Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 24, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 255

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. Dean

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 39 — Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Rankin

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 44 — Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Bernier

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

T. Stone

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 44 — Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Rankin

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 44 — Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act

Question of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling)

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act

Bill 39 — Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 40 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act

Bill 44 — Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Tabling Documents

Gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual report 2021-22

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

M. Lee

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2022

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: I wish to take this moment to introduce and thank the staff who work

in my ministerial office: Joie Warnock, senior ministerial adviser; Eugene

Tseng, senior ministerial adviser; Patrick Meehan, ministerial adviser;

Claire Edmonds, executive assistant; Amanda Robb, administrative

coordinator; Hayley Hyndman, administrative assistant; and Mia Robb,

official greeter.

Would the House please join me in thanking and congratulating them by

a show of applause.

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. Dean: I rise to respond to a point of privilege raised this morning by the

member for West Vancouver–Capilano. The member used a point of privilege

regarding statements I made yesterday in question period. Yesterday in the

House I said, “There was a select standing committee of this very

Legislative Assembly that made the recommendation that we need to move

towards a needs-based system” for children and youth with support

needs.

In response to the member’s statement today, I have provided to the

Speaker a copy of the report, the Select Standing Committee on Children and

Youth’s 2019 report on Children and Youth with Neuro-Diverse Special

Needs . Page 21 of the report conclusions states: “Committee members

expressed support for re-examining the current diagnosis-based approach and

shifting to a needs-based model that identifies, acknowledges and addresses

the functional abilities of each child with neurodiverse needs, regardless

of clinical diagnosis.”

This conclusion is followed up by recommendation 6 on page 22 in the

report, which recommends that the provincial government “ensure services and

supports in the early years and within the school system are based on need

and functional ability, and provided prior to diagnosis.” For further

clarity, this recommendation No. 6 is also repeated in the

summary of

recommendations on page 31.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I’ll take it under advisement.

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to move a motion, and I am grateful to the opposition House

Leaders. We had some discussion on the motion, and it was able to be

scaled down.

With that, I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2):

1. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 39)

intituled Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022 be

disposed of by 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022.

a. If at 1:25 p.m., the bill is still being considered

at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question

to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or

debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a

formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice

Recommendation No. 1.

[1:05 p.m.]

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the

committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing

Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order

relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the

question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be

put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third

reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance

with Standing Order 16 (2).

2. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 36)

intituled Health Professions and Occupations Act be disposed of

by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022.

a. If at 4:40 p.m., the bill is still being considered

at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question

to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or

debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a

formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice

Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the

committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing

Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order

relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the

question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be

put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third

reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance

with Standing Order 16 (2).

3. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 37)

intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 be disposed of by

5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022.

a. If at 4:40 p.m., the bill is still being considered

at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question

to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or

debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a

formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice

Recommendation No. 1.

b. That, notwithstanding

section 3 (a), if at 4:40

p.m., the committee has not considered the amendment to the bill

standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Low Carbon Innovation, the amendment to clause 47 shall be deemed to

have passed, and clause 47, as amended, shall be deemed to have

passed.

c. Once the title of the bill has passed, the

committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

d. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing

Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order

relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the

question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be

put forthwith without amendment or debate.

e. If a division is called on the motion for third

reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance

with Standing Order 16 (2).

4. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 44)

intituled Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 be

disposed of by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022.

a. If at 4:55 p.m., the bill is still being considered

at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question

to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or

debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a

formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice

Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the

committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without

amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing

Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order

relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the

question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be

put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third

reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance

with Standing Order 16 (2).

And further, that, for greater certainty, a committee considering a

bill in

Section B may rise and report progress for the purpose of

receiving a report from

Section A or

Section C in accordance with this

order.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion, and I’m sure you all

understood.

Division has been called.

[1:10 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Alexis

Anderson

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Yao

NAYS — 28

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

de Jong

Doerkson

Falcon

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Orders of the Day

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

Procedure Amendment Act.

In

Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 38, Indigenous child

welfare act.

In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call Bill 36, committee stage, the

Health Professions Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:24 p.m.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: By necessity, I’ll go quickly. I see the minister signalling for

his staff. He’s not going to need them. He’s not going to have an

opportunity to answer any questions, because we’re not going to have an

opportunity to ask any questions.

I will only say this as, literally, the clock winds down on this

piece of legislation, which the opposition signalled support for. It’s

unfortunate that an important step like this would fall victim to a

procedural measure like this, because there were important questions —

illuminating questions.

[1:25 p.m.]

The member for Vancouver-Langara has been engaged in debate on

Bill 38. There are important issues that have arisen. He has posed

questions that are appropriately to be posed here as part of this

discussion. He won’t get that chance.

If I pose a question to the minister now about the types of

Indigenous governing bodies that this legislation will cover, if I ask

him questions about what the test for securing judicial review will be,

all questions that I think the minister would be in a position to answer

and that people would be interested to hear answers to…

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: …but he won’t get that chance. The Chair has just told me — by the

way, as the Chair is obliged to do, under the motion the government has

passed — that our time is up.

We have spent roughly one minute and 45 seconds on the bill.

That’s unfortunate.

The Chair: It being 1:25 p.m….

M. de Jong: I’m sorry?

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

order….

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

this debate.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House

earlier today, the committee will now proceed to a finalized

clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure

Amendment Act, 2022.

In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put

the question on all remaining clauses of the bill. Members, a

division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called. In

accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to

indicate passage on division.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on

division.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would like to now call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, the

Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:30 p.m.

On clause 1.

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

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I appreciate the opportunity you’ve allowed me to introduce

my team to the Legislative Assembly. I have with me, on my left, acting

associate deputy minister, Ministry of Housing, Teri Collins; on my

right, Doug Page, who is the director of policy and legislation for the

Ministry of Housing; and behind me, Bonnie Ruscheinski, who is the

acting ADM, Ministry of Housing.

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

staff.

I just want to note how excited I am to get up and speak to this

bill. By the minister just standing up and introducing his staff, he

actually had more time spent already, on this bill, than we just did on

the last bill that just saw closure in the House, where the minister

didn’t even have a chance to even stand up and answer a question. He, in

all fairness, didn’t even have time to introduce his staff who walked

into the Legislature to debate the last bill, due to this government

invoking closure and giving our critic, in that case, I think all about

a minute and a half to say hello to the House before he was shut

down.

I guess I will stay on this bill. At least I’m pleased to get more

than a minute and a half to be able to speak to this bill.

Now, look, this is an interesting piece of legislation. There are

parts of it that we’re going to be able to breeze right through and

right past. There are some of them dealing with two different acts here.

We have the Building Officials’ Association Act and the Strata Property

Act that are combined into Bill 44, into these amendments. There are

some important aspects of this bill that we’ll cover off when we get to

them, but there are also some real concerns that we want to

raise.

I know — at least, I assume; I don’t want to speak on behalf of

the minister — that his in-box is probably inundated just like mine is,

as the critic, as well as many members of this House who have been

hearing from their constituents, from every corner of the province, that

have questions and concerns around this bill. I know I will have a

little bit of time — again, unlike my colleague before me — where I can

actually, maybe, read in some of those questions and concerns and flaws,

I will even say, with this bill that we want to have addressed and give

the minister his due time to address some of those, to maybe alleviate

some of the concerns that I will raise.

Those are just my opening comments that I want to make on

section

1. It’s up to the minister whether he’ll respond.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s good to be back with the member as we debate yet another key

ingredient in our government’s efforts to address the housing crisis, a

characterization which my colleague across the way has also accepted as

valid at this point in British Columbia’s history.

We cannot afford to let units sit empty. There are thousands of

such units sitting empty today because of unfair rental restrictions,

while so many renters tell me that they’re struggling to find any kind

of accommodation. It’s our government’s view that rules that prevent

people from renting the unit that they own are no longer acceptable in

the housing crisis facing British Columbia.

[1:35 p.m.]

The second key aspect of the legislation being debated today,

clause by clause, is the age restrictions. It’s our view that rules that

prevent families with children from living in a home are no longer

acceptable in the current housing market. Families who choose to have

children should not be forced to leave their homes due to age

restrictions imposed in strata rules.

These amendments will open up more rental and home ownership

options for people at a time when they need it most. I know there are

other aspects of this bill that we’ll come to, but those would be the

main thrusts of this legislation. I would say that any units that can be

freed up in British Columbia at a time like this are measures that

should be taken, and that, of course, is the intent of this

bill.

J. Rustad: I recognize that I’ve just got a couple of things that I wanted to

canvass with the minister on this bill. I support what the minister is

trying to do in terms of increasing the ability for rental or ownership,

obviously, with the housing challenge that we’re facing. With the

minister’s indulgence, these questions are probably better put once we

get to sections 28 or 29, although I’m not sure if we’ll get there

today. So I’m hoping that the minister will perhaps allow me to ask some

general questions here at the beginning.

In particular, there is the issue that the minister has raised

around the age restrictions on renting or owning a strata that are to be

removed, as well as other restrictions in place around stratas. Many of

the people that have bought in stratas bought there for a specific

purpose, for a specific reason, such as whether it’s no pets or whether

it’s age — you know, seniors or whatever the case may be.

These people have invested significant resources in a property to

live under those conditions or the no-rental rule. They want to make

sure that the people that are there are vested into the place, vested

into the strata, and they’re worried that the security or otherwise may

change.

What I’m curious about is: has the minister considered using a

grandfathering clause for existing stratas so that there would be a way

for people to be able to preserve what they have bought into, the intent

of what they bought into, but still allow for the expansion of what the

minister is trying to do for new units that might be built?

Hon. M. Rankin: I welcome my colleague from Nechako Lakes to the debate. This

will, of course, come up later in this sequence, but I am happy to try

to answer the question he posed at this point.

[1:40 p.m.]

I can acknowledge that the member is correct in pointing out that

a strata is often the largest single investment that a person might

have, and concerns are warranted in every situation where there might be

an impact on them, in this case by a no-rental rule that has been

changed.

His question was: was there a thought given to what he called a

grandfather situation for existing stratas? I’d point out to the member

that there are a couple of situations already contemplated. For example,

if a person is in a building that turns into being a 55-plus building

and, let’s say, they’re 45, they would be grandfathered, to use the

expression the member used. That is already contemplated in that

situation.

But I think his question also was not simply about age

restrictions but about rental restrictions as well, if I understood

properly. To that effect, I’d point out to the member that since 2010,

rental bans of this kind are no longer allowed. There haven’t been any

major concerns since 2010. The impact of this proposed legislation,

therefore, is on those units that were constructed and operated before

2010. So it’s a narrower compass. I would point out that there doesn’t

appear to have been any significant concern, since 2010, with those

units when the rule was changed to allow that rental to

occur.

J. Rustad: I really appreciate the minister’s latitude in terms of being able

to ask this question. There’s just one other question sort of linked to

it. I’m wondering. In some of these situations where there could be

changes to the strata rules — people had purchased based on the rules

that were in place — some people may actually be looking for

compensation, because there may be an impact to their homes, to the

value of their homes, their ability to live in a location that suits

what they were looking for.

Is the minister contemplating, through this legislation or other

things, the ability or the potential concern, whether it’s a class

action suit or whether there’s an opportunity for compensation or

discussion with homeowners that are going to be impacted in terms of

shifts in policy?

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

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: In a sense…. In answer to the question the member posed, this is

not, in our view, creating restrictions. It’s actually permitting

additional activity. What I mean by that is now people who would not

have been able to rent will be able to rent. In a sense, one is creating

more opportunities. So we don’t think that’s likely to trigger the kind

of response the member is anticipating. We could be wrong, but that is

how we characterize the change.

Secondly, if a person bought in, say, an adult-only building

because they didn’t want children nearby, some would characterize that,

I think properly, as age discrimination. I can point out to the member,

as well, that across Canada, most provinces have never allowed stratas

to enact age restrictions. The two exceptions being Alberta, like us,

with 55 plus being permitted. Ontario uses 65 plus for that

purpose.

Removing restrictions like these is part of the province’s action

rental market.

J. Rustad: I just wanted to thank the minister for the latitude to be able to

ask these questions up front. I look forward to the rest of the debate,

where I may also participate.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: Not so much a question on clause 2. I just want to get on the

record in acknowledgment, because there are some similarities,

obviously….

We are changing two acts here, the building officials act and the

Strata Property Act. There are some similarities between the two in

wording, and I don’t want to be redundant, in the two different acts,

asking the same questions. So I just wanted to put on the record the

acknowledgment. I’ll ask some questions, maybe, when we get to the

strata act that will also pertain back to the clause 2 that we have here

in front of us.

Mostly what I’m alluding to is the ability to start having

electronic means — Zoom, etc. — between the two different acts that are

going to be changed. So just acknowledging…. Again, it’s up to the

minister how he chooses to respond. But I just wanted to say that I’m

recognizing that we do have similarities between the two, so instead of

asking him twice, I’ll just wait until we get to it again.

The Chair: Did the minister wish to respond?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will appreciate that, given the interests of time

management and preservation…. If the question is: are they the same?

Their intent is the same. I haven’t been able, in the time available —

nor do I want to take the member’s time — to compare them, but the

objective is identical.

Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

[1:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We’re now in clause 9. We’re actually in the

section of the bill

that’s talking about the Strata Property Act. I’m going to have a few

more questions, obviously, when we get to a few more sections in this

portion of the bill. But specifically here in clause 9, it is talking

about, again, electronic means — really, in some ways, electronic strata

meetings requiring access information, notice of meetings. I understand

the process of that. I’ve been in stratas before and

understand.

Can the minister maybe just remind this House. Obviously, we’re in

a new era, trying to allow for flexibility — no different than we have,

in this Legislature, allowed flexibility for attending meetings and

voting. In fact, we just held a vote a few moments ago and watched one

of the NDP ministers who was fortunate enough to be driving her car,

wherever she was, being able to vote. So we obviously have allowed

extreme flexibility in the Legislature, as well, when it comes to the

ability to attend meetings and partake in votes.

I’m just curious. On

section 9, if the minister could just give a

quick — it doesn’t have to be quick; his choice —

summary on the intent

in this clause, who was asking for it and how we see this working, going

forward.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member giving us the opportunity to put on the

record the intent. As the member will know, this ability to have strata

corporations hold electronic strata meetings without a strata bylaw was

something that was put in as a temporary measure during COVID-19.

However, the regulations permitting that come to a close, by statute, on

December 31 of this year. It was our judgment that that has worked well

and that it ought to be continued.

Many strata corporations have enjoyed the ability and now will

have the ability, if this enactment passes, to provide notice to owners

of strata units that electronic attendance will be allowed at annual or

special general meetings and to provide, in that notice, information as

to how to attend. For example, there’ll be a Zoom link or a number to

telephone into.

The amendment also requires the corporation to provide basic

information about the date, time and place of the meeting if there’s a

physical location for in-person participants. In other words, it

contemplates that it could be either or both. It could be in person, or

it could be on Zoom or the like or together in a hybrid

setting.

M. Bernier: I’m taking by the wording…. We know that we’ve put in here what

information must be included. We always look at the words “must” and

“may.” They’re the two words that get used over and over again when

legislation is being crafted. It “must include the following,” and the

minister just spoke to some of those. The “may” in the minister’s

commentary, or what I’m thinking, going forward — is it

still…?

I assume that I know the answer, but I want the minister to be

able to put it on the record. Is it still a voluntary decision of a

board that if they choose to do a meeting and allow for electronic

means, this is the “must” that they must put forward? But will it still

be up to the individual stratas on whether or not they choose to do

this?

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

M. Bernier: A question arises from that, then. If I am a strata owner, how

does the minister see this playing out? I know he understands stratas as

well. A strata decides they’re holding an AGM. In this case, that’s what

we’re talking about. They say, “No, we’re not going to do electronic

means,” and there are people in the strata that do want electronic

means. What recourse do they have?

This is now still putting it back on the strata. There’s no

mandate that government is saying that they have to allow it. So now it

still turns into a situation where it will be — I don’t want to use the

word “argument” — a discussion between strata owners and the strata

board. Is that accurate?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I was just reminded, and I think it’s worthwhile pointing out,

that the

section we’re dealing with addresses what happens at annual

meetings or special meetings. It doesn’t address, in fact, the regular

council meetings that a council would normally have in the course of the

governance of that strata corporation.

If there were a decision to go one way or the other or to entrench

either an in-person requirement or, I’ll call it, a Zoom requirement or

some hybrid thereof, that would be a bylaw amendment, and that could be

done with the usual three-quarter vote at the annual meeting.

M. Bernier: I don’t want to belabour it. I realize we’re talking about the

AGMs and then…. It’s just all the different nuances. As the minister

knows, when we’re dealing with stratas, they can be almost more

political than we are here in this room sometimes. So we want to make

sure that it’s laid out in a situation where everybody understands the

rules of engagement, so to speak.

But the way this is worded, the way we’ve substituted…. We’ve

repealed the section, and we’ve substituted with the wording we have

here. I just want to make sure that we’ve canvassed this point, because

in 3(a), it talks about…. The descriptions will be voted on,

resolutions. We talk about what it has to include, but we talk about

that it must include the proposed wording of any resolution to be voted

on, if I’m reading that correctly. In other words, giving notice of the

agenda. That’s the way I would read that.

If I’m reading that correctly, my question to the minister would

be: what happens and what arises at an AGM, then, if…? I’ll just give an

example here. A notice is given of the description of all the matters to

be discussed at the AGM. People show up at the AGM, and through the

discussion at the AGM, other matters arise that will require a vote, but

that was not actually on the original description of the matters to be

discussed at the AGM.

Is it now out of order? Do they have to amend the AGM information

that was shared? I hope the minister understands where I’m going with

this, because that does happen on a regular occurrence. I know, when you

get to an AGM…. “Here’s your agenda.” You pass the agenda, but sometimes

things will happen, and new information will be shared, and people want

to vote on something different at the AGM.

The way this is worded in this new amendment added in here, will

they be forbidden to…? Or could it be challenged? I guess that would be

the right way of looking at it Could it be challenged by a strata owner

if something came up and was voted on that wasn’t on the agenda

originally because the notice wasn’t given?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I know the member is concerned about time, so I would start by

pointing out that this

section has not changed from the previous

section. What you’re asking is about the status quo of strata

corporations. I’m happy to provide my best answer.

Notice has to be given for those matters requiring a three-quarter

vote or 80 percent or a unanimous vote, for obvious reasons. A member

may choose not to come, seeing nothing of any particular importance — I

think that’s where the member was going — and not have notice of that.

That would be something that could easily be attacked in a judicial

review, or a court would certainly have something to say about

that.

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On clause 12.

M. Bernier: On clause 12 here…. I’ll just acknowledge that we went past a

couple of sections because we’ve already covered off some of the answers

through the commentary that we’ve had earlier, again, around electronic

meetings, etc. But on clause 12, I’m looking for the explanation on

this, the intent and the rationale for government to be repealing this

section.

This section,

section 12, is repealing the requirement to disclose

the number of rental units in a strata to any owner or purchaser.

Presently, if somebody is looking at purchasing…. We’ll use whatever the

strata property might be. Let’s say it’s a condominium complex. Right

now, there’s a requirement or at least an expectation that the person

can…. It’ll be disclosed to them if there are rentals allowed in that

building, and if so, how many presently are rented, because some of

those are decision-making pieces that people have when they’re looking

at making an investment or a purchase for a strata property.

This

section is repealing that. Can the minister just explain what

their intent was and why they’re repealing a piece of legislation that

actually gives information to a purchaser of a strata that they may, in

essence, want to have before they make their decision?

Hon. M. Rankin: As we found in our debate on the earlier bill on housing supply,

there’s sometimes back and forth between sections. This is a

consequential amendment to clause 17 changes that remove the requirement

for owner-developers to file what’s called a rental disclosure

statement, because we’ve removed the ability of stratas to have rental

restriction bylaws through this legislation. The significance is that

this removes the requirement for the strata corporation to include the

number of strata lots in the strata plan that are rented.

There are a couple of reasons why that’s been done, to answer the

member’s question. The first is that partners have advised us that this

particular requirement is currently not functioning as intended, and the

information that stratas provide is not considered to be reliable.

Strata corporations rely on owners and landlords to disclose rental

information and are therefore unable to verify whether the numbers are

accurate.

[2:05 p.m.]

That’s the first practical reason. People have told us that it

really doesn’t work. And because clause 18, coming up in the bill, will

remove the ability of corporations to have these rental restriction

bylaws, owners and buyers no longer need to wonder whether the strata

corporation has already reached the maximum allowable number of rental

units, because rental restrictions are being removed. Those are the

practical reasons for this section.

M. Bernier: Hopefully, the minister can appreciate…. He doesn’t draft these

bills. I always find it funny, because we’re going to be asked to pass a

section that is consequential to something that we may or may not pass

later on in the bill. So it’ll be very interesting. Just the timing of

it, I think the minister has to appreciate, is interesting. Let’s just

say we try to pass this

section — it makes sense — but then sections 17

and 18, for whatever reason, don’t pass. What happens then?

Now, obviously I understand the intent of government, and they’re

going to pass all this anyway, regardless of any commentary, I’m sure,

that I bring forward when we get to

section 17 or 18. I do want to

just…. I think it’s important to highlight that many, many stratas right

now actually have it within their bylaws, I’m told, and I know that if

they do allow rentals, it needs to be disclosed to the strata council so

that they have an idea….

Some stratas actually have restrictions of how many rental units

are allowed right now. I’ll make a number up: there’s a strata with 100

strata units in a complex, and the stratas have voted in the past to say

no more than 10 percent are rentals. But those have to be disclosed to

the strata council, in order for them to have an accurate count, to

ensure they’re following their own strata bylaws — which is why that

information is collected and reported.

As a purchaser of a possible strata, that information is then

garnered, gathered and can be asked for through the realtor and even

through a legal process. I know of situations, even, where legal counsel

has required that information in order to give it to a lending body

before approval be given for a mortgage, for instance — wanting to know

what kind of property that they’re moving into.

I understand what the minister is saying — that they’re removing

this in order to match what may or may not be passed in a few moments in

other sections. But does the minister not agree with me that regardless

of that, it’s still an important piece that should be available to the

public that chooses to move into a strata?

By that, I mean, even when we get into 17 and 18, as the minister

mentioned, where it talks about some of the changes that government is

looking at repealing, on reporting, does the minister not agree with me

and, maybe, with many strata owners or possible strata purchasers that —

regardless of what may pass today, and that this government pushes

through, on the requirement for rental allowability — it’s still a piece

of information that would be important for somebody to have before they

make a purchase decision?

The minister, under his own commentary in the past, and the new

Premier have said, as well as many people in this House, that if people

are fortunate enough to purchase a place, it is the largest investment

in their life. Before people do that, most people would want to know

what they’re getting themselves into, and the more information they

could have would benefit them in that decision of whether they’re going

to purchase this strata, that strata or a single-family detached home.

Who knows?

I’m just curious if the minister agrees, regardless of what

they’re going to pass today in this House, that that information is

still important when somebody is making a purchase decision.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: As I said earlier, this was a

section that the member is referring

to that was the product of a lot of consultation. I’m advised that the

strata owners association, essentially the trade organization for

British Columbia’s strata properties, was anxious to get rid of this

section because, as I said in my earlier remarks, it never seemed to be

accurate, in any event. So it didn’t seem to add value.

I can advise the member that it may well be that a strata

corporation, when a new person wishes to own or to rent, would be able

to ask that question and find out, but it’s probably no more reliable

than these disclosure statements have ended up being over

time.

A. Olsen: Quickly, if the information could be accurate, if there could be a

mechanism that’s put in place to get the information accurately

recorded, wouldn’t this be information that’s valuable to government,

just in terms of the overall success or evaluation of this program, the

overall makeup of units of housing and homes in stratas — how many are

being lived in by owners, how many are being lived in by

rentals?

From a data perspective, it seems to me that rather than removing

this from the legislation, enhancing it and making it a requirement

might actually be able to inform future decisions that the minister and

the Premier may want to make with respect to housing.

Hon. M. Rankin: I welcome the member for Saanich North and the Islands, House

Leader of the Third Party, to the debate.

The answer is I think that this particular provision was about

information to an owner, not to government. It was ensuring that the

owner could know how much rental was in a particular unit in a

particular strata and the like. There was never a reporting requirement

for the strata corporation to make information available of that sort —

how many renters, how many not — to the government. That was never (

a) intended by this or (

b) seen as an additional burden that one wanted to

impose on strata corporations.

I take the member’s point that that information, in terms of

assessing how this legislation is working, and so forth, could be

valuable — but also to say that Stats Canada, through census data, is

already providing that to the provincial government. So we have some

pretty good idea, I’m advised, as to the number of renters in various

units.

Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. Bernier: This is actually an interesting

section here that I think most

people could support on face value. I know there are some concerns that

I just want to acknowledge.

[2:15 p.m.]

This

section here,

section 15, for those watching at home, is

requiring that pet owners are not required to lose their pets or leave

the premises if a bylaw is passed by the strata to change the rules

within that strata around dogs or guide dogs. The

definitions there are

added into this bill.

Can the minister, just for the record, then…? The way I’m reading

this, whether it’s a dog or a guide dog and the intent to assist the

owners, it looks like the ability is basically grandfathering, in

essence. I believe that’s why this is put in here. So if a strata two

years from now changes the rules saying pets are no longer allowed,

anybody presently living in that strata is grandfathered until they are

no longer part of that strata.

I think I understand that, but if the minister can speak to that a

little bit and then maybe explain why this was brought forward.

Obviously, there have been some challenges, maybe, at the residential

tenancy branch or something that he could talk about.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member has it exactly right. It’s to clarify a

loophole. The purpose of this is to address a loophole that the member

talked about. I asked for an example to be provided, and I hesitate to

read it because it’s very complicated. I’ll go anyway.

Say that a strata passed a bylaw in 2010 to prohibit dogs, and

then in 2015, they repealed and replaced that bylaw to say no dogs and

no cats. Person A has a dog prior to 2010 and should be able to benefit

from this legacy provision, but person B gets a dog between 2010 and

2015 and could potentially try to argue that they got a dog before the

2015 bylaw was passed. This amendment will close that potential loophole

when a bylaw is repealed and replaced.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

T. Stone: Clause 16 that we’re talking about here is actually an important

clause. It’s one of the pieces of this legislation that I would say is

something that’s really important for a lot of people right now because

16 is talking about our age restrictions and the age restrictions that

are in place right now in some areas.

This

section actually is going to limit age restrictions to

stratas. You know, if there’s a strata…. It talks about it very

specifically in here. Maybe I’ll just put it on the record. A strata

corporation “must not pass a bylaw that restricts the age of persons who

may reside in a strata lot except as permitted by subsection (2).” Then

in (2): “The strata corporation may pass a bylaw that requires one or

more persons residing in a strata lot to have reached a specified age

that is not less than 55 years.”

The minister not too long ago, in a previous question and answer,

referenced the age restrictions and mentioned how the province of

British Columbia still has the ability for 55 plus. I know when we get

to other sections, we’re going to be talking about rentals; this one

here is just talking about age restrictions.

I think this one here is really important, because there are

numerous existing strata facilities in the province of British Columbia

that have strata bylaws that say that you have to be 55 plus. There

would be huge angst if this government was looking at getting rid of a

55-plus bylaw within a strata.

It has raised some questions, but it also raises some very valid

points. I want to go on the record and say that we’ve been hearing from

a lot of people that this is an important piece to ensure that we

continue to have the ability for stratas to make that decision if they

choose to be a 55-plus strata complex. We’ll get into the discussion

about rental and non-rental in a moment, but I’m talking about just the

age within that complex. That’s very important, not only, obviously, for

government but for opposition as well. We support that. We think this is

integral in our society right now to allow stratas the ability to make

that decision.

[2:20 p.m.]

One of the questions I have, maybe first, on this section, though,

especially around the 55 plus and some of these age restriction changes,

is: will stratas themselves now have to go back and hold special

meetings? Will they have to wait till the next AGM? What’s the process,

which is incumbent on a strata, after this change comes in if they

actually have age restrictions within their existing bylaws?

I’ll use the example of, let’s say, the 19 plus. That’s probably

better to use as an example, rather than the 55 plus. If they have that

wording, does it automatically, with the passage of this bill, come into

effect, or does it just say that a strata now must have a meeting to

change their bylaws, to come into effect, to represent the new

legislation within the Strata Act?

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

best to see if I’ve done so.

If there is an existing bylaw that would offend the section, that

bylaw would be invalidated. No future bylaw can be passed that would

restrict age, except, of course, the exception for where…. Let’s say

three-quarters of the people vote to go from it being a particular kind

of strata to one where only 55 years and over could reside. They could

make such a bylaw, because this, of course, exempts that from the

current bylaw.

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

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

wants.

The question was: when this comes into force, does it

automatically…? I guess strata councils’ bylaws will now become null and

void. They don’t have to have the expense and the time to hold an

extraordinary meeting to change the wording in their bylaws. It will

automatically be null and void anyway.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would agree with what the member just said. I would say, just to

reiterate…. If it happens that that strata corporation’s members wanted

to become, for the first time, a 55-plus strata corporation, they could

do so by a bylaw. That would be a bylaw passed. A special resolution

would be required, three-quarters plus.

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

point.

We talk sometimes about unintended consequences that come from

legislation and changes in law. I’ve been hearing from some stratas that

have brought up the exact example the minister has just said. That’s

about changing their bylaws to 55 plus, which will be counterproductive

to, I think, the intent of what government is trying to do

here.

I think what’s really important is…. Not to put words in the

minister’s mouth, but one of the challenges that we’re having right now,

when we’re talking about age restrictions….

We’ve got two different pieces here that we want to talk about.

The 55 plus is one piece, and that’s the strata rules of what they want

to allow within that facility. There is the other one because of that,

the intent in clause 16 here, 123(1.1), where it’s removing restrictions

of age for persons that can reside.

[2:25 p.m.]

That one is not talking about 55. What that one is talking about

is…. To give an example, you have a young couple that’s living in a

condo in downtown Victoria. They decide that they want to start a

family. Now, all of a sudden…. They’re really excited to announce that

they’ve got a young little Johnny or Jane on the way. Under the strata

rules, they have to move out because there’s an age restriction of

nobody under the age of 19.

That, there, is something, obviously, that is very important to so

many people, especially when we look at the challenges right now, I’ll

say, for our younger generation to get into affordable housing units.

Maybe a strata condo is their first start, or maybe that’s what they

want for their entire life. That’s their choice, but they’re restricted

because of those rules.

I completely understand the rationale of the ministry and

government wanting to remove that portion of the age restriction. That

is completely supported by, I think, this side of the House as well. We

are hearing the same thing — that this is really an important piece of

this legislation. The last thing we want to hear is that people are

having to make different life choices because they have no choice. If

they choose to start a family, now they can’t afford to stay where they

are.

I know there are many out there that might have a complex that has

age restrictions right now that might be troubled by this, and we might

hear from a few of them. I have. I’m sure the minister has. But I think

it’s important to acknowledge that, as we’re moving forward, this is an

important piece that needs to be considered.

All that being said, it brings me back to my point to the minister

about unintended consequences. It was brought up twice, the issue

about…. They could make a bylaw of 55 plus.

I have already received numerous emails from strata councils that

say: “If this passes, we are going to enact a bylaw that says, going

forward, as of tomorrow, we are restricting, now, our complex to 55

plus.” But they’ll consider putting in a grandfathering clause for

anybody under 55, to allow them. Good for them. The unintended

consequence here is that we could actually see more and more strata

complexes or units within the province of British Columbia moving to 55

plus, which, in essence, removes the opportunity for young people to get

in. Albeit, some have said: “Don’t worry. We’ll do a grandfathering

clause.”

I had one example. They said it was a small 20-unit complex. It

has an age restriction of 19 plus, and everybody in there right now is

19 plus. The example they gave me was…. There are three families that

are under the age of 55, but the majority of them are in there. They’ve

lived there for 20 years plus. They’re all over the age of 55, but their

bylaw doesn’t say 55 plus. So now they’re saying that if this passes,

they’ll change it. So as soon as those younger people move out, no young

person can now buy and move in. Those are the unintended

consequences.

I’m curious. I don’t see anything in the bill that avoids that —

actually, the opposite. The minister just said on the record twice that

with a three-quarter or two-thirds, whatever it was, the words that he

said, vote…. To the example I just made — 20 people in the unit. There

are only three under the age of 55. Guess what. They’ll lose out on the

vote, and they’re hooped.

What does the minister say to those people about the unintended

consequences, which actually could remove properties for our young

people who are trying to get into the system?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member and I have talked at length about the law of unintended

consequences. In our judgment, that is not likely to be a significant

one in this circumstance. The ability, I’ve repeated, to do so is

certainly there, but it requires a supermajority. Three-quarters plus of

the members would have to take that step.

Again, we don’t have…. The member is speculating. I don’t want to

speculate. Our best analysis internally is…. We’re not expecting these

changes, which the member fears, on a large scale. It would be such a

major step for owners of a strata corporation that limits ages to then

become a 55-plus community.

[2:30 p.m.]

Again, it would require this supermajority to pass a new or

amended bylaw. That is, in itself, likely to be a significant constraint

in the real world. Trying to get three-quarters plus of members to agree

on anything is, obviously, very difficult in the real world.

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

materialize to a significant degree.

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

restrictions….

Certainly, one of the more devastating impacts of having age

restrictions in buildings is exactly as the member for Peace River South

just mentioned. That is that people who want to start a family are not

able to start a family in a place that they own. That really is…. Well,

it’s sad and not something that we should support.

I’ve heard some of the same comments made — that this is something

that people would consider in a strata. I’m wondering if the minister

has any thoughts or any initiatives, going forward, that are going to

measure and report if that, in fact, indeed, is happening.

Part of this is…. It’s fine for us in here, as we’re making this

change, to say: the supermajority is difficult to achieve; it’s unlikely

to achieve. What are we doing to ensure that we are understanding the

impacts that these decisions, which we’re having, are going to have and

that those unintended consequences, which were outlined, are not,

indeed, occurring and actually making it more of a challenging place for

young families to live?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to start by saying to my colleague and friend from Saanich

North and the Islands…. Thank you for your apparent support for the

notion that people who own condos and want to have children should be

allowed to do that in the property that they own. I think that is

something with which, I gather, everyone in this place

agrees.

The answer is no. We haven’t thought of collecting that data. It

might be a good idea. I take it under advisement. We do have census

data, as was said — that’s more at the macro level, I concede — that

will allow us to see whether this happens. We’ll certainly get anecdotal

stories of the kind that have already been recounted by the member for

Peace River South.

If this does become an unintended consequence, then, of course,

we’ll have the ability to address it.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to say…. I remember when I first got elected in

Central Saanich in 2008. I would bring my son with me to committee

meetings because I didn’t have child care.

When I first brought Silas in, he was one. The assumption was that

he was going to be total destruction in that meeting, that he was going

to disrupt everything, that these chambers — it was the council chambers

at the time, or it was down at the CRD or at the Greater Victoria Public

Library — weren’t built for kids. They’re not built as a welcoming

environment for children to be in.

It took a while. In fact, I had to convince a couple of the chairs

of committees that I was on to allow Silas into the room with me. I let

them know: “We’ll leave if he becomes disruptive.” But what I saw at

that table when Silas was in the room was dramatically different than

when Silas was not in the room.

We’ve started to allow so-called strangers into this chamber,

people who…. Anybody who is not an elected member of this place is, I

think, identified as a stranger. What happens when the children come in

here is a remarkable feeling. It reminds us of who we’re making

decisions for, not just for now but for the long term.

I stand to raise this point to add emphasis to the measurements

and reporting aspects of this as being necessary so that, then, we can

start to build and have that data and have that information about the

consequences, positive and negative — the word “consequences” — and the

outcomes of the decisions that we’re making here and to ensure that we

are achieving what is expressed as the intent of this bill and that

we’re achieving those things.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the point. I appreciate the story, for emphasis. As I

say, it’s a matter that is well worth taking under

advisement.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We talked about the importance of this. The member for Saanich

North and the Islands highlighted that as well — why this

section needs

to be considered, why it’s in here.

I would argue the majority of people — not all, maybe — who have

already made purchase decisions on their condominiums or strata units….

The majority of people, I think, understand, in today’s society, that

this is something that’s important and that we need to address and deal

with.

I do, though, have to say that there’s always suspicion, when

governments are making these decisions, how they pick either winners or

losers or why their rules will apply to some and not to others, a case

in point being that the Minister of Agriculture had no problem bringing

forward regulation that forbids farm families from allowing their

families to stay on the farm, for the next generation to stay and

purchase a small piece of the corner

section of the large farm in my

riding.

We got the young couple that gets married, that wants to have a

young child and wants to stay on the farm so they can be the next

generation to take over and be farmers, but they’re told by this

government: “Sorry. You have to move off the farm because now you’ve

decided to have a family, and you can’t get a loan, you can’t get a

mortgage, you can’t buy a small piece.”

To put it in context again…. I’m trying not to digress, but I just

want to make a point to the fact and highlight for the government that

if they’re going to do it here, I really hope and think they should be

going back to the cabinet table and thinking about the unintended

consequences from previous bills that have negatively affected young

families, and people who want to start families, and forced them out of

their house. That’s what this government did with the regulations and

legislation that they put forward restricting people from being allowed

to stay on the farm that they grew up on, and being forced to move into

town.

That in itself, for agriculture in small areas, is very troubling.

I raise that as something this government needs to relook at, because if

they’re doing it here, and if they’re truly trying to help the next

generation, then they should be helping everybody who’s trying to find

the next opportunities that they can to move forward in their lives as

they choose.

Now, in saying that, though, what…? I know in the previous

legislation, we talked about sticks and carrots. What enforcement, I

guess, is there at the ability of the minister or this government if a

strata refuses to follow through with this?

The minister has said that they don’t have to change their bylaws,

that it’ll automatically become null and void. But if we’re a downtown

Vancouver condominium complex, which the Chair would know quite well,

because I’m sure a majority of his riding is strata…. A majority of a

lot of the people who live in downtown Vancouver, I would argue, is

probably strata, rental or purchase regardless, right? There’s a lot of

rental, understandably.

If the strata rules right now — the minister knows where I’m going

with this — say that they forbid anybody unless they’re 19 plus, they’re

now going to be forced to follow this new legislation, what if they

don’t? What mechanisms are there? If nobody in the strata is

complaining, how would the government even know if they’re following

this new legislation or not?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer to the member’s question is that the bylaw, if

unenforceable, would be something that could be taken to the CRT, the

civil resolution tribunal, which deals with disputes between owners and

the strata corporation. I would also say, parenthetically, that if there

was a corporation that was consistently disobeying the law, then there

would probably be market consequences for those who wish to sell or buy

in that corporation.

J. Rustad: Part of this is my lack of understanding of stratas and how

stratas are structured, but I have just one question around

this.

This wouldn’t necessarily be something that every strata would

consider, but if a strata decided that they didn’t want to be under

these rules, could they not just become a private corporation, that each

member, each person who owns a home, would own a share of the company,

and the company runs it and can do what they want with the building and,

therefore, be outside of the rules of what’s being intended

here?

The reason for asking that is there may be some stratas of small

or varying sizes that may decide that’s a route that they want to go

down so that they would not fall under the rules that are being laid out

here under this bill. I’m just wondering if that would be a scenario

that could potentially happen.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Necha­ko Lakes for the question,

essentially asking if one could end-run the Strata Property Act in order

to achieve this goal.

I think the answer is probably technically yes, but the difficulty

in doing so would be formidable. It’s a form of land tenure, and to wind

it up and dissolve the corporation and start again would be

extraordinarily expensive. Lawyers would be very happy with such a

choice. It may not be effective. I guess it technically could be done,

but it sounds a lot like a sledgehammer-for-an-ant kind of scenario. But

I think the member has asked a hypothetical that may well be

accurate.

At that point, I wonder if I could ask and make a formal motion,

Mr. Chair, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT

IN CHILD AND

FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services

Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

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

Act.

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

act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — BUILDING AND STRATA

STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On clause 16 (continued) .

The Chair: Shall clause 16 pass?

Division has been called on clause 16.

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

Clause 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 73

Alexis

Anderson

Ashton

Bains

Banman

Beare

Begg

Bernier

Bond

Brar

Chant

Chow

Clovechok

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Davies

de Jong

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Doerkson

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Falcon

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Halford

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Leonard

Letnick

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Ross

Routledge

Rustad

Sharma

Shypitka

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Walker

Wat

Yao

NAYS — 1

Routley

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order, please.

We’ll just take a short recess while those that need to get

somewhere else can get to that somewhere else. This committee is in

a short recess.

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: Clause 17 is: “Sections 139 and 140 are repealed.” The minister

referenced these earlier when we were talking about other parts of the

act, the legislation, that are being changed and how they all reference

back and forth to each other. When I’m researching this, too, the pieces

that are being repealed were measures that were brought in, in 2009, to

enable buildings built after 2010 to lift rental

restrictions.

What happens to the rental disclosure statements that are out

there right now? We talked about the statements that are already…. Under

this section, rental disclosure statements were filed, and information

was gathered. What happens to that information now, once this gets

passed?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer is that the records that exist would be held in

the office of the superintendent of real estate. They would, of course,

be of limited current utility. However, they may have archival benefit

and could be put into the archives.

M. Bernier: With that answer, I’m just curious: it could be, or it would be?

There could be, again, unintended consequences. Would the concept or the

thought process be that it would be archived, that this information

should be and will be kept, or is there a possibility that they would

decide that this information that’s gathered and that they have is no

longer needed, and that the information could be destroyed?

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

that retention.

One of the hesitations in giving as accurate an answer as we can

is that the superintendent of real estate is essentially an arm’s-length

actor reporting to the financial services commission — again at arm’s

length to government, to some degree. The question, for which I don’t

have an immediate answer for the member, is whether the records

retention

schedule under the Document Disposal Act applies to such an

arm’s-length body. I simply don’t know the answer to that.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. That’s a fair answer. The reason why I raise

it, though, is…. Again, the measures were introduced in 2009 to enable

all buildings built after 2010 to lift rental restrictions. We’ve talked

about that.

The problem is that when you look at some of the documentation

after 2009-10, a lot of the disclosure statements talked about 99-year

terms. This is not a case where the Financial Services Authority, in

that organization, is now the overarching body. You would assume that

they would have kept it for 99 years, because right on the disclosure

statements there are rental guidelines, guarantees, a lot of things that

are built in with the official documentation that was filed around a

99-year….

The reason why I ask if it will be held or destroyed…. The

minister, in all fairness, doesn’t have an immediate answer, so he

hopefully would take it under advisement, consideration to bring

forward. What if, 15, 20 years from now, legislation changes to restrict

rentals again? We find that it’s not working, for whatever reason, and

all of a sudden, that comes in.

What would happen to those rental disclosure statements? They were

for 99 years. If they’re destroyed, how does that…? I’m just trying to

understand how that might all work, because they might…. Now, all of a

sudden, if the rules change again, are they back in play, and are they

valid with the same documentation and guarantees and information that

was collected upon the original transaction?

Hon. M. Rankin: Given that the member’s question does not pertain to the sections

under the act, I will take it under advisement. The member will know I

have staff here who have made a note of his question.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

M. Bernier: I’m going to spend a little bit of time on clause 18. The rest of

the clauses really are just changing a few little words here and there.

But this specific clause, clause 18, is repealing

section 141 under the

Strata Act. Now, this is the one that I think that a lot of us are

receiving a lot of emails on, concern about on. I’m going to spend a few

moments, at different times through this exchange, reading into the

record some emails that I’ve received from different parts of the

province — ironically, many of them from presently NDP-held

ridings.

Clause 18. I’ll just say this. Under the Strata Act,

section 141

is repealed, and the following is now going to be inserted: “The strata

corporation must not screen tenants, establish screening criteria,

require the approval of tenants, require the insertion of terms in

tenancy agreements or otherwise restrict the rental of a strata lot.” I

wanted to read that in first so we understand what we’re going to be

discussing here for the next little bit. This, in essence, is really

around eliminating the ability for a strata to restrict

rentals.

I’ll start with this question. The minister, in the announcement

of this bill, this act, said that this was going to be monumental in a

lot of ways in bringing more rental units into the supply stream. How

many rental units, when this passes, when this government forces this

through…? The minister…. I won’t put numbers in his mouth. I’ve already

heard a few numbers. I’m just curious for him to talk about this again

so we can get a bit of a dialogue going.

Come Monday, going forward, how many new rental units are going to

be available with the passage of this piece of legislation?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d first advise the hon. member that the clause that he read is

identical to the existing clause, the current clause, except for the

fact that the current clause provides some exceptions under subsection

(2). That’s the first point.

On the specific question about how many units, of course, I don’t

have any more of a crystal ball than the member opposite does. I can

say, however, that…. I thought we agreed that we are in a housing crisis

in British Columbia, and therefore, we would hope to create more units

in this way.

[3:10 p.m.]

We know, as a point of departure, there are nearly 2,900 empty

units in strata buildings with rental restrictions in those parts of

B.C. that are subject to the speculation tax, and we know that there are

even more empty units in other parts of the province. These empty units

will become immediately open to rent as homes for people.

M. Bernier: Can the minister explain to this House how he knows that there are

2,900 vacant units around the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s a relatively easy answer, because those people who would be

subject to the speculation and vacancy tax wish to get an exemption from

paying that tax if they are in a building that won’t permit them to

rent. As a consequence, we have very specific data of all those people

who have sought that exemption, so we can tell with certainty that

number. But that’s only in those areas of the province that are subject

to that tax.

M. Bernier: Is the minister trying to say to this House that because 2,900

people were forced to pay a speculation and vacancy tax, those are

actually sitting vacant 12 months of the year?

Hon. M. Rankin: What I can tell you is they’re exactly on point to the purpose of

this section. Namely, they restrict rentals of condominiums. They will

no longer be able to do that. They will no longer, therefore, get an

exemption under the tax because they will have to now make them

available because the restriction on rental will be

eliminated.

M. Bernier: The minister is very prescriptive, saying that there are 2,900 —

it seems to be exactly 2,900 — gathering that information based on

people who have been forced by this government to pay a speculation and

vacancy tax. Where I’m going with this is that I find it very

interesting that the minister feels that just because somebody has

applied for or been forced to fill out the documentation and pay a tax

to this government, that means that their unit is vacant.

Maybe he can explain this. In order to have to pay the speculation

and vacancy tax, does somebody have to check a box to say that their

unit is vacant for the full 12 months of the year, and that’s why

they’re subject to the tax?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I apologize to the member for not having the answer at my hands.

As the member may know, the administration of tax legislation such as

this is in the Ministry of Finance.

I can tell you from their website that for owners to be eligible

for this exemption, tenants must occupy the residence for at least six

months of the year. There are various things that talk about the

combination of a number of months and different tenants, and so forth.

So the answer may be more convoluted than necessary.

The fundamental point is that we have data that’s unassailable

that there are 2,900 units that will now become available. We know that

because those people have applied for an exemption and been granted an

exemption because they are not allowed to rent their units because of a

rent restriction that’s in place. That’s only in the areas subject, of

course, to the speculation and vacancy tax.

M. Bernier: On that comment of the speculation and vacancy tax, we have also

heard that the new Premier wants to expand the speculation and vacancy

tax to other areas. We do know that when this tax first came in, there

were areas that were going to be included, then they all of a sudden

magically weren’t included, and boundaries changed.

The minister is right that the data he has right now that he’s

referencing is only in the areas that they know where people have

applied and filled out the documentation to pay the speculation and

vacancy tax. So I will acknowledge that he’s using that information, and

there could be more out there — that people have places that are not

necessarily being used 12 months of the year that are not captured in

his numbers of 2,900.

That being said, is the minister honestly telling this House —

because there are 2,900, using his numbers, people who are paying the

speculation and vacancy tax right now — that with the passage of this

bill, he has heard that they are all paying the speculation vacancy tax

because they can’t rent out their facility, which means now there are

going to be 2,900 units that are going to magically be put up for rent

with the passage of this bill?

Hon. M. Rankin: It is the declaration of those strata owners that they cannot rent

their unit, and they cannot rent their unit because of a rental

restriction bylaw pertaining to their unit. As the member has

acknowledged, we’re talking only of those areas of British Columbia that

are subject to the speculation and vacancy tax.

It’s true that many other governments, local governments, have

asked for their areas to be subject to that tax. There may be such

changes in the future. That’s for the Minister of Finance to say. But we

think we have a pretty clear bead on those 2,900.

How many thousands more across British Columbia would be

applicable? I don’t know, but I can tell you that every single one of

those units will now be available because the rent restrictions would no

longer be allowed. In a housing crisis, we think that’s

something.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to have this House…. I know there are a lot of

people watching this, because there are a lot of people very concerned

with this part of the legislation.

There are over 900,000 strata units in the province of British

Columbia right now — 900,000. Since 2009-2010, there have been

approximately 300,000 that have been brought online that aren’t subject

to the rental restrictions that we are talking about. But the minister

and the new Premier keep referencing 2,900 based on people who apply and

pay a speculation and vacancy tax. To the minister’s point, there are

probably others.

I’ve got a whole…. I know everybody in this House is getting them,

and I’m going to read some of these into the record as we go through

this afternoon. I know some of my colleagues have other questions that

they’ll want to raise in a moment as well. I’ll give them the floor in a

moment.

[3:20 p.m.]

I was reading one that I got this morning, which actually goes

right to the point that the minister is trying to make right now around

this 2,900 and the speculation and vacancy tax. It’s why most people

that are contacting me are saying there is absolutely no way in hell,

heck…. Pardon my…. I withdraw that. There’s no way in heck….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, it’s not a swear word we don’t like in the House, I guess.

But just looking at the response I got from the Chair, I’ll withdraw the

four-letter word that I just used.

In all seriousness, I’m hearing from so many of these 2,900 that

the minister keeps referencing that say there’s no way they’re going to

rent out their place, not at all. They pay the tax begrudgingly. They

don’t have a choice, because this government has brought in the

speculation and vacancy tax. They pay for that tax, but they’re not

saying: “Just to avoid paying the tax, I’m going to rent out my place

instead.” In fact, we’re hearing over and over again the huge challenges

and pressures that some people are under.

I got one this morning from somebody who lives in a strata complex

in Burnaby who’s upset. I will say again…. They say in their email that

they haven’t had a response from their NDP member. I think this one is

really important. It’ll get to some of the comments we’re going to have

a little later in this

section around the problems with the residential

tenancy branch, when we’re talking about the speculation and vacancy

tax.

This individual, who is a senior, said they’re very fortunate that

they have a place in Burnaby. They also spend five or 5½ months with

their family down in Arizona through the winter months. Because of that,

they weren’t able to disclose that they’re in British Columbia for six

months of the year, and they were forced to pay a speculation and

vacancy tax.

This person wrote to me this morning and said how they are a

senior. They couldn’t afford the speculation and vacancy tax, and this

government put them in a position where they were forced to rent out

their condo. But here’s the catch. They’re not renting it out for 12

months of the year. They only wanted to rent it out for the six months

of the year when they’re down with their family in the United States.

They want to be able to move back into it for the five or six months a

year when they’re back in British Columbia.

To avoid paying the speculation and vacancy tax, last year they

put their condo up for rent and were very specific that they would only

want it rented for six months because they needed it when they moved

back to British Columbia. Upon moving back to British Columbia, the

tenant refused to move out. Not only did the tenant refuse to move out;

the tenant stopped paying rent. The tenant’s excuse was: “You were only

renting it to me for six months, so I’m only paying you for six months.

I have nowhere to go, so I’m not moving out. I am no longer paying you

rent either.”

This senior, who’s now back in British Columbia, is now forced to

try to find their own place to live because they can’t move into the

place that they own. In essence, this person is now squatting. They

applied three months ago to the residential tenancy branch to try to

have this person evicted and moved out. It’s being challenged because

they refuse to move.

Now they say:

“I’m a senior. I now have to try to find a new place to live. I also

have to figure out what to do for affording the rent in that place, even

though I own a place that I can’t move into. I’m also responsible for my

strata fees, property taxes, water fees, sewer, garbage, insurance, the

Burnaby rental licence, heat, light, maintenance” — responsible for

everything for the facility that they own — “not to mention, again, the

rent that I now have to pay in another place so I can find a place to

live.

[3:25 p.m.]

“If I had known this, I would never have rented my place out. It

would have been cheaper in the long run just to pay a speculation and

vacancy tax, which I was forced to have to pay, rather than renting it

out to somebody. This government was no longer there to support me when

I was trying to get a tenant out of my facility so I could move back

home. When I applied to the residential tenancy branch…. They are

telling me now the dispute resolution hearing will not be done until

next March or April.”

Think about that. They don’t have a place. They can’t move back

into their home. They applied to get these people out so they can move

back into their home. They don’t have money coming in for rent. They

have to pay rent somewhere else. Costs are through the roof.

As they

said here: “I do not know how I will be able to survive this and pay for

this, as I am on a tight pension. I had a house that was paid for, and I

can’t move back into it. I can’t wait until next March or April. That

will be another four or five months that I have to pay rent with no rent

coming in on the facility I own. The residential tenancy branch and this

government have failed me.”

I have a stack. I didn’t bother printing them all off, because we

have limited time. I have a stack of similar emails from people that

have said there is absolutely no way, from what they’re hearing out

there…. If they own a strata or if they own a place in this 2,900 number

that this minister and this government want to keep using….

With the passage of this bill, will they be able to rent it? Of

course they will. The rules are changing where they will be able to. I

guarantee the minister, though, with stories like this from people who

have chosen to do that and are now realizing it’s not working, that many

of these people are going to refuse to rent it out because they don’t

want that hassle.

There will be a question. I still have seven minutes, though, to

the minister. If I want to keep talking, I will, because I think it’s

important to get this on the record.

At the end of the day, the minister wants to keep using 2,900 as

the minimum that are going to be, obviously, rented. I’ve got other

stories here, of that 2,900 number that the Premier and this minister

want to use, that are cottages at a lake, maybe up in the

Okanagan.

One of them was an 80-year-old woman who has a cottage up there

and who is paying the speculation and vacancy tax. It’s been in her

family for 60 years, and she said there is absolutely no way they’re

going to rent it out to anybody, when it’s been in the family for 60

years, and take that chance and risk. Why? For the occasional weekends

when they want to go out with the family and have a barbecue or use

their cottage, this little place on the lake in the Okanagan that

they’ve had for 60 years. They want to be able to do that, and if they

rent it out, they won’t be able to do that.

I’m wanting the minister, I guess, to maybe explain to this House

and acknowledge, with me, that just because they were going to force

this bill through, using a 2,900 number…. It’s a bit of a sledgehammer

approach.

When I said there are 900,000 stratas…. They’re changing these

rules and regulations using the number of 2,900 that are going to be

rentals, when, with the cases that I’m putting forward today and the

numerous — I would say hundreds, if not in the thousands by now — emails

that I’ve received…. People are saying that they will not rent this out,

that government is using the wrong approach to try to fix the housing

crisis.

This doesn’t take away from the talk that we’ve had for the last

two days of us being in a housing crisis. But I want the minister to

explain, I guess, to this House how this bill, using the 2,900 number

that he keeps referencing…. Is it fair to say, through what I just said,

that that’s actually not the case? Just because they have the ability to

rent it by the passage of this bill does not mean that, as of Monday,

we’re going to have 2,900 new rentals on the market in the province of

British Columbia.

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

to try to address.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The 2,900 figure he seems to dwell upon is empty units in strata

buildings with rental restrictions in areas subject to the speculation

and vacancy tax. That’s just the first answer I gave to the member about

how I happen to know that that number at least lined up with what we’re

trying to achieve in a housing crisis.

[3:30 p.m.]

I point out that the restriction on rentals is an issue

pertaining, in this bill, to those rental units before 2010 only. So

when the member talks about numbers of condo units in British Columbia,

I would hope that he would reference the fact that after 2010, people

can exempt any or all units from rental restrictions that a strata

corporation may implement. Effectively, after 2010, rental bans from

strata councils are no longer in place, very rarely if ever.

Now, the point that I really want to stress to the member,

however, is that we are in a housing crisis, and we think that it is

significant that these become available. But “available” is the word.

It’s the availability. No one is forcing anyone to rent their units.

Many people have told us that they are thrilled to be able to do it. I

talked to a young woman in my constituency who lives in a building and

now wants to rent a second room because it’s a two-bedroom strata and

she could use the income and help somebody who can’t find a house to

live in.

These things, to me, are what we’d expect in a housing crisis for

people to do. But I guess I have to say to the member, no one is saying

that there is an obligation to rent units, only that some people will,

we hope, in a housing crisis take up the opportunity to do so. There’s

no obligation to do so.

Now, to the specific point that the member talks about from

Burnaby, I want to say, first of all, I would be happy, after the

session, to take the specifics to my office, as Housing Minister, and

try to find a resolution to the issue. I undertake that to the member.

But I think it’s important to note that people can apply for an

expedited hearing where urgency and fairness justify abbreviated service

and response times. Their applications are automatically considered for

expedited hearings for landlord applications to seek an end of a tenancy

early or for tenant applications for an order of possession or emergency

repairs.

I accept that there has been, and have said frequently that there

is, a backlog. We had a pandemic, as everyone knows, and we found that

there was a backlog in so many areas of public administration. The

residential tenancy branch was not exempt from that. But we have taken

steps to hire an additional number of people, 30 full-time-equivalents

within the last year and a half, seven arbitrators.

There is a need to get that backlog addressed, and I’ve made that

a priority in my office. So there are remedies available in the

circumstances that the member raises. But we think that our best guess

is that people will find the additional income useful, that they can now

rent those units for, again, strata buildings that were pre-2010.

Post-2010 it’s been a fact of life for the last 12 years. Pre-2010 is

the only area we’re capturing in this, and we’re saying people should

have the right to rent their units to people who are desperate for

housing.

M. Bernier: Since the minister brought up 2010, when the rules were changed, I

want to reference the Condominium Home Owners Association of British

Columbia, who actually has a lot of the data and a lot of the

information. I’ll read directly from their press release that they put

out just this week referencing this bill — that we need to

know.

“Many strata corporations pre-2010 within metropolitan areas of

British Columbia of 50 units or more actually do not have, already,

rental bylaws or restrictions or permit a minimum number of rentals.”

This is their own data.

Just because, as the minister is saying, this law came into effect

in 2010 to restrict doesn’t mean that everybody prior to 2010 was

restricting rentals. In their own data, it goes on to say how many of

them already have rental allowability. Some have chosen not to, but it

says many already allow it.

I want to read out this paragraph from their press release. I

think it’s important when we talk about facts, because facts are

important if we’re actually going to have legislation that this

government thinks is going to fix the problem. And a problem, yes, we

have. The challenge is, a lot of people are now saying, this is not the

right approach to actually fix the problem that was created, and there

could be other mechanisms that this government should be looking

at.

[3:35 p.m.]

But I want to quote out of here. “With the cooperation of all the

strata corporations of Metro Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George and

Kelowna, the major condominium homeowner areas and the homeowner

associations, which represents 250,000 members across British Columbia,

we have been closely monitoring our rental and occupancy rates in our

stratas to determine if rental bylaws have had any impact at all on

occupancy rates, to the detriment of our housing market.”

It continues: “Our study has found” — which was conducted in 2016,

I will add, and then updated again in 2018 and then again in 2022;

they’ve done it multiple times, checking into this — “the greatest

vacancy rate is actually within buildings constructed since

2010.”

Think about that for a second. The greatest vacancy rates are

actually in condominiums, right now, that allow rentals already, It’s

not in the ones, the majority, that were built prior to 2010. Again, the

greatest vacancy rates are “within buildings constructed since 2010 that

have no rental restrictions, and that vacancy rate is averaging between

18 to 24 percent.”

To the minister’s point, there’s vacancy out there, definitely, in

some places, but by their own study of all of their 250,000 members, 18

to 24 percent are ones from the newer years that already have no rental

restrictions.

I want to finish with this: “At the same time, when we evaluated

properties that actually have rental bylaws….” Listen to this one. “The

ones that actually have rental restrictions are actually owner-occupied

and have a vacancy rate of zero percent to just under 4 percent.” So the

expectation that the removal of rental bylaws that this legislation is

looking at doing will result in a solution for rental housing actually

has no correlation to the statistics that will actually achieve any

positive outcomes that this government is trying to say.

I’m wondering what the minister has to say to the 250,000 members

across British Columbia that are part of the Condominium Home Owners

Association, based on their own data, that says there actually isn’t

vacancy right now. Why? Because people are living in them. People own

them. People have purchased them. They’re not vacant.

I’ll get into some commentary later on, as I’m sure my colleagues

will, on why there is such a high vacancy rate in Victoria and in

Vancouver, in places that allow rentals. I’ll get into that one after.

But based on the stats that they have collected themselves in the

province of British Columbia, does the minister disagree with their

numbers? And if he doesn’t, then how is this legislation going to solve

anything based on that information?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member raising the study by the Condominium Home

Owners Association. We are aware of that study, and my officials have

been examining it carefully and trying to make sense of the conclusions

that they draw. It is their view that those conclusions are not

warranted for broader application because the sample of strata

corporations included was so tiny and not at all representative of

stratas around British Columbia.

It included just six or eight buildings with rental restriction

bylaws and an equal number without rental restriction bylaws. Moreover,

all the buildings were larger than 60 units, and all were in Vancouver.

The study also didn’t control for significant variables like how old

each building was and whether it allowed short-term rentals.

I think it’s important to put this in a broader context. I think

the member and I agree that we’re in a housing crisis. I want to refer

to a couple of quotes just to broaden the debate. The mayor of Kelowna,

Tom Dyas, has recently said: “We welcome the changes to the Strata

Property Act regarding rentals and age restrictions. I think it is

something that has been good. It creates another option to expand

housing inventory in the short term, while other aspects of government

plans look to the longer term.”

[3:40 p.m.]

This is what Aaron Jasper, a real estate agent, was quoted as

saying on CKNW radio on November 22: “I thought it was great, to be

honest. I think that it’s good not only for renters, but I also think

it’s good for the people who are living in stratas that have restricted

rentals. I think there’s unfortunately a perception that renters are — I

don’t know — not to be trusted, but I think that renters, people who are

not in a position to buy, should be given a fair shake.”

A. Olsen: There’s a whole lot in what has been said just in the last few

minutes. If I can just give my experience as an MLA whose….

Part of my constituency is within the speculation and vacancy tax,

and part of it is out. When the speculation and vacancy tax was first

brought in back in 2018, I met with a lot — many, many dozens, maybe

hundreds — of people who were being impacted by the SVT. There was a

variety of different types of people in different situations that were

being impacted by the tax. Some of those folks are folks that live part

of the time in one part of our country and part of the time in another

part of our country.

I guess what I have a difficult time with, in the government using

the number 2,900…. This is aside from the policy itself, I think, that

we’re moving here and that we’re amending. Using the number 2,900 units

in buildings in SVT areas as a way to build momentum on a

policy….

When you get underneath the surface a little bit, you realize

that, actually, there are a number of those units that are not empty, as

the SVT criteria outlines. They’re empty because for six months of the

year, people don’t live in them. So they’re charged the SVT.

Now, what has happened here is the minister is conflating that

situation as an opportunity for future rentals. What it’s done…. I’ll

tell you what it’s done. It’s made life really difficult. It has left

the impression that we’re doing something that we might not be doing.

It’s got a whole lot of people excited who are actually scrambling to

find houses. It’s, potentially, got their hopes up that something is

going to be coming of this that may not actually be there.

My question to the minister is this. How many units

of…?

We collect the SVT in a number of areas. The minister and the

Premier yesterday…. They have all identified that there are 2,900 units

in pre-2010 buildings that have rental restrictions on them that will be

available for rent — this is their language — starting tomorrow or

starting whenever this bill comes into force. That’s the rhetoric behind

the promotion of this bill.

How many units identified in the SVT tax of post-2010 buildings

that are empty, not the condominium owners association numbers, the

Ministry of Finance numbers, post-2010 buildings that are paying the SVT

and that have to fill out the paperwork and pay the SVT…? Exactly the

same number that the minister is using, for clarity…. Exactly the same

criteria that the minister is using to talk about 2,900 pre-2010…. I’m

looking for that exact same number post-2010.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. I think the point that I

would try to emphasize is that we’re trying to use this as merely one

indication of what might be out there in potential rentals, given that,

post 2010, members of strata corporations could rent, and are allowed to

rent freely, their units. So we’re dealing with a universe that’s

pre-2010, I think, to a large extent.

We said that we have people who are in the areas such as where the

member represents, who are part of the strata, who are applying for an

exemption under the speculation and vacancy tax, and 2,900 of those

people have done so, but they are all in the pre-2010 strata corporation

world.

I understand that there are single-family issues, and so on, but

this is only with respect to strata corporations. That is merely a point

of departure as we try to get a handle on just how big an issue this

could be. It’s one indicator, but we expect — since there are many other

condos that predate 2010 and that are subject to rental restrictions —

that others will now take advantage of the opportunity to rent

them.

I don’t want that to be the sole issue, because that’s only the

first point of departure to answer the question that was asked — about

how many people are there likely to be helped as a consequence of this

amendment. It’s not easy to know that, because we don’t have all the

data. So I use that as merely a point of departure. What I do know is

that many people who are in the real estate world have said very

positive things about their predictions for success.

I have another Re/Max agent, a real estate agent in Vancouver,

who, again, on CKNW on November 22, said this — Glenn Warren: “Buildings

that are 20, 30 or sometimes 40 years old — most of those are very

restrictive on renters, and it’s very hard to rent those units. There

are lots of empty units in those buildings, just because people can’t

rent their unit out.”

We are expecting this to create more units. In a housing crisis, I

can’t predict with accuracy — any more than anyone else in this place

can — exactly how many units would be liberated and available for rent,

but I reiterate: we have a housing crisis. This is merely one tool in

the toolkit to make a difference in people’s lives.

A. Olsen: I don’t dispute that. That wasn’t the point of the question, and I

think the minister understands that he just answered a question that I

didn’t ask. At least I hope he does. What I was trying to identify was

that the approach that has been taken here is to dangle a large number

in front of British Columbians and say: “These are the potential number

of units that we are going to liberate, because these are units that are

currently behind rental restrictions.”

We are then supposed to follow the logic that the government is

using that, then, by removing those rental restrictions, those units

will become available for rent. That’s the thing that people who are

looking for a place, specifically an affordable place, are latching

onto. But I’ve sat for many, many 30-minute meetings in my constituency,

knowing that many of those people — not all of them — don’t have any

intention to rent it. They have an intention of living in one part of

Canada for one part of the year and another part of Canada in the other

part of the year.

That is their intention. They’re bitter about having to pay an

SVT. That’s why they came and met with me in my constituency office. But

suggesting that those people’s units are available for rent after this….

Yes, we can suggest that that’s the case. The point that I’m making, in

asking the question…. Again, this is not about the policy. This is about

making a point, about how the government is communicating

this.

Yesterday we had a Premier that stood up, pointed across and said:

“Yeah, you didn’t support a housing initiative.” So it’s been

politicized. There has been treachery created in this, and part of that

treachery is in how the numbers are being framed.

[3:50 p.m.]

The reason why I asked the question about how many empty units are

paying SVT in post-2010 buildings is because I want to be able to put

one number here and one number next to it, to show that there are people

in our province that are making a choice to own a building and pay the

SVT, even in buildings where there’s a potential for rental.

That doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not I’m going to

support or not support this initiative. That’s just to show that this

government’s communication of this is what is dangerous. It is the

politicization of a very, very challenging, and desperately challenging,

housing crisis that people are experiencing every day in our province.

For us to put a number out there, 2,900, people go: “Wow, we’re going to

have a massive solution to a problem.”

What I am trying to get to in this bill, at the very last few

moments of the waning hours of the waning minutes of this session, is:

what kind of analysis was done?

Frankly, it’s coming out that not much analysis was done. Maybe

the point was only the point made at the end of question period

yesterday in this, where we have a Premier that stood up and said that

there were members in this place that voted against housing — at second

reading, by the way. They voted for housing later. But that’s not the

point. The point is political communications, right? The point is

political communications.

How many units are within the SVT area, post-2010, equivalent to

the 2,900-unit number that the Ministry of Housing received from the

Ministry of Finance? Please get the other number, from the Ministry of

Finance, of the post-2010 buildings that are remaining vacant for six

months less a day, or whatever that exact frame is, so that we can put

these numbers side by side. Again, this is just about the

numbers.

Hon. M. Rankin: To the member, thank you. I regret if the communication was

problematic in the member’s eyes. We’re trying to find a particular

answer to a question that is at the core of this, which is how many

units will be liberated as a consequence of this.

We took one measure from one data set that we did have. Other

measures are hard to predict because we do not, I believe, know exactly

how many units are subject to rent restrictions at the present time in

all parts of British Columbia. But people, as the member will well know,

with empty units can choose to add their units to the rental market or

pay the speculation and vacancy tax.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Rankin: The people with empty units can choose to add those units to the

rental market, or they can choose to pay the speculation and vacancy tax

— begrudgingly, as the member has acknowledged.

Of course, when they do that, that goes directly into funding.

Both of those options are helping us in the housing crisis. To the

numbers, we expect that there will be many, many people who will take

advantage of this new ability to rent condos. I’ve given examples, just

from my circle of people, who are now able to do that and who weren’t

before.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister just give us the information on the revenues

thus far from the speculation and vacancy tax?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. That’s, of

course, data that the Ministry of Finance would have. I believe there

was an annual report tabled just yesterday on the SVT, or not. I had

understood that it was to be made available.

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

under debate.

S. Furstenau: All right. I’ll ask the question. My understanding is it’s $78

million, but the Minister of Housing, perhaps, can give us data on how

many affordable units have been created since the speculation and

vacancy tax has come in. As Minister of Housing, I would hope that that

data would be available.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I have no idea how to answer the member’s question. I don’t know

what the definition of “affordable” is in a market like ours, which

varies, of course, from one part of the province to another. Her term of

reference for affordability is something for which I don’t think there’s

universal agreement — on the definition of that term.

Of course, it’s not pertinent to this specific

section that we’re

debating. So I’m not prepared to answer that, since I cannot answer a

question on the

section that’s at issue here — perhaps in another venue,

but not clause by clause on this particular bill. I’m sorry. I’m not

able to do that.

M. Bernier: I just want to maybe assist in the conversation here, based on

some of the questions that came from the Third Party and to help put

things into context. I have the government’s own data that was just

released and that the minister didn’t have available, but I want to put

it in context, because this is based on people who, as of this year, are

paying the speculation and vacancy tax — part of the 2,900 that this

government is using.

Just to go with what the minister said earlier, I’m not the one

using 2,900. It was the minister and the Premier that actually used the

2,900 number in their announcements with this piece of legislation. They

stood, just on the other side of these doors here, and actually made an

announcement that they were bringing in this amazing piece of

legislation. When the media asked, even the Premier referenced 2,900

people who pay the speculation and vacancy tax that this will make

available — I want to make sure that I’m accurate in my wording to agree

with the minister — if they choose to rent. That doesn’t mean they are

going to rent.

Let’s put some of this in context for a moment, if I can, when we

talk about these 2,900, to kind of go along with the Third Party’s

questions here. Let’s look at the greater Victoria area, here, and

around this region. In central Saanich, 11 units applied for the

speculation and vacancy tax. In Colwood, nine. In Esquimalt, a few more,

This is the one I love. In the past Premier’s riding, in Langford,

zero. View Royal, eight. Oak Bay — quite a bit more in the actual

minister’s riding compared to anywhere else in the region here — 84

people who applied for the speculation and vacancy tax were paying

that.

I don’t know if they’re cheering as much as the minister is. He

wants to celebrate the fact that 84 of his constituents are forced to

pay a tax because they don’t live in their house year-round, probably.

They’re fortunate enough to have other places that they live in, in

other parts of the year. Again, in Maple Ridge it’s only 19; in North

Vancouver, 40; city of Langley, only ten; Chilliwack, 61; Abbotsford,

99. Abbotsford is the highest in that list. Again, to put it in context,

we are in a housing crisis.

In the greater Victoria area and the entire south part of

Vancouver Island — I didn’t do the math as I was reading it out — it

sounds like it was probably about 150 to 200 units of people in this

entire region that pay the speculation and vacancy tax, say 200. To the

Minister’s own admission, he can’t tell us for sure that any of those

200 will actually be rented out and create an opportunity for a family

to go into as of next week. All he’s saying is that this bill may allow

them to rent it.

I think what I’m hearing — through not only the people who are

paying the speculation and vacancy tax but everybody else — is: “If

you’re going to change anything, stop charging us the speculation and

vacancy tax.” That’s the issue for these people. Hardly any of these

people are saying: “Thank God, this bill is coming forward. So I can now

rent my place out for five, six months a year.” I’ve already referenced

why so many of them don’t want to. They’re not the astronomical numbers

that we actually need.

[4:00 p.m.]

I mean, if you look at downtown Victoria here, I’m saying that

there are only, like, 20. Well, even if 50 percent of them come out on

Monday and say, “This is great. I can now rent my place for half the

year,” that’s ten units. I’m sure the minister and anybody else in this

crisis would say that’s ten more than we had yesterday. Fair enough. But

how far does that go to actually solving this housing crisis that’s been

getting worse and worse under this government?

My point, that I just want to reference, is that it’s unfortunate,

the political narrative and dialogue that we’ve heard, that the members

of the Green Party talked about, of politicizing this crisis where we’ve

got to, especially in a situation where we’re talking about 2,900

units.

What we should be talking about is what we are going to be doing

to build the supply to meet the demand that’s out there. This bill has

nothing to do with it. If we’re all, in this House, collectively

acknowledging we’re in a crisis, bringing forward a piece of legislation

that may or may not do anything at all doesn’t seem like it’s going to

hit the mark.

Now, I’m going to allow a few people to ask a few more questions

before I get into some other problems that I see with this, because I

want to get to the point — I’ll just flag this for some of the next

discussion — of unintended consequences for people who have massive

investments, the largest investment in their life, as we’ve all

acknowledged and as the Housing Minister has said and others in the NDP,

who are now fearing that their investment is at risk.

Who is going to be responsible if that happens? I’ll save that

question, when we allow other members to maybe finish off on this topic

first, depending on if the minister wants to rebut anything I just

said.

Hon. M. Rankin: What we know about the speculation and vacancy tax seems to be at

issue here. So 20,000 units have become available for rent. Some people,

as the member suggested, are choosing to pay the tax, and that money is

going directly in to help address the housing crisis. But there are

20,000 units that we know of that have been made available. We think

that’s significant in a housing crisis. I understand that the party

opposite does not support the speculation and vacancy tax,

notwithstanding that that result has occurred.

No one can force people to rent, and no one is intending to force

people to rent. That’s not the point of the bill. Options are being

created as a result of removing rental restrictions on condominiums

before 2010, where they were a fact.

I’m not here to discuss the communication of this measure. I

thought we were dealing with the content of the measure. The content of

the measure is to say that people in condominiums, townhouses and

rowhouses, all of which are strata property, are now able to rent their

units that wouldn’t have been able, in the past, to do so. We think that

will make a difference. We’re not trying to suggest it’s the only tool

in the toolkit. It appears that the party opposite does not believe that

is a tool worth applying to the crisis. We do.

S. Furstenau: While I realize it’s a little bit out of the scope of the actual

bill, we are talking about housing and we are talking about the

speculation and vacancy tax. Yes, I agree. It has delivered units in the

way that the minister has explained, and the minister just indicated

that the revenues are meant to go directly into ensuring that there is

affordable housing. That was one of the pieces of the story around the

speculation and vacancy tax.

I just want to ask the question about: where is the accountability

to ensure that those revenues are actually resulting in affordable

housing, as was the intention, and what the minister just reiterated, of

the revenues from the speculation and vacancy tax?

Interjections.

The Chair: Could I ask members who are having side conversations to step

outside the chamber, please? We have very little time in here, and

it’s important that we not interrupt.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asks about accountability for revenues, as I understand

it, under the speculation and vacancy tax, a tax administered by the

Ministry of Finance. We are here as the Ministry of Housing to discuss

sections of the Strata Property Amendment Act, so I’m really not

prepared to talk about that. Nor do I know, again, what her definition

of “affordable” is in this market.

I can say that $7 billion is being made available to B.C. Housing

over ten years to address the housing crisis, as one component of the

work that needs to be done.

A. Olsen: I think this is probably where we depart from the comments that

have been made by the official opposition, because I actually think that

there is potential for this to be part of the supply response —

potential for this. What I’ve been trying to get to is to understand the

numbers that the government has been putting out as the potential supply

that’s there.

The analysis has been done to understand what the real supply is.

I think that if a law is changing, that removes a restriction on a

certain part of the housing stock and puts them into rentals, that is

actually increasing the supply. I think that’s probably what the

minister has been saying all along in this.

However, I guess the…. In addition to that, I think that when it

comes to this policy, probably the most effective communications tool —

and you’re welcome to borrow it, if you want — is the post-2010 condo

units, strata units, that are in stratas. They are the greatest example

of the success of what this could be.

We’re getting these emails from people. They’re saying to us that

they’re uncomfortable with this change, fear of the unknown. We don’t

know what the world is going to be that we live in after this. We can

say, “Look to the post-2010 buildings,” because I can tell you that as a

constituency MLA, in my constituency, I have not had an overwhelming

number of people coming to me and saying that all of the issues that

have been raised here as concerns are a massive amount or a huge burden,

some amount of concerns, on my constituency.

Now, I might be inviting a whole pile of emails that I hadn’t

previously…. But I think that the problem when…. I really want to put

this out there, because the big issue in terms of supply of affordable

rental housing in my riding is not in this bill; it is in short-term

vacation rentals. This government has not moved to regulate short-term

vacation rentals. Inside the SVT area, outside the SVT area, in the

southern Gulf Islands, short-term vacation rentals are eviscerating the

long-term housing stock, and this government has done

nothing.

If we want to put units of housing into the market for renters

long term, we would be moving with great speed, much greater speed that

we’re moving on this bill even, to put meaningful restrictions on

short-term vacation rentals. But we’ve not done that. Why has this

minister chosen to deal with this particular policy area in removing

this and not have in this bill…? This bill is dealing with two policy

areas. Why not make it a third policy area and also include restrictions

on short-term vacation rentals, which would do a great deal of help in

my communities in the southern Gulf Islands?

Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to start by saying thank you to the member for such a

clear presentation and one that I sympathize with a great deal, I just

want to say. I want to thank the member for the advice, frankly, on how

to better communicate the need for this. The world didn’t come to a

screeching halt in 2010 when rentals were allowed in condos. I haven’t

got any note. I have not received a single letter about that, so I tend

to share the perspective and the experience that the member

has.

[4:10 p.m.]

I also would take advantage of this opportunity to thank the

member again, because I believe, and he will correct me if I’m wrong,

that he was a member of the Rental Housing Task Force in 2018, and that

recommended banning rental restrictions at the time. I appreciate when

the member said he may be parting company from the official opposition….

I suspect that may be what he was signalling; I don’t know. But I

appreciate his work on this subject.

I have a concern about short-term rentals, as does the government.

Two things. One, it’s clear that stratas can still limit short-term

rentals should they choose. Two, the Premier has said, as recently as

three days ago, that it is one of the things that desperately needs to

be examined, and in particular areas. However, he was quick to say…. He

referenced, I recall, Tofino as an example where in that community,

short-term rentals are important as a component of the tourist housing

stock. So one size does not fit all.

I know the member represents some of the Gulf Islands, and I’m

acutely aware of the problem to which he refers and, frankly, sympathize

enormously with the point he’s making. But the Premier is seized with

this issue, as he has indicated publicly, and again, I stress that

stratas can still limit short-term rentals, and I hope they

do.

A. Olsen: Finally for me on this policy point, I think, as a member of that

Rental Housing Task Force, we were seized with a variety of…. We had 30,

40…. There were a lot of recommendations. The enforcement piece that the

government did in 2019 was a big part of that, and if I had more time, I

would take more time to understand how effective that enforcement body

that was brought in, in May of 2019, has been.

The government has not moved on the removal of rentals from the

pre-2010 buildings for four years — more than four years, because it’s

now October of 2022. I think I got that right. But anyway. So I guess

for me, when I….

I know that we put that as a recommendation, but we didn’t

specifically do much in terms of the analysis of the impact. We didn’t

have the capacity to do a deep dive in the analysis of what that impact

might be. So when I came here today, I came here prepared to ask

questions largely around what work has been done in addition to the work

that we did in making those recommendations. We put a suite of

proposals. The government took them away and did analysis on them and

moved the suite, brought in the 30-point plan, then brought in the

enforcement piece a little later on.

My hope was to hear today from the current minister and from the

government that there has been some more deep analysis done on what the

impacts of this could be because, actually, those emails that my

colleague from Peace River South had been talking about are people who

are living in a place and who are now experiencing fear that the place

that they’re living in is changing. We have a duty, as people in this

place who are responsible for making those laws, to be able to clearly

articulate to them information that will ease their fears.

They are people that purchased a situation. They purchased a

dream. I used the example yesterday. What ethical responsibility do we

have as legislators when someone buys a blue cube with hopes and dreams

filling it and we tell them now that it’s a yellow pyramid with

undefinable content inside it? That’s essentially what’s happening

here.

We as legislators need to be able to explain to people what the

impact is, and we need to be able to reassure them, when we’re making

these changes, that we’ve done the necessary analysis that things are

going to be okay with their liv