First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 8, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 23

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

COVID-19 response by businesses and local production of hand sanitizer dispensers

J. Routledge

International Women’s Day

K. Kirkpatrick

Nelson and District Women’s Centre

B. Anderson

Women’s leadership and role of Girl Guides

J. Tegart

Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce business award recipients

P. Alexis

Role of firefighters and Fallen Firefighters

Memorial

T. Stone

Oral Questions

COVID-19 response for tourism industry and report recommendations

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

T. Wat

Training for prescription of addiction treatment medication and access to safe supply

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 response for tourism industry and report recommendations

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Mark

C. Oakes

R. Merrifield

Hon. R. Kahlon

J. Tegart

Gender wage gap and equal pay legislation

S. Cadieux

Hon. S. Robinson

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, March 2020

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2020

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

B. Stewart

A. Olsen

C. Oakes

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I rise today in the House as an introduction for my daughter Amy.

She’s my eldest daughter. I’m very, very proud of my five children, but I am

particularly proud of my daughter Amy, because she just became an on-call

firefighter with the Maple Ridge fire department. It was really difficult

for her and for everybody who goes through it. Hundreds apply. There were 27

who went into the program. She was the only woman in the program, and she

not only did well, but she excelled.

This is particularly important, I think, today on International

Women’s Day, to see someone — a young 21-year-old woman, who I’m so proud of

— excel in a male-dominated profession. We need more women to try out. I

hope that she will be an inspiration to other, younger women who come up

behind her.

Thank you very much, and I hope the House will make her very, very

welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: I move first reading of the bill.

This bill is part of the routine business of the Legislature. Our

legislative drafters review bills for errors. They identify them as they

work and bring them forward in a miscellaneous bill for the House’s

consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the consideration of the bill at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COVID-19 RESPONSE BY BUSINESSES AND

LOCAL PRODUCTION OF

HAND SANITIZER DISPENSERS

J. Routledge: Today is International Women’s Day. What better day than this to

acknowledge three family businesses in which women are leading, businesses

that came together to meet the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and

to respond with innovative solutions to keep B.C. safe: Bowers Medical

Supply of Delta, Clearway Supply of Gibsons and Humble Manufacturing of my

community, Burnaby North.

They collaborated to design and manufacture innovative hand sanitizer

dispensers in an effort to meet the overwhelming demand suddenly placed on

our health care system. Right here in B.C., these three companies combined

not only to provide jobs to British Columbians, but also to provide our

health care system with the flexibility to utilize hand sanitizer bottles in

a wide range of sizes so it’s not paralyzed by unexpected

undersupply.

Far from a band-aid solution, this collaborative ingenuity is

ultimately delivering a permanent solution, one that gives our health care

system flexibility in meeting both current and future infection control

requirements.

Thanks to the union between Bowers Medical Supply, Clearway Supply and

Humble Manufacturing, we have a made-in-B.C. solution right here, right now

— a solution that ensures that the future of our province is safe, with the

capability to meet future supply chain challenges.

As we’ve all learned, no one is immune to COVID-19. No one British

Columbian, no one family member, no one person in this Legislature. We’re

all in this together. Having a safe way forward is the only way

forward.

[1:40 p.m.]

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

K. Kirkpatrick: Today, on International Women’s Day, we celebrate the social,

economic, cultural and political achievements of women across the globe. As

much as we have achieved, we also remember there are many women in this

world without access to education or self-determination.

When I was a young woman, I didn’t understand the sacrifices that the

women that came before me had made or how brave they were for not giving up

their dreams when they were told they shouldn’t or couldn’t do

something.

The first International Women’s Day was in 1911, when the suffragette

movement was in full force. It was believed at that time that securing the

right to vote and be elected to public office would be the only way to bring

around required improvements for women and children in social and economic

conditions. In those times, women’s expected roles in society were limited

to domestic pursuits. Although women did work outside the home, it was often

out of economic necessity, and when they did, they had low wages, very poor

working conditions and even violence.

Women were considered by many to be less rationale and more emotional

than men. In fact, we were prone to bouts of hysteria. So why on earth

should women have the right to vote or the right to hold office? Society

would be in chaos.

It was not until April of 1917 that B.C. granted the right to vote and

run for office in provincial elections. In 1918, Mary Ellen Smith became the

first female member of the Legislative Assembly. In 1991, Rita Johnston was

the first woman ever elected as the Premier of British Columbia. In 1993,

Kim Campbell became the first and only woman to hold the office of Prime

Minister of Canada.

Now, these may have been short terms, but they were significant. Women

like Mary Ellen Smith, Rosemary Brown, Kim Campbell, Rita Johnston, Grace

McCarthy, Christy Clark, Shirley Bond, Carole James and so many others that

I have missed have opened the door for the rest of to us sit in this House

today.

NELSON AND DISTRICT WOMEN’S CENTRE

B. Anderson: Today, on International Women’s Day, I would like to celebrate the

Nelson and District Women’s Centre, which operates on the traditional and

unceded territories of the Ktunaxa, Sinixt and Syilx Nations.

The centre was started in 1972 by Vita Storey, now Luthmers, with a

$3,500 grant from the federal government and is run by the West Kootenay

Women’s Association. It provides a safe space for women, counselling,

support, education and bare necessities, such as menstrual products, food,

and clothing.

Although some things have drastically changed, like the availability

of STI testing, which the women’s centre fought hard for in our community,

many issues they were working on addressing 48 years ago persist today,

including violence against women, poverty, inequality and unequal

opportunity.

It is Canada’s oldest rural women’s centre, and Vita is still a board

member today. It is a non-profit organization promoting and supporting the

welfare, social and economic equality for all women. The space is a place

for women to come together and discuss everything from health and

spirituality to business, child-rearing and the arts.

The Nelson and District Women’s Centre, after 48 years of operation,

is renewing their mandate. Their leadership will be reaching out to their

members and the community to determine what the next 50 years will look like

for our centre.

It is my honour to highlight the incredible work of the Nelson and

District Women’s Centre, particularly on International Women’s

Day.

WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP AND

ROLE OF GIRL

GUIDES

J. Tegart: It is a pleasure to speak today on International Women’s Day. The

theme this year is “Choose to challenge.” In order to challenge, we must be

brave enough to speak up and lead. I want you to think back, way back in

your life. Where did you begin to learn leadership?

[1:45 p.m.]

One of my first experiences was when I joined Brownies and Girl

Guides. Girl Guides helped girls develop a sense of self, a sense of

belonging and a connection with the community.

Just last week, as an MLA, I had the pleasure to be interviewed by

Merritt Sparks and Brownies troop. The questions asked by these five-and

six-year-olds were very interesting. Do you have a pet? How old are you?

What is it like to work in a male-dominated career? Which Girl Guide cookie

is your favourite? And what do you do for self-care? An interesting event

spent with future leaders in our communities, workplaces and

world.

I celebrate the skills being developed at this young age and would

like to acknowledge the incredible work done by the volunteer leaders in the

Girl Guide movement. Their program is open to all and available in most

communities. Lifelong experiences and incredible mentors.

Before I close, I want to wish my Girl Guide leader, Anita Moore, a

belated happy 80-something birthday. You were so much fun as a leader and

made a difference in so many young girls’ lives.

Happy International Women’s Day.

ABBOTSFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS

P. Alexis: I want to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you from the traditional

territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees and the Esquimalt First

Nations.

I rise today in the House to offer congratulations to business leaders

and community champions in my riding as recognized this past December by the

Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce at their Business Excellence Awards. The

virtual awards ceremonies honoured businesses operating in a philanthropic

and empathetic manner, especially those who persevered during the COVID-19

pandemic.

Four categories were celebrated: innovation excellence, community

contribution, front-line excellence and outstanding support. I would like to

congratulate the respective winners: Ravens Brewing Co., Zone Garage Fraser

Valley, Patna Sweets and Restaurant and Nature’s Pickin’s Market. They have

truly set a fine example in their community and the highest standard of

achievement within their industries.

The Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce is comprised of over 700 members

and is the Fraser Valley’s leading member-driven organization and a tireless

voice devoted to improving the speed and effectiveness of doing business.

Created to promote the interests of entrepreneurs in the city of Abbotsford,

the chamber has been an integral part of Abbotsford’s growth and evolution

for nearly as long as the city has existed and, I might add, is run by an

incredible and extraordinary team of women on this International Women’s

Day.

The chamber strives to be the most vibrant and relevant business

association in British Columbia, building and sustaining a thriving business

community while championing the values of strong professional relationships,

vibrant culture and growth.

I commend them for their service to both Abbotsford and the ideals of

innovation and free enterprise that they have supported for so

long.

ROLE OF FIREFIGHTERS AND

FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS

MEMORIAL

T. Stone: I was a young boy growing up in Port Coquitlam, the oldest of three

siblings in a working-class family. My mom worked in several administrative

jobs while my dad was a Vancouver firefighter, badge No. 5019. He worked out

of several Vancouver fire halls on pumper and ladder trucks, as well as on

the fire boats. I remember visiting my dad in the fire halls and climbing up

into those trucks.

I also remember the joy of hugging my dad when he returned home from

his latest shift. I recognize today that I was blissfully unaware at the

time as to the difficulty and danger of my dad’s work. I took for granted

his coming back home after each shift ended. Lucky for us, he always did

come home. But sadly, that can’t be said for every firefighter and his or

her loved ones.

Today we would usually be gathering on the south lawns of the B.C.

Legislature, where the Last Alarm: Fallen Firefighters Memorial monument

stands. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, we will have to do so today

virtually.

[1:50 p.m.]

We remember, pay our respects and honour the professional and

volunteer firefighters who have paid the ultimate price, those who have lost

their lives while performing their duty to be there for the rest of us. We

pay tributes to the brave men and women who answered the call and did their

jobs — the brave men and women who, when called upon and faced with risk,

chose not to hesitate or step back but rather chose to run towards the

danger. Tragically, they did not come home to their loved ones, like my dad

was able to do with me.

In their memory, let us all come together to do everything we can to

make the firefighters’ occupation and workplace as healthy and safe as

possible. Let us do that so that no more lives are lost and no more families

suffer the loss of their loved ones while working.

I thank every firefighter, back in Kamloops and across our province,

for their service. It’s with great pride that we honour, today and every

day, each and every fallen firefighter.

We salute them as heroes.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM

INDUSTRY AND REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

S. Bond: On International Women’s Day, we recognize that women have faced far

worse job losses from the pandemic than men. In fact, 27,000 fewer women

have jobs today.

One reason for that is that women are highly represented in the

tourism sector, which has been devastated and which is the subject of a new

report released today by Destination Canada. They found that “the current

situation facing the tourism sector is the worst ever seen, more dire than

the impact experienced after 9/11, SARS and the 2008 economic crisis

combined.”

This is a crisis. There’s no other way to describe it. Yet the Premier

has failed to act on over half of the recommendations of his own tourism

task force report, including a very critical recommendation that would

provide relief from fixed costs like government fees.

Two thirds of the job losses in tourism are represented by women. Will

the Premier implement all of the task force recommendations and, most

specifically, the recommendation that would provide relief from government

fees?

Hon. M. Mark: Happy International Women’s Day. I appreciate the member opposite

raising this important issue.

Of course, there are no boundaries for this pandemic. Tourism has been

devastated. The report highlights how it has impacted all of our postal

codes. The limitations are on the sector because we can’t travel. The

borders aren’t open, and we don’t have the mobility that we enjoyed before

the pandemic.

On December 9, we received the recommendations from the task force. It

was a call to action for our government. We implemented the task force. We

received the report on the ninth. On December 22, we announced that more

relief was coming strictly to the tourism sector, because we know that the

sector has been hard hit.

It was a call to action. They wanted a grant — not loans — up to

$45,000 to be available to those in the sector that have been hardest hit.

So 60 percent of our small and medium business grants have gone out the door

to the tourism sector, and more help is underway. And $5 million was

dedicated to the Indigenous Tourism B.C. association, because we know that

the pandemic has hit our tourism sector across Indigenous

communities.

We are working around the clock to implement the recommendations from

the tourism task force. I appreciate the leadership from the tourism task

force. The industry told us what we needed to do, and we are responding,

because we value the importance of the tourism sector and the women that are

working in this field to bring home family-paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Bond: Well, tourism businesses can’t keep waiting. As the minister herself

describes it, it was a call to action. That means actually doing

something.

Before the end of this month — this month — small travel service

companies must pay the government nearly $800 in mandatory licensing fees.

Not some arbitrary collection of money. They owe the government money at the

end of March. Travel businesses, as everyone in this House would recognize,

have essentially been shut down. Instead of help, the Premier of British

Columbia sends them a bill.

Other provincial governments, including in Ontario and Quebec, have

eliminated those fees. Yet this government has refused to do that, despite

it being a recommendation of the tourism task force back in December. Over

75 percent of these travel businesses are managed and owned by

women.

Once again to the Premier, will the Premier implement all of the

tourism task force recommendations, and most specifically, will he deal with

the issue of paying fees to government, or will travel companies be forced

to pay the fees to the government?

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for raising this important

issue. We value, our government values, the importance of tourism across our

province, in all of our area codes. Of course, we value the importance of

women in this sector. We all, every member in these chambers, want this

pandemic to be over, and we are getting close to the peak. The vaccine is

rolling out, and our communities are going to be safer for people to

travel.

The member is not accurately reflecting the facts. We did move quickly

on the recommendations. The member must appreciate that you can’t implement

all of the recommendations at the same time. That’s impossible. But our

ministry did work around the clock to respond to the biggest call to action,

which is to get grants out the door, because they wanted grants, not

loans.

Our government has done other measures to help businesses with

deferrals, with supports, advocating with the federal government to ensure

that we had that 75 percent wage subsidy to help people employed. We are

working with other levels of government, because we know how critically

vital the tourism sector is.

Is there more to do? Most definitely. We will continue doing that

work, and we will continue to work on the recommendations from the task

force. So again, I thank the member opposite for raising the question and

for her advocacy.

T. Wat: I don’t know why the minister doesn’t think that paying the mandatory

licence fee is crucial. It’s one of the most important

recommendations.

Just listen. I have letters from 68 travel agencies protesting this

mandatory licensing fee and the Premier’s incompetence. They write: “We have

suffered an income loss of over 95 percent and are desperately in need of

any government assistance, in order to survive.”

These businesses are on the verge of closing for good. Why is the

Premier adding insult to injury by extracting these government

fees?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for raising the question. On

International Women’s Day, we are going to lift up women and the important

work that they do in this community. When we talk about insult to injury,

it’s insulting to say that the ministry, my staff, are not working around

the clock to try to get resources out the door.

No one called for this pandemic. We want this pandemic behind us, and

there is light. The vaccine is coming. Grants have gone out the door. Grants

will continue to go out the door. Not loans, but grants, because this was a

call to action from industry.

Just as we’re investing in Indigenous businesses across the province,

our government is investing in people, because that’s the business we’re in.

We believe in people. We believe that we need to be on the side of people so

that when we can turn the switch, and it’s safe to do so, we can travel

across our province in all of our area codes — that it’s going to be

safe.

[2:00 p.m.]

One of the recommendations from the task force is to ensure that we

have certification for businesses so that consumers know that it’s safe.

That’s what British Columbians are looking for.

Good news is coming. Stay tuned, hon. Member. We’re going to continue

doing that work with our ministry. But we can’t move any quicker than we

are, because our laser focus right now is getting the grants out the

door.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: From the response from the minister, it looks like the minister is not

listening to the voice of the tourism sector. Let me try once again. Over 75

percent of these businesses are managed by women, and they are paying the

price for this Premier’s incompetence. Lily Teo of Orient Travel Centre in

Richmond says: “We haven’t had sales since March 2020. We have had zero

income. No income. The travel agencies need help. Every dollar of savings

means a lot to our survival.”

Every dollar counts, but the Premier has done nothing, despite the

task force’s recommendations.

Can the Premier explain to businesses, like Lily’s, why they still

need to pay these government fees?

Hon. M. Mark: Michelle Obama once said: “When they go low, you go high.” We have

been trying to get a grant out the door. This was a call to action from the

sector. It is a grant. It is not a loan, because we know how vital it is. It

was a call to action for the sector to have money to pay for the rent and

keep their staff.

We’re working and advocating with the federal government to ensure

that that wage subsidy is in place, so that people stay employed. We’re

working with the federal government to ensure that the highly affected

sectors can support businesses across B.C.

Member, I agree with you. The sector is important. Empowering women is

important. Let’s not forget the investments that we made in childcare — the

investments to support women to go to work, to lift them up. Our government

is taking a whole of government approach, a holistic approach, to

understanding that when we support women in the workplace, we’re supporting

them at home, and we’re supporting them in the community. Our government is

going to continue doing that work.

TRAINING FOR PRESCRIPTION OF

ADDICTION TREATMENT MEDICATION

AND ACCESS TO SAFE SUPPLY

A. Olsen: Our drug supply is becoming increasingly toxic. January saw 165 lives

lost due to the illicit drug toxicity in British Columbia. That is the

highest-ever recorded in January, following the all-time yearly high we saw

in 2020 of over 1,700 lives lost.

One in five of those suspected deaths in January noted extreme

fentanyl concentrations, the largest recorded to date of up over 10 percent

from this time last year. Over 700 lives have been lost since safe supply

measures were announced in September.

The promise of safer supply being prescribed through nurses has fallen

short. Those trying to access prescription opioids through their doctors

have been met with stigma. The prescribed narcotics have been low potency

compared to the street-grade fentanyl currently in circulation. It’s not

curbing their addiction. We must do better.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. There

are gaping holes in our patchwork for safe supply. We need immediate,

non-stigmatized, effectively dosed and consistent access to save people from

the poisonous drug supply. What many have shared with us is that safe supply

needs to be a realistic alternative. If it’s not, people will just return to

the supply on the street.

What specific steps has the minister taken to close the gaps in B.C.’s

safe supply?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The border closures and social distancing requirements of the pandemic

have exacerbated the overdose crisis. The number of deaths having been

brought down for the first time in B.C.’s history in the year 2019 is a

tragedy. To be fighting two public health emergencies at the same time and

to have such a disastrously increased toxicity of illicit drugs has lost

more lives this past year than ever.

To the families that have lost loved ones and to those who are working

hard to save them, I’d just say: I’m so sorry.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m grateful to, for example, nurse prescribers who are stepping up.

We now have 30 new practitioners spanning out across the province in every

health authority. We have an increasing number of addiction medicine doctors

who are working on developing the guidelines for safe supply for expanding

additional substances.

Both medication-assisted treatment and safe supply are vital. In every

case, because this hasn’t happened in Canada before, patient safety is at

the forefront. We continue to take our guidance from addiction medicine

doctors who are working on prescriber guidelines on the framework to deliver

safe supply, but to do it in a way that keeps patient safety at the

forefront. Again, my gratitude to those who are breaking new ground. In

Canada, no one else has done this.

Thank you to the member for the advocacy. You’re right. We are going

further, and there’s much more to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. As the minister noted, 30

registered and psychiatric nurses in our province were to be trained to

receive prescribing powers for Suboxone, a prescription opioid and the

alternative to the illicit street supply. They were supposed to have this

training and be in place by the end of February.

Now this is an important step, as the minister noted, and one that is

a precedent for jurisdictions in North America. But we are a province of

millions, and the overdose crisis affects all communities. I’m happy to hear

that these psychiatric nurses will be in communities across the province,

but just 30 nurses with prescribing power after nearly five months after

safe supply measures were promised does not reflect the urgency that’s

needed to support drug users in British Columbia.

Allowing for greater access to one prescription opioid alternative

does not reflect the diverse range of substances used in this province, nor

the efficacy of providing pharmaceutical-grade versions of illicit

substances that reduce reliance on the toxic street market and can save

lives.

My question is again to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

I just want to confirm that those nurses that were promised are in place and

have received those prescribing powers. How is the minister supporting the

expansion of access across the province?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In a meeting on Friday with the First Nations Health Authority, they

were able to report that they have nurse prescribers in some of their

communities already. These are people that were trained in early February.

So that access, particularly in remote and northern communities, is

particularly welcome.

That was just the first cohort of nurses that were trained to be

medication-assisted prescribers. This isn’t the same as safe supply,

although that is our long-term hope. But that guidance is still being

developed by the medical community. This isn’t a question of what’s

happening inside the ministry. This is the work that doctors and medical

professionals are doing to ensure that the right types of medications are

included in the guidance and that the guidance supports both patient safety

and prescribers.

Again, in Canada, we are breaking new ground on this. We are taking

new trainees all the time. The additional guidance that dictates how the

medical community will make decisions about what type of medication-assisted

treatment or safe supply is delivered to people with addiction-use disorders

is something that is entirely in the hands of the medical community. We are

working as fast as we can to expand that work, to support that work, because

it can save lives.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM

INDUSTRY AND REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s not just travel service companies that are suffering because of

the Premier’s bungling. The B.C. Hotel Association says 46 percent of

properties report that if they don’t receive access to government-supported

financing, they will not stay in business past the end of March. Internal

numbers from the Ministry of Tourism from six months ago paint an even

bleaker picture.

[2:10 p.m.]

An internal ministry document says: “68 percent of hotel and resort

firms need additional funding in order to survive the next six

months.”

My question: why is this Premier standing on the sidelines, when

nearly 70 percent of hotels, which employ so many women, are about to close

their doors?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Of course we

recognize how deeply impacted the hotel industry has been, the hospitality

industry has been, the tourism industry has been, because we cannot travel.

We don’t have the mobility that we once had before the pandemic to invite

international visitors because our laser focus at the moment is to focus on

everyone’s health and safety. Our focus is on making sure that we get the

vaccine rollout and that people are safe and ready to travel.

What my ministry is doing with this sector, listening and working with

this industry, is to make sure that we are ready to turn the switch when

it’s safe to do so. This means being responsive. One of the things that we

recently announced — the Minister for Jobs and Economic Recovery and myself

— was to amend the criteria so that the tourism sector would receive up to

$45,000 in a grant. That was a call to action that I’m very proud our

government was able to do. It was a call to action in the task force, the

Tourism Task Force, that the Premier initiated.

There’s more to do. We are calling on the federal government to

support this sector. One of the programs, the highly affected sectors credit

availability program, is going to help businesses with $1 million loans.

There is help on the way. We recognize that the industry has been hard hit,

and we look forward to the day that people can travel and occupy those

buildings and support those people that are vitally important.

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker, 82 percent of hotels in British Columbia are small and

medium-sized businesses, and 60 percent of their workers are

women.

According to the B.C. Hotel Association pulse check, only 2 percent of

the properties reported being eligible for the disastrous small and

medium-sized business recovery grant.

How many of this province’s 104,000 people working in hotel jobs — so

many of these workers and people being women — will lose their

family-supporting job forever before the Premier will take action to help

them?

Hon. M. Mark: Speaking of women, half of our cabinet are women. Half of our cabinet

are going to work each and every day to support child care, universal child

care so that women have the empowerment that they need to help with our

economy and bring that important work that they do as small business owners.

We value this sector. There’s no question.

I appreciate the advocacy on behalf of the member. We know that the

tourism sector has been hit hard at every postal code across this province,

which is why we amended the small and medium-sized business grant — $45,000

is available to them. Encourage your constituents to apply for that money.

Encourage them to apply for the wage subsidy program from the federal

government. Encourage them to work with the Indigenous Tourism Association

of B.C. to access those grants.

Let’s not forget that we’ve also committed to infrastructure programs

and making it safe for the tourism sector to be ready to go when we can turn

on that switch and it’s safe for people to travel again. I want to remind

the member opposite that we deeply value the tourism sector. We value the

important work that women are doing. We believe, on this side of the House,

in lift as you climb — and you can do that by giving people the

tools.

R. Merrifield: I’m really glad that the minister has been talking about the grants

because we’ve been asking about this very thing.

You see, last month the Premier was asked about his government’s

mismanaged small and medium business recovery grant. The Premier said:

“We’re looking at how we can get those dollars out the door by the 31st of

March. We need to spend the money by March 31, or it goes back into

servicing the public debt.”

[2:15 p.m.]

Imagine everyone’s surprise that the botched program has been extended

to August 31. As usual, the Premier got his facts wrong and displayed his

incompetence.

How can the tourism industry have any confidence in a Premier who was

this wrong about his own botched grant program?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. The theme seems to be about

the challenges that women are facing in the pandemic. That’s certainly the

case. You know, Dr. Henry uses the saying that we’re all in the same storm,

but we’re all in different boats. That’s certainly the case in this

pandemic. The impacts are being felt differently by different people, and

women have certainly felt that. We know that women of colour, Black,

Indigenous and new immigrant women have felt it more than women

overall.

We’re proud of the grant program. I know tourism is the line of

questioning today. There’s no province that’s offering grants as high as we

are for tourism operators. There’s no other province. The next closest is

$20,000, and we’re offering $45,000. I know my colleague the Minister of

Tourism, Arts and Culture is working closely with the tourism sector to find

the solutions, but so far, they’ve appreciated the cooperative approach

we’ve taken. We’ve listened, we’ve adjusted our programs according to

feedback, and we’re going to continue to do that as the pandemic

changes.

J. Tegart: This government’s incompetence is all around us.

Last summer the tourism sector called for $680 million of relief, and

the government hasn’t been able to deliver even a fraction of

that.

An internal document from the Ministry of Tourism reveals: “Due to the

timing of the recovery plan’s announcement, the terms of reference for the

Tourism Task Force were not finalized prior to the writ of election being

issued.” The same document shows: “Due to the interregnum period, the

Tourism Task Force was unable to consult during the month of

October.”

Will the Premier admit that he stalled recovery efforts, and will he

fix it by providing tourism businesses with the relief that they have

repeatedly asked for?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government

asked and put together the task force representative of those leading the

industry, First Nations leaders, labour leaders. They put forward a final

report to us on December 9. On December 22, we announced that we were

amending the small and medium-sized business grant, which was a call to

action, the biggest call to action from the task force, for us to make sure

that those dollars go out the door.

As my colleague the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation

mentioned, this is one of the biggest grants across the country. There is

more to do. We were responsive to the request for more funding for the

Indigenous tourism sector, one of the fastest-growing sectors in the

province, and we’ll continue being responsive.

There was a call to action to make it safe and have a certification

program so that consumers know, when they go into any facility, that we’ve

got the highest tests of safety and cleanliness and all of the other COVID

protocols that WorkSafe is calling for, directed by the PHO. We’re going to

continue being responsive, because we know how valuable the tourism sector

is to B.C.’s bottom line, to all of our economies, to every postal code

across this province. We want to make sure that the light switch is ready to

go on when we’re safe to travel across our province and invite visitors to

travel across B.C.

GENDER WAGE GAP AND

EQUAL PAY

LEGISLATION

S. Cadieux: Well, I think that’s cold comfort to most of the tourism folks in the

province. There’s a lot of rhetoric there and not a lot of answers about how

they’re going to support the tourism sector.

Let’s move on a little bit, because it’s a very known fact that B.C.

has one of the worst, if not the worst, gender pay gaps in the country. The

Premier has the chance to fix it.

The pay equity bill that I tabled is still sitting on the order paper,

and the Premier can call it for debate. Will he call the bill?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We have taken significant strides, as a government, towards gender

equality. For sure, the pandemic has highlighted, really, how much further

we absolutely need to go — how much further we need to go as a government

and how much further we need to go as a society.

We do know that women make up a greater proportion of the lower-paid

service sector jobs that were hardest hit at the beginning of the pandemic.

I know that everyone in this House agrees that all workers, regardless of

gender, should be paid the same, whether you’re a man or a woman. It doesn’t

matter how you identify. You should get paid the same.

We’ve taken significant, historic steps as a government to close the

wage gap. Our investments in child care have been absolutely significant and

probably the most impactful to close that wage gap. We’ve raised B.C.’s

minimum wage and server wages, where the majority of workers are women, and

certainly provided support to women in skilled trades so that women can

access a greater number of good-paying jobs. We know how critical that is

going to be for our economic recovery. We are absolutely focused on making

women’s lives better, and we’re going to continue to close the wage

gap.

The member has brought forward a bill. I think it’s important to

recognize the nature of that bill. Ninety-eight percent of businesses in

B.C. have fewer than 50 employees. The legislation that she’s proposed

wouldn’t really affect the vast majority of women. So we’re putting our

attention on a broader view, recognizing that there are many ways to

facilitate women having good-paying jobs in the workforce and making sure

that we are addressing all the systematic barriers that impact on pay

equity.

There’s absolutely more work for us to do, and I look forward to

talking with the member going forward and making sure that we’re continuing

to address this ongoing challenge.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table two reports. The first is the annual report of the

Property Assessment Appeal Board. The second is the annual report of the Labour

Relations Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage Bill 7, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. D. Eby: We will be entering into committee stage this afternoon. I look

forward to hearing the members’ questions as we move forward, and I’ll

introduce staff shortly.

B. Stewart: It is a pleasure and an honour to stand before this House and

raise important questions about how Bill 7 and its implementation will

affect British Columbians, renters, as well as people that are going to

be impacted — the landlords or people that own buildings that are part

of the rental pool in British Columbia.

I just want to thank the staff that have supported me: Ryan Mitton

and Abigail Uher, who are working in both communications and research

for me. But more importantly, the staff that the minister provided after

this bill was introduced on March 1: Cheryl May, Tyann Blewett and Kathy

Elder. It was good to have their insight and expertise.

After reading the contents of the bill and the implications, we do

have questions. I guess the first and one of the most important,

especially based on the actions of the government that we’ve seen in the

last year, is this legislation. We’re wondering if it’s compliant with

UNDRIP, as it’s one of the things that government has stated that the

lens of UNDRIP is going to be focused in. I first would like to find out

if it has, and if that has, what provisions are taken and where that

might be in the act.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the proposed amendments are

consistent with UNDRIP, and the province has engaged with Indigenous

groups in a manner that supports the province’s commitment under

section

3 of the declaration act to consult and cooperate with Indigenous

peoples in B.C. regarding legislative amendments to ensure they’re

consistent with UNDRIP.

B. Stewart: I guess we’ll get, maybe, a little bit further. I do wonder if

this act is going to have any oversight over rentals that are on First

Nation lands. In terms of British Columbia, in my particular riding,

there are almost 10,000 non-band members that live on band land. Many of

those are rentals or on 99-year leases. Is that part of Bill

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The amendments would not apply on reserve land. They do apply on

treaty settlement lands, unless the nation has passed its own

residential tenancy rules. To the best of staff’s knowledge, only one

nation has done that, Tla’amin Nation. Otherwise, it does not apply on

reserve land.

B. Stewart: We’ve talked about the assessment, in terms of the lens, from the

UNDRIP lens. What about an economic impact assessment for this piece of

legislation. Has there been an economic assessment done, and if so, what

were the results and the impact assessment?

Hon. D. Eby: As part of the request-for-legislation process, there is an

economic review that is done by staff. There was a determination of

economic impact on two groups — specifically, landlords and tenants. In

particular on tenants, there is a significant economic impact as a

result of the pandemic. On landlords, there are some impacts of measures

in this bill, but in general, the position of the government is — and

the position of the task force was, in the recommendations — that these

were balanced impacts between tenants and landlords.

B. Stewart: I have difficulty in imagining…. When I read the legislation, the

legislation does really reflect the work that the rental task force did,

in the recommendations. What I think is the economic impact….

Considering outside of COVID, I think of just the ability for the group,

the landlord community, being able to not only do the work, maintain the

stock in British Columbia at a level and a standard that is what we

would expect and what the RTB would expect…. But the question really is

that it’s highly punitive, and it has a lot of language in it that makes

the accountability on the landlord community.

I guess, really, the appearance in Bill 7 is that there’s a

significant weighting in economic impact on that community. This

legislation deals with the renters’ side of it and the rules, with the

RTB, about the landlord-renter relationship. But the question really is:

how is this going to improve the supply, with these kinds of punitive

actions, in terms of how landlords are going to be incentivized to

develop more or maintain the stock? Where is that economic impact in

terms of this? Or was it ignored? Or is it not relevant?

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, I’m going to have to disagree with the member’s

characterization of the bill. It’s fundamentally incorrect, but he

doesn’t have to take my word for it. I’ll read the words of David

Hutniak, chief executive officer of LandlordBC:

“The Rental Housing Task Force recommendations are a road map for

positive change. LandlordBC believes that encouraging continued

investment to prolong or sustain the useful life of a rental unit or

building is essential. We further believe that making the landlord

proceed in this proposed manner, whereby legitimate cases where vacant

possession is necessary and appropriate are adjudicated up front, will

ensure work is undertaken in good faith, thereby mitigating what has, at

times, been an unnecessarily confrontational process.”

[2:35 p.m.]

He does give a caution. I’ll give the member some space in this

regard. He says:

“What will be critical is that the RTB” — the residential tenancy

branch — “establish a robust application and implementation process and

that arbitrators assigned to these cases possess the necessary

specialized knowledge to assess the technical nature of the proposed

work.”

Now, I note that the Rental Housing Task Force work took place a

while ago. Yet despite the recommendations, I can advise the member that

in our first three years of government, we registered more rental units

for construction than the previous government did in the previous

decade: the B.C. Liberal government, 25,000 units from 2007 to 2016; and

the B.C. NDP government, 29,000 units from 2017 to 2019. This is

post–Rental Housing Task Force. In 2020, we’d already registered more

rental units for construction by July than the previous government ever

did — ever did — in an entire year.

I understand the member has concerns about supply. I understand he

has concerns about landlords. We have concerns about supply, and we have

concerns about the fairness of the program too. That is captured in the

bill, and it’s also captured in the numbers.

B. Stewart: It’s obvious that…. I think that there are a number of different

factors in how you measure these things. It’s interesting. Recent

reports have shown that there are differences in terms of the amount of

stock that’s being built — the slowdown, the lack of construction. COVID

has impacted a lot of these things dramatically.

I think more importantly…. If the minister’s correct, I would

commend the government in terms of being able to have achieved that.

However, we do see that rents have gone up considerably — over $2,000

per year. So the whole concept of affordability…. I don’t know if the

minister supports the idea that supply should bring down the cost of

housing and make it more affordable. However, we’re seeing the inverse

of that. We’re seeing that it’s costing almost $200 more a month for

somebody renting in the city of Vancouver.

That’s not what this bill necessarily is about, but I am concerned

about the economic impact in terms of being able to make certain that

the rent task force recommendations are not necessarily leading to a

choking off — where landlords will have the incentive to do

that.

Going back to the quotation that he had from LandlordBC and a road

map to certainty, I don’t disagree. I think that there is lots of room

for grounds of disagreement in terms of a landlord-tenant relationship.

I’ve not been one, but I know that I know people that have gone through

that. Those numbers that he has just stated about the record that your

government has created and what we did previously — I’d be interested in

seeing that information.

I guess…. Can the minister just update on how many of the

recommendations already from the Rental Housing Task Force…? How many of

those have been implemented to date, just so we can get a sense of the

30-some recommendations that are in the report? How many more still have

to be implemented?

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder whether I should be swapping with the Chair right now, as

I note that the Chair chaired the Rental Housing Task Force as well. I

appreciate very much his work on that.

[2:40 p.m.]

In any event, there were 23 recommendations from the Rental

Housing Task Force plus two early recommendations, for a total of 25.

With the introduction of this bill, should it pass, all but seven have

become law in British Columbia.

B. Stewart: Mr. Chair, I know you were interviewed, in terms of the report and

the excitement around it.

I would like to just ask: what’s the timeline of the full

implementation, the ones that are not yet implemented, after Bill 7 is

brought into law? What’s the timeline for the rest of the

recommendations, or are they not being addressed at this

time?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of these recommendations require additional legislation,

and a couple are purely operational. So policy work continues on those

fronts, and we’ll certainly advise members if any changes are

made.

B. Stewart: Just to be clear, some of the recommendations can be dealt with

through regulation. That’s what the minister just stated?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll just restate. A couple require legislation, so would have to

come to this House, and a couple are operational in nature and are more

in the nature of a policy or operational change. So I’ll advise the

member, certainly, if there are any operational changes made that are

recommended by the committee. Policy work continues on all of those

remaining seven.

B. Stewart: That’s good. I know we’re going to get into more of the details as

we go through the bill, but I guess there seems to be a fairly large

shift here to go from regulation, in some cases, to legislation. That’s

a big difference. I guess the question that we’ll likely want to pursue

is: why is it that we need it? What was the matter with regulation? Why

wasn’t it working?

So the full implementation date for those last two changes and the

operational ones is when?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will have to clarify his statement about moving

regulation to legislation so that I can understand better his

concern.

As for the second piece, I don’t have a timeline to share with him

yet, but I’ll certainly advise him if that changes.

B. Stewart: Well, I just really wanted to know about the rent task force

implementation. I think, to be clear, the minister just said that he

doesn’t necessarily know the last two. The other ones that are

operational and policy, those ones, he doesn’t have the timeline on

those. So I’ll accept that and thank you. But it appears that most of

the implementation is being done with Bill 7 and previous work that was

being done.

I just want to ask…. The minister’s colleague from Chilliwack last

week was speaking in this House about housing. In his statement: “I’m a

Gen-Xer, so I was able to buy a house and have applied for homeowners’

grants in the past. I think I’m the last generation.” That would be

homeowners is what I’m assuming that that infers. “That’s what they’ll

refer to us as, shortly, when everyone’s renting.”

Does the minister endorse the member for Chilliwack’s view that

the Gen X generation is the last generation to own homes, and that in

the future, it will be a renter’s life?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to take a second to recognize, since we are

traversing well and beyond the bill, the member for Chilliwack and what

an exceptional candidate he was in the election and how remarkable it

was that we elected an MLA from Chilliwack.

It relates to this bill and the member’s question. We elected MLAs

right up the valley. This is an unprecedented electoral breakthrough for

our party, of which the member for Chilliwack is remarkably emblematic —

inspiring young leaders.

There is no question, in my mind, that the reason we elected so

many members up the valley is because of our government’s commitment to

address the injustice of the housing crisis and its generational

impacts. Our party and the member for Chilliwack have spoken eloquently

about this many, many times. To pull one line from a member’s speech and

pretend that that is somehow government policy or what the member stands

for is…. I get it. It’s politics.

I just wanted to say, on the record, how proud I am of the member

for Chilliwack, his advocacy for housing, standing strong in Chilliwack

for affordable housing, representing those families in Chilliwack that

felt abandoned under the previous administration in relation to housing,

and how proud I am of all of our MLAs up the valley and the Premier for

putting forward a progressive housing agenda that got them elected and

that we’re implementing.

Let me tell you. When you are building, as a government, more than

26,000 units of housing in the first four years that you’ve been elected

— rental housing and affordable housing for purchase, and we’re just

getting started — it’s no wonder that we had that success. It’s no

wonder we have amazing MLAs like the member for Chilliwack. I

congratulate him for his housing advocacy.

I recognize that the perspective of many young people, that they

have been shut out of the housing market for a long time, is a real

perspective. We have to do everything we can in this House, on both

sides of the aisle, to address that generational unfairness and to give

people an opportunity to have safe, affordable and decent housing for

themselves and their families.

The member will see more to come from our government on that

incredibly important question. I thank him for raising it.

B. Stewart: I did commend the member for his comments, but I do think that it

is an important question. Is it the view of the ministers and the

government that his generation will be the last generation to be able to

afford housing? If that is the case, is Bill 7 the solution?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s the view of a lot of young British Columbians that

they’re going to have a really hard time getting into the housing

market. As a provincial government and with our partner the federal

government and our partners the municipalities…. All of our levels of

government have to recognize that.

That unfairness, which is shutting people out of the housing

market, which is shutting their families out of the housing market, is

unacceptable. We have to fight it. We fight it through legislation,

through initiatives, through investment.

This is, for many people — many young people, especially — the

political question. I say that even knowing that we are in a global

pandemic. For these young people, housing is so tied to these issues,

whether it’s the pandemic, families, child care, relatives or

supports.

As Housing Minister, I was incredibly honoured to be selected for

this portfolio by the Premier. I understand, as I know all members on

this side of the House do, the critical importance of this housing

question for British Columbians, especially young British

Columbians.

We must fight the exclusion of thousands and thousands of British

Columbians from affordable and decent housing for themselves and their

families. We need to give young people a sense of hope that we are on

their side in fighting for that. There’s no question that this bill is

part of that.

If you live in rental housing in British Columbia, we want to tell

you that you’re not going to just get turfed because some landlord wants

to paint the walls and pretend that that’s a renovation that requires an

empty apartment. You need to have some form of security in your

housing.

[2:50 p.m.]

That’s not me saying that; that’s LandlordBC saying that. They’re

saying: “We don’t want those bad operators to reflect on landlords in

the province. But we also need to upgrade our buildings because they’re

aging, because the federal government tax incentive program that built

them was so many decades ago. We need to fix the plumbing and the

electrical systems, and we need to make sure the buildings are safe so

that they don’t fall apart.”

These are very reasonable perspectives. Preserving the affordable

rental housing stock that we have, ensuring some level of security for

renters who need that in order to know that their kid gets to keep going

to the same school, that they get to keep an affordable commute to their

job — these are basic issues for any family.

This bill is exactly tied in to that question and our fight for

British Columbians who are feeling that housing crisis acutely and who

don’t feel safe and secure in their rental housing. They watched their

friends get evicted. They are thinking about having families or are

having families and saying: “Can we stay here? Can we stay in this

place?”

This bill is part of that, part of our housing response. But it’s

just one part. The other part, as we keep talking about, is we gotta

build some housing. We gotta build rental housing. We gotta build

affordable housing for purchase. We’ve gotta build workforce housing.

Housing is vital infrastructure for our province to succeed, for people

who live here to have successful lives. I think it’s basic, and I think

this bill is part of it. But it’s just a small part of it, and we’ve got

lots more to do.

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister. Well, I don’t think that we disagree in

terms of preserving and assuring that housing stock is really important.

I mean, British Columbia is home to 60,000 new British Columbians every

year. We have unprecedented low interest rates allowing people to be

able to buy or finance and do the things that will help increase and

address what the minister has just stated.

We’re in a situation where what…. I guess the thing about it and

what I’m really getting at is that we’re not really addressing the

supply side. Of the 29,000 units that the minister just referred to — I

checked back in my notes — only around 3,250 units are actually complete

and in operation. We’re a far cry from delivering on all 29,000. So we

do need to work harder on that. My end goal in Bill 7 is to make certain

that the government is doing everything possible to achieve that and

that we’re going to go through and see that in the end here.

One of the questions I have in the first

section is the examples

of the standard versus other material term that’s in

section 32(4), the

amendment — just the term “other than a standard term or…material term.”

I’d just like him to explain, if he could, what the difference is

between those two terms, please.

Hon. D. Eby: A standard term is when the rent should be paid, and so on. These

are standard terms that are in all rental agreements. A material term is

a term that is so significant to the rental contract that if it was

breached, the rental couldn’t continue. That’s the

distinction.

Now, just to set the record straight. A very unfortunate report

issued by the member’s party — I’m sorry to hear him cite it — about the

housing starts under our government. As of January 2021 — here are the

facts for the member — the government has 26,283 homes complete or

underway. That includes 7,054 homes complete, 9,210 in active

construction and 10,019 in local municipal planning approval

processes.

[2:55 p.m.]

The member, his party, released a report that excluded several

streams of funding for affordable renting from their numbers, which was

very unfortunate — including student housing. I note that in 16 years,

the previous government built only 130 student housing beds. We’re

building almost four times that in one building at BCIT.

We have almost ten times more housing and construction in

development today than the previous government did in 2017. We’ve got 20

percent more housing starts generally than the old government projected

for this time period in their 2017 budget. And 18,000 more condos are

now being rented out in Vancouver instead of sitting empty, thanks to

the speculation and vacancy tax. We are doing a lot on supply. We also

need to make sure that the legislation makes sense, which is what we’re

doing here today, I think.

B. Stewart: I just want to be clear. This

section is dealing with the

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. I want to be clear about the terms

and just ask if the minister could give me an example of, especially….

The standard terms, I think he made clear, but the second part, which is

the material term — just what an example of that is, please.

Hon. D. Eby: An example of a material term — where, if it were breached, the

rental housing contract could not continue — given by staff is an

electrical feed being the responsibility of the landlord to provide to

the tenant’s unit. If that were breached, it would be functionally

impossible for the tenant to continue to live at the site. So that would

be a material term.

I neglected to introduce staff. I said I would. I didn’t have the

list immediately in front of me. I’m joined by a couple of the members

that briefed my critic — Cheryl May, assistant deputy minister, and

Tyann Blewett, director of policy, both from the office of housing and

construction standards in my ministry. I’m also joined by Brad Sparrow,

senior policy analyst in the office of housing and construction

standards as well.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

The Chair: On clause 2, Kelowna-Mission — no, Kelowna West.

B. Stewart: I haven’t moved across the lake yet. I do look across, and I come

downtown. My colleague that represents that area is right here in the

House, and I’m sure she’d like to speak to this bill because she has

extensive background in building and construction.

If the minister can be clear about if park utility charges…. Okay.

Section 2 establishes a rent freeze for 2021, I guess, as it relates to

manufactured home parks. Can the minister just clarify if the park

utility charges are also frozen through this rent freeze for

manufactured homes, or does that remain flexible?

Hon. D. Eby: If they are paid for by the landlord and passed through to the

tenant, then yes, they are frozen as well.

B. Stewart: So just to be clear, the minister said that if the landlord is

including those utilities in terms of that, they are frozen until the

end of 2021. I’m certain that that’s what I just heard.

[3:00 p.m.]

The costs that are out of the control of the landlord or the owner

of manufactured home parks, such as not only property taxes but water

and other utilities that are provided for service fees that are provided

to the tenants within a manufactured housing development. If those are

passed on by the landlord, then those remain frozen until the end of

2021. And then, after that, my understanding is that it’s only at the

B.C. consumer price index that the landlord would be able to increase to

be able to recover those increases. Is that correct,

Minister?

Hon. D. Eby: After 2022 there’s a distinct and separate equation for

manufactured home parks, which is that the allowable rent increase is

inflation, but plus a portion of the utilities divided by the number of

units. So they can continue to pass those costs through, starting again

after the rent freeze in 2022.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for his responses. Some of the

conversation that we had, the Rental Housing Task Force, was around the

flexibility and the ability for landlords to be able to recoup any

investments that they make through an increase in rent. Maybe the

minister can talk a little bit about that. In this rent freeze time,

leading to January of 2022, is that an option for landlords, or is this

a total freeze on all rent increases up to that date?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we are working on a process. The

legislation in front of the House creates the possibility of regulation

in this area, a predictable method to recover the cost of improvements

to a building. Those regulations…. The policy work on that is happening

right now.

The expectation is that we should have a system in place in the

coming months and that landlords would be able to apply at some point

this year, under a new system, enabled by those regulations. I’m afraid

I can’t be more precise than that. That policy work is happening

currently within the ministry, on the assumption that this bill passes

the House, in particular the

section that empowers the regulations for

that particular recovery.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

B. Stewart: So what would the rationale for the director reviewing a decision

on their own initiative be?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Under the current system, one party must apply for this kind of

review to take place, but it may be that only the branch itself, the

arbitrator, knows that a mistake was made. Currently they can’t initiate

that process even though they know a mistake was made, because the

legislation only permits the parties to the dispute to apply. The gap

that is meant to be addressed here is that where the director is aware

of an error, the director could initiate the process to correct that and

improve fairness through that mechanism.

B. Stewart: Just in this

section 72, the amendments, can the minister provide

an example of where this added prerogative would be used and what it’s

intended to accomplish, please?

Hon. D. Eby: The authority is narrow and is prescribed by the legislation. An

example is if the director was aware that evidence had been uploaded to

the wrong file or there was some kind of technical issue that interfered

with the fairness of a hearing — so the evidence wasn’t available to the

disputants in the party. It’s an example of where the director could

say, “Okay, that wasn’t fair. That evidence should have been there for

the hearing,” and allows the director to revisit that file.

B. Stewart: Again, on

section 6, there’s an added subsection (b.3), and it

speaks to technical irregularities. Can the minister provide an example

of a technical irregularity, how this would affect a hearing and how the

director would go about fixing it under this new section?

Hon. D. Eby: The residential tenancy branch relies on a digital system for

managing evidence and hearings as well as the telephone calls between

the parties. Any number of issues could arise with that digital system,

and it’s difficult to anticipate exactly what they look like until they

happen. If they affected the fairness of the hearing, then the director

would have the ability to review a decision and make additional

determinations to ensure fairness.

As with most digital systems, things do happen. So having this

ground, where a party might not be aware that their hearing was affected

by some sort of issue with the system, is an important one.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

[3:10 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Clause 7 it relates to: “in subsections (1) and (2), by striking

out ‘documents’ and substituting ‘records.’” Could the minister just

illustrate the difference between records and documents and what was

previously excluded by this change?

Hon. D. Eby: Record is defined in the

Interpretation Act, and it’s broader than

document. In the

Interpretation Act, “record” includes books, documents,

maps, drawings, photographs, letters, vouchers, papers and any other

thing on which information is recorded or stored by any means, whether

graphic, electronic, mechanical or otherwise.

This allows the director to compel records from a person such as a

contractor, for example, who is not under investigation but has records

related to the investigation, and doesn’t unduly limit the type of

records that could be accessed to exclusively documents or create an

avenue for arguing that a particular record is not a document and is

therefore not accessible. It broadens the term because, obviously, there

are a wide array of records that could have important information that

may not be considered documents.

B. Stewart: You just mentioned that a third party that is not under

investigation or review may be compelled to provide these records to the

director. What tool would the director have at their disposal to being

able to force those records to be released? There is the law, but what

tools would the director have to use if somebody chose to be

non-compliant?

Hon. D. Eby: The director would be in contact with the third party to make the

demand for records. If the party elected not to cooperate with the

demand for records, the director has the ability to level an

administrative penalty of as much as $5,000 a day. Obviously, the

context would be very important about the amount of the administrative

penalty. But it could be quite significant for

non-compliance.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

B. Stewart: Moving on to

section 8. There’s a repeal of 80.3 in the

Manufactured Home Act. Sections (

a) and (

b) are being repealed and

substituted. I guess my first question in this

section is what examples

can the minister provide of these contraventions?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: For subsection (a), this is the regular business at the

residential tenancy branch. If a tenant or landlord is regularly not

following the requirements of the acts and the situation is so severe it

calls for an administrative penalty, that’s subsection (a).

For subsection (b), an example is the example that I just shared

with the member about failing to provide records at the demand of the

director.

For subsection (c), if a person provided a falsified document at a

hearing, which is something that has happened at the residential tenancy

branch, this provides a way for the director to reflect that that is not

acceptable conduct at a hearing in front of this tribunal.

B. Stewart: I wondered, in terms of the contraventions, prior to this

amendment, how frequent or how often have these laid-out types of

contraventions occurred? What’s the frequency, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, you’re going to remember this, when we had the

residential tenancy branch legislation where there were lots of good

rules but they didn’t have the ability to ensure compliance. In May of

2019, we established a compliance unit within the residential tenancy

branch that had the ability to receive complaints about noncompliance

with the act, investigate them and encourage people to come into

compliance and, if not, to levy administrative penalties.

Since May 2019 and the establishment of the compliance unit, there

have been 260 complaints filed with the unit, and 160 investigations

flowed from those 260 complaints. Of those, the vast majority —

overwhelming majority — of landlords and tenants came into compliance

following the investigation’s findings. But in 14 cases, they did not.

So there were 14 penalties issued under the act. Ten of those penalties

were awarded against landlords and four against tenants.

B. Stewart: Is there any chance that this

section gives the power to the

director to create a sanction — like a win-lose situation? I guess

there’s a lot of power residing in the director in terms of these

things, and the penalties are obviously fairly severe.

[3:20 p.m.]

I just want to probe if, in his judgment, being Attorney General,

is the degree of fairness…? We’re not moving towards a kind of…. Well,

I’m assuming it is a little bit like an arbitration — a win-lose

situation. You make your case, and if you are unsuccessful, you

lose.

I’m just wondering. Is that what this is going to…? Is it,

essentially, creating the director as being the arbitrator, in this

particular case?

Hon. D. Eby: The operating philosophy of the director of the branch is to

encourage compliance with the act. That’s why the member hears about 160

investigations leading to just 14 penalties. In the vast majority of

areas of dispute between landlords and tenants about compliance with the

act, the compliance unit was able to encourage compliance on the part of

one or the other or both parties. I just want to note, because the

member seems concerned that there’s a significant expansion of the

authority of the director under these amendments, that it’s not the

case.

In the previous

section of the act, before being amended by this

bill, as sections of the act that were brought into being and maintained

throughout the time of the previous administration, the entirety of

subsection (a) — “contravened a provision of this Act or the

regulations…” — was already in the law in British Columbia. It is right

now. Subsection (b), “failed to comply with a decision or order of the

director….” That was already in the law. This amendment only adds the

section about “a demand issued…for production of records” or if you

tender “…false or misleading information in a dispute resolution

proceeding.”

I think most members of this House would agree that if someone

produces a falsified document in a formal hearing, like a residential

tenancy branch arbitration, there should be a consequence.

Unfortunately, under the legislation, without this section, you cannot

have a consequence — short of, of course, losing your arbitration. But

there’s no additional consequence within the act that can be levied.

There may be other penalties or other criminal processes, and so on, but

really, there needs to be a consequence. That’s what subsection (

c) is

about.

The other is that you can give the director the ability to make

decisions. But if a third party has records that are essential for the

fair determination of the dispute, and that third party refuses to

provide those records, we really need to give the director the ability

to say, “We need those documents, or else there’s a financial

consequence,” to encourage non-compliant parties to come into

compliance. As the member can hear, from the statistics, just the

existence of these authorities is, in the vast majority of cases,

sufficient to encourage people to come into compliance.

It’s not a significant expansion of the director’s authority, but

it does address some long-standing issues, where there were simply no

teeth. One of those goes back to our establishment of the compliance

unit, where there were many provisions of the act that made a lot of

sense, but there was no way for the director to investigate or address

abuse of the act, for example. That’s why the compliance unit has made a

significant difference: the resources provided to it to be able to do

these kinds of investigations.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister for that answer on the previous

clause.

[3:25 p.m.]

On clause 9, under “Review of administrative penalty,” which

really follows along just what he was saying, can the minister describe

an example of where the director would want to review an administrative

penalty on their own initiative? I say “own initiative.”

Hon. D. Eby: An administrative penalty is a dispute between government and an

individual. This is not part of the dispute resolution

process.

For the areas that are enumerated in subsection (4) — that a

person wasn’t able to be heard because of circumstances that couldn’t be

anticipated or that a person has new and relevant evidence or that the

person who performed administrative tasks for the director made a

procedural error that materially affected the decision or that there was

a technical irregularity or error or that the director didn’t determine

an issue that the director was required to determine in order to levy

the penalty….

For any of those circumstances laid out in subsection (4), the

director might be the only party that knows that one of those issues

came up. In that circumstance, on the director’s own initiative, we want

them to have the authority to review the decision to apply an

administrative penalty and not have to wait for the party that was fined

to identify the issue themselves.

It’s just a matter of fairness and justice. If the decision-maker

discovers a major problem like that, they should be able to reopen and

modify the administrative penalty.

B. Stewart: How commonplace would it be for the director to have to operate on

their own initiative? Is there some indication as to the frequency of

that, please?

Hon. D. Eby: Before these amendments, the individual who had the fine levied

against them had to request a review by the director for one of these

types of problems.

Far more frequently…. The concern was, anyway — I don’t know about

far more frequently — that people would just go to the B.C. Supreme

Court for a judicial review rather than apply for

reconsideration.

The goal is to prevent wasting court resources. Where everybody

agrees a mistake was made — an administrative task problem or a

technical problem — or some sort of evidence that wasn’t available at

the time comes to light, we don’t want to waste the court’s time. The

director should be able to reopen and reconsider and notify the party

that’s affected that the fine has been cancelled or modified in some way

because of one of these issues.

It saves the court time and saves the individuals involved the

effort of going to the B.C. Supreme Court.

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

B. Stewart: In terms of this…. I understand the minister has just stated that

this is actually to take things out of the court system and to have a

procedure that allows for the director of the RTB to be able to make

decisions.

When it comes to appeals of the penalties and review, what will

provide finality through the process so that the decisions are not

caught up in an endless stream of appeals, Minister?

Hon. D. Eby: The review process will take place. If a party’s not satisfied

with the outcome of the review process, they still have the ability to

go to B.C. Supreme Court through the judicial review process. This is

just an attempt to address any obvious issues that everybody agrees on,

without having to go to court for that purpose.

Clauses 9 and 10 approved.

On clause 11.

B. Stewart: With clause 11, just wondering if I could ask the minister if he

could elaborate on the types of restrictions that will be placed on

changing park rules.

Hon. D. Eby: I understand from staff that the recommendation from the Rental

Housing Task Force was quite high level and that there is some

additional policy work that is required around this section.

This is a

section that creates the possibility of regulation. As

part of that regulation drafting process, it is staff’s intention to

engage with representative organizations for owners and landlords to

determine the appropriate frequency, for example, under this

section.

B. Stewart: Thank you for that answer. Would the minister be able to provide

an example of what new regulations are intended to prevent and how they

will be enforced?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I understand the intention behind the recommendation by the Rental

Housing Task Force was to prevent frequent rule changes that made it

difficult for owners of these types of homes from understanding what

rules they had to conduct themselves by, in order to keep their housing,

and also that in some unfortunate instances, there were, at a minimum,

allegations of owners of these parks targeting individual tenants with

rule changes in order to either encourage the person to sell their home

and leave the park or otherwise change behaviour that was otherwise

lawful and consistent with the rules.

The hope is to give some certainty and predictability around park

rules for everybody that lives in a manufacturing home park.

B. Stewart: Again, thank you, Minister, for that. I think everybody

appreciates certainty in knowing what the rules are.

Is there going to be, Minister, a standard timeline for the

frequency of park rule changes? If so, what would that be?

Hon. D. Eby: This recommendation was quite a high-level recommendation by the

task force. Staff had advised that they’re going to be doing some more

engagement with the sector in drafting the regulation with the frequency

period.

B. Stewart: This type of engagement you refer to — will that be public

engagement, or how would that take place? I think, obviously, there are

a lot of manufactured home parks all over the province. I think that

they come in all shapes and sizes, as did renters when the rental task

force chair took his consultation around the province.

Could you just be clearer as to how these manufactured home park

owners are going to be consulted in terms of…? You said high-level, but

could you be a little bit more prescriptive as to how this will unfold,

please?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the engagement process has not yet been designed.

If the member has suggestions about particular groups that should be

engaged, certainly I would be glad to pass those on to staff to make

sure they are so engaged. But I can advise the member that there is a

provincial park owners association, and obviously they would be engaged

on this question. There are several manufactured home owner associations

across the province that will also be engaged in this

process.

B. Stewart: Well, I appreciate that there are associations, and they’re a good

source of information. What about the residents that are in…? You know,

there are literally, I’m sure, hundreds of thousands of residents in

British Columbia that live in manufactured home parks. Will they be

included in some way, shape or form so that their concerns are

addressed, or do you have some other idea as to how they’re going to be

consulted?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of manufactured home owner associations that

would also be engaged through this process.

[3:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Again, further on this, in the calculations…. Okay. In subsection

(b), repealing (

q) and substituting with (

q) respecting rent increases,

will this

section bring about the process for above-guideline rent

increases recommended by the task force?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

B. Stewart: Is it intended that the process for approving rent increases above

guidelines will be substantially different from the process in the

tenancy act? If so, how?

Hon. D. Eby: The policy work is ongoing on this, but the intention is to

provide a straightforward, predictable and transparent process so that a

landlord understands, before making an investment, whether and to what

extent they would be able to recover that cost through rents, or what

portion of that cost would be recoverable. That is different than the

current act, which doesn’t provide that level of predictability. That’s

our goal in the work that we’re doing currently.

B. Stewart: Just in terms of this

section 11, I just wanted to…. If the

minister could describe, I guess, the measure of reasonability for what

is allowed under these increases. Does he have a range or some ideas as

to how they will define what reasonableness is, please?

Hon. D. Eby: That policy work is ongoing. If the member has any suggestions

about groups or individuals or particular proposed policies that would

be instructive in terms of this, I’d certainly be happy to receive them.

But I’m not in a position right now to advise the member on potential

ranges. That policy work is happening right now.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

B. Stewart: I just wanted to…. There are a couple of my colleagues that have

comments on

section 12. I’ll start off with a couple of questions, and

then I’d like to refer the member for Cariboo North, who has a

question.

Section 12 establishes a rent freeze for 2020 as well as 2021, as

it relates to normal tenancies. Can the minister explain why this is

being done by legislation instead of regulation, as it has been

traditionally done before?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: When the pandemic began, we didn’t know how long it would last.

Landlords were allowed to continue to issue notices to increase rent.

The intent of including this provision is to minimize confusion on the

part of either landlords or tenants about the relevant dates and the

effect of those notices that may have been received during that period.

If a landlord wants to increase the rent for 2022, that landlord should

be issuing a rent increase notice to tenants in September of

B. Stewart: Minister, I was asking about why this is being done in

legislation, versus regulation. I guess the question is: is it

necessary? Or why is it necessary to change from that model that we’ve

been using for, I’m sure, decades?

Hon. D. Eby: The intent is to minimize confusion about a fairly significant

change. Many tenants look to the act or to policy papers on the

residential tenancy branch website, and many landlords as well. A much

smaller number would be looking at regulations under the act. By putting

it in the act, we draw attention to it, and we underline the

significance of it, and it provides greater clarity to both landlords

and tenants about the relevant dates. It is a significant change, so we

wanted it to be as clear as possible to all parties, to minimize

disputes and confusion.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess, Minister, this is one of the areas where I perhaps

struggle with Bill 7 because of the lack of a dynamic. I understand the

minister’s point in suggesting that it’s very absolute and clear.

However, there is a delay in terms of…. Although the B.C. CPI is

embedded in the legislation as being the inflationary

factor….

I don’t know how many in this House were working in the ’70s, but

I can remember inflation running at 10, 15 percent and interest rates in

the early ’80s hitting 22 percent. Those are factors that are so

significant that legislation is going to be very difficult — and, of

course, it puts people behind the eight ball. It’s very difficult,

especially for projects that are even in process to actually recover

their costs and make certain that they’re able to sustain what it

is.

I guess my question is: has that really been considered? In terms

of the fact that, even though the economy and interest rates are under 2

percent at the Bank of Canada today…. If things were to double or

triple, which would not be unusual…. I was a banker, and we did banking

at 10 and 12 percent, for decades, in this country. Anyway, have they

considered that?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that CPI is not in this section; nor is it

in the bill. CPI is in the regulation. The member raises a reason why

perhaps CPI might not be an appropriate measure if things get out of

whack. I’ll note that CPI was in the regulations when their government

was in power. Of course, there was an additional increase beyond CPI

every year, and that was done away with by our government.

[3:50 p.m.]

With respect to…. I had a little bit more information from staff

about the reason why the rent increase notices were cancelled through

the legislation instead of through regulation. I’m advised that there

was no regulation-making power that allowed the cancellation of notices

that had been received, notices of rent increase, so it had to go under

the legislation as well.

The member can take my earlier comments as another reason, but the

staff advised that one of the largest influences on it being in the

statute is that there was not a regulation-making power to cancel those

notices.

B. Stewart: Well, having been in this House for a few years, I just know the

ability to adjust regulation. I accept the minister’s fact that there is

no ability to empower the director of the RTB to be able to have that

authority. I do worry that it is an impediment to being able to be

dynamic in a market.

We know that the government promised that it would be ending rent

freezes in 2021, in the most recent provincial election. After that, the

action that took the rent increases to the rate of inflation will be

made permanent. Is this legislation permanently capping rent increases

to the rate of inflation?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section has an important purpose. I’m worried that the member

is not following along with what the purpose is. This amendment

invalidates annual rent increase notices that are currently suspended

and allows landlords to serve new notices of rent increase for 2022. So

without this amendment, the rent increase freeze on annual rent

increases would end on July 10, 2021. So it extends the rent increase

freeze on annual rent increases until the end of 2021. There is no

connection to CPI or inflation or anything like that. That is all in a

separate regulation that is not part of this

section at all.

B. Stewart: I’m not certain that…. Maybe I have misheard, but is the

government backing off on its campaign promise by not including a

permanent cap in this bill, or will the minister be tabling additional

legislation to provide a cap for certainty on this?

Hon. D. Eby: The continuation of the rent freeze — a campaign commitment. Once

it expires, the return to the state before, which was that the only

allowable rent increase is the CPI inflation rate.

B. Stewart: My colleague from Cariboo North has a question in regard to this,

please.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question on behalf of

stakeholders that I’ve certainly heard from.

I want to first acknowledge the investment that the government has

made in post-secondary education. One of the things that I’ve heard from

various post-secondary stakeholder groups, such as the Alma Mater

Society and the Graduate Student Society of UBC, is the challenge that

they’ve experienced with the fact that student housing falls outside any

of the supports that the government has put forward. In fact,

effectively, the eligibility for student housing leaves them out of

programs and policies, such as the legislation in Bill 7 around the rent

freeze.

I know that this is certainly not something that the government

made intentional. I think it is something that the post-secondary

advocacy groups have done an outstanding job on, meeting with all

members, or at least have effectively offered to advocate and meet with

all members of this House.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think it’s an important piece or gap that the students raise.

While it may not be specific to this particular clause, it is about the

rent freeze and how post-secondary students who are absolutely

struggling during the pandemic…. Those who live in the existing student

housing that the province has are struggling, and they’re hoping that

programs such as the rent freeze apply to them as well.

To the minister: will the rent freeze and the programs that the

government has announced be applied to student housing across British

Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right to note that students are not captured under

the Residential Tenancy Act. As I understand, some of their advocacy….

They would prefer a model of the Residential Tenancy Act for students

that recognizes the unique nature of student tenure. The member rightly

notes that because students are not captured under the Residential

Tenancy Act, this rent freeze does not affect students or the decisions

made by post-secondary institutions about rents in their

housing.

Government has provided $3½ million of funding to post-secondary

institutions to support students in crisis because of COVID. Many

institutions are providing additional financial support of their own

above and beyond that amount. Under this bill and under this freeze,

there is no student housing rent freeze.

The Chair: The member for Cariboo North.

C. Oakes: Thank you, Mr. Chair. He answered my question.

B. Stewart: Thank you for the minister allowing that question. I guess in

recognition of his response, is there anything being contemplated for

student rent controls in student housing to give students the certainty

that has been mentioned here about this bill many times earlier

today?

Hon. D. Eby: That would be an appropriate question for my colleague the

Minister of Advanced Education, perhaps during the estimates process.

I’m not aware of any in my ministry, but I wouldn’t necessarily be aware

of that. That work would be happening in the Ministry of Advanced

Education in their relationship with post-secondary

institutions.

B. Stewart: I think it’s important, because there are not-for-profit housing

groups, low income, B.C. Housing. I think it’s important that we put

them all out on the table here and ask the minister to…. I realize he’s

deflected the question about student housing to the Minister of Advanced

Education. I’m sure my colleague will bring that up. But the question

about these other groups, which is in the minister’s purview — how do

they fall under this, or do they not at all?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I think — but again, there’s always an exception that’ll catch you

off guard — the entirety of the housing block that the member is talking

about is subject to agreements with tenants that make them

rent-geared-to-income housing. Rent-geared-to-income housing is

specifically exempted from the Residential Tenancy Act with respect to

provisions like these.

It simply doesn’t apply because the rent paid by the tenant is

based on their income, a percentage of their income, typically 30

percent. There’s an annual review with the tenant of what their income

is, and the rent is adjusted accordingly based on their actual income.

These rent increase or decrease provisions do not apply to that type of

housing.

Now, there may be housing that’s operated by a non-profit that is

entirely outside of the purview of government somehow and is not

rent-geared-to-income housing. It’s just operated, maybe, by a church

group or something like that. And the Residential Tenancy Act would

apply.

I’m speculating, because I always feel like there are one or two

exceptions that might catch you off guard. But as far as I’m advised, I

can tell the member that non-profit housing in the province is

rent-geared-to-income housing and that this

section would not affect

them.

B. Stewart: Well, I just was informed by my colleague from Kootenay East that

there was a substantial rent increase for low-income seniors in his

particular riding. I do think that it’s formula-based, it sounds

like.

I guess my only question to the minister would be: would he be

amenable to, at least, perhaps having a briefing so that we can answer

those questions in our constituencies after this bill, I’m assuming,

gets through the House?

Maybe I’ll go on to my next question, but I don’t want to stop him

from answering that. Minister, can you commit today that you’re not

going to implement vacancy controls?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member’s question, any member in this place that has a

residential tenancy issue in their community…. I will absolutely make

staff available to help them understand the relevant provisions of the

Residential Tenancy Act and to assist them as best as possible in

assisting their constituents. That can be arranged directly through my

ministerial staff. That is a standing offer, not just subject to this

bill.

Certainly, if a large group of low-income seniors are seeing a

significant rent increase that may not be consistent with this bill,

we’d love to assist to ensure that nobody is displaced from their home

because they don’t understand the law or how to challenge it. Without

knowing all the circumstances, it may be an appropriate case for the

compliance unit that we were discussing earlier.

With respect to vacancy control, we do not have any intention of

implementing vacancy control — which I understand can also be described

as rent that’s tied to the unit rather than to the tenant, which is the

current model in British Columbia — with one exception. There is a group

of buildings, residential hotels, that are protected from conversion in

some municipalities — and I’m thinking specifically of Vancouver — that

are single-room-occupancy residential hotels. I have heard some

suggestion that rent vacancy control for those units may improve access

to those units for low-income people.

[4:05 p.m.]

We are doing some policy work on that, but we are not in any

position to be introducing that at this time. But it is something that

we are looking at, and I wanted to advise the member of that.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna West — and through the Chair,

please.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this particular

section or clause, it

obviously lays out that the rents will be capped or there will be no

increase until December 31 of 2021. It does refer elsewhere…. I just

want to make certain I’ve got the right clause.

I’ve heard from many landlords — not big ones, but people that are

having one or two or five or six homes that are rented out on a basis.

The concern that they have is the new formula that’s going to be set

sometime — I believe it’s September of 2021 — where the B.C. CPI,

without any other increase, will be the allowable rent increase in the

Residential Tenancy Act. So they’re having difficulty in recovering the

cost of maintaining an existing building under the new CPI formula. I’m

just wondering how they can ensure, with these rules, that they’ll be

able to be incentivized to continue to maintain, whether it’s roofs or

other things that need to be maintained.

As the minister probably knows, a lot of the housing stock in the

province is nearing six-decade-old age. In that particular case, many

things are starting to need significant improvements. I know that we’re

going to get further into that in

section 14, but the exemptions around

that seem to be very onerous. I’m just asking how he will ensure that

this legislation doesn’t deter new rental investments.

Hon. D. Eby: Under the previous formula, an additional 2 percent rent increase

was allowed for all landlords, regardless of whether they were making

improvements to their housing or not. This new approach is to incent

landlords to make improvements to their buildings through a predictable

system of cost recovery so that they understand the business decision

that they need to make about putting money into an aging building to

bring it up to speed.

The hope is that by targeting these increases and supporting those

landlords that are improving buildings for tenants — for everybody — and

increasing the lifespan of buildings, we’re going to maintain more of

our aging rental housing stock, improve it and, at the same time, bring

more units on stream as we have been doing.

I note we’ve been quite successful in bringing rental housing

online, and we’re going to do more. We had 29,093 new rental units

registered for construction from 2017 to 2019 and 5,400 by July of last

year — so good progress on that supply. But also, we want to encourage

those owners of older buildings to invest into their buildings. We

believe that tenants will support, where improvements are made,

reasonable rent increases to help pitch in for that improvement

experienced by everyone in the building.

[4:10 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, I know that you read a quote out earlier about LandlordBC

and the objectiveness of these rules and things like that. I didn’t hear

anything from them talking about the actual recovery of some of the

increased costs that some of the landlords will be facing. They did a

study that was just released, up to 2018, that showed that their average

expenses increased at almost 8 percent per year, much higher than

inflation.

I guess the question is…. The minister is aware of the strata

insurance pressures which will affect rental accommodation. I don’t

think there’s anybody that’s exempt from that. I know that there are

clear rules under

section 14 that talk about how the landlord is

expected to come up with a plan, get permission, go ahead and do the

renovations to remediate some of these 60-year-old buildings. I think

that, as I started out by saying, there are 60,000 new British

Columbians coming at an increasing percentage rate every year and more

perhaps in the future because the federal government is encouraging

that. We have to accelerate the pace of new rental stock, both houses

and other units.

I guess the question is: how does the minister expect landlords to

actually account for these increasing costs? How are they going to

recover it?

Hon. D. Eby: The existing regulations do permit applications to the residential

tenancy branch to recover extraordinary increases in operating expenses

beyond CPI. That provision will continue. There will be a new provision

allowing predictable increases for capital improvements to buildings.

Finally, there will be an increase for CPI.

I note this is a delicate balance. The member is right to note

this is a delicate balance. We want to support landlords in making

improvements to their buildings so that they last and so that they

provide a safe and reasonable housing option for people, and we want to

address an issue that the member raised earlier on in this session about

increasing rents and the cost of living in many parts of the

province.

Part of this is absolutely a supply problem around rental housing.

We went for a long time in the province without building enough rental

housing, so we need to address that supply. But we also need to provide

predictability to both landlords and tenants in rent increases. That’s

what we’re aiming to do with this legislation and why we struck the task

force to advise us on this.

B. Stewart: Well, thank you, Minister, for that. And to be clear, you said

that there is an ability for a landlord to….

The Chair: Member for Kelowna West, through the Chair, please.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the minister, what I wanted

to be clear about was that the additional expenses that landlords face

that I mentioned in the previous question…. Could you just explain or

tell me how it is that a landlord can recover these additional expenses

over and above the CPI formula that’s outlined in Bill 7?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The affected landlord can make an application to the residential

tenancy branch, and they will make a determination based on the level of

increase in operational costs as well as any financial loss incurred by

the landlord in determining whether an additional rent increase beyond

CPI will be allowed.

B. Stewart: I just want to make certain that…. Does the minister believe that

landlords could run a deficit in order to provide rental housing and

that that’s acceptable?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not quite sure where that comes from in

section 12. I don’t

know. I guess you could run any business and potentially lose money. I

guess it’s theoretically possible that that could happen, but with the

increase in property values across the province, it’s extremely unlikely

that that would be the situation faced by a landlord

currently.

But in terms of operational costs, I absolutely accept that a

landlord could conduct business in a way where their operational costs

exceed the amount of rent that they’re taking in, and they could face an

extraordinary increase in operational costs through no fault of their

own. That’s why this provision exists — to allow them to make that

application. It remains unchanged through this legislation.

B. Stewart: Just to be clear, to the minister, and I think that he stated

that…. Well, first of all, he said: “Where does it affect this clause?”

But the clause has the implied effect that with a cap and no rent

increases, it’s assuming that the costs haven’t gone up. I know that he

knows that there have been cost increases, and that after December of

2021, landlords that have demonstrated cost increases or whatever will

be able to apply at some point in the future. I’m assuming they can’t go

backwards and look at 2020 or 2021.

My question is…. With these pressures, and I’m talking about

external pressures, tax increases…. I see our local community. The tax

increase is set at just over 4 percent. It was similar last year. Some

communities — as he well is aware, I’m sure — are way more than that,

more than double. Those aren’t sustainable for landlords that have

ever-increasing assessed values, which doesn’t necessarily mean….

They’re not getting that value back.

I guess my question really is…. He acknowledges that there is

increased cost. There is a process in the future, after January 1, 2022,

to make a case to the RTB about that. Is he suggesting that landlords

may have to expect to run deficits? I realize that it’s completely

within their responsibility to manage costs and stay within that. But

the people that bought and have properties, that owned property before

the pandemic in March of 2019 and whatever the interest rates…. If

they’re now in a situation where they’re having to subsidize, is that

acceptable? That’s my question.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is removing this temporary measure of a rent freeze

from the context, which is a global pandemic where many people have seen

dramatic impacts to their employment and income. The goal here is to

minimize the impact, especially on lower-wage workers, who have been

disproportionately impacted. Many people who rent do work in sectors

that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. So this is

absolutely a statement of government policy and a priority, but it takes

place in a context, which is that everybody is feeling the impacts of

this pandemic in some way.

[4:20 p.m.]

As we heard from the member for Delta North earlier in question

period, Dr. Henry says: “We’re all in the storm, but we’re all in

different boats.” For the people who are in the rental housing boat,

we’re saying: “We know that this is tough for you, and we’re not going

to allow rent increases for a year.” For people who are in the landlord

boat, we recognize it’s tough for you too.

Many landlords I’ve met with have given extensions to tenants.

They’ve been understanding about rent, understanding that we’re all in

this together and that we’re doing our best to support each other in a

difficult time. I’m very grateful for that. Should they be subsidizing

tenants who have lost their jobs because of the pandemic? Is that what

the member is asking? I mean, I think it’s pretty great that they would

do that. From a business perspective, maybe that’s not great, but I

think that’s great.

Do I accept that it can be expensive to operate a building and to

maintain it to high standards? Absolutely I do. That’s why this bill

brings forward a very clear provision for landlords who are investing in

their buildings to recover some of those costs. What we’re trying to do

is strike a balance here.

I accept the member’s suggestion that it can be very hard,

especially to be a very small landlord. I’ve met many landlords that

struggle with their operating costs and try to provide a really positive

experience for their tenants, both from a rent perspective and just the

quality of the building that they want to maintain. It can be difficult

for large landlords as well.

I don’t minimize those concerns, but I do note that this rent

freeze comes in a context that the member is…. I wanted to say missing,

but I don’t think that’s fair. I just think that it’s important to

recognize this context that the member has not addressed in his

questions and the fact that many landlords have, in fact, made the

explicit decision, with their business, to subsidize tenants that are in

distress in their buildings. It’s a pretty wonderful thing that they did

that.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

B. Stewart: I had a couple of questions on clause 13.

This repeals old criteria for renovictions. Can the minister

confirm that the other charge in use means of ending tenancies continues

despite this section?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is yes.

B. Stewart: It appears that while building owners must apply to the RTB with

respect to renovations, demolition and conversion of the unit do not

require an application. Is it possible that administrative delays could

incentivize landlords to pursue demolitions rather than

renovations?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The mischief that this is aimed at is a landlord that wants to

increase the rent. We do not have vacancy control in this province or

rent tied to the unit, so the way to be able to increase the rent beyond

what government permits is to evict the tenant.

How could you evict a tenant? Well, you could say: “I’m going to

be renovating this unit.” The renovations could be cosmetic —

countertops, paint, and so on. Then the obligation previously, assuming

this bill is successful, would be on the tenant to challenge that at the

residential tenancy branch — to say, “Oh, the unit doesn’t have to be

vacant” and “They don’t have their permits,” and on and on.

This particular provision takes place within the larger set of

amendments around renovictions. Renovictions are a very specific

activity of landlords that want to increase the rents in the existing

building, want to get rid of the tenant and were using the ruse of

renovations to evict the tenant and increase the rent.

It’s profoundly unlikely that a landlord would demolish that

rental unit in order to build an entirely new building and increase the

rents, because the cost involved in such a process would vastly outweigh

the benefit. But it certainly is possible that that landlord may wish to

demolish an older building and rebuild a new rental housing building

with more units or because the building is at the end of its

life.

Many municipalities have provisions that where an application is

made to demolish an existing rental housing building, additional units

need to be provided and certain commitments need to be made with respect

to affordable housing as well as the ability of tenants to return when

the new building is complete.

We’ll be monitoring this, and if we do see a sudden rash of

demolitions across the province, certainly we would move to act. But

that is not the mischief that this particular piece was aimed at. This

was aimed at the attempt to increase rents in an existing unit with a

cosmetic renovation.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

B. Stewart: I would ask if the minister could start by providing us an example

of a renoviction that would be justifiable under the new

section.

Hon. D. Eby: The

section lays out the requirements for what a major renovation

that would allow for an eviction consists of —

section 49.2(1)(a). First

of all, you have to have all your permits and approvals in place from

the local municipality or district.

Second, the nature of the renovations or repairs require the

rental unit to be vacant. You can provide any number of examples. For

example, remediation that includes asbestos. You can’t have somebody in

a unit where you’re mucking around with asbestos, for

example.

The renovations or repairs “are necessary to prolong or to sustain

the use of the rental unit or the building.” Then, finally, “the only

reasonable way to achieve the necessary vacancy is to end the tenancy

agreement.” It wouldn’t be enough that there was asbestos in the

building. You’d have to actually to be able to demonstrate that you had

to end the tenancy agreement because it wasn’t reasonable to do it

otherwise.

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s a very high bar, but it is an achievable bar. It recognizes

and provides the possibility for the return of the tenant. It gives

tenants who are willing and able to move out during renovations or

repairs the ability to maintain their tenancies unless that would be

totally unreasonable.

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister. He said that it is a very high bar. I

mean, when you start researching and looking into the issues about the

timelines on getting a building permit and the plans…. As it says in

section 49.2, in order to proceed and move ahead, the landlord who is in

possession of the rental unit…. It says: “…if all of the following

apply: (

a) the landlord intends in good faith to renovate or repair the

rental unit and has all the necessary permits and approvals required by

law to carry out the renovations or repairs.”

It goes on to talk more about “renovations or repairs require the

unit to be vacant” and “the renovations or repairs are necessary to

prolong or sustain the use of the rental unit or the building in which

the rental unit is located” and “the only reasonable way to achieve the

necessary vacancy is to end the tenancy agreement.”

This whole business about permits and approvals, that’s only one

small portion of it. It takes a lot of pre-planning, and the minister

has said that it is a high threshold — a high bar I think are his words.

So what it is, is that somebody that is the owner of the particular

rental unit, apartment, whatever, will require those permits.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Being that most of the stock in the province of British Columbia

average age is 60 years, means that anything that was built prior to

1990 is suspect, and you have to get certification that asbestos is not

a factor. If it is, that’s going to require…. Obviously, you can’t move

ahead without the asbestos being removed. Meaning that the tenants…. It

has to be vacated, cleaned up, removed and whatever. So it’s a kind of a

chicken-and-egg thing.

You’ve got to get the permits, you’ve got to have the plans and

you’ve got to get the asbestos removed, because most likely your

building, if it’s built prior to 1990, and it’s going to require

renovations is most likely going to have some form of or level of

asbestos.

On February 28 of this year, the government brought in regulations

around building inspections. They have to be part of a professional

organization recognized in this province, building inspectors level 1, 2

and 3. Currently there is a shortage of building inspectors to actually

be able to do the work that would be required to issue a permit, accept

the plans and follow up in terms of all of the safety considerations

that would be required.

In light of that information, just in one local community, they’re

working on a backlog of 500 permits, they told me, when this bill came

in. I don’t see how a landlord can meet that threshold without this

process taking literally years. I’m sure if it’s immediate, like urgent,

there would be nothing other than he’d have to perhaps move the tenants

out early if it was to do with pipes or something that was unhealthy or

whatever.

My question is that this clause is very comprehensive. It requires

a very high threshold. I want to know from the minister…. I’m sure that

it will reduce the number of renovictions, as it’s termed, but how is

the landlord community expected to meet this threshold described in

section 49.2(1)(a)?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, if the member is concerned about the test, he should have

words with Rich Coleman, who wrote it, I guess, when he was the Minister

of Housing, I assume, or whoever the B.C. Liberal was who wrote the

requirements.

It’s always been the requirement that the landlord have the

permits in place before applying for eviction to demonstrate that the

unit needs to be vacant, and so on. What this does is that it flips the

obligation from all the tenants in the building going, “Oh my god,” and

they’ve got to get all organized and go to the residential tenancy

branch and say: “They don’t have the permits.” Then the landlord says:

“Yes, I don’t have the permits.” Then everyone goes home, and then they

get a new eviction notice the following week. Then they go back, and

again and again and again.

It’s a huge waste of resources at the residential tenancy branch

for bad actor landlords that have been abusing this section. It’s not

even close to the majority of landlords but a group of bad actors that

saw a way to try to circumvent the rent controls that are in place in

our province, which pre-existed our government, and this test was put in

place.

So this flips the test from the tenants having to go, “Oh my god,”

and then off to the residential tenancy branch. Now it’s the landlord

who goes: “Okay, I know what I have to do. I have to get my permits. I

have to have my contractors ready to go. I’ve got to demonstrate the

extent of the repairs that I’ve got to do here. I’ve got to think about:

‘Can I do this in a way that that allows people to maintain their

tenancies or not?’” Then they’ve got to go to the residential tenancy

branch and get that done.

There’s one application. The person who’s making the application

has all of the information. It doesn’t require a multiplicity of

applications from all of the people in the building, as well as repeated

applications, over and over. So that’s the big change here. The member

is very focused on the test. The test is not the big change. The big

change is who’s responsible for going to the residential tenancy

branch.

There are two court decisions that this test incorporates. One is

called Baumann, from, I understand, the B.C. Court of Appeal, and one is

called Berry, from the B.C. Supreme Court. They fleshed out some of the

test that was in the original statute. As best as possible, we’ve

codified that and put it into the provisions that the member

sees.

It’s the old test, as interpreted by the courts, to provide

certainty to everyone and to be able to draw on that jurisprudence. It

flips responsibility from the tenants to go to the branch to say that

this isn’t an okay eviction to the landlord to go to the branch to say:

“Everything is in place. I’m doing this in good faith. The pipes are

falling apart. The electricity’s falling apart. We’ve got to do a major

renovation to this building to keep it as housing.”

B. Stewart: I think that probably…. You know, there was a lot in my last

question. I appreciate the fact that….

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry for the interruption, Members. Members are reminded to

please check your cameras, your mouth, your devices to have them on

mute, thank you, unless you have the floor.

[4:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: So that’s good. I guess the question that…. This is a significant

amount of responsibility. It doesn’t matter if it’s…. I think that,

probably, the responsibility is in the right place. However, the

question really is: how is the landlord expected to achieve that? I

don’t know if, when I read the old act, it actually put the onus onto

the tenants.

However, the question here is

section 49.2, where the landlord is

the one that is responsible. I guess, based on the fact that this

information about the fact that…. Just over a week ago the rules changed

in British Columbia that make it very difficult to have the necessary

building inspectors. So this is not a short-term thing; this is a

longer-term thing.

Is the minister, or the people that are bringing in Bill 7, aware

of that difficulty and t