Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 43, money judgment enforcement act.

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

In the third House, in committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 40, School Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act of 2023. This bill makes consequential amendments to 36 different statutes that eight different ministries are responsible for.

The statutes will be amended by regulation when Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, which was enacted earlier this session, is brought into force. It will be necessary to amend these 36 different statutes because they either refer to part 5 of the Court Order Enforcement Act or refer to writs, garnishing orders or other methods of enforcing judgments that will be eliminated when the Money Judgment Enforcement Act is brought into force.

Some important amendments to highlight at this time are the amendment to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, which will allow a money judgment from the CRT to be directly registered in the money judgment registry established by the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. In addition, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act will be amended to allow the CRT to register a judgment in the money judgment registry on behalf of a successful party. This will make the CRT website a single stop for a person, from the beginning of their dispute to collection, if necessary.

This bill, Bill 43, also adds transitional provisions to the Court Order Enforcement Act. The transitional provisions will give a person who has already obtained a writ of seizure or a garnishing order the option to continue to use that method of enforcement that they have already gone through the time, effort and expense to obtain.

[11:00 a.m.]

While transition provisions ensure that writs and garnishing orders remain valid and usable until they naturally expire, nothing will prevent a person from deciding to stop using their valid writ and choosing to register their judgment, in accordance with the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, and then instruct a civil enforcement officer to seize property of the judgment debtor.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 43, Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

I ask for a brief recess.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess to get the appropriate parties into place.

The House recessed from 11:01 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

I am here today to share a series of proposed changes to local government legislation to create more homes within reach of people, making it easier to increase the supply of more attainable homes like triplexes and townhomes in existing communities.

We all know that in a housing crisis we need to take strong action to address it. Through these changes, which are the most significant shifts made by a local government land use planning system in decades, we will make it easier to create the housing we need. This includes more attainable housing for the people and families who call British Columbia home and for many Canadians and new residents who will arrive here over the next few years.

[11:05 a.m.]

If passed, the bill will amend the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter to update requirements for local government housing needs reports, require municipalities to proactively plan and zone to meet their housing needs, require most local governments to allow small-scale multi-units in areas zoned for single detached homes and require that local governments no longer hold public hearings on rezonings for housing projects that are consistent with the official community plan.

We heard loud and clear from our stakeholders that frequently, a site-by-site zoning process is one of the biggest barriers to getting housing built quickly enough to meet the growing needs of our communities. The Ministry of Housing consulted extensively on these proposed changes in this bill, and the changes have been made with broad support. We have so much single detached zoning across the province, and people want options like triplexes, townhomes and housing near transit. They want more homes closer to their families, friends, jobs and schools.

Let’s get into some of the specifics of the changes. The new zoning framework proposes changing to housing needs reports, official community plans and zoning bylaws. The aim is to move away from site-by-site zoning processes, which add time, uncertainty and costs to housing projects, towards a more upfront community planning and proactive zoning.

Since April 2019, the local governments have been required to develop a housing needs report every five years and consider that report when they’re updating their official community plans. Local governments have gone through a full cycle of housing needs reports and have identified two issues, which the bill addresses.

First, housing needs reports are not robust, consistent or comparable across local governments, because they use different methodologies to calculate their housing needs. Second, local governments are not required to plan and zone for the future base of their housing needs reports.

That’s why the proposed amendments would require all local governments to use a standard method in housing needs reports to calculate the number of homes they will need over the long term, which is 20 years, and require municipalities to update official community plans and zoning on a regular basis to plan and zone for their long-term housing needs. There will be regulatory authority to exempt local governments from the new requirement, if needed at any point.

Allowing small-scale multi-unit housing and single detached and low-density zones will also make it easier to build the housing that people need. Restrictive single-family zoning has limited the development of the triplexes, laneway homes, garden suites and townhomes that we so desperately need. Across the province, we will require local governments to amend their zoning bylaws to allow more of these types of housing.

In most places, three to four housing units will be allowed on each lot in single detached or duplex zones and, depending on lot size, up to six units in areas closer to transit. A secondary suite or detached dwelling unit will be allowed in single detached housing across British Columbia. While the regulation will set out the number of allowable units and population thresholds for the requirement, these changes will be intended to apply across B.C., covering 95 percent of the population.

The proposed amendments will also allow up to six units on single-family lots near bus stops with frequent service. In these areas, local governments will not be allowed to require off-street parking. This will allow more housing to be built within five minutes of walking distance from well-serviced bus stops. This will support ridership and mode shift and help achieve our climate goals.

Finally, to support affordability, local governments will be able to designate one of the six units as an affordable housing unit, if they choose.

Areas outside of urban containment boundary areas and regional growth strategy or official community planning will be exempt from the three-or-more-unit requirements. This will help prevent urban sprawl, protect agricultural lands and reduce pressures on rural infrastructure. Ultimately, it’s about ensuring that new housing is built in the right places.

We have also long heard that public hearings can slow down getting approvals for new homes, delaying construction and adding costs to housing. These delays often result in fewer units being built or in developers making the units more expensive, to offset the added costs. So I’m proposing additional efficiency in local government development approval processes by eliminating redundant processes as one-off hearings that slow down housing projects.

These changes will make the best use of regular public consultation opportunities, earlier in the process, to meaningfully shape a community’s plans for how it realizes its long-term vision, including meeting its housing needs. This means that public hearings will no longer be required for a zoning bylaw and amendments for housing projects that are consistent with the OCPs, which have robust consultative avenues.

[11:10 a.m.]

Public notice will be required for the zoning amendments, to ensure that residents are informed of developments in their communities and can reach out to elected officials through other channels, like phone calls or emails.

Because we’re in a housing crisis, we need to implement these changes as soon as possible. The first requirements will come into effect by summer 2024, at which time local governments will have to have amended their zoning bylaws to comply with the small-scale multi-unit requirements.

They must use provincial policy guidelines, which will set out expectations for height restrictions, lot coverage, setbacks and parking requirements. Local governments with infrastructure deficits can apply for an extension to specific sites to make upgrades to avoid unnecessary risks to health, safety or the environment. We’ll also allow extensions for extraordinary circumstances like natural disasters.

What happens if a local government doesn’t meet the deadline? We can use the ministerial override to establish basic site standards like size, sitting, location of housing so that development can get underway. This override would remain in place until the local government amends their bylaws to fulfill the requirements.

The broader planning and proactive zoning requirements will take a little more time to ensure good planning and public engagement to updated housing needs reports, OCPs and zoning bylaws. Local governments will need to update their housing needs reports for the first time by the start of 2025 based on new methodology. Municipalities will need to update OCP and zoning bylaws by the end of 2025.

Future updates will be required on a regular basis to ensure housing needs reports, OCPs and zoning bylaws stay up to date and responsive to local housing needs.

Given the scope of these changes, there are some risks. We know that there will be capacity challenges, particularly in small and medium-sized communities. We will provide clear, direct policy guidelines and support local governments along the way.

As announced in September at the UBCM convention, we will be providing funding to support local governments, including $51 million in direct funding to help local governments meet the new requirements and another $10 million for local government development approval programs, which is administered by UBCM, to help local governments update their approval processes and implement best practices.

We know that zoning is one part of the solution. Market forces also play a part, but we must make clear the path for housing to get built. These are some of the biggest changes that have been made to our land use planning system. They are critical steps to our need to address the housing crisis.

I welcome questions and feedback from members across the way, and I look forward to hearing the debate.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m very pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak to the bill before us, the housing statutes amendment act. This bill deals with the residential development zoning aspect of housing.

Now this morning government introduced another bill, another amendment, with respect to housing statutes. That bill, although we haven’t had much time to consider or look at it, would seem to address how we are paying everything that is being introduced in Bill 44. We’ll look forward to being able to explore that in more detail.

Housing is on the top of mind of every British Columbian, and we need to ensure that we’re making the correct decisions for those living here now and for those who will live here in the future.

Unfortunately, we weren’t shocked yesterday to learn that B.C. now tops the list of the most expensive provinces in Canada, based on a new analysis of publicly-available data. The research…. They looked at incomes in British Columbia, property prices, rent, food, transport. If we look at these costs, many of them can be influenced by what this provincial government does and doesn’t do, such as relief on heating costs.

Clearly our issues with affordable housing are certainly driving this, and we’ve heard government say on many occasions that the issues with costs here in British Columbia: “Well, it’s not just British Columbia. It’s all across Canada. Everybody’s having the same issue.”

[11:15 a.m.]

But when we look at the fact that we are having that issue significantly more, and our costs are significantly higher than other provinces in Canada, I think that the argument that there are all these external forces which are impacting the bad performance here in British Columbia…. I don’t think those hold water.

We need to address our housing supply. Of that, there is absolutely no doubt. We need to allow for the construction of more housing units in order for us to be able to address housing shortages and affordability issues. Those two things are connected to each other.

We need to encourage a variety of housing types. We need more apartments, townhouses, co-ops. Co-ops were a fundamental way to create housing back in the ’70s and ’80s. What’s old should be new again. When we go back and look at some of these tools that we had in the past…. Mixed-use developments. We need to be able to cater to a broader range of income levels and lifestyles.

And we need to make sure that the work that we’re doing is really focused around transit-oriented communities. Transportation hubs, which really help to…. We really should be focusing on those transit-oriented developments so we can make it easier for people’s ability to rely on public transit. We need to reduce car dependence, which will help to reduce traffic congestion and lower carbon emissions.

Certainly we need to reduce how much it costs for a person to be able to get to work, how close they can be. With the cost of gas right now, if you’ve got a mom who’s got two kids you’ve got to drop off at childcare in the morning…. They don’t always have those options, and absolutely wouldn’t have those options if we start to develop more sprawl away from those transit hubs.

Done properly, this can lead to denser mixed-use neighbourhoods, and this would make it easier for residents to walk to amenities, to help create more vibrant and connected communities. With upzoning, if it’s done in the proper places, if it’s done the proper way, it also helps us to protect parks and green spaces.

It’s important to consider that if it’s not done the right way, there are significant potential downsides. A few — and we can’t underestimate the impact of one in particular — are infrastructure improvements. It will cost a lot of money for a quick increase in density. And if that density doesn’t take into consideration and zoning approvals don’t take into consideration whether there is capacity on local services and infrastructure, then it will have significant negative impacts on the community and on the developments themselves and the ability for the developments to move forward.

Potential displacement, also, of existing residents. If there’s a rush in certain areas to increase density…. We’ve seen this along the Broadway corridor. The increase in density is a good idea, and we need to do it, but look at the challenges and issues on that corridor that we’re having right now with the displacement of current tenants in those smaller-density buildings at this point.

The ability to be able to move people and find housing is a circular issue. We don’t have the housing to move people into while we build the housing, so if we don’t do this the right way, it is going to increase the displacement of existing tenants. And you need proper planning and community engagement to make sure that upzoning is benefiting all residents and try and avoid negative consequences. If density is put in places without sufficient support or planning, that displacement again…. I’m really concerned that it would be detrimental to a lot of the people that it’s actually trying to help.

You can also expect to deal with the issue of gentrification. We’ve seen that as developers have moved into areas that are perhaps lower-income areas, displacing those units and those people.

[11:20 a.m.]

The absence of proper policies around that can really drive up property values and can push out long-standing lower-income residents, which is a concern. I’m talking about these concerns because, as I’ve seen in some of the other housing legislation that’s come in…. It would appear that negative consequences, impacts to community and to people, were not well thought out.

There have been some serious impacts that I want to ask a lot of questions on in this particular piece of legislation to make sure that those things aren’t going to happen again and that we’re not going to end up with legislation here that has the opposite impact to what we’re trying to do. That is to create places for people to live safely and affordably here in British Columbia.

Now, it’s absolutely understandable that projects that support community OCPs…. Community OCPs should be updated and should accurately reflect the housing needs in a community. Public hearings that hold up development and have already been dealt with in OCPs…. I think looking at the redundancy there makes sense.

There also needs to be a way to make sure that communities understand what’s happening and don’t feel that things are being imposed upon them. There needs to be information-sharing. There need to be sessions and conversations that don’t necessarily mean residents will be saying yes or no to something or expressing or being able to stop important development from going forward. But without proper community engagement, it will hurt the ability for those communities to thrive and to be good communities.

There really needs to be a balanced approach. I’m concerned that the direction and the way that this legislation is dictating changes and zoning is actually going to harm vulnerable residents and make communities less cohesive.

You know what? It’s sad right now. I was speaking to a friend last week who’s a counsellor. She said to me that a lot of the clients coming in to meet with her recently — well, for the last few years…. One of the issues that they’re expressing — and this is something that she said was relatively new — is housing anxiety.

That is becoming a significant mental health issue for people now. They’re not sure what’s going to happen with their housing. They’re not confident that there is a plan in place that is actually going to make housing safe for them or even a reality for them if they’re unhoused or they’re precariously housed or they’re in a bad relationship that they can’t leave because they have no housing to go to.

Birth rates in British Columbia are at a 15-year low. Why does this relate to housing? Well, it relates to affordability, and it relates to the ability to find appropriate housing for families. You really have to think twice about how you are going to afford to expand your family, to grow your family. You certainly also have to think about whether there’s relevant and real accommodation for you.

A lack of family and affordable housing is significant. It needs to be planned appropriately and done in areas where you’ve got the ability to support these families with schools and with other amenities that they need to have close by.

Another issue that is very concerning — I think we should all be concerned about it — is the Metro Vancouver homeless count. It shows that homelessness is at a record high under this NDP government. It’s up 34 percent from 2017.

That doesn’t bode well for a government to introduce housing policy that will actually be effective. The track record is not good at this point. We need to make sure that we ask lots of questions on this legislation so that we can understand how we are actually going to move forward on this, and we don’t come back in a year and be looking at equally horrible results.

Everyone in this chamber notes we need to build more housing. After seven years, we know that this government has repeatedly failed to do so. We just need better than what this government has been offering.

[11:25 a.m.]

When I talk about young people…. I can talk about…. It’s all relative, I guess. But 45-year-olds have given up on the hope of home ownership. It seems the narrative from this government is that’s okay. That’s just the way it’s going to be.

We need to create pathways for ownership, and we need to bring hope back to people. We need to come up with a vibrant and good plan and policy that are actually going to be able to do that.

I did want to just raise concerns again about that first blush, how other people external to those of us in the House are reacting to this legislation. I just want to quote Mayor Mike Hurley of Burnaby. This was just in the Now yesterday. “It’s a massive change, and I don’t think anyone really realizes how big a change this is, whether it’s good or bad. There’s hardly any details with this new announcement.”

That is another issue here. The devil is in the details. Our ability to take a look at this and understand if it’s good policy or not…. Well, so much of it is actually being pushed out to regulation. Some of the really specific and important pieces are. So it’s hard for us to really be able to understand what’s good and what’s not good in this.

Two terms in government. You’ve heard us say this before, and we’ll happily say it again. It is the way it is. Of the 114,000 government-built homes that were promised by the NDP, only 15 percent have opened. It’s a shocking lack of results, and it doesn’t give us hope.

Now that this government is actually increasing the commitments it’s making on providing housing, and its failure in the past to even meet smaller targets…. How can this government determine that they’re going to now set larger targets? I guess we can look forward to larger targets not being met.

Whether you’re a renter, an owner, a senior or a young person, the price of housing is higher now than it has ever, ever been. Far too many British Columbians are struggling under the weight of steadily increasing costs of living. Because this government has failed on the ability to create the housing stock that British Columbians need, we are now looking at rent costs of over $3,000 a month in Vancouver. That’s for a one bedroom apartment.

When we were younger, we could get a few friends together and rent a place and share rent. It didn’t work so well in a one bedroom apartment.

A Surrey townhouse now…. So $300,000 in 2012. That same townhouse now costs $900,000. That is a shocking increase.

Government claims that this Bill 44 is going to help build 130,000 units over the last ten years. This side of the House remains very skeptical that that is actually going to be able to happen.

We’d also like to make sure that we look at the word “build.” When we’re talking about targets set by this government, the word “build” doesn’t necessarily seem to be what is reported out on. We’re not talking about a reclassification of existing units. This government should be committing to actually adding to housing stock and building new housing, rather than reclassifying existing housing.

Now, if you look at the CMHC housing corporation, it says that we need to build 610,000 additional housing units by 2030 in order to be able to restore affordable housing. This plan falls short of that. Now, I understood from earlier today, in question period, that the NDP government does not necessarily look at the statistics provided by the federal government, StatsCan. So CMHC numbers, perhaps, are also not important to them.

Bill 44 seeks to increase density, which, in theory, we certainly support. But again, the devils are in the details. There’s an utter lack of details in this legislation. Surely we can’t look at a one-size-fits-all approach. That’s what it feels like. Well, that’s what it is, if we start to look at this. We can’t abandon those smart development principles.

[11:30 a.m.]

Again, if you look at some communities…. You’re going to start to allow fourplexes to be built in areas where people can’t access transit and amenities. That doesn’t make any sense.

Nearly all the details are going to be implemented in a policy manual. It’s not going to be published until long after this legislation has actually been passed. So how can British Columbians know? How can the official opposition know? What does this bill really stand for, and what is the impact that this bill is actually going to have on communities?

This policy manual is going to include practical details like setbacks, height restrictions, parking, lot coverage. Those are fundamental to an amendment that’s dealing with zoning. You’re putting legislation forward that says: “We’re going to deal with zoning issues, but we’re not going to tell you what that’s going to be. You’re going to have to wait, and you’re going to have to find out what that’s going to mean to you and to your community.” Government has shown, time and time again, they’re not the right people to build housing and make life more affordable for British Columbians.

The Premier asserted, when he was speaking to the Broadbent Institute: “We’re not going to solve the housing crisis, the opioid crisis, the health care challenges. We’re not going to solve all of those issues in British Columbia between now and the next election.” This government has had seven years to deal with these issues, and they have been getting consecutively worse. So the reality is…. Yes, these issues are not going to be solved.

Why hasn’t more work been done, and why haven’t things even been getting incrementally better? They haven’t been getting incrementally better. They’ve been getting significantly worse.

Large portions don’t even come into effect until after the next election. Interim housing needs reports don’t need to be completed until after the next election, in December 2024. Official community plans don’t need to be re­designed until the end of December 2025, if those community plans are even going to be able to have input. We don’t know how the provincial zoning requirements are going to supersede whatever the community comes up with in their own OCP. It’s still not going to be ready to be considered until well after this legislation comes in.

What this legislation…. What we’re not seeing in here is…. It is failing to reduce the massive amount of taxes that are blocking new housing construction. It seems ironic now, after having had a few moments to peruse the legislation that we’ll be debating later — the tripling of development costs on new housing developments in Metro Vancouver. Even the federal government has said: “Wait a second. This is not the right way to create affordable housing.”

We’re going in the wrong direction when we push the costs down to the developers. They then, ultimately, get pushed on to the people who are the end units, whether they’re tenants, whether they’re owners. It’s the wrong way to go.

I believe, with the federal government…. We’re on side with that approach. It looks like the NDP government here in British Columbia is not on side with that approach.

This also takes away the ability for municipalities to even negotiate DCCs with developers. Again, I look forward to debating the next piece of legislation and exploring a bit more about how DCCs are going to be dealt with.

On this side of the House, we understand that additional housing costs are the exact opposite of what British Columbians need right now. The only way that we’re going to be able to make housing more affordable is less red tape. Make it less expensive to actually create that housing.

[11:35 a.m.]

What are we going to do as official opposition? We’re going to add supply. We’re going to do that through working with municipalities and through reducing red tape and through reducing the cost to actually create housing.

Now, people want to afford homes that are close to transit. So a real focus on transit-oriented communities is important. We need to look at smart density. We have to appreciate, and this government has to appreciate, that communities are different and communities have different needs. They have different infrastructure needs, and they have different needs for services.

Just in my own community on the North Shore — Vancouver, North Shore, West Vancouver, district of North Vancouver, city of North Vancouver — we have a significant traffic issue, a huge traffic issue. If you ask anybody on the North Shore, “What is the number one thing that you need us to deal with here on the North Shore that impacts your life on a daily basis?” it is transportation. We don’t have the transit infrastructure to be able to support the community.

We really need to be able to address that infrastructure piece before we add additional density. Adding density is important. We need to do it on pace with the addition of those other pieces that are missing in these communities. In the case of the North Shore, we can look at traffic as being a significant barrier to the issues that we have.

It is not unusual for any of you that have come off the ferry in West Vancouver, off the Horseshoe Bay ferry. You’re driving towards Vancouver, and you come to this point just before you turn down Taylor Way. There’s a sign that they’ve put up there. It’s computerized, so the numbers can change on it. It will say, “Lions Gate Bridge delay,” and then, underneath that, there will be a number based on the traffic flow at the time.

If I see that number as being ten minutes, I’m thinking: “Hallelujah, this is a good day. It’s only ten minutes.” This is to get onto the bridge. This isn’t to get over the bridge. This is just to get onto the bridge. It’s not actually unusual to be driving along and to see that sign say 60 minutes, and sometimes 90 minutes.

When you’ve got a community that has traffic that is coming from the ferries, that’s coming from increased density in Squamish and Whistler, this is serious. This has to be addressed at the same time that we’re addressing density. You can’t have one before you actually have the other in place.

This legislation is going to increase density to 142 units per acre, on average. That’s a significant increase for suburban areas that are going to need support and help in creating the infrastructure that’s going to be required.

Look at Surrey. Every day we hear in the news that we’ve got portables there. Portables aren’t going anywhere. In fact, we’re doubling up — double-decker portables now. There is a huge lack of capacity in the K-to-12 system in Surrey as it stands right now. So what is the Ministry of Education doing with the Ministry of Housing to ensure that capacity is being built out in that community that is going to support a sudden increase in density?

Again, if you’re not working with all those ministries around the Ministry of Housing that create that infrastructure, that support that infrastructure…. I’m not just talking about pipes and hydro. It’s all those other services — medical communities, UPCCs, hospitals. Has there been an understanding of where those capacity challenges are going to be and what health care facilities need to be constructed? How are we going to prioritize that?

If we are looking at the wording in this legislation, Bill 44, today, we are led to believe that we will have sprawl. We’re not going to be creating those transit-oriented, service-oriented communities that we all want to live in, or perhaps we don’t all want to live in them, but they are the healthy communities that as British Columbians, we should have access to. They make the most sense in order to address an affordability crisis.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m not seeing that in Bill 44. I’m seeing a push to treat all communities the same regardless of amenities. There is a hint of fractional increases in density within a certain distance of transit.

Still, four units on a single-family lot that’s a significant distance from transit hubs is a challenge. Maybe we need to do more in terms of moving that density, as opposed to blanket upzoning across the board.

Really looking at town centre planning…. We’ve heard so much about active transportation from this NDP government, but this seems to be abandoning a commitment to active transportation.

Electrical capacity parking. I’m sure all of us have heard from the mayors in our own communities about the concerns on who’s going to pay for this. How is it going to get done? So there is a role here for the province to be stepping up to the plate and working with B.C. Transit, long-term transit plans and where things are going.

On the North Shore, we need a fixed-link rapid transit. We need that. That would really go a long way to support the ability of those people on the North Shore to increase density.

We need those things to be done in concert with the increase in density. These can’t be…. You know, with this government, we’ve seen things introduced that didn’t consider the bigger picture, and that’s a concern.

I am going to give two examples of where that’s happened. When the rental restrictions were removed from pre-2010 apartment buildings and condo buildings, yes, there was a lot to be celebrated in terms of making it easier to rent.

But what we asked government, while we were debating this bill, was: “Are you worried that some of these are actually going to now convert to 55-plus buildings? And rather than gaining a number of rental units, you’re actually going to be reducing the number of rental units that are going to be available for anybody under 55 to be able to rent and anybody under 55 to even be able to buy in these buildings.”

The Minister of Housing at the time said: “No, no. It’s too difficult for them to go through this process.” But lo and behold, within six weeks of that legislation passing, the legislation that came out of nowhere in terms of people who were living in condominiums, almost 300 condominiums applied and became 55-plus.

Rather than increasing the number of available rental units, there has actually been a decrease in the number of rental units. So we have to keep these things in mind.

I’ve also seen just recently with the short-term rental legislation not considering the impact on people, not considering the impact of removing zoning, removing or imposing these restrictions on buildings that were actually built for the purpose of vacation rental….

Is the Speaker looking at me to wrap up?

Deputy Speaker: The time has passed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Noting the time, I will reserve….

Deputy Speaker: No, no. Your time. You’ve spoken….

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, my time. I guess I…. Okay, thank you.

There is so much more to talk about.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you, Member. Thank you.

R. Merrifield: I appreciate the comments from my colleague and critic on this file. I’ll hopefully add whatever is possible to do so in the short amount of time that I have.

As I’m reading this and as I’m listening to the intentions of this bill and what the NDP have stated as its purpose, I’m just not sure that the government realizes what they’re doing with this particular piece of legislation.

I think we can all agree that density is great. I mean, I’ve been a strong advocate of density over the course of my life. Having been in the industry for 25 years, I’ve advocated for density.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have built many a multifamily property in my life. And I started…. I lived in multifamily. They were a really significant spot in my life. I was very young when I graduated. My parents signed my first lease on my first apartment because I was too young to actually legally sign it. It was a condo that I rented. My next one was a townhouse that I shared with five other friends. I’ve lived in six-plexes with my husband, and I’ve lived in condos downtown in towers.

Density is amazing. Density is a positive place and space and way that we can achieve housing, but this isn’t a bill about density. This is a bill about creating housing chaos.

Having been a part of OCP construction…. When I say construction, the actual creation, I should say, of an OCP over the course of 13 municipalities, four provinces and over 25 years. I can tell this House that the amount of rigour that goes into an OCP planning process is extensive. It is public consultation spanning months and years. It is consultant work spanning years. It is an absolute, amazing process in which it takes a planning department and, really, all departments, transportation departments, infrastructure departments — all of those departments coming together to create this living, breathing document that then really informs housing over the course of the next years.

In Kelowna, our OCP was just approved last year. In that approval is actually a document that’s supposed to go to 2040. Now, obviously, it’ll go through iterations. It’ll be updated every decade or so. But these are huge documents that have a tremendous amount of thought put into them.

It’s gone. It’s gone with this. In fact, this bill actually requires the OCPs to be amended according to the housing needs assessments that they will all have to do. I have no idea how municipalities are going to achieve that. And to take some of the lowest density areas of our cities and suburbias and then transform them into these multifamily areas is a huge task.

Oftentimes those single-family areas, or the less dense areas, are put at the outskirts of cities because they are at the end of infrastructure. They are at the end of reservoir lines or water lines. They are farthest away from sewer lines. They are the farthest away from electricity supply. They’re also the hardest to serve as a community.

In fact, in the city of Kelowna, there was a huge uproar on the cost of infrastructure and this huge deficit that was growing — almost half a billion dollars that ballooned to over $1 billion. In that particular case, infrastructure cost was one of the biggest issues.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is actually talking about taking every single single-family home in those outskirts and putting them into fourplexes and possibly even six-plexes on some of the collector roads. That is quadrupling density in these areas.

These are areas that are already planned with complexity, planned with townhouse and with condominium housing. It’s all done with specific requirements for pipes, specific requirements for electricity, specific requirements for water flow calculations, for fire. This is going to have an incredible impact on what those costs are.

The minister sort of shrugged in the media, when the media asked him about that, and said: “Well, you know, I’m not going to use that as an excuse.” An excuse? Who is going to pay for that? The very first single-family house that decides to do a fourplex? They’re going to pay for that four-kilometre pipe to be upgraded? It’s impossible.

[11:50 a.m.]

I don’t understand how this bill will actually be implemented. And without any of the regulations, we don’t actually know. But I will say that most people dream of one day having a place of their own. It doesn’t have to be big. It doesn’t have to be grand, but it is their own.

I can also tell you there’s a premium on places with yards. It doesn’t have to be big, just enough for them to let their dog out in the morning without having to get dressed. Just enough for a little playground, a playset for their kids, maybe a little teeter-totter somewhere for their toddler. I just don’t want to accept that the dream might be dead, and that we’re going to tell a generation of our youth that they won’t actually be able to own.

I don’t underestimate the crisis at hand, a crisis where our own homes have become mirages for too many. And the question is not merely one of availability but of whether our children and grandchildren will be able to call British Columbia home, or if they’ll be priced out of their own history, their own communities.

This is not a failure of two decades; this is a failure of the last two terms. It’s time to call it as it is. After two terms, after seven protracted years, the NDP’s housing strategy is a mirage itself. Out of a grand 114,000 housing units that were promised, a mere 15 percent were built.

I remind this House that this government spent five years trying to quell demand. Increasing costs, labouring housing and new housing that was so desperately needed with more and more costs and fees. All the while, trying to quell this demand, immigration numbers soared, and less homes were built.

This NDP government failed in their attempts to build homes while making it more difficult and more expensive for the private sector to do so. They frustrated the process. They didn’t build enough or stimulate enough homes being built. This just isn’t underperformance; it’s a betrayal of the British Columbian dream to have housing.

This province isn’t just another line in a budget or a bullet point in a bill. It’s the heart and soul of our people: the renters, the homeowners, the elderly, the young professionals, all of whom are staggering under the weight of failed NDP policy that has resulted in a relentless and out-of-price housing market.

City of Vancouver: $3,000 a month for rent of a one-bedroom apartment — $3,000 a month. Over to Surrey, where townhomes have gone from $300,000 in 2012 to $900,000 today. Come to Kelowna. That similar townhouse is a mere $75,000 less. A bargain, I’d say.

This isn’t a trend. It’s the stark reality of a housing affordability crisis that has become the most dire in all of North America. We are the most expensive in all of Canada, and it’s all unfolded under this NDP’s watch.

With Bill 44, the government waves a new banner of 130,000 homes over the next decade, but those figures don’t even come close to meeting what the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corp. has exposed as a grave shortfall. We need 610,000 homes by 2030 to mend the fabric of affordability that’s been so brutally torn. The numbers don’t just fall short. They tell a tale of a profound disconnect with the needs of people.

Prices have soared. The NDP solution: housing targets sitting at a mere 75 percent of what’s truly needed. A figure that makes a mockery of the federal guidelines that we ought to meet.

We are hearing voices from industry and advocacy. They speak volumes. Robert Berry from the pro-density Homes for Living lambastes the NDP for their tepid targets, accusing them of political convenience over tangible solutions. From the realm of economic forecasts, Brendon Ogmundson, the B.C. Real Estate Association’s chief economist, cuts to the heart of the matter. Meeting these targets would still leave us miles from the shores of affordability.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate.

I move that we adjourn the debate.

R. Merrifield moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.