Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading for Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 40, School Amendment Act, 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[2:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that Bill 42 now be read a second time.

This bill includes amendments to the Supreme Court Act and consequential amendments to other acts to change the name of the office of the master of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to associate judge.

Masters are judicial officers who preside at judicial hearings and chambers on applications on a wide variety of matters, including family, civil and foreclosure matters. A total of 15 masters sit in the court locations throughout this province.

These amendments will have no impact on the role of the masters. We all know that titles are important symbols. These amendments, at the request of the court, are consistent with our work on reconciliation and will introduce a title that is more descriptive and neutral, that does not carry the same connotations of hierarchy and dominance and that better reflects the court’s principal role in the justice system today.

The bill amends the Low Carbon Fuels Act to support the implementation of the low-carbon fuel standard and avoid unintended impacts.

First, the changes revise the scope of the low-carbon fuel requirements to allow for inclusion rather than exclusion of non-transportation fuel uses.

Second, they lessen the impacts on remote and rural communities through the jet fuel low-volume supplier exemption.

Third, the amendments support producers and importers of low-carbon jet fuel by allowing a renewable fuel target of zero percent for specific years before increasing the renewable fuel target.

Fourth, they will ensure that fuel volumes are reconciled in a manner that maintains the integrity of the LCFS by revising provisions for exporting fuels from British Columbia.

Fifth, amendments are being made to the transitional provisions to avoid unnecessary regulatory burden.

This proposed amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act is to modify the boundary description of E.C. Manning Park. The proposed amendment will remove one hectare from the park adjacent to Highway 3. This amendment is to enable the replacement of the Snass Creek and 19 Mill Creek bridges by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. These bridges are nearing the end of their serviceable life and require replacement to maintain the safety and reliability of the Highway 3 corridor.

The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act amendments will provide efficiency and speed in all phases of the residential tenancy branch’s dispute resolution process by allowing more flexibility around the procurement requirements established by the legislation currently. The RTB wants to be able to deliver a full spectrum of dispute resolution services to improve overall service delivery and reduce hearing waiting times.

Some of the amendments include introducing other means of dispute resolution, such as facilitation; providing decisions orally, rather than in writing, in certain circumstances outlined in the regulation; refusing or dismissing applications up front where they have no chance of success rather than at the hearing; moving various provisions from the acts to the regulations to allow greater flexibility and to support innovation at the RTB — for example, rules around the service of documents. These changes support the ministry’s mandate commitment to ensuring the timely resolution of landlord-tenant disputes as well as government’s commitment to improving wait times at the RTB.

Next, three initiative trust acts will be amended. Between 2004 and 2006, the province created and capitalized three regional economic trusts through legislation — the Northern Development Initiative Trust, the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior and the Island Coastal Economic Trust — to stimulate economic activity in the distinct regions of British Columbia.

On March 29, 2023, government announced an additional $30 million contribution to the trusts in support of regional economic development. Each of these trusts will receive $10 million to invest into their regions.

This bill is required to raise the cap on the provincial contributions within each respective trust act by $10 million to enable the ensuring capital transfers. In addition, the bill will introduce some secondary amendments to the acts, clarifying the rule of third-party contribution arrangements, updating the purpose of regional accounts and other minor administrative updates.

Finally, this bill provides amendments to the Local Government Act. Earlier this year new notice requirements for municipal tax sales were established. This amendment clarifies one part of the required content of the notice which outlines the amount a property owner must pay to avoid a property from proceeding to a tax sale.

M. de Jong: I understand that the topics the Attorney and I discuss aren’t frequently the most entertaining in town. I do think we have rules around quorum, and I wouldn’t want us to be in violation of those rules.

[2:40 p.m.]

Do we have quorum with the online participants? Thanks.

That having been cleared up, let me say that the…. I think this is the third time this year that we have seen a miscellaneous statutes bill, bill 3, and it is not uncommon for the government of the day to present collections of legislative changes. They are introduced by the Attorney General.

The practice is to make some general comments during second reading and then facilitate passage into committee, where more detailed questions can be asked about the individual components of the bill. In this case, the individual components are not necessarily related in any sort of thematic way to one another.

I can assure the Attorney that that is the practice the official opposition, at least, intends to follow with respect to Bill 42, with this exception. I think the bulk of the bill is dedicated to provisions dealing with the residential tenancy branch and, to a lesser extent, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. Even in second reading, the official opposition is going to want to draw some attention to the difficulties, the problems, the challenges that people face dealing with that particular branch.

It is something that has been drawn to the government’s attention now for most of the duration they have held office. The official opposition and, more importantly, people, I think, are becoming somewhat impatient with a situation that is not only not improving; in many cases, getting worse. But I’ll come to that in a moment and go through, quickly, a few of the parts and try to alert the Attorney to where some questions may arise.

Part 1 deals with the Attorney General amendments and, in particular, the renaming of the masters. There will be a few questions, not many, about…. The Attorney, I think, answered one of those questions, confirming in her second reading remarks that there are no jurisdictional changes and that this is a change in title only. We’ll confirm that at the appropriate time.

The second part of the legislation is dealing with the low-carbon fuel standards. The stated intent there to lower the average carbon intensity of fuels and increase the adoption of low-carbon fuels is clear and, I think, one that has attracted, over the years, fairly widespread support, certainly in this House.

The question, though, in presenting these amendments will undoubtedly be: what kind of progress is being made, and what are the objectives with respect to the amendments before us today? As has been pointed out numerous times of late, it is one thing to not just issue a press release but present legislation. It is another to candidly and accurately and forthrightly disclose what the impact of those amendments, those provisions, have been and are intended to be, going forward.

To the Attorney’s colleagues, who undoubtedly are sitting in their offices riveted by the conversation we’re having today, they should take note — and the Minister of Energy and Mines — that there will be some questions there.

Similarly, in the realm of environment and climate change, there is an adjustment to a park boundary. I don’t imagine that that is going to generate a lengthy list of questions. I do note that…. By the way, no one, I think, is going to quarrel with the idea that park boundaries should be adjusted to accommodate the replacement of a bridge. I think we’re talking about a hectare here.

I do note that when it is government infrastructure that needs to be accommodated, these amendments tend to flow fairly expeditiously.

[2:45 p.m.]

When it might be other infrastructure, transmission-related infrastructure, I have noted, particularly with the present government, far greater reticence around making what would seem to be a commonsense adjustment to accommodate. Again, not likely to be a lengthy series of questions, but some questions nonetheless.

Part 5 relates to the trusts — the Islands, Northern and Southern Interior Trusts. Similarly, I hope the Attorney’s colleagues, the minister responsible for the trusts, will understand and anticipate the likelihood of questions rooted in the support for the stated increase. I think $10 million increases are being allocated to these funds that I say, somewhat immodestly, predate this government and were established by a previous government.

There will be questions seeking, again, some manner of disclosure and commitment from the government as to what the objectives are and what the government hopes to achieve by the expenditure and allocation of these additional moneys to the development trusts. That’s contained in part 5 of the miscellaneous bill before us.

I skipped over part 4, but let me return to that now. It does, as the Attorney has correctly pointed out, relate to amendments to the residential tenancy branch, which the Attorney tells us are intended to enhance the ability of the branch to deal with disputes and some alternate means of settlement. So that’s fine. There will be an exploration of that at the committee stage, and the Housing Minister will need to be available and to anticipate those questions.

But it takes place against the backdrop of what has been an absolute failure to provide a mechanism for the timely resolution of disputes involving tenants and landlords. I won’t suggest that there haven’t been other times in the province’s history where this has been a challenge, because there certainly have been. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that. But it has gotten steadily worse.

I suppose one could say: “Well, if the only impact of that steadily worsening situation were some folks grinding their teeth and being frustrated, as bad as that is,”— some might say; not I, by the way — “well, that’s just the way it is.” But this steadily deteriorating, worsening of the situation is having a dramatic impact, in my view, on the availability of rental accommodation.

We have gone way beyond: “This is just an inconvenience.” And it is more than just an inconvenience. It is resulting in very purposeful decisions being made by people who might otherwise make available rental accommodation, to have those people say: “Well, we’re not going to do that. We’re not prepared to roll the dice and get into the mug’s game — the rough justice, if you can even call it that — that the residential tenancy branch represents.”

It’s easy in this place. There are a couple of things that I have observed over the last few years. This government certainly brings a bias in how it regards the relationship and the dynamic that exists between those who rent accommodation and those who own it.

By the way, I use that word “bias.” There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that one looks at a situation through a particular lens and is influenced by that. It’s not always a bad thing. It is important, however, to recognize and acknowledge where that bias exists.

[2:50 p.m.]

What I have to say firstly is that, repeatedly, one is left with the impression that this government believes the only people that are in the business of making rental accommodations available are large, faceless, nameless corporations. And it’s just not true.

I would have thought that a government that purports to be so focused on the challenge people are facing securing appropriate housing for them and their families would understand that so much of the rental accommodation that is available, so many people, families are now securing that rental accommodation from other families in basement suites, in carriage house suites, located on a family’s property.

The ability to do that obviously makes that rental accommodation available to the renter, but in many, many instances and, I would say, as interest rates have steadily escalated, that is one of the reasons that landlord family is able to stay in that home. Now, the landlord, in that case, is a family that is struggling to stay in their home, probably struggled to acquire that home and will most assuredly be struggling when their mortgage comes up for renewal and their mortgage payments go up.

All of that factors into the decision that they make to bring in another family or someone to rent on their property, in their home.

There are members of this House on both sides…. One of my colleagues I think is going to quote at length from one of the government members who has made this, I believe, accurate observation: those families that do own a home, who have in the past made the decision to make a portion of that home available for rental accommodation, are increasingly saying no. They’re saying no as a direct result of the experience they have had — the negative, in some cases, horrible experience they have had — with the residential tenancy branch.

It’s perhaps one thing to say, if you’re one of those big, faceless, nameless corporations and you have a tenant in one of your buildings, and the residential tenancy branch is operating away in conjunction with the residential tenancy legislation, where it’s virtually impossible to have a tenant who is behaving contrary to the law, contrary to any sense of respect for the property, but there’s very little you can do about it and nothing you can do about it in a timely way. That’s one situation.

Surely this government understands that that is a situation that now confronts families who have invited someone to rent within their home, who’ve got someone in their finished basement or in a carriage home who’s engaging in activities that no one would want to take place in that home or damaging the property. It is virtually impossible for that family to do anything about that and certainly impossible to do anything about it in a timely way.

[2:55 p.m.]

No one seems to want to acknowledge for a moment the incredible financial pressure that family is under when maybe six months, maybe 12 months, maybe 18 months later, the residential tenancy branch finally gets around to issuing an order — which by the way, they still have to enforce, which could be another six months — and then that family goes down into that basement and is confronted by $40,000 worth of damage.

There just doesn’t seem to be a willingness on the part of the government to acknowledge that there are two parties to this relationship, and neither one of them is evil.

As has been said here before, the vast majority of people who rent accommodation, are tenants, are good people. They’re good families. There’s a very small percentage that cause grief, and the same can be said of landlords — and those families that choose, because they want to or by necessity, to invite folks into their home as tenants. But they’re not going to do it, and they are choosing not to do it because of the failures of the residential tenancy branch and, by the way, amendments to the law that the government has made.

Because if you’re a family with a couple of kids upstairs, you don’t want to take the risk. The fiscal consequences are huge for that family, but they don’t want to take the risk of creating a situation from which they can’t escape, where in some cases, they believe the safety of their family might be put at risk.

The other bias that I have to say I have seen arise time and time again from the government benches is even this notion that someone that has a home and chooses to buy a second home and make it available for rent — that for some reason, that’s a bad thing and that’s a bad person.

Look, now I have to reveal my bias, because I’ve done that. So 30 years ago, 20 years ago, my now wife and I and a friend…. We bought some homes, condominiums, and — in a couple of cases for 30 years and in the other two cases for 20-plus years — they were rented out to tenants. Good people. Some were there for a long time. Some were there for a shorter period of time. I think, over the years, we spent tens of thousands of dollars making sure the appliances were up to date, painting the places and keeping them in good order and attracting good tenants.

People who have done that are increasingly being made to feel like they’re doing something wrong. Just the other day the Premier was up in question period, and I heard the comment.

This is a partisan place, and God knows I’ve got a thick enough hide to not get too worked up about what gets said in here. He referred to a former Finance Minister who had owned some properties. I knew who he was talking about. But I don’t know what the point of that was. I mean, I know what the point was. The point was to say there’s something wrong with that.

We housed people for 30 years, 25 years. We sold them. It’s a typical story, right? People have done that, and families do that.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s pretty easy for us who have pensions. Some of us have pretty nice pensions coming out of this place if you’re here long enough. But when I started practising law, I didn’t think I was going to have a pension. I didn’t know I was going to be here. I didn’t know I’d be lucky enough to be here.

Yet people who have their own businesses don’t have a pension. What they might be able to do is buy another property and make it available for rental. I thought we liked that. I thought that today, amidst this crisis, we’d think that’s a good thing. So why are we vilifying those people and those families who do two things? They try to provide for their own retirement, and they make homes available to others.

But they are increasingly choosing not to do it. The reason, a big reason, for why they are choosing not to do it, is because of the mess that exists at the residential tenancy branch.

I think my colleague, in a moment, is going to talk about — and will certainly, in committee stage, ask about — the 50 percent unfilled vacancies that exist.

You can’t promise society, and you can’t promise to people — tenants and landlords — that you’re going to have a dispute resolution process. You can’t create legislation that requires consistent and constant reference to this dispute resolution mechanism and then not have it staffed to accommodate the volume of traffic that your legislation is creating. That’s what’s happened. The government has created, legislatively, this huge increase in volume without creating the means by which it can be dealt with.

They have done so against a backdrop, as I say, of a bias that consistently says that landlords are the problem. To be sure, sometimes they are, but sometimes they’re not.

If you keep telling people, as members of the government have over the last number of years, that people who buy a home to make it available for rental accommodation are bad, well, they’ll stop doing it. If you create a dispute resolution process that makes it impossible for someone to protect that asset, they will stop doing it.

That’s why, for a change, on this bill, I’ve taken a little bit more time and have tried to signal to the Attorney, and through her to her colleagues, that when we do get to committee stage, the Attorney will probably be able to go to her office for a few hours while her colleague deals with some questions on that particular part of the bill. Along with some of the other legislation, obviously, dealing with housing, it is going to generate a fair bit of interest and engagement on the part of the opposition.

Those were the comments I wanted to make. I will end where I began, by alerting the Attorney to the fact that we’ll certainly be facilitating movement of the bill into committee stage, where all of these issues can be canvassed in significant detail.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). Thank you to the Attorney General for bringing this act forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

As has been canvassed to some extent, this legislation covers a variety of pieces of laws that are being updated here: the Supreme Court Act; to change some of the definitions and some of the titles within the act; Low Carbon Fuels Act, to institute an expansion of the low-carbon fuel standard; and, as the member for Abbotsford West just outlined to some extent, changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

I’m going to go into some detail in my comments with respect to the development initiative trust acts that are in section 5, as was previously noted.

I just wanted to, I think, make a couple of comments with respect to what the member from Abbotsford West was just talking about. First, I think that it’s important to acknowledge that the goal of the changes, and we’ll see if they will be achieved, is to reduce the wait times at the residential tenancy branch, increasing flexibility and giving the RTB some more flexibility on how it conducts its hearings. But the ultimate goal, I think, is trying to reduce hearing wait times.

When you take a look at what’s happening with the changes to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, I think it’s important, at this stage, that we also ask some questions at the committee stage for this part of the bill. I’ve heard from members of my community, my constituents who live in manufactured home parks, some 900 of them across the province, that they don’t feel the type of security that people in homes they’ve invested in and invested parts of their lives in should feel. They were hoping, back in 2018, that the rules would tighten, but they have not.

I think that it’s important to recognize that manufactured home parks are a viable housing solution for many people in this housing crisis. Many of the people living in manufactured home parks in my community are seniors living on a fixed income. Tenuous housing situations for them make them feel even further vulnerable. I think that it’s important that we understand just whether or not the provincial government here has listened to the advocates and the people representing those who live in manufactured home parks, or if we’ve yet again made amendments without achieving that level of security.

I think that it’s important just to respond to some of the comments that were made. Interesting that the member for Abbotsford West started talking about the residential tenancy branch by talking about bias, and in particular, talking about the bias that he’s identified within our current B.C. NDP government. Doing so, I think, demonstrated very clearly a bias of his own.

For the last number of decades, the narrative has been constructed around renters as being the lower-class citizens in our community and that that the pursuit of home ownership had created classist tiers in our society. I’m going to talk about this later, when it comes to Bill 44.

I remember, when I got elected to Central Saanich council, how there were rules that basically, you couldn’t have renters in neighbourhoods if the landlord didn’t live on the property with the tenant. Of course, the premise behind those kinds of laws was based on the fact that if you just left the neighbourhood to the renters, to the tenants, it would fall into disrepair.

Back in 2008, when I was sitting around the council table — in fact, in the community that I grew up in — those were the narratives that were emerging. I think that it’s important to also recognize and acknowledge the burden that the secondary market landlord carries in our society of carrying the mortgage and buying the house and being able to do that.

However, it’s important, when we’re talking about the residential tenancy branch and the need for it to be improved and the need for the response times to be improved, that it not be just from the context of the landlord needing to be able to deal with their pesky and out-of-control renters — which has been, largely, the stigma context wrapped around renters for decades — but that in fact, tenants need an accessible, efficient, well-funded, well-resourced and well-supported residential tenancy branch.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m thankful that the member for Abbotsford West got there eventually — but very much delivered only half the narrative. So I thought that some rebalancing needed to happen in that context, because the residential tenancy branch doesn’t just serve landlords, secondary landlords or even the larger landlords. It represents the tenant as well, in the discussion.

I think it’s also important to recognize that the cultural discussion that’s happening right now is not that owning a second home is inherently bad. It’s the impact of turning housing units into economic units, rather than their primary purpose of homes for people that they can afford — places that they can afford to live, in communities near where they work, go to school and do all of those things — so that all of the stress, tension and anxiety that’s created by housing insecurity isn’t in the neighbourhoods across the province. That’s what we’re talking about.

It’s not about taking the stigma of the renter and turning it onto the owner and saying that they’re all good or they’re all bad. It is a culture and an economic system that says that it’s okay for us to turn housing into an economic unit, primarily — making it an inaccessible place for people to live, because they can’t afford to be there and need two and three jobs to be able to live in that space. That’s what we’re talking about when it comes to making sure that people can afford to live in the places that they’re in.

When it becomes an investment vehicle, when that’s what it becomes, then it’s not about a market of housing people safely and securely in a place that’s near where they work and go to school. It just becomes an investment vehicle. More on that later — a lot more on that later, as it turns out.

Anyway, I just think it’s important also to recognize that the member for Abbotsford West called the Minister of Housing and said: “Be ready for the upcoming debate.” I think it’s important that the Minister of Jobs also be ready for the upcoming debate. Finally, we’re seeing the government fulfil a commitment that they made last fall to the communities in what’s technically called the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act. We know it as the ICET on Vancouver Island and in the coastal communities.

To me, it’s inexplicable that this government failed to support communities here on Vancouver Island, specifically communities that supported them at the provincial level for decades. It’s no secret that Vancouver Island and the coastal communities have been a stronghold for our government. Yet when the B.C. NDP are on that side of the House, they wilfully ignore the socioeconomic opportunity that is offered by the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Act or ICET, as local and community groups affectionately call the fund, this opportunity.

Our government followed through on the B.C. Liberals’ announcement in 2017 to extend the life of the trust that was created by the B.C. Liberals at the time. But the money was running out for ICET, so they gave it a $10 million boost, essentially kicking the can down the road — until now, as it turns out.

Since then, the ICET has been hard at work trying to create a long-term, sustainable model for itself. Last year, again approaching the can that was just kicked down the road, the ICET, their board of directors and regional advisory committees — consisting of mayors, electoral district directors, MLAs and other community members — produced a vision for government to invest in those communities that have supported them so strongly.

Our current provincial government, the B.C. NDP, sat on the vision and case for investment. They sat on the recommendations of the 2022 independent legislative review of the North Island–Coast Development Trust Act. The review was undertaken by a legislative review committee consisting of former Saanich mayor Frank Leonard, Sarah Morales, Wayne Rowe and Judith Sayers, the Vancouver Island University chancellor and president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council.

[3:15 p.m.]

It was the third review, as is required by the legislation.The panel found: “(1) The current legislation has worked well, but it’s past time that Indigenous governments be given a defined role in trust governance.”

In addition to recommending (2), that the trust work along side by side with First Nations, they acknowledged (3), that the ICET has played a useful role in economic development. ICET provides a valuable supplement to any work done of an interwoven mesh of government and non-government community organizations.

The panel called for the provincial government to (4), “remove the legislative cap on the provincial contributions and make a significant investment in recapitalizing the trust.” They recommended (5) that the provincial government envision a tripartite approach between provincial, local and Indigenous governments.

The panel provides (6), useful advice on how to proceed with including and working with Indigenous nations in the DRIPA declaration act, and (7), they point out a few other recommendations to update outdated language in the act.

This was a review that was given to the government last year. The independent legislative review is a year old. It’s the latest in a series of reviews, and it forms the substance of the vision and case for investment that ICET submitted to the government last September. At that time, the fund had invested more than $56 million into Vancouver Island and coastal communities. Those dollars leveraged up to $300 million invested in those communities — a remarkable investment in those communities.

The ICET vision and case for investment outlined (1) a request for $150 million to “transform the Island Coastal Economic Trust into a permanent environmentally and socially responsible trust that would be led by and empower First Nations and local governments to build an inclusive and resilient coastal economy.”

Further, they requested (2) that the government work with them and the “50 First Nations and 35 local governments to create an updated act to reflect the new approach” and (3) to work toward a full capitalization of $250 million.

There are a few other snapshots that I’m surprised that this B.C. NDP government had no interest in. Perhaps they’ve grown too comfortable here on Vancouver Island and the coastal communities, but communities are frustrated. Community leaders are frustrated. This government knows that. The “vision to fully engage First Nations and local governments in co-governance of a regional economic development organization will be the first in Canada.” It seems very much in alignment with the goals of this government.

Next, they will “be the first regional economic trust in British Columbia to develop and execute a comprehensive environmental, social and governance — an ESG — strategy, inclusive of Indigenous rights,” also in alignment with the principles and the vision that this government talks about. “The trust will adopt a wellbeing impact framework, the first for a trust in British Columbia. It will focus on strengthening wellbeing across the coastal region.” Certainly, that would be welcome from our communities on Vancouver Island and coastal communities.

Finally, and this piece is the piece that I find very hard to digest. The ICET estimated in their planning that over a 25-year period, the trust would produce nearly $1 billion of economic activity on Vancouver Island and the coastal communities with that initial investment of $150 million.

This was all in front of our government. They had billions of dollars of a surplus that the Finance Minister shovelled out last spring. It was the perfect opportunity to deliver the recommendations of the legislative review committee. The door was open for the B.C. NDP government to finally provide a tangible, long-term benefit to those communities that have consistently delivered them seats one election after another.

Instead, what those people got were excuses. Now, all the communities of over 5,000 people within the region are facing increased pressure due to the changes in Bill 44, dramatically increasing the density on urban infrastructure, with no potential sources of revenue to pay for it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Bill 42 is not about community. It’s not about building a sense of community. It’s about dramatically increasing the density of residential zones, potentially flooding communities with new people. It will be up to local government to find resources to actually build a dynamic culture in their communities.

The funds that have been invested in ICET have been invested in local theatre and place-making, repairing community docks and building up the arts. These are projects that help build and maintain a sense of community in the places humans live. This government has chosen not to invest in that over the long term. They removed most of the capacity local governments have to capture some revenue in the rezoning of land, and they provide no support.

Last spring, when this government had the opportunity to make a generational investment in our communities on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities, they chose to deny, delay, deflect. They chose to offer full options as replacement funding programs that are not sustainable, not community-led funds but rather conditional grants that allow the provincial government to deliver and cut the ribbons.

The three trusts — the Northern Development Initiative Trust, the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior and the Island Coastal Economic Trust — have been advocating to the minister responsible, not the Attorney General but the Jobs Minister. Over the last year, I’ve heard how challenging it’s been to even get a response from the B.C. NDP government.

Recommendations have been made, clearly articulated by the trusts, their legislative review committees and their local leaders. Yet when I look at the changes offered in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, it’s the bare minimum. The Attorney General moves the cap by $10 million, increasing it. Better than nothing, for sure, but a long way from creating a sustainable, community-led economic development initiative co-governed by First Nations and local government leaders.

It is appreciated that the Attorney General is removing references to Olympic opportunities and pine beetles and replacing it with innovation and technology as has been requested. But why stop short? Why stop short from enabling a grassroots vision of community economic development? Why ignore a requirement for the board to prove that they’re working towards sustainability? Why not update gendered language? I get a sense this B.C. NDP government wants to get this done as quickly as possible, as little debate on this as possible.

The people on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities who have supported this government and this political organization for decades need to seriously consider this slight. This is the thanks that they get. Our effective organizations are kept on life support because the organizational model doesn’t allow for the province to take direct credit for the accomplishments. It’s a petty game. It’s one that is apparently not too low for this government to stoop.

I’ll be grateful that the ICET and its sibling trusts across the province will get a short-term boost of $10 million. I hope that the people on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities understand that the B.C. NDP government missed a tremendous opportunity to return to them the long-term investment that many have made in them.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m pleased to rise, although painfully, today to speak to the bill before us, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 42. Miscellaneous stats bills are generally not very exciting, but they’re very important in terms of the work we do here in ensuring that our legislative frameworks are functioning well and fairly.

Part 1. The B.C. United Caucus strongly supports initiatives that our province takes to advance reconciliation, so we’re certainly pleased with these amendments to the Supreme Court Act, replacing the title “master” with “associate judge.” It certainly aligns with the ongoing commitment to reconciliation and is a straightforward and positive step.

Part 2, Energy Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Amendments. We noted amendments in the Low Carbon Fuels Act, especially the introduction of limits on fuel exports, the standards designed to lower the average carbon intensity of fuels, increase the adoption of low-carbon fuels and promote innovation in low-carbon fuel technology.

It is important to ensure that these results are delivered and achievable, so we are going to seek some more clarification for that and the purpose on these limits during the committee stage.

[3:25 p.m.]

Certainly, part 3, environment, acknowledging the proposed reduction of E.C. Manning Park to facilitate the replacement of aging bridges — absolutely in favour of supporting the replacement of or improving infrastructure in British Columbia, especially for the purpose of ensuring that it is safe and accessible to the people who use it.

Again, while this seems reasonable, we will certainly be canvassing some more questions as we go through the committee stage. As my colleague from Abbotsford West alluded to, the area that I would have the most questions and comments on, particularly with my critic profile, is part 4, which are the housing amendments.

Opening up the RTA at this point would be an opportunity to address many of the challenges and issues that we’re hearing, both from tenants and from landlords. It’s a lost opportunity that a little more hasn’t been done at this point.

I agree also with the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands that there was an opportunity here to address more of the equity issues with respect to manufactured home parks. We’ll, I believe, in addition to what he will be doing, ask some questions during committee on that.

I will discuss this section. It enables, in this amendment, the ability of the residential tenancy branch to implement facilitated settlements, so mediation instead of hearings. It’s a good move and hopefully will allow things to speed up and will allow it to be done in a more consultative way of working forward. It’s also going to provide a provision for dispute resolution services to be conducted promptly.

As you’ve heard from those previous, and as we hear every day in our MLA inboxes, the length of time that it actually takes to have anything dealt with currently at the residential tenancy branch is very challenging. It has been a big issue, both for landlords and tenants.

It adds to the fear that some landlords have about how long it takes to get issues addressed, and it often will leave tenants in a precarious position when they don’t have an opportunity to have remedies for something in a timely manner, particularly if their tenancy is being threatened or they’ve got concerns about where they’re going to be living.

While it’s good that we’re trying to speed up processes in the residential tenancy branch, not nearly enough has been done, and there could be a lot more to be addressed in this legislation before us. There were provisions brought in, in 2015 that had not yet been implemented. This will now fully implement by regulation the director of the RTB to direct facilitated settlements between parties, mediation. Again, this is a good step.

But tenants and landlords need better. Both need more protection, and they need more certainty in terms of tenancies. But the NDP has clogged up the RTB, and rental providers have been expressing frustration at the current bureaucracy, saying it makes it harder to provide affordable housing.

When this government talks about the importance of housing…. We all know that that is just fundamentally one of the most challenging and biggest issues and biggest stressors for people right now — the need to provide housing. We need to be able to look at all of the pieces that contribute to a lack of housing.

I think it’s naive for us to think, to say, that challenges within the residential tenancy branch actually do contribute to a reduction in the number of units that are going to be available for people to rent.

[3:30 p.m.]

Due to the lack of success and the challenges at the RTB resulting from just a lot of increased regulations and…. To be clear, regulations are important, and we have to be working to make sure that tenants are safe, that they have safe homes and are treated fairly. As my colleague said previously, that goes both ways, so we have to make sure that a pendulum doesn’t swing so far in one direction that it actually does put the housing market off balance, and we really, really need for this to be workable for everyone.

The NDP’s new regulations with respect to RTB and a number of other things have actually made alternatives like Airbnb more attractive to those people, in particular, who have secondary suites in their homes and, incidentally, will also be able to continue to have that as an option. Rather than renting their secondary suite, they still will have the option of running that as an Airbnb.

I think that we need to make sure that we’re incentivizing those homeowners or renters who have a secondary suite — incentivizing them to have more reasons to want to embrace long-term tenancies in their homes than they have now when they’re competing with Airbnb.

This has been one of the impacts, or drivers, of a 20 percent increase in Airbnb units in the last year alone. Clearly, the balance is off. The tenancy branch is very backlogged. To make matters worse, the minister confirmed in estimates that only half of the full-time-equivalents promised to be hired at the RTB have actually been brought on board. So a question is: what is the delay? We know this government is very good at hiring people. So I’m not sure why we have not been able to meet that commitment to have those roles filled.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Since I began here in 2020, it has been a consistent message that we’ve been hearing, and when I was on the Finance Committee — multiple groups coming and saying: “Look, there are issues with the RTB. It takes far too long.” The processes need to be streamlined. We needed to have more people, and we still find ourselves with those long wait times and with not enough people being there to actually be able to make things run smoothly.

Ultimately, there needs to be a concerted effort to get this working, not a creation of more regulations and bureaucracy. We want to remove hurdles both for tenants and for landlords who want to lease their properties and want to live in those properties.

To exacerbate the issue, the tandem effect of this, so the lack of employees…. And application volumes are up nearly 22 percent in B.C. A lot of that is because of red tape and additional requirements and bureaucracy. As I say, regulations are fine, but it is the application of those regulations and the reporting and the forms and the process and all of those things that really need to be addressed.

According to the RTB, more hearings and fewer employees have led to wait times being three times longer than they were in 2020. I mean, that’s significant. As I said, since I began here in 2020, it’s been a consistent message that we’ve been hearing over and over — that these wait times need to be addressed. Hearing that in that period of time wait times have actually increased substantially is quite concerning.

I will say…. The member for Abbotsford West spoke a bit about this. I feel that this government has purposely tried to create friction between those who own and those who rent. There seems to be this villainization of homeowners and trying to pit them against tenants.

We see this in the words spoken by the Premier the other day in this House, and the Minister of Housing. It’s really counterproductive with…. When we’re trying to deal with a housing crisis, we need a balanced approach where the needs and realities of both the renters and landlords are being taken into account.

[3:35 p.m.]

This would really increase those wanting to rent out their basement suites, their secondary suites. I know this isn’t all about simply secondary suites, but they are such a big and important part of the affordable rental market that I…. It is one place where we can move some levers, and we can actually see some change there. But the branch is so imbalanced now that people are concerned about renting out their secondary suites or the units that they own.

To be clear, there are bad landlords out there, and there are bad tenants out there. The majority, though, are good landlords and good tenants. So we have to create a better environment and a more positive environment for people to work together instead of villainizing each other and, certainly, villainizing someone because they actually want to rent their home out or they want to rent a unit out — villainizing them simply for that fact.

We’ve heard horror stories playing out with landlords not being able to remove their tenants, having property damage done. There was an example that the MLA for Abbotsford West provided. These are concerns. They may not be happening across the board, but certainly they create a narrative in the media that really concerns people. If people are not seeing and landlords are not seeing that the residential tenancy branch is there to be effective and efficient and help both parties, it will increase people’s reticence to actually step in to become a landlord.

As the previous member said I would, I’m going to quote an NDP MLA, the member for Burnaby North. I think she was bang on when she spoke here earlier in October about empty suites in her community. These issues are across British Columbia, and they’re not just in Burnaby North. But I think her examples were warranted, and we can think about them. I’ll quote her: “It’s a poorly kept secret in Burnaby North that there are a lot of empty suites, a lot of empty suites throughout the neighbourhood, throughout Burnaby North. Landlords are afraid to rent them out. They’re afraid.”

Another quote: “There are many working-class, working families in B.C. who are, themselves, landlords. There is a history in B.C. of working people being landlords…. The current housing crisis has pitted working people against working people, working landlords against working tenants, working tenants against working landlords.”

I might add, again, that this NDP government seems to have worked hard to pit tenants against landlords and create this narrative, which is certainly not helpful at all in trying to resolve a housing crisis.

We’re in a housing crisis. Government has reacted too slowly. The results that we’ve seen…. We’ve got the worst housing prices in Canada and North America. So the results aren’t good. We need to make sure that we’re using every tool that we can in order to encourage people and support them to be good landlords.

Families with secondary suites need tenants, and tenants need these families to rent these suites. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, and we need to make sure that what we’re doing with the RTB and with the RTA is creating that field where we can have people working cooperatively together.

So that’s that on part 4, though I will have a number of questions as we go through committee, obviously.

When we talk about part 5, “Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation Amendments,” we support increased funding for the development trusts — Island, northern and southern Interior — but we also want to emphasize the need to be able to show results and to be able to work within the needs or work with the needs of those particular communities.

Part 6, “Municipal Affairs Amendments.” We appreciate the clarification of the Local Government Act stipulating that a collector must offer a delinquent property for public auction. That’s a sensible change. It ensures transparency in the tax collection process.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government does not have a good reputation for transparency, so anything we can do to increase transparency is helpful.

We do look forward to exploring the bill in more detail in committee stage. I think there’s more that could have been done with some of the changes in here. Every time we open up acts, it’s an opportunity to look at all of the issues that can be addressed and should be addressed, particularly as they relate to the housing crisis that we’re having right now.

I shall take my seat.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate the opportunity to present a few of my thoughts on the topic of Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

It’s clear from the last number of speeches that I think we will certainly have much scrutiny under committee stage of the bill and certainly a large focus, of course, on the tenancy clauses that have been introduced here.

I want to speak to a few of the items throughout the bill. The first one is with respect to the amendment around the replacement of the word “master” with “associate judge.” And I know that, arguably, there are many times that we spend a lot of time in this House majoring in minor things, but this, to me, is a major step in the right direction. I’m thankful for the change.

I know if you spent some time last week at the gathering in Vancouver, our First Nations are doing incredible work in this province, and I think that they’re pleased every time, frankly, that we make a step in this direction. I’m pleased to see this today. Certainly, I can be pretty supportive of any kind of a comment or a change like that going forward.

I do want to speak a little bit about the Manning Park proposal, which we’ll see under this bill. We’ll actually see a loss of, I believe, about an acre or so. But I want to speak to that a little bit and just explain that I’m also in favour of this. I’ll explain why. I really am concerned with access to all of our parks. I understand that in this case, this is a situation where we’re removing this acre of land so that we can actually repair bridges.

Now, I don’t understand all the complexities around that, but I will say that I’m favourable of it. The reason that I’m favourable of that is that I think we’ve seen in other acts and other legislation where we’ve actually put some of the access at risk by deactivating roads and deactivating bridges and those types of things. This act will actually preserve that access, which I think is extremely important.

In Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have, obviously, a number of parks and some beautiful areas in Tweedsmuir and Ts’ilʔos and in different parks like that. But we have seen deactivation of roads and bridges in our area. I have a friend who was hurt quite seriously in a what we refer to as a tank trap, which is a deactivation of a road, where that individual actually had an accident while snowmobiling and trying to access the back country.

With respect to Bill 42 and making sure that this bridge is repaired and giving access, I’m certainly favourable. I do know that it’s not just access that may be taken away through different legislation that might be in this House, but we’ve also lost access because of certain events on the landscape, whether they be landslides or flooding.

I know that has happened in Williams Lake and, honestly, in this case in Bill 42, we’re talking about repairing a bridge, I believe. But in the case of the River Valley Trail, I think the government…. I’m grateful to the government and the partnership with the city of Williams Lake for the repairs that were completed in the River Valley Trail to bridges where we would have lost all the access into that valuable park area. I’m grateful that smarter people have taken this out of the park and are going to take an opportunity to repair that bridge.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do want to talk about what seems to be the hot spot today, and this is the tenancy branch. While we talk about who we’re supporting or who we’re not supporting in this bill, my frustration is that we’ve had an opportunity on many occasions, in my offices in 100 Mile House and in Williams Lake, to represent people on both sides of the tenancy act.

It’s frustrating to hear the villainization of landlords. I know that we’re very familiar in Victoria and other areas with large companies that would have an opportunity to sort of do that commercial residential real estate, but that’s not the case, really, in rural B.C.

I can assure you, while we have obviously represented people on both sides — I know this from experience of being a landlord of one or two homes, and I know this also from the rental side as being a tenant — that this act or…. I certainly hope…. And I’ll get to what seems to be the intention of the bill in a moment. But what seems to be very frustrating is that it doesn’t seem to be serving either.

I really hope that, through committee and through different processes, we can improve this bill to really serve folks. I can tell you right now, in Williams Lake, I have a perfect example of an elderly woman who has rented her basement suite. For the last year, she has been stuck in a place. She didn’t rent it for any other reason than really to fight off the cost of living. She’s just found herself in a spot where she’s a little bit short at the end of the month, and she’s just simply trying to make things work.

The tenancy went bad, probably about three or four months after these two individuals went into a contract. For almost a year, she has been trying to have this tenant removed from her property. During that time, we’ve seen the RCMP involved. We’ve got the tenancy board involved.

I guess why this is important is that this bill, under 42, suggests that we’ll have a new dispute resolution that will promptly solve problems. I certainly hope that’s the case, because this poor woman has really run the gauntlet. I do know that in her case, as was mine…. I absolutely made the decision that I will never rent another home again. Not, sorry, that I won’t rent, but I will not rent any part of my home again because of the challenges that we have faced in the past.

I know that when this woman is successful…. And she’s really seen some pretty serious things happen with her. She’s had threats of a physical nature, which is why the RCMP were involved. Basically, what she wants is to have control of her home again. And there has been not a prompt response from the residential tenancy branch, and I feel very sorry for her. We’ve tried to help.

She’s a perfect example of somebody that was trying to ward off the affordability crisis by renting out her home and now has found herself in an absolute nightmare where she’s afraid in her own home. I really hope that we’ll understand fully how people are being affected out there.

[3:50 p.m.]

I do know, without question, that when she finally takes the opportunity to clean up after what’s ultimately been quite a bit of damage to her basement, and when she finally does have this tenant leave the premises, she will never again allow a tenant in her basement. And that’s awful. Had we dealt with that in a more timely manner, had she not faced the fear that she has faced, I think that we may have another possible rental in our community. But as it is, we’re going to lose that rental.

I do know, also, that Bill 42 will make some changes to the residential act, enabling the ability of the residential tenancy branch to actually implement facilitated settlements instead of hearings. Again, I think that we’re all pretty interested in understanding exactly what all of that will mean.

I think we all agree that there are some pretty serious challenges. I mean, obviously, we’re in a housing crisis. At the same time, we’re dealing with, obviously, an affordability crisis. Of course, in my mind, what we’re doing at the residential tenancy branch in not speeding through hearings and not getting some of these things done, really, is adding to the problem of a lack of rentals.

I honestly believe that I’m not unique. I mean, I had one rental at one point that had two units in it. Frankly, after a couple of years of renting it, the damages that were done and the frustration in trying to potentially remove a tenant were too much for me. I just couldn’t deal with it.

I also want to speak on behalf of tenants, because I’ve certainly been a tenant myself too. This is exactly why acts like this and changes to the act through Bill 42 are so important. I have also been a tenant in situations where there were serious items happening inside the facility that I was renting and, frankly, paying good money for. You would expect better service from a landlord.

Now, I certainly tried, and I think most people do. I think the member from Abbotsford mentioned that earlier — that, really, what we’re doing is creating rules and laws for very few people. Most people can work things out.

I really do believe we have to take this opportunity to make Bill 42 very good with respect to issues around moving through all of the bureaucracy in these departments. I think, too, that we have to make a commitment at a provincial level. I think it’s important that we make sure that we staff this department properly.

I think that’s been an issue, too, as of late. I think that the commitment there is actually around 50 percent of what the staffing levels should be. I think that that, too, is creating an incredible backlog of complaints, issues and challenges not just for tenants but certainly for landlords that are faced with some serious issues.

Again, I can say with confidence that we’ve seen a lot of these challenges come through our home or through our business or our offices. We’ll certainly continue to advocate for both sides of the equation. But I certainly hope that we can do our best to make this a good bill.

I want to talk a little bit about all of our development agencies in this province. I know that the bill will see some more funds — around $10 million, I believe — moving forward to trusts like the one that works in our area, which is the Northern Development Initiative Trust. Hopefully, we can get a better understanding of the numbers and what we’ve done with respect to the funding here, because I do believe that these trusts are a great way to move funds in different regions.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’ll speak very highly of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, which is NDIT. They’ve done incredible work throughout, certainly, my riding and others. I know that they work very hard, but the real key to this is that they work at a grassroots level, so they may be helping to fund building a new deck on the front of the local ski hill cabin or snowmobile club’s cabin or something like that. But it’s the number that I’m a little bit worried about.

Frankly, I think that we could find a way to get more funds into some of these trusts. I think that it really does pay off in spades to so many of our local groups. I think the winner really is the taxpayer of British Columbia, but I think it’s a great venue and a great way to get money into our areas.

Again, I’m certain that we’re going to have many questions throughout the committee stage, of course, and there’s certainly things that I want to understand better, but as the member from Abbotsford warned, I think we’re all very curious to understand better the tenancy portion of this bill and get a better understanding of how it might affect our constituents locally.

It’s great to have the opportunity to bring some thoughts from Cariboo-Chilcotin today. Thank you for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. No doubt you have a lot of experience with this item, having led a committee not too long ago on the issue itself — at least part of Bill 42, and yes, that’s exactly the part of Bill 42 I want to speak to.

I, like many in this House, have been a tenant and, like many in this House, am currently a landlord. Looking at the bill, I’m hopeful that the proposals that are being contemplated here — as we will canvass, of course, in more detail during committee stage — will improve the situation for both landlords and for tenants.

I think it goes without saying, but it’s pretty clear, that the landscape out there for some landlords is not very good with bad tenants, and I’m sure the same thing goes with some tenants with bad landlords. But quite frankly, at my office, I hear more from the landlords that are having trouble in the current situation with their tenants and with getting access to timely justice through the RTB.

To expand on that a little bit and on Bill 42, I’d like just to read some correspondence. I’ve received many more than this, but this kind of highlights the issue. I’ll also talk about my particular situation, just to give it something a little closer to home for me. Hopefully, again, that will inform government as they look at what they say during the committee stage that, hopefully, will address some of these issues. The challenge, of course, is not to identify people who send these notes in, so I will look at this as I’m reading it.

Here’s somebody who spoke to my CA at the office. They said they have a short-term rental. The only reason — and this “only” in caps — they’ve chosen to not rent in the long term is due to the “injustice towards landlords by the RTB.” I’m using the person’s words.

“I’ve had many nightmare situations where tenants have moved walls, hot water tanks to install a soaker tub in a bedroom; killed the lawn; dug up the grass to make a garden in the lawn; moved in animals that wrecked the home; broke appliances with pure neglect; plugged the plumbing with who knows what down drains and toilets; moved in more tenants than were disclosed on the agreement; ran an unlicensed daycare and had toddlers in the home with no diapers, destroying the furniture; moved in an old fridge to act as an incubator to breed lizards and snakes, brought crickets and rats into the home to feed the snakes….

[4:00 p.m.]

“My home is now sitting empty because of the inequity of the landlord rights in British Columbia. You cannot get anyone out of the property, even with proper notice, and have to give a month’s free rent. The only way to remove a tenant is to use the home for your own purposes, and the tenants have all the rights, in that you cannot move them out, ever, even for renovations.

“My dealings with the RTB were beyond frustrating. I spent hundreds of dollars and countless hours trying to jump through the hoops to file the right paperwork, written the absolute correct way, and provide all the correct documents.

“A smart tenant will drag their feet on signing documents once they are in and have no reason to be truthful when securing a property. They cannot pay damage deposit, pet deposits, etc., as they know they can drag their feet for months and months.

“I ended up having to get the bailiff to move my tenants out after they refused to move. I did find the RTB agents helpful. But the guidelines they had to work with were arduous, and the paperwork and bureaucracy were overwhelming.”

Here’s one person that’s very hopeful that Bill 42 will address some of the issues that they are bringing up.

Here’s another example.

“I wish to express my concerns regarding the rights, or non-rights, of being a landlord. I feel the government needs to address the right to live in your own home and ask why I have to pay a tenant when it’s time for them to move out.

“I just recently gave my tenants the proper two months — actually three months — notice to vacate so that I can move into my own home. I am now faced with being held in limbo, not knowing when they are moving out and having to give them a month’s compensation.

“This needs to be fair for both sides. I think it’s time to revisit and revise the rules to help with the housing situation. I’m not very interested in having any further tenants, moving forward, if I’m being penalized for wanting to use my own home for my family.

“Owners put themselves on the line when investing in a home and opening it up to rent to help to provide a place for someone, only to be slapped with costs when it doesn’t suit the tenant. I have heard so many homeowners say they will no longer rent for these reasons. It needs to be fair to both sides.

“How many times do tenants leave a home in shambles or disrepair, just to have the landlord foot the bill? We need more protection for landlords so they are more apt to rent again. Landlords are required to give more notice than tenants. Why?

“B.C. — revisit and revise these rules so landlords can feel protected when they rent their homes to renters, and keep it affordable for homeowners.”

They’re hoping that Bill 42 will do a few things. I’m not too sure it will.

“(1) Please remove the free rent clause when a landlord gives ample notice — for example, two or three months — to move out. The tenant pays nothing when they leave a property on their own accord, nor do they have to give as much notice, so why should we have to compensate them?

“(2) Damage deposits need to be allowed to be higher to cover the damages, especially with rising costs of repairs.

“(3) Have the act read clearly and in simple terms so we don’t need lawyers to understand it.

“(4) Allow tenants and landlords to legally amend their agreement to suit both parties.

“We will never solve the housing problem by having such restraints and restrictions on landlords.”

The last one that I will read is actually from someone who works on behalf of landlords. They’ve had many, many years of experience working on behalf of landlords and working with the RTB. He says:

“This is a prime example of why landlords are not renting out their properties, which creates a lack of rental stock. The RTB is clearly not neutral and favours the tenant. It is not viable to play on a clearly unfair playing field.”

This is not the only example of clear bias, which he continues to provide here.

“We have personally experienced a few other cases of blatant favouritism towards tenants. As landlords, we have followed all the rules. The tenant has major infractions. Many are safety-related and invalidate insurance, yet we cannot evict the tenant.

“This is on top of limiting our rent increases to less than 3 percent, zero through COVID, when insurance, repair costs, property tax, utilities etc., increased by more than 10 percent.”

Here’s the note in particular about the RTB and one of his clients. He says to them that he understands their frustration and that the RTB favours tenants and hurts landlords. Despite the tenants committing the following infractions, the landlord was not able to remove them in a timely manner. Here are the infractions.

[4:05 p.m.]

“They continued smoke in and around the property, disturbing the family on the other side of the duplex for several months. They removed the smoke detectors. They installed a hot plate and toast oven in the basement despite being asked numerous times to remove them. They have removed doors from bathrooms and disconnected fans in the basement. They put holes in the walls. They put holes in the doors.

“They got into yelling matches with their neighbours. They smoked weed out of a bong near the neighbours’ children. They attended the landlord’s personal residence at 9:30 at night, yelling and screaming, trying to serve them with an incorrectly filed dispute.”

And the last one is:

“They store items around the furnace.”

Now, it goes into detail as to how he dealt with the RTB and how it was not fair. I won’t take time, Mr. Speaker, to go through all that, but you can imagine that it was not what the landlord would deem fair.

Now for the personal story. Some 15 or 16 years ago my wife and I purchased a fourplex. We purchased a fourplex because we were asked to by the Welcome Inn Society. This is a society in Kelowna that was helping men, in particular, transition off the street and stay off the street — so alcohol, drug, not first-stage but second-stage housing for them. They came to Helene and me and asked if we knew anybody that could help. We took the night and prayed about it and the next day said: “Sure, we know someone. We can do that.”

We bought the fourplex for them. As it turned out, we still own it. We bought the fourplex for them and said: “Look, you can have it. We don’t want any issues. We just want to be the investor kind of thing. We’ll buy it for you. Give us a small amount every month for rent, and then you deal with all the issues.” No problem. They had a manager. They had four different units. They had, I think, three or four people in each of the units. They were running for a couple of years, helping people stay off drugs and alcohol and stay off the streets.

Well, two or three years later, they got burnt out. The manager got burnt out. So they came to us and said: “Here are the keys.” And we said: “What do you mean: ‘Here are the keys’? We bought this for you to operate, to help people stay sober and get off drugs and stay off the street.” They said: “Well, we just can’t do it anymore. We got burnt out.” Helene and I looked at each other and said: “What do we do with this place?”

We decided to rent it out. We got someone to manage it. We put the rents at a very affordable rate, and three of the four units have been the same people ever since. That’s 13 years ago. We’ve raised the rent once, by 2 percent, over all that time. My wife is very magnanimous when it comes to taking care of tenants. She’s very generous. And we have had no trouble with them.

But on one unit, we had, about six, seven years ago, a tenant that, just like one of these, thoroughly trashed the place, to the point it cost us $50,000 to get it back to a position we can rent it again.

We filed our taxes. We put in the expenses, and the CRA came back and said: “You can only take off your income half of that.” The challenge is that the rest they put down as capital.

Well, that’s okay if you are going to lose money on your house, but if the house is appreciating, you’ll never get that capital expense. At some point, you’ll have to pay the full taxes. So only half the bill of the $50,000 was actually able to be written off of income. Not only did these people trash the place; they cost us an extra $25,000 after taxes right out of our pocket.

Can the RTB help? Absolutely they can. Bill 42 can help. It can help by helping landlords get trouble tenants out as fast as possible so they don’t do damage like this and don’t incur these costs.

What we hear and what you’ve heard so far and you’ll continue to hear from this side of the House — and I’m sure you’ve heard it, as well, when you were chair of the RTB committee or whatever you called it; sorry — and you hear from your colleagues on your side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to find a way where landlords want to be landlords again.

These kinds of stories that we keep hearing, these kinds of experiences, really put people off. I would say, and I’m sure you’ve heard this before, that the attraction of people going into Airbnb instead of doing a long term is because people come in for a day or two or three and then they’re gone, right?

[4:10 p.m.]

They don’t have to spend two or three or four or six months trying to get them out if they’re wrecking their home or if they’re causing problems with a rental property. So I can see the attraction for that kind of accommodation. My wife and I were never interested in that, but I can see the attraction.

If we want to get more people really engaged, like they used to be, in renting out part of their home, for example, or renting out a second property that they’ve invested in, then we’re going to have to change the rules to make it easier for those minority of cases where you have a good landlord and a bad tenant. And of course, we have to also make sure that if we have a bad landlord and a good tenant, we also have to make sure it’s fair for them.

Just as a wrap-up, then, I would, again, hope that Bill 42 will address that issue, because if it doesn’t address that issue, then landlords are not going to go into the landlord business anymore. You’re going to see more and more of them vacate, especially people my age. I’m 65 years old, so I’m at the middle of boomers, where people don’t need the money. They’re renting it out, in some cases, because they just want to rent it out and have a little bit of spare change.

You have also other cases where people do need the money, especially with the cost of living being so expensive, but they’re really scared to get into the rental business as a landlord or stay in it once they’ve vacated their property, because they don’t want to be stuck in situations like the ones I’ve just mentioned today. We have to find a way to make it less risky for those landlords if really, truly, we want to find more rental stock in our province.

One idea that maybe came out of what I read here to reduce the risk is for the government to backstop landlords and say: “If you got a bad tenant and we can’t get to them in a reasonable amount of time, we’ll pay the damages.” Now if the government, through Bill 42, wants to come forward and say, “We’ll pay. We’ll give you insurance. We’ll buy the insurance for all the damages” and safeguard landlords, well maybe then some landlords will want to get into the business again.

But if it’s going to cost them 20, 30, 40, 50 grand to fix a place that has been trashed by a bad tenant or have the headaches and…. I can tell you it’s very stressful to go through the RTB, even though the process might be sometimes okay and sometimes not, but no matter whether it’s okay or not, it’s very stressful, especially for the ma-and-pa that’s not a professional, that’s doing it for the first time, for example.

So we have to find a better way to make sure that it’s as easy as possible for landlords to make sure that their good tenants stay and their bad tenants are evicted as fast as possible so they don’t incur these kinds of costs. Maybe the government, through Bill 42, wants to backstop that and provide landlords with that kind of assurance that they will cover those costs. You might find you get a few more people want to get into the landlord business.

Mr. Speaker, again, you have a lot of knowledge in this area. I’m sure you heard from both tenants and landlords, not only in your position as an MLA — and you’ve been in this House for a while, so you’ve heard from them — but also in your position as Chair of that committee. I hope your experience is reflected in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

We have some great things to learn through committee stage that will encourage landlords to continue to be landlords, because if we continue down the road we’re going now, it’s just going to get worse.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I think we heard from our critic that led things off around the various Attorney General amendments, the amendments around energy, mines and low carbon innovation.

I do question with the Low Carbon Fuels Act why there weren’t any other changes to try to sync in with what the federal program is, because on January 1 of this year, B.C. went to the 20 percent standard, and the federal government is not insisting on a 15 percent standard, and not till 2030. Once again, that puts a very heavy cost on people in British Columbia at the pumps when we are demanding a blend of fuels that is not made literally anywhere else around us in Washington State or in Alberta that supplies us with our fuel.

As I’ve said before, it’s like B.C. has its own artisanal blend of fuel. It’s no wonder that we have the highest gas prices in North America when we continue to push the limit well over and above what any of the surrounding jurisdictions, especially within Canada, would be seeing, and it’s reflected with that price at the pump. It’s unfortunate this bill doesn’t address any of that.

[4:15 p.m.]

Of course, the Manning Park piece, with the replacement of aging bridges…. You need to see that happen, not just for safety reasons but for making sure that that access point is always maintained and doesn’t fall into too much disrepair. Sometimes there may be that need to take a little bit of park space to try to realign things and have a safe building area and meet the modern standards that you would need.

The real concerns…. And I think you’ve heard from the previous couple of speakers around this. The questions that we’ll have, more importantly, at committee stage, are really around part 4 and the housing amendments. As we’ve heard, and I fully agree with, there are many, many great renters out there. Unfortunately, sometimes in this place, both sides can parse and edit down comments either slightly out of context or slightly truncated to get the exact two words they might want in a phrase to try to paint a picture.

Certainly I’ve not heard from our side that we don’t think that people should be renting and that people that rent should not have rights. We’ve never said anything close to that. But there does need to be a balancing act there, and just as all renters are not bad renters, all landlords are not bad landlords either.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing right now in all of our MLA offices…. I can’t believe that the opposition members are the only ones seeing a dramatic increase in files from small mom-and-pop–type, as we characterize them, landlords coming in wondering what the heck they can do to try to bring some semblance of fairness into the system.

We’re not hearing from the large companies that are out there, the Concerts of the world and those that are run and, predominantly, heavily invested by pension funds and run literally thousands upon thousands of housing units. We predominantly hear from those smaller landlords that have a few units. Many only have one or two. A few might have up to ten, but that would be about the limit of it.

They are the ones struggling. They’re struggling to try to find their way to navigate through what the rules are. They’re struggling when someone refuses to leave that is causing significant damage. Although the response they get back is, “Well, just file this, and then it gets taken care of,” in practice, the “File this, and then it gets taken care of” is taking forever.

That is the problem. The costs that get incurred by these smaller landlords and the process and the timeline just makes it next to impossible for them to feel motivated to want to try to rent again. It just takes one bad renting experience for that to happen.

I’ve rented in my life. I’ve owned in my life. I’ve been a landlord. Many, many years ago, long before I got into elected office, I had a rental property, and we had great tenants. I was, even back then, thinking: “I don’t want to gamble a second time.” So we sold the property many, many years ago — again, going back probably 25 years. But that was already in the back of my mind.

So when we look forward, and you start to layer what is happening with this government and their lack of results when it relates to housing, particularly on the rental stock in our province, you have to ask yourself….

We have the highest rents in Canada. That was just reaffirmed again the other day with the newest numbers that came out. So although other jurisdictions are starting to catch up to us, we still have the highest. We have the highest rents in Canada, and when you layer in the inaction by this government on this file…. And yes, there have been lots of pieces of legislation either introduced or already passed by this government. But the end result is that things are actually getting worse.

When I read through this bill, it struck me that when you…. I always like to go to the commencement date page, and it’s always the last thing in a bill that you look at. It gives you a sense of, in my mind, how urgent and how well-thought-out a piece of legislation is by the government in terms of how quickly they plan on enacting things.

Is the commencement schedule laid out for the clause that is going to be passed at royal assent — in other words, when the Lieutenant-Governor comes back, likely in the last week of session on that last Thursday — or is it going to drag on and wait for cabinet to sign off on orders-in-council and more regulation to be developed?

So you read this bill recognizing that there’s been a holdup since 2015 waiting for some regulation to come forward, just sitting, waiting for that regulation to be better defined in regards to the RTB, and lo and behold, out of the 79 clauses in Bill 42….

Now, typically in miscellaneous statutes and amendments, you would think there might only be a few clauses in a bill. Otherwise, it would be a stand-alone piece of housing legislation, not just considered a housekeeping miscellaneous bill where there are just a couple of quick clauses thrown in.

[4:20 p.m.]

But no, we have 79 clauses on Bill 42 that only has…. I’m not sure what the total number of clauses is on Bill 42. It looks to be about 118. So 79 of those are for housing and the RTB changes, but 46 of those are waiting for regulation and order-in-council sometime in the future.

We’re not even sure what timeline this government has to enact any actual meaningful change in steps from this bill to provide relief for either renters or landlords. It will lead to more frustration and more delay for people as they try to access the RTB.

Now, of the 33 that take effect on royal assent, quite a few — 42, 44 and 60, as an example, just those three — are simply changing the word “document” to the word “record.” That’s the extent of the urgency this government has with this bill, the things that will take effect when the Lieutenant-Governor comes in and doth provide her assent to the bill with the nod of her head. That is the process and all of that. I’m not trying to make light of it. That’s the legal priority to make something an actual law. Those will take effect.

We will be changing the words “document” to “record” in several places within the housing area, but we won’t be enacting substantive other parts of this bill that would see some meaningful change and direction for the RTB and, potentially, speed things up.

That’s where we’re going to have a lot of questions, I think, as we get to committee stage, around: why the holdup from 2015? I get that there was a change of government in mid-2017, but that has still been another six years since then.

If the 2015 changes weren’t going to be acted upon, there has been plenty of time for this government to have brought in different legislation and enacted those regulations to help with the process we see right now unravelling at the RTB.

When I hear from landlords and they talk about the length of time and the frustration they feel, it cuts both ways. We also hear from those good tenants out there that are struggling just to get a ruling so they know they won’t be evicted by those few landlords out there that don’t act in the best interests of their tenants either.

Again, it’s unfortunate in this place when it gets contrasted too quickly about an us-versus-them. This is about a failing government process where, over the last seven years, while this NDP has been in government, the timelines have gotten worse. Access, to try to get a ruling, has gotten worse, be it from a landlord’s perspective or from a tenant’s perspective.

Now, it doesn’t matter what the rules are; if you’re a bad tenant or if you’re a bad landlord, you’re always going to wish that they were different rules, and you’d probably wish that there were even longer delays to get a ruling, but I go back to the premise that the vast majority of people are good tenants and good landlords. That vast majority of people deserves a process that will move forward quickly.

We have a miscellaneous bill that is normally housekeeping, where 79 of 118 clauses are dealing with housing, but we don’t have this as a stand-alone housing bill. You look and you realize that the vast majority of clauses are left to orders-in-council and regulations at an unspecified later date, which is the whole problem right now: there’s no certainty out there.

I don’t see how anything in Bill 42 will provide those assurances to people, moving forward, that this government is working with any urgency to try to deal with these things.

I say that because if you look at the October 2024 fixed election date in British Columbia and the short-term rental bill that we just passed, which won’t actually take effect until May, you won’t really be feeling the effect of that in full force, positively or negatively, until we’re already into an election. But it will sure look good on a shelf for the government to try to point to.

They’ll be able to point to Bill 42, but Lord only knows if there’ll actually be any changes on major clauses in this, because those are all left to regulation.

[4:25 p.m.]

We already know there has been a long delay from 2015 and other time frames. In fact, from 2020 forward, a time frame 100 percent under the purview of this government, and mainly post-COVID, times have gotten significantly worse. When you start layering these other pieces of legislation together, it starts to create uncertainty. It starts to create confusion, and that’s never a good thing. It’s not a good thing for renters, and it’s not a good thing for landlords.

I have a very real fear, when you layer in what is going on — and how small landlords are feeling about how their treatment at RTB is, in terms of those problem tenants — that based on the rules that have just been enacted by this government for short-term rentals, we’ll start seeing a lot of six-month eviction notices, so that people with their own homes can free up that basement suite for May for short-term rentals. Legally, they’ll be allowed to do that.

Basement suites are typically the lower-cost housing option for people. It helps the owner of the home pay their mortgage and pay their bills, and it helps people have a lower-cost housing option. That’s the trade-off everyone has. Typically, they’re owner-occupied, and it works pretty well — not a lot of neighbour complaints in all of those situations.

What this government has done is created a situation where those will be the only people allowed to access the short-term rental pool, with those basement suites and those carriage houses. That’s not going to help with affordability. I have a very real fear that what that will do is trigger an avalanche of RTB filings by tenants saying that they shouldn’t be evicted, whether the small landlord is following the rules or not on timelines and eviction notices.

It will then force that tenant to go from a much more affordable style of housing, to be looking at a $4,000-a-month one-bedroom Coal Harbour apartment-style condo that was a short-term rental, or — I don’t know — the Juliet in Victoria, a building with 350-square-foot and 400-square-foot places. I know the Premier knows the Juliet very well. He sold his unit in there.

Deputy Speaker: I think we’re speaking to this bill, not the other bill.

P. Milobar: Well, that ties into this, Mr. Speaker, because we’re trying to find the connection here of where these changes will help people, protect people, and speed things up with the RTB. There’s a very real consequence, based on other decisions this government has made about short-term rentals, and the potential for a large volume of eviction notices to be going out to people that live in basement suites by the people that own those houses, because they’ll see it’s more profitable and easier to have Airbnb short-term rental.

That’s the problem. Without detail in the short-term rental bill and without detail in Bill 42, we’re simply continuing to pass legislation that keeps saying that it’ll be done by regulation in the future, with no actual timeline or commitment of when that regulation will be done and come into effect. “Just trust us; we’ll deal with it in the future” hasn’t been working on the housing file for this government for seven years now.

Bill 42 is more of the same: “Just trust us. We’ll fix it through regulation. We won’t tell you what those regulations are. We won’t tell you when they might be input into the system, but we’ll fix it.” It’s under the backdrop of the most expensive rents in Canada and the most unaffordable housing jurisdiction in North America.

This government has brought forward Bill 42 as part of a miscellaneous statutes bill — a 79-clause section dealing specifically with housing and the RTB, where we know there’s massive problems and massive delays, creating massive frustration by landlords and tenants alike, and the best they can come up with is: “Just trust us. We’ve got an answer for you in regulation, but after seven years, we can’t tell you what that is, as we present the legislation.”

I do hope, as we move into committee stage on Bill 42 and we start to ask questions around clause 70 or clauses 73 or 76, which enables the RTB to access claims for damages under clause 49.2 relating to renovictions, that we can get some certainty on when that will be.

[4:30 p.m.]

Now, 76 actually does come in on royal assent, so at least we know when that one will actually be on.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Clause 80 enables regulations to add additional reasons that the RTB may dismiss all or part of an application. Well, that sounds like a fairly significant regulation, additional reasons that the RTB “may dismiss all or part of an application.” Now, that could be an application from a landlord or from a tenant. One would think the government would want to move with haste on something like that and have it qualify at royal assent, but no.

Even clause 80, enabling regulations to add additional reasons that the RTB may dismiss all or part of an application, has no real more detail than that, and we will have to wait for some point in the future when it gets made by regulation in a back room with cabinet.

Now, if it’s a regulation the government is really proud of, we might actually get a press release about it. If it’s one they’re not very thrilled about having to do, it’ll be done at five o’clock on a Friday afternoon, and they’ll hope that most people won’t notice it, because that’s how OICs get released.

I’m not even besmirching the government when I say that, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that’s how almost all political parties do things. Doesn’t make it right, but that’s just reality. Rough rule of thumb, I’ve always said, is when the government doesn’t want to talk about things, it’s probably because they’re not actually getting good results, so they try to not really want to talk about it. When we’re dealing with the least transparent government in Canada, that seems to happen a lot right now.

That’s why leaving so much to taking effect by order-in-council and by regulation means that this bill, despite seven years of fiddling with housing and seeing ever-worsening results, the government is not actually ready to take meaningful action, to actually step in and solve the backlog that they’ve created with the RTB, the backlog that has grown astronomically since 2020, the backlog that’s creating the scenario where landlords and tenants don’t trust each other anymore.

This government spends all their time trying to frame landlords as bad. But I have news for the government. If they want to try to solve the housing shortage and high rents, they actually need landlords. It’s a pretty strange way to try to attract people into a certain segment of business by characterizing them as bad profiteers. I don’t know many landlords that could stay in business if they didn’t actually make a profit on the home that they’re renting or the large building that a pension fund has invested in as rentals.

Time and again, this government wants to paint them all as bad. I don’t know how they think they can keep collecting the extra $20 billion of taxation that they keep reaching into everybody’s pockets for every year if they don’t have an economy where people are actually making some money.

I think the landlords would have benefited by actually having some of Bill 42, more of Bill 42, actually take effect at royal assent. Then when we go through committee stage on Bill 42 and ask questions about clause 80 or clause 82, clause 85, the government would actually be able to provide an actual answer. But we’ve seen this act play out time and time again with housing legislation. The answer will be: “You’ll have to wait for regulation. Trust us. We’ve got it solved.” Well, the “trust us; we’ve got it solved” answer has created the highest rents in Canada. It doesn’t cut it anymore.

Good news. If we ask questions about why the change to the word “document” to “record” in clauses 42, 44, 60, and a couple of other places, the significance of that, they’ll be able to provide an answer and say: “Yeah, and it’ll take effect on royal assent.” Apparently, that was the most burning issue that this government needed to actually solidify, when next time the Lieutenant-Governor comes into this chamber, to solve renters’ issues and landlords’ issues in this province, with the RTB — a change from document to record.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, that’s the type of change you would expect to see in a miscellaneous statutes bill, not 79 clauses, where 46 of them are left to regulation after the fact.

It’s another missed opportunity by this government to actually take meaningful steps and action to try to meaningfully address the shortcomings that both tenants and renters are highlighting is happening with the RTB process in this province. Instead, we’re getting another exercise to kick the can down the road after the next provincial election, because this government doesn’t want to be held to account for anything they’ve actually done. It’s about marketing.

We see that in the densification bill, where it fundamentally won’t take effect till 2025, conveniently; the short-term rental bill, where it won’t take effect until May in the election year. This one, Bill 42 — who knows when it’s going to take effect?

It’s a shameful display, when you consider how stretched people are and how tight people’s budgets are, that this is the attitude this government has. On the one hand, they talk about the urgency of housing. On the other hand, they bring forward bills with nondescript timelines, nondescript detail, no answers when it goes to committee stage, no real data to back up their logic and theory as to why they are doing something, all with the backdrop of ever-increasing RTB waiting lists and processing times, ever-increasing rents. But just trust them. They’ll solve it.

People can’t afford to wait. Smaller landlords need help, or they won’t continue to be landlords. Having a government that keeps characterizing landlords as bad while actually needing those same landlords to reinvest into the B.C. economy, to build new rental stock, is counterproductive. But that’s where we are with this government.

I don’t hear them taking big, large swipes at the pension funds, the union pension funds that are all heavily invested in rental properties. I’ve said that many times. That’s actually what they should be doing. They’re supposed to. Their fiduciary duty is actually to look for stable investments that will help the pension portfolio. But according to this government…. They conveniently don’t talk about that side of it. They just talk about landlords.

They’ll find somebody that’s a small operator and paint them as a speculator and a profiteer and then wonder why others aren’t wanting to jump in and why others that have homes right now, that would seriously consider this, are likely looking at this and saying: “Well, I have a basement suite in my house. My child used to use it when they went to university. I could rent it out long term. But you know what? The government said that in another few months, I’d get to be one of the only lucky ones because I have a freestanding home that actually gets to have a short-term rental in this province. Think of the money I can make doing that instead.”

Will the government acknowledge that they actually created that environment, that they’ve actually created laws that will pull away more affordable long-term rentals from the market? No, because it’s easier for them to try to point the finger at everyone else than their own lack of action over the last seven years on housing.

Nothing says that more than Bill 42, when you get to part 4 where it deals with housing — 79 clauses in a miscellaneous amendment bill all dealing with housing. It’s ridiculous in the extreme.

If this government really wanted to take action on these clauses in Bill 42, to deal with housing, they’d all be coming into effect on royal assent. They’ve had seven years to figure that out. There’d be clear timelines. There’d be clear answers when we start asking questions about clauses. The sole focus of things that are going to take effect on royal assent wouldn’t be around changing the word “document” to “record.”

[4:40 p.m.]

But that’s not what this government has done. They have set the table to once again try to market that they’re taking strong, decisive action about housing. We all know, based on the files that keep growing in our own offices, about the frustrations that tenants and renters are having with the RTB process, that all Bill 42 is going to do is dangle out false hope yet again.

We’ll have to turn around and tell those same people: “Yes, I know they passed Bill 42, but the government still hasn’t actually enacted any of the regulations. In fact, they haven’t told us what the regulations are going to be, and they won’t tell us when they’re going to actually enact them.” That, at this point, will be our answer to our constituents when they raise legitimate, real concerns about their fear of having their rental compromised, at a time where, if they get legitimately evicted, they may have to move to a place with much higher rents.

It’s a very big worry for people. A legitimate worry. They want certainty in their life, not uncertainty. This has created nothing more then more delay by a government that obviously has run out of ideas on how to meaningfully impact housing in British Columbia in a positive way and is more focused on how to bring out documents that they can market and promote to have the guise of taking action when, in fact, everything is left to some unknown date in the future by regulation.

That is not acceptable in the midst of the worst housing crisis we’ve ever seen in British Columbia. The highest rents, the highest housing prices we’ve ever seen in British Columbia, inflation spiraling out of control, and this is the best the government can come forward with. It’s quite shocking. It’s disappointing. We look forward to questioning Bill 42 at length, especially around housing, when it comes forward to committee stage.

I thank you for this time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act…. It’s not something I normally get up to talk about. It’s normally little bits and bobs here and there. But this one actually contains some meat, more than just the dressing. It’s actually got, if you’re a vegetarian, some tofu to it. If you’re a meat eater, a carnivore, it’s not quite baron of beef, and it’s not quite prime rib, but pretty close.

I think for small landlords, for tenants, it will deliver a big change that we should see for them. What is the change? Well, one of them I’m very excited about. It doesn’t seem all that impactful, perhaps, on first glance. But when you are issuing a notice through the residential tenancy branch, maybe it is an attempt…. As I know, my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country was talking about the issues of evictions. What happens if you have somebody that’s destroying a unit, that is not taking care of the residential property?

Well, in one of the cases that I remember and worked with a constituent on, she’d been a landlord for years. With one tenant, never an issue. She had another one. This person had some serious difficulties in how they engaged in the world and damaged the suite in such a way…. They stopped paying the rent.

Well, the challenge that this person found themselves in is, as she did the documentation — she thought she got it correct; she put it in — she’d miswritten a name. She miswrote a date. Maybe the address was wrong. Anyway, there were some details in her application which were just not correct.

She waited for the hearing, as the current process, the current law, sets up. She gets to the hearing and expects: “Okay, my evidence is strong. I can move this person out.” But because of the errors in her documentation, it wasn’t an effectively legal way to evict. There were just too many mistakes.

Now, if she’d been told when she made the application, “Oh, you’re missing evidence, and there’s a bunch of errors here. I can’t accept the application,” she would have fixed it, and she would have issued it properly. There wouldn’t have been the big delay. But here she was now, and because of an error, she was out a couple of months.

You’ve got to apply. You need the notice. There needs to be the date for you to get the hearing, etc., etc. It just pushed what was already a stressful process back even further.

Well, this legislation actually speaks to this need for a change.

[4:45 p.m.]

I have also heard from a renter that was trying to get damages fixed in their property. The landlord hadn’t been properly maintaining the home, and there were real problems in terms of the ability to live there. Well, they sought compensation. They sought a fix through the residential tenancy branch, but like the senior, they had made errors in their application.

Again, there was a delay. The application went up right to the hearing. They thought: “I’m going to get my day of justice.” But it was rejected because of serious errors in the application.

What a waste of time. What a waste of time for the landlord, the rental housing provider. What a waste of time for the tenant in both cases. But what a waste of time for the residential tenancy branch system. These are people paid for by all of us to do this work, to try and find a way for people to come together.

Quite often, you’ll find that they do work it out. They find a way to work it out. This legislation speaks to that and suggests even further work that we should be doing to try and facilitate agreements, rather than an adversarial system where a renter and landlord are pitted against each other. It seems to be what folks politically think is a wise thing — to claim one side is pitting one against the other. I don’t think that’s how it should operate.

I think we need to find a way. Who knows? I think politics sometimes does get the best of us. But I think, in this case, let’s dial it back, look at the evidence and try and find the common issue here. The common issue, in this particular change, is just about admissibility of an application to deal with a problem.

Well, if we can fix that so that people are saving that time and actually allowing the residential tenancy branch to deal with the problem and maybe facilitating a solution as opposed to just, “You’re wrong, and you’re wrong; we’re all wrong,” I think we’re all going to be in a better place. And that develops a better relationship between the rental housing provider and the tenant. Ideally, you don’t have to go to the residential tenancy branch. You can contact your rental housing provider or you can contact the tenant and try and fix through the issues.

Obviously, if we have an adversarial system, which can just add useless delays, well, people can take advantage of that. I’ve seen it on both sides. I’ve seen people delaying their applications to fix things. I’ve seen people delaying their hearings, delaying things just to try and buy more time, because they know that they were in the wrong. It happens. Now, we have to create laws to deal with, sometimes, the most extreme circumstances without, hopefully, capturing those who are just trying to do their best — to the lightest touch, as best we can, but with the most effect.

I think we know that sometimes the most marginalized, sometimes those who don’t have a lot of money, or maybe they are living alone…. In my case, I’ve seen a number of seniors in my community who may not be completely familiar with the law. They can be taken advantage of. But, really, a lot of folks enter into becoming a rental housing provider not being a business person. They don’t know the business. They may not be completely familiar with the laws. Likewise, renters often don’t know their rights and their responsibilities as well.

If we can move the residential tenancy branch to become more of an information sharer, a facilitator and an organization that tries to get to problems before they become the huge horror stories that we hear about, then I think landlords, rental housing providers and tenants are going to be in a better place.

Now, part of the problem that we’re dealing with is just lack of supply. We know that we don’t have enough rental housing. We know that we don’t have enough non-profit housing. We don’t have enough low-income housing and affordable housing. Building more of that surely is a big part of it. So I’m glad that record amounts of money and record amounts of good results are happening in the rental housing sphere.

More housing starts and more non-profit housing are being built than really, I think, ever before. In my community, I can see it all around. But we also have to make sure that the housing that is there is working for people too, so that we’re not losing it.

As I know, some folks have said: “Well, people might pull their properties from the market because they’re worried that they won’t be able to deal with problems.” I think this bill speaks to that in terms of saying: “We hear that there’s a need for action.” That’s why we’re trying to shorten timelines.

That’s why we’ve hired, I think, almost all of the 50…. I know that some folks on the opposite side said: “Well, they haven’t really prioritized hiring at the residential tenancy branch.” I think 50 new officers, both in the arbitrators and enforcement…. My understanding is that I think they’re just getting the hiring letters out to the last five of the 50, I believe. That’s a huge increase in support for landlords and tenants and, I think, necessary.

[4:50 p.m.]

Part of that, which I think folks need to understand, is that it’s also about the enforcement team. It’s a group that did not exist in B.C. until after around 2018. Our government thought that if we have laws, they should be enforceable. We heard that from landlords; we heard that from tenants.

So if there’s somebody serially breaking the rules, we can actually figure out who they are and be clear to them: “You’re not going to keep getting away with it.” We can be proactive too. This legislation speaks to disputes — how you serve notice, all those kinds of things. That’s really important. The other important piece is: can we get ahead of this?

As the information-sharer, the residential tenancy branch, if somebody has issued a notice to…. I know that in one case out in the Okanagan, they’d issued a notice to evict the entire building, about 38 different units, different homes. They wanted to evict so that they could renovate. Well, the plan, really, was just about coats of paint, a couple of new kitchen counters, and then they were going to massively increase the rent.

The residential tenancy branch, the compliance and enforcement division, reached out to the rental housing provider and said: “By the way, that’s against the law. You actually can’t just mass-evict because you want to slap a coat of paint and then double the rent. You actually have a process to go through.”

Most landlords I talk to understand that. They will do suites selectively, as people move out, or they’ll work with the tenants to get the work done. In this case, the landlord, a newer landlord — they bought the building — thought: “Landlord. I’m the lord of the land. I can just do what I want.” They read the rules, finally, because the RTB said, “Hey, here are the rules,” and very quickly changed their operation.

I’m told now…. I was in touch with one of the tenants who’d reached out to me. They said that it’s like night and day. They had seemed to think that they could do anything they wanted, to begin with. Now they’ve been educated; they learned their responsibilities. There were no fines issued, because they didn’t actually take that next step. They were caught before it got into a hearing.

I think that was a good outcome, because the tenants there still have their homes. The compliance and enforcement branch did their job. The landlord has changed how they’re doing their business practices. I’m told they’re still going out and investing in buildings, because they want to be a long-term rental housing provider.

I think they were actually quite bashful, ashamed — I don’t know — red in the face, whatever you want, when they were told: “Well, actually, these folks do have rights too, and this is how you need to be operating.” I’m glad that that change has been made.

Many of these other changes are process related. They don’t jump off the page immediately when you read them and go: “Wow, that’s going to make a difference.” But I know, in working with rental housing providers and renters, what a difference they can make: questions around notice, how much notice you need to give in order to have a fair hearing.

The residential tenancy branch is a quasi-judicial body that has to approach things like evidence, legality and fairness all the time. We need to make sure that people have the ability to make their case in a fair way.

One of the changes we’ve made, which is coming into force now, that I think these changes will help is the recording of residential tenancy branch hearings. For many, many years, we knew — and I knew, as an advocate — that sometimes things went on in the residential tenancy hearings which just made you scratch your head and say: “That doesn’t seem really fair.”

I think of one case where pretty much all the tenants had evidence they’d provided that was just thrown out. The arbitrator had made a mistake in terms of understanding some of the issues around how the evidence was delivered and so on. That was clear in a tape one of the participants had made, but they were told: “You can’t tape that. You’re not allowed to record the hearing. You’re not allowed to share that evidence.” Under the law at the time, those were the rules.

Well, clearly, that needed to change, because transparency matters, and people do make mistakes. We’re all human. We’ve changed that now so that tenants and landlords can actually go to that hearing and go, “Well, wait a second. There’s a clear error in process here,” and reach out to the director to get a change. It helps with judicial review if you should have to get to the Supreme Court level to try and make a case for change.

These changes recommend facilitation, to look at things like: can we get orders issued right there at that meeting? Instead of saying, “Well, we have to wait for a written record,” which can take some administrative time, back and forth, back and forth, before anything actually comes into force, wouldn’t it be great if right at that hearing they can say: “I order this today”?

[4:55 p.m.]

It’s a verbal order that these things need to be fixed or that this needs to change. There will be a written copy coming, obviously, but sometimes things need more urgency than the quasi-judicial process has given them.

I’m thankful to the Minister of Housing for bringing these in. I know it’s hard to get legislative changes onto this calendar because there is so much going on, in particular on housing right now, to improve affordability and to make life better for British Columbians. I’m glad that these changes to support renters and rental housing providers are here.

I think it will help the situation lead to greater fairness, lead to less frustration, lead to a lowering in wait times and actually lead to more housing, too, because if people get treated fairer…. Certainly, they want to be rental housing providers. Renters want to continue to be good renters to those rental housing providers as well.

I just think it’s the right change and will lead to more togetherness, as opposed to more divisiveness. I certainly will be supporting this bill.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to rise and speak about Bill 42.

It is a very broad bill, as many people have already discussed, that has a lot of different areas that touch on many things. It’s going to be an interesting committee stage, when it gets to committee, with different ministers having to come in and speak about this.

I just want to touch on a couple of areas that, well, the member for Vancouver–West End was just talking about. I think that, as government, it is our obligation for both sides to make certain that we’re trying to remedy and fix things and make certain that we’re supportive of constructive changes on that.

Under part 1, the Attorney General amendments, I know that our caucus is going to support the advance of reconciliation in that case.

I do have some other questions about part 2, under “Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Amendments.” Obviously, what we want to be careful about is making certain we exactly understand the legislative changes on low-carbon fuels and what the intention is. Does it disincentivize? Does it incentivize?

We hear so much in the House, for example, about LNG, liquefied natural gas. Why would we be doing something fossil-fuel-based when everybody’s talking about climate change and what we’re trying to do? Having lived that experience for 3½ years in Beijing, I can tell you that at about this time of year, instead of it just being dark outside, it would be brown outside because of the district energy plants using cheap coal as their method of energy and heat production within the city. What I’m talking about here are low-carbon fuels.

It’s fine to have this idea that we’re going to be the best, but we need to be providing solutions to an issue that’s far bigger than that. I look at other countries that were very much being encouraged to build cheap energy production plants, electricity, etc., from coal. Now, you can clean it up at a cost. On the other hand, LNG is a far cleaner product, better for the health and the country. While these other solutions are being ramped up and scaled up, etc., we need to better understand how those changes are going to impact that.

We’ve got projects right here. I know recently I sat in on a presentation, I think it was from Triton, that’s planning on exporting a different fuel out of the Port of Prince Rupert. I think it’s very encouraging to get people to imagine: what are the possibilities? I’m not a scientist, but I have to say that electricity is not our only choice.

I’ve seen lots of examples where other clean choices have been in favour and then fallen out of favour. I take Japan, for instance; they very quickly lost their appetite, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, to run on nuclear fuel. They shut down, I think it was, 51 of 53 nuclear reactors they had across the country. That was their reaction. They thought: “Well, maybe we don’t have this well-thought-out.”

[5:00 p.m.]

Now, I’m not advocating for that. I’m just saying that we need to understand what the reaction is. We need to make certain we create a culture of innovation. And how do we find that?

The other thing that I just think about when it comes to fuel production…. I can remember when the carbon tax was first brought in. We were very encouraged to take products that had, let’s say, ethanol blended in with regular fuels, etc., to get a cleaner-burning, less-intense fuel.

I suspect those are probably some of the things that we’re going to discover in the committee stage, because it is important. What we’re really wanting to know…. I mean, the criticism I would have of that is….

Here we’re taking food. We’re processing that and turning it into a fuel. I have to say that with the current costs, etc., I’m not certain that we should be necessarily incentivizing people to take products that could be turned into food products or limiting them, etc., especially considering the shortages, from even this year, with the drought and stuff like that. We don’t want to be incentivizing the wrong activities.

There are some things around the Environment and Climate Change Strategy amendments. I think we’re hearing a lot about that just on other bills that were being debated before this bill, Bill 42. They’re talking about electric vehicles, the introduction of earlier dates, etc.

I just happened to be reading an article, which was shared with me, about Norway. Who would have thought that a country in Scandinavia would have had an 87 percent uptake on electric vehicles? The problem with that, which they didn’t realize….

Sure it has led to, maybe, less emissions. What’s happening with that particular approach has been…. They have failed to invest in their infrastructure for people that can’t afford an electric vehicle, even with all the rebates. Tesla thinks that things are great over there.

The situation is…. It has created a have and a have-not group of people that are in a country…. Frankly, it’s expensive to live there. The idea that now they’re looking at their infrastructure…. It’s old, and it’s aged. It’s not really creating the purpose that there’s an ability for everybody to share in the idea that we have…. The people that can least afford it are still having to use many of those vehicles that are emitting a higher CO₂ content.

I do want to touch on something that is really important. Those are the amendments here in terms of the residential tenancy branch.

We’ve heard both sides. I can’t help but think about the member for Vancouver–West End and his comments. I happened to be there the other day, when I was in Vancouver. I’m looking through his riding. I know many of the people in that particular riding, not as many as he does. But I have to say that one of the things is….

I can remember it being talked about as one of the most dense portions of any city in the world when I was going to school. I think, if I’m not mistaken, it was the Wosk family that did a lot of the building there. So those buildings are of a generation and probably need significant improvements in updating energy. I mean, I just know that some of the buildings that I visited….

I used to do, in a former life, tastings with groups, community groups and that. I’d be in those buildings. Frankly, they’re beautiful buildings, a lot of them, but they still need to be updated, etc.

Where I’m going with that on Bill 42 is…. Having rules doesn’t necessarily get us to the point where we have less emissions from buildings. It doesn’t mean that people that have disagreements…. I know there are bad landlords, and there are bad tenants. The RTB is…. I mean, it’s human nature. There are people that just want to do something that is the opposite. There are all sorts of horror stories we’ve heard on both sides.

The things I really believe are not being addressed…. What I see is that there are some options. I gladly hope that will lead to a better outcome in terms of facilitating a faster, more decisive decision by being able to have the RTB able to do these things.

[5:05 p.m.]

What I do concern myself with is…. We’ve already not only frozen rents. We’ve limited the rent increase. But we haven’t done anything to help on the side of where the landlords need to do those renovations or make the improvements that are required. We haven’t done anything to help them recover even their costs. Their costs are going up just like everywhere else.

Now, I don’t know about every community. I know in communities that I live in…. The water is metered in these communities. The landlord, in a lot of cases, actually pays for the increased water. They provide services. In some cases, they distribute the services at a fee that was included when people moved into these particular facilities. Those people are being considered bad actors.

We saw this when, back in February of 2018, a special year for myself, when I got elected in the by-election…. The budget came out, and it had the speculation tax in it.

Now, I know that the numbers of homes that are paying the speculation tax…. The number is asserted to be, I think, over 20,000. The part about it is that it’s a system that penalizes people for having, maybe, a second home.

Lots of people in the Okanagan have second homes. They come from Vancouver. They come from Calgary or wherever. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Now we have Lake Country, and we have Peachland. They don’t have the same issue about that.

What I’m really getting at is…. In Bill 42, we need to create a process that is going to put timelines in terms of decisions.

The RTB has been criticized. They’re backlogged. There are all sorts of suggestions that the RTB is plugged up. I’m not exactly certain on the number. I get it at my office. I’m sure all the members here have those same kinds of concerns from their constituents.

What I think we need to do is…. There needs to be a process that puts timelines on both the tenant and the landlord if they’re making an application. What’s reasonable, I don’t know. The idea right now that people are having to wait three, four, five, six months…. Sometimes it’s a tactic. You get a bad renter, and they’re using it. They stop paying, and the landlord has to go and try to get them evicted.

The landlord, on top of that, has to pay a bailiff to deliver this, stake the property out, deliver the you-know-what-it-is. Then you have to get them to move out. That’s not helpful in terms of that.

I think there need to be reasonable consequences for both landlords and tenants that are doing bad acting. I think that needs to be swift and reasonably time-sensitive. Today there’s no accountability. Making more rules doesn’t speed things up. They have to be enforced. They have to be acted upon.

Who is going to speed up the process? It is incumbent that the minister responsible for the RTB come up with a plan that makes them accountable and that is measured. People can get a decision, if I’m a landlord or if I’m a tenant. Even though we don’t agree…. I want to make certain that they have an opportunity to make certain that they get a fair day in court, or in front of the RTB, and that they get an answer in a timely manner.

There have been lots of changes at the RTB. I think that the problems…. Partially, we’ve had all sorts of…. We can have the language that gets used around here, the political language about landlords doing things wrong, but I think the reality is that we’ve created chaos at the RTB. We’ve added in things. We’ve changed rules, etc.

The administration of those rules is not only expensive, but it slows the process down, and it makes it even for the people trying to make the decisions that are the ones responsible for the regulation having…. They have difficulty in making certain that they’re acting on all of them.

It makes it difficult because people…. I think I heard earlier another comment about somebody…. All of the evidence or the information that they provided was discarded by the arbitrator. I’m thinking that that’s the type of stuff that isn’t fair, and it leaves this process that should be reasonably considered and then the fact is that a decision is taken.

What’s all this doing, these rules? Well, we’ve seen an almost 20 percent increase in Airbnbs. Well, now we’ve got some new regulations that are just coming to the House or actually have been passed into law, I believe two weeks ago. All of a sudden we have rules around Airbnbs, etc., and it’s expected to help create housing.

[5:10 p.m.]

I would advocate or suggest that the situation with Airbnbs is that people have pivoted to something that is different than just a rental where they have had difficulties with all of the rules and the bureaucracy that’s been layered upon them.

I’d say that what’s off is the balance. It’s trust — the trust between landlords and tenant, and the RTB. I mean the three parties. First of all, as a landlord or a tenant, I don’t want to be in front of the RTB at all, but I want to trust that there’s a system that’s fair and the process is going to help improve things for people.

I’ll just read out an example here. This was posted recently on Castanet. “A Penticton landlord is calling for faster action at the…residential tenancy branch after struggling to evict a non-paying tenant. Rob Perret purchased a home on Churchill Avenue and claimed one of his tenants stopped paying rent in September, using a dispute with the RTB to bide his time. ‘He’s banking on delays and the time frame with the residential tenancy board,’” and it’s now been three months, coming up four months, without rent.

I guess Mr. Perret, who is a landlord like many, has still got all the costs — taxes, whatever he provides as the landlord, whether it’s energy or other things like that. That type of delay and process is not helping.

A couple of other things that are…. Here’s a suggestion made by George Skinner, and I don’t know these two people.

“I bet a lot of these problems we’re talking about with the RTB could be resolved with the creation of a team of roaming ombudsmen who could respond to complaints promptly and inform both the renter and the landlord what the law and the regulations actually say.

“A lot of renters have the idea that they’re entitled to withhold rent if they’re unhappy about something. Legally, they are not, and it can get them into trouble later. Small landlords do all sorts of stupid stuff simply because they’re ignorant and simply misinformed about the laws. Disputes will still need to get referred to a hearing, but just laying out the facts on both sides and getting them to communicate clearly is an important first step.”

That’s what we’re looking for in Bill 42. What is it doing to improve? Instead of clogging up the process, we want it to be like WD-40, where you put a little bit of that in there — not that that’s the best lubricant for all uses, but it certainly could be used in this particular case.

Chris Van Ingen. He says: “If an entity wants its work to be taken seriously, it needs to be like a passport office, immigration system, gun registry, drivers licensing office, justice system, even the residential tenancy branch. It must perform its service in a prompt and efficient manner.”

That just goes to show you that there are people out there that have ideas or solutions. It’s up to the government — and we’re happy to help out if we’re asked — to come forward. I don’t think we’re trying to be…. We want the RTB to work, and we want it to work well for both sides. It can’t be so leaning on one side or the other that it’s slanted and it’s unfair to the particular individuals that are looking for direction on that particular item.

A statistic here to exacerbate this issue, and I’m talking about the RTB: in tandem with the lack of employees, application volumes are up nearly 22 percent because of red tape. You know what? Twenty-two percent is an awful lot. According to the RTB, more hearings and fewer employees have led to wait times that are three times longer than they were in 2020.

I don’t know what the hearing times were in back in 2020, but I really do think that there has to be a way of moving these things along. We’ve heard horror stories, and I just read about Mr. Perret from Penticton — the exact situation playing up for landlords of not being able to remove tenants even though they are a threat to their safety.

I know that we’ve had those particular issues. There are stories in the news all the time. We should be building housing. We should make certain that it’s available, but the rule-based system or the rule book is not the playbook. We’ve got to, basically, come out.

I look forward to committee stage when we get a chance, on Bill 42, to talk about these things. Can we make improvements?

[5:15 p.m.]

I look forward to my colleagues…. I know lots of them have different ideas. I’m not a landlord, so I’m not confronted by these issues. But I think there are a lot of what I would consider to be working-class people that have bought into that. They’re looking at the opportunity of buying something that’s tangible. They can look out, and they can see the building. They can own it. They’re not there with the idea that they want to screw somebody over. What they want to do is…. They would like to see that, maybe for a retirement, a piece of property grew in value.

I’m not talking about the recent spin up on housing prices and stuff like that. But I’m thinking that low, steady, long-term growth in values and stuff like that is what a lot of the working-class people…. That’s why they’ve invested. They invest hard-earned savings. They make certain that they…. They don’t want a burden on themselves that all of a sudden they’re having to subsidize or carry things.

We missed the point that a lot of those landlords are just working-class people. They’re not big corporations; they’re not rich. They have just one, maybe two…. It takes risk. Even myself, here, I had a place after 2015 that I decided to sell because I wasn’t really the type that wanted to be a landlord, and I did sell it.

Results matter. The question is whether this legislation is truly going to solve the problems that I believe the government and the NDP have created for themselves. We need to find solutions.

On another note here, I wanted to speak a little bit about the economic trusts. I have a little bit of experience with the economic trusts, because at one time, I was the minister responsible for them. Prior to that, I was at the announcements when they were announced in 2005 — the one in the Okanagan, called SIDIT at the time, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust; NDIT and ICET. They were all set up with the idea that they were going to help create a different idea about making certain that there was working capital in these communities to help grow them.

They all took different approaches. They all had different starting amounts of money. I know that the dilemma that I was faced with when I met with the board of directors at ICET was that they’d exhausted…. They basically had given out…. They granted all the money. They went through their 50 million, or whatever they started with, and they were looking for top-ups.

They had a totally different approach than NDIT, which had a huge, successful track record. I mean, even the government today is using them in the whole idea of expanding communication into rural and remote communities. They’re processing or they’re vetting the grants, etc. They’re in the community. They know what’s going on.

So we have the contrast of the two. One decided to keep their capital, reinvest it. We have another one that has exhausted their capital. They had a top-up a few years ago. I think that one of the things that is really important in these…. The minister of the day at the time and myself and the former MLA for Kelowna-Mission worked very hard on trying to get the one that was the southern Interior economic initiative trust pointed in the right direction. They needed direction.

We were successful in making changes within the boundaries of the rules that are there, and I think that we’re very fortunate that we’ve been able to hire a lady that has taken over. That trust, southern Interior, is a trust that handles a huge part of the province, not that NDIT doesn’t. But it handles a lot of communities, including many ridings that are held by the government and a larger number, probably, by opposition MLAs.

What I do think is that they did submit some requests to the minister, and I don’t see them being included in here. I’m thinking that if we’re changing legislation — all three of these are legislated institutions — what we should be doing is trying to make certain that we address the other things that are concerns.

I’ll give you a simple example. The Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust, SIDIT, when we dealt with some of those problems, Minister Ralston and the other people that were working there…. We worked hard on changing the direction.

[5:20 p.m.]

We got the mayors together. We formed an actual working group that actually functions. But one of the simple things that they would like to do is they want to change their name from SIDIT, which is what the act says, to the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior, ETSI-BC, as it’s called for short.

The only thing about it is that their name is not anywhere mentioned in here. This minor change could be dealt with in Bill 42, but it’s not there. I don’t know why that has not made the grade to get up there.

There are three items that all three trusts put together to the minister. They wanted to remove the term “one-time development allocation.”

Remove the requirement that the directors of the trust must not accept remuneration other than the reimbursement of travel and out-of-pocket expenses. I would say that that one is probably a little more contentious, and the government may want to deal with that.

Update the purpose of each act — i.e., removing the Olympic opportunities and pine beetle recovery.

Now, I know that the Olympics…. I know that it would be nice to have them again. We had a great time. Members of the government, myself, we celebrated together. It was great. And you know what? We should bring it back. But anyways, I’m not here to talk about that.

Bill 42, though, mountain pine beetle. I can remember about 20 years ago being asked to sit on a transportation advisory board, and we were briefed on mountain pine beetle — how it started, what the impacts were going to be. The fact that it actually stopped or slowed down, if you want to call it that…. It didn’t go as far as maybe what was being predicted.

Anyways, it’s a case that that was in the act at the time, and there are new things. But the fact that we were very specific on that…. Maybe at the time it was important, but the reality is today, it needs modernization to reflect…. Their recommendation is to replace it with innovation and technology. I think that that’s reasonable.

I’m going to go back to ETSI-BC, and I’m just going to mention that they also asked, in this legislative review, that the name change…. They had put that forward over two years ago.

They also asked — each act is separate and unique — to remove the words “and a chief financial officer” from section 10(3) as per our 2021 legislative review, and replace section 11 with the following adapted from the Columbia Basin Trust Act — something else that’s out there that we’re not talking about — as per our 2021 legislative review.

Section 11(1) the directors must appoint a qualified individual as the chief executive officer of the trust; (2) the chief executive officer must carry out those functions and perform those duties that are specified in the resolutions of the corporation; (3) the directors may set the remuneration of the chief executive officer.

According to the board chair, Sharon Shepherd, former mayor of Kelowna…. I think that Sharon has been on this board. She’s lived through the challenges of trying to get SIDIT pointed in the right direction. I think ETSI-BC is looking for a fresh start, and a new name that is actually adopted by government would be helpful.

I think that that’s important. I’m glad to see that there’s a top-up coming to all three trusts. They do great work. They’re meaningful, and they really do mean something to somebody that’s trying to start off in a small business.

The reason I was even involved at all is that there’s a group of us that invested in a startup fund to try to create capital. It came out of a report that was done back in 2000 about economics and what were the levers that we could move in the Okanagan or in the area. Having capital was one of those things. This partially addressed it. We set up a private fund to help support this. It wasn’t financially successful, but the idea was important. The Okanagan Innovation Fund has disappeared off….

Anyway, I do think that this is an important change, and I look forward to…. I know that there’s some Municipal Affairs amendments coming up. We heard them today. That’s not all of them, but having been the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I know that these documents, the Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter, are kind of a territory and place that you don’t necessarily want to wade into.

[5:25 p.m.]

That’s what I was told by then Premier Campbell. Needless to say, it will be interesting as we move into the housing changes and the amendments that are considered under Bill 42.

I look forward to committee stage on this, working with the different ministers.

M. Morris: I’ve been listening with interest on Bill 42. I’ll add my comments to it. I know a lot of the things that I was contemplating on speaking about have been raised by several of my colleagues.

It goes without saying, when I would look at the Supreme Court Act and the changes to that, changing the word from “master” to “associate judge” makes a lot of common sense in today’s world. It has probably taken a long time to get here.

I want to talk a little bit about the Low Carbon Fuels Act, as well, and some of the amendments to that under this particular bill. I think my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson touched on this as well. The low-carbon standards that British Columbia is adopting are significantly higher than the federal ones and the other provincial jurisdictions that we have around the province here.

We have a refinery in Prince George, and the majority of the product that they produce is diesel for the resource sector, for the trucking sector. A lot of the people in rural British Columbia, northern British Columbia and the interior of B.C., run diesel-powered pickup trucks. They’re economical in comparison to a lot of other vehicles, particularly if you’re pulling trailers and hauling a number of things there.

The standard and the idea might be well placed in looking forward at what British Columbia can offer with respect to low-carbon fuel standards. It also cost millions of dollars for the refinery to upgrade and to adapt their facilities in order to produce the low-carbon diesel fuel that we have coming out of there. They also look at biodiesels as well.

Of course, that cost is passed on to the consumer. That cost is passed on to the resource sector, the many mines that we have in the area, the construction sector, the trucking sector, the forest sector. It adds to their costs as well. I think a lot of the taxes are based upon a percentage of the cost of fuel, when you look at some of the tax structure that we have.

I think that’s something that is just another one of those elements that is adding to the competitive nature of British Columbia industry — the farmers, the agricultural sector, as well as the resource sector. I think that government should be measured in the way that they approach a lot of these things, in order to ensure that they don’t take that competitive edge away from British Columbia industries. Hopefully, they’ll be looking at that, and maybe that’s something that can be talked about as we go through the committee stage as well.

Part 4 of this particular bill, “Housing Amendments,” Residential Tenancy Act issues that everybody has been talking about. as well, is an issue. Prior to the change in government in 2017, my office would get some queries from folks dealing with residential tenancy issues. We would be involved, oftentimes, in mediating some issues between a landlord and a tenant, in my office oftentimes. That hasn’t occurred now for several years, but I’m curious as to what caused such an impact to the program.

I know what’s caused it is a lot of the changes that we’ve seen to the Residential Tenancy Act and all the regulations that go with that. But it has led to the enormous amount of challenges that the tenancy branch has to deal with on a regular basis, from landlords, from tenants as well. What precipitated that? What caused that to happen? I think government hasn’t taken a close look at that. They implement the rules without looking at the consequences.

Oftentimes, we’ve seen that in other bills that have come before this House as well. The last one that we looked at was the Airbnb issue. There are a lot of consequences that have come with implementing the measures that they’ve talked about there.

It’s time, and perhaps at the committee stage this can be looked at, moving forward through these amendments here, but I think we need to look at how these changes have bogged the system down and how these changes have pitted tenants against landlords and landlords against tenants and created the atmosphere that we see in that rental world today.

[5:30 p.m.]

What has driven landlords to say: “I’m out of here. I’m not going to be a landlord anymore. I don’t like the consequences”? I’ve had landlords come into my office in tears because their investment has disappeared. It has cost them tens of thousands of dollars — in some cases, more than that — to conduct repairs to their facilities that were damaged significantly, let alone the months of lost rental income that they weren’t getting oftentimes.

I recall one constituent who bought a house in another part of the province as a retirement home. Her husband and herself were going to retire in that particular area. They were going to rent it out for a period of time until they were ready to move in for their retirement. They had it rented out, and the cost of upkeep and the lack of rental funds being paid to them ended up….

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

They were broke. They had to sell and recoup as much as they could out of that, but they were still at a loss and in the hole. It’s not a very good thing to go into retirement when you’re in your mid to late 60s when you owe more money than you did just a couple of years before that, hoping that you’d have a retirement home that was paid for by that time.

The changes this bill alludes to…. I think my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson was talking about the number of clauses in this particular bill that are going to regulation.

It’s extremely difficult for landlords to predict what’s going to take place with these regulations and what are the clauses that are in the bill here in order to do any planning for whatever rental accommodations that they currently hold — whether they should be hiring a property manager, whether they should put extra resources into fixing some of these buildings up. But without knowledge of the direction that government is going to take with this, it makes it very difficult.

All they have to do is go back and look at the previous bill we were talking about here. I think there’s a similarity with the Airbnb issues, where you have landlords that legitimately invest in a rental property, and then the rules change and their investments don’t bring in the money that they were originally scheduled to bring in. Their costs go up exponentially because of different requirements under the landlord and tenancy agreements that we have and the dispute resolution process.

When somebody is going to invest, particularly the small ma-and-pa operations of the private individual that is investing in a home or a duplex or a fourplex to rent out, their costs are significant in comparison to a large corporation or pension fund that invests in something like that and has a property management firm to look after all the details and all the issues for them. The small ma-and-pa issues carry that cost on their own shoulders.

The changes that we see and that we have seen over the last seven years under the NDP government have significantly impacted those resources that they have, and it has led to a lot of heartache. I know the speaker previous, speaking with respect to the administration tribunal process under the Residential Tenancy Act…. The changes that were brought in or that were proposed to have been brought in under the ATA…. It was in 2015, and it still hasn’t been brought into force.

Having worked under the Administrative Tribunals Act in the past as a mediator and as an adjudicator…. The rules are pretty straightforward in there, and everybody knows what the rules are. I’m a little surprised they haven’t been brought into force yet, but there are still some basic rules. The laws of natural justice need to apply to any kind of a hearing, any kind of a process. I’m sure that the folks in the residential tenancy branch have been following those rules to a significant degree.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’m hoping that the people that have been subjected to those various hearings have been advised that they have opportunities for recourse or for redress, either through a judicial review or some other process that we have. The Administrative Tribunals Act kind of lays those things out.

But I’m curious, and maybe we’ll find out during the committee stage, why we’ve gone so long without having those various sections brought into force.

When you look at landlords investing into properties and renting them out, when we look at the impact that we’ve seen right across the province…. Prince George is no different than many other communities where B.C. Housing has bought up a lot of the hotels and motels and other accommodations in the city for social housing, which is sorely needed. I’m certainly not questioning that.

The millions of dollars that they invest into that for renovations…. Government should take notice from that and say: “Yeah, I guess it does cost money to renovate these buildings.” It’s best done when they’re vacant. Depending on the age of the building, oftentimes there’s asbestos that needs to be removed. There are other things in there. But that costs a significant amount of money.

B.C. Housing also has experience with problematic tenants that cause a lot of damage in the buildings. They have to take steps to evict them from the social housing, deal with that and repair those buildings. Government knows that we have these issues out there that a lot of tenants take advantage of.

A lot of tenants have issues that lead them to these damages, whether it’s through domestic violence, whether it’s through anger. There are a number of factors that we have there that need to be taken into consideration. But all of those cost money, and without a property manager, like you would have with B.C. Housing or with some of these other larger complexes, a lot of these people are left to deal with it on their own.

That’s where they need the help. They need somebody within the tenancy branch that will kind of walk them through that and alleviate a lot of those issues before they even get started. So there’s much work to be done with that particular issue.

The number of clauses, like my colleague from Kamloops North was talking about, that are going to be looked at down the road, from a regulation perspective…. Again, this is something that hangs in the air and makes it worse for landlords to try and figure out what they can do in the future to try and make their investment as solid as possible in moving forward, trying to predict the pressures that might be on them as a result of some of these regulatory changes that we have.

A lot of the tenants move in, and they’ll follow the rules, for most of them. But there is a certain segment of them that…. It doesn’t matter what kind of rules you have in place. If they can get away with not paying rent for two or three or five months and then go through a process through the tenancy branch to draw it out so they don’t have to pay any more money….

At the end of the day, they’re finally evicted, and they go on to the next place. They’ve got no real assets to take with them. The bailiff will go and seize whatever might be there, but in most cases, it’s valueless. And then the landlord has a $30,000 or $100,000 bill to rebuild there. There’s a significant imbalance there, so I hope these regulations will address that.

I guess the other part in the bill, part 5, economic development and innovations amendments…. My colleague from Kelowna, previously speaking, talked about it a little.

I have to give kudos to Joel McKay with Northern Development Initiative Trust. He has done a good job up there in looking after that. He had some good guidance with the previous executive director, and the whole team has done significant work up there to keep that entity a success and provide economic development opportunities for the area where the Northern Development Initiative Trust operates.

[5:40 p.m.]

They have the trust of government, obviously, by having them now look after things like the transportation corridors, through E-bus, rolling out a lot of the expanded Internet opportunities that we have through the North. They have the expertise and the knowledge in place to do that and the systems and structure in place to do that.

I’m curious as to why the other initiative trust organizations didn’t follow the same kind of model that was in place for NDIT. There was a lot of success there. A criticism that I’ve seen often, attending the meetings and looking at some of the outcomes throughout the province with that, is that the directive was economic development and ensuring…. My colleague earlier spoke about the pine beetle and the Olympics. The pine beetle has run its course, the spruce beetle is running its course, the fir beetle is running its course, and forestry has significantly changed.

A lot of the initiatives were initially required to start looking at: what do we do once the pine beetle has killed all the pine trees? What is going to replace forestry? How are we going to change that? I haven’t seen much in that direction throughout the province in many of the communities that have been affected the hardest. Forestry is still on a downfall, and it will continue to do so because we’re out of harvestable wood across the province here.

We need to really look at what we’re going to do in these communities and what we’re going to change. How are we going to change? What other opportunities are out there that these communities can use funds from these initiative trusts to leverage to make some of these other opportunities materialize?

I look at my area, where we have opportunities in petrochemicals that we haven’t seen in the province before, and where we have opportunities in mining. We have some of the richest mineral deposits northwest of Prince George, through the coast range, the Rocky Mountains, up into the Yukon, up into Alaska. We’ve got an opportunity to rebuild and work in partnership with First Nations along the whole BCR corridor and develop the rail system into Alaska. Those are the kinds of things that we should be turning our attention to, using some of these funds to help the planning process for that.

I know there are other opportunities in other areas of the province, as well, that these funds can be directed towards. Hopefully, with the input of the $10 million into each one of these respective units, we will see progress in that.

It’s a miscellaneous statutes bill but with a lot of focus on the residential tenancy issue and some other areas here. I’m going to be looking forward to monitoring the committee stage. Maybe we can flesh out some of these issues that are lingering, and maybe we’ll get an idea on what direction government plans on taking some of these amendments through the regulation process.

S. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments.

Certainly, we recognize that this isn’t the first Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that we’ve seen over the last year. In fact, it’s No. 3. As a former Attorney General, I recognize the utility of a bill like this. It allows the government to amend a number of acts that span the responsibility of more than one minister. In essence, the Attorney General carries the bill, but as the government has seen from my colleagues’ comments over this part of the afternoon, this particular Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act has garnered a lot of interest.

Often we think about these types of bills as being of more of a housekeeping nature. We talk about things like grammar and spelling and all the things that need to be corrected from time to time in legislation. But you can see, from the comments and questions that will follow in committee, that there are certainly very substantive parts of this bill that will require additional conversation in this Legislature.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think that one of the things that we do, as opposition, is to lay out a bit of a roadmap for the Attorney, so that she will have a sense of where our interests lie and so that ministers are going to be prepared to come into the House and answer significant questions about some sections and some of the parts in particular.

I want to just raise a number of those issues, some that my colleagues have brought to the attention of the Attorney General. As we look at part 1, for example, obviously all of us in this chamber want to support initiatives that our province can and should take to advance reconciliation.

When we look at the amendments to the Supreme Court Act, the goal of this change is to replace the title “master” with “associate judge.” I think what’s important from my perspective, as I said, as a former Attorney General, is whether or not this changes the actual role of the masters. I believe we have 15 in the province.

The other thing that, from my perspective, is key is that this change was requested by the Chief Justice. I think that’s significant. Language does matter; words matter. In listening to the Attorney in her remarks earlier today, she made it clear that there is no impact on the actual role or work that they, now called masters, will do. I think it’s important to have that clarity. I did appreciate the Attorney providing that, and there may well be some questions, just to confirm that, during committee stage.

My colleagues have spoken about part 2, which has amendments to the Low Carbon Fuels Act, especially the introduction of limits on fuel exports. We know that the low-carbon fuel standard is designed to lower the average carbon intensity of fuels, to increase the adoption of low-carbon fuels and to promote innovation in low-carbon fuel technologies.

What we want to do is make sure that we understand what the expected results and outcomes would be. How will they be delivered? How will they be measured? Are they achievable? Those are the kinds of things where we’ll be looking for further clarification, on the purpose of the limits, during committee stage.

I’m also very interested to understand the implications of a zero percent jet fuel renewable target. One of the things we need to be clear about is what the impact on the industry is when we look at a zero percent jet fuel renewable target.

The other comment that I noted in the Attorney’s remarks related to rural B.C. Of course, that’s where I represent, and that matters a great deal to me. The minister noted in her remarks that the changes would lessen impacts on remote and rural communities through the jet fuel low-volume supplier exemption. Those details are critical to better understanding the impacts of the legislation, and there I’m interested in the impact, specifically for remote and rural communities.

When we look at part 3, perhaps a less impactful amendment is the proposal to reduce the size of E.C. Manning Park. We certainly recognize that any time you change a park boundary, there is a lot of discussion about the whys and what that’s being done for. Obviously, in this case, it’s about the replacement of aging bridges.

As someone who represents a part of British Columbia where people absolutely love being in the outdoors and are always asking for improvements to infrastructure, making sure that we’re allowing people to be safe as they visit the parks and the back country, we are supportive of improving infrastructure.

The change seems very reasonable. We just want to make sure that it aligns with what the budgeting looks like, making sure we’re not having delays, cost overruns and bureaucratic red tape. We certainly know that that has been a pattern that has emerged in projects right across British Columbia.

[5:50 p.m.]

Again, we’re talking about a very small adjustment to the park boundary in order to accommodate the replacement of aging bridges, not likely something that would garner significant debate or lack of support. Now, you’ve heard, from the concerns expressed by a number of my colleagues, that there is a significant concern about part 4.

Part 4 relates to housing amendments, and we’re not talking about minor details here. We’re talking about what certainly look like substantive changes. We’ve been very clear, I think, in our comments that we would certainly agree that substantive changes are necessary when it comes to the Residential Tenancy Act. But the Attorney again talked about this being related to efficiency, speed and timely resolution. That’s certainly one of the issues that we need to see fixed when it comes to the residential tenancy branch.

The section that we’re talking about would allow the residential tenancy branch to look at facilitated settlements — for example, mediation — instead of hearings. It would also add a provision requiring dispute resolution services to be conducted promptly. Well, as we have said repeatedly over the last number of hours, the fact that we need to speed up resolution services and conduct them promptly is a significant understatement.

While we want to speed up processes in the residential tenancy branch, not nearly enough has been done. We would certainly admit that there have always been challenges, but it has gotten steadily worse over the last number of years. We have to ask the question: what on earth has taken so long? When you think about the residential tenancy branch, the way that we can look at this is that it has been clogged up.

Rental providers have been expressing frustration at the current bureaucracy, saying it makes it harder to provide affordable housing. Now, imagine that. We spend hours and hours in this Legislature debating and discussing how on earth we’re going to deal with the housing crisis in British Columbia. One of the things that has created significant amounts of chaos is that things continue to get worse and spiral out of control at the RTB.

When you think about the lack of success of the RTB, it is a result of the mountains of regulations that landlords have to face. So the government has actually created a situation where it’s easier to be an Airbnb host than a landlord in B.C. So when we’re talking about efficiency and speed, we also have to talk about fairness.

When we look at the new regulations making alternatives like Airbnb more attractive, it’s a major part of why the government has seen an increase in Airbnb units in the last year alone. In fact, that is a 20 percent increase. Clearly, the balance is off, and the tenancy branch is backlogged. And as I said, that is an understatement.

The concern that we have is that this is tucked into a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. If we think about it from a staffing perspective, the minister confirmed in estimates that only half of the full-time equivalents that have been promised to be hired at the RTB have been brought on board. So clearly, we need a concentrated effort to get this working, not the creation of more regulations and bureaucracy that create more hurdles for landlords who want to lease their properties.

When you think about the lack of employees, application volumes are up by nearly 22 percent in B.C. because of the red tape being put on rental providers. British Columbians need results, not more bureaucracy and regulations. According to the RTB, more hearings and fewer employees have led to wait times that are three times longer than they were in 2020. So while we may want to be pointing fingers all over the place in this chamber regularly, they are three times worse than they were in 2020. So that is a significant concern.

[5:55 p.m.]

One of the things that I think all of us should be rightly concerned about is the purposeful attempt — and, in fact, it is — to create friction between those people who own homes and those people who rent them.

When we look at the degree of balance, it is lacking. The residential tenancy branch is so unbalanced that there are people who do not want to rent out their spaces out of fear that they will have a disruptive or abusive tenant and have to have the ability to address situation in a timely manner.

Now we’re in the middle of a full-blown housing crisis, yet there are people making the conscious decision not to rent out their spaces. Why? Because they are afraid to. They are worried about disruptive or abusive tenants. They want the ability to be assured that if there is an issue, it will be resolved in a timely way.

Every member of this House, I can assure you, has heard horror stories of this exact situation playing out. Imagine landlords not being able to remove their tenants even though they are a threat to personal safety. Those are the stories we hear on a regular and increasing basis.

In fact, we have NDP MLAs who have made it clear. I’ll quote one of them. “It’s a poorly kept secret in Burnaby North that there are lots of empty suites, a lot of empty suites throughout the neighbourhood, throughout Burnaby North. Landlords are afraid to rent them out. They’re afraid….” That was just in October.

Another quote: “There are many working-class, working families in B.C. who are themselves landlords. There is a history in B.C. of working people being landlords. The current…housing crisis, has pitted working people against working people, working landlords against working tenants, working tenants against working landlords.” Again, in October.

B.C. is in the middle of a housing crisis, and the government has reacted far too slowly. The results are abysmal, and they haven’t been able to create housing fast enough to keep up with the current crisis. Results matter. The question of this legislation is whether it will truly solve the problems that in many ways this government has created itself.

When it comes to the challenges that people in my communities face, we’re not talking about giant corporations. We’re talking about families, individual families, who are afraid to rent out their space. While it’s convenient to the narrative to blame corporations and everyone under the sun, the fact of the matter is that people are afraid in British Columbia to rent out spaces that we desperately need, because they are worried about the impacts of having an abusive or disruptive tenant and the inability to remove them, even in the event that personal safety is at risk. That is simply not acceptable.

I appreciated hearing the remarks of the Attorney General about what these amendments will do, but part 4 is a substantive issue. Here we find it in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. So I am sure that there are going to be many questions to the minister responsible about what the intended outcomes are. What are the measurements? How are we going to monitor whether or not it’s actually going to make a difference at the RTB?

I also wanted to just reflect for a few moments on part 5. I’m sure that the Speaker won’t be surprised. It’s important to recognize when good things are done. Heaven only knows that we continuously hear about how everything that’s wrong with the province belongs to the previous government.

Well, how about we have some members stand up and talk about the fact that it was the previous government that actually created the economic trust that we’re about to add more money to? It was a very intentional process. In fact, there was a lot of work done in terms of creating the trusts in this province.

[6:00 p.m.]

Then Premier Gordon Campbell thought very carefully about what the goal was. The first one was creating the Northern Development Initiative Trust. When he was Premier and announced the Northern Development Initiative Trust, it was on the premise that “the best economic development decisions for the north should be made in the north.” I believe that fervently and passionately.

I remember the discussions we had about the creation of the Northern Development Initiative Trust and what it meant to the people of northern B.C. At the time, there was a lot of discussion about the model. What were the expectations of the trust? How would it have a sense of perpetuity in terms of benefit to northern British Columbians?

It’s clear that we would support additional funding to the trusts, but results do matter. So we’re going to be seeking clarity about the expectations with the top-ups that are being added.

As members would be well aware, this particular part adds a $10 million top-up to each of the development trusts — the Island, the northern and the southern interior — and, obviously, replaces the words “Olympic opportunities” with “technology and innovation” as an eligible expense category. When we think about the impacts that the trusts have had, let’s just take a brief look at that.

The North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust is receiving an increase of $10 million, up to $70 million from $60 million. This trust was created in 2005, as I noted, by Premier Gordon Campbell, starting the endowment at $50 million. An additional $10 million was invested in February of 2017. When you look at the accomplishments, they have been substantive.

We also want to note that the Northern Development Initiative Trust is receiving a one-time funding allowance increase of $10 million. This is to top up the base funding of $135 million, bringing total funding to $195 million. This trust was introduced in October of 2004 by Premier Gordon Campbell and the then Transportation Minister, the current Leader of the Opposition. The fund was expanded by $50 million in 2005.

We’ve talked about pine beetle. When you think about the trust, though, you need to look at the accomplishments. When we talk about job creation, when we talk about projects that stimulate and grow the economy, all of those things are absolutely critical. But we do need to ask: what are the expectations with the additional funding? Are there changes in terms of the model?

When you look at…. I’m very proud of the work that’s been done by the Northern Development Initiative Trust. In looking at their 2022 annual report, I was so impressed, and I have been over the years. When they lay out their expectations and their values and their ethics, it is exemplary, and it’s what we need to make sure continues as we look at all three of the trusts.

When I read the words “our ethics….” I’ll quote from their report:

“As stewards of a public trust incorporated under legislation…we promise to dedicate ourselves to building economic capacity and sustainability…responsibly steward a capital base to support trust area communities in perpetuity, develop strong partnerships throughout the region and uphold the values of the communities we serve, but not to favour one region, community or business over another, adopt or promote a political affiliation or put our interests ahead of central and northern B.C.’s.”

I want to just reflect for a moment on the fund management, because I think that matters. We are talking about expending another $30 million of taxpayer dollars. So we need to think about: what is the return on investment? What are the expectations? When I look at the Northern Development Initiative Trust, for example, they speak very specifically about their best practices in fund management.

[6:05 p.m.]

Here is the goal: “Managing the trust’s funds in a sustainable manner for perpetuity is vital to the economic well-being of northern B.C. By preserving the original $185 million capital infusion into the trust, the capital investment will continue to benefit the region into the future.”

That was exactly the intent of the trust. It was to invest, allow northerners to make the decisions that impact northerners. As we look at the success of the other two trusts, we need to think about what the long-term benefit is to the regions of this province as we make those additional investments.

I want to just compliment the board chair, the CEO, Joel McKay of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, for their laser-like focus on ensuring the sustainability of the fund. It will continue to benefit northern residents in perpetuity, looking at, always, the best return on investment and making sure that the interests of northern British Columbians, that huge geography that the trust serves, are always front and centre.

I should say…. One of the things that I think the trust should be very proud of is the fact that other levels of government, including this government and the federal government, put their faith in the Northern Development Initiative Trust to actually disburse funding in many other programs. My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie noted…. For example, when we’re looking at how we deal with Internet connectivity, those kinds of things, funds are often placed in the Northern Development Initiative Trust in order to have them administered and distributed.

As you can see, we appreciate the opportunity to lay out a roadmap for the questions and concerns that the opposition has. We certainly look forward to the committee stage when ministers responsible for their parts will be asked to respond to those questions.

I’m very grateful for the time this afternoon to raise those concerns and those ideas. With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for speaking to this bill as well, as well as all the colleagues. And a huge thanks to the minister, who is patiently taking notes, I’m sure.

I will be brief. I will canvass some of the items previously covered by some of my colleagues in this place.

First are the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. When I see the language of “facilitated settlement process,” it gives me great hope. One of the challenges that we’ve heard from members who have spoken — I know all of our constituency assistants face this challenge regularly — is that of landlords and that of tenants.

I had a landlord that came to speak with me some time ago, a senior who was renting but also owned a home that she was renting out. She had a tenant that, according to the landlord, was…. There was drug dealing late at night. She sometimes missed her rent, and she was just a real difficult person to deal with. It had escalated to the point where something had been filed at the residential tenancy branch, and the tenant just stopped paying rent. So this poor landlord came to me concerned that she was going to be imminently homeless.

Around the same time, I heard from another constituent who was a single mother. She was struggling to pay her bills. She had a young child, and she had this landlord that was monitoring all of her actions and just being a really difficult person to deal with. This landlord would allege that there was drug dealing taking place in the house.

I’m sure the Speaker knows where I’m going with this. Both of these people were at opposite ends of something that had been filed at the residential tenancy branch. It was difficult. My office could do nothing else, other than refer them to TRAC and just tell them to wait until this process had concluded.

It had actually gotten a little bit worse. The landlord made the mistake of evicting the tenant, claiming that a family member was going to move in, and the family member never actually did move in. So that turned into a fairly long, protracted battle that nobody won. So to see these changes as a part of Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which specifically mentions a facilitated settlement process, gives me great hope.

We, late last year, heard from government about the investment being made at the residential tenancy branch. Hearing from the debates, it sounds like that staffing has been moving along.

[6:10 p.m.]

It’s not just about hiring more people and spending more money. It’s about relooking at the processes. That is something that it looks like we’re going to see through this. I hope a similar lens could be used at the employment standards branch, where we know that workers are also stuck in similar backlogs.

Going through this bill, there is also the similar process for Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. We don’t think of manufactured home parks very often, but in my community, there are a number of them, and they’re aging out.

The challenge is that when you’ve got especially seniors living in a manufactured home park that own their home but have no real control over the pad that they’re in, when they find themselves potentially to be evicted from their park, they can be paid out for that, but again, it’s very protracted. It’s a very difficult process for homeowners to go through. When there are no more manufactured home parks to move your home to, it can create some other challenges.

I’m hoping, with some clarity and some reimagining of these processes, that we not only simplify the process…. Whether you’re a homeowner from a manufactured home park perspective or whether you’re a landlord or a tenant, that predictability, I think, will lead to more investment in, hopefully, new manufactured home parks and more purpose-built rentals.

Hearing from members of the opposition about the challenges that landlords face, it is a real concern. With some of the changes with short-term rentals, I have…. I don’t call them landlords because they’re short-term rentals, but I have folks coming to my office, and they have no interest in renting them out long term.

I think if the processes can be improved and some trust can be built into that system, we’ll see a lot more homeowners go back into that marketplace, because that’s something that we used to have in communities like Parksville and Qualicum, where people put their retirement income equity into a home that they’ll rent out for some passive income and some stability. I hope that that’s the case.

There are some references here about modernizing documents. I’m not sure what exactly that means, but I’m hoping that it will mean that we can rely more on electronic records and, as I’ve heard from others who spoke, the idea that verbal communication, as opposed to relying on waiting for service of documents to be delivered….

What I really want to speak to are the changes that are going to come to the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, as we call it on the Island, ICET.

ICET was founded in 2006 through that same act. And it was prescient. You know, 2006 was right before some very difficult times economically. It feels like the Island is always going through transition. Whether it’s forestry, whether it’s fishing, whether it’s mining, it seems to be there’s always some transition that’s taking place.

The idea of this act was to create a trust, as the member for Prince George–Valemount mentioned, that would be responsive to the needs of the community. It would be led by leaders in the community. It would make investments that were strategic, that could be leveraged to create economic benefits, not just for the individual project but for the communities as a whole and the Island especially, as a region.

Each community is very unique, so this flexibility, I think, proved to be very successful. The capitalization, as was mentioned before, started at $50 million. In February 2017, we saw another $10 million added to that. The mission statement for ICET currently is to strategically invest in inclusive economic development, diversification and innovation in partnership with communities across Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and the islands and inlets from the Salish Sea to Cape Caution.

We have seen significant investments that have had really positive impacts on our communities. I printed off a whole list of some of the more recent ones, and I’ll go through them really quickly. When a community embarks on economic initiatives, there are often grants, but there often aren’t. To be able to leverage partnerships or to leverage other grants goes a long way. Sometimes these investments, as a percentage of the whole, don’t necessarily represent a huge amount, but it’s that bit that gets it over the finish line.

In Ladysmith, the most recent announcement is a studio for Indigenous and local artists, and the ICET contribution is $300,000, which, on a project that is $4 million, may not sound like a lot, but without this, these projects cannot move forward.

[6:15 p.m.]

This project is integral to the revitalization of the waterfront within Ladysmith, an area that is now involving significant involvement from the Stz’uminus First Nation. They are leading some of these projects, where we can see not only economic initiatives, but reconciliation through these processes. It is incredible to see this.

In Parksville-Qualicum…. This investment was from a while ago, but it’s called Delvi. It has had some challenges, but the idea is a fulfilment centre. We have some amazing businesses on Vancouver Island that are struggling with the idea of getting from operating out of their garage into something similar to Amazon, where they can deliver on demand.

This Delvi initiative has seen…. It’s probably a dozen good, vibrant businesses that have built up a reliance on this initiative, which means they can sell all over the world. They focus on developing the product, on marketing the product, and the delivery and the fulfilment of those products is done by a third party. It has proven to be very successful for those individual companies. I don’t want to name them here. But a clothing company that is selling outdoor wear all over the world is relying on this private partner. This initiative wouldn’t have been possible without the investments from ICET.

I’m just going to do one more here, because I’ve got a few — actually, two more.

In Parksville, we have the good fortune of having our community park. For those who have brought families through to Parksville, they’ll know the playground. They’ll know exactly where I’m talking about, but it isn’t a park that is for everyone. One of the initiatives that was brought up over many, many years was the idea of an outdoor pavilion.

This outdoor theatre is an incredible structure. It is set up so that an entire symphony orchestra can play, and it’s got all of the modern fixings for sound and for acoustics. We have seen concert after concert in the park, where people can actually gather and come together. The timing of this was just incredible. Coming out of COVID, the ability…. Whether it’s rock and roll in the park or whether it’s classical music, these initiatives wouldn’t happen without these investments from ICET.

The last one in Qualicum Beach is something that was started well before my time on council but is now moving forward, and that’s called our East Village initiative. That is a complete redevelopment and reimagination of a portion of our downtown core that is bringing some vibrant, new businesses into our community. That has meant a new brewery, a new meat store butcher and a new distillery.

The investment that ICET was able to leverage meant that that entire area is now a pedestrian mall, the businesses are thriving and we’ve got a residential development that’s moving forward. This is about partnerships, and it’s about leveraging investment.

But ICET has faced challenges, and these challenges aren’t new. I’ve got one of the independent legislative review reports from ICET, and I’m just going to read from this quickly.

“The ICET model created in the legislation has worked very well. It is seen by local governments as an excellent and very cost-effective delegation model for disbursement…of provincial dollars to support regional economic development. Fund moneys go to regional priorities with minimal operating expenditure. Respondents also supported the arm’s-length nature of the act, giving ICET board maximum flexibility to allocate funds without provincial intervention.”

It then goes on to mention some of the strengths of the organization, but it mentions:

“The single most important concern raised by all respondents relates to the cap on provincial funding of ICET contained in section 17 of the act. Section 17 limits the amount of the provincial attribution to the $50 million…to the ICET on its creation. Now in its fifth year of operation, the fund is dwindling. All respondents believe the ICET model has proven its merits. The act…worked well, and the ICET should continue its existence with additional provincial funding to continue its supports.”

This wasn’t the 2021 review. It wasn’t the 2016 review. This was the 2011 review. Every five years. The 2011 review identified at that time — this was quite a while ago — that the fund was drawing down in a significant way, and they had recommended changing the model to allow for more funding.

Now, we see in Bill 42 — I’m sure the Speaker is going to be happy I’m going back to reference the bill — that the cap is now being raised to $70 million. By having that cap in place in general, it limits, substantially, the ability for government to be flexible with funding this trust.

[6:20 p.m.]

We saw, last year, a significant amount of funds that were disbursed that were left over from a surplus, which was invested, in my mind, very wisely across this province. But this trust wasn’t able to tap into those resources because the legislation limited the ability of the province to deliver more funds to the trust. That, in my mind, is very shortsighted. I see that, as we’re going through the changes to this act, all we’re doing is just kicking that down the road.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The other thing that was mentioned in this review was the fact that there was no First Nations representation either on the board or in the regional advisory committees. Now, these RACs…. I’m sure MLAs that are from the Island here have participated in these. They’re made up of mayors, and they’re made up of leaders of small communities on the Island. But there is no First Nations representation.

That’s one of the things that ICET has been really working on — to ensure that these investments being made are done in a way that benefits the entire community, not just through municipal governments but with a real reconciliation lens that, I think, has got some merit.

It’s always useful to go through Hansard and to view what debate has taken place in the past. When this act was first in committee stage in 2006, we heard from members in opposition that said: “My other concern about the makeup of these regional advisory committees and the boards is the notable absence of First Nations. Despite the often-stated commitment to the…relationship, no First Nations are included. There are 17 bands in my constituency.” Now, this is the former Minister Trevena.

Carrying on through here, quotes from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. “That being said, I would like to have seen more representation built into the process for First Nations organizations. I know that every First Nation is unique and every First Nation has their own expectation of what this government will be providing for its economic development opportunities. There’s no formal structure for their participation in accessing these funds.” It goes on to talk about the RACs. Again, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan….

These comments were made in 2006. We have an opportunity through this miscellaneous statutes amendment act to fix a wrong that was done a long time ago. It is something that the ICET has been asking for, and this is our opportunity to make sure that that has been addressed.

I’m seeing more and more people come into the chamber here, so I will draw to a close here pretty quick.

I just want to finish on some of the impacts that we’ve seen. ICET, since its inception on the Island, has seen $59 million invested in our communities. What’s more interesting is the leveraging that’s been possible. That investment has leveraged into $323 million in investments and created 2,900 permanent jobs in our communities.

This is a hugely successful initiative. It is one that I will give credit to previous governments and current governments for maintaining. But it is our opportunity right now to take this act, as we discuss this, and to fix some of the wrongs of the past.

I’m hoping that government will look at removing the cap on the funding and will look at some Indigenous participation on the RAC.

I will close by thanking the members who join the RAC. I believe it’s every quarter. They show incredible leadership in their communities as they navigate different economic initiatives. I want to thank Brodie Guy, the CEO for ICET.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. N. Sharma: With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.