Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 52

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

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Sullivan

R. Singh

A. Olsen

J. Thornthwaite

S. Chandra Herbert

A. Weaver

D. Barnett

S. Furstenau

S. Cadieux

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

S. Cadieux

Hon. J. Sims

M. Morris

T. Redies

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 11 — Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 12 — Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 13 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 14 — Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

T. Redies

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Isaacs

J. Tegart

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Thornthwaite

L. Throness

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: I’m pleased today to introduce someone who I’m honoured to call a

friend. Susan Sanderson is an accomplished labour and community activist who

has lived in Surrey since 1986.

In 2007, Susan and her late partner, Gary Robinson, co-founded the

Realistic Success Recovery Society, a non-profit charitable society that

operates three supportive living recovery facilities in the Newton area of

Surrey. All three Trilogy houses are certified with the Ministry of Health.

Trilogy House One was the first facility to be certified in B.C. These homes

provide people suffering from the diseases of alcoholism and drug addiction

an opportunity for recovery.

I ask the House to please join with me to give Susan a warm welcome

and thank her for doing such a fantastic job to help those who need our

help.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, third reading of Bill 14,

Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017. In Committee A, I call continued estimates of the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. When Children and Family

Development finally finishes, we will do the estimates of Environment and

Climate Change.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — SHERIFF

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

section 1.

A. Wilkinson: In subsection 1(2), it refers to conducting “a threat or risk

assessment in respect of a person, facility, building or property in

relation to which the sheriff has a power, duty or responsibility

referred to in

section 4.1.” And if we look at

section 4.1 of the act,

it says: “In addition to the powers conferred and the duties and

responsibilities established at common law or under any other Provincial

or federal enactment, sheriffs have the powers conferred and duties and

responsibilities established under this Act.” So not only is it the

Sheriff Act that has stated powers; it’s also common law and a wide

variety of any other enactments.

I think the essence of this is that it’s an extremely broad and

vague description of the ambit of potential responsibilities for a

sheriff. This, of course, raises the prospect of when sheriffs have

access to CPIC and PRIME and other databases, are there any reasonable

boundaries on this that can be clarified?

I think the underlying concern that many members of this House

will share is that the prospect of wide-open access to sensitive

databases, whether it’s PharmaNet or CPIC or anything else, does raise

the spectre of the boundary problems and where it’s appropriate to limit

access or to provide for supervision of access and, certainly, for a

record of access so that if an individual is accused of having

overstepped their boundaries, there’s a record of what they’ve done and

they can be appropriately contained or disciplined.

Hon. D. Eby: I note we still have a few people in the gallery who might be

interested in what we’re doing here. We’re looking at the Sheriff

Amendment Act. This gives sheriffs authority, by law, to do threat

assessments. Sheriffs are, functionally, like a police service in the

courts that provide a safe and inviting atmosphere for people to resolve

their disputes in B.C. courts.

As part of that, they do threat assessments. We do a lot of

criminal charges that are administered in Provincial Court. As a result,

there are individuals who may be coming to the court who would present a

safety risk to staff, judges, lawyers, members of the public who are

attending, so the sheriffs do risk assessments.

[1:40 p.m.]

The issue has been that the sheriffs were doing risk assessments

without apparent legislative authority to do that. So when the

administrators of CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, realized

that, they asked for British Columbia to correct the oversight of not

having the legislative authority for accessing this information service.

That administrator is actually the RCMP. This is coming about as a

result of the request of the RCMP.

To the member’s question, this

section actually prescribes the

areas in which sheriffs may do threat or risk assessment,

whereas

previously, there was no legislative provision. So it’s a great

improvement in terms of circumscribing that. But more than that, there

is a memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and the sheriff

service about the use of the CPIC database. It restricts even further

the use of the database beyond just allowing wide-open access. For

example, it doesn’t permit use of the CPIC system for executing civil

processes, as one example.

It’s not a wide-open thing. In fact, this is tightening up and

legislating and articulating to the public where sheriffs have the

legislative authority to do these kinds of risk assessments.

A. Wilkinson: The answer starts to address the question, but I have heard now

that it won’t be used for civil process. But there’s apparently no other

restriction anticipated or placed upon the use of this information. I

also haven’t heard an answer about any kind of supervision process to

catch the odd and rare sheriff who might be engaged in inappropriate

activity with the databases.

Of course, that leads to the question of who would conduct the

review and how it would be done, given that this has arisen in the past

with police misuse of databases. It happened in a suburban Vancouver

police force about 20 years ago. The ongoing concerns about the misuse

of PharmaNet were finally addressed about the year 2003, when

practitioners had to be subject to an ongoing cumulative record of their

access, which could then be reviewed to determine whether or not it was

appropriate.

I’m looking to the minister to provide some kind of answer. Is

there any review process anticipated here or any supervision process? It

certainly doesn’t appear in the statute, and it’s the sort of thing that

one would hope to see in the statute, rather than left to regulation,

because I don’t see any provision here for regulations.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re in the happy circumstance of having two members that have

some history with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association discussing this

and a shared interest in ensuring that authority for law enforcement to

access this kind of information is appropriately regulated. I’m happy to

advise the member that certainly, within the sheriff service, they have

policies around appropriate access.

More importantly, in terms of oversight outside of the sheriffs

service, the memorandum of understanding between the Canadian Police

Information Centre, the RCMP and the sheriffs prescribes an audit

process whereby a third party will be looking at and ensuring that

access made of the CPIC system is for law enforcement purposes only. In

particular, it requires the sheriffs to permit the auditors to come on

site for the purpose of auditing. They can look at anything. They can

also do off-site audits and reviews of records.

In fact, as I understand it, CPIC has systems built in that

detect, as some provincial systems do, unusual patterns of searches

engaged in by individuals in order to proactively detect this kind of

thing.

A. Wilkinson: I may have missed it, but the agency responsible for initiating

the audit.... Is that the RCMP, or is it CPIC? Who is the overseer of

sheriff access, if I can put it that way?

Hon. D. Eby: It is the RCMP.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:44 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1:45 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — SHERIFF

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 12, Public Safety Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 1:48 p.m.

section 1.

M. Morris: Probably in the interest of time, I just want to say that I’ve

looked through this, and I’ve had some great briefings from the folks

around you, Solicitor, and am well up to date on this particular file.

This is something that I’ve been quite passionate about over the years,

when I was in government as well, and this side of the House has no

objection to any part of this bill right from start to

finish.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his comments. If the member wishes, then,

we may be able to proceed right through this bill in its entirety, as we

have sometimes done in the past.

I know you, hon. Chair, remember a time when we did sections 1

through 150 in one go, so I leave that in the Chair’s hands.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1:50 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 12, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 16, Tenancy Statutes Amendment

Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 16 be read a second time.

Tenants have been raising concerns for years about a loophole in

fixed-term tenancy agreements that has been used to increase rent far in

excess of what is allowed under the legislation. This is done by

including a vacate clause in the fixed-term tenancy agreement which

requires the tenant to move out at the end of the term. Near the end of

the tenancy, tenants are presented with the option of staying in the

rental unit at a substantially higher rent or moving out with little

time to look for other rental accommodation. This has contributed to

significant rent increases and housing instability for many tenants

right across the province.

This bill proposes to change this problem in two ways. Rather than

eliminating the use of this type of tenancy agreement completely, the

use of a vacate clause in fixed-term tenancy agreements will be limited

to only certain circumstances, and rent increases between fixed-term

tenancy agreements with the same tenant will be limited to the maximum

annual allowable amount, which is currently 2 percent plus inflation.

This means that if the tenant stays, they are protected by rent

control.

Far too many years went by under the previous government where the

struggles of renters were ignored. These changes will protect the 1.5

million renters in British Columbia who have had to deal with the stress

of not knowing when their rent would be hiked beyond reasonable limits,

beyond their capacity. The amendments will still allow flexibility for

landlords.

We have also included in this bill some administrative penalties.

This bill strengthens the ability of the residential tenancy branch to

encourage and enforce compliance with tenancy laws. Administrative

penalty provisions already exist in the legislation, and these

amendments will allow the branch to take stronger action to enforce

tenancy laws with repeat and serious violators.

The amendments will allow the residential tenancy branch to compel

the production of documents as part of an administrative penalty

investigation. It will also allow the branch to publish administrative

penalty decisions. The branch will be allowed to refuse to accept an

application for dispute resolution if an administrative penalty is owed

and pursue prosecution of an offence where a penalty has been levied but

has not resulted in compliance. These changes, along with a new

compliance unit, will go a long way to ensure that landlords and tenants

comply with the law.

Through this bill, we are proposing a streamlined dispute

resolution process for the return of security and pet deposits. If a

landlord doesn’t return a deposit or make an application to keep the

deposit, a tenant will be able to apply for a monetary order through an

expedited process, similar to the direct request process available to

landlords requiring an order of possession.

[1:55 p.m.]

This will ensure that tenants get their security deposits back

without having to wait for months for a dispute resolution hearing. This

will eliminate the lengthy waits and minimize the real financial

hardships, which we have been hearing for years, that tenants face when

they’ve been waiting for the return of their deposit.

There are other amendments in this bill to fix minor issues of

language and

interpretation related to sublets, float home jurisdiction,

service of documents and notice of proceedings. This bill provides

better protections for both landlords and tenants, clarifies rules that

have caused confusion, and supports streamlined and improved dispute

resolution processes.

I look forward to the other members of this House speaking to this

bill. I look forward to hearing their comments with regards to what

we’re proposing, and I obviously am looking forward to committee stage

of the bill when we’re finished with second reading.

I am pleased to move second reading.

S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister, for this bill, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment

Act. Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition supports your work and supports,

certainly, the intent of this bill, you will be very pleased to

know.

It is certainly the government’s duty to ensure that tenants are

not at the mercy of predatory landlords. One of the ways that I approach

these types of bills is…. Sometimes it is possible, when government

wants to protect tenants, renters, they can actually harm them by doing

things that have unintended consequences.

We know that strict rent controls — it seems like economists on

the left and the right both agree — can do harm to renters. It can take

rental properties off the market and actually have them run down in

their maintenance. So this actually is a very laudable effort here. We

want to ensure that landlords remain incentivized to rent properties.

There was a concern that some landlords may just take the property off

the market. I don’t think that will happen with this. I think we feel

quite confident.

We are also pleased to see that LandlordBC, the advocacy group for

landlords, is in favour of these changes. They have claimed that those

abusing the existing rules, to apply higher-than-allowed rent increases,

were not following the spirit of the legislation. It is a very small

subsection of landlords that have chosen to try to circumvent the rules

and the intent of the legislation. Most landlords are unhappy about that

and are very disappointed with their fellows who have chosen to do that.

So this helps to rectify this.

We are encouraged that the government does not feel the bill will

cause landlords to take rental properties off the market. We’re

concerned that there may be some unintended consequences, ones that may

adversely affect the ability of renters to find a place to live, and we

will be canvassing these concerns during committee stage. The

retroactivity of the bill does change existing tenancy agreements, which

may cause disruptions for some properties around the

province.

The new arbitration powers for security deposits will also,

hopefully, help tenants and landlords to move on and clear the waiting

lists by reducing waiting time for security deposits to three weeks,

down from six months.

The legislation makes some changes that we support. However, we

feel we must be sure that the consequences are fully considered before

it is put in place.

The legislation removes the ability of landlords to use vacate

clauses in fixed-term tenancy agreements, except for some specific

circumstances, and it also limits the rent increases between fixed-term

tenancy agreements with the same tenant to the maximum allowable amount,

2 percent plus inflation. This is really a safety valve for market

changes, and it does protect tenants from unusually high changes in

their rents.

[2:00 p.m.]

Under the existing laws, some would enter into fixed-tenancy

agreements and use the vacate clause to raise a tenant’s rent above the

allowable amount. The landlords could threaten to invoke the vacate

clause unless the tenant signed a new agreement with a much higher rent

increase. The government does not have specific numbers on how prevalent

this situation was; however, advocacy groups say it has become much more

common in recent years.

There are some issues that are related especially to agricultural

situations where there are short-term employment contracts related to

housing. Then, at other times of the year, vacate clauses are needed so

that the seasonal employees will be able to get their housing

back.

These are some of the issues that we would like to canvass during

the committee stage, but in general, we’re pleased with the direction of

this, and we commend the government for their work.

R. Singh: I’m proud to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 16, the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act. For far too long, British Columbians have been

hard-pressed to find and keep suitable rental housing, due to low

vacancy rates and the escalating cost of living in the province. This

bill will help to protect our 1.5 million renters in this province who

are struggling to make ends meet, and it’s part of our government’s

commitment to make life more affordable for all British

Columbians.

According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, rental

vacancy rates in many cities around this province, including Surrey, are

below 1 percent — only 1 percent. This low vacancy rate has led to

skyrocketing rental prices, and the fixed-term-lease loophole has

enabled some unscrupulous landlords to circumvent legislated annual rent

control, to the detriment of B.C. renters.

We are committed to protect the rights of renters who have been

vulnerable to massive rent increases for far too long. By closing this

loophole, renters will no longer be faced with the terrible choice

between staying in an apartment they can’t afford and entering the

fiercely competitive and unaffordable B.C. rental market.

These amendments will limit the ability of landlords to use the

vacate clause in fixed-term tenancy agreements. They will only be able

to do so in certain circumstances. Landlords will still be able to end

tenancy when there is cause. These amendments simply mean that tenants

signing fixed-term agreements will no longer be subject to unfair rent

increases.

The bill will also limit rent increases to 2 percent per annum

plus inflation for fixed-term tenancy agreements with the same tenant.

It will also strengthen the ability of the residential tenancy branch to

enforce compliance with the Residential Tenancy Act, a resource for both

tenants and landlords. Importantly, these new rules will apply to both

new and existing tenancy agreements, which means that we can end these

loopholes once and for all today.

Housing affordability was a key election commitment of our

government. As such, we are not only looking to close these loopholes;

we are also taking steps to develop a far-reaching and comprehensive

housing strategy. We have committed $208 million to build 1,700

affordable housing units and are providing $291 million in funding to

build 2,000 modular homes in order to address homelessness, as part of

our broader commitment to build 114,000 units over the next ten

years.

We have increased funding to reduce wait times for tenancy

disputes by funding a new compliance unit to take action against

landlords and tenants who are repeat or serious offenders, and we have

launched a new on-line application to make it easier and faster for

tenants and landlords to apply for dispute resolution.

[2:05 p.m.]

Our government is committed to mitigating the effects of 16 years

of Liberal government that did not care about keeping life affordable

for everyday British Columbians. This bill will help to protect renters

in this province from unfair and unaffordable increases or

evictions.

I’m looking forward to voting for this bill, because I know it

works to immediately help people in my constituency and around the

province. For this reason, I sincerely hope that all members of this

House will join with me and support this bill.

A. Olsen: I rise today to speak to the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act. It’s

no secret that we’re in the midst of an affordability crisis that is

having profound and wide-ranging impacts on people and families in our

province. Renters are particularly vulnerable in this market. It is in

this context that I support this bill.

Young British Columbians are of the hardest hit in this crisis, as

young people are disproportionately renters and are being priced out of

the housing market as homeowners. Appropriate and affordable rental

units have become extremely difficult to find, especially for families.

As a result, our friends, neighbours and family members are forced to

live in unsafe, unstable, unsuitable and unaffordable

accommodation.

Social stability begins and ends in the home. The stability of a

person’s housing situation determines their quality of life, mental

health, productivity at work and with the family. If we truly want a

strong, productive, flexible, diverse and agile 21st-century economy,

then establishing a strong foundation in the home should be our

priority.

This is why I was so particularly motivated to get elected into

this House — to be involved in addressing the situation and finding

solutions to the dramatic housing affordability crisis that the previous

government let grow out of control in order to prop up their

strong-economy rhetoric. This crisis has not just affected homebuyers

but also owners and landlords, and one result is that renters lack

security and have become vulnerable to abuse by some landlords who are

taking advantage of the situation.

In the last few years, we’ve seen an egregious practice emerge.

Some landlords are forcing renters to sign a fixed-term tenancy

agreement with a vacate clause, which forces tenants to either move out

at the end of the tenancy or agree to an entirely new lease that comes

with rent increases that go well beyond the allowable rental increases

under the law of 2 percent plus inflation.

In a market with a vacancy rate near zero percent and skyrocketing

rents, renters have very few options. They often feel forced to agree to

massive rental increases to stay in the same unit. I’ve heard stories of

rents going up 10, 20 percent or even more from one year to the

next.

It’s obviously unacceptable that renters have to deal with this

kind of housing insecurity and that some landlords are skirting the law

by using this loophole to increase rents. So I support the intention of

this bill to protect renters from this practice by banning the use of a

vacate clause in fixed-term contracts except in special

circumstances.

But I would like to emphasize a few things here. First, only a

small minority of landlords engage in this practice. Most landlords are

responsible and fair. We need to strike a fine balance between the

rights of tenants and landlords and do more to protect both. In our

current market, the scale has been tipped too far towards landlords, but

we also need to have a conversation about how to protect people who rent

out their homes and how to encourage people to provide secure, long-term

rental accommodation at affordable prices.

We need to protect good landlords, and we need to ensure that we

are not discouraging people from providing long-term rental

accommodation. It would be a travesty if people, instead, turned to

short-term rentals because it was perceived to be easier.

To this end, my colleagues and I will be raising more specific

questions about this bill at committee stage. I want to discuss further

the circumstances that will be provided for in regulations when a vacate

clause will still be allowed. And I want to discuss some of the risks to

ensure that we have fully thought through the consequences of this

legislation.

[2:10 p.m.]

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this issue, the fact that

some landlords are abusing the vacate clause to increase rents, is a

symptom of an out-of-control housing market. This bill takes steps to

protect some of the people who have been the most vulnerable in this

crisis.

In evaluating any legislation to do with housing, we need to stay

focused on the crux of the issue. The ongoing housing affordability

crisis is hurting British Columbians in many ways. It’s piling massive

financial burdens on individuals and families, and it’s damaging

people’s health and well-being. People are struggling and being driven

out by rampant speculation, huge amounts of international capital, as

well as domestic speculation, amidst many other pressures.

The crisis is, in turn, damaging our communities. It’s turning our

cities into the exclusive purview of the very wealthy as neighbourhoods

empty and businesses struggle.

I read an

article this week by journalist Jessica Barrett in the

Tyee on her decision to leave Vancouver. I assume some

members of this House have read it. If you have not, I encourage you to

do so. I want to quote it here because I think it captures some of what

we lose when we allow this housing crisis to continue. On the

neighbourhood where she lived in Vancouver, she says the

following:

“The neighbourhood itself was like living on an abandoned film set.

Aside from our landlord, we only ever saw construction workers,

landscapers and, on occasion, the squatters who lived in the empty

mansion across the street — just a line on someone’s investment sheet

somewhere.

“All the places that felt like home — the coffee shops where I loved

to write, the grocery stores where I had shopped all those years earlier

— almost all of them were gone, either slated to become condos or simply

languishing as vacant storefronts. Contrary to Vancouver’s reputation,

I’d never felt isolated as long as I’d lived there until my last year,

when the loneliness became unbearable.”

We cannot allow this to continue. We must protect the integrity of

our communities, and homes are at the heart. Homes are the fabric of our

communities. We must protect what makes our cities special. They must be

livable and accessible to people from all demographics and walks of life

— students, creative professionals, entrepreneurs and young families.

Our cities must provide a space for small and independent businesses to

thrive. Businesses must be able to retain workers and afford to pay

their leases.

To do this, to keep our communities vibrant and protect the

well-being of the people who live here, we must take a bold action and

address the root of the issue, not just make tweaks at the margins. We

must curb the over-commodification of our homes. Housing should exist to

provide homes first, and a means of investment only second.

British Columbians expect this government to follow through on

their commitment to fix the housing affordability crisis. I’m eagerly

waiting to hear more from this government on the concrete actions to

reverse current trends and make our cities livable and affordable, to

make them places where British Columbians from all walks of life and all

demographics can live and flourish. HÍSW̱ḴE.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to start out by expressing my support for the intent of

Bill 16, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017. I think you’ll find

that there is pretty much universal agreement in this House that tenants

should not be at the mercy of predatory landlords and that in our

current housing and rental market, more can be done to protect

them.

I’m also encouraged to understand that LandlordBC and tenant

advocacy groups, such as the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre, are in

favour of these amendments as they do not feel the bill will cause

landlords to take rental properties off the market or cause adverse

effects for renters.

While there is concern that this bill may produce unintended

consequences for both renters and landlords alike, I will be further

following up with these concerns during the committee stage to ensure

that these concerns are addressed on the record.

On that note, I’d like to bring your attention to an email I

received from a constituent who had concern about the stated amendment

section 3 of this bill that would eliminate “the option of including

a requirement to vacate the rental unit in a fixed-term tenancy

agreement.”

[2:15 p.m.]

The constituent understands this is being proposed to prevent

landlords from forcing tenants to enter a new tenancy agreement with

higher, uncontrolled rent at the end of the fixed term. However, he goes

on to argue:

“There are circumstances that warrant fixed-term leases, especially

in the case of short-term tenancy agreements where the landlord is

renting out parts or all of their principal residence: if a landlord is

travelling for a fixed term — snowbirds, for example — and wishes to

rent out their property for a period that matches the fixed travel term;

or if the landlord has a suite in their principal residence occupied

currently by family members, and a family member will be away for a

fixed term — perhaps to school, or they’ll return in the summer or end

of their school period; or if the owner of the property passes away and

their estate wants to rent it out for a fixed term while the estate is

settled.”

I think my constituent raises some very valid points, and that is

why I was pleased to see the exceptions to this bill that, to my

understanding, address this concern.

As I understand it, there do exist provisions to the changes in

the bill that would allow a vacate clause to be enforced, one such

exclusion being that if a property owner has prior plans to be away for

a determined amount of time and has a firm commitment to return on a

specific date, they may enter into a tenancy that contains a vacate

clause.

Knowing that this exception will account for landlords that may be

away for school or work or may wish to go on extended vacation will, I’m

sure, help to address my constituent’s concerns. But that being said, I

recognize that addressing vacate clauses in fixed-term leases is just

one step in addressing the rental and housing crunch here in British

Columbia — in particular, in the Lower Mainland.

There is much that this bill does not do. I look forward to

further canvassing the government in committee stage to better

understand the mechanics of this bill and its potential unintended

consequences and, on the whole, to ensure that it speaks for the best

interests of both tenants and landlords.

S. Chandra Herbert: I must admit that standing today to speak on this legislation,

Bill 16, on changes to the Residential Tenancy Act feels a little

unbelievable to me. For nine years, I sat on the other side of the

House. From the first day I was here, the first speech I gave was

calling for changes to the Residential Tenancy Act to help renters —

renters facing mass eviction, renters facing massive rent hikes, renters

facing unfairness in their ability to live in their homes in

peace.

These are tough stories. I can think back, and faces come to mind

more than names now. I used to be great with names, but nine years in,

you start to forget names and just remember faces and stories of people

who would come to my office, people who would stop me on the street,

people I would speak with on the phone.

I remember the sound of their voices as they shared their anguish.

They’d done everything right. They’d followed the rules. They’d worked

incredibly hard to maintain a good life. Sometimes they were

Conservative, sometimes they were Liberal, sometimes they were Green,

and sometimes they were New Democrat. Most of the time, they had no

political persuasion at all. They just wanted to be able to live a good

life in their home.

They followed their residential tenancy agreements. They paid

respect to their landlords. They were happy to have a roof over their

heads. Unfortunately, for far too many of them, they were too trusting.

It gave me such pain to hear that, when they said: “You know, I trusted

my landlord when they said I needed to sign this new agreement, sign a

new lease.”

“Sign this piece of paper to just update the record” would often

be how it was sold to them. Often it was seniors being approached by

their friendly landlord, or so they thought; their friendly building

manager, or so they thought; and told to sign this new, updated

contract.

They would come to me and say: “What do I do now? They’re telling

me I’m being evicted next month. I’ve done nothing wrong.” I’d ask to

see the paperwork, and unfortunately, they would have been tricked into

signing a fixed-term tenancy agreement, self-evicting at the end of

their term, often a year.

Finally, after the opposition, advocacy groups — and, so often,

the renters themselves — talked to the media, pled with ministers, pled

with MLAs to act, a government is acting. Finally, after nine years of

trying to raise this sort of issue in the House, we now have a

government on this side of the House who will act.

[2:20 p.m.]

Within its first 100 days, this bill was brought forward. I’m so

proud of the New Democrat government for hearing this call, for

committing to act and for actually acting, because fixed-term tenancies

have been the plague of so many peoples’ lives, my constituents in

particular. They’ve lost their homes, or they’ve signed new agreements

because they could not possibly imagine leaving their community. They

agreed to 30 percent rent increases, 50 percent rent increases in some

cases, just in order to stay in their home.

In many cases, these were people on pensions. I think of folks on

pensions, fixed incomes, agreeing to 20 percent rent increases because

they were so afraid that they would never be able to find a home to rent

in our neighbourhood again. They agreed to take money from their food

budget to pay for the rent, because the former government refused to end

this practice.

Over a year, two years ago, the then Housing Minister, now Leader

of the Official Opposition, promised the public that they would end this

practice. They’d heard that this was a problem. They’d heard that

people’s lives were being harmed, were being hurt. They were going to

act to end the fixed-term tenancy con. I say con because people were

conned into signing agreements that they didn’t have to. They trusted

people, and they lost trust.

It’s horrible to me that I had to talk to them about how, yes,

some people are untrustworthy; how, yes, some people did break their

promises; how, yes, their landlord may have been breaking their word to

them and tricking them into signing things they never should have done.

But I had to counsel them that yes, they needed to get advice more

often. They needed to seek a second opinion before agreeing to sign

anything.

The number of times I had to send letters into buildings in my

constituency, letting everybody in the building know that a few people

in the building had been conned and that they might be next, are too

many to list. It’s something that gave me no pleasure — to have write to

renters to say: “I understand that your neighbours have been tricked

into signing fixed-term tenancy agreements.” I didn’t use those words. I

just laid out the act as it was and said that they didn’t have to sign

anything, but too often it was too late. People would come to say: “I

wish I’d known this earlier, but I was conned.”

That con ends with this bill. No longer will my constituents have

to face a landlord coming to them, saying: “Sign today, and I won’t do

this. Sign today, and maybe you won’t lose your home, but maybe you

will. Just update your contract now in terms of fixed terms.”

There are other things that we need to change in the Residential

Tenancy Act, like geographic area increases, to name one. The challenges

of renovictions, to name two. I could give you a longer list that I’m

working on and that I know our government is working on, but this is a

really good first step, because it was being abused to get around the

residential tenancy rent controls in a big, big way. The former

government refused. We are acting.

The other thing this bill does, and I’m really happy to see it, is

that it’s actually, finally going to help allow a government to go after

bad apples. I say “bad apples” because it’s a quote coming from the now

Leader of the Opposition, who, when he was Housing Minister, numerous

times would say: “We’re getting tough on those bad apple landlords.

We’re going to make sure they don’t harm those poor renters.” He would

say it again and again and again.

Any time I raised a case where, clearly, a tenant was being

abused, they would pull: “Well, we changed the act so that we can go

after those bad apple landlords.” Then he never did. It was a great

sound bite for TV, but it offered no comfort and no assistance to the

tenants actually in those situations.

This bill is allowing us to actually enforce administrative

penalties, so if somebody is breaking the law — if somebody is lying, is

cheating, is finding some way around the rules — and they get caught,

we’re actually, now, going to be able to go after them.

You know, there was legislation introduced in, I think, 2006-2007

by the former government that they could point to. They pointed to it

numerous times, saying: “See, we introduced administrative penalties so

we can go after those people who break the laws, so we can go after

those people who cheat at the residential tenancy system.” But they

never actually did.

This law change that we’re bringing in is going to give the

government the ability to actually say, “Provide us evidence,” if

somebody is cheating the system; to say, “We’re going to compel you to

give us the documents so we can check your facts. We don’t just have to

rely on your word. We can actually see whether or not you’re telling the

truth by looking at the evidence.”

[2:25 p.m.]

All those bad apple landlords that the former Housing Minister

used to talk about could just say: “No, we didn’t break the rules.” And

the government had no ability to actually go in and check, to really go

in and find out if that, in fact, was true. So of course penalties could

never be levied.

Here we are, probably about ten years after that legislation was

brought in to allow administrative penalties to be issued by residential

tenancy branch. Ten years later, we’re actually putting in place rules

to make that possible. It strikes me as incredibly disrespectful to

renters and landlords across this province that a government said that

we were going to go after the bad apples ten years ago and never did,

never made that actually possible.

Well, we’re making that possible, and not just bad apple

landlords, bad apple tenants. If they’re breaking the rules again and

again and again, and there’s a pattern, the residential tenancy branch

will be able to go after them, to fine them, to hit them with penalties

so that, clearly, they’re not able to do that again. It’s no longer just

the cost of doing business.

The current context has been that even if you get caught breaking

the rules, it’s a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle and told, “Don’t

do that again,” until you come back again the next month, after having

done it again, and you’re told: “Don’t do that again.” And then another

slap with the wet noodle. That’s how this act, so far, has been

enforced.

I’m really pleased that that is going to change, because not only

is this act going to allow them to compel evidence, but it’s going to

allow a proper procedure done that will stand up in courts of law so

that they can actually show there has been procedural fairness, so that

everybody gets a fair chance to be heard and so that you can actually do

the right thing.

We’ve changed the law. Of course, with the budget changes, we’re

actually going to hire compliance officers so that you can actually go

out and enforce the law. That’s the other thing. Introducing a law and

then not actually hiring anybody to enforce the law and, as we earlier

stated, not actually giving the law the teeth to actually be enforced….

You might as well not have even introduced that law.

We’re fixing that wrong now because landlords and tenants deserve

so much better. Compelling documents, conducting investigations,

administrative penalty procedures to actually be fair — you have to do

those things. And that’s something that the B.C. Liberal government

refused to do numerous times for their 16 years of being in

government.

Within the first 100 days, we introduced legislation to do that,

because we do respect landlords and tenants. We do respect renters

rights, and we think that they deserve their rights to be actually

respected. We do respect the law, and if people are breaking the law,

they should actually be penalized, not just slapped with a wet noodle,

as had been the previous practice when the Leader of the Opposition was

the Housing Minister — if that.

One notorious case was that a building was collapsing in on its

tenants. They were hit with, I think, a $400,000 fine. I was so excited.

Administrative penalties were actually finally being used. But you know

what the former government did?

They let that landlord off the hook by saying: “Oh, well, you’ve

repaired the building, so it’s no longer a deathtrap for your tenants.

Well, we’re not going to fine you anymore. You didn’t follow the law.

You broke the law numerous times. You required tons of taxpayer

resources to be used to go after you. But now you’ve finally complied

with the law. We’re not going to charge you the fine that we gave you,

even though you profited by breaking the law and the taxpayers

suffered.”

That was the previous government’s approach to bad landlords and

dealing with the Residential Tenancy Act. That’s not the way it’s going

to be, I hope, any longer. We need to respect the law, and that means

respecting landlords and respecting tenants.

I just want to finish by saying that the other thing in this bill

is returning security deposits and pet damage deposits faster. That’s

something that this legislation is also going to help make

possible.

Believe it or not, I once had a senator, an American senator from

one of the Eastern states, come to my constituency office. I said: “A

senator. That’s a big deal. You’re a big deal in the States. You have

lots of staff. You’re an important person. What are you doing visiting a

lowly member of the Legislature, and one in opposition, to

boot?”

She said: “Well, it’s because my daughter can’t get back her

damage deposit.” Her daughter was studying, I think, in Vancouver, had

rented in the West End, couldn’t get a damage deposit back from the

landlord.

[2:30 p.m.]

The landlord, in my experience, was a bit notorious for not giving

back damage deposits, for finding ways to game the system and hope that

residents and renters would never actually go through all the rigamarole

of trying to get them to give it back, hoping that they would leave

town, as in the case of the senator’s daughter, who was about to leave

town. She wanted help then so that they could actually get the damage

deposit back.

Well, eventually she did, but it took many months and a lot of

trying — assistance from my office, from the Tenant Resource and

Advisory Centre, gummed up the residential tenancy system — all because

the landlord knew that on a probability case, many tenants would give up

and wouldn’t continue to press the case. Then they would profit from

never having to give the damage deposit back.

Well, while we helped and solved that problem, this bill is going

to make it much easier for expedited return of damage deposits and pet

deposits. When you’re in an affordability crisis, as we are, and many

people are living paycheque to paycheque, a damage deposit might be

their only chunk of money, which they need in order to get a new

apartment or in order to pay a big bill or pay a debt or pay moving

expenses down the road.

It’s really important that these damage deposits not be held as a

“maybe you get it back, maybe you don’t.” Maybe you’ll get it back in

six months time; maybe you won’t. Maybe you’ll have to go to small

claims court or something like that. No, people deserve the money. It’s

their money as long as they’ve not damaged the suite.

So a shout-out to my renter friends out there. Make sure you take

pictures, if you can, of the suite before you move in. Make sure you get

a condition assessment report done before you move in, because those are

very important things, down the road, to getting your damage deposit

back.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If your landlord doesn’t give you a condition assessment report,

they can’t claim your damage deposit back. That’s just a little note, an

FYI for folks back at home, because a lot of people don’t know their

rights when it comes to Residential Tenancy Act rules.

Again, for those in my constituency who currently are on fixed

terms — and unfortunately, some developers have decided to use fixed

terms exclusively in their buildings because they can get around rent

controls, and it seemed to be given the go-ahead by the former

government — this act will also make it so that your fixed term becomes

a month-to-month tenancy, unless you’d already agreed to move out or

unless another tenant, before this legislation was offered, had already

signed a tenancy agreement to move into that suite.

For everybody else, if you’re coming up to the end of the year

where your landlord normally says to you, “Well, it’s time again to sign

another fixed term, and we’re going to give you a $100-a-month” — or a

$200-a-month — “rent increase, or you’ll be evicted,” you’re going to

move to a month-to-month. That’s going to mean that you get the annual

allowable rent increase, not a massive rent increase of the hundreds and

hundreds of dollars variety that the former Liberal government seemed to

think was appropriate, affordable and acceptable.

They were dead wrong then. They said it was too hard to change.

Well, within 100 days, we’ve showed that it’s not too hard to change.

It’s not too hard to have respect for renters and landlords. It’s not

too hard to do the right thing. That’s why I’m so glad to be supporting

this legislation.

I’m so incredibly proud of my colleagues. I want to say thank you

to them for listening to my cries for help on this, for listening to the

renters of B.C.’s cries for help on this and so many others who’ve

advocated on this issue. Thank you for advocating. It’s been worth the

fight. It’s been worth the persistence. I just know that those who are

going to be helped in the future are…. It’s going to make such a

difference for too many people who’ve had to deal with this horror show

that has been the fixed-term tenancy con for far too long. I’m so glad

we can support this legislation.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate at second reading on Bill

16, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act.

As we’ve heard, this bill has three main goals. It makes

amendments to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential

Tenancy Act. The bill makes the following changes.

First, it restricts the ability for landlords to use a vacate

clause with fixed-term leases except in special circumstances that will

be provided for by regulation. Two, it limits rent increases between

fixed-term tenancies with the same tenant to the maximum annual

allowable amount. Three, it enables the residential tenancy branch to

take stronger actions to enforce tenancy laws on repeat violators, and

also it streamlines the dispute resolution process for the return of

security and pet deposits.

I rise to speak to this bill as someone who historically has both

been a renter and a landlord — a landlord since 1986 in one form or

another. I rise to say that I approach this bill very

cautiously.

[2:35 p.m.]

I recognize that there is a crisis facing affordability in Metro

Vancouver and in metro Victoria, where vacancy rates are below half a

percent, or 0.6 percent. And I recognize that there are a number of bad

apples out there — I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s term

“bad apples” — who have created a crisis in terms of fixed-term leases

being used as a means of avoiding the law, the law which limits rent

increases for people who are there.

Now, I approach this also from the side of those who are landlords

to recognize that the fixed-term lease often is one of the only means to

actually get a tenant out of a property if the tenant is actually not

responsibly taking care of that property.

I understand that there is the rental tenancy agency and the

agreement. I’m concerned that without an injection of substantial funds

— something I’ll explore in the committee stage, and I understand these

will be forthcoming — the intent will be lost of this one tool that

landlords have to ensure that they can evict a tenant in a timely

fashion without having to drag through the RTA process. We do know that

there are some cases where we have irresponsible landlords, but we also

have irresponsible renters.

I respect the need for this legislation in a basically

zero-vacancy market. We have a crisis on our hands. We need to deal with

that crisis to ensure that renters, the most vulnerable in our society,

are not being taken advantage of by those exploiting it. But at the same

time, in the longer term, I think we need to look very carefully at how

we actually move the whole Residential Tenancy Act forward to ensure

that we protect good landlords.

I come to my own personal circumstance as somebody who has been a

landlord for many, many years and, also, from a family of people who

worked in the restaurant business, who did not have a pension. They had

no pension other than by the fact that they squirrelled their savings

into real estate to ensure that their pension would be the rent from

this real estate in their retirement.

Now, again, the single most important thing a landlord can do is

get a good tenant who lives in the same place for a long time. A good

tenant is more valuable than $100 a month, because you know a good

tenant is one that will take care of the property. It’s one that you do

not price out of the market.

One of the means and ways that landlords will use this fixed-term

clause is you’ll sign a one-year agreement but not automatically go to

the month-to-month, because automatically going to the month-to-month

will start to invoke the RTA process. You view it both for protection of

the landlord and the renter. This one-year period is a period to see

whether the relationship…. In a tenant or renter case, for most small

business landlords — not the multinationals or the big property owners

but the small business ones who are really trying to get the best tenant

— this is a good check to ensure that you’re a match.

In my personal case, I viewed it as a way to give back. We, for

years and years, have given below-market rent in a house or two houses

because we could give someone a leg-up. We could give them a chance.

We’d know that they’d be there, and they’d take care of the property for

a long, long time.

I mean, some members here would think it kind of odd if I said

that we rented a four-bedroom house for a $1,000 a month. That’s what we

did here. It covered our costs, it gave people a break, and it allowed

us to protect ourselves for the future, and our children, in this

escalating real estate market.

With that said, we can look to those bad apples. Those bad apples

have actually taken this and made it into a crisis, and I have no

sympathy for that.

People taking advantage of other people because of a difficult

time in affordability is wrong at a fundamental level. That is why,

ultimately, I support this bill, with the caveat that I’ll explore at

committee stage some of the attempts that government will take to

actually ensure that the rental tenancy office is resourced properly, so

that delays are not there for the sake of delays, that people can get

responses for their concerns in a timely fashion and that landlords and

renters are protected. Ultimately, I think the collective view here is

that we want to make this system better.

[2:40 p.m.]

As we know, there’s a small minority of these landlords who’ve

been engaged in this business. And again, for those out there, other

landlords, we really need to turn to those irresponsible landlords and

say: “You know what? This is your fault.” Government has responded as it

must respond to a crisis that was created by irresponsible landlords

taking advantage of a system. For that, again, I come back to the reason

why ultimately I think this is an important bill to support.

In terms of the enforcement laws, this too is important. The

amendments that are being proposed will allow the branch to more

strongly enforce the tenancy laws. Again, this is important because they

will be able to compel the production of documents as part of penalty

investigations, publish penalty decisions, refuse to accept an

application for dispute resolution if an administrative penalty is owed

and pursue prosecution where penalties have been levied but there is

still no compliance.

This largely protects the renter, but there are clauses in here

that do also protect the landlord with respect to administrative

penalties if they have not been paid as well. Again, this is a good

component of the legislation, which I’m very pleased to

support.

Finally, when it comes to streamlining pet and damage deposits,

again, this legislation…. I understand the need for doing it, but

ultimately it comes back to the fact that those few bad apples out there

have required such legislation be put in place.

The overwhelming majority of landlords take the return of pet and

damage deposits very seriously. They follow due process. They ensure

that they’re not retained for inappropriate means. To be blunt, the

process, if the renter knows — going through the rental tenancy branch

and the whole adjudication process — is very, very cumbersome, and

nobody wants to do that. So the majority of landlords have been

following process appropriately. But again, those bad apples have made

this necessary.

I come to the compelling arguments put forward by the member for

Vancouver–West End, who is in an area of Metro Vancouver with a very low

vacancy rate, very high rental accommodations — frankly, a whole bunch

of vacant places as well — and I hear his concerns. I hear his concerns,

and I support the amendments, as we’ve seen fit, to ensure that the

retention of security deposits is not done inappropriately.

In conclusion, I support the intent of this bill to end the abuse

of the current act by a small number of landlords who skirt rent

controls and evict people from their homes if they won’t agree to large

rent increases. I look forward to discussing the bill in committee stage

and, in particular, exploring the means and ways the tenancy branch will

actually be funded and the means and ways that will allow disputes to be

dealt with in a timely fashion, and I look forward to listening to

others in this second reading debate.

D. Barnett: Housing affordability is an issue that affects all British

Columbians, and not just those in highly populated areas. We need to

ensure that renters have access to quality housing and that their rights

are respected. The same applies to landlords. Bill 16, the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act, addresses many of these issues in a balanced and

fair approach. It is, after all, government’s duty to ensure that

tenants are not at the mercy of predatory landlords.

At the same time, we also wish to ensure that landlords remain

incentivized to rent properties. It is our understanding that LandlordBC

is in favour of these changes. LandlordBC recognizes that under the

existing rules, there is a segment of landlords who are actively abusing

the existing rules. The problem is significant, and this legislation is

aimed at those landlords who are not following the spirit of current

laws and applying higher-than-allowed rent increases.

After careful examination of this bill, my colleagues on this side

of the House are satisfied that this legislation will not cause

landlords to take rental properties off the markets. That being said, we

want to explore any unintended consequences of this bill, which we will

be canvassing at the committee stage.

[2:45 p.m.]

We take special note of the fact that the bill also protects

landlords who have firm commitments or tenants who are subletting. These

are unique situations and, again, make sense to exclude from the

legislation.

We do have concerns that the retroactive aspect of the bill does

change existing leases, which could cause disruption for many properties

around the province.

In addition, the new arbitration powers for security deposits will

assist tenants and landlords by clearing wait-lists. This bill also

reduces the wait time for security deposits to three weeks, down from

six months.

At first glance, this legislation makes a lot of changes that we

support. But we must ensure that the consequences are fully vetted

before it is put in place.

S. Furstenau: I rise today to speak briefly in support of Bill 16, the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act. Today renters are in an incredibly precarious

situation, and I can speak personally to the stress of being a renter

while also being a student and a single parent.

When I knew that I needed to move from one rental place to

another, I found it difficult to focus on my studies or to focus on

being a good mother. All of my time and mental energy was focused on

trying to find a suitable place for me and my son to live. I experienced

this in the 1990s and early 2000s, well before the market escalated to

the heights we see today. It’s unimaginable now what people are facing,

trying to find affordable, safe, secure places to live, especially if

they have a family.

Alongside rising rents and nearly zero percent vacancy levels,

some renters have to deal with landlords who use the so-called vacate

clause loophole to increase rents well beyond the annual allowable

rates. These landlords force tenants to sign a lease with an agreed-upon

move-out date, and then make them agree to rent increases that go well

beyond the allowable year-over-year increases if they want to stay in

their home.

Cracking down on this practice is simply the right thing to do.

People deserve to have safe, stable and appropriate accommodation. And

with our growing inequality in B.C., more and more people have found

themselves in these challenging situations. We need to recognize how

difficult life can be for renters in our province.

If you can’t predict where you’re going to live in a few months

from now or how you’re going to be able to afford your rent, everything

else in your life becomes marginalized. You cannot focus on being a

stable parent, advancing your career or doing well in school. And if

rent eats up too much of your income, you have trouble finding the

necessities for you and your family.

I see this legislation as one piece of the puzzle towards

providing greater housing security for renters. I’d like to echo the

comments of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands. Houses in

B.C. should be first and foremost for homes, yet we’ve seen a disturbing

trend that has allowed more and more houses turned into commodities,

which is leaving more and more neighbourhoods hollowed out and more and

more unnecessary pressure added to the housing and rental

markets.

This bill deals primarily with a symptom of the housing crisis,

and I will support it while I wait for government to take comprehensive,

targeted action to addresses the drivers of our out-of-control housing

market.

S. Cadieux: I, too, am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 16, the

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act.

I am in general support of the legislation, although I have a few

comments related and will take a few moments just to start off with

something that may seem a little bit unrelated, but I’ll circle back to

why I’m talking about it. That is that of late in the city of Surrey,

there’s been quite a controversy brewing over an attempt to enforce

bylaws by the city on landlords with illegal suites. For many

law-abiding citizens, that would seem to be a good thing.

[2:50 p.m.]

The challenge then comes when in a particular neighbourhood, a

particularly densely populated neighbourhood that was actually designed

with coach houses and the like, we see not the intended number of

families in those single-family homes but, in fact, two and even three

families in many of those homes. In many of those townhouses, as well,

there are suites. It has led to a large parking problem in this

particular neighbourhood.

Now, many of us will know, because we’re legislators and because

many of us have come out of the municipal system, that bylaws that are

in place in cities around zoning and these sorts of things are generally

a complaints-based process. People make complaints about things not

being adhered to or done appropriately, and then bylaw enforcement

officers go in and see to the issue.

Certainly, in this case, it’s an issue that has been raised over

many years but just now has come to sort of the breaking point. What

complicates matters is that now we have a situation where there are

landlords who have registered illegal suites with the city knowingly —

but the city has taken taxes on those illegal suites — and they’re now

being told they can’t have those suites and to evict their tenants. That

puts in immediate difficulty at least 175 families.

But when you delve further into this, there are actually more than

2,400 illegal suites registered with the city, and those are just the

ones they know about, not the ones they don’t. What we also know, at the

same time, is that we don’t want, as a city, to see 2,400 families out

on the streets in a rental market with less than a 0.4 percent vacancy

rate.

I come back to this not because I think the city is not within

their rights to enforce bylaws, nor do I think that the landlords are

entirely faultless in having illegal suites in their homes, nor do I

think the tenants are faultless in not knowing that they were entering

into an agreement that may be tenuous.

The reality is that we have a challenge in our rental market. The

reality is that — we all know this — we don’t have enough rental units

in our marketplace. That has come about over a long period of time for a

great many reasons, not the least of which has been that — from the

conversations I’ve had with landlords, or past landlords in many cases,

over the years — the challenges of being a landlord and the challenges

of dealing with tenants aren’t easy ones. It’s not for

everyone.

Then we have the challenge of the fact that in the municipalities,

we haven’t zoned for rental buildings. We haven’t encouraged the

building of rental properties. We haven’t incented that. In fact,

through time, I think, through regulation and legislation at the

provincial and municipal levels, all involved have made it harder and

harder for landlords to be good landlords, for people to invest in

property for that purpose. And we have forgotten that, ultimately, the

landlord is the owner of the property. The landlord owns the property

and should have, with that, rights to do with that property what they

wish at a period of time, within reason. We need those rental units, and

we need good landlords.

Then we come to the situation that we are faced with today, where

we just don’t have enough rental units in the marketplace and we have a

percentage of, as colleagues in this House have said, “bad apples”

amongst landlords, who have chosen to use a loophole to unfairly raise

rents. We are now faced with having to make change to the legislation. I

support the change that we’re trying to make. I think many members in

this House that have spoken previously have talked about the things we

want to ensure we’re not accidentally doing by doing this, to make sure

that we’ve thought about all of the consequences of doing

this.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, just before me, mentioned a

number of situations where a fixed-term lease actually is a good option

for some landlords in some circumstances. It provides landlords with

some certainty. So we want to make sure that what we’re doing with this

legislation isn’t inadvertently causing a new problem we’re going to

have to solve in six months or a year.

[2:55 p.m.]

Certainly, I, along with others on this side of the House, support

the legislation in its intent, given the circumstance we find ourselves

in. I think that, given the opportunity for some exceptions to the rule

for some reasonable circumstances, that allows for some flexibility

here.

I am a little bit concerned about the retrospective clause, not

because we don’t want to protect the tenants. We do. But we also don’t

want to be creating situations we’re unaware of. So I’m curious to hear

a little more about how that’s going to work in situations where we have

landlords that have a need to end that lease for a purpose. I’m sure

that that’s been thought about, and I’m sure that we’ll get into that

detail in committee stage.

I think, as well, it’s great that we seem to have agreement,

between the tenants groups and the landlords groups, that this is a good

change to make and that it won’t negatively affect the marketplace. We

don’t want it to reduce the number of rentals on the market, certainly.

So that’s good.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t say…. There are, again,

challenges on both sides of this — not to place blame but just to

recognize the fact that in every circumstance, there are two parties.

While we know there are circumstances where people have taken advantage

of their power, or perceived power, in that relationship, we also know

there is another individual in that relationship that has willingly

signed.

While I understand what we’re trying to do to fix this, I think we

need to recognize that part of our challenge, beyond the tight

marketplace that we’re working within, is that we need to do a better

job of ensuring that both tenants and landlords, when they are new to

that relationship, are well informed of their rights and obligations on

both sides of that agreement — from a tenant perspective, that they

understand what they are signing in their lease or their month-to-month

situation or whatever it might be; and that landlords, who propose to

provide a space for rent, know what their obligations are to the tenant,

as well, in that circumstance, and what they are locking themselves into

in terms of their rights and obligations.

I think that that’s really important. The better we have education

and understanding on both sides of that arrangement…. We’re going to

lead to less situations that end up in dispute at the tenancy branch. I

know that this government has added dollars to the budget at the

residential tenancy branch to improve the service there. I think that’s

a good thing. But I’m hoping that, through that process, we’re going to

see the balance of those decisions, and the decisions that come out of

there, be more effective, as well, so that both landlords and tenants

feel that that’s a resource they can count on.

Again, both landlords and tenants probably could use a little

better information when they are starting off in this market. I know

young people, especially, willingly enter into agreements without really

understanding their full obligations, without understanding the need for

renters insurance, for example, and things like that. I think that there

might be the opportunity for some additional education programs, whether

that be through LandlordBC or Tenant Resource and Advisory or the RTB

itself or the provincial government’s website.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think there is an opportunity there, while making these very

important changes that we’re looking to make, to protect renters. We

also recognize that we don’t want to disincentivize the market and, as

such, look to find ways to incentivize the provision of rental housing

and encourage people to feel comfortable in becoming landlords. Also, to

make sure that through our process and through the government’s move

housing strategy, we’re looking not only at social housing and

government-purchased-and-run housing but, also, at how we’re going to

increase and improve upon the supply of rental housing in the private

market.

With that, I will conclude my remarks, provide my general support

for the act and look forward to committee stage debate.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m very pleased to be able to stand and say a few remarks about

something that is very, very critically important to my constituents

that is contained in this legislation — to close the fixed-term lease

loophole. That has been the subject of considerable abuse in a variety

of situations that have been to the detriment of tenants in greater

Victoria. It has resulted in former tenants being evicted and finding

themselves in a situation where they were vulnerable to homelessness

and, in fact, finding themselves in situations where they were without a

home, living in cars and finding that their health was deteriorating and

declining.

This is not a new problem, but it’s one that I’m very, very

pleased that, within almost 100 days, our government has sought to fix.

The previous government had ample opportunities, even acknowledged that

it was an issue, and did not close this loophole.

I’m pleased that our Minister of Housing and others in our

government have been able to get support from all of the critical

stakeholders in the housing sector, including landlord organizations, to

agree that the bill that is before the House this afternoon is

absolutely in the public interest — that it is balanced legislation,

that it is good for tenants and that it will not impact landlords’

ability to administer their responsibilities under the landlord-tenant

act. I think we should all be very pleased that at our first legislative

opportunity, a commitment that was made is one that is being delivered

on by this government.

The problem, as I mentioned, has been raised for a long time. It

was seen as a way to basically do an end run around rent control limits,

such as we have them, that capped the amount of annual increases that

could be put upon a tenant each year. What it essentially did was give

certain landlords…. We’ll call some of these people unscrupulous,

because what they did was unscrupulous — evict tenants, kick them to the

curb, break their tenancy, bring in a new tenant and jack the rent

up.

In this tight rental market…. In my region, the vacancy rate is

actually the lowest in Canada, even worse than Vancouver, at 0.4

percent. In greater Victoria, we have seen skyrocketing rents because

the controls, as we have them in place through legislation and

regulation, were made an ineffective laughingstock through the loophole

that the bill this afternoon seeks to close.

Not a difficult solution, either, it must be said. The bill that

is before the House is quite simple in terms of how its clauses are laid

out. This is a solution that was identified a long time ago and — I

think what people will understand — is the missing ingredient to get us

to a place where we’re going to have more effective landlord-tenant

legislation and protections as they were meant to be for renters. The

missing ingredient to getting us to the bill today was the political

will to do anything about it.

And 65 percent of people who reside in my constituency are

renters. Some of them will wish to be homeowners. Some of them may be

landlords someday. But today they’re renters — two-thirds of my

constituents in Victoria–Swan Lake.

[3:05 p.m.]

You better believe that this legislation today will positively

impact a great many lives and allow people to sleep a little bit better

tonight by relieving the anxiety that, at the end of their fixed-term

lease, if they’re on one — and a significant number of tenants are —

they will have protection as it was meant to be under the Residential

Tenancy Act.

Again, I have to applaud the work of the Housing Minister and

others in the government who got onto this issue quickly, who listened

to stakeholders who had raised these concerns and got nowhere on it with

the previous government, and created a path for us to get a broad

consensus out there in British Columbia — and that’s hard to get on any

issue — on this critical issue. We have representatives from all the

sectors within housing agreeing that this is good legislation, that this

is constructive change and that it will make the system fairer and

better for people.

There are some changes in here around compliance, as well, that I

think are commonsense, housekeeping-type amendments — long identified,

as well — that will help the residential tenancy branch to enforce

compliance against those who would continue to disobey, without

effective penalty, judgments that have gone against them.

There are some changes here to streamline the security deposit

disputes that clog up the residential tenancy branch that should be

much, much simpler and fairer and allow people to get on with their

lives once a tenancy is over. To drag these things on for months and

months at considerable public cost and personal cost for those who might

be involved in a dispute made absolutely no sense.

To have an expedited approach, I think, is a really, really

important justice reform within the system around the residential

tenancy branch. A million and a half renters will have better protection

in our great province when this bill becomes law.

The struggle to be able to find and afford and keep accommodation

will be made a little bit easier because of this law. People’s security

will be increased now when they sign a rental lease. It will be: what

you see is what you get. The law will be consistently applied, and that

is critically important.

I think MLAs on all sides of the House understand that part of

what our offices do is provide a good deal of education about how

landlord-tenancy laws apply in British Columbia, what the rules are. It

was very, very difficult — I can speak from experience, having held town

hall meetings and working with residents in my community, constituents

who were being renovicted — to come in and describe to them how we had

this unbalanced disequilibrium of the law being applied to different

types of situations and how they may have been induced into signing a

tenancy that worked against their interests.

I think now, all of us, every member of this chamber who uses

their office resources to educate tenants and landlords about how the

law is applied in British Columbia, will have an easier job doing it.

There will be more consistency and certainty about how different types

of tenancy are applied. So this is good news.

Our government will be moving to work on issues around supply. Low

vacancy rates are a critical issue in my area. I am working and meeting

with university and college presidents who have innovative ideas about

how they can create more student residences, for example, to add to the

regional supply.

Those were issues that were, again, brought to the attention of

the previous government for ten years. It was even featured in the 2006

throne speech that the previous government was going to work with

university leaders to allow post-secondary institutions to borrow to

build housing.

This is the safest investment we can make to increase the supply.

For ten years, nothing was done about it, even after it was referenced

in a throne speech.

[3:10 p.m.]

These are the kinds of things that a new government, a fresh set

of eyes and a group of people on this side of the House who actually

want to work to make life better for people us going to be able to get

around to doing. This is one of the issues that has been long discussed.

I note that even the previous Minister Responsible for Housing talked

about it year after year after year and did absolutely nothing about

it.

How sad that what we are doing today could have been done years

ago. People were evicted and thrown out into the streets, including a

71-year-old woman who was thrown out of an apartment block in my riding

and lived in a car for nine months. How sad that their rights could have

been protected previously, that their health wouldn’t have deteriorated

under the uncertainty of not having a roof over their heads. We are

going to make life more secure and certain for people like that by

passing this legislation.

Again, I applaud and salute the Minister of Housing for leading

the effort, for getting so quickly on to this issue. Here we are on day

109, or something like that, of a new government. We’re passing

legislation that the other side used to talk about but never did. They

paid lip service to it. I hope they’ll be voting for this bill because

they once promised people that they would introduce something like

it.

It would be great if the 1½ million tenants in British Columbia

knew that every MLA in this place believed that strengthening their

rights and balancing the Residential Tenancy Act was a good idea. I hope

they’ll vote for this bill when it comes time to vote on it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to be able

to speak on behalf of my constituents today in favour of this

bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to conclude.

Hon. S. Robinson: Before I move second reading of Bill 16, I want to take a few

moments to thank all the members in this House who spoke. I want to

express appreciation to the members for Vancouver–False Creek,

Surrey–Green Timbers, Saanich North and the Islands, North

Vancouver–Seymour, Vancouver–West End, Oak Bay–Gordon Head,

Cariboo-Chilcotin, Cowichan Valley and Surrey South and the Minister of

Education.

On behalf of 1.5 million renters in this province…. I think

they’re certainly going to appreciate the sense, which I got from

people’s comments in this House, that people are caring about what

happens to them and what their future looks like for housing. I do want

to mention, very briefly, great appreciation for the member for

Vancouver–West End, who has been a tireless advocate around addressing

the shortcomings in this act. I really appreciate the work that he’s

done to get us here, and it’s just unfortunate that it took so long. I

think that’s the saddest part of this.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to move second reading of Bill

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 16 approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 16, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading on Bill 6, Electoral Reform

Referendum Act.

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

(continued)

S. Cadieux: Yesterday afternoon I was discussing the experiences of my family in

the Netherlands as they relate to proportional representation. I might come

back to that in a bit, but I’ll get back on track with the content of the

bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In fact, what’s proposed in this bill is a referendum on our system of

democracy with the lowest possible threshold, a bare majority of the

returned ballots of just 50 percent plus one. Now, that’s not sufficient in

the government’s or the members’ minds in terms of a person to represent a

riding, but in their mind, it’s enough to change our entire system of

voting, and that, to me, is beyond hypocritical.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There is no requirement for proportional representation in the vote in

the sense that there’s no requirement for regional representation or a

minimum voter turnout for this referendum to pass. That means that a very

small portion of our population, both in terms of numbers and in terms of

regional concentration, has the potential to decide the future of our

democratic system for the whole province.

That bothers me. What we saw in the last election was certainly, or at

least appears to be, quite a rural and urban divide. Now, our party did

return seats from both rural and urban ridings, and the NDP did manage to

retain a couple of seats way out in the nether regions. But the majority of

the rural seats in this province are represented on this side of the

House.

That suggests to me.... Much as the members opposite like to point out

that we lost seats in the urban areas, the reality is that there’s a big

divide in the people and the values and the understanding of what makes

British Columbia go — what makes our province work and what it’s like to

live in those different parts of the province and what’s important in those

different parts of the province. Now we’re looking to change that whole

system by allowing a group of people — likely primarily located in the Lower

Mainland, if we look at it by population — to decide how we’re going to

elect our future governments.

In spite of two previous referendums on the issue where voters

rejected electoral reform and where the support for reform actually declined

from 2005 to 2009, when those two referendums were held…. If British

Columbia doesn’t succeed in passing a referendum with appropriate criteria

or checks and balances in place, the answer isn’t simply to remove the

barriers.

[3:25 p.m.]

There should be a referendum on a fundamentally important issue like

this. There’s no argument, but there should also be criteria on a referendum

that is this fundamental to our democracy. Such criteria already exist in

the Referendum Act. But that has been ignored, shoved aside by a government

with a clear preference, a stated preference by both the government and

their coalition partner. And that government doesn’t have a clear mandate

from the people on this. They promised one thing, and they’re proposing

something quite different.

A referendum is supposed to be used to get a clearer understanding of

voter wishes on a serious issue, the kind of understanding that isn’t always

possible in a representative democracy. On important issues, when we use a

direct vote like a referendum, we should be treating this exercise as a

gauge of where British Columbians’ opinions lie. In our democracy, we

shouldn’t be trying to rig the results of that referendum or any other vote

like it.

All of these factors taken together suggest to me that this referendum

is no more than a public approval exercise, one which would provide the

governing coalition with the licence to carry out their predetermined plans

to reform our electoral system — essentially, to give them a

mandate.

Again, those same two parties think that 50 percent plus one of the

returned ballots is enough for a mandate and a change to our electoral

system but not enough riding-by-riding to select the representatives for

this House. As reporter Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province

summarized: “It appears the deck is being stacked for this referendum to

succeed.” I agree and fear very much that it’s true.

Contrast this process with the way that the previous referendums in

this province have played out. As members of this House know, as I briefly

mentioned before, B.C. has held two referendums on this issue in recent

years, in 2005 and in 2009. These previous referendums were shaped by an

independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. That

assembly was made up of 161 members from throughout the province, including

one man and one woman from each of B.C.’s electoral districts at the time,

two First Nations representatives and a chair.

As I said previously, it was really this assembly composed of members

of the public that guided our previous exploration of electoral reform. For

three months, the assembly was responsible for learning in detail about a

variety of electoral options. They then held hearings across the province,

consulting members of the broader public and ensuring an even larger segment

of the population had the chance to have their say on this important

topic.

Following this education and consultation, the assembly deliberated

and ultimately recommended an alternative electoral option for British

Columbians to consider, which ended up being a single transferable vote

system termed BCSTV. This alternative system was put to the province in a

referendum, initially in 2005, but when the results of the referendum were

close, another referendum was held in 2009.

The contrast between the process that shaped the two previous

referendums and the process that this bill proposes for a third is stark.

There’s no doubt that the process that went into shaping the referendums was

extensive and, I’d argue, very appropriate when we’re looking at a change

that is this big.

Electoral reform wouldn’t just change the process of how British

Columbians vote, though this may be the most obvious impact of the change.

Indeed, it would be one of the effects British Columbians could expect to

see. But changing our electoral system to a form of proportional

representation would have impacts that reach far beyond election day and

that, ultimately, would fundamentally alter the way we do government here in

British Columbia.

By increasing the geographical area that elected officials represent,

proportional representation systems mean voters have less of a link with

their elected representative. It gives them less of a connection to their

representative, and it makes it harder to hold those representatives

accountable.

[3:30 p.m.]

Under proportional representation, we also see in systems around the

world a rise of minority and coalition governments. We only need to look at

the current government to recognize the instability of this prospective

situation. While our current first-past-the-post system tends to produce

majority governments and elections with clear results, under proportional

representation, coalition governments would likely be the norm, and election

results would become much less clear.

Rather than one party receiving an election night victory or defeat

and British Columbians knowing immediately which party will form government

and what they can expect, given the platforms and the commitments made by

those parties during the election, under proportional representation, the

post-election period would instead be characterized by political wrangling,

as parties negotiate with each other, trying to secure alliances that would

allow them to be the group that forms government.

This period of negotiation leads to parties trading platform promises

for the sake of these alliances, meaning that British Columbians would

really have no idea what to expect from the members who eventually form

government.

That’s exactly what we’re seeing now, where promises are “irrelevant”

and where taxpayer-funded secretariats that are supposed to negotiate

between two parties and mediate between these two parties, where two parties

that have the secretariat seem to be completely surprised by each other on a

regular basis in this House. Ultimately, this makes government less

accountable to British Columbians, and no longer would British Columbians

have a clear idea of who or what they’re voting for.

Right now, when you vote, you make a choice between a platform and

commitments by one or another party. Then, during the course of that

government’s time, if the government doesn’t produce the results or meet the

expectations by the next time, as we have seen, voters make their voices

heard again. But, rather, instead, we would see that, after an election and

after British Columbians had cast their votes, governments would then decide

what their platforms are going to be and what they’re actually going to move

forward on.

We’ve seen examples of trading campaign promises with the current

alliance. Despite the NDP’s campaigning heavily on $10-a-day child care and

a $400 renters rebate, we’ve heard from the government’s Green partner that

he won’t support either policy, and therefore, by extension, British

Columbians shouldn’t expect to see them, campaign commitments

aside.

This is one example of the confusion and broken promises that can

result when parties are, first and foremost, beholden to other parties

rather than accountable to the electorate, as should be the case in a

democracy.

The unstable government that we have here in British Columbia today is

dependent only on two parties. Under proportional representation, we could

see our party system fracture, as small, extreme minority parties emerge, as

we’re seeing in other parts of the world, as my relatives in the Netherlands

are seeing in their government.

These are parties that would not currently be able to gain seats under

the first-past-the-post system. Sometimes that’s for good reason. Not that

those individuals and people with extreme views don’t have the right to hold

those in British Columbia and in Canada and in our democracy, but because

they are minority views, they are not represented here in the

House.

First-past-the-post ensures that any parties that form government have

a wide base of support. Parties like the ones that make up the House here in

British Columbia today have appeal to a large range of British Columbians.

But under proportional representation, fringe parties that appeal to only a

very small segment of the population, those on the very far left or parties

with a singular-issue focus, do have the potential to gain seats in this

House.

Alarmingly, because of the need for political wrangling to form a

government in a minority situation, these parties would have the potential

to gain disproportionate influence over government policy and direction.

They effectively end up holding larger parties hostage to their niche

interests and shut out the ideas that have wider support. Ultimately,

coalition governments are inherently less stable.

[3:35 p.m.]

All of these political negotiations bring about risk of legislative

gridlock or political inconsistency. We’ve seen fractures in the two-party

alliance we have now. We have a disagreement over ride-sharing, for example,

and the back-and-forth that that issue has caused. While the instability we

see here is far from ideal, the reality is that under proportional

representation, we can only expect the situation to worsen.

Thankfully, the alliance that governs today came about under

first-past-the-post. We have a solid party system, and the parties

represented still have to appeal to a broad range of British Columbians, by

design. But we only have to look to other jurisdictions where we see

coalitions taken to the extreme. For example, Belgium went nearly 600 days

without an elected government, after a general election returned 11 parties

to their Chamber of Representatives.

Here, we heard concern from, primarily, the opposition at the time,

now the government, about the fact that during the interregnum period, the

period just after the election, when there was some uncertainty about the

future of the government — concern over the fact that decisions weren’t

being made, things were being stalled, and we were in caretaker mode for too

long. It was just over a month. Can you imagine 600 days of caretaker mode?

This meant delaying crucial decisions on major issues.

When government was formed here, at the end of June or into July, it

was a coalition between two parties and it took a relatively short period of

time for that to happen. But when government was formed after 600 days with

11 parties returned to the Chamber of Representatives in Belgium, it took a

coalition of six parties to form government, and it only held together for

two years because those relationships, those give-and-takes on issues where

parties were too far apart in their views, eventually fractured the

government.

In Spain, when no party or parties could decide on who should form

government after a general election, the country held another general

election just six months after the last. Their second election also failed

to produce a clear winner, and the country ended up going nearly a year

without government until a new one could finally be negotiated.

Then there’s Italy. Italy has had two different proportional

representation systems since 1993. The country has had 65 governments in 70

years, with an average length of 21 months. And it has had as many Prime

Ministers since World War II as Canada has had in our entire history. I find

that particularly difficult to imagine, because for the last five years, as

I held the post of the Minister of Children and Family Development in the

previous government, I heard about how that was the post that couldn’t hold

a minister. I reached the point of being the longest-serving minister in

that file at two years and ten months.

The greatest criticism about the fact that there was a regular

turnover of ministers in that file was that there was no consistency; no

ability to get things done; no proactive, forward thinking as a result. Now,

I lasted five years, so there was some continuity and we were able to get

some things done. I think that was of value, but that is the same on the

larger scale of government. Changing governments every year would allow

nothing to be done.

In Italy today, there are 28 elected parties forming six separate

alliances. And looking around to other jurisdictions, we’ve been seeing the

examples of small fringe parties making up part of those governing

coalitions, like the anti-LGBTQ Christian Union party in the current

Netherlands Parliament. I don’t ever want to see a party with those views

represented in our Legislature. It wouldn’t be right. We’ve come too far as

a society to allow those minorities’ views to influence policy.

[3:40 p.m.]

Shifting our first-past-the-post system, which is by no means perfect,

to proportional representation isn’t without consequences, and it’s not

something to be taken lightly. It’s not without risks, and we need to

consider those. The public needs to be able to consider those. It’s,

ultimately, not up to us as elected representatives to be setting the terms

for how we get elected. On significant issues like this, it’s important to

go back to our constituents and make sure that everyone has the opportunity

to have their say.

But when we do this, it’s incumbent upon us to be genuine about the

effort and not presuppose the outcome. That doesn’t mean engineering a

referendum without any meaningful consideration in order to simply

rubber-stamp a seal of approval on a political bargain. When we go back to

the public with a proposal, we need to acknowledge the issue’s inherent

significance and the differences that are at stake and treat the issue with

the respect it deserves. A change of this magnitude should not be this easy

for a government to make.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak on Bill 6, the Electoral

Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

As you know, Madame Speaker, proportional representation refers to any

method of voting that produces a result in which a political party’s share

of the seats in the Legislature represents its share of the popular vote. We

all know, and I think everyone of us in this room values, our parliamentary

democracy.

Ever since we’ve had a parliamentary democracy here in British

Columbia, we’ve had the first-past-the-post system. That system is the one

that is most widely used right across this country. But what that system

does is it leaves a significant part of our population feeling that their

vote does not count. What proportional representation does is take every

vote that is cast into consideration, because it’s that vote that is going

to determine the makeup of this House.

This piece of legislation does not take away political parties — any

of the current ones or any new ones that may want to form — nor does it take

away anybody’s right to vote. Nor does this legislation unilaterally give

the government the right to impose a form of proportional

representation.

I was pleased to hear my colleague across the way from Surrey mention

that people should be consulted if we’re going to be changing the way they

elect their legislators. That’s exactly what is going to be happening. We

are going to make sure that as a result of this legislation, there is a

debate, a public debate in community after community across this country, as

they examine our parliamentary democracy, examine how we vote and look for

structures that will give us our proportional representation.

As a result of this consultation, the vote may come in as leave it as

it is. Who knows what it’s going to be? I’m certainly not going to prejudge

what the referendum is going to be doing. But what the referendum does is it

puts into place a discussion for people to have with what we have currently

and also to discuss what the options are with proportional

representation.

[3:45 p.m.]

I am hoping that colleagues across both sides of the House will engage

in this public debate. I think that nothing is as important to the survival

of our democracy than for us to reflect on what we have. If there are going

to be changes, those changes are to be made after a thorough consultation

with the public. This is a referendum.

This is a referendum where people are going to get to vote after they

receive the information. My colleagues across the way will be free to

provide the information that they want to provide in their ridings. People

on this side will be providing information. The government will be putting

out information that is balanced for both sides, because our job is to make

sure that British Columbians make an informed decision. As a teacher, I

realize the value of informed decisions.

We are talking about a fundamental change to the way people who sit in

this House are going to be elected. We think that it’s an important

conversation that British Columbians need to be engaged in. That is why this

is not legislation to bring in proportional representation. I think we all

need to understand: this is legislation to have a referendum on electoral

reform, and after public education, public information is

provided.

This will be a provincewide referendum. We want to make it easy for

people to participate in this, to take away the barriers that sometimes

exist. It’s going to be a mail-in ballot. It’s going to be a mail-in ballot

so that every British Columbian who wants to participate can.

We need to know, as much as there are a lot of people who are scared

of this debate, that we shouldn’t be scared of this debate. Proportional

representation exists very effectively and is serving the populations well

in other countries. And just as in some countries — and I won’t have to go

too far — or provinces, where first-past-the-post doesn’t always get you the

results that people want, in the same way, through proportional

representation, what’s going to happen is that people with different points

of view will actually have to work together.

You know, I am not scared of having that debate or debating

differences, different perspectives, and then making a decision that’s best

for British Columbians. When we’re elected, no matter which political party

platform we run on, once we are elected we are here to serve British

Columbians. We have to rise and always make decisions that are good for

British Columbians right across this province, as well as representing those

who live in our riding.

I think that we should not be scared of working together across party

lines. We should not be scared of collaboration. Collaboration works really

well. Also, when people with different perspectives actually sit down at a

table or in a House, like this, and actually debate the issues on their

merits, some amazing things can happen. I’m actually looking forward to

that. I think that as legislators…. Certainly I, myself, am really welcoming

an opportunity to debate this, to debate the whole issue of how we elect our

representatives.

Sometimes when you have a very large majority, you can see happen —

and I’ve seen it happen in many jurisdictions — where the majority forgets

that they are there to govern everybody, where they have their favourites

and where they then become so out of touch. In many ways, proportional

representation, when people are working together as a team, what it forces

people to do is make decisions that are good, that are debated, where people

are not scared of taking different perspectives and defending

them.

[3:50 p.m.]

Sometimes I have found that as a teacher, often I had one perspective,

but sitting at a table with my students, they were easily able to change my

perspective because of their passion, their intelligence and thinking things

through, and maybe with a lens that I hadn’t looked at.

In the same way, I’ve sat with many members in this Legislature in a

different room. They’re able to say to me: “Jinny, that’s your perspective.

But you know what? Here is a different perspective.” Every one of us should

welcome those different perspectives and look at decision-making with a

different lens. When we are using those different lenses, I think it only

benefits British Columbians.

It’s not rocket science that working together is far preferable to

working alone. Decisions made in collaboration — where we hear the

challenges and different perspectives, and we end up at a decision that is a

win-win for everyone — are a good thing.

I had the pleasure of talking to colleagues from other countries,

while I was a Member of Parliament, who’ve got proportional representation.

They will say: “Sometimes it may take an extra hour or two to make a

decision, but the decision we make at the end is truly worth taking that

extra time on. And that is okay.”

During that referendum period, what we want to ensure is an active,

healthy debate and a discussion on which voting system or systems of

proportional representation should be on the ballot. We need to have that

healthy debate.

I’ve been hearing about proportional representation, as have members

on the other side of the House, for a long, long time. I know that British

Columbians are ready for this debate. They want to have this debate. This

referendum is there. I would encourage my colleagues. Don’t look at

collaboration and working together with people who might have a slightly

different perspective than you from the lens of fear. Let’s look at it from

the lens of opportunity, and let us see the decision British Columbians will

make.

It’s 50 percent plus one. A 50-percent-plus-one vote is what it’s

going to take. I’ve heard some criticism. Why 50 percent plus one? Well,

that’s a majority. After you get beyond 50 percent plus one, then you’re

looking at making value judgments on whether it should be 55, 65, 70 or 85.

For me, the simpler is 50 percent plus one, and I’m really, really pleased

to see that.

I’m also pleased that it will be the province’s Chief Electoral

Officer who’ll be overseeing this process to make sure that people are

getting the information they need. We will all, I know — all of us on both

sides of the House — make sure that we have a healthy debate, an open

debate, and be open to hear different perspectives.

In my constituency of Surrey-Panorama, I’m not going to prejudge. I’m

not going to prejudge the debate that we will be having there. As a matter

of fact, I look forward to engaging with those who live in my riding and

those who live across B.C. in a debate so that we do end up at this place

where it is truly British Columbians who will decide whether we want to move

towards proportional representation or not.

[3:55 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

[Applause.]

M. Morris: Thank you to my colleagues for that resounding applause.

This has been very topical up in my area and right across the

province, as it should be. It’s part of the foundation of our system here in

British Columbia and across Canada. No changes should be made to such a

fundamental part without a lot of input and a lot of discussion.

We’re one of the few communities that has a daily newspaper here in

Prince George, the Prince George Citizen . There’s a well-revered

professor from UNBC who provides a weekly

article in there. The

article is

called “As I See It.” Over the last 20-odd years that I’ve been back to

Prince George, he’s been quite prolific in his articles. This individual

has, I think, been an NDP supporter in the past, but over the years,

especially in the last two or three years, I think he has been coming over

to my way of thinking. I’m certainly encouraging him to come on over to the

right side.

The reason I bring that up is…. He has written a couple of articles in

the last couple of weeks here. The last column that I read that he had in

there was titled “Proportional Representation Not the Answer for B.C.” He

goes into quite a bit of detail in the

article on that. I certainly respect

the view that he had, and a lot of people in Prince George and the

surrounding area respect the view that he’s got on that.

I have to bring up the title of the

article that he wrote in the week

before that. It was called “Electoral Reform Promise Best Left Unfulfilled.”

He went into a little bit of depth about his views on proportional

representation and electoral reform. Again, I welcome him over to our party,

if he ever decides to take that leap.

What caught my attention in the paper this last week, when I was home,

was the letter to the editor from another individual that I’ve noted over

the years. I think he’s been a supporter of the NDP, and he’s come out with

a lot of letters over the years to the editor. Quite well thought out. He’s

very articulate. He puts up a great argument in most of his

letters.

I’m just going to quote a small part out of that letter. It says — and

he’s referring to proportional representation: “As this rises to a fevered

pitch despite” the Prime Minister “and, here in B.C….” He names them, but

I’ll call them the leaders of the Green and NDP parties. “I have been

pondering what is so very wrong with a system we’ve had since Confederation,

one outcome of which is a country whose citizens love to think theirs is the

best in the world.”

I have to emphasize that. I think he’s got it right. We do have one of

the best countries in the world, and we’ve got a system that we’ve had in

place, with a couple of attempts to change it over the years, since

Confederation. Here in B.C., of course, we saw an iteration of a different

system back in 1952-1953, but we reverted back to first-past-the-post

shortly after that. Then again, we saw some others take place which I’ll

comment on later on.

I was listening over the last number of weeks, since this government

took office, to some of the comments that were made during the interregnum

period from various members in government and from the Green Party. There

was a lot of criticism about the B.C. Liberals clinging to power. I wonder….

You know, the criticism that they have….

They felt that, you know, here we are. The B.C. Liberals won the

plurality of votes. We won the election, and convention states that the

party that wins the election makes government. So we had a duty to fulfil,

under convention, to follow convention and form government. If the people,

the other elected members of this House, felt that we didn’t have the

strength to maintain that government, then it was up to them to enter a vote

of non-confidence in the peoples’ House.

[4:00 p.m.]

It wasn’t left up to a backroom deal or some agreement that the Greens

made with the NDP sitting in the back of a room someplace saying: “Hey,

guess what. The two of us can get together here, and we can form government

ourselves. So you guys get out of there, and we’re going to go and sit in

those seats.” We had to go through that process. We went through that

process. There was a vote of non-confidence. Everybody expected that that

was going to happen. We followed convention, and here we sit.

The genesis of the bill we have before us right now seems to have

originated by the Green Party’s thirst for more power and the NDP’s

desperate attempt to become government at any cost. They’re relying on

legislating their way into the pockets of British Columbia through this bill

and others that have been introduced in the House this session, financing

their parties through taxpayers rather than convincing their voters that

their policies and vision warrant sufficient enough support from them to

form government properly.

I’m going to quote something here, another quote. I’ve got a few

quotes in this. I’ve looked into a bunch of different areas here.

“The weight of evidence from both established and new democracies

suggests that longer-term democratic consolidation — that is, the extent to

which a democratic regime is insulated from domestic challenges to the

stability of the political order — requires the growth and maintenance of

strong and effective political parties, and thus, the electoral system

should encourage this, rather than promote party fragmentation.

“To do this, electoral systems can be framed specifically to exclude

parties with a small or minimal level of support.”

This quote is from ACE, which is the Administration and Cost of

Elections. It was established back in 1996. It’s since been changed, since

2006, to ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. It’s interesting. The ACE

Electoral Knowledge Network — I just quoted one of their quotes — has got

quite a document there that I’ve gone through.

I’m just going to name the members of this association of ACE:

Elections Canada; the Carter Center, from the United States, with the

ex-president Jimmy Carter and his wife and a bunch of other very

well-qualified individuals; the United Nations Electoral Assistance

Division; the United Nations Development Programme; the International

Foundation for Electoral Systems; the International Institute for Democracy

and Electoral Assistance; and the Electoral Institute for Sustainable

Democracy in Africa.

There’s a bunch of very learned people in ACE that have collaborated

together to come up with advice to help assist countries, evolving

countries, around the world — to help them choose democratic systems or

electoral systems suitable for the environment they’re in or to help them

change the system to assist in moving their countries forward. They’re

well-referenced. They’ve done a lot of work around the world.

The experts also say….When I refer to the experts, I refer to the

experts that were instrumental in collaborating and putting this text

together. It’s quite a document. I think if you query aceproject.org, you

should be able to find it in there. They say that the choice of an electoral

system is one of the most important institutional decisions for any

democracy. I have to agree with that. It’s one of the most important

institutional decisions for any democracy wherever you might be in the

world.

Let’s have a look at that. They say the choice of an electoral system

is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy, but

here we have this government that is rushing this legislation through

without any public consultation. Yet they’re consulting on ride-sharing.

They’re consulting on Site C. They’re consulting on the Massey Tunnel.

They’re consulting on the foreign buyers tax. They’re consulting on

ICBC.

[4:05 p.m.]

They’re consulting on aquaculture policy and licensing, money

laundering, marijuana, Human Rights Commission, minimum wage, ride-sharing

and who knows what else is going to take place. Not on constitutional reform

or electoral reform, which the experts say is one of the most important

institutional decisions for any democracy. I find that profound.

The international experts also say that the decisions to change an

electoral system are often affected by one of two circumstances. The first

one is that the “political actors lack basic knowledge and information.” I

don’t think that’s the case here. The second one is: “Conversely, political

actors use their knowledge of electoral systems to promote designs which

they think will work to their own partisan advantage.” These are from the

experts.

They say that the decisions to change an electoral system are often

affected by one of two circumstances. So political actors use their

knowledge of electoral systems to promote designs which they think will work

to their own partisan advantage. I think that’s the case we have here. Let’s

look at that.

The NDP has not had the opportunity to win an election since 2001 —16

years. We hear that all the time. They had to sit over on this side of the

opposition, or as opposition members, for 16 years. That would be

frustrating — 16 years in opposition would be extremely frustrating. The

only way they’ve been able to form government was to make a backroom deal

with the Green Party. They haven’t been able to convince enough British

Columbians that they have the policies, that they have the platform worthy

of enough votes for them to form government on their own.

The NDP were willing to do anything to form government. With the

chokehold that the Greens had on the NDP, we see the introduction of Bill 5,

to reduce the number of members needed to form an official party status from

four to two. Hmmm. They also moved the election date to 2021. They’re trying

to legislate themselves into a position, along with the electoral reform, so

they will have a chance of holding onto government.

How about Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, where they’re placing

the burden of party financial support on the B.C. taxpayers? They had a

significant amount of debt. The cost of running a campaign is high. The cost

of financing a political party is pretty high. There are a lot of activities

going on out there.

I refer to my own self. Before I became a politician, I was involved

with the riding association. I had no idea what the division was between the

responsibility for the riding association and government. I was like most of

the public out there, thinking that everywhere I saw my MLA, it was

supported by government, when, in fact, the party is supporting the MLA in

getting out in the public and doing a lot of things necessary to inform —

the riding association — the constituents about what’s going on in the

riding. It takes money.

Of course, we’ve gone through some changes here to get corporate

donations out, and the big money that has been paid into the NDP by the

unions. I know the Greens have also received some fairly significant

corporate donations as well. That’s limited, but they’re now realizing they

can’t function on their own, and they won’t be able get their message out

unless they’ve got some more money in the coffers, so they’re relying on

B.C. taxpayers to help fund that, to the tune of $26 million.

I go back to the ACE report I was referencing earlier. I’m going to

quote another paragraph out of that report. “The background to a choice of

electoral systems can thus be as important as the choice itself. Electoral

system choice is a fundamentally political process rather than a question to

which independent technical experts can produce a single correct answer. In

fact, the consideration of political advantage is almost a factor in the

choice of electoral systems. Sometimes it is the only

consideration.”

[4:10 p.m.]

Let me repeat that. “The consideration of political advantage is

almost always a factor in the choice of electoral systems. Sometimes it is

the only consideration.” I think that’s the case here.

I’ve heard individuals throughout the community, throughout the

province reference this current government as illegitimate, clinging to

power by virtue of some backroom coalition between the Green Par