vital eco-friendly upgrades, thinking they might be pre-emptive. Such delays could further harm our environment; such delays could further harm our economy.

Why would a company want to put investment dollars into a province where the goalposts could change? Why wouldn’t they just wait until they know the full scope of all the requirements of regulation? It’s paramount that this bill does not remain ensnared in bureaucratic red tape but sees swift and effective implementation.

I have some very valid reasons for being concerned about timelines and implementation. If we recall, this same NDP government has announced the new Surrey hospital three separate times. In fact, at the last announcement, they even brought in construction equipment to mask the fact that behind their podium was an empty field. What’s worse is that every time that they re-announce it, the timeline gets farther away, and the cost gets larger.

This government has a history of this. If you need something announced, they do a great job. They’ll say the right things, but with this bill’s implementation, we need to know that it is imminent, because where they fall down is implementation of their announcements. B.C.’s environment and our economy is not a game. We cannot simply use these things as tools for political advantage. They’re too important.

I urge the government to tighten up on the important details around timelines and implementation, tighten up and deliver what is promised in this legislation, but also to leave less to regulation. Too much is left to regulation, and this raises concerns about the impact on all of our economic drivers, as well as our Indigenous partners and our environment. As stewards of British Columbia’s future, we must ensure that this bill results in meaningful, timely, fair and balanced action.

In conclusion, Bill 29 presents a promising framework for environmental management, but it also adds questions that we will need answers to, particularly concerning the timing and the implementation of its provisions and the details of some of the regulations proposed.

As the official opposition, we are duty-bound to scrutinize, to question and to collaborate. I eagerly await a chance to explore this bill further at the committee stage, ensuring that Bill 29 isn’t just a declaration of intent but a clarion call for decisive action.

J. Rice: I appreciate the opportunity today to speak to Bill 29, the amendments to the Environmental Management Act. I wanted to just talk about how important this type of legislation is to my community, to my constituents in the North Coast.

[4:25 p.m.]

There are plenty of examples here of where heavy industries have made a lot of money from the resources within the North Coast region. After they have accumulated the wealth that they have, and often depleted the resources, particularly a lot of fish resources, they have left our community.

While I’m clear that the jobs that those industries have created and have provided for my constituents over the years…. When they have left, they have often left a mess: abandoned buildings, fish plants, boats, barrels of aviation fuel on a dock leaking into the coastal waters off Bella Bella on a site called Namu.

Namu is a particular issue close to me and really important to the Háiɫzaqv First Nation. It’s a location that was once a burial site for their ancestors. It has had carbon dating work done to 14,000 years ago. So it’s one of the oldest known archaeological sites we have in British Columbia.

We had a lot of fish-processing companies. I don’t want to name them because there are a few. I don’t want to particularly identify one because ownership has changed. But these are big players in the British Columbia economy.

I’ve been working on the issue of Namu, trying to support the Háiɫzaqv First Nation, whose territory Namu is situated on, reclaim their territory back but also reclaim it in a way that they can actually go back to living, to making an earning, to having access to a really culturally important site to them without the risks, without contamination.

We have the concept of “polluter pays,” but in this case, and in other cases within my riding, the polluter has never paid. The polluter has made life worse for people on the coast. They have degraded the environment, closing down food, social and ceremonial harvesting sites because they essentially packed up and left.

In some situations, it’s like they closed the light and shut the door and left everything — paycheques, pay stubs, papers, office supplies, equipment, dangerous goods, as I mentioned earlier, barrels of aviation fuel, hydraulic fluid, oils. And there’s no way of holding them accountable.

The legislation of Bill 29 helps rectify that situation and creates a situation where this can’t continue. This type of behaviour has gone on for a very long time. Our economy relies on the responsible management of our natural re­sources, and that includes the very high standards of environmental protection.

While I can appreciate some of the previous speaker’s concerns around attracting the industry and the busines­ses we want to our province, I believe in 2023 most businesses now understand the importance of having environmental integrity. And they need that for their social capital, particularly to operate in Indigenous communities. Those of which in my community all have very high environmental standards and stewardship practices.

[4:30 p.m.]

I absolutely support this legislation. It absolutely en­sures high-risk industrial projects have the financial resources in place to pay the full cost of an environmental cleanup if their projects are abandoned. I think that’s particularly important because, in my region, there are companies that have simply done the damage and then claim bankruptcy. There’s no accountability, and the pollution is just ongoing. Without a robust bond system in place, who pays for that?

I think it’s really important that we do include the aspect of having a public interest bonding strategy. So I’m glad that this legislation includes this, that it includes a robust framework to hold companies responsible for their site cleanups and the reclamation.

These amendments in this legislation are proactive, reducing the need for cost recovery by planning for clean­up costs throughout a project’s life, which is critical. Existing measures within the act provide government with the ability to address retroactive cases of contamination — really important, and Namu being an example.

The Háiɫzaqv have such visions for their territory, where they had a village site, where people lived, where they participated in a robust economy. Right now it is a really unsafe site to be on, to work on, to visit. I visited Namu at great risk. So we need mechanisms in place to give back what is rightfully theirs to have and to steward. We have to do that by holding the previous companies accountable for the mess that they have left.

Saying that, this includes comprehensive engagement with Indigenous peoples and input from industrial operators and businesses as well as local governments, organizations and associations, and the public. So we’re going to gather a lot of information, and we’re going to hear from a lot of diverse interests with this piece of legislation.

I think we can protect the future of B.C.’s ecosystems and resources at the same time as growing a strong and sustainable economy. I don’t think the two have to come to combat with each other. The notion of jobs or the environment…. I’m so glad that we actually don’t hear that rhetoric as much, but I do understand there’s sentiment there, and I think we need to move on from that.

I can talk a little bit about the public interest bonding strategy. The strategy is a mandate commitment of the Minister of Environment to ensure owners of high-risk industrial projects have the financial resources already in place — this is as I mentioned earlier — to pay the full cost of the environmental cleanup if the projects are abandoned.

So the strategy aims to guarantee that funds are available to pay for the environmental cleanup even if a company abandons the facility. It aims to ensure that government can recover public expenditures spent on cleanup, safeguarding taxpayer money and government funds. It transfers the environmental risk to the polluters, holding them accountable for their business practices.

The strategy also aims to provide industry with an incentive to actively reduce and manage pollution and site liabilities and recover financial security at the end of a project. It also aims to benefit the province’s ecosystems and biodiversity by reducing the cumulative effects of poor environmental practices.

What will the revised legislation authorize? The Environmental Management Act amendments will allow government to require site decommissioning and closure, in­cluding approved plans; require financial security in relation to orders under the act; register a certificate of judgment — a lien, essentially — as a cost recovery tool.

[4:35 p.m.]

It also authorizes introducing stop-work orders if re­sponsible parties are not in compliance, and to create new regulations to implement the strategy — i.e., the authority of the director making the order, content of decommissioning and closure plans, and when plans must be implemented and by whom.

If this legislation passes, which I hope it does, a comprehensive engagement and assessment will follow these legislative amendments to establish regulations that protect B.C.’s natural landscape and support its economic future. The engagement will, of course, involve Indigenous peoples and the other stakeholders I mentioned, such as industry and local governments and not-for-profit organizations.

The new regulation will include a transition period to give industry time to adapt. It’s important that we get this right. New regulations will be brought forward as soon as we’re confident that we have the best approach possible. Of course, we don’t want industry to be concerned or feel threatened, as the previous speaker was alluding to or mentioning in her speech on this bill.

Projects with the highest potential risk will be a priority, with risk assessed on a project-by-project basis. Existing and future high-risk industries regulated under the Environmental Management Act will also be considered.

The first phase of the strategy focuses on foreseen cleanup costs. Unforeseen costs may be considered un­der a broader range of statutes in future phases. This will help ensure a coordinated system of financial protection — that financial protection is established across natural resource ministries.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I don’t know if I want to go on, but I think it’s important to mention that companies abandoning an industrial site without meeting their cleanup obligations can cost the province tens of millions of dollars annually. Subscribing to the notion of polluter pays is essentially one of the aspects that we’re trying to address in this legislation.

So Madam… Is it Madam? I can’t see the Chair.

Deputy Speaker: You can just call me “honourable.”

J. Rice: I realized the chair positions had shifted.

I think I’ll leave my remarks at that, but just reiterate how important this legislation is to my constituents in the North Coast, particularly Indigenous communities that have had resource extraction activities deplete a lot of their resources that are rightfully theirs to access and have left, essentially, in some situations, catastrophes.

I think this type of legislation is long overdue. I know my constituents will support it, and therefore, I’m absolutely willing and looking forward to supporting this Bill 29.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome back to the chair — honourable, not previous designation.

Another honour to get up and speak to Bill 29, the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023.

A lot of what we talk about takes me back to where I got my start in 2003. Where I got my start was environmental remediation. I just picked up the ball where previous leaders in my First Nation had ended with not much success, sadly, because in Kitimat, we had over 60 to 70 years of industrial development. You can’t really blame anybody for the environmental damage that was done back then, because nobody really looked at the environment through the lens that we do today, including First Nations.

I had a contaminated site right next to my village that I was going to clean up, and I was going to find the polluter-pay principle to be employed, only to find out that was a dump that my people used. We put in car batteries and transformers and oil and diesel. We ended up having to remediate that land using our own coin.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s easy to point fingers, but you can’t really judge what happened 60 or 70 years ago. Mind you, all of that work we did in terms of trying to remediate the Kitimat River, which had been backfilled for residential purposes, that was altered with diking for the community of Kitimat, that was damaged by overflow from the local sewage from the community of Kitimat and on and on and on….

We looked at the damage of Douglas Channel itself. The ocean…. The bottom had been contaminated through 40, 50 years of unchecked pollution. My predecessors worked hard to try to remediate that, but they didn’t have the tools that my band acquired in 2004 when the Haida court case came about.

We didn’t just sit back and think about remediation only. We thought about mitigating in terms of future pro­jects, including our own projects. We had to mitigate the impact of what we were planning to do. It was fairly easy to see the mitigation that had to be put in place based on the past history of Kitimat itself. We just wanted to do things in a better manner. That was before environmental management became a buzzword, a political word.

In fact, it’s quite gratifying to see the issue of a bond — a polluter-pays bond — being incorporated into some of the agreements that the industry will actually sign on to once this legislation is passed.

Contrary to popular belief, the Haisla First Nation knew exactly what we wanted to achieve in terms of environmental management. We actually put into our impact benefit agreements with LNG the polluter-pays principle, and they had to put up a bond. That was 15 years ago.

There wasn’t any real legislation to actually back up what we’re talking about. Mind you, at the time, the B.C. Liberal government actually supported us. When industry balked at the idea of this bond going in through an IBA and went to the provincial government, the provincial government told them: “You better do as they say.” That was back in the days when the Haida court case was still being analyzed and interpreted, but it worked.

I heard speakers talking about this, saying that they’re glad that the idea of jobs is not being presented here in debate. Well, I’m going to bring it up, because it’s easy to say jobs are not an issue when you haven’t suffered through generations of poverty — it’s easy — and the violence of poverty, the humiliation of poverty in the 20th century in Canada, in the 21st century in Canada.

Yes, jobs matter. In fact, the turnaround of my community was not just the wealth we acquired for our band but the fact that a new generation of First Nations people got jobs in the forest industry and the LNG industry.

If my kids and my grandkids were still talking about the Indian Act and poverty in their adult years, then all of us as leaders have failed. That’s a shame, because all the tools to actually uplift First Nations and non–First Nations out of poverty had been in place since 2004.

I attribute jobs to the turnaround of the people in my community. I get non-Aboriginals all over the place stopping me in the street and thanking me for the work that we did on LNG, not knowing that we did a tremendous amount of work on forestry as well, a tremendous amount of work on mining. It matters.

[4:45 p.m.]

In fact, the amount of revenue that flowed through the B.C. government just on one LNG project alone, LNG Canada…. Even though the largest tax break in B.C. history was given to LNG Canada, revenue still flowed through the B.C. government.

That is what gives the B.C. government the ability to spend money on hospitals and roads and doctors and nurses and teachers. You can’t just wipe away the idea of a job or investment, because you can only take so much tax out of the taxpayer without an economy parallel with that to fill up government coffers.

In terms of forestry, I agree with the speaker saying that there was a time in Canada when environmental protection wasn’t a priority. But it’s not a brand-new issue that just, remarkably, showed up in the Legislature today.

I was working for a water taxi from 1993 to 2003, and I saw the deplorable standards that the forest industry was employing at the time. I did see the barrels of oil abandoned, cables all over the place, trucks and cars on logging roads just abandoned by the company. They up and left.

In that same time, that ten-year period, I saw it get cleaned up. It was remarkable, walking along a logging road and not finding one piece of equipment — no cables, no oil, no nothing. It was all cleaned up.

The mentality has changed. Industry gets it. They understand there are environmental conditions that they have to abide by, but that’s even backed up by First Nations saying that the environmental conditions have to be even higher than what the B.C. government is proposing.

Forget about Canada. They’re too far removed. These are issues on the ground, and that’s what B.C. was trying to tackle. That’s the partnership that I saw from 2004 to 2017 — a cooperative partnership, and it worked. I truly believe that Aboriginal rights and title case law could fill in the gaps that legislation was failing at. Somehow we’re going to meet together, and we’ll all have a robust environmental management plan.

At the same time, though, we quickly found out that if we pushed too hard on any issue, including environmental management, we could chase investment away, and it happened. So we had to find that balance. What was enough for them to stay and invest but realize they had to put up a bond for decommissioning? That’s what we called it — decommissioning.

It wasn’t just there that we realized that we had to be fair to these companies because we wanted their investment. That took work, and it was hard work. So for the people that said in this House that we should actually just follow the Osoyoos rule and go into investments for properties or real estate or tourism, you should come to us and see how we wrote the book on environmental management and LNG development.

We did a good job. I’m quite proud of it. Was it perfect? No. Nothing’s perfect. But it did achieve everything that all the parties wanted to see achieved. Industry got their project approved. Government got their revenues. And the First Nations from Prince George to Kitimat got jobs and contracts and a way out from the miserable lifestyle under the Indian Act. It was a win-win-win. In this case, I don’t include Canada, because the environmental assessment at that time was working.

We didn’t pore over the Environmental Assessment Act and analyze it with lawyers. We just sat down with government, sat down with industry and said: “Look, we’ve got to make this a workable situation for all the parties.”

[4:50 p.m.]

We also understood that some of the private land that we were actually talking about had to have environmental standards attached to it. But we didn’t want to write that book ourselves on private land that we owned as a band. So we looked to the provincial government.

We found standards that were workable. In fact, we also saw standards that were fair to industry, to say: “We will not arbitrarily give you a lease price based on nothing or a tax price. We’ll actually go to the B.C. Assessment Authority.”

Industry liked it. They liked the certainty. They liked the consistency in terms of our rules that actually mir­rored the B.C. government’s. In the case of our private land, we just turned it over to the provincial government. We’ll go with their tax scheme. We’ll go with their environmental scheme.

In terms of environmental management, I don’t know if this House is aware, but did you know that Kitimat is historic for implementing one of the only commercial industrial First Nations industrial development agreements?

By the sound of it, nobody knows.

Interjection

E. Ross: Did you know, Mr. Speaker? Ah, okay.

Did you know that?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Okay. Good, good.

First Nations commercial industrial development agreement. What it was: B.C. is not welcome on Indian Act lands. That’s federal jurisdiction. Not welcome. But in this case here, we knew that we needed a regulator on our reserve lands, somebody that was right there on the spot, not somebody in Ottawa.

Ottawa is in charge of the Indian Act reserve lands. We couldn’t have somebody from Ottawa dictating environmental issues or lease issues or tax issues. We couldn’t do it. Then we found this mechanism through the federal government that actually combined the two regulatory regimes between B.C. and Canada.

All you really needed was the permission of the First Nation to say: “We are going to allow B.C. regulators to come onto our reserve and enforce both provincial and federal regulations and hold this company to account.”

The B.C. government signed on. The federal government signed on. It was based on environmental management, and it reinforced our impact benefit agreement that talked about decommissioning funds. We would not let these companies get away with it. In the same breath, we would not let the B.C. government get away with it or the federal government. Guess what. It worked. But you’ve got to find that balance.

We also found the idea that this is not going to relate to every single initiative that comes down the road for us. We quickly found out that, as a governing body, as chief and council, we had to be fair. To be fair, we had to look at economies of scale.

The policy that we wrote up in regards to decommissioning did not apply to that mom-and-pop company that just wanted to set up a little fishing cabin one mile away from a creek. It didn’t work. We couldn’t expect a small little mom-and-pop guiding company to put up a $1 million bond. Couldn’t do it — so trying to rewrite that policy and trying to get our people to understand it, that we can’t apply this across the board. We’ve got to have exceptions. We’ve got to have scales.

It was hard because back then nobody really want to cooperate with a non-native community, based on the history of Canada, and you couldn’t blame them. It took a lot of convincing, but it kept coming back to the idea of what the judge said in the Haida court case. It was the judge that said we’re in this together and that the Crown has got to reconcile with First Nations’ interests. That’s what it meant.

Bit by bit, we started to understand that when we started to help develop the region, we’re actually helping ourselves. Now it has gotten to the point where nobody even remembers those days. My band actually donates to the hospital, not once but twice, $300,000 a pop. They donate to the food bank. My band truly believes we’re in this together, but it came from lessons learned over the last 70 years of industrial development and environmental mitigation and remediation, and it’s going to take a lot more.

[4:55 p.m.]

As we see the investment leave B.C…. Forestry — what’s the count now? Thirty-five mills have shut down? That’s a loss of jobs, and those families have got a choice now. You go on welfare, unemployment insurance, get your severance package, move to Alberta, go to the United States. I don’t know. Maybe they get retrained. But for some of our smaller communities, we only have one industry. So if you get retrained, you’re probably going to another community or another country or another province.

We’re also seeing the amount of investment in LNG Canada decline. It was a great run, but they’re starting to ramp down. Phase 2, mind you, if that gets approved, will double the output of LNG. Hopefully, we get the same tax breaks for phase 1 that was given. We understand the rules around electrification versus using gas turbines for it. That could provide an additional 4,000 jobs, and that will provide additional revenues to the government to spend on schools, roads, hospitals, etc.

Cedar LNG is in the works, but it’s not going to provide that same big economic impact that LNG Canada has provided or even Chevron KLNG would have provided if they didn’t leave town. It’s not going to provide that big of an impact. And by the way, Cedar LNG? That was an offshoot of the LNG Canada agreement that we had signed with LNG Canada back in the day. That was a provision inside the agreement. Cedar LNG was flowing from the Aboriginal rights and title of that agreement.

Guess what. When we had our discussions, it was a no-brainer to say we are going to build one of the most clean LNG export facilities there is, which is going to be fairly easy compared to LNG Canada. There wasn’t going to be much impact. But I’m still trying to figure out exactly how phase 2 of LNG Canada is going to get electrified, as well as Cedar LNG, as well as Nisg̱a’a’s Ksi Lisims LNG.

But to think that we as First Nations over the 20 years have not thought about environmental management is lunacy. First Nations have been doing it long before I came along. My first record that I had to read in terms of the legal files that we were still pursuing came back in 1973, and they were actually fighting the effluent that was being dumped into the Kitimat River. And year after year after year, they fought every environmental impact they could, with no money, no resources.

I do like the idea this government is now bringing back something that’s been in place in my region for the last 20 years already in terms of “polluter pays,” and also bringing back something that the previous B.C. Liberals had brought in, now named the B.C. United, of course.

Instead of walking away from environmental management provisions, I’m actually quite glad the government has seen the light and decided to put this bill back in the House for debate and possible approval.

R. Parmar: It’s a pleasure to be able to follow the other members in this House and speak to Bill 29, an important piece of legislation brought forward by our Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

There’s a lot I want to talk about in relation to this piece of legislation. I want to talk about the impacts this legislation would have in the community of Langford–Juan de Fuca. I want to touch on the comments made on the other side of the House from the MLA for Kelowna-Mission and the MLA from Terrace, from Skeena, and a whole host of things to touch on in relation to this very important piece of legislation.

[5:00 p.m.]

Where I want to start is in my community of Langford–​Juan de Fuca. I have the pleasure of representing a very large geographical area. I represent urban Langford, rural Highlands and semi-urban Sooke all the way out to Port Renfrew.

I want to spend a little bit of time talking about Sooke, a community that, for a long time, was a forestry-based community, a mining-based community, as well, a community that created good-paying jobs for so many people for so many years.

Then, over time, the community changed, and many of those jobs left, or they transitioned into other areas. In particular, if you mention Goodridge Island in my community — people in Sooke know what I’m talking about — in conversation with Chief Gordie Planes of the T’Sou-ke Nation or members of the T’Sou-ke Nation, they commonly refer to it as Stony Village. That’s an old forestry….

It was an island, and then, when work was occurring, when it was a mill, there was a road built to it. I had an opportunity to check it out just a couple of weeks ago. It was quite an honour to be able to be invited by Chief Planes, a dear friend of mine, to be able to tour the island.

For many years, it was a facility that created good-paying jobs for people in Sooke. When I was out door-knocking in Sooke and talking to folks, often I would hear lots of stories of people who worked at that mill site. I’m talking about hundreds of jobs for a community that, in so many ways, funded the infrastructure for the entire south Island. Sooke was a happening place back in the ’60s, ’70s and much of the ’80s as well.

Goodridge Island today is an empty island, covered in the history of what it was in the past. With that are challenges. It is an abandoned site in the sense that the owner of the site has done no work on it following the fact that it was a forestry site. It’s got a very interesting history to it. I encourage folks who are interested to check it out. It was one of those sites that led to an owner purchasing it and just completely abandoning it.

There are certainly some conversations ongoing around the future of the site, but for the T’Sou-ke First Nation, it’s a place for caring. It’s a place for them and their history. It’s a place for culture and tradition. When I talked to Chief Planes and I stood on the island, he pointed to the different mountains and where they hunted, where he first learned to hunt and where he and his community used to gather. On that island, they did gather for a number of years.

Forestry was an economy throughout Langford–Juan de Fuca, including Langford before Langford became the urban dynamite it is today. Much of Sooke and Port Renfrew was forestry-based. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that Port Renfrew still is very much a for­estry town, with the Pacheedaht First Nation leading the way in regards to that.

Certainly there were some decisions made by previous governments to rip land out of TFLs — 6,300 acres, if I’m not mistaken — that would have led to those communities looking entirely different today.

I want to touch on several different pieces in regards to this legislation. Firstly, some comments from the MLA across the way, the MLA for Kelowna-Mission….

I think my friend from Surrey will enjoy this. We’re building a hospital in Surrey, after your government sold the land.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

R. Parmar: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Through you to the member for Kelowna-Mission: your government sold the land. I just want to mention that. I know it’s not pertaining to the bill, but I have to respond to ridiculous comments from the member across the side.

On the piece of this legislation, we often talk about the role of our economy and the purpose of our economy. I’ve always had a strong belief that our economy is about delivering for people. It’s about delivering for people in our communities. It’s about making sure that we’re doing it in a way that respects the environment and respects Indigenous rights and titles.

That’s a very different approach that we are taking, compared to when the B.C. United, and now B.C. Liberal, took when they were in power.

Interjection.

R. Parmar: The member can disagree all she wants, but we’ve got examples, and I’m happy to talk about it.

[5:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.

One member has the floor. Listen to that member. You’ll get a chance to have your say.

R. Parmar: I’m so looking forward to the members on the other side standing up and speaking to this legislation, because I always wonder what side they stand on when it comes to the environment. What I’ve learned about the B.C. United in my short time in this place is they tend to sit on the fence on a lot of issues. I don’t know if that’s because there’s a new party in this place.

I want to get back to talking about the purpose of the economy, and that is investing in people. We often talk about GDP being a driving force and investments from different industries into our economy, but what this legislation talks about is making sure that there are investments in our communities but doing so in a way that respects our communities, respects our environment, respects the history, culture and traditions of Indigenous peoples. That’s what polluter-pay is all about. That’s what this….

Interjection.

R. Parmar: Look, the member had an opportunity to speak, and I didn’t heckle her. I would appreciate the op­portunity to keep chatting, and I look forward to listening to other members speak as well.

I want to talk about the fact that this legislation in its instance, as was talked about by the minister and my colleague from the North Coast, is about making sure we’re doing investment in the right way and that when an investment happens, occurs — a mill conducts its duty, or a mine — afterwards, when it transitions, it transitions in a way that benefits a community. That did not happen in my community with Goodridge Island. Again, it’s a site that’s abandoned and has impacted so many families and impacts the community of Sooke to this day.

I was in Düsseldorf — the Minister of Housing will remember this — touring a steel mine that brought good-paying jobs to people in Germany for a number of years, and what was great about touring that site was it was transitioned into what you wouldn’t imagine. You drove by the site, and it still looked like a steel mill from the outside. But inside, it was a beautiful workplace for tech workers. In fact, there was a brewery inside aspects of it. They were talking about agritech and whole hosts of other investments.

The reason for this legislation is to ensure industrial owners and operators, who have done their part, have made investments in our community, also respect our communities at the same time. This legislation often reminds me…. The members across the way talk about jobs. The member for Skeena talks about jobs and how jobs are important. I agree. Jobs are very important for our community.

Again, I come from a community of resource-based jobs, and I still see a vision in my community for resource-based jobs. I just need to go out to Port Renfrew and talk to the Pacheedaht First Nation, where they’ve got a growing value-added mill in their community that they’re doing great work on. In fact, they’re going to be using that mill to produce wood to be able to use in the new school that they’re going to be building in that community.

Often what we hear from the other side of the House, from the B.C. United, is an us-versus-them, this-or-that type of debate. I have a core belief, as a new MLA in this House, that we can create a good economy, a sustainable economy that creates good-paying jobs, that benefits our people, that invests in education and health care and social services, all of the things that we in British Columbia rely on in 2023 and moving forward. At the same time, we can also protect our environment.

When you often talk about investment and you often talk to investors, I think they respect and appreciate that in this era of ESG. I think that in so many ways, they are aligning with that, and that’s why we’re seeing investments in B.C. again.

I am proud to be an MLA, proud to be a part of a government that is attracting more investments. We have 50,000 jobs created in 2023 alone, and a couple more months to go. I might add, in the previous year, three-quarters of those jobs came from women. We are creating that strong economy. We’re investing in different projects that lead to British Columbians as a whole benefiting entirely.

[5:10 p.m.]

When the members across the side talk about bureaucratic red tape, when they talk about tightening restrictions and all of this sort of stuff, it’s something that we’ve heard before. It’s from the same playbook of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power — in fact, when he was the minister of red tape.

When you supposedly cut that red tape, I question what happens to those communities. Do they get forgotten? Does Goodridge Island, in my community, happen again in other places?

A couple of other things that I certainly want to touch on, in regards to this legislation, is the importance of making sure that we’re protecting and maintaining the health of the land, the water and all of these sites that will be decommissioned in the future.

I think what’s important about that is that’s a job creation aspect in and of itself. When you look at these sites and the decommissioning of them, do you just want to see these sites stay dormant, with the owners potentially fleeing and the community left to be able to deal with it, or the nations, as the member for Skeena mentioned, left to deal with it? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s the purpose of our economy. I don’t think that’s the purpose of these investments.

Again, I’ve got examples of those in my community from the past that continue to have an impact on it. But I think when we look at these investments, and when we look at the way these investments are made, we need to make sure that we’re thinking 25, 50, 100 years ahead. We need to be thinking about what these sites will do for the people in the future. Again, that’s a mindset that is not new to this House.

Certainly, for me, it’s a mindset that I learned from the elders in my community, like Chief Gordie Planes, who often thinks about the next generation and what it will impact in terms of its community.

When I think of this legislation and the actual job creation aspect of it, I think of ESG and the fact that I believe to my core that there are companies all across this world that are looking at British Columbia as a jurisdiction to be able to invest in and to be able to compete in because of the work that we’ve been able to do in UNDRIP. Again, that’s something that we did together from all sides of the House.

I think of the StrongerBC economic plan, a plan which laid out two goals, the inclusive goal and the clean growth. On the clean growth, we made it very clear that leading on environmental and social responsibility was at our core. We made it very clear that through investments like the ESG Centre of Excellence, we were going to use those tools to be able to attract investment.

We’re not turning investment away. We’re, in fact, saying to investment: “Come. Come to B.C. But come to B.C. to be a partner. Come to B.C. to be a part of a community, and ensure that when you’re investing in that community, you’re respecting the people in those communities.”

When I think of this legislation, I often think about the integrated marketplace initiative in the Ministry of Jobs that was announced well over a year ago. I often think about an aspect of that project, the Port of Prince Rupert, and finding ways to be able to create jobs that allow people to explore ways to be able to reduce the impact that different institutions have on the environment.

This integrated marketplace had a goal in its mind to be able to create good-paying jobs. I see a lot of connections between the integrated marketplace and what this legislation is trying to do in regards to being able to protect our environment.

The changes under this proposed legislation are going to require a lot of work. It’s going to require us to be able to engage with our communities. It’s going to require us to be able to have conversations with investors.

Our government continues to be able to engage with people like the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; like BCBC, the Business Council; and find ways to be able to attract investment here. Those are going to be conversations that all members of this House have. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy has those conversations, as do the Minister of Jobs and the Premier and a whole host of things.

The legal requirement to uphold a polluter-pay principle, I believe, in 2023 is non-negotiable when it comes to looking at investments and projects. It’s something that communities and people I certainly hear from in my in-box, or reaching out in my community office, want to see us take these sort of actions on. Again, you’ve seen that through the StrongerBC economic plan. You’ve seen that through CleanBC, the leading Canada — in fact, North America — climate plan.

[5:15 p.m.]

What I’ve always appreciated in my short time here in this Legislature is the important work that happens on the ground in respective ministry offices, to be able to do this important work. I’m mindful of the fact that there was a lot of engagement that happened in this piece of legislation, making sure that Indigenous peoples, industry and local governments and non-profit organizations helped the minister be able to develop legislation to be able to bring forward today.

I’m particularly proud of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy for the work he’s doing. I certainly look forward to hearing the other debate from the other side of the House, and I certainly hope they jump off the fence post and make it very clear where they stand on issues like the environment and the economy, because you can create a good economy and fight climate change at the same time.

People in Langford–Juan de Fuca believe that. People in British Columbia believe that, and that’s what I’m going to fight for each and every day that I stand in this Legislature.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the previous speaker from Langford–Juan de Fuca. I’ll have some comments, more on some of his commentary. I found some of it very contradictory, to tell you the honest truth, and I’ll explain that a little bit later.

I guess, in a nutshell, what Bill 29 speaks to — the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023 — is our quest to be better, to get better. Here in British Columbia, I think we’ve done a pretty good job, and to be quite honest, I think members on both sides of the House can take credit in that, not only current government but also former governments as well. This didn’t happen overnight.

I would argue with anyone that B.C. has some of the most robust, strictest environmental standards anywhere in the world. I’ve heard that from ministers. The Minister of Environment, for example, in estimates, talked about a very robust framework that we have in our environmental assessment programs. I’ve heard it from the Energy and Mines Minister and various others, and I agree. I think we should all take a little congratulatory step forward on that, because I think it’s true.

Bill 29, essentially, is a user-pay. We’ve heard that being thrown around a lot here today, and that’s essentially it. It’s a very small bill — four clauses, five including commencement. I mean, it’s not a huge bill.

There was a regulation. There was the Spill Cost Recovery Regulation that I think was brought in, in 2004 and amended, I think, in 2009. That was repealed by this government. What that regulation spoke to was on cost recovery. Reasonable costs, I think, is what it was, essentially, and that’s what we’re talking about here today. So that was repealed back in 2017, I believe.

Now here we are today, seven years and two elections later, coming up with a four-clause bill. To me, that doesn’t seem it was on the top priority list for this government. But here we are today, and it sits…. I think, for the most part, people on all sides of the House are going to support the principle of user-pay. I mean, if you’re going to play, you’ve got to pay, and that’s essentially what we’re seeing with all our industries.

We’ve got some good folks, and we’ve got some not-so-good folks. So we’ve got to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I think this bill will address that. It’ll put some parameters in place. But we do have a few questions that we’ll be submitting to committee stage — uncertainty on cost implications, on how that affects our competitiveness, not only here in B.C. and Canada but also globally.

I heard the member for North Island talk about jobs as rhetoric, I think was the term she used — rhetoric. High-paying, highly skilled jobs is not rhetoric. You can go to the industry itself. Mining, for example — $10 billion in gross revenues every year, and $382 million of that goes to government coffers. That’s about 12,000 direct jobs there. There are many more indirect after that.

Oil and gas is billions of dollars every year in goods and services. It’s billions in government revenues every year. That’s about 62,000 direct and indirect jobs. So just between those two industries, whether it’s oil and gas or mining, it’s about 100,000 indirect and direct jobs.

[5:20 p.m.]

Those are people’s livelihoods. That’s everybody from the mechanic to the tire repair shop to the industry itself — those that work in those mines.

With this bill, we need to ensure that there’s that certainty and that clarity. We have to have some sort of presence that when we do these things, we have to have the scope and the vision that it’s not going to negatively impact our industry. I think that’s something that needs to be said.

It’s not this environment-versus-the-economy issue. Those are false choices that we’re given. We can have our cake and eat it too.

I think we can encourage responsible industry to B.C. But we have to be sure we don’t put ourselves too far ahead of ourselves, or we’ll lose that industry completely. Of course, that industry is chased away to other jurisdictions in the world that aren’t so friendly with the environment, that aren’t so friendly with human rights, that aren’t so friendly with safety standards.

That’s what we’re trying to preserve here in British Columbia. We’ve been given a bounty of natural resources. You see it every day as you walk through the rotunda. We had our constituency assistants with us yesterday, and as I stood there, amongst the gallery of people…. You look up at the murals on the wall, and it shows those four foundational industries that we all know so well — it’s fishing and forestry, mining, agriculture.

All have an impact. No matter what we do when we move forward, we will have an impact. This bill is how we best mitigate that impact and how we become responsible.

Part of this bill…. I’ll just read this note I was given from some of our great staff: “As British Columbians increasingly face the consequences of poor environment management, preparedness and climate change legislation is important to alleviate the long-term ramifications as we balance industry and sustainability.” I think those words “balance industry and sustainability” are key to this legislation, because we have to keep that in check.

As I said, we have these great industries right now. We have these great corporate players that we play with, and we also have some bad ones, so we have to separate that.

We know it’s supported on both sides. We know indus­try is supported on both sides. We’ve seen this government support LNG. That has an impact. Hydraulic fracturing has an impact.

We’ve seen this government support Trans Mountain, although they tried to use every tool in the toolbox to get it shut down. It’s about 90 percent, 95 percent complete right now. That’s going to provide a lot of goods and services to British Columbians.

Site C is another project they have supported — great impact up in the northeast part of our province.

Also, things like mines. Mount Polley has just been re-permitted. It’s back in production. This government has put that forward.

We know all of us here in this House support industry. So how do we best mitigate that?

Hydrogen is another one. Hydrogen is on the table. When we talk about blue hydrogen, turquoise hydrogen, other forms of there’s going to be an impact, whether that’s through natural gas, or nuclear for pink or red hydrogen. With that comes responsibility. How do we do this? How do we thread the needle here, so to speak, to ensure that we have a balance?

This legislation repealed the old one earlier, but it does bring back…. It proves….

This would be done by repealing the holder’s authority to abandon a permit or approval and enacts the authority to (1) order the preparation of a decommissioning and closure plan; (2) order the decommissioning and closure of a facility; order the posting of security to cover the cost of decommissioning and closure, which is like a bond; and (4) allow government to decommission and close a facility and recover said costs if it is determined to be abandoned.

I would like to know, in committee stage, what is that determination? What is the scope and size of each of these plans, each of these authoritative tools that can be used to close a permit down or to justify putting a plan forward? What is the size and scope of that project that makes sure that we’re not painting everybody in one big, broad basket?

[5:25 p.m.]

Meaning if you have a small project — a placer mine, for example — do they have to be under the same scope and plan as a major mine? If that’s the case, it’ll be a significant cost. And if there is a significant cost to that, then those industries will just dry up. They’ll fail to compete.

That’s important, because for every large major mine we have, it came from an exploration. It came from a find; it came from a mining claim. We have to ensure that that trunk line of placer exploration, junior mining to major mining, is in full swing at all times. If we up-end any of those pieces along the way, down the road, we’re in trouble, and we’ll never see the fruits of our labour and the promise that we have here as British Columbians.

Now, I advocate a lot for wildlife and habitat, and a lot of people actually question me. They say: “Well, aren’t you the Energy, Mines critic? How can you do that? That seems pretty contradictory.” But it’s not; it’s absolutely quite the opposite. I just had lunch today with the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition here in British Columbia. It’s probably one of the most amazing groups I’ve seen in quite some time. This is a coalition that has over 300,000 members.

There are 27 or 28, and climbing, organizations. These are everything from CPAWS to Wildsight, to Sierra Club to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, to the Trappers Association of British Columbia. Quite honestly — I joke about it, but it’s the truth — ten years ago you would never have gotten half those people in the same room at the same time. They were at each other’s throats. Technically speaking, they were. They didn’t see eye to eye, but a crisis brings people together. That’s what we’re in right now, with our wildlife and our habitat in the crisis we have.

I say it quite often that where I’m from, the Kootenays, we were known as the Serengeti of North America. We have the highest density and the highest counts of big game. I think there are 13 or 14 big-game species there. We have a vast variety of species, some red-listed, some blue-listed, some abundant. We serve that corridor between the U.S., up the Rocky Mountain Trench, up towards Alaska. It’s a vital corridor.

A very near and dear part of the work that I do is to keep that moving and to ensure that we have a healthy habitat, that we have healthy wildlife management plans. I just wanted to give a big shout-out to those folks.

Adventure tourism is going to be a big part of our riding, as well as the rest of British Columbia. It’s important that if you use the land, put it back the way you found it.

Mount Polley, for example, at the time in 2014, was considered — it probably still is to this day — the largest mining environmental accident in Canadian history. What did we learn from that? Well, I think we learned a lot.

If you go to the site of Mount Polley now — I’ve been to it a couple of times now — it’s quite vibrant. Is it totally restored to what it looked like before? Well, some would say no, and some would say it’s better than it was before. I don’t want to get into that discussion, but there are environmental reports that are out now.

Hazeltine Creek was the creek that was washed out, essentially, when the breach happened at Polley Lake. Here comes the effluent and all the water that was in that tailings pond. It came rushing down, went up into Polley Lake, came screaming down Hazeltine Creek into Quesnel Lake.

It took a swath of…. I don’t know how far across it is. I’ll say about one kilometre wide. I’m not sure if it’s quite that wide — yeah, the Speaker understands — but it was quite devastating. I’m happy to say that taxpayers didn’t pay for that. Now, there’s argument on that, but the key part here is that Imperial Metals did a really significant job and spent $70 million to $100 million on restoring that ecosystem.

[5:30 p.m.]

If you go back, the salmon are back; the frogs are back. When I was there three or four years ago now, frogs were abundant. Frogs, as some people know, are very sensitive to ecosystem changes. I guess the litmus test is: if you can bring frogs back, you can bring almost anything back, because they’re very sensitive. It was pretty impressive, but you’ll never see that. If you google “Mount Polley” today, you’re going to see a disaster. We need to do better than that. We need to recognize who our good players are.

This legislation is going try to hone that in a little bit, and make sure we are responsible for our practices. I want to give a shout out to Imperial Metals as well for doing the right thing. In my region in the East Kootenays, in the southeast part of the province, we have four of the largest mines in Canada, with the metallurgical coal mines — those steelmaking coal mines in Sparwood and Elkford, and all those great folks in the Elk Valley.

There’s some impact there. There’s no question. Teck Resources has inherited those mines from 100 years ago. There has been a piling of waste rock over 100 years. With that come selenium issues. When that waste rock is ex­posed to the elements — water, air — that, in turn, leaches and runs into our tributaries. We need to make sure that we have bonding in place so that in case these companies go away, those things will be taken care of.

Now, I’m happy to say that Teck Resources has put in a significant amount of technology and money to rectify this issue. Right now, they have well over $1 billion invested. They’ll be close to $2 billion on wastewater treatment. Right now, I believe, they’re at about 80 million litres per day. They’re treating wastewater, at 80 million litres per day. If I’ve got my figures right, that’s 150 Olympic-sized swimming pools of wastewater treatment every day. This is taking 95 percent of the selenium and calcite content out, which would otherwise be in the watershed.

That’s significant. That’s responsibility. That’s what this bill is all about: being reasonable, responsible and having some results. I know members on this side of the Legislature are all about being reasonable, responsible and results driven. We have to ensure that, but we have to make sure that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What I mean by that is we’ve got to make sure that our policy and legislation on issues that may add costs and red tape…. I think the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca talked about red tape as if it was kind of like: “What is it? Who cares?” It’s a real thing when you have red tape — and too much unnecessary red tape.

You need bureaucracy. Don’t get me wrong; you need red tape. But if it’s unnecessary and if it’s over the top, it chokes things out. It’s like a garden. You’ve got to weed it out every once in a while, or your vegetables won’t grow. It adds time, it adds uncertainty, and it adds cost. Red tape is an issue we have to address, and that’s why we did have a Ministry of Red Tape Reduction. I’m proud of it. It got some things done; it got some things moving.

When we talk about jobs, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs I’m talking about right now, it’s a pretty big deal. So I support the legislation in principle. I will have some definite questions in committee stage on how this can impact the industry, negatively or positively, on clarity, certainty, costs, competitiveness and all those other things that could stall us out. The member talked about being competitive. We need to be competitive.

We are one of the best jurisdictions in the world — full stop — when it comes to environmental standards. Can we get better? Always. Do things change? Definitely. Is this legislation something I endorse? Absolutely. But let’s be careful what we do. We don’t want to be coming back and amending this legislation later or repealing it, like we saw the NDP do with the Spill Cost Recovery Regulation. We want to move forward.

With that, I’ll turn the floor over.

[5:35 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further….

The Minister of the Environment to close the debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank all the speakers from both sides of the House who have spoken on the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023.

I think we can all agree that it is not the taxpayer who should bear the cost or the responsibility of environmental cleanup from commercial industrial operations. That is in fact the purpose of the bill: to ensure that we protect human health and the environment by upholding the polluter-pays principle and ensuring that owners of large industrial projects are appropriately bonded so they can pay the full cost of environmental cleanup, even if their projects are abandoned.

I believe a thriving economy is a sustainable economy. As far as certainty that would be needed by industry about what will be expected of them, that will be determined in the regulation development stage, for which there will be substantial engagement and consultation with Indigenous peoples, with industry and with other stakeholders.

That will inform the regulations, so they can be effective, so they can be clear, so they can be appropriate for the circumstance and so industry can plan ahead as they’re developing their business plans and their cost projections. I think that is what will bring stability for industry, as well as stability for taxpayers and the province.

In sum, we’re long overdue to reduce unnecessary en­vironmental cleanup liability to the government, also known as the taxpayers of British Columbia. By requiring decommissioning and closure plans, we’re telling industry, many of whom already do this, to plan ahead, to understand what you’re going to have to do and to budget for it. This adheres to the leading environmental, social and governance principles, as well as continuing economic growth across B.C.

I look forward to answering many of the members during committee stage, particularly members in the official opposition, who had questions about specifics. I look forward to that discussion. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: The minister moves second reading of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Heyman: I now call second reading of Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, 2023.

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

B.C. is a desirable place to live, but finding a place to call home in B.C. can be challenging. Rental vacancy rates across the province are low, and workers and middle-income households are finding it difficult to find affordable housing in their communities.

One part of this issue is short-term rentals of entire homes, which have removed thousands of much-needed long-term housing units from the market. While local governments have been attempting to address the pressures and already have short-term-rental bylaws in place, they have been very clear that they need more support. It’s time for the province to play a bigger role in short-term-rental regulation and enforcement, to ensure that we’re returning long-term housing for B.C. residents.

This bill will help address the impact of short-term rentals on the housing market in three ways.

First, the bill gives local governments more effective tools for better enforcement of short-term-rental bylaws. This includes changes to the Local Government Act to increase maximum fines and to give regional districts the ability to issue business licences, so that they can more effectively regulate short-term rentals in rural areas.

The bill also requires short-term-rental platforms to provide the province with regular data and display the host local government business licence numbers and, eventually, a provincial registry number, to make it easier for local governments to enforce their bylaws and make sure that everyone is playing by the rules.

[5:40 p.m.]

Second, the bill supports the return of homes to the long-term housing market by limiting short-term rentals in B.C. to a principal residence only, plus one secondary or garden or laneway suite for municipalities with 10,000 people or more, as well as adjacent communities.

Further exemptions for certain property types and geographic areas will be made in subsequent regulations, through which we intend to exempt resort municipalities and electoral areas of regional districts.

We know from research available that there are more than 16,000 units currently rented through short-term rental platforms, where the entire home is rented fre­quently enough that is effectively removed from the long-term housing market. The principal resident requirement has potential to return thousands of units to the long-term housing market, providing homes for people who desperately need them in communities right across this province.

Recognizing that in some cases, local government’s attempts to regulate the presence of these units is limited by legacy rules, the bill will also end non-conforming use zoning protections that previously allowed short-term rentals to continue operating despite local government rental bylaws.

Third, the bill sees the province take a major role in regulating short-term rentals. This includes creating a registry that will require hosts and platforms to register their short-term rentals with the province. The bill will also establish a new compliance and enforcement unit that will monitor, investigate and ensure platform and host compliance with provincial and local rules.

Taken together, these measures will help return homes to the long-term housing market and help British Columbians to find a place to call home. I also know how important this bill is, that this bill is responsive to the needs of partners and communities. The bill was developed through engagement with Indigenous partners, local governments, key sector stakeholders and industry experts.

The bill includes provisions to ensure that the modern treaty nations can voluntarily choose to participate in legislation through coordination agreements with the Ministry of Housing.

Ministry staff will continue to work closely and collaboratively with local governments on implementation. The bill will have far-reaching benefits in terms of supporting local governments, both for communities with short-term rental bylaws that struggle with compliance and for those that do not currently have short-term bylaws.

The province also recognizes that some local governments have already taken significant steps to address short-term rentals in their communities. These communities may wish to continue regulating short-term rentals locally and may have continued regulating of short-term rentals and may have their own principal resident requirements that are different from what is included in the provincial legislation. We support these efforts.

The provincial principal resident requirement can be seen as a floor. Local governments can still enact more restrictive requirements, such as not allowing short-term rentals in properties like secondary suites.

While the way these bylaws interact with provincial rules is clear in the Community Charter, the legislation includes similar language for the Vancouver Charter to address potential conflicts and provide clarity around how the city can continue to regulate short-term rentals according to their local needs.

In addition, while our intent is to ensure, through legislation, that the principal residence requirement will be applied in larger communities and those adjacent to them, rural communities and resort municipalities will be ex­empted from principal resident requirements and will continue to make their own decisions depending on housing pressures in their communities.

Recognizing that some larger communities will have higher vacancy rates and may be less affected by the presence of short-term rental units, there will be a process for communities with healthy vacancy rates to choose to opt out of principal residence requirements.

Ministry staff are developing regulations to implement the proposed legislation and bring into force a phased approach to provide for local governments to update their bylaws and for hosts and platforms to come into compliance with the new rules.

This bill builds on the work our government has already done in the Homes for People plan and is another step towards creating a housing market that works for people, not for speculators. This bill puts people first by addressing housing needs of British Columbians in response to the critical need in increasing housing availability and attainability.

It will help make life more affordable, as reducing the unwanted diversion of long-term rentals to the short-term rental market will help increase housing availability, stabilizing prices and rents. This bill will support a stronger B.C. economy, increase housing for workers and ensure that we continue to have sustainable, resilient communities for years to come.

Hon. G. Lore: I’m so pleased to rise and speak in support of this legislation. I represent a community where 60 percent of people rent their homes. These renters are of all ages. These renters are of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Renting their home is how they live in our community.

[5:45 p.m.]

This piece of legislation is such an important component of the work we are doing to support people in making sure that they can access the quality housing, attainable housing, housing that works for their family.

In my community, our municipal government has taken steps to limit and regulate short-term rentals, to curtail Airbnbs taking homes out of the housing stock. But there are, as the minister mentioned, many hundreds that are grandparented in, in that they are legacy Airbnbs. These are units that are out of our housing stock in a community where the majority of people rent and where the vacancy rate is low.

In advance of this legislation, I heard for months, over and over — in fact, since I was elected — about the need to take action on short-term rentals, particularly these units that are non-conforming to the regulations done by the municipality. This piece of legislation does that — gives the municipality an additional tool, ensures that we are, in fact, prioritizing housing for homes and housing for people.

In the current vacancy rate, which is extremely low, we cannot continue to have units out of the housing stock when we need them so desperately. I spoke to a constituent this afternoon who is a renter, who mentioned how important this legislation is to them. They noted the importance of making sure that we have more housing stock and that we take all the steps we can to ensure that units, diverse units, are available to community members.

I know, across my community and many others, the impact of housing on labour shortages, for example. When we think about tourism, when we think about the hospitality sector, when we think about education, housing is a key component. So this is an important piece that is relevant to addressing the housing challenges in my community, and it also is an important component on some of those other challenges our communities face.

Over the summer, I was taking the opportunity to set up at local markets, and unsurprisingly, when people stopped by to connect, housing was a key theme. I talked to a nurse who had moved to Victoria and who was having a ton of trouble finding housing. We can’t have situations where we can’t keep nurses in communities they want to live in because they can’t find homes. She was renting short-term rentals. That is not a solution to her being able to stay in our community, to build community, to be part of the community.

I’m very much in support of this legislation. I think it’s part of the broader work we’re doing to meet the needs of people when it comes to housing, particularly renters. When I heard about short-term rentals, I was often hearing about the impacts of rental restrictions also taking housing out of the housing stock.

In one particular case, I had a student in my community who wanted to go to university but owned her condo and couldn’t rent it out while she was doing her master’s in Ontario. Making the changes that we did about rental restrictions was a piece of the puzzle for opening up more units to renters, creating opportunities for homes to not sit empty but for homes to be homes for people.

I similarly heard quite a bit from parents or hopeful parents who were struggling to find rentals that allowed them to have children in the units. This legislation on short-term rentals pairs with some of the other steps we’ve taken to support renters, to support, also, folks being able to stay in our community, which is something I know people in my community want. I know that’s true for my colleagues as well.

[5:50 p.m.]

We want to build places where people can be near where they work, where they have family, where they choose to raise their family.

Just as I was coming in here, I received an email from a constituent who was saying that the introduction of this legislation gives her continued hope that we are going to rise to the challenge — that this is a place she can raise her family in. She cautioned me in her email, though, around the questions of enforcement.

It was another piece that I have heard, and I do hear from constituents all the time. While there are hundreds of these legacy short-term rentals that are now no longer going to be allowed with this legislation, there have been concerns that even the existing regulations in Victoria were not enforceable. People had units that they were renting out in a short-term way that were not allowed.

I think what’s so important about this legislation is it’s also taking steps to equip us to enforce. I know it’s something that municipalities struggled with. I know that figuring out where they are is a little bit like Whac-a-Mole. Find one; try to respond. So I think, in addition to this legislation bringing more units to the rental market, for example, it’s going to give us the tools to actually enforce. That includes that registration.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard from constituents around the concerns of what they see as low fines for breaking the rules. If you’re making a ton of money on multiple Airbnbs and treating those fees as the cost of doing business, then we’ve got a problem. So the increasing of fees here in this legislation I think is also important.

I also appreciate, in this legislation, steps taken to hold platforms accountable. We need to make sure that all the pieces are there, that the players who have some levers here are following the rules. I know some folks in my community and elsewhere have said: “Well, people aren’t going to rent these.” People who currently have short-term rentals have options. I know some will do long-term rentals, and in a community like mine, where so many people are renters, that’s so important.

Others will choose to sell. When we are thinking about the housing challenges in our province, we need to look across the housing spectrum. People selling their units for other people to live in — or to rent out, for example, but ideally to buy a unit to live in — that is also a positive outcome here.

I think that when we’re taking these steps for accountability, for higher fees, for enforcement, for opening up units, we’re doing a service to our communities when it comes to housing but also when it comes to community-building. People want to live where they work, where they have family, where they have community. People want to live next to neighbours, and I think this is such an important tool.

There’s so much happening in my community around housing. New supportive housing opening up. Culturally supportive housing open in Vic West. Youth supportive housing close to being open, just two blocks from my constituency office. Across from my local community centre, there is mixed residential going up, from deeply subsidized to geared-to-income to market, and we need to take all of those steps at the same time.

This bill is not a silver bullet. None of those steps are. We have to do it all. And in a community like Victoria, with so many renters, with so many units grandfathered in, and with the need to have enforcement and accountability for those that are breaking the rules around short-term rentals, this legislation is a welcome piece of the puzzle.

When I go out in community next, I know that I’m going to hear about this. I’ve heard about it via phone, text, social media, email. I know that people are going to want us to keep moving, to keep looking for those solutions, to keep building housing across the housing spectrum, to keep investing in capital for existing affordable and non-profit housing, for the rental protection fund so that we’re saving affordable rentals.

[5:55 p.m.]

Again, this is a huge issue in my community, where the fear of a building going up for sale is so palpable. I hear about it every time I’m out in community. People see that for-sale sign on their rental building, and: “Where am I going to go next? What’s going to happen?” Having the rental protection fund to be able to equip community partners to purchase and retain affordable housing is, again, another really important piece of the puzzle.

In the current context of low vacancy rates, of not enough housing, of more people moving to our province and to my city of Victoria, we need to use every tool available across the housing spectrum: legislative funding, making sure people can rent their apartments, making sure kids and families are welcome in housing that is not seniors housing and taking our steps to prevent the proliferation of short-term rentals, to bring those that are already out there operating legally, and some illegally, back onto the housing market for long-term rental and for some to purchase a unit.

I’ll leave my remarks there but to say I strongly support this legislation and the steps that it takes and the impact that it will have in Victoria–Beacon Hill.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 35. I’m choosing to not speak for a long time here today on this bill. The complexities and the impact in community are significant, and there are a lot of things that we really have to canvass in committee to truly understand the impacts.

With any legislation, the legislation deems to do one thing, but I think with this particular piece of legislation, the impact that it can have on other sectors, on people personally, is really important for us to fully understand.

I’ll say that in my three years I’ve been here — I think it’s been three years, now, that I’ve been here — I have never received so many emails that were not computer generated, I’ll say, where people have shared their own personal stories about the impact of this legislation, good and bad.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

There really is complexity out there in terms of impact, and there’s uniqueness in different communities as well.

We can all agree, I’m sure, in this room, that short-term rentals have had an impact and a negative impact on the availability of long-term housing options for British Columbians. Now, although there are some sensible measures in this bill to help regulate short-term rentals — and we agree that there needs to be some kind of bumpers around this — there are a number of impacts that we’re concerned haven’t been considered and we want to ensure are considered.

B.C. is in a housing crisis. We understand this. We desperately need housing, and British Columbians need accessible and affordable homes to live in.

Now, a recommendation was made to this government in 2018, from the Rental Housing Task Force, to consult with municipalities and stakeholders to develop a balanced approach to mitigate any harm that it will have to the rental market that short-term vacation rentals may pose.

It has been five years since that recommendation was made while government has not brought anything forward. The consultation has been light at best. Now, in that period of time, short-term rental use has exploded. It’s up 20 percent since 2018.

[6:00 p.m.]

Based on what we’ve heard from municipalities in the last few days…. We heard that although some consultation took place and there was a recommendation from UBCM with respect to some kind of regulation on short-term rentals, what is appearing before us in this legislation does not accurately reflect what those conversations were or what that recommendation was.

There are some concerns about this provincial legislation overriding some municipalities’ own non-conforming regulations, which were brought in to reflect some unique opportunities and unique challenges within some of these communities. We have to realize that one size doesn’t fit all, and this is, in many cases, what this legislation is doing. It is taking a blanket approach in many communities, in terms of how this should be working.

In that same period of time, since 2018, when the initial recommendation was made to this government to look at some kind of regulatory framework, the NDP government collected over $80 million in tax revenue from short-term vacation platforms. The B.C. NDP government is now one of the largest customers of Airbnb themselves. There is some hypocrisy here in terms of using these platforms, recognizing the value and need of these platforms and, at the same time, villainizing those operators of these platforms.

I wonder how many NDP MLAs have stayed in Airbnbs in the last few years. It’s a rhetorical question. I’ll say I have. I had an Airbnb I rented, on a boat, which was really cool; a tent, which was really cool — cold, but cool, literally. But I do want to make sure that we realize there are very different and unique kinds of experiences that some of these platforms offer. Are they being captured appropriately or not being captured in this legislation?

While we need to address this issue and support municipalities as they are struggling with this crisis, we believe the NDP government only feels this legislation is required today because it has failed on its commitments to provide enough safe and affordable housing for British Columbians. It set targets. It didn’t meet those targets. It’s brought in a number of regulatory changes, taxes, various things that have just simply not resulted in creating the kind of housing that British Columbians need.

Short-term rentals have also grown and become very popular in B.C. because British Columbia has failed to deal with the chronic shortage of hotel and motel spaces.

I’ll just read a quote from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade’s tourism roadmap in 2021, because I do think that this is relevant here. “Greater Vancouver has lost upwards of 800 hotel rooms to bankruptcy and conversions to supportive housing. Many of the converted hotel rooms were drawn from the stock of affordable hotel rooms that make a diverse array of tourism and travel to Vancouver more possible. Hotel developments in the pipeline cannot replace this lost supply, as they predominantly consist of higher-end luxury rooms and serve customers at a higher price point.”

What has happened, particularly since the pandemic, is that a lot of the motels — the Travelodges and Comfort Inns and these other motel accommodations families would find affordable — have now been removed as potential accommodation for them. When a family is travelling, and they’ve got two or three kids, and they’ve got a…. What is a hotel room here now? Three hundred, if we’re lucky. It can be up to $500 a night for one room with maybe two people in it.

Where are those opportunities going to come from if we are not, as well as addressing these issues, increasing the opportunity for vacation accommodation which is outside of the residential housing market?

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s not just the loss of affordable family motels and hotels. I’d like to remind the House that the member from Burnaby North just recently stood in this House and said that there are a lot of empty suites throughout Burnaby North because landlords are afraid to rent them out.

Now, this is true. The Leader of the Opposition talked about this today. I tell you that many, many of those emails I got today were from people who want to be landlords, but there is this considerable fear and challenges because of the hurdles and challenges they’ve had with dealing with the residential tenancy branch. This is shown by my colleague across the way, talking about the experience in Burnaby North. People are scared to rent out their homes.

Anecdotal stories, but many of those stories are real in terms of the difficulty of having a bad tenant or a non-paying tenant in a suite within your own home, in particular, and having the residential tenancy branch and that process remove someone without waiting for months and months. So this is something that is real, and this is something that this government can and should be looking at.

What are the tools you can use, also, that are going to encourage people to rent out their homes and to rent out second apartments that they own? And creating a place where landlords feel that they are safe doing so, and have supports to do so, would certainly be one thing that can be looked at.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this today, and I saw a tweet from the Minister of Housing acting like this wasn’t an issue at all. Why would we even bring this up as an issue? This government has to know it is an issue.

There was a survey not that long ago with people with secondary suites, asking why they weren’t renting out their suites and why they were using them for Airbnb. It really is a concern about the process that we have with the residential tenancy branch. So that is something that government could and should be looking at.

Again, a one-size approach doesn’t fit all, and there are some very legitimate reasons that we need to make sure that there are short-term rentals available. A couple, again, that I’ve heard from today….

Locum physicians often will use short-term rental. Students who arrive early, before the school term, and they need to get here and need to get sorted and find someplace permanent. Families come to be close to relatives who are undergoing medical treatment. They can’t afford to stay in hotels. You also want to create a home where you can bring children, and being in a hotel doesn’t do that. Doctors and nurses stay when they move here and while they do a house search.

Families. I was just speaking to an NDP member who’s staying in an Airbnb while they are dealing with a flood restoration in their home. So insurance companies may often move people into Airbnbs for periods of time while they’re doing restoration in their homes.

Considering that B.C. has the highest rents in Canada and the worst housing affordability in North America, this legislation, as it’s written, and standing on its own, is certainly not going to be enough to counteract all of the blizzard of new taxes that have only made this housing crisis worse.

While this bill may free up some more units of housing, it’s not going to come close to countering the abysmal record of this government on creating housing. After seven years and two elections, what have we got? What results do we have to show for the work that this government has done on housing? Rent has almost doubled, to $3,000 a month in Vancouver. A townhouse is up 33 percent to $1 million, and for a single-family home, the average price now is approaching $2 million.

Further, while government has outlined that they expect these platforms and these hosts to willingly register for the database, as it currently stands and as the member from Beacon Hill expressed, there are many who are operating illegally at this point. I believe the minister said that 50 percent are currently operating illegally.

[6:10 p.m.]

In the same breath, I believe they said that they feel most people…. Government feels most operators will voluntarily play by these new rules. So I question why they would necessarily play by the new rules when they’re already not playing by the existing rules that we’ve got.

We also have to look at what happened in New York. I’m sure that this government did that, informing themselves in terms of what this kind of policy can result in. New York, relatively recently, came in with a similar ban on short-term rentals. It has really increased and pushed things into a black market.

So in this legislation, and we’ll have the opportunity…. This may be anticipated by government. We’ll have that opportunity tomorrow, as we’re going through committee stage, to look at how we ensure that these units are now not just moving over to Facebook and to Twitter and to some of these other places that are going to put them underground in terms of the process that government is setting out here to be able to provide oversight and regulate this.

Questions exist, as we’ll ask tomorrow. But we talk a lot about Airbnb. It seems to be the Kleenex brand of short-term rentals. There’s VRBO, but there’s also Expedia. There’s Hotels.com. There’s Booking.com. There’s Hostelworld. There are so many different places that people are actually advertising these short-term rentals on.

So questions that we’ll ask are really around how we anticipate or how we are recognizing specifically which platforms are participating and are going to be covered by this. What kind of relationship are we going to have with those platforms? How are we going to ensure that each and every one of those platforms is playing on a level playing field and they’re all abiding by the same regulations?

From what I have seen in that legislation, it’s not clear that the black market issue is going to be addressed. So I will just say at this point that our B.C. United caucus supports sensible measures to regulate short-term rentals, and we do look forward to scrutinizing and debating the specifics of this legislation in the committee stage.

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I’ll take my seat.

Hon. J. Osborne: The last time I came into this building before I was elected an MLA, it was to visit the then Minister of Housing, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I came to her as the mayor of the district of Tofino to talk to her about the challenges that we were experiencing in Tofino with respect to housing and with respect to short-term rentals.

I am so proud to stand up today, now, and speak in support of this bill. It represents so many of the changes that I was calling for at the time as the mayor of Tofino and that so many other leaders in small communities and big communities were asking the province to help with, the enforcement and the monitoring of short-term rental activity.

But I want to go back and start at the beginning of the story in Tofino to really illustrate the impact of this kind of legislation. Like so many beautiful places around this province, slowly we developed a bed-and-breakfast community in Tofino where people were able to come and stay and enjoy this incredible, beautiful place. At that time, Tofino was a small fishing village, pretty quaint, pretty quiet. It was affordable to come and stay, and people really enjoyed themselves.

Over time, people began to realize that it was an opportunity not just to rent a room or two in a home but also to rent out an entire home and have a family stay. It was an important way for people to take part in the tourism economy. But it was something that was viewed as compet­itive with a bed and breakfast, which is a principal residence, an owner in a house renting out several rooms.

A discussion ensued. In 2005, the district of Tofino may have been one of the first municipalities in the province of British Columbia to bring in short-term rental regulations. So it actually set the playing field for how people could use their homes.

One principle always drove this work, and it was that a home is, first and foremost, for living in. It is a place for people to live in. But it’s important, especially in a tourism-dependent community like Tofino, to be able to take advantage of the tourism economy. It’s a little bit of extra income. It’s something that people can use to augment, seniors or families, people who are trying to make it go in a place like Tofino….

[6:15 p.m.]

Over the years, because we did not enforce those regulations strictly, short-term rentals proliferated, and something happened we never saw coming. That was the advent of online platforms, booking platforms like Airbnb, like VRBO, like others. That’s how things can get away from you very, very quickly.

So we made the decision in 2013 to undertake more proactive enforcement of short-term rentals in Tofino. But that comes at a cost. Of course, we had to hire people. We had to have bylaw enforcement officers. We had to have the staff inside the municipal office to be able to track this — to be able to make sure that people had the business licences, that they were in the right zones and that they were operating in accordance with the law.

That is extremely challenging for a small town — a town of 2,000 people at the time, a town with just 32 members of staff. We didn’t have very many bylaw enforcement officers, but we needed to find the time to do that because we knew just how important it was.

Of course, we heard from the hotel industry. They were very concerned about having a level playing field. Was this a fair thing for people to be able to do?

They wanted to be sure that people who were staying in short-term rentals were well cared for, that they were staying in homes that were constructed well, that were fire-safe, that the people were dealing with their garbage and not leaving it out for bears — all kinds of issues. They wanted to make sure that people weren’t having parties and being noisy and disrupting neighbours and all the things that…. Of course, we want the peaceful enjoyment of enjoying our homes.

Coming down here to the Legislature and being able to speak to the minister at the time and explain just how important this work was, was a really important part of the development of these regulations and the proactive enforcement.

When we proactively enforced those regulations, the number of business licences shot up. That was important because we knew then that people were regulated and that they were playing by the rules.

Even so, as part of…. At the time, the UBCM struck a short-term rental committee, working closely with other mayors and leaders from communities across B.C. We had an audience in a government that was listening to the challenges we were having. Some of those challenges are exactly what we just heard from the previous member, speaking around those operations that go underground, that don’t undertake the process of becoming licensed, who are advertising illegally and operating illegally.

Being able to see the province stand up and say, “We can help you, municipalities, by bringing in the monitoring and the enforcement of licensing and regulations in this way, establishing a provincial registry that every short-term rental that will need to be a part of,” is such a key development in this and so important for municipalities as they try to balance the tough part of regulating, making decisions, finding the resources to be able to do that and making sure that people are taken care of.

There’s a realtor in Tofino that I had a conversation with once who explained to me that the proliferation of short-term rentals, in her estimation, had probably increased property prices by about 10 percent. There’s no doubt that the activity of short-term rental can increase the value of property. We know just how important it is to continue to take steps to keep those property values at a place where people can afford, and that’s why this government is working so hard on housing initiatives.

Like the previous member, from Victoria–Beacon Hill, said, this isn’t a silver bullet. This isn’t one thing that’s going to make everything better, but it is such an important part of it.

In the district of Tofino, we charge the municipal re­gional district sales tax — a tax of 2 or 3 percent that eligible communities collect and then are able to use for tourism marketing purposes. But it was this government that made the decision for those communities who wanted to take MRDT that was applied to Airbnb — specifically to Airbnb, that company, to short-term rentals that were rented through that platform — to be recycled back into the community and used specifically for affordable housing.

What a remarkable thing that happened. In the district of Tofino, it was the single thing that enabled us to be able to afford to hire a housing expert who could help us, as a small community, be able to work with B.C. Housing, to work with the provincial government, to work with the federal government to get the resources that we needed to build affordable housing.

I am so proud to say that the district of Tofino is following through on that. Last year 14 units of affordable housing were opened.

[6:20 p.m.]

In the spring of 2024, we’ll see 72 new units of affordable housing opening in Tofino, opening up the opportunity for people who live there — who have worked there for years, who have not been able to find an affordable place to stay — to have a home that they can call their own, that is safe and secure, and that they aren’t going to be evicted out of or moved on when the home sells or when somebody decides to use it for a short-term rental.

Again, this legislation, if enacted, will make such a mas­sive difference in a community like Tofino.

Another piece of the legislation I want to speak briefly to is the ability that it will provide regional districts. I think most folks know that unincorporated areas, regional districts, they don’t have the same tools available to them that municipalities do, especially in the way of business licensing.

That makes it much more difficult for a regional district to regulate short-term rentals. They have to rely on zoning. They have to collect evidence that somebody is unlawfully using their property in a way that is not compliant with the zoning and then pursue the enforcement activity that goes with it.

Business licensing is a tool that makes things so much easier, because with this legislation, short-term rentals will need to be registered on a provincial registry. They will need to have a business licence number that is shown on the online accommodation platform, one more tool that just makes it transparent. What’s taking place in communities, who is short-term rentalling, how are they using their properties and is it compliant with local government legislation, i.e., zoning and business licensing?

This is something that for 7½ years sitting on a regional district, two of those years acting as the chair of that regional district, we consistently spoke to the province about. This is responding to the needs of local governments. Again, this legislation is not a silver bullet, but it is an incredibly important piece. This is the province doing what we can within, I think, very reasonable limits to really address the challenges that we’re seeing with short-term rentals that are removing housing from the market.

This legislation is geared towards those actors who are responsible for multiple short-term rentals, a single host or a single owner having multiple homes. Again, as I said at the beginning of my comments, homes are for people. Residential properties are first and foremost to be used for housing people and families.

Knowing that people are out there purchasing homes for the purpose of short-term rentalling, it’s an unfair use of residential property. This legislation is going to put a stop to that, and it’s something I think we can all be very proud of.

With that, I will close my comments.

D. Davies: I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

You know, my colleague from Vancouver-Capilano that has brought up a couple of the — I should know that by now — has brought up a few of the points already somewhat. I just want to dive into some of the points that she brought forward. Before I do, though, you know, the minister talked about this isn’t the silver bullet, and it is not, and that government is moving forward, and this is moving forward and getting things done.

But it’s been going on since 2018 — the consulting, the conversations — and as we’ve seen the issue grow larger and larger, it’s really hard to look at this government and expect results, because we haven’t seen it on much results, and we often bring that up on whatever it is. So I move into this bill and this discussion as well when we go into committee with skepticism that this is going to actually help the issue that we’re facing.

I do want to look at my community and my region, which represents quite a large area and certainly represents a large part of the resource sector. There are other communities around the province that we might be looking at, like down in Cranbrook, where there’s a large resource body down there. This legislation is a piece of legislation that is a cookie-cutter approach. It’s one-size-fits-all, and I worry that in my community, where….

[6:25 p.m.]

You might not think there’s an Airbnb world in Fort St. John, but there is. There are a lot of units there, north of 100 units just in the Fort St. John area. These units are…. Because we are limited with our hotel spaces in our communities, just like a number of communities that are in that 10,000 to 25,000 population, there’s limited accommodation.

When we’re talking, whether it’s mining or the forest sector or the natural gas sector, whatever the sector is, as it comes and goes — and we see this out in Kitimat, out in the Terrace area as well — we have a big influx of people that do a project. Those units are critical to putting in peo­ple that are working.

I worry that this legislation might have those unintended consequences, that negative aspect, of people that are working in industry that won’t have a place to stay because there are no hotel rooms, and now we’re pulling off the potential Airbnb piece.

The other one is — again, very specific to communities like the one I live in, Fort St. John — the reliance on…. We have a lot of agency nurses that are basically keeping our health care system in Fort St. John and region, that’s on life-support system in itself…. These agency nurses are absolutely fundamental in keeping our hospital open, our emergency doors open. These agency nurses stay, many of them, in these Airbnb’s, as well as visiting specialists.

When industry is booming — and it is pretty busy up in the northeast right now and many other places — what limited hotel spaces are there are full. So this could really have some negative potential impacts on providing medical services to my region in Fort St. John, where these doctors and nurses and visiting specialists require and often stay in Airbnb’s. I just really worry about this cookie-cutter approach on, you know, one piece of legislation is good across the province.

As has been mentioned, I mean, we support sensible measures to move forward and to make sure that we are dealing with a housing crisis in British Columbia, a housing crisis which does look different here in Victoria. It looks different in Vancouver. It looks different in Fort St. John. It looks different in Cranbrook. It does look different, and I think we need to be looking at those differences.

My other piece I also worry about, as well, is, again, stepping on municipalities, removing some of the auto­nomy from municipalities to manage their communities and manage some of these issues. I’ve already heard from some municipalities that are worried that this might be an issue for them within their town.

These are a number of the questions that we will be getting to during the committee stage on this. Again, I just worry about the unintended consequences that are going to have these negative effects on smaller communities that do actually rely on and have to have these to supplement our hotel industry.

I just wanted to raise those points. Again, we do support measures going forward that are going to really have a positive impact on the housing issues across British Columbia, wherever they are. But we want to make sure that we’re doing them right and that they’re going to have the minimum impacts negatively at the same time.

I do look forward to debating this a little bit more during committee stage and asking a few questions on that. So with that, I’ll take my place.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to those who have spoken on Bill 35 this afternoon. It’s a good discussion. We’re certainly hearing regional perspectives on how they might think this legislation will help in their communities.

I certainly want to rise this afternoon and speak in favour of the bill. I think that this bill is a measure that complements a number of other measures that have increased the supply of housing for renters or even put homes into the homeownership pool. In other words, they have contributed to housing supply.

[6:30 p.m.]

We often focus on new construction, and rightly so. I think we can celebrate to a certain extent that we had a record year of housing starts and new houses built last year — something like 47,000 units. There certainly is a very robust construction market in the residential sector right now.

Even if that is much higher than the typical 30,000 to 35,000 units that have been built per year over the last decade, it’s not enough. We know that. We have constituents, certainly in my community, that are paying far too much of their net incomes towards putting a roof over their house.

We have a low vacancy rate in my region. It sits at be­low 2 percent. When I moved here almost three decades ago, it was a much healthier 4 or 5, possibly even 6, percent. So times have changed in that regard, and we are confronting, as creatively as we can in British Columbia, a housing problem that has affected many parts of the world. We are not alone in this trend that we have seen over the last 15 to 20 years of rising house prices, the commodification of housing, if you will, and the corresponding increase in rental prices.

If you go to Ontario, certainly the subject that is most talked about is the red-hot housing market there. Even places like Halifax or any other housing markets that were singled out for their relative affordability six, seven, eight, ten years ago have now caught up dramatically to the experiences we’ve had in British Columbia.

Of course, if you go down to the United States…. Washington state, just below us, their legislature is considering many bills, if not dozens of bills, brought forward by Washington state legislators that are putting different pieces of the puzzle to solve housing affordability before the floors of their chamber.

This builds on some of the things we’ve done as government in recent years that have had an impact. One thinks of the speculation and vacancy tax, sometimes called the empty homes tax. What that has done, in a positive manner, is to bring more units where the lights are out and nobody lives there into hosting families and individuals who are able to rent them and work, live, go to school in their communities.

I believe it is in the tens of thousands of units. I wish I had that figure before me. It could be as high as 30,000 units that were brought in almost immediately without a single hammer having to be swung or building material to be procured to build them. They happened and helped positively the rental market overnight. We have certainly heard from a lot of people who most definitely benefited from that in communities around B.C., including my own.

On the short-term rentals, some good points have been made. On the one hand, short-term rentals have a positive effect in certain circumstances and certain parts of the prov­ince. I know the Minister of Housing has taken the views of local governments across the province into account — talked to leaders of resort municipalities, talked to local industry, talked to First Nations communities about the situation.

Not every community is facing the same type of rental market or has the same friction, if I can put it that way, between short-term rentals taking rental housing out of the available supply for renters. In Victoria, it has become a problem, and we’ve seen our local government endeavour to create bylaws and have bylaw enforcement and to create registration tools. I know that they welcome the assistance of the province to help them oversee and administer short-term rentals.

[6:35 p.m.]

The data that government has, and the Minister of Housing has spoken to it here at second reading, suggests that what we are looking at here by the rules being changed that are proposed in this act could bring something like 16,000 more units into the rental market and take them out of the highly profitable vacation market, if I can put it that way. That’s a good thing for people who are struggling with costs that are market-driven. It will enhance supply.

Often, I believe — the data — where most units of short-term rentals would be not legal after this bill is passed into law are the ones that need it most, my community included.

I also think that this bill tries to strike the right balance. We probably know constituents or friends and neighbours who have an Airbnb or a VRBO in their primary residence. That will not change with this bill.

There’s somebody who lives in my neighbourhood who doesn’t have a pension and lives as a senior who converted, literally, what was, admittedly, a quite nice garden shed. She plumbed it and winterized it and extensively renovated it with the help of her son, who has carpentry skills, and uses that to supplement her fixed income. That is not taking a unit out of the market, and that is not something that we seek to restrict.

I think we’re also trying to balance the accommodation sector too. One of the speakers this afternoon talked about how important it is to be able to have accommodation for people visiting the many, many desirable tourist destinations in beautiful British Columbia and mentioned that we’ve seen a decline in hotel rooms. Sure, I acknowledge that. Some of them were purchased by the province to house people that were vulnerable and facing homelessness in my community. These were, generally, not maybe the accommodations of choice for business travellers or people travelling during the peak period in our tourism economy.

But the point is taken that we actually need more hotel construction in a number of markets for convention and business travel and for the uptick that we’re seeing in airport travel in different regions. This actually could help the investment climate on hotel construction. I’ve been in some communities around the province — Vernon is one of them — where we’ve seen a couple of new hotels, beautiful new hotels, built in the last few years. It’s a travel destination that maybe is benefiting by the overall popularity of the Okanagan region.

It also addresses unfairness. I know members opposite will have heard this — that hotels pay a pretty significant property tax rate. They contribute a lot to their local communities. They pay things like MRDT taxes. They pay visitor bureau and tourism market promotion fees and into budgets that sometimes local governments control with their local tourism associations. Short-term rentals do not. We know that. Municipalities have also struggled with that fact.

I do know, if you look at a $1,500-a-month rental unit, which is hard to come by in some parts of the province now, you’re talking about a rate that’s about $50 a night.

In these 16,000 units that we hope will become available at those more affordable rates, and we hope they will come down even more with supply pressures tamping down demand and price, that rate contrasts significantly with what you will typically see with a short-term rental. That $50 a night for an apartment to be rented quickly becomes $200, $250, $300, depending on what season you’re talking about, as a short-term rental.

What this bill does is it says that the commodification of housing, the speculative activity where companies, sometimes numbered companies, are buying units in apartment buildings and strata buildings or creating multiplexes of short-term vacation rentals as investment vehicles…. We don’t want that activity in B.C. right now.

[6:40 p.m.]

We do have a housing crisis. People have talked about that. In a housing crisis, you want to push investment towards more productive and socially beneficial activities, push them towards other types of small business formation, not in the relatively easy return of short-term vacation rentals, because that has a negative consequence for all of us.

We will retain, as I said, those primary homeowners who may have a carriage house unit or a secondary suite in their home. They’ll still be allowed to do that, and that’s great for visitors that are coming into our areas who are looking for that kind of experience, maybe averse to hotels and motels and prefer that type of travel. That’ll still be there.

Those kinds of…. I’ll put it this way. Often accompanied with noise complaints, those party blocks of apartments that once were rental units but are now high-cost, expensive places for travellers that rotate very, very frequently are the source of a lot of friction, especially in downtown neighborhoods, where maybe these travellers are looking for a fairly exuberant experience that brings a lot of noise with it.

That has gotten out of hand, and that has created a lot of complaints. Yes, it has been responded to by a lot of stratas that have amended their bylaws to ban that kind of activity, but it still goes on.

These aren’t people who are trying to pay their mortgage, who need a mortgage helper. These aren’t people that are looking for an opportunity to afford the ability to finish a basement suite that’s unfinished and make use of that and add to the community.

These are people that have found a way to make a pretty healthy bit of money with investment partners, with numbered companies that proffer tax advantages and all the sorts of deductions that come with it, savvy investors making a buck off housing in a very, very stressed housing market. So why would we not seek to deter that?

We have been. The speculation and vacancy tax — I’m still not sure what the official opposition’s position is on that. They scoff at it. They’ve even suggested that they would get rid of it. I’m not sure that they would dare say that today.

It’ll be interesting to see if they vote for this. I’ve heard some very thoughtful remarks from them, not leaning one way or another as to how they will ultimately vote on this bill.

The government isn’t saying this is going to fix every­thing. The government is saying that we have a serious problem that requires a serious multi-layered strategy to bring more homes into the market, address an unhealthy, low vacancy rate and to try and do things really quickly.

In this case, we’re also trying to assist local governments who’ve been endeavouring to do that on their own, who want to work in partnership with the provincial government for the same reasons that we offer this bill this afternoon for debate and to become law.

So I think the advantages of what we’re trying to do here are apparent. I’ve spoken to them from my perspective as the capital region district MLA in the rental market that my constituents live in. By the way, 65 percent of my constituents are renters and are struggling to find places.

I should say that we have built some 3,500 new units of rental housing in the capital region. So it’s been the most ambitious, aggressive rental housing construction program we have ever seen, since 2017. If that pace had been adhered to in 2001 to 2016 or ’17, we would have tens of thousands more housing units in the region.

We don’t, because the government of the day did not build them. In fact, they cancelled family housing construction programs that B.C. Housing used to administer.

In fact, prior to the election and the change in government, the last unit of family below-market housing that was built in my constituency opened in the year 2000. Then the program was scrapped, and nothing happened for well over a decade.

Unfortunate, because we’ve got lots of different families — people working in the service sector, people working in important parts of the economy, maybe making $35,000 to $55,000 or even salaries better than that, maybe raising their kids on one income because there’s just one parent with that responsibility in the family — and they were looking for choices in the market. They were looking for a robust non-profit sector to be supported alongside the market activities. But there was an attitude, for way too long, that the market should be the only force involved in housing. We’ve suffered very greatly for that.

[6:45 p.m.]

That market-only approach has also informed the runaway growth of short-term rentals. We’re trying to rebalance that. We’re trying to bring it back as a feature of communities, for those who are using it in their pri­mary residence.

We’re trying to take away and will take away the ability for this as a place to park your money and make significant returns and hopefully to get those numbered companies that are being created, that are administering these, to help Main Street British Columbia and be involved in other business activities that are good for our community.

Housing shouldn’t and can’t be tolerated any longer to be subject to this kind of speculative activity.

Bill 35 is yet another initiative of our government to add housing as quickly as we can, either building it through the speculation and vacancy tax, and creating disincentives to that type of negative behaviour. Bill 35 is just the latest in a long line of initiatives that the Housing Minister and our government has initiated.

I will enthusiastically be voting for it on that basis.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m delighted to get a chance to talk in this House, since I listen to many other people’s speeches most of the time.

I’m getting a chance to share a bit more about one of my passions, which is helping renters. Since the day I started here, I’ve been looking out for renters because for a long time, they had a government that didn’t look out for them, a government that allowed them to be evicted, a government that didn’t focus on housing as a priority, that saw the vacancy rate drop and saw prices start to shoot through the roof and looked the other way. I’m glad to see a government today that is making renters a priority.

As members will know, I served as chair of the Rental Housing Task Force. One of the recommendations we called for at the time when we did our work was action on short-term rentals. At the time, what government did, because they were hearing from the city of Vancouver principally, was look to regulate Airbnb, as one of the bigger platforms out there. And we were getting success. We saw the number of new housing units that had been Airbnb…. A number of them came onto the market.

But over time, we’ve heard more and more from municipal governments. I think, in 2021, the Union of B.C. Municipalities put out a report calling for action and calling for changes to how short-term rentals were regulated because they were finding it too difficult to regulate on their own. They wanted the province to step in. There’d been some reticence in the past about the province getting involved, but they called for action. This bill implements a lot of the things that they called for.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities, for folks that may not know, is mayors, councils of regional districts, of town councils or big cities like Vancouver. One of the things they looked for was to try and get help around the issue of fines. They pointed out that the fines were too low. People were making a ton of money taking homes which were meant for families and turning them into mini-hotels. It was easier to make money as a mini-hotel. Folks thought, “Well, we can do this really quickly and make a ton of money on this,” and they were doing that.

You hear stories of operators purchasing 30 condominiums in one building. You hear stories of people purchasing multiple homes in a community to rent as short-term rentals. Then you hear from the hoteliers, you hear from small business owners who say they can’t find housing anymore because the housing that was meant for their workers is now being used for tourism.

So you don’t have workers to help run the hotels, to help run the resorts, to help run a community because the housing that was meant for them is now, instead, being used by tourists. The homeowner figured they could make more money running the houses that they purchased as mini-hotels.

I hear from hotel owners who said that’s one of the reasons their chains and their larger corporations don’t invest in more hotels. They see it, whether it’s…. I’ve heard it here in Victoria. I’ve heard it in Vancouver. Certainly, you see the challenge of housing affordability. Well, you see that in a way, not quite mirrored the same way, in the hotel industry. You see that there as well.

Now, I hear some folks say: “Oh, we should not touch Airbnb because some families end up using it.” In fact, some families end up using it because they have no other choice.

[6:50 p.m.]

I talked to families who are in short-term rentals in Vancouver, in Victoria, in other parts of the province, and they’re there because they can’t find a place to rent. They’re paying so much more on a short-term rental as they struggle to find a place to rent, and that house they’re paying a short-term rental fee to be in would be an ideal home for them to rent, but they’re not allowed to rent it because it’s being rented out as a short-term rental.

In many cases, and I think if you look at the statistics, a huge number of the short-term rentals are owned by a very small number of people. It’s not always just one person renting out their basement suite, which this bill allows. It’s somebody owning multiple units. So I think this does strike a balance in terms of allowing a homeowner to be able to rent out a unit in their property as a short-term rental or a long-term rental but not allowing them to basically compete with hotels, but without having to pay the taxes that a hotel pays or pay for the costs on their municipality that a hotel would normally cover.

Now, I know there are some who oppose this. I guess they oppose this. We’ll see. I think the Leader of the Opposition today seemed to suggest that the reason why Airbnbs had increased so much is because — from what I could read of his phrase — renters had too many rights under the NDP, that they were too disproportionately favoured, and that’s why people were going to Airbnb. Well, I think the issue with that statement is…. We’ve done more to clamp down, whether it’s bad landlords or bad tenants, than the previous government ever did.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We’ve seen real action to make sure that being a landlord, being a renter, you provide more secure housing. You provide more secure enforcement — the Money Judgment Act; that’s another one — to try and get people the money they’re owed.

We’ve been taking action based on what we’ve heard from renters and landlords, and that’s that they want secure housing. Most landlords say they want long-term, stable tenants, and they want to be supported in having those tenants. They don’t tell me that they think renters have too many rights or that the renters are the problem and blame the renters for the proliferation of Airbnb, as it seems the opposition leader was.

Instead, they say that they want to know that they can have a secure rental, maybe that they’re going to run an Airbnb out of their basement part-time as well, or their own principal residence, and that’s something that this bill allows. But they want to make sure that families can live in their communities too. And this bill will help.

Whether it’s 8,000, 10,000 or 18,000, I’ve heard a range of estimates about how much more housing is going to be available to British Columbia families because of this bill, and we’ll see. But you add that to the speculation tax, which has added approximately 18,000 more homes to British Columbia that people are allowed to rent now. They weren’t before, because people preferred to leave them sitting empty. Those homes are now available for people to rent, something the opposition opposed.

We’re investing more in housing than we ever have before in this province — 77,000 new affordable housing units so far, and more to come. It’s exciting to see the changes we’ve made for British Columbians, because the housing crisis is so real.

I just don’t know what rights the opposition leader was suggesting we should take away from renters to make it more attractive for a landlord to be a landlord. Is it the right of first refusal? Is it short-term leases?

We stopped landlords from using a process where they would say to the tenant: “Sign this lease for a year, and then you’re going to have to sign a new one in a year or we’ll evict you.” We stopped that practice, because it was leading to…. Every year, tenants we’re being faced with, “Sign a new lease” — at a 25, 30, 40, 50 percent rent increase. We said: “That’s not right.” For years, we tried to get the government to change that. They wouldn’t.

We have a government now that stands up for renters and stands up for housing and made that change because it wasn’t fair. LandlordBC supported us on that. It was the right action for renters, but it was also the right action for landlords because they were getting a bad name from a few folks who were breaking the rules, just as tenants can sometimes get a bad name from a few tenants breaking those rules.

I wouldn’t ever target and say that that was a reason not to act for renters or that was a reason not to work to support rental housing providers. We’ve got to deal with all of these issues at one time.

[6:55 p.m.]

Could it be the renoviction rules that we changed? Are those the rights that are too much for renters? Should we go back to the system where we had people losing their homes because of phony renovations, where the landlord at the time said: “You need to be out because I’m going to paint, put up some new cupboards”? People were losing their homes. We fought against that. We changed that law, and now I’m proud to say that you barely hear about renovictions anymore because they’re not happening.

Renovations are happening when people move out, and then new people can move into a new unit. Renovations are happening with long-term tenants, and they get to stay in their homes. But not renovictions. That’s a change we made that, I think, was an improvement to the rights of tenants but also, again, had the support of rental housing providers.

I’ll be interested to see if the Leader of the Opposition does decide to share more on his remarks about why he doesn’t think we should be acting against Airbnb and the short-term rental companies that have taken long-term housing out of the rental market.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue in this debate, and I thank members for that.

I move adjournment of the debate.

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.