Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call third reading on Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move third reading of Bill 36.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed on the following division.

YEAS — 56
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mercier
Olsen	Osborne	Paddon
Parmar	Phillip	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 27
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Falcon	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Sturko	Tegart	Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

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

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 32, Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West.

Question of Privilege

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker. I’ll keep this brief, but I do want, as a matter of privilege, to place this on the record if you’ll permit me.

I understand that the procedures in this House have evolved over time, and it has now become far more commonplace than it once was to refer legislation to committees — firstly, the Douglas Fir Room, and now what I call the attic up on the third floor.

I would only make this observation: the House, I think, has come to cross-purposes. We have chosen to amend the rules where we recognize parties of a certain size. There are now four parties represented in this House.

Logically, now half of the parties represented in this House will be precluded from participating in debates on the creation of laws in British Columbia, because we will have three sitting chambers. I do think that represents — maybe “assault” is too strong a word — a compromise of the privilege and rights of members of this chamber, where we have laws being debated at committee stage in three separate chambers.

[2:50 p.m.]

I urge the House — and, necessarily, the government and the Government House Leader — to consider the implications of that situation, where members of this assembly, in half of the parties represented here, cannot possibly participate in the creation and debate of those laws.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I think he makes an interesting point, which we certainly will consider and connect with the other House Leaders on as we move forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On clause 7 (continued).

The Chair: All right, Members. We’re here at committee stage on Bill 35. We were on clause 7 yesterday, so let’s begin with clause 7.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to start this line of questioning with a comment. I have to say that I’m very disappointed in the words of the Premier today in question period with respect to what we’re doing in this House during this committee stage. It was mocked. It was referred to as if we are only asking questions and trying to find loopholes for private investors.

If that is the position of this government, then what is the purpose of going through this process? Is government saying to us that they are not listening to our questions, that they will not consider proposals that we are making?

I can assure you that we are asking questions on behalf of all British Columbians, which is our job as the official opposition. Comments like those made in question period undermine this process. There are people watching us today who are nurses, doctors, people in the film industry, people who make their living in this sector. To joke and dismiss it, I found very troubling.

I am starting with that, and I’m certainly hoping that the minister and this government will consider what we are saying here as being helpful and constructive, so that we can create a better market for people in British Columbia and more homes for them to live in.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by saying nobody was laughing or joking. I don’t agree with the assertion made by the member. This is a serious issue.

We have people that are watching and that are also struggling to get housing. When they see people buy three, four, five or six homes — they have the means to do it and just put them on short-term rentals and do not make them available for people who are desperately looking for places to rent — they also find it very frustrating.

I did share with the member yesterday, right off the bat, that we believe that the amendments that were being suggested are loopholes which will make it more challenging to ensure that we get housing back for people. I shared that with the member yesterday, and the position still remains the same.

We always have a good exchange, the member and I, on all the bills, all the issues we have. I certainly hope that that remains the tone for us, but I did want to clarify that there was no joking. There was no laughing. Housing is a serious issue. We take it very seriously. We know it’s a challenge, not only in British Columbia but across the country. That’s why we think this legislation is so vitally important.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the response, Minister. My blood pressure is still up, but I will continue to be polite, and we can have a cordial conversation here.

If I can clarify now after that, Mr. Chair. We are on clause 7. Okay.

[3:00 p.m.]

When we finished yesterday, we were talking about what platforms would be required to register. I would like the minister to please list all of the platforms that government has identified.

Presumably as you were drafting this, government was anticipating and researching all of those various platforms that would be impacted by this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, my answer, with all respect to the member, will be the same as I gave yesterday, which is that there are some platforms that are more in the media — perhaps the name has become more connected to the type of platforms that are in this space — but we are not limiting it to specific platforms.

We know from our local government partners that they know on the ground which platforms are operating in their communities. Our intention with this legislation is to say that anyone that operates in this — not just the few that get named in the media, but anyone operating in this space — has to follow the law of British Columbia, and that’s why this legislation is important.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate what you were saying. I find that the answer is vague, and I would just like to explore a little bit more in terms of specifics.

I have to believe that when this legislation was being contemplated and drafted, there was more specific identification of those platforms that need to be overseen and monitored. Is there a specific list of those that government was aware of, that they wanted to ensure were covered?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the legislation wasn’t designed to target one company or two companies. The legislation was designed to address a challenge in the system of housing we have.

I appreciate that the member wants a list of companies that I think would be captured by this, but what I’m saying is that this legislation wasn’t created to target one specific company. It was meant to capture many platforms. It doesn’t matter the name of the platform. It doesn’t matter which platform it is. All of them are captured by this legislation, and all of them have to follow the rules of British Columbia.

K. Kirkpatrick: Forgive the pushing on this, but this sounds like a very vague answer.

If there are not a number of these platforms which are actually identified, I’m not sure how we can look forward to compliance or ensure that there’s oversight on these platforms. I do imagine that when the definition of “platform” was being created, there must have been discussion in the room about what those platforms look like, which ones they are.

I would hope that there is a list that can be provided — the specific ones. I also appreciate, Minister, that it may not have everything in there, but at least the subset of those that have been recognized would be appreciated.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I want to emphasize this point. This legislation wasn’t targeting a specific company. It just needs to be re-emphasized. What it does do is focus on any platform that has short-term rental listings on behalf of hosts, but also facilitates transactions, including collecting and processing payments.

We can go back and forth all day, I guess, on this question, but fundamentally, we weren’t focused on one company or another. It was anyone that fits that criteria, that fits under this.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, we will identify, through our local government partners, who operates in their local community. As that work evolves, it’s going to have some of the companies, which are already in the media, that we know about. It’s also going to have some of those companies that were, maybe, just operating in a specific community.

I’m not going to get into naming whichever company we believe needs to be targeted by this. This is about anyone that is operating in this space. When they operate in this space, they should know the laws of the land. Our expectation is that they would follow the law.

K. Kirkpatrick: I find that answer not satisfying, but I shall move on to some other questions.

In the same vein, will entities like Facebook and Craigslist be affected? What will government do in the case where they see a surge in underground listings for vacation rentals, as has been the case in New York City?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I don’t foresee a massive switch.

I think New York is not a fair comparison. Most folks who, I think, assess what New York did and how they moved on this question…. It was a very aggressive approach. Essentially, they shut down all short-term rentals in New York, which drove a lot of folks to find other ways to do it.

I think it’s, again, important…. We just started the discussion today. It’s important for us to emphasize that short-term rentals are still available to people in people’s primary residences. That is an important piece to say here.

[3:10 p.m.]

It goes back to the question the member asked me earlier, which was: who gets captured by this legislation? It’s on behalf of the list of hosts that facilitate transactions, including by collecting and processing payments.

Now, if a person decided that they were going to list their complete home on Facebook — I think that’s where the member is coming at — and is not registered…. We will be able to find that home. The local government will be able to find it. The person of that home would be issued a fine for not registering their property.

It would be required for a host to have the proper registration in place. Again, if it’s not their primary residence, then they wouldn’t be able to get a permit.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ve got a couple of questions out of that.

The basic one is…. As the minister says, municipalities will be aware of things that are being advertised on Facebook. My understanding, then, is…. It’s not the platform’s issue at that point; it’s an unregistered host or a host who’s not providing the services in their own residence. I’m getting a nod. So I will take that as the correct answer.

Will the municipalities be required to be scrolling through Facebook and looking for home rental sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We can go into this in part 4, sections 19 to 31, in greater detail. That entire section is around the enforcement.

I’ll try to give the member an answer. There are multiple ways. It could be complaint-driven. It could be through an investigation. It could be through using technology, algorithms, etc., to be able to capture that data. There are many tools available already. Many folks that you see commenting on this, those doing research…. They use these algorithms now to be able to assess what’s on these platforms.

We’ll be exploring all those buckets.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. New York, although you say it is not a fair comparison…. I do think looking at consumer behaviour, in terms of how people react to legislation like this, is fair.

Wired.com says that in New York, people are using sites like Craigslist, Facebook, Houfy — I’ve never even heard of that — and others, where they can search for guests or places to book without the checks and balances of booking platforms like Airbnb.

In New York, they have raised an issue with respect to consumer protection now. Is there anything around consumer protection, where these homes are now going onto these underground sites?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the New York example, I would say…. It’s too soon to see exactly what’s happening in New York.

I did read early articles saying that this is where folks are going. There’s a Guardian article now. I think today or yesterday that came out. It said that they haven’t really seen a big shift. It’s all recent.

I’m not entirely sure what’s happening in New York. They have taken a very, very aggressive approach to, essentially, shut out short-term rentals completely. That is not what we’ve done here in British Columbia.

I don’t expect that this legislation will lead to an influx of STR listings to go to these websites. Partly the reason why is…. When you have these types of websites, where you can’t verify who’s on the other side and there’s no payment transaction, it makes it more challenging for folks, certainly, just to go there. So I don’t see that happening in a big way.

E. Sturko: In listening to this conversation and, certainly, having some concerns with analysis, which either has or hasn’t been done, looking at risks associated with, potentially, people starting to list off of these types of Air­bnb websites and going more towards Craigslist or Facebook, these other types of things….

Recently there was a news article that I saw — very concerning — related to someone who was looking for a roommate free of charge. They were looking for a woman in exchange for some type of friends-with-benefits arrangement. This person could receive housing in Whistler. Disgusting. Unacceptable.

Something that I actually witnessed a lot as a police officer is…. As housing becomes more scarce and opportunities for individuals become scarce, they do often look for housing, I would say, on the black market. Vulnerable women, for example, put themselves in situations so that they can have housing. That’s a frightening thing to think about.

What type of analysis, if any, has been done by this government with respect to the potential for people who currently are operating, let’s say, an Airbnb platform…? Because they’re worried that they’re going to lose money, they’re not going to put their house on the market or rent it for a long-term rental, but they will potentially go over to different platforms that are harder for the government to trace.

What type of analysis has been done, in terms of public safety, to make sure that we aren’t actually putting people in British Columbia at risk of exploitation when they’re trying to look for accommodations for short terms?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member raising this concern. I, too, found that story that came out disgusting. As the member highlighted, this one became public, but there are stories like this that happen in communities. I, too, share the concern with the member.

I would say…. This is another reason why this is important legislation. That happened regardless of this legislation. It happens in communities. We know that when there’s a lack of housing for people who live here in British Columbia, people become more vulnerable. In particular, women and children become more vulnerable.

Getting more housing back into our housing market, I think, will help families that are struggling. Many people that are looking for accommodation will have access to housing that they don’t have access to right now.

What we’ve seen, anyway, is…. The reason why I don’t see an influx happening in that direction is because most homeowners, I think, understand…. They would like to know who’s coming into their home, if they are going to rent it, even if they’re going to do it illegally.

There’s a big risk already with short-term rentals. We see house parties and things happening with hosts. You don’t know who’s coming in. It’s a random person on Facebook. I think those kinds of things will deter people from going in that direction.

[3:20 p.m.]

E. Sturko: It’s funny to hear that reference to people who want to know who’s going into their house, and that they won’t necessarily want to rent to someone that they don’t know.

We hear some of these things from people in terms of long-term rentals and the problems that they have with the Residential Tenancy Act, and that they don’t want to necessarily get into a long-term rental situation. Because you know what? When we do run into trouble, it’s very difficult to have someone removed who might be destroying property, or when they get behind on payments.

It can put homeowners and people who are then renting their properties long-term into some really dire financial straits when it comes to having to make up for mortgage payments, potentially, on a rental suite that they can’t make because of missed rental payments — or when they’re dealing with someone who might be causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage. That’s not something that people are just worried about when they’re dealing with an Airbnb. This is something that people are facing dealing with long-term rentals in British Columbia.

I appreciate the minister’s answer, but it wasn’t the answer to the question that I was asking.

The question that I’m really wondering and, with my background in public safety, one of the things that I am concerned about is the potential…. People do make choices when they’re faced with financial stress. If they’re worried that they’re now being forced by this government to sell another unit that they have that they’ve been using for short-term rentals, instead of losing $100,000 on their investment, they might turn to an alternate method of trying to rent that short term.

What analysis has this minister and the ministry done to ensure that these types of more clandestine routes, I’m going to say, that people may take can be avoided and that the public safety is taken into account in this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, with this legislation, we’re not forcing people to rent their suites. If a person doesn’t want to, they don’t have to. There’s no requirement to anyone.

Of course, we hear stories in the media. I, as Minister of Housing, hear stories about some renters who are problematic. I hear stories about some landlords who are problematic. But the majority of the people are in between, have good relationships with their tenants, and there are no concerns. I think it’s important to highlight that.

It’s also important to highlight that by bringing more housing back onto the market for people to have long-term rentals available, it helps more people who would be vulnerable in an environment where there’s not enough housing available to them.

That’s why, in part 4, in sections 19 to 32, when we talk about enforcement, you’ll see the measures we’re taking to be able to enforce the rules to ensure that if anyone tries to do this illegally — through Facebook, etc. — we’re working to build mechanisms to capture who they are and ensure that they have proper regulations in place, that they follow the local regulations.

That is a fundamental challenge we have right now. We have people renting and not following local government bylaws. Again, part 4, sections 19 to 32 is where we talk about enforcement. I’m happy to talk about that in greater detail in that section.

Now, I see, Chair, that you would like me to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are receiving a report from Section C, so we will be coming back.

The committee rose at 3:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND
HONOURS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 32, Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Act.

In Section C, I call Environmental Management Amendment Act, Bill 29.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:27 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. Now that that’s dealt with, we’re back to clause 7.

Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

K. Kirkpatrick: Who is responsible for authenticating registration and business licence numbers?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this section, it’s the requirements, and in section 17, it’s how it will be validated. I think the member is asking a question about section 17, which links to this section.

[3:30 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I think this is relevant in either of those places, as this one is talking about the requirement of actually being registered and having the business licence.

If the minister would prefer that I defer this question until…. Okay. Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wasn’t trying to say to the member that it’s actually in 17. I was saying that section 17 is where the language is around….

Fundamentally, to the member’s question, the host will be responsible for registering and the platforms for validating the numbers. That information will, obviously, be available both to local governments and to the platforms through the data-sharing agreement section.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Then I actually will leave a couple of questions I have here. If I understand, the other piece is more compliance, and that’s where I can really get more into kind of who’s doing what.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

K. Kirkpatrick: I move the first amendment on clause 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

[CLAUSE 14,by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Principal residence requirement

14 (1) Subject to the regulations, if short-term rental accommo­dation services are provided outside the exempt land in respect of a short-term rental offer, the short-term rental accommodation services must not be provided except in one or both of the following:

(a) in the property host’s principal residence;, or

(b) in not more than one of the following:

(i) a secondary suite or other accessory dwelling unit that is in a prescribed location in relation to the property host’s principal residence., or

(ii) a residential property that is not a primary residence.]

What we are doing is actually adding, so it is not just in the property host’s principal residence. We are adding the ability for one additional short-term rental to be owned that may be outside of that residence.

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment.

We felt this was an important amendment. We were surprised, actually, with the way that the legislation is written.

[3:35 p.m.]

If you think about it, government is, in this legislation, giving preference to those people who own their own home and who are in a position to afford a home where they have a secondary suite or they have an auxiliary building on their property.

What it is doing is actually hurting those people who may be renters in an apartment or owners in an apartment and who do not have the capacity to afford a house with a suite in it. They are being left out of this opportunity.

We’ve heard from many of these people who are renting. Their only ability to get into the housing market…. As we know, we’re in a housing crisis. The only way for them to attempt to get their, I guess the term is, foot in the door with respect to ownership is, as many have done in Victoria, the purpose-built short-term-rental units. They will purchase one of those, and that is their opportunity to start to build equity and participate in ownership.

One of the concerns that we wanted to flag, and one of the reasons we’re putting this amendment, is that we feel that it is unfair to those people who don’t have the luxury of actually having a single-family home with a suite.

Also concerned that now that the short-term rentals are coming off the market, which are outside of people’s principal residences, there will be pressure or opportunity for more owners to rent out their secondary suites now as short-term rentals and displace long-term renters who are currently in those spaces. This to me sounds like it could potentially, if there wasn’t some flexibility here, have the opposite impact as to what government is intending to do.

The purpose of this legislation is to try and balance the playing field a bit, make it a bit more level for those people who don’t have the luxury of having a home with a suite in it, and also to take away the potential — which, I think, is a valid concern — that more people will then use their secondary suites for short-term rental, as opposed to using them for long-term rental.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member, I did appreciate the amendments being shared with us in advance, and I did share with the member that we didn’t support the amendment.

First, this suggestion that people can buy an investment property and use it for short-term rental is essentially the opposite of what we’re trying to do here. I did refer to it as a loophole. I’ll still refer to it as a loophole, which will allow investors to buy a property and put it on short-term rental, when we’re trying desperately to get more housing back into the housing market for long-term rental.

I do appreciate the member bringing this forward, but we disagree with the amendment.

E. Sturko: I would like to take an opportunity to speak to this amendment.

I just want to be really, really clear that I don’t think anyone is in denial about the fact that we’re in a tremendous housing crisis, an affordability crisis. You’d be scarce to find a single person in this House that would deny that we need to try and find ways of getting people who’ve never had an opportunity to own their own home into a home, people to be able to find affordable rentals, to make sure that students have places to live, to make sure that newcomers to our province have places to live.

One of the things that’s also concerning me, very much so, is with regard to that desperation that…. The minister just mentioned a desperation to try to get more homes released into the rental market and for sale. There’s another flip side of the desperation, as well, and it’s actually with regard to some of the families that we’re hearing from. These are not families who are…. I wouldn’t classify them as speculators. I wouldn’t say that they are even people who would have maybe, a few years ago, even thought about getting into having a short-term rental or a secondary property.

[3:40 p.m.]

Some of the families that we’re hearing from actually are doing this because without this opportunity, they wouldn’t be able to afford what they have. They wouldn’t be able to afford to have any income. Some of them have bought these very small, 200-square-foot little bachelor pads that they use for short-term rental while they themselves might be either renting or living with their family members.

In my community, it’s not uncommon for people to live in multigenerational housing, some of it because they wish to and some of it because they really just don’t have any place to go. While their growing family is staying with their family members, they have this small income that they’re able to generate that might help them to actually be able to afford a down payment on an appropriate accommodation.

What’s actually really disturbing to me is when we hear from families that are using the money that they might be generating from short-term rentals and from renting out things like their cottages because they needed to pay for services that are currently not being covered by the government. I myself am a parent of a child with autism, and not all of the services that my own child needs are covered by this government. It’s a struggle. It’s a struggle to get things like diagnoses.

The reality is that many families who will be im­pacted…. We’re talking about families. We are not talking about people who…. Of course, you know what? I think it’s sick. I think a lot of people would agree that it’s sick that you would have someone who would buy out an entire apartment and use it as a hotel. But I think that’s not what we’re even discussing here. I don’t think there’s been any argument on behalf of the official opposition to say that we’re not for curtailing abuses of these types of systems.

What we’re talking about is supporting families. Particularly the worry that myself and some of my other members that I serve with here on this side have discussed and received multiple communiqués from people in our constituencies is that it’s going to have a detrimental impact on families who are without these incomes that are really not scraping by very well. They’re not able to make ends meet.

I also have some significant concerns, too, about the government’s ability actually to enforce. I understand that some more details on enforcement are coming, but I just wanted to…. I’m sad that the amendments that my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, has brought forward…. I think they’re reasonable amendments, and this is where…. People can make performative speeches. When you’re dealing with a government that is a majority, even voting may not make the difference.

Where we can actually make a difference to make legislation, even contentious legislation where, at the root of it, we all agree that we want to make sure that people can find a place to live…. Then we need to be able to find those balanced approaches to make sure that people who are being benefited to be able to survive in Canada’s most expensive cities are not being harmed, that there are no unintentional consequences.

The best way to do that is by being in this place and bringing forward amendments that are in good faith, ones that are meant to serve the interests of our constituents and your constituents, because I’m sure that even on the government side, there are people who may be harmed by the unintended consequences of this legislation.

In terms of the ability for this government to track down those that would abuse the system, even after the legislation comes in, I want to remind people of what happened in 2020.

There was a woman in North Vancouver. She was operating a five-story condominium, a townhouse. She had 15 rooms. She was operating as Oasis Hotel. To get this individual to stop doing what she was doing, her illegal short-term rentals, her flophouse that she was doing…. It took literally years in court — years in court, tens of thousands of dollars in fees to try to stop this individual from running this illegal short-term rental hotel. It took dozens of hours of court time. The individual dragged this court proceeding out for years.

[3:45 p.m.]

People will probably remember it from the media. I believe that this is still a case before the courts, because they’re going to try to now seize this individual’s home to try to get compliance.

This is just one individual. When we’re talking about looking after an entire province of individuals who…. Not necessarily even because they’re evil or bad people but because desperation breeds, sometimes, desperate actions by individuals. We can see examples of that all the time — like I said, people who wouldn’t necessarily enter into this type of business arrangement.

They wouldn’t necessarily have considered having a short-term rental, but their ability to save up, for example, a down payment for a family home that has the appropriate amount of bedrooms, that’s bigger than a “200 square foot with a hot plate”–type deal….

People who are looking to have to supplement health care for family members because of our health care crisis. People who may be trying to afford things like getting treatment and recovery through private providers because it’s not provided free by this government for some reason. But I digress. However, there are multiple reasons why people in this province might need that supplemental income.

I think that this amendment that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano has put forward is not outrageous. I don’t consider it a loophole. Loopholes are things that are to be taken advantage of. That’s the whole idea behind the concept of a loophole. It’s a little tiny sliver that, you know, the evildoer can slide through and take advantage of a system.

But what my colleague is proposing is that this government take a more balanced approach to looking at individuals who may, for example, dwell in apartment complexes, townhome complexes where they may not have the same opportunity as people that live in a house with a coach house out back. That doesn’t create an even playing field, and it actually disproportionately is impacting people who may be in lower income brackets because….

I mean, in my community right now, the townhouse complex that I live in — and honestly, a family of five is squeezed into this sucker — is a million dollars. I do not know…. I’m not disagreeing with this government in terms of our need to be able to find housing. But there’s been every opportunity over the last near-seven years now for things to be done, for opportunities to move housing forward, to make housing less expensive, that did not also come at the rights of property owners who were law-abiding, who followed the rules.

Regardless of whether we think it’s ethical or not to own multiple units, people didn’t break the law by doing that. Whether it’s a moral question of hoarding housing for a business opportunity during a housing crisis, well, that’s another question that can be debated. But they didn’t do anything illegal. They followed the law. They purchased and legally acquired property that would have to be compliant with zoning and have to be compliant with its intended use — obtain licences, go through processes that would require them to meet certain specifications.

Then, now, as a result of this government’s inaction on housing for the last seven years, people are going to be hurt. Because there are people for whom…. Now that the bottom will fall out, essentially, of the short-term rental market, their properties may not be worth what they owe. That’s a huge part of the communications that we’re getting from people who are writing in to the constits. They don’t even disagree that: “Oh, it’d be great. We need more housing for people.” They’re not greedy people. They’re people that are just like…. Now they’re freaking out. They’re worried, and I share their concern.

What if now they have to sell a condo because, without that short-term rental, they cannot afford it, even though they’re living with their parents? And this short-term rental was helping them save for their down payment for their own place. Now they’re going to have to get rid of it, and it could come at a loss because — guess what — the bottom fell out of their ability to market it as a short-term rental.

Who’s going to pay if they lose $100,000 on that? Is it going to come out of the pockets of people that work in the Ministry of Housing? No.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s going to come out of the pockets and the futures of people who were law-abiding. They did everything right. They saved up. They scraped together what they could so that they could build something for themselves, a little nest egg, to help build them up.

Property ownership — you don’t often start off by buying a massive mansion. You start off…. Many people, including myself…. I started off with a house that was $50,000. I had to live in Winnipeg to get it, but you know, that’s another story. You start small. You build that equity. For a number of people who are writing into our constituencies, that ability to build that equity is being taken away. Worse than that, they’re seeing now that any equity or savings that they had been able to build up are going to disappear.

I want to make sure that I’m clear. In no way is the message that I’m delivering to this government one that says that I want to see people hoarding housing and profiteering off of the shortage of housing so that people suffer and become homeless. Absolutely not. That’s the opposite. I want people to get housing.

I also have a responsibility to the people in my community who are involved in short-term rentals and are not asking to be able to have tens and 20 — have this, like, Oasis hotel with five floors and 15 illegal suites in it. They’re talking about people that live on a farm with their parents. They want to be able to afford to buy their own townhouse. Like I said, in my community, a townhouse with three bedrooms is $1 million. How do you save even a down payment for that? It’d take you 38 years, according to the Bank of Canada. Honestly, they’re just looking for an opportunity.

I’m not here defending people that would take advantage of the system. I’m here talking about the everyday person who now is extremely worried. I hope that the minister will, please, take a look at this amendment proposed by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I think it’s reasonable. It is meant to even the playing field. It is meant to help protect those families with that one unit so that they can build that equity and have an opportunity to participate in our housing ecosystem.

You know, I would say that, as I mentioned earlier, the best we can do when we’re facing a majority government that has the ability to, regardless of looking at amendments, ram through legislation, regardless of the concerns of our constituents.

Our work to make sure that British Columbians are represented fairly is by introducing fair and reasonable amendments to legislation to make sure that the best interests of all British Columbians are taken into account — those that are struggling to find housing and those that are trying to build up equity and who are, through no fault of their own, being penalized after legally acquiring a suite to be able to do better for themselves and their family.

Thanks for the time.

A. Walker: I think I surprise my colleagues here by speaking to this amendment. I just want to say that, while I don’t support the amendment, I do very much appreciate that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano brought this forward.

The concerns that we’re hearing from constituents who own one other unit in buildings that are designated, through their local government, for short-term rentals, that have invested a significant amount of their equity into that, a unit that if it is converted into a multifamily residential unit probably won’t contribute to rental stock or new housing stock…. These units that I’m hearing about, the same emails that members are hearing about, are not suitable generally for people to live in year-round.

I will be very brief, but I just wanted to…. While I don’t support the amendment, I think that this is a way of having a conversation to address some of the concerns that we’ve heard. I just want to commend the opposition for bringing this forward so that this discussion could take place.

N. Letnick: First of all, I’d like to say that I do support the amendment. I think it’s a very, very good amendment. My conversation with the minister will be in a series of questions. I will be asking questions, and hopefully the minister will answer those questions.

[3:55 p.m.]

This is not just a 15-minute debate speech on my part, so I just want to clarify with you. As is the case with the committee stage, may I ask questions of the minister, or am I just expected to talk for as long as I want and then sit down, with no response from the minister?

The Chair: You can ask questions, yes.

N. Letnick: I can ask questions. All right. Well, I’ll ask those questions, and I hope that the minister will respond as I ask the questions. He doesn’t have to, of course, but I just want to frame it that way. I’m not trying to make a filibuster speech and then sit down. I would like to actually get into the question-and-answer piece.

My first question is this, because this amendment will actually address some of the issues that are happening in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country. UBC Okanagan is in my riding. I’ve received a lot of letters, both for the proposed legislation that the government has brought in and opposed, also some offering some suggestions.

In this particular case, with this amendment, I think it would address this particular issue, which is that a lot of students are saying that this is the only way they can afford housing, whereby they are in their apartments for eight months of the year while they’re going to university. Then the owners of the apartments are then renting out those apartments for the four months on some kind of social platform like Airbnb or some of the other ones. By doing so, they’re able to keep the rents for the students as low as possible.

Clearly, if a unit became available to the full-time rental market year-round, those landlords would not be able to encourage the tenants to leave in time for the students to come in the unit. Basically, they would be removed from the marketplace for those students, and those students would have nowhere to go.

My first question to the minister is: what do we do about this unintended consequence? This is a real consequence, because a lot of the buildings around UBC Okanagan were built specifically with this model in mind, that the students would occupy them during the school year, and then for the rest of those summer months, they’d be occupied by short-term rentals. What do we do? What do we tell those students? That’s my first question.

The Chair: Member.

N. Letnick: I didn’t get an answer to the question, so I’ll go on to the next question. Then I’ll sit down and wait for another answer. Every time I do that, the clock will start over at 15 minutes, so I can actually be here for hours. I think it’d be better if…. But, anyway, that’s up to the minister to decide how he wants to answer those questions.

My second question is to deal with these units that are actually very, very small. They were designed with students in mind, designed so that they are only maybe 250 to 300 square feet. There’s no way that anybody else, any family, would want to move into these units on a full-time basis. Since they don’t want to move into these units on a full-time basis, they will sit practically empty most of the time, if not forever.

Obviously, people who have built these units or purchased these units will be faced with some decisions, either to leave them empty, hoping for a change in policy down the road, or sell them, of course, at a loss.

Again, my second question to the minister is: how do we make sure…? This amendment would address that, by allowing for people to have more than their own home. They can actually go out and get a unit. What would the minister say to those owners that now have an empty unit or have to take a loss on those units because the students, when they move out, the people who move in just can’t live in such a small place on a year-round basis?

The Chair: Member.

N. Letnick: We’ll start the clock again. This is an interesting process.

My third question is to do with tourism. We have many, many situations in Kelowna where we invite people to hold conventions, and we don’t have enough hotel accommodation. Since the pandemic, the hotel accommodation prices have been very, very high.

So what do we do with all these events that are coming, or are hoped that we can get them to our location, if we tell the existing owners on Airbnb and other similar platforms that they’re going to have to basically sell their units or convert them to full-time year-round rental housing.

[4:00 p.m.]

In that case, we’ll lose the capacity to provide those people that are coming to the central Okanagan, in particular my riding, with an opportunity to have accommodation while they’re coming to the unit.

I would suggest to the minister that this amendment would actually address that quite well. This amendment would then allow people who aren’t in the business of using Airbnb as an investment tool or who have six or ten of these units, but just a ma and pa or the young student who’s trying to get a leg up and get into the market themselves of owning a home or being able to subsidize their income a little bit… This would also address not only their needs but also address the needs of the community at large and the tourism community at large.

You don’t usually get a big announcement in the newspaper that says: “This exhibition has decided not to go to a place because they can’t find accommodation.” Usually, they just quietly go somewhere else. That somewhere else, I’m afraid, will be Alberta or any other jurisdiction that does provide an adequate inventory of short-term rentals.

Again, I would suggest that the amendment that’s on the floor would help to address that in giving people that opportunity to find accommodation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m going to try to answer some of the questions the member raised.

First, the question was: what do we do for students? The answer is that you build student housing. I mean, we haven’t been building enough student housing in British Columbia. We have communities throughout the province where there’s a real shortage. We funded 220 beds at that campus that the member is talking about. We need, obviously, more opportunities there, in communities throughout the province.

Now, I said that this was a loophole, and I’ll mention again why it’s a loophole. We have a building a few blocks from here that has 121 units, and 90 units of that are estimated to be short-term rentals. If 90 of these units are short-term rentals, all 90 people could make the argument that this is their one investment property.

Our goal is to try to bring more housing back to the long-term market. So the reason why this is a loophole is that everyone will have one investment property they want for short-term rentals, and it doesn’t get us the amount of housing we need back that we desperately need in our community. That’s why I was referring to this as a loophole. That’s why we can’t support it. But for students, we need to build housing.

The member also made a comment about tourism. I’ll share with the member that the mayor of Kelowna said: “The need is great. As an example, we regularly hear from our tourism industry the challenges of their staff in finding housing. This will go a long way to change that situation and many similar housing challenges in our community.”

It’s responsive to the mayor and the concerns that he’s been hearing from the tourism industry. Again, short-term rentals will still be available for people, which I know is important for the tourism industry in Kelowna.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his answers through this process. I don’t, obviously, agree with the answers, but that’s the nature of the game.

The minister is the minister, and I won’t spend a lot of time to rebut what the minister has said other than just to focus his attention again on the issue of the existing housing that’s been built around UBC Okanagan. A lot of it is too small for long-term renters.

Yes, they can go and build more student housing. But that is not going to solve the issue of these particular units that are owned by other people unless, of course, the minister is proposing to purchase these units from the people that built them. If that’s the minister’s proposal, then we should hear about this grandfathering clause or this quasi-expropriation clause that the minister is referring to.

I don’t want to put words in the minister’s mouth. I have too much respect for every member of this House to do that. But, again, we are talking about a number of units that have been specifically built for students in mind and for short-term rentals when those students are not in those units.

They will not go on the long-term rental market for many reasons, one of which is that the Residential Tenancy Act will not allow the landlord to evict a tenant in the case of saying: “Well, now we need them for the fall and the winter session for our students.” That’s not going to work.

[4:05 p.m.]

I’m not suggesting we should give the landlord tenancy act that ability. I’m just saying that the way the law is right now, it is definitely not available to landlords who want to remove a tenant in many, many cases, and in this case as well, unless, of course, the minister is proposing to look at that part of the landlord tenancy act, but then that wouldn’t be fair to the people who buy these units and move into them, right?

Here we are in a situation where we have buildings that were specifically built with small units in mind, following all the rules of the day, paying all the proper fees, getting all the right zoning, were even encouraged by the city of Kelowna to build in this way, and now we come in and we say: “Well, too bad, so sad. You’re not going to have students in there anymore because you won’t be able to have Airbnb during the summer, and therefore you won’t be able to afford to have the lower rates for the students in the rest of the year.”

If the minister can specifically deal with this issue coming from some of my constituents, I would appreciate that. And then after that, I do have a few more questions for the minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ve got a great deal of respect for the member, so I’ll stress a couple of points.

The vacancy rate in Kelowna is 0.9 percent, which is ridiculous. It’s a real challenge. West Kelowna and Kelowna have a principal residence requirement already. So anyone that is renting a property in Kelowna or West Kelowna that is not their principal residence wouldn’t be following the law, because the law there is principal residence.

I appreciate the member has been getting correspondence. I’ve been tagged on a lot of the correspondence. In fact, I’ve got correspondence here from a person who said…. It was addressed to us both. I won’t say the name, but you’ll know once I read it to you.

It says: “We are so grateful for your support for this bill. We realize you’ll hear from many angry investors and just wanted to provide you with an account of how this has impacted our family. We don’t need more Airbnbs, we need more housing for families like ours who work hard and just want a place to call home.”

That’s what we’re fundamentally trying do. We’re trying to get more housing for people in our communities. I respect that we’re not going to agree on this, but I hope we can agree that getting more housing back on the market for people in our communities is a good thing.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Since he did bring in a letter that was sent to both of us, and I know we all have received letters, usually addressed to every member of the House, I’d like to read part of a letter that I and everybody else received — it’s not in the record — just to bring home the point of how this legislation, if the amendment isn’t accepted, will impact real people in our province.

“Good morning. My name is…. My journey to acquire my first condo was long and a challenging one. At that time, I had the option to choose a more affordable condo priced at X number of dollars, but I had bigger aspirations. I attribute my inspiration to my family, who had operated a bed and breakfast for over 25 years.

“When my mother finally retired, platforms like Airbnb were just beginning to emerge and gain popularity. As a millennial with a fresh perspective, I began to explore unconventional possibilities, and through the beginning stages of looking at properties, I started learning more about Victoria’s legal non-conforming buildings.

“As I continued to learn, it became increasingly evident that this path could not only allow me to carry on the family legacy but also embark on my own entrepreneurial journey. Even though my family, who had endured the relentless demands of the tourism industry, initially struggled to comprehend my vision and attempted to discourage me, I remained steadfast in my conviction. I knew in my gut that this innovative platform, coupled with technological advancements, would offer me a level of flexibility that, unfortunately, they had never had, and in the end, I was proven right.

“However, purchasing a condo in these buildings came at a premium, a cost I was more than willing to pay, acquiring the zoning necessary to realize my vision. During the time of purchase, I was also in the middle of finishing my degree. It was during this period that another idea struck me. Given that I had purchased a property in a zoned building, I thought about the financial benefit of living six months at my mom’s place during the peak season and utilizing it as an Airbnb rental during this time.

[4:10 p.m.]

“It allowed me to pay for my mortgage while also completing my university degree with minimal debt. I felt a sense of pride in my accomplishments, and I could see things were finally going to start paying off.

“Bill 35 threatens everything I have worked for, worked hard for. This past week, I find myself on the verge of tears and, ultimately, hopelessness. All I want to do is share my story. However, I’m hesitant because of how the media and the majority of the government has portrayed us. Despite the ugly descriptions, I am not a wealthy investor with an expansive real estate portfolio, nor am I someone who doesn’t care about the housing crisis. What I am is a millennial, and this property is my only asset, an asset that took years of self-discipline and self-sacrifice to acquire.

“It’s an understatement to say that living in today’s world is expensive, with inflation and astronomical mortgage rates without any foreseeable relief in sight. I’d like to reiterate that I purchased my property at a premium price. What was once affordable quickly turned, and these days I’m just trying to keep my head above water.

“My one saving grace is the fact that my partner graciously shares his space with me, allowing me to utilize my property as an Airbnb. I can’t stress enough how crucial it is for me to maintain this income source. I’ve never been deeply involved in Canadian politics, but now it consumes my every thought.

“STR owners with grandfathered transient zoning in legal non-conforming buildings should not be punished for following the law. The majority of us are local, love tourism and are vested in our cities. If I had known that my property rights would be taken away, I would have chosen a much more affordable condo to begin with, saving many tireless years, and avoided this predicament entirely. As you know, punishing those who follow the law and revoking the rights of those who have acted within the legal framework sets a dangerous precedent.”

She goes on to say other things that may disclose who she is, so I won’t read those out. There are other letters, many other letters.

Of all the other amendments that we’ve proposed, this amendment would help to address the issues that are a lot being created through this legislation — unintended issues. I’ve seen many, many laws come through this place over the years, and everybody tries to do the same thing: reduce the unintended consequences. Reduce the unintended consequences, because it’s so easy in this place to think about a law and think about how it’s going to help people and not think about the ways it’s going to hurt.

There’s a lot of hurt in this bill. And this amendment would address most of that hurt. Therefore, I would urge the minister and all of my colleagues in this House, on both sides of the House, to support the amendment and reduce the unintended consequences.

P. Milobar: I rise to speak to the amendment on clause 14. I’d just like to raise some points around this because I think what’s getting lost in this conversation around this amendment, specifically, is…. We heard the Premier today talking, characterizing….

Trying to look out for big investors that have, you know, 50, 60, 100 Airbnbs — well, this amendment doesn’t do that. This amendment says that you’re allowed one unit in addition to your principal residence. So that takes that whole boogeyman kind of narrative out of the equation.

It’s important, I think…. The minister may say: “Well, it would be very hard to track.” Well, this government has implemented so many different layers of rules and regulations and laws on people on how you have to register your property that the cross-reference check, in this day and age of AI, really wouldn’t be that hard to track because of all the registrations that we’ve had to do, in terms of our tax forms and the shifting of the homeowner’s grant and everything else and all the information government is starting to collect around homeownership and who owns a property.

They have actually gone out of their way to collect this massive amount of data, so let’s use it for something that actually won’t be too punitive for people that simply would like to have that second unit.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister talks about students and how this will actually benefit students. Well, it won’t benefit students, because as we’ve heard, if a student leaves in May or June when their courses end and they’re not coming back till September, that landlord will no longer have the ability because somebody will move in in June. Unless the tenant, by choice, decides to leave in September, the landlord legally will not be allowed to have that tenant leave.

Yes, somebody else that is looking for a long-term rental will benefit, absolutely. But students will also feel the pain of this, because it’s the law of unintended consequences. You can see that because, when you layer this with the rental tenancy branch and their rules, it doesn’t create the situation the minister is talking about. It simply can’t. It would be illegal.

That’s a problem. Then you look at how…. With this wording of this existing bill, who does this actually benefit?

The government is saying two things. If you’re a large, multinational hotel corporation, we’ve set up a set of rules for you that you’re going to love. If you own a single-family home on a detached lot, you’re going to love these new Airbnb short-term rental rules. But if you live in a condo…. If you live in an apartment-style condo building, you’re SOL for an STR.

Even if you want to buy the unit right next door to you, it will have two separate deeds, two separate titles. You won’t be allowed, if you live in an apartment-style condo building, to buy the condo right next door to you even if the building was willing to allow unlimited rentals and have an Airbnb concierge. Kind of like the Juliet in Victoria, the building the Premier used to own a building in and marketed it as such when he sold it in 2019.

I would point out this government in 2019 was already engaged with the UBCM around developing rules for short-term rentals. That had started back in 2018. That report on how to deal with short-term rentals actually came forward to government in 2021 when the Premier was actually the Housing Minister.

That report sat and collected dust with government for two years because the Premier decided to get in the middle of a leadership race. For two years, the government sat on that report watching the housing crisis get worse and worse and worse. And then we’re left here today with Bill 35, and another finger-pointing exercise by the government instead of taking responsibility for them sitting on their own hands.

We have created a situation with this government’s piece of legislation that says if you own a freestanding single-family home, you will be the only ones allowed to have Airbnbs. You can build a carriage house on your property or you can have a basement suite.

Basement suites, which are typically the lower-cost housing accommodation for people that are on a monthly long-term rental.

But the pressure for those suites to turn into short-term rentals is going to skyrocket, because people will realize they won’t be tied to the rules of the rental tenancy branch for a longer-term tenant. They can make the same, if not significantly more, by going into the nightly rental market and going through the process over the next five or six months as this becomes law in May.

Our lower-cost basement suites will no longer be for long-term rents, which pushes people to the apartment-style condo of previous Airbnb rentals. The sheer economics of those are going to mean people will now be facing $3,000 and $4,000 and $5,000 monthly rents after being evicted out of their basement suites because of this legislation.

Again, the government is deciding that if you live in a single-family detached home…. The same people, renters and others, are saying: “You bought your house in 1969” — you see all the memes — “for seven almonds and a pack of tic tacs, and now it’s worth $2½ million.”

[4:20 p.m.]

This government is now saying: “Oh, by the way, you can also be the only people that can have short-term rentals anymore in this province.”

Our amendment is just trying to make that equal. We’re saying that if the single-family homeowner is allowed to have one short-term rental on their property, why should the apartment-style condo owner not be entitled to have one unit for a short-term rental somewhere?

Not ten, not 50, not like the union pension funds that likely have banks of short-term rentals in their real estate portfolios, because that’s their responsibility — to find a good rate of return of other investments for their pension fund holders. I don’t begrudge them doing that. But they own apartment buildings. They own lots of real estate, as do all pension funds, because that’s what they’re supposed to do. So they’re doing their fiduciary duties.

I’m not worried that they might have to recalibrate their business plan. I understand that. But to not see the flaw in this legislation that is saying if you live in a multi-million-dollar single-family home, you have now been conferred the exclusive right by this government to have a short-term rental, but if you live in an entry-level apartment-style condo and want to buy the entry-level apartment-style condo next door to you to try to get ahead a little bit so you might be able to eventually afford a freestanding home, you’re not allowed to do that. Government knows best.

Then the minister was talking about Kelowna and the tourism industry having a shortage of space for workers to live. I totally agree. He’s 100 percent right. Then why, in this legislation, did they remove resort communities from short-term rental restrictions? Resort communities are all based on tourism. All have massive shortages for housing for their workers. All of them do.

And yes, the housing in those areas is incredibly expensive and owned by very wealthy people — absolutely. But the workers there are getting paid workers’ wages, and that’s why they have struggles finding housing in those areas.

The minister has already recognized that there’s a need for larger numbers of short-term rentals, but not if you’re a resort worker, not if you live in a town that’s 10,000 people or less where there are still housing shortages and very expensive rents. That’s okay. Not if you live in the unincorporated areas, as the member from Parksville pointed out yesterday, that surround cities, and outside of Metro Vancouver, there are a lot of those areas.

Just outside of Kamloops…. You can drive longer inside the city boundaries in Kamloops, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, to get downtown than it would take you to drive from the outskirts of town, where they’re still in the unincorporated areas, large nodes of population. They’re all okay, but the urban area is not, or the suburban area in those cities is not.

That’s the fundamental flaw with this legislation. It’s not going to actually solve what the government is marketing, because if it did, ask yourself why they are going to sit on this for the next — what is it? — eight months before it’s implemented.

They started doing a report in 2018. It got finalized in 2021 when the now Premier was the Housing Minister, with UBCM. No action taken for two years. Now it comes forward two years later. “Oh, and let’s sit on the implementation for another eight months.”

[4:25 p.m.]

From the time the report was finalized, when the Premier was the Housing Minister, to the implementation of this will be almost three years. But this is going to solve the housing affordability crisis for people, according to the minister and this government.

That’s why they’re going to sit for another eight months to implementation. Convenient, when the writ will be dropped in about another ten months or so, 10½ months. Very convenient timing to talk about how this is going to transform housing in British Columbia. Very little time for the public to actually understand and see it in practice — be it for medical travel, as we’ve talked about; special events, as we will be talking about.

To bring forward an amendment like we have that simply says the style of housing that your primary residence is should not dictate whether you have the legal right to have a second area that is considered short-term rental…. That’s essentially what our amendment says. It says that if you live in an apartment-style condo, you have the same right to one short-term rental space; the same as if you live on a piece of free title freehold land — single-family dwelling, detached home.

It’s shocking, after seven years of this government characterizing people that have had the audacity to live in a freestanding single-family home in this province, that this bill will now confer the ultimate privilege to somebody that lives in that style of housing while punishing anyone else that wants to literally have the same mix within their real estate holdings.

I say holdings, because those pension funds I talked about — they’re highly unlikely to mass sell off any Air­bnbs they have. They’ll just roll those to long-term rentals. Absolutely. That’s not a bad thing. That will put some units back on the market. It will address some of the problems around people that have hundreds or 30 or 40 Airbnb units, but that’s not what our amendment is trying to do.

Our amendment is not trying to confer a benefit to them. Our amendment is trying to rebalance the benefit and the privilege this government is trying to extend to people that live on single family lots at the expense of everyone else that lives in an apartment-style condo building who will no longer have the ability to do as a citizen and as a taxpayer in British Columbia. It’s fundamentally wrong.

That’s why the government needs to admit they erred, support the amendment and bring some semblance of fairness to a very flawed piece of legislation to begin with. While they’re at it, they could consider maybe not taking eight months to implement, if they actually pass, this piece of legislation.

E. Ross: I’ve been watching the debate on Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act, but I’ve been watching the debate for the last six years in terms of the housing crisis that we have been experienced in B.C.

Not quite sure, in terms of the progress that we’ve made across the board in terms of addressing the housing issue here in B.C. We keep hearing the terms of the highest rental rates in Canada and the highest housing costs in North America. I do understand what this side of the House has been saying for the last six years — that you have to address supply. You have to address it, but I think what we’re talking about on this side of the House is that you’ve got to build that supply.

Because really, a lot of the speeches I’ve heard in this House is actually not talking about building per se, but talking about trying to change the nature of existing structures to provide more housing, which I can understand as well.

[4:30 p.m.]

But it’s actually put a lot of pressure, undue pressure for that matter, on citizens that have been following the rules and following the laws of B.C. and Canada up to now. It was a freedom of homeowners and property owners to do what they would with the properties that they invested in.

Now, I understand the nature of Bill 35 is to achieve more accommodations, but there’s a difference of opinion on whether or not Bill 35 will accomplish that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The one thing that I’ll point out is that we will not know what type of an impact Bill 35 will have on the housing crisis in B.C. because, like other bills, it’s a delayed impact. This won’t be implemented until May. So if it’s a crisis…. We still have to wait till 2024 for implementation, and then maybe we’ll need another six months to maybe a year to see the effects, right?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Or an election, yes. Hmm. Good timing.

But in the meantime, there are a lot of questions that are being asked by people that were not trying to find loopholes. They were not trying to skirt the system. They were basically just regular property owners that, by the way, were fulfilling a need in B.C.

I was watching the very impassioned speeches by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. The urban ridings, right? The Big Smoke.

You know, there are certain regions of the province that have more to lose with Bill 35 in terms of this legislation, which will basically restrict the ability of people to operate bed-and-breakfasts. There are certain areas, for example, in the urban setting. But there are also places in rural B.C. that use it as part of their strategy for tourism, for example.

I do agree with the member from Capilano, as well as the previous speaker, talking about the hardship that it puts on rural people. Coming from Skeena — meaning the people living in Terrace, Kitimat, Nisg̱a’a, Kitamaat Village, Kitsumkalum, Kitselas — we are already at a disadvantage in terms of being located so far away from specialized services.

I understand it’s just the nature of how we’re set up here in terms of services, specifically medical services. But it’s a cost that a lot of our constituents can’t maintain, especially when you consider somebody from our riding coming from Terrace, puts their life on hold, books….

The Chair: Sorry, Member. Can the member help the Chair understand the connection to the proposed amendment?

E. Ross: Yes. In terms of the restrictions of Bill 35, in terms of the secondary suite that the member from Vancouver-Capilano is proposing, that would help people from rural settings when they’re coming down.

I do understand, in this House, that the other amendments were struck down. But I think what we’re really getting at is that we do need these purpose-built B and Bs, purpose-serving B and Bs for specific purposes.

We’ve gone over this already in terms of people that use B and Bs for medical treatments because nobody can afford a hotel. I still think that this is relevant in terms of the proposed bill that was put together by the member from Vancouver-Capilano.

[4:35 p.m.]

In fact, to be clear, the amendment that we’re proposing, because the other amendments have failed…. The other amendments were voted down by the majority of the people in this House, meaning the government. But this latest amendment is still trying to look out not only for property owners but also for the people that utilize B and Bs for different purposes other than just trying to make a buck. I don’t see the connection and where specifically the B and B owners are responsible for the housing crisis. I don’t see it.

The proposed amendment to Bill 35 is specific to clause 14, “by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown.” The principal residence requirement: “14(1) Subject to the regulations, if short-term rental accommodation services are provided outside the exempt land in respect of a short-term rental offer, the short-term rental accommodation services must not be provided except….” and then the proposed amendment is saying to cross out “in one or both of the following.”

Subsection 14(1)(a) is: “in the property host’s principal residence” or “(b) in not more than one…” The addition is: one “of the following.” Then “(i) a secondary suite or other accessory dwelling unit that is in a prescribed location in relation to the property host’s principal residence…” That’s existing language in Bill 35. The additional language is: “or a residential property that is not a primary residence.”

I think what we’re trying to get at on this side of the House is that B and Bs serve a specific purpose that a lot of people utilize that is not being addressed fully by Bill 35. Like a lot of the other bills that have been approved in this House in the last six years, people will get a wake-up call probably six months later, after May, when this bill is approved.

I have no doubt that this amendment is going to fail. I don’t see anybody from government getting up to speak to the amendment, to the benefits of the amendment, whether there are pros and cons to it, or even trying to debate some of the issues that this side of the House has been trying to advocate for on behalf of residents of B.C., as well as property owners and B and B operators.

I do believe that the intention is good in terms of Bill 35 — the intention. Whether or not it will achieve the objectives that the government is talking about, we won’t know for another year, a year and a half. But in saying that, the amendments that have been put forward already by the member from Vancouver-Capilano, they’re well-intentioned as well.

We’re trying to achieve a balance. We’re trying to achieve some fairness. We’re trying to achieve some level of recognition that says there is a purpose, a well-meaning purpose, for B and Bs that is not really, truly being entertained in this House. I think that’s really why the member from Vancouver-Capilano is pushing so hard for these amendments.

I will be voting in favour of the amendment to proposed Bill 35, specifically the proposal in terms of the amendment put forward by the member from Vancouver-Capilano.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to talk to the amendment that’s proposed here in Bill 35. It’s a reasonable amendment.

[4:40 p.m.]

We’ve already seen a couple come and go that were equally as reasonable. I think that’s kind of going to be the theme on this one. What we’re saying on this side of the House is we’re looking for something that’s reasonable, something that’s responsible and something that we will get results from. I think that’s what the people of British Columbia want, and this is what the proposal is right now in front of us.

It kind of blows me away, the fact that we are in a crisis. We are in a housing crisis. Everybody in this House agrees with this.

But we’re only seeing a one-sided debate here on something that’s absolutely critical, and we’re trying to find that answer. I think this government’s looking towards this bill, Bill 35, as some sort of a silver bullet, something that’s going to solve all the world’s problems.

We, on this side, contest that. We say: “No, this is a very complex issue. It’s not just a one-size-fits-all kind of solution here that’s going to solve all the world’s problems.” I’ll give government credit. I don’t think they believe in that either.

With that understanding that we both have, we have to put something forward that’s reasonable that addresses this complex issue. I don’t think any government in the world gets it right when they put legislation like this through, because there are so many moving parts to this. We’ll speak to some of those moving parts.

But with this bill, what it does is it gives homeowners an option. It gives them an option to capture a niche in what is a complex issue in housing, and that’s short-term rentals versus long-term units.

On the short-term rental side, there is a need. There is an absolute need. The minister said: “We’re not stopping…. You know, there are exemptions.”

We’re offering another tool here with this amendment. That’s all this is. It’s a reasonable, responsible amendment that will give property owners rights to have an additional unit. And also to those people that don’t actually have the land, perhaps, such as an apartment — it gives them, people that own apartments or condos, an option as well.

I don’t think this government has anything to grind against people that own apartments or condos. But it comes off that way because they will not be able to participate with the bill that’s in front of us, Bill 35.

The niches that I look at, I look at them firsthand because I happen to live next to a hospital in Cranbrook, which will be affected by this bill. It’s over 10,000 people. The house that’s next to mine is a short-term rental for doctors and locums and nurses.

It’s a really good location. It’s attractive for doctors to come. That’s half the battle right now with our doctor crisis — attracting, retaining. And it’s attractive for them. It provides accommodations. It provides a kitchen, food, other than staying in a hotel. Who wouldn’t want that? And at a reasonable rate, I might add. It’s cost-effective.

This amendment speaks to that reasonable option that we have. I don’t know what the push-back is, quite honestly. Is government so indignant that they’re just going to cross their arms and say: “No, we’ve done this. We’ve done our homework. We’ve done all the checking that we need to do, and we’re not going to hear from anybody”?

We’re trying to have some kind of collaboration here in this House to say: “Hey, we’ve got a couple of good ideas too, you know. Here’s a good one.”

Quite honestly, the two amendments before this were equally as good, reducing from 90 days to 30 days.

The Chair: Of course, Member, we’re speaking to the current amendment.

T. Shypitka: I know. I’m tying in what this amendment does to this legislation and the effort that this side of the House is trying to put forward to this committee to say: “Hey, let’s bring it all together. We’re all in this together.” We hear that all the time. But when we’re in the House, it doesn’t seem that way half the time.

[4:45 p.m.]

The minister spoke briefly on why he doesn’t support this, but it’s very unclear. It’s mixed messaging, in my opinion.

Sadly to say, I’ve got a family member that’s going through cancer right now. In the remote area that I live in, Kootenay East, we have been given…. The only option to receive radiation treatment is, in some cases, 1,000 kilometres away, six mountain passes. You’ve heard the spiel before, Chair. It doesn’t seem to resonate too much, though, because, well….

No, not to you. I’m saying generally, Chair, not to you directly. Sorry. Apologies.

It doesn’t seem to resonate — the issues that rural British Columbians have. We’ve been essentially cut off access to health care in Alberta. We can no longer go there. That’s another topic for another day, and I’ll stay within the amendment.

What it does do. These short-term rentals provide that financial relief for a person to go from Cranbrook or Sparwood or Elkford or Fernie or Invermere or any other place in the East Kootenays — that long nine-hour trek, for six weeks at a time, perhaps maybe even two months — a little refuge financially to say: “Okay, we don’t have to spend $400 a night in a hotel for the next six weeks.”

That’s crippling. That is absolutely crippling for anybody. Quite honestly, a lot of people don’t do it. That’s a sad conversation around the dinner table, to say: “Hey, guess what? It’s not in the family budget for dad to go get radiation treatment because we just simply can’t afford it. We don’t have the funds.”

That quality of life that we’re kind of hoping for that would come out of radiation treatment is now gone, because there’s a bit of a guilt factor there. Myself, I wouldn’t want to burden my family, go into debt to give me an extra six months or a year, perhaps. It’s a big discussion. These short-term rentals identify that. They….

And, you know, I take offence. I said it before; I’ll say it again. I take offence by the minister referring to this as a loophole. That is not a loophole for people that want a better quality of life. It’s insulting.

I can’t even imagine going to the person in my family to say: “I understand you need a short-term rental up in Kelowna to look after your cancer treatment, but you’re exposing a loophole here. It’s not really something…. It’s kind of frowned on.” That’s what government is saying. They’re frowning on folks that have this type of situation.

Industry workers. We had industry workers that came in, in Cranbrook over the summer months, putting in a lifeline, a gas line — keeping people warm, keeping businesses open. It’s absolutely critical that we had that in. We had people come in over the summertime.

These single units that owners could have, which are identified by this amendment, would provide relief for those workers and would bring costs down on projects such as that. If you can imagine, the contractor has to bid this out and says: “Well, we have to spend X millions of dollars on accommodations because everybody’s going in hotels, or there is actually an option. If we went to short-term rentals, it probably cost our bills…. It’d probably cost us half the price, or a quarter of the price.” That goes onto the taxpayer.

These are reasonable. Why doesn’t government support them? That’s the thing.

This is seven years in. This housing crisis just didn’t start today. It’s been ramping up for the last four or five years. This could have come in at any time, and it doesn’t come into effect until May. So even if this passes tomorrow, we’re not going to see this come in…. So why this delay?

[4:50 p.m.]

This is desperation legislation, in my opinion. This is panic time from a government that knows their housing plan has failed. They’re looking to find anything or anyone to bring in to bump their numbers up.

I’m going to guarantee you…. I’m not a betting man so much, but I’m going to guess — well, so much — that once this legislation passes, every short-term rental that’s registered in this province will now be credited to the government for housing. I’m almost going to guarantee it. At least we’ll find out the number, right? That’s disingenuous. I hope I’m wrong, but we’ll find out, I guess, on royal assent.

I support the amendment 100 percent. It’s a brilliant amendment. It’s a reasonable, responsible thing to do. We’re trying to come together. We’re trying to collaborate with government. They have crossed arms. We don’t hear anybody on the other side speaking to it, which really shocks me. We all understand it’s a critical issue, yet we hear nothing on the other side. It’s amazing.

Well, I mean, we don’t have as large of a caucus as we’d like to, and we’re going to try to change that, but we’ve got you outnumbered probably six to one on debate on this issue at least. That’s a concern. We need to find some middle ground on this. We’ve given you reasonable amendments. The government keeps pushing back and crossing their arms. I’m saddened by that, and I’m sad for all the people this is going to affect, because this will pass.

This will pass in the House, and those options will be gone. Those little niche markets that we need, that build all these wheels, these moving parts in the housing crisis that we have, are now going to be extinguished.

I hope the minister can reconsider. We still have time to do that. We can still do that right here today if the minister agrees to these amendments. Then I would be the first guy to give him a standing ovation. I would. I know that’s on his bucket list, Mr. Chair. I know he has dreams of that.

In all seriousness, this is a serious issue, and we need to come together on this. This amendment to this bill does that. With that, I support the amendment, and I’ll take my place.

The Chair: Of course, we are here talking about a proposed amendment from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to clause 14.

D. Davies: Certainly, pleased to stand here and support my colleague from Vancouver Capilano and….

Interjection.

D. Davies: Oh, sorry. Sorry. West Vancouver–Capilano — I’m going to write this down right now, so I don’t say it wrong again here. West Vancouver — there we are. It’s like the Peace River North, Peace River South mixup, right?

Certainly want to support my colleague’s amendment — and have supported the others that, unfortunately, were not supported by government over the last bit of this debate. Really what are in this, quite frankly, flawed legislation were recommendations to improve this piece of legislation, improve what we see.

We all recognize there are issues. We recognize there are issues with housing. I think we need to recognize that the issues with housing go back some time, but I’m going to focus on, certainly, the last number of years that this government has been in power to try and create some housing numbers.

We keep hearing these housing numbers. My colleague from the Kootenays there had mentioned that these numbers, whatever numbers come in from closing down the Airbnbs, are going to be counted now as units that the NDP government have created. I think the line that was just used, desperation legislation — I quite like that, because I really do feel that this builds on the back of six years of failure.

Amendments like have been proposed, which we’re talking about right now, are to try and make this legislation better, to try and undo some of these issues that we’ve been seeing grow over the last number of years, the shortage of housing and the housing crisis in general, which is really, quite frankly, out of control right now.

[4:55 p.m.]

It is for a lack of action by this government that has got us to this point. There has really been no significant amount of units built in this province, affordable units built, that are going to be supporting what is indeed needed. Again, as desperation legislation, this is a great way we can say: “Hey, we just freed up all these numbers. Look at what we’ve done.”

The Chair: If I might remind the member, it is to the proposed amendment. It’s not a second reading.

D. Davies: Thanks, hon. Chair. To the proposed amendment, I think this amendment allows homeowners to actually have a second property that they can fulfil a need, a need that is absolutely missing. I’m going to talk a little bit about that need that this amendment provides for.

That need is that in many cases, constituents that live in my riding, constituents that down for cancer treatment into the larger centres across the province, certainly into the Lower Mainland — cardiac care. We don’t have a cardiac unit in Fort St. John, and many people have to come down and seek treatment. Many times the treatment they’re down for is weeks.

The Airbnb or these…. I shouldn’t use the word Airbnb. The short-term rentals offer a viable alternative, especially when you’re talking to people that have already had a significant impact to their financials on fighting this medical concern. This amendment is just one piece that will help to ensure that this need is in fact being filled.

I think of the folks from Fort Nelson, for instance. There has not been a baby born in Fort Nelson for ten years. Anybody that is pregnant has to go to another city that provides maternity services, and many of them are going to the larger centres. They’re recommended to go 30 days prior to their due date. Well, 30 days, if you can imagine, in a hotel would be…. Well, it wouldn’t be great, not only the environment of it, but the sheer cost that you would be downloading on a person who is just trying to grow their family, have their first child, have their second child, become a family.

This amendment at least keeps some of that alive, at least keeps some of these units in these larger centres, where there are medical facilities that people then can access. This proposed legislation isn’t favouring that, isn’t doing that.

I only have to think just back to the residents that live in my riding, or smaller ridings, where they have to travel to seek medical assistance. Whether it be even just to go for a specialist, knee or hip or eye, nose and throat doctor. We don’t have those services in our community.

Almost anybody that seeks any kind of specialist in a smaller, rural area has to travel to a larger centre to seek these services. If that’s in the summer…. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried getting a hotel in Vancouver in the summer. You can’t. In fact, it’s even hard to get a short-term rental. But it is something that is required.

I think this is going to be one of those unintended consequences. Certainly, by not looking at the other amendments, that happened, but this amendment that we’re talking to right now, by not allowing it to happen, really does create a significant issue for allowing people to have access to these. That is going to be one of the unintended consequences that were in there.

Again — I go back to — we’re only in this position because of the failures of this government — the failures to actually create more housing, building more. That has not happened.

I have a handful of emails here, and I know we were all on the distribution lists for many of these emails that have come in. The government has somehow vilified people that have a secondary residence that are trying to, in many cases…. Again, I know the members across have received the exact same emails.

[5:00 p.m.]

You know, these are people trying to get into their first-time home where they are utilizing the short-term rentals to help offset the costs, so that they can have that something that they can provide for their future or provide for their family.

I’m just going to read one email. I’m going to read it because it is a short one. I’ll talk about it after, here.

“I’m writing you to consider the impact of the new legislation regarding non-legal-conforming short-term rentals. I know of young people who are trying to get ahead in these tough times. With rising interest rates and costs of living going up, how can they get ahead? I fear that they will lose their investment. They are investing for their retirement.

Will these changes help solve that problem? They are paying their license fees. They’re paying their taxes for short-term rentals in zones that the government has approved at the time of their purchase. I fear that their property rights are being stripped away from them. Am I next? Please listen to their stories.”

That’s Debbie, who has, again, sent this email out to all of us. She brings up a couple of really interesting points. “Am I next?” What is next? We’ve seen a whittling down of property rights already under this government, whether we’re talking changes that have happened in the ALR…. Now we’re seeing this. We’ve seen others. What is next?

I was joking with the House Leader of the Third Party just a second ago, and I’ve heard this before. Are we going to be going into people’s houses next and demanding an inventory in their homes about what rooms are available? Is this the level of government overreach that we are moving toward?

Where are the people’s rights that individually own these homes and have made a choice under what is allowed by this government? To all of a sudden now be villainized and say: “You’re bad, because you’re trying to plan for your retirement….” This amendment that has been proposed is one step to help make this legislation a little bit better, and we’re not seeing that.

A few of the emails that we’ve seen are…. In one instance, I think one of the units is around 350 square feet. It’s tiny. The person has bought this in hopes that they can one day move out of their rental and move into the smaller suite.

This is not something that you’re going to be out there trying to get large families into. This is a small one-bedroom apartment, a studio, that someone is paying approximately — well, in this one email from one individual that, again, everybody in here has received — $3,700 per month for. That’s what their costs are. So $3,700 per month between their mortgage and their utilities.

I mean, I can’t imagine putting that on the market for a long-term rental. I can just imagine the advertisement right now: “Got an apartment for rent. It’s not much bigger than a big, giant doghouse. 3,700 bucks. Views? Well, no view. Well, it might have a view.” This absolutely does not make sense, this legislation, the level of overreach that it’s going to have on people just trying to get ahead. Even just allowing this amendment will make a significant change that will help some of these people get ahead and possibly have a future for themselves.

Again, that first email I read, she was actually not even an owner. She was just concerned for young people in our province, as I am and as we are in this side — people trying to get ahead right now in the world of, let’s say, unaffordability. This is some people’s only way that they’re going to be seeing themselves get into the market.

[5:05 p.m.]

We’ve even seen folks on the other side that have said that ownership for young people is just not going to happen. It’s out of reach. We’ve heard that from members on that side. Well, we don’t believe in that. Little things like this are something that is bringing home ownership into reality. But if you’re going to take that away, I have grave concerns for our young people in where they’re going to go. Again, this has only been caused by inaction, poor action and bad action by the NDP government over the last seven years.

Investor confidence. Who’s going to build anything right now in British Columbia? I could talk about this with any industry, whether it’s the housing market or the resource sector. It’s a challenge.

With the proposed amendment, I wholeheartedly support this. Sadly, I don’t believe that the government will support this. I’m already seeing heads shaking. To allow people to get ahead, to allow young people….

We heard, earlier, hope. This, actually, does give hope, because it allows people to actually move forward and show that they might be able to get into the owner’s market without having to leave the province. We’re already seeing record people leaving to Alberta right now, record numbers of people moving because opportunities are better there.

The Chair: I’m not sure this is the amendment.

D. Davies: It’s sad that this is just one more piece that is going to turn that around, and I really encourage everybody in the House to support our amendment to this flawed piece of legislation to ensure that we are filling those needs for rural British Columbia, filling those needs for urban British Columbia that is an absolute…. Well, we’ve already seen it. It’s a hole that needs to be filled right now, and this is one way that’ll help doing that.

With that, I’ll take my place.

M. Bernier: Thanks to my colleague from Peace River North for his comments and to the Chair for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the amendment that’s on the floor here today.

I think what’s really important, first of all, when we look at not only this amendment but the piece of legislation in front of us…. I want to thank our shadow minister for Housing for her diligence and her thoughtfulness on bringing forward these amendments. We’re doing this because, unlike what the minister says — that it’s looking for loopholes…. In fact, we’re trying to help this government make the legislation stronger, make it better.

It’s actually unfortunate, when we look at the legislative program system that we have here in front of us, that before we even have a chance to really state our case, the members opposite are already shaking their heads saying they’re not going to support it. It’s unfortunate, because the way this system works is…. When you have an opposition….

And I get it. Government doesn’t necessarily want to listen to opposition. Fair enough. But we have constituents. We have people that we’re speaking on behalf of, stories that we’re bringing forward that are actually very applicable to what we’re talking about in this House, which is why we’re bringing forward these amendments, like this amendment right here, which is about trying to strengthen this piece of legislation.

It’s very thoughtful. I would say it’s a reasonable amendment that has been brought forward, and we’ve done that because we’re trying to make sure we’re helping the people in the province of British Columbia — the families, the people that are trying to get into the housing market, maybe the people who are already in, who are actually bringing forward opportunities for people.

Now let me say why I’m in support of this amendment to this bill. It’s because we’re trying again to look at opportunities to make sure we’re bridging that gap to help people.

I’ll give an example. I’ve got somebody — many people — in my riding that shared with me, just this morning, an example. They are fortunate enough to live in a House in Dawson Creek, and they also were looking, down the road, for their family member that might want to be going to university down in the Interior. So what did they do? They bought a condo in Kelowna, but they have been short-term renting to students that are going to university right now.

[5:10 p.m.]

It has been very successful for them, because they have family members that have been using the condo in the off-season, and there have been short-term rentals to students when they’re going to university. It has been a win-win right now, I would say, for everybody.

It’s fulfilling a need because these students are unable to afford the hotels right now, especially in that time of year, in the hot market of Kelowna. I had a child who was living in Kelowna for a while and was really struggling because of the high costs in the hotels and even in some of the rental markets. For the short terms, for the stays that they needed, these situations worked very well.

I also talked to this couple in Dawson Creek as well as many others that have been sharing stories with me to…. Unlike what the minister is saying, there is no way that it’s going to go onto the rental market if they’re pushed in this position. They will leave it vacant. So now everybody’s losing.

The reason why they’ll do that is because of all of the struggles they’re having right now in the tenancy branch. More importantly, they also want to have the opportunity for their family — their loved ones and their children, when they grow up — to be able to utilize that facility when they go to university.

The unintended consequences, as my colleague from Peace River North was saying…. We’re trying to bring these issues to the attention of the government and the minister. It’s unfortunate that they won’t even be considered. Maybe the minister will say, “Oh, we consider; we’re just not agreeing,” and that’s fair enough. But before we even get to those conversations, members of the NDP, even though we tried to be thoughtful and reasonable and give advance notice and an explanation of why, are actually just pushing our amendments to the side.

I want them to remember that they’re not pushing the opposition to the side. They’re actually pushing aside people in the province of British Columbia by not even considering the message that we’re trying to bring forward. I know the minister knows this. I know his colleagues know this.

There is example after example, story after story where people have been in the unfortunate situation…. We talked about one of the amendments — around some of the health concerns where, maybe, somebody that’s pregnant has to go into another jurisdiction.

In my community of Dawson Creek, we have a lot of short-term rentals. I guess, understanding this bill, it might not apply, possibly, in my region, but it does apply for people in my region that have properties outside of Dawson Creek. And they’ve been able to fulfil a need when somebody in my region has a heart attack and has to go down.

I don’t think yesterday the minister quite understood the examples we were trying to raise, because he said that these people don’t have to go to a short-term. But having the opportunity for people to have a secondary suite, a secondary unit that they can rent out….

We’re not trying to say that we’re supporting large conglomerates. I’ll give an example. Just a couple of weeks ago, on our break week, I had the…. I don’t want to say “fortune” because it was for a funeral, but going back east. And I was looking into this exact situation because this….

We’re seeing some of these challenges, and I understand why the government wants to bring forward some legislation around this.

There was a complex in the one community I visited on the east coast that had 300 townhomes that were built, and one investor came in and bought all 300 of them, every single one of them, and actually used them all for short-term rentals. In fact, I stayed in one of them. That’s how I knew about it. That’s not what we’re talking about.

We’re not talking about a large pension fund or corporation that’s buying out all these rental stocks and using them for an Airbnb or a short-term rental. What we’re talking about is the mom-and-pops. We’re talking about, maybe, a young person who’s trying to get into the markets and looking for different opportunities. That’s what we’re trying to bring forward as examples to this minister and to this government: that they are going to be excluding — in fact, penalizing — a lot of people.

[5:15 p.m.]

Nowhere in this legislation does it say “going forward.” It’s actually retroactive. So what they’re saying is that people who have made those investments in good faith…. Maybe somebody who bought a condominium here in Victoria from a now Premier in good faith, thinking that they could use it as a short-term rental, is now going to be told: “No, you can’t.”

These are the examples we’re trying to bring forward for the minister to consider. This amendment that was put forward is trying to fix and enhance and make better a piece of legislation to try to fill some of the gaps that we see, because we’re hearing them from people.

This isn’t us in the back room just coming up with ideas. This is us actually saying: “We are hearing from people. We’re hearing from families. We’re hearing from homeowners that this piece of legislation is flawed.” On behalf of them, we’re trying to bring forward thoughtful amendments to make it better, to try to find a win-win compromise, a way that we can say: “Look, if the government was willing to put forward these amendments, it’s something that now we can support, because we’re knowing that it’s going to make it better for the people of British Columbia.”

All we’re asking is that the minister not just keep pushing it to the side without consideration — and by consideration, I mean real consideration. Maybe take this legislation…. If he wants to reword it, make it his own, put it in there, we’re happy with that. He can take credit for it. I don’t care. We’re not asking for political credit. We’re asking for government to make the legislation better for people.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, we’ll take credit anyway, I think my colleague said. Don’t be surprised, if he did this, that I’d still tweet out and say: “Thanks, it was our idea.”

But I do, in all seriousness…. This is not trying to be gotcha moments. This is actually about doing the right thing.

We know that there are people out there that this is benefiting. We know, with these changes that government is trying to put forward, it’s actually not going to be the silver bullet.

I sure hope that there’s another piece of legislation coming forward for housing this session. I’m not sure if we’re going to see that, because…. The minister is giving me the thumbs up, so…. Hopefully it’s a heck of a lot better than this one, because this year is not going to be doing much.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The minister says the next one’s better, but I know that what we know is the devil is always in the details. With this government, they always try to say, “Leave everything to regulation, and we’ll see it later on,” and this legislation is a lot like that.

It’s unfortunate that they put forward this piece of legislation — the Chair is looking at me — which is why we’re making these amendments. I always have to bring it back to that.

I just want to end by saying again to the minister that I think it’s important that we be looking at these in all seriousness. We’ve had two amendments brought forward right now so far that the government has voted against. We’re going to keep trying, because it’s the right thing to do.

Normally, in opposition, you would just critique it and vote against everything. We’re actually trying to make this piece of legislation better, because we know we’re in a housing crisis right now in the province of British Columbia. I won’t get into the full political commentary of who caused that, because we know for the last seven years…. I’ve got lots of ammunition against the minister of what this government hasn’t done, but that’s for a later date.

On this amendment, I just want to say it’s something I support. I think it’s reasonable. It’s thoughtful. I want to, again, thank our shadow minister for the due diligence work she’s done on behalf of the people of British Columbia to bring this forward to try to help families.

B. Stewart: I don’t know if that indicates that this amendment has maybe got some traction. No.

Well, I wanted to, first of all, just address the House in terms of…. I know this conundrum that the province finds itself in, in dealing with short-term rentals, in terms of the law that is being proposed here to deal with residential tenants, etc., or people that are renting on a short-term basis.

[5:20 p.m.]

I look at my community. I know that there have been examples cited by other members in this House, but I do have to say that there are, specifically, issues and pressures.

We had the good fortune, in 2005, of having UBC Okanagan developed and brought to the Okanagan. It started off with a very modest amount of on-site accommodation, which had been identified as being one of the drawbacks of UBC Okanagan. We needed to add more.

I know that I’ve been there with the former Minister of Advanced Education, opening up Skeena House, and other ones have been announced. However, the student population was originally forecast to get to about 7,500. It is a destination institution, and currently there’s a big gap between what is available for those students.

Whether they’re coming in for the full semesters that are there for their university education…. More importantly, this gap is growing. The 7,500 was the target population back in 2005. It’s now over 13,000 and growing rapidly. It’s considered one of the best small universities in Canada. I’m sure that that’s up for debate, but I do want to tell you that it has been very successful. The students love it, and the students that come there often do depend on this.

During COVID, we had many challenges because there were a lot of these students that couldn’t get that accommodation working with the rules around that.

What I would say is that bus rapid transit came to the Okanagan early in my tenure as an elected MLA. Bus rapid transit goes from West Kelowna all the way to UBC. This is taking, literally, hundreds of students back and forth to UBC. It’s not the only place, but on bus rapid transit, I know we’ve talked about the whole idea about having densification around that.

What I do want to speak to is the amendment, the fact that we’re talking about whether secondary or short-term rentals are something that actually works in a community.

Just to kind of put it into perspective, in that period of time from 2005 until today, Okanagan College, which was downsized to about 3,000 or 3,500 students after the split of the university programs to UBC Okanagan, is now also at around 13,000. The two institutions are massively successful, and one is in trades, obviously, in health and other matters like that.

I think that if these accommodations…. There are two different types of people that are there — apprentices and other things like that. On the other hand, there are technician jobs, etc., which we desperately need.

The Chair: If I could…. Back to the amendment.

B. Stewart: Going back to the accommodation part and the need for it, what we’re doing…. The city of Kelowna — this was just Monday — had a regular council meeting, because MLAs Merrifield and Letnick….

The Chair: No names, Member.

B. Stewart: Sorry. The MLAs for Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna–Lake Country and myself met with the mayor of Kelowna. What we were trying to establish is what the options were that may exist for a city like Kelowna and the other surrounding communities They very specifically went out of their way in trying to deal with the dilemma of short-term rentals and vacation rentals by creating buildings and zones where these would be, specifically, set up.

Now, I can give you examples. A constituent of mine — his name is Steven Gilroy; I can use his name, I’m assuming — has bought into one of these, as an investment. He’s a modest merchant that is across the road from my constituency office. As soon as this happened, he came in. He’s wondering what he has to do because the building was specifically set up with short-term rentals in mind.

He has his own home. He’s not somebody that owns dozens or whatever. He doesn’t meet the criterion of having this at his principal residence. He’s an example of somebody that has invested in areas that are zoned properly in the city of Kelowna to develop short-term rentals. By this amendment, what I’m suggesting is that there are, very specifically, exemptions that allow for ownership, besides a principal residence, to have a secondary unit, suite or short-term rental that is not disqualified.

I’ll give you another example: a fellow in Vancouver whose name is Colin Metcalfe. It’s the same thing. He invested in a building called Brooklyn, right in my riding, in downtown Kelowna, with the idea that it would meet the demand, and they do stay there.

[5:25 p.m.]

I have to say: this is the problem. The dilemma is that we have rules in place to try to create rules around short-term rentals in the city of Kelowna. Now what is happening is that there’s no allowance for that.

This amendment for Bill 35 addresses the whole idea that there should be exemptions or an ability for these people to be enabled to have this type of investment, not being, as the former speaker from Peace River South described it, 300 units in one building. That’s a lot different than one, having an individual….

Anyway, I think that these people are finding it not only perplexing, but as a form of expropriation. They’re sitting there, and all of a sudden, they’re being either forced to do something…. I mean, I say that…. “Expropriation” is a word that is used to describe when you have something and it’s taken away through a means.

I’d say that these rules…. This gives some relief and, I think, shows that the government is not trying to do that. It shows that people that have maybe chosen to invest in this as a longer-term investment, but not necessarily trying to become a hotel or something like that…. They’re in the business of having a single unit that meets the current zoning and which was intended for that.

I do think that that’s one of the things that we should be considering. The second thing: if we go back to 2018, the former Finance Minister, from Victoria–Beacon Hill, introduced the speculation tax. The speculation tax was intended to take the speculation on homes that were bought up, etc. and not available for rent…. Very clearly, if you have a home and you meet the requirements for making that available, it would mean that it’s not a property that should be charged speculation tax.

I think that the situation with the speculation tax is that it was intended to do something. I know the government speaks often about the fact that it has created some 19,000-plus available units. But what I really want to go to is that you put in a set of rules to kind of attack what people would call second homes. We have a lot of those in the Okanagan. I mean, some people are not happily paying, but they’re paying the speculation tax.

When it comes to this amendment, what we’re talking about is the fact that under the rules of the speculation tax, the law says that if you follow this and you rent it out…. I’m not certain if short-term rentals fit into that. The situation is that we’re trying to create options for people that are both there on a temporary basis, whether it’s school or, as we’ve heard about, the fact that there are locums, other reasons why professionals might be in the community.

I can give you a really good example. We heard from the member for Kootenay East, and he was talking about people from his riding. Thirty years ago, I was one of the people that worked on the campaign to build a cancer centre in Kelowna. It was to encompass an area from the Alberta border all the way through to Hope and make certain that people could come there. I know that he’s visited the cancer centre in Kelowna.

Many of these people come there. As a matter of fact, the former member for that particular riding was here with his wife last year, staying in a short-term rental, to get exactly that: to get treatment. It happened to be over the summer. I’m sure it wasn’t inexpensive, but it was a better option than trying to find a hotel in peak season in the Okanagan.

It’s beyond me why this type of amendment…. This would give the option — if there was a secondary suite or another accessory dwelling unit in a prescribed location in relation to the property’s host principal residence or residential property that is not a primary residence — that it would be exempt, under this particular amendment.

I’m speaking in favour of that, because I see that there are a lot of flaws in this broad-based approach of assuming that all the issues around short-term rentals are that these have corporate ownership, that they’re people that are immensely wealthy. I know that Steven and his wife have a good business, but I don’t see Steven as being somebody that could afford to, all of a sudden, be forced out of a secondary unit that was intended for this purpose.

With that, I’d like to conclude and make certain that the House knows that I will be supporting this amendment.

[5:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the proposed amendment as moved by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano relating to clause 14….

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry. Does the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie want to address this particular amendment?

M. Morris: Yes, if I could, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: Okay. We’re speaking to the proposed amendment to clause 14, specifically.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. A bit of technical difficulty signing on from up here this afternoon.

I’m speaking in support of this amendment.

Prince George is not unique from many other communities across British Columbia, but we are the only health authority in British Columbia that doesn’t have cardiac services here in Prince George. A lot of people have to travel to Kelowna or to the Lower Mainland for cardiac services.

When families are involved, it’s an expensive proposition to look at something like this. Airbnbs have filled a void and have assisted significantly in helping these families meet that need when they have to travel for cardiac services. My family was involved with that a couple of years ago.

The services that Airbnb provides in many of these communities is invaluable. The entrepreneurs that have ventured into Airbnbs, based on the existing rules of the day, have invested significant amounts of money, time and effort. As everybody knows, being an entrepreneur is not for the faint of heart at the best of times.

But when government changes the rules so quickly, after significant investments have gone into these kinds of things, I think it places a burden on them that a lot of them probably won’t be able to survive if this goes through. That’s one of the other issues.

Airbnbs provide a service in areas like Prince George and throughout British Columbia in a number of factors. When we consider one of the consequences that has occurred with the province’s approach on social housing, for an example, in eliminating…. They brought up a lot of the motels and travel lodges and whatnot that we have throughout the province here.

One of the results of that decision by government has been to eliminate that market in many of these communities that we have. It’s impacted the number of hotel spaces and motel spaces that the travelling public have available to them.

It doesn’t take long in a small community and medium-sized communities, like Prince George, where you eliminate two, three, four or five of those types of facilities in a community and somebody has to take up the slack. And, you know, we don’t have enough hotel spaces in many of these communities.

That’s one of the things that I think government hasn’t really put their mind to, to look at the impact of some of the things that have resulted from their decision to go in that direction. I’m certainly not criticizing them for going in that direction. But there are consequences to that, and there’s a gap that needs to be filled.

These entrepreneurs have stepped up to the plate. They have filled that gap, and they provided that level of service in these communities that were left void as a result of that decision. So that needs to be looked at.

The other factor is that major events take place in all these communities. But we don’t have major events in Prince George that require hundreds of thousands of rooms, like perhaps Vancouver would have. But we do have major events in Prince George where every hotel room is occupied and every available space is occupied.

Airbnbs fill that void. Every single one of them in Prince George here during the Natural Resources Forum, as an example, are filled.

This amendment speaks to a lot of the different issues that Airbnbs are facing that are going to eliminate those opportunities for the travelling public and for a lot of government workers to stay when they come to Prince George for these kinds of major events.

[5:35 p.m.]

It doesn’t take an event. If you get 200 people converging on Prince George, or 300 people converging on Prince George, for an event, it really stresses the existing accommodation structure that we have. Airbnbs step up to the plate and provide that level of service for us.

A lot of the individuals that are involved in Airbnbs that I’m aware of are younger. They have invested in it as an entrepreneur. Like I said, they followed all the rules that were in existence when they applied. They got their permits. They did their building or their renovations, or whatever the case might be, in order to provide this level of service. They’ve invested a lot of time and energy into it with a long-term vision of a return on their investment and building their capacity as a business person over the coming years, and this is going to be taken away from them.

When you look at the added income, the taxes that are paid, the revenue that comes into a community like Prince George or any other community in B.C. from the B and Bs themselves and the tourists that are coming in and spending money or the government workers that are coming in and spending money, the doctors that are coming into a community to provide locum services or specialized services, the engineers that are coming into the community to provide the level of services that they provide….

There are a lot of professionals that do travel into places like Prince George and provide that level of service, and they are frequent flyers. I know a couple of Airbnbs in the area here where people have enjoyed the accommodation and the level of service and the proximity to wherever they need to be, and they come back on a regular basis for whatever business or profession they’re engaged in.

The other part of this…. We see the transition of workforces over time, where people might live or choose to live in the southern part of British Columbia, on Vancouver Island or in the Lower Mainland or in the Okanagan, because they like living in those areas, but they work in the northern Interior or the central Interior of the province. So they will be travelling back and forth, staying in B and Bs or Airbnbs and conducting their business up here. Then they fly home and stay with their family. Conversely, they keep doing that on a routine, regular basis.

Where are they going to stay once these accommodations are gone? You know, they’ve built it into their business plan. They made family decisions to move to wherever they’re going to move and work from remote locations like this.

So there are a number of factors I don’t think government has really considered in implementing this particular bill. Hopefully, they’ll consider this amendment moving forward here.

We do have to provide the flexibility for people, for professionals to do what they want to do, to live where they want to live, but provide those services for communities like Prince George and the northern Interior.

We would love to have engineers move to Prince George and live here on a permanent basis. We would love to have the health professionals move here on a permanent basis and provide that level of service for the community, but they have opted not to. And Airbnbs are one of the solutions that they use for accommodating their interests when they come up here.

Some of them may have purchased these Airbnbs on their own. They will stay in that Airbnb when they come here to do their work, and when they leave, it’s rented out for short-term rentals.

This is going to be a fly in the ointment for a lot of these individuals that have gone into this with their eyes wide open, knowing full well what the rules were, the rules of engagement. They invested heavily into whatever structures or facilities they have here in order to do this, and all of a sudden, the dial is turned and they no longer have these options available for them. They’re going to be scrambling to figure out how they’re going to be working through this down the road here.

This is an amendment that I fully support along with my colleagues, and I hope that government reconsiders their position on this. I’m not down there to look at the faces across the way and see what kind of reaction we’ve been getting, but I do hope that government reconsiders the direction they’re going in this particular bill.

[5:40 p.m.]

We have a lot of people, we have a lot of families that have invested in this, and I would hate to see them not only face the financial losses but the added stress that this is going to cause hundreds and thousands of families across the province here as they adjust to this drastic measure that government is trying to impose with Bill 35. So I will be supporting the amendment, moving forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to wrap up our conversation about this. Something I think is really important here. What we’re talking about is….

There are unintended consequences. They’re not the bad guys, those people who purchase these, particularly the purpose-built short-term rentals, and they have one of them.

Ten percent of the Airbnbs in B.C.… Those are people who own multiple, multiple units. In Vancouver, 12 investors have 30 listings or more, and one investor has 123 separate listings. Now, that’s where we want to focus this. It’s not on the small family or the renter that lives in Beacon Hill who I heard from that purchased in the purpose-built rental.

Just to, again, remind government. We are trying to propose something that’s going to equal the playing field between those who live in large houses and can afford that secondary suite and those who are trying to get a foot into the housing market and trying to build themselves up. They have one unit outside of the rental that they’re living in or the condo that they’re living in.

I thank you for hearing us. I’ll take my seat.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, we will be holding the vote now on the proposed amendment to clause 14. To be clear, it’s the proposed amendment.

Division has been called.

[5:45 p.m. - 5:50 p.m.]

We’re here for the proposed amendment moved by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to make an amendment to clause 14.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Falcon	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
Tegart		Wat
NAYS — 52
Anderson	Babchuk	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mercier
Olsen	Paddon	Parmar
Phillip	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao

Hon. R. Kahlon: Should we have a short break, Chair?

The Chair: We will take a short recess. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:02 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

We’re on Bill 35.

Shall clause 14 pass?

P. Milobar: I just want to get a couple of clarification questions on 14 with the minister.

As I read this, the principal residency requirement, if somebody owns a freestanding home on a single-family lot, say in Delta or in Surrey or in Langley…. It could be a 6,000 square foot home. They’re empty nesters. Their kids have all moved out. They decide: “You know what? I would like to have a short-term rental based on this principal residency requirement.”

They’re able to, if they can afford it or if they want to go to the bank and get a mortgage, renovate their three-car garage, put a carriage house above the garage, assuming all local government permits are pulled, use the bank financing and then use the revenue from a short-term rental on the new suite built above their three-car garage while they still live in their 6,000 square foot home on their single-family lot, that is what is actually being enabled by clause 14?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That was a very detailed question. There are a lot of things about applying for what they can do in garages, etc. I can’t get into that. Every community has got their own rules around what it requires to have a legalized suite.

To the member’s core question, I think, that if a person has a basement suite, they are allowed to have short-term rental there.

[6:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, thank you. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question, because in the media that the minister did after this bill was introduced, the government was very clear that, in fact, carriage houses or laneway houses would be applicable.

In the scenario I laid out, it was empty-nesters in a 6,000-square-foot house on a single-family lot with a three-car garage. They decide to go take out a loan and finance that loan by single short-term rentals over above the renovation that they do above their three-car garage. That would be a laneway house or a carriage house — however you would like to characterize it. Would that not qualify based on this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. If a person has a laneway home or an ADU in their backyard, yes, they can use that for short-term rental.

P. Milobar: Then just to clarify further with the principal residence designation in clause 14, if I own a 400-​square-foot, one-bedroom, apartment-style condo, say in a building like the Juliet in Victoria, and the neighbour’s 400-square-foot or 350-square-foot one-bedroom apartment-style condo comes up for sale…. If I bought that, I would have to use it as a long-term rental. I would not have the ability to use that as a short-term rental. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If that is your principal residence, that unit in the Janion, and that’s where you primarily reside, and you choose to use it for short-term rental, you still can do that.

P. Milobar: Well I wasn’t talking about inside of my 400-square-foot Juliet apartment, that I would have somebody using the living room as a short-term rental.

The question was around if you would have the ability, if that’s your primary residence under clause 14, to buy right next door that comes up for sale, the same 400-square-foot unit or 350-square-foot unit, and use that as a short-term rental or if it has to be a long term rental.

Hon. R. Kahlon: So a secondary suite or accessory dwelling unit in the prescribed location in relation to the property host’s principal residence. I think the member is getting into one of the pieces that will be coming through regulation.

Our intention is that if it’s your primary residence, you would be allowed to rent it for short-term rental. But if it’s…. I assume he’s saying if you have one condo in a building and you buy another condo in the building. Through regulations, we want to ensure that if it’s a primary residence, you can rent it, but if you buy another condo unit within that building, that is not considered something that can be available for short-term rental.

P. Milobar: Okay, one last summary, just to make sure I do have this completely correct then.

Single-family detached homes have the ability, essentially, for short-term rentals, and anyone in a multi-unit building, unless it’s within the 400-square-feet or so of that unit that they live in, would not have the opportunity to have a short-term rental unless they want someone sleeping in their living room.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is the same as the answer I just gave previously.

K. Kirkpatrick: Are tenants and owners treated the same in this section?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, as the member described, it is correct.

K. Kirkpatrick: In the case of a tenant infraction of the primary residence rule, who then becomes liable under the act — the tenant or the landlord?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The tenant.

K. Kirkpatrick: How are multiple bedrooms in a single dwelling treated with regards to the single-unit limitation?

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Sorry. What section I’m…?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. Sorry. Could you say the question again?

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, say the question again. Okay. All right. Thank you.

How many multiple bedrooms in a single-unit dwelling…? How are they treated with regards to the single-unit limitation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s no limit to the bedrooms, as long as it goes with the definition under section 1 for dwelling units (a) and (b).

I can read it out for the member. It says: “‘dwelling unit’ means a building, or a part of a building, that (a) is a self-contained residential accommodation unit, and (b) usually has cooking, eating, living, sleeping and bathroom facilities.”

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Just for clarification, I guess, if somebody is in an individual apartment, and they have three bedrooms…. I know we’ve established that, but if that’s three listings on Airbnb or VRBO…? Can they have three listings if each of those is going to be an independent rental?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If someone owns a four-bedroom space, it’s their primary residence, and they have three bedrooms that they would like to go on short-term rental, they can do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Is the minister able to tell us…? Of the Airbnb listings….We can either do the Airbnb listings or all the short-term rental listings. I’m not sure , when you’ve talked about numbers and 16,000, whatever metric you’re using for that.

How many of those are in residences now, so would very likely be able to qualify to be short-term rentals, and how many are not? How many are outside of somebody’s residence?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are some studies that show that up to 16,000 complete homes are used in short-term rentals in British Columbia.

You know, even for Vancouver, where they have access to data, it would be hard to know exactly, partly because many people have been skirting the rules. As the member will know, we’ve been getting emails from people saying, “I’ve been doing this in Vancouver,” while they’ve had a primary residence requirement, so they’ve been going past the rules.

So it’s hard to know exactly. But now with the data-sharing agreement that we have in part of the legislation and that we’re going to have to sign with these host platforms, we’ll be able to have very accurate data, both…. It’s something that local governments have been asking for, but I think it’s also important for us as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m very concerned about that answer. The reason I’m very concerned is: how on earth can any estimations be made in terms of units that are going to be returned to the market if government is saying, “You can still have short-term rentals in residences, but you can’t outside the residence”?

How does government have any idea, then, how many are actually going to be able to be used for long-term rental if government doesn’t know the division between those two?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, there are studies that have pointed that 16,000 complete homes are available through short-term rentals. So our answer — on the day of the announcement and now — is that even if half of those come back, that’s significant, considering that we build 14,000 purpose-built rental units a year.

It is a challenge that’s been highlighted by UBCM, by all our local government partners, which is…. All of them had a real challenge, because they don’t know exactly how many units, but they know that it’s increasing dramatically. That’s, again, just the ones who actually follow the rules, because we know there are many that didn’t.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 15 deals with the government’s request for exemption or inclusion. Can I ask the minister, has the minister received any requests for inclusion already, and from what areas?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not aware of any requests yet.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister explain…? Now I don’t have the wording in front of me. In clause 15, there is the ability for an exclusion, if I understand correctly. If there is a community that is over 10,000 and that is subject to this, there is an ability, in 15(1), to change the exempt land or remove or add the geographic area of the local government.

Am I misunderstanding that? Can a community ask to be exempted from this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: You’re correct in that. If a community has a vacancy rate higher than 3 percent, which CMHC deems a healthy vacancy rate, then they can request to opt out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will that process be set out, then, in regulation, in terms of what is felt to be a healthy market rate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the minister have any forecasts — we bounced this around a little bit yesterday, but it’s relevant here — related to demand for major events like FIFA 2026?

I may have…. I don’t think I said it wrong. Does the minister have any forecasts related to the demand for major events like FIFA?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this yesterday. Certainly, it will vary on a whole host of different things. It will vary on how many games we get, what teams there are.

There are some preliminary estimates being put together. Tourism, Arts and Culture leads that work, but I don’t have that information with me right now.

A. Walker: I heard the minister mention that no community will be considered to be allowed to request an exempt area unless their vacancy rate is below 3 percent. Are there any communities in British Columbia with a vacancy rate below 3 percent?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A majority of the communities in British Columbia are below 3 percent. So maybe I’ll flip the answer the other way because it’ll be easier.

If the member wants to know which communities have vacancy rates higher than 3 percent, which are captured by this legislation…. It would be easier for me, because it’s a shorter list. I can share with the member that Prince George, Mission, Fort St. John, Central Saanich, Williams Lake, Prince Rupert and Dawson Creek are the communities.

A. Walker: I guess living in a community that has had such a low vacancy rate for so long…. We sort of think that this is an experience that others across the province face.

What other criteria would be, potentially, considered? Obviously, I don’t want to get into regulation. As this legislation was drafted…. What other considerations could be considered to be factored in as far as whether a community would be allowed to request a land exemption?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct. This will come in regulations.

I will share with the member that our primary concern is around vacancy rates. So that will be one of the key things when considering a community opting out.

A. Walker: Thank you, Minister.

I’m just wondering, on subclause 15(2), if the minister could explain, in layman’s terms, what this could mean?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It, essentially, means that after the regulations come out…. If a community meets the criteria that we’ve set out in regulation, they would have to pass a motion in council for us to opt them out.

A. Walker: Makes sense.

Last question I have with this process. Understanding and recognizing that some of the interactions between local governments and ministries can take some time, I’m just wondering if there’s a desired length of time or a limit for these exemptions to be considered. More specifically, is there a time frame that the minister would hope to have these considered and back to local governments following the adoption of a resolution?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be a start point and an end point for local governments. It’s going to be in regulations. It will be yearly. So there will be an opportunity yearly.

One of the key considerations for us is…. The data I shared with you about communities that are above a 3 percent vacancy rate is 2022 data. We expect 2023 data to come out, I believe, in January. The window will come, through regulations, after we have the 2023 data.

A. Walker: Thank you to the minister. That has, actually, answered a couple of other questions I have.

I guess the last question, just in consideration of a tourism-dependent community like mine, Parksville-Qualicum, and some of the surrounding areas…. Our vacancy rate has been near zero or, essentially, zero. In some arguments…. Some could argue it’s actually below zero, with couch-surfing and whatnot.

It sounds like there will be zero opportunity for a community like mine to designate tourist zones where this type of activity could take place. I guess just a confirmation that if the community of Qualicum Beach and Parksville, which has relied heavily on tourism…. That is designated in their official community plans, long-term planning. We’ve got some tourism accommodations that have, literally, taken 20 years to get to the point where they are.

[6:30 p.m.]

Just for clarity, does that mean that unless the vacancy rate can be adopted, these tourism-dependent communities can never expect to have tourism areas exempted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When a community gets to the vacancy rate we’ve set that is healthy for a community, at 3 percent, then they can be considered to opt out. That will be coming in regulation. That is the moment for communities to be able to opt out. When people in the community have access to the housing they need, then there’ll be ability to have more housing opportunities for others.

I do also want to re-emphasize that short-term rentals are still available in communities. What we’re saying with this legislation is that we have communities that are struggling, and we need to make sure that people in the communities have housing.

A. Walker: I do support regulating short-term rentals. I think this is a significant problem across this province. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and there should be no making light of that.

I recognize that there will be some short-term rentals in laneway suites or inside people’s homes. That will exist, ongoing; that’s fine. The concern is that I just don’t know if the minister fully recognizes the impact that this will have, to not be able to exempt tourism zones. I’m thinking of along Parksville, where we’ve got — I don’t know if I should name resorts — beautiful Tigh-Na-Mara and some restaurants and hotels that have established over the years, anchored with Rathtrevor Provincial Park at one end.

These are areas that have not ever been considered as zones for places for people to live. The lack of tourism accommodation in these spaces will have a significant economic impact not just on nearby tourism accommodations and nearby tourism businesses but on the community more broadly.

I’m just hoping, yet again, if there’s some advice that the minister can provide to a community like mine that is dependent on these tourism zones, to try to protect those investments and that long-term planning that we’ve seen in our community.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If communities want to zone for hotels or time-shares, they certainly can do that and can continue to see units come on. I can share with the member that I’ve spoken to folks that represent the tourism sector and talked about the member’s region and about the vacancy rate being so low that they can’t actually find any affordable housing for the workforce that they need.

I appreciate the member’s question, but my answer is the same as I previously shared with him.

Clause 15 approved.

K. Kirkpatrick: I propose to add a new clause, 15.1, standing in my name on the order paper.

[CLAUSE 15, by adding the following clause:

Major Events Exemption

15.1 (1) In this section, “ has the same meaning as the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

(2) Subject to the regulations, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, change the exempt land to remove the geographic area of a designated major event accommodation area.

(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe dates and periods of time for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4) This section does not limit the authority to make regulations under section 38 [regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council].]

On the amendment.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks in support of the amendment, although if we look at the pattern over the last couple of days, I think all of us recognize the fate of the fourth amendment that our party has introduced. For the NDP MLAs and ministers that are busily out on social media talking about the fact that the B.C. United party is standing up in the Legislature and asking questions about a bill that is flawed — you bet we are.

In fact, that is the purpose of debate in this Legislature. We believe this bill is flawed. This amendment speaks to the issue of capacity. Members on the opposite side obviously believe that no matter where you live in British Columbia, you can simply accommodate people, particularly in the event of special events. That’s what this amendment speaks to.

I look forward to the NDP government explaining to British Columbians how, when hotels are full and people are making a decision or being forced to make a decision to travel to another community for things like medical care, for special events, for hockey tournaments, for conferences — you name it — there is no extra capacity.

[6:35 p.m.]

This amendment speaks to the ability to deal with surge capacity. I can hardly wait to hear how the minister and all of the members opposite are going to explain how we’re going to accommodate the thousands of people that will arrive for FIFA, for example, or for large concerts or for anything that requires additional capacity in communities.

Capacity is an issue, whether you live in Prince George, Dawson Creek or Kamloops. I don’t know how members on the opposite benches simply, with a stroke of a pen, create this kind of legislation that creates significant changes regarding capacity in communities. That is what this amendment is about. It is about saying that we do not have capacity, in many communities, to accommodate people who have to go to another city, for lots of reasons.

Some of them include tourism. Imagine that: strengthening the tourism economy in British Columbia. Imagine sporting events. Think about medical care. Those things that we have raised repeatedly in this Legislature are all to be dismissed. With a stroke of a pen, this government intends to simply dismiss the concerns of hundreds and thousands of British Columbians. Short-term rentals play an important role in smaller communities as well.

From our perspective, it is time for the government…. They repeatedly speak about how good ideas are welcome, wherever they come from. Well, apparently not in the Legislature of British Columbia, because four of them have been brought, one after another, to try to improve flawed legislation. It is hilarious to look at the antics on the other side when it comes to the fact that we actually allowed the bill to move to committee stage. That’s the process in the Legislature.

When we talk about capacity — which this amendment speaks directly to — it is an issue not only in large cities but in communities across the province. How on earth will there be surge capacity in communities across this province, including Vancouver — which, by the way, has a record of hosting large events? Where do we think those people are going to go? There is simply not enough hotel capacity. “But let’s, just with a stroke of the pen, remove one of the options.”

This amendment also speaks to the ability, when people come to British Columbia, to Vancouver for a major event of some sort, to have a choice about where they find accommodation. Not only is it an issue of capacity; it is an issue of the choice that people have around the world. Oh, but not in British Columbia. There are capacity issues; there are issues related to choice.

It’s not just people who choose to stay in short-term rental accommodation. It’s about the people who own property and homes, and the ability for them to make choices about what they get to do in British Columbia — but not according to the NDP. In fact, we actually had one of them suggest that we were stalling.

Well, I’d like to clarify the record. This is the place for debate. This is the place that we get to ask questions on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of British Columbians who undoubtedly are filling mailboxes on the other side of the Legislature as well. It is our job. We’re going to do that, and we’re going to do that without apology.

I can tell you that there has been lots of feedback in every single community, to every MLA in this chamber. I’ve heard about the concerns from people in Prince George, wondering, when they come to our city from other parts of the region, when hotels are full to capacity…. Has anyone tried to attend the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George?

Interjection.

S. Bond: As my colleague would know well, you cannot get a hotel room. Does that mean we should cancel the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George? No. It means we need to have a series of options that include Airbnb, for people who want to make that choice. It is a necessity in a community like mine. It helps to grow the economy. It helps to give people choice. They add capacity.

[6:40 p.m.]

No one has suggested, on this side of the Legislature, that we do not need to deal with the issues related to compliance. We understand that. But I can assure you that the very small number of people that fail to comply…. Let’s deal with them instead of, with the stroke of a pen, removing an option for British Columbians, for people who are coming to British Columbia. The simplistic view that this is going to solve all the housing issues in British Columbia is simply not credible.

We know that this government has talked about adding capacity, has promised the moon — in fact, 114,000 units they have failed to deliver. This flawed legislation is not about changing capacity. It’s about adding numbers to their already failed housing policy. They should be honest about that. Some members on that side of the Legislature should actually get up and defend this bill instead of spending their time on Twitter complaining about the legislative process.

To be clear, this amendment speaks to capacity when there are large events, major events. Let’s have the minister describe for us what a major event looks like. What does it mean in Prince George when there is the Natural Resources Forum or Kamloops hosts the World Junior Hockey tournament or we have all of those circumstances that occur in Vancouver?

This is about looking at how we fix what we consider to be flawed legislation. Frankly, we have pretty much given up hope that the government will even consider what have been reasonable, thoughtful and practical amendments, including this one.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to have participated. I would hope that we, as MLAs bringing differing views to this House, respect and honour the legislative process that takes place.

The members opposite don’t have to like what we have to say. They don’t even have to agree with what we say, and that’s been very obvious since we’ve watched amendment after amendment defeated. But it certainly does not mean that….

There need to be changes made to the legislation. It is flawed. It is going to have a significant impact in communities like mine and across British Columbia.

With that, I wanted to make sure that I was clearly on the record on behalf of constituents in my constituency and others in our region in support of the amendment that has been brought by my colleague.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s, across the way, comments.

First point I’ll make is that this legislation is being heralded as the gold standard on how to address short-term rentals across the country. This is being discussed at the federal level. It’s being discussed by other provinces. Other provinces have reached out to say: “Can we talk about what you’re doing so we can look at what we can do for us?” That’s the first comment.

The second. The member says “flawed legislation.” This is a flawed recommendation here, this amendment. I mean, you’re going to exempt certain areas for prescribed dates and periods of time for a purpose of the subsection. What are you going to do? Are you going to evict people because you want to have hotel capacity for the World Cup?

“Exempt land to remove the geographic area of a designated major event accommodation….” “By regulation, prescribe dates and periods of time for the purpose of subsection….”

The member….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I respectfully listened to the member, and I would appreciate the same, which is that the member has called the legislation “flawed” multiple times.

What I’m saying is that this is flawed right here. Think about that. How would the community react if this were to be passed, where there would be massive evictions of people because they wanted, for a period of time, to have short-term rentals available? Perhaps that wasn’t the intention. But that’s what this amendment says.

Now, the member says in her community of Prince George…. Listen, I just shared a moment ago that Prince George has a vacancy rate higher than 3 percent. If the member feels strongly that this is something that is not right for their community, then certainly, I think — more than willing to go speak to their mayor and council and make the case in their community that they should be exempted from this.

The last thing I’ll say on this is that what we have seen in other jurisdictions….

[6:45 p.m.]

First off, short-term rentals are not banned. There are short-term rentals available even after this legislation passes. We know there are 1,100 units that are in the pipeline, according to the city of Vancouver, for hotel capacity. I suspect we’ll see more once there is more certainty around folks that want to make investments.

What we’ve also seen in other jurisdictions is that folks, when there’s a major competition, see an opportunity within their primary residence to say: “It’s too busy in town. I want to get out of town for the games. I’ll find a way to put it on short-term rentals, etc.” We’ve seen it in communities. I suspect we’re going to see a combination of all these things to address the need for accommodation.

This flawed amendment, the suggestion that for a period of time folks can evict their tenants because it gives them a period of time to do short-term rentals, is simply not the solution.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[6:50 p.m. - 6:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Falcon	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
	Walker
NAYS — 49
Anderson	Babchuk	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Paddon
Parmar	Phillip	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Whiteside
	Yao

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.