Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 31, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 178

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Commercial Liens Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

R. Merrifield

N. Letnick

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

B. Stewart

L. Doerkson

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

D. Coulter

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 8 — Attorney General Statutes (Hague Convention on Child and Family

Support) Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 11 — Commercial Liens Act

Bill 19 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022

Bill 18 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2022

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. L. Popham

B. Stewart

I. Paton

J. Sturdy

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, we will be dealing with the estimates for Agriculture. Then

after that, we’ll be doing the estimates for Advanced Education.

And third reading on Bill 11.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — COMMERCIAL LIENS ACT

Bill 11, Commercial Liens Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

R. Merrifield: I’m very pleased to rise today to continue this debate on Bill 12. It’s

really hard for me to call it a debate. It feels a little bit disingenuous. I’m

not exactly sure what the bill has, because it is so vague in what it

states.

[1:05 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I could also call it, you know, continuing debate on Bill 12, but

calling it a bill feels even a little bit misleading. The legislation before us

is really little more than a shell. It’s simply enabling the minister and

cabinet to make all the decisions and decide on all the details through

regulations and away from public scrutiny, away from this House, away from the

input of opposition.

I actually said, “Yes, put my name forward in an election.” I wanted to

serve my community in debates just like these, voicing how they feel about a

bill of this nature. Today I don’t even know what to tell them about it. It’s

so brief on any detail whatsoever.

What cannot be ignored, before moving on with the debate, is this deeply

troubling lack of government transparency that this bill represents and

furthers. Once again, we can see why the NDP has been named the most secretive

government in Canada by the Canadian Association of Journalists.

We can’t forget that we are also dealing with a little bit of déjà vu

here, because this government has actually taken great strides to strip away

transparency and accountability rather than improve them. So yes, with Bill 12,

the NDP is asking the House to pass a piece of legislation that’s made up

entirely of regulations that we haven’t seen. But the Minister of Citizens’

Services did the same with the controversial Bill 22, which left the details up

to regulation, and we all know how that one turned out.

It’s clear that the best interests of British Columbians were not served

during that process of Bill 22. They’re not served during this process of Bill

12, because the best process happens when we have a bill with regulations that

we can debate, that we can reflect on, that we can ask questions about, that we

can actually know, that we can put into record.

As a result of Bill 22, well, the Minister of Citizens’ Services has

completely destroyed this government’s credibility when it comes to just

trusting them with regulations. To make matters worse, there is a report that

is coming from the B.C. Financial Services Authority, or the BCFSA, that hasn’t

been made public yet, so we don’t even know what this bill is based on because

we don’t have the report that would inform the regulations. We’re just supposed

to trust government?

We need a bill that is drafted in a way that can be debated. It’s

completely unreasonable that a government would not want that, would not want

transparency, would not want to actually have that on record. Furthermore, it’s

unreasonable that they would ask us to vote on something that hasn’t been made

public, on regulations that are yet to be determined, on a report that has yet

to be released.

In effect, this government is trying to ram the bill through without

leaving that space — that space for genuine, informed debate. British

Columbians deserve more. They deserve better. They deserve a fully functioning

government, one in which opposition can ask questions, can be informed, can

actually debate on regulations. I came here to do that work. We all came here

to do that work, to perform that function of government.

If this government wants to do so much through ministerial order, then

why are we even here? Pass a few overarching laws that allow you to do whatever

you want through regulation, and then at least we can stay at home. How about

our constituents? Have more face time.

[1:10 p.m.]

Oh, wait. You are passing these bills, these bills like Bill 12, that

really say nothing, that leave a lot to regulation, that leave a lot to

ministerial order, except that we’re going through this farcical process right

now, without the ability to actually debate.

I’d love to say next: “Let’s talk about what this bill says.” But we

can’t, because the bill doesn’t say anything. We don’t have the regulations on

which this bill will be passed. We need better. We deserve better.

Then I ask: “What’s the rush? Why aren’t we waiting for the BCFSA

report? Why aren’t we waiting for regulations to be drafted?” This is really

made all the more serious in light of what this bill is actually supposed to

do, how it’s supposed to help housing affordability, which is a massive crisis

right now. But the reality is that it could impact housing affordability by

worsening it.

This bill seeks to implement a cooling-off period in the process of

buying and selling a home. More precisely, it’s enabling legislation respecting

a residential right of rescission on home sales. But we don’t know how that

cooling-off period is going to work.

The government is modelling this from the same provision in the Real

Estate Development Marketing Act for presale condos, and having had lots of

experience with REDMA, I can honestly say that these two transactions are

completely different. With presales, you can’t have a home inspection, because

there is nothing built yet. You can’t actually walk through it, because it’s

not built yet.

The regulations that are going to be determined after this cannot be

modelled after REDMA, because these are homes that people already own. These

are life savings that are already tied up. These are the biggest purchases of

their lives at stake.

One of these details that we need now, that we need today, is the

prescribed number of days after the sale. How long is it? And imagine. That

right of rescission — seven days. Let’s say it’s just seven days and a very,

very…. Let’s take a one-week time frame. In that one week, what does that

seller do? Well, they go out, and let’s say they’re going to put five offers

down that have another seven days. What happens with those buyers? Will they

put another five offers down with their seven days? This has such a

trickle-down effect that has not been contemplated. But we can’t contemplate it

because it’s not even written yet.

What other details will we need? Well, we need limiting waivers of the

right of rescission and the circumstances in which that right may or may not be

waived. What happens if I, as a buyer, just say: “No. You know what? I waive my

rescission right”? Well, if I do it, everyone else has to. Have we gotten any

farther forward? No. No, we haven’t. We haven’t fixed the problem.

Respecting service of a notice of rescission, penalties paid by a

purchaser to the seller if the purchaser exercises their right of rescission….

Is there going to be a penalty? There isn’t under REDMA. Is there going to be

under this? We don’t know, because that detail isn’t in here. How about the

timing of a payment of deposit under the contract? How about any of the

regulations associated with that deposit?

Having some experience in the development industry, I know the

regulations under REDMA that are put in place to protect from money laundering.

What happens if a money launderer puts five offers down, five deposits down,

and then gets five cheques back?

[1:15 p.m.]

Have we contemplated that yet? Have we had a debate on that? Have we

understood how this could affect our real estate industry, how it could be used

as a tool for evil if allowed.

What about ending procedures for the payment deposit under a purchase

and sale agreement? Have we thought about that one yet? Well, that was the

provision under REDMA that took years of a legislation to actually figure out.

But that legislation had the benefit of having

an act that actually went

through this House in vigorous debate, so that legislation, those judges could

use as indication of what was intended. How will that proceed under this bill?

It won’t.

Do we have any detail on exempting types of property or classes of

buyers? Nope. This bill could have incredibly damaging effects on an already

insanely white-hot and, I would consider, fragile market, because it has the

potential to go way, way, way higher than what it already is.

I want to use this time to debate these aspects of a bill, but instead

I’m debating whether or not this NDP government deserves the title of the most

secretive government in Canada. Why do I want to debate it so desperately? We

have a huge housing affordability problem. Housing prices have never been

higher.

Just let me read a couple of headlines that I pulled from yesterday. I’m

going to quote: “B.C. Home Prices Expected to Climb 8.5 Percent in 2022 Amid

Supply Shortage.” “Average B.C. Home Price Will Reach $1 Million for the First

Time in 2022.” Average in B.C. That’s not a Vancouver number. That’s not a

Kelowna number. That’s a B.C. number. Another one: “Real Estate Market Will Hit

New Records.”

Some people are celebrating this cooling off of the real estate market

because sales volume is going down. I have a news flash. There is no inventory.

Our inventory numbers are the lowest they have been in 30 years, which is why

home prices are still going to go up. We don’t have enough supply.

The lack of affordable housing in B.C. is one of the biggest issues our

province is facing, from a competitive advantage, from servicing our families,

from a health perspective. But when you have the average Vancouver home that

costs $600,000 more — not $600,000 total, $600,000 more — under this NDP

government in five years, people can’t afford it anymore. Businesses are

leaving.

You know, it’s not just houses for sale. Far too many people can’t even

afford the rent today, let alone the purchase of a home. We have assessment

increases in places like Chilliwack at 40 percent. Langley, 39 percent.

Abbotsford, 38 percent. My riding on average was a 42 percent increase on

assessment. How are people that are renting ever going to be able to afford? We

desperately, desperately need to see measures to improve housing affordability

in B.C., but this bill is going to do nothing to accomplish that

goal.

If I sound frustrated, it’s because I am. This NDP government has

promised time and time again that they were going to fix it. They were going to

improve affordability. They were going to give rental rebates. They were going

to once and for all make it happen.

[1:20 p.m.]

They have failed. Under their leadership, we’ve seen all of these

indicators get worse. The NDP say the right thing, but they have failed to

deliver when it counts.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. NDP

has utterly failed to deliver on its promise of 114,000 new affordable homes.

In fact, that number is about 5 percent of what they promised. So we are

halfway through their ten-year plan, and we’re at 5 percent. Well, I can tell

you that 5 percent, when it should be 50, at minimum, is a failing

grade.

What about that rental rebate? It was promised in 2017. It was promised

again in 2020. What about that rental rebate? Where is it? I actually thought

it was going to be in this budget, especially when the Attorney General stood

up and said, “We’re working on it,” within weeks of the budget being delivered.

Where is it? Instead of delivering on that promise of relief, well, they’re

going to introduce legislation that might even make it worse.

Experts have been clear about what the NDP’s bungling is going to do.

Experts far smarter than I talk about how it’s going raise costs even further

and how it’s going to create greater strain on people — and all this in the

middle of an affordability crisis. Those headlines that I read — every single

one of those headlines is related to supply.

Every single one of those headlines is because we don’t have enough

housing, and we don’t have enough of the right housing — housing that

accommodates growing families, aging seniors and emerging adults. We have not

adjusted to what the needs of our society are. We are the lowest supply of

housing in the G7, and B.C. is one of the lowest in Canada.

It’s not rocket science as to why we have a housing affordability

crisis. But instead of solving it — instead of putting forward bills that would

actually do something about it — we have a bill that we cannot debate, on

regulations that we do not know, based on a report we have not seen.

Instead of providing solutions and instead of providing reassurances,

all we have are more questions as to why the NDP is choosing an option that’s

going to raise prices rather than lower them and why they’ve decided to go

about introducing changes in the least transparent way possible.

The Attorney General and Housing Minister actually went on record

saying: “We’re not going to tax our way to housing affordability. We also are

not going to quell demand. We’ve seen that that doesn’t work.” So introducing

yet another tool to try and quell demand is actually the wrong way to go about

housing affordability. I mean, yes, there is a winner when the market is high,

and it’s not who you think. It’s not the seller; it’s the

government.

[1:25 p.m.]

See, the government profits off of a white-hot market. The government

profits off of property transfer tax. While we have suffered under a lack of

housing affordability, this government puts those profit revenue numbers in

their budget every single year on an upward trajectory. Could interest rates

have a cooling effect, like the minister supposes? Possibly. It’s not going to

affect prices. What it will affect is how many people can afford to buy. We

have a supply problem. We need bills to deal with supply.

What all of the experts agree on is that we haven’t tackled that

effectively and that this bill doesn’t do it any justice. But here’s a little

lesson in economics — that’s why prices keep going up: supply and demand.

Rather than actually getting into the supply side, and if you’re going to slow

the process down rather than actually fix it…. We need a bill that fixes it. We

need one that addresses the repair necessary. We need a tool that actually can

repair the problem.

If you have something that’s gone wrong — let’s say a house repair —

what do you do? Well, you assess the actual damage and what needs to be

repaired, and then you get all of the right tools and then you start the

repair. The repair is not going to be done properly if you don’t have the right

tools. In fact, you might run around a lot to hardware stores or different

supply stores, but you’re not going to actually fix the problem.

I can’t even tell you if this is the right tool, if it’s the right size,

if it’s the right shape, if it actually works, if it’s going to repair

anything. I’ll leave that to the experts who say no. What I can tell you is

that we have a housing issue, and instead of actually creating a holistic plan

that will address supply, this government is failing on promises to deliver and

introducing bills that are only going to make it worse — bills that are

unnecessary, inadequate and, honestly, could cause further damage to an

incredibly vulnerable system.

Now, if the NDP were that trusted contractor — if we knew that they

could fix things — well, then we might be inclined to say: “You know what?

We’ll leave this repair with you.” But this government is not a trusted

contractor. This government has proven the exact opposite.

Today’s bill is not going to improve housing affordability. In fact, the

minister has said that. This bill is about consumer protection, which is why

it’s really unclear as to why we have this bill in front of us right now. We’re

not trying to solve consumer protection issues. We’re trying to solve housing

affordability issues. British Columbians are asking for housing

affordability.

I have more questions than I have answers for right now. I don’t know

why the NDP is choosing an option that is going to raise prices rather than

lower them — the wrong tool, the wrong way, creating uncertainty, creating

chaos and unknowns. As a result, I’m sure we’re going to have a really long

debate on this one — hopefully, clarifying some critical points — when this

bill moves into committee stage.

We can only hope that at least then the minister is prepared to provide

us with real answers, because we don’t have answers in the report that is yet

to be released, creating regulations that are yet to be determined in a bill

that is just simply the wrong tool.

N. Letnick: I’m popping up because I was totally expecting somebody from the

government side to defend the bill. I guess the bill is not worth defending, so

they’re not standing up to do so. That’s very strange, which actually fits well

into what I wanted to talk about.

[1:30 p.m.]

I would defer whether this bill will actually help with housing

affordability to people who have way more knowledge on the issue than I do,

like the member for Kelowna-Mission, who’s built, I would say, thousands of

houses in western Canada, has covered so much government red tape in her life,

probably enough to wrap up all of Kelowna in red tape.

Or members like from Peace River South, who is our critic for Housing

and has obviously been in contact with the industry to get their perspective on

how this bill may or may not help housing affordability.

I, indeed, have a call this afternoon, after I speak, with the industry

to hear their particular perspective and what they are concerned about and what

maybe they’re optimistic about. I don’t know yet. For me, when I look at this

bill….

In my 13 years in this place, I still believe in this place. I still

believe that if you get 80-plus MLAs — maybe 90, after the next election — that

come from all across this wonderful province in a room like this, or in

committee rooms or over the phone, they can come up with the best solutions by

working together. This bill doesn’t provide any solutions other than a catchy

title, which I guess is what it was meant to do — that is, get the interest of

people through the media to say: “Well, the government is working on it, and

here is the solution.” But no details. No details in the bill.

The details are being set aside until cabinet can make those details or

the decisions around those details in private. Therefore, the official

opposition doesn’t have an opportunity to criticize in this wonderful place. I

guess that would help the government because their message would be heard

louder without criticism from us, but that’s not the way this place was

designed. At least, I don’t think it was designed that way hundreds of years

ago. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s the best way.

When I had the privilege of being the Minister of Agriculture — seems

like a long time ago now, a few seats ago, actually — I had an issue with

abattoirs. I also had an issue with farming, not the kind of farming you’re

probably thinking of but farming our oceans, and whether or not we should

continue to harvest farmed salmon.

I basically took the same perspective I’ve done all my life in business

or in teaching or in municipal government. I said: “Well, let’s get the right

people together, and let’s discuss the issue and see if we can come up with the

best solutions.” Get the best people, the knowledgable people and come up with

the best solutions. I think that’s what’s missing from Bill 12, that kind of

approach. Indeed, even being a politician…. I think we’re more community

servants in here than politicians — or should be, anyway. Leave the politics to

the elections.

I invited my critic, the current Minister of Agriculture, to come in on

these meetings and listen in and propose solutions and be part of the solution,

rather than just out there criticizing. I did say to her ahead of time, and to

my critic on aquaculture: “You’re certainly welcome and encouraged to criticize

whatever we come up with afterwards, but I want you to be part of the solution,

part of the process.” She did so, and I respect that.

Same thing happened when I went across the province asking people about

how we should go about protecting nurses and firefighters and peace officers

when blood or other bodily fluids are splattered on them by someone that might

be carrying a contagious disease. MLAs around the province, both on my side of

the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, opened up to me to come into

their jurisdictions, their ridings, bringing people with knowledge to these

meetings.

[1:35 p.m.]

From that, we were able to introduce in the House a private member’s

bill — I think it was before your time, Madam Chair — which immediately turned

out to be unanimously adopted by the government and the opposition. It doesn’t

happen very often that a private member’s bill does that. That’s because we

took a different approach than what Bill 12 is doing, bringing everyone

together and trying to find the right solution.

Indeed, if this is an example of the worst way of doing things, an

example of the best way of doing things is the Minister of Health. The Minister

of Health, when he was looking at the professional health providers in our

province, thought he needed to do some changes. Again, I approached the

minister, and I said: “Well, there are two ways to do this. You can either do

it the traditional way, where you do it on your own, and I’ll criticize you” —

at that time, I was the critic for Health — “or you can try this other way, the

way I did it when I was the Minister of Agriculture, and invite me to the

table.”

Much to his credit and to the credit of government, who let him do this,

he invited the Leader of the Third Party and myself to review the Health

Professions Act, which needed, and still does need, review and change. We spent

months in a process. The government hired an expert, looked at the whole

situation, looked around the world for the best solutions and presented the

solutions to us. We then went to the public and said: “Here’s what’s being

proposed. What do you think? Tell us what’s good about it, what’s not good

about it.” We took that and came up with our own set of

recommendations.

We then went back to the public and said: “Here’s what we’ve come up

with, based on your input. This is where we’re at right now. What do you think

of that?” Through that iterative process, finally we made the final decisions,

which we issued in the form of a report.

It doesn’t bind government to it, of course. At the end of the day, the

Minister of Health is accountable to do what’s necessary with our decisions.

But it was a much better process. It was a process that got the whole province

involved, that got experts involved, that came up with the right solutions that

hopefully have the least amount of unintended consequences.

Bill 12, by punting everything to cabinet decision through regulation,

will be full of unintended consequences, because it relies not on the people of

B.C. but on a select few people that write a report, that provide it through

administration, that provide it to cabinet, and they will come up with what

they believe is the right solution.

Again, I think it’s a squandered opportunity, especially since the

problem is so serious. The problem is so acute, not only in places like where

the member for Kelowna-Mission comes from and I come from but also, of course,

in our more urban centres, like Vancouver and right here in Victoria. I think

we need all hands on deck to solve that problem. I don’t mean all 87 hands

here. I have great respect for all 87 people in here. I mean all British

Columbians.

What good does it do to have a cooling-off period, if someone needs to

buy another house? Could you just imagine the stress, what’s going to happen

with that buyer-seller relationship? They can’t decide to move to another

place, because they have to wait and see what’s going to happen. Again, I’m not

the expert. I’ll wait and hear from the experts. But clearly, what I’m hearing

so far is that this is fraught with danger.

My hope is that the minister will actually hear that, hear from experts

across B.C., not just the ones that are producing the report or her

administrators but from all across B.C., and say, “You know what? Maybe we

jumped the gun on this. Maybe this is going to be one of those bills that we

put out there to get some feedback on, and after second reading, we’ll delay

committee stage until we actually have a bill that we can introduce that has

some details in it,” so that the official opposition has an opportunity and so

that all British Columbians have an opportunity to provide the best possible

solutions to this very serious problem that Bill 12 says it wants to

tackle.

I’m not going to go through all the same points that my colleagues have

gone through. I think they’ve made our point very clear. I think that some

other colleagues will also reiterate them.

[1:40 p.m.]

I just want to finish soon by saying that there is a better way to do

this. The current Minister of Health has clearly shown the path, the right way

to make major changes that brings people together to solve problems, as opposed

to this path, which is very political.

At the end of the day, if it doesn’t work, well, the government will be

accountable for it. They can’t blame anybody else but themselves, because they

didn’t listen to anybody else but themselves.

While politically I see this as an opportunity, maybe in two years, in

the next election, I just don’t want people to have to pay more for their

houses than they should. I want the supply to go up. I don’t want this bill,

which purports to interfere with the free market — at least, that’s what I

think it’s about to do — to cause even more harm than what’s happening right

now in the marketplace because of a lack of supply.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before in this House. I think maybe

I’ll mention it now. The best way to increase supply is to increase supply. Not

just to say you’re going to increase supply but to actually increase

supply.

That’s why I have great respect for the member for Kelowna-Mission. It’s

because that’s what she has done in her professional life. She has gone out and

tried to walk the talk. Instead of building places that are aimed at high-end,

expensive 20-, 30-, 40-storey-high penthouse suites at astronomical costs of

construction, she’s building homes that people can afford.

Not all people. There is no way you can, when you put in all the taxes

and the cost of land and the cost of building and everything else…. You can’t

build it for free. Some people won’t be able to afford it. That’s where the

government comes in, on the entry-level rental, subsidized rental, fixed-income

supply. Then you have the ones in between, the ones that can afford to rent,

and you need to have the tools to help them out as well.

It’s a range of options that you need. Everything from what the member

for Kelowna-Mission is doing all the way to the supported housing that the

government provides and has been providing long before this government and the

government before that and the government before that.

I would just ask the government to continue focusing on how we can

increase that particular

section of the market. It’s everything from

entry-level housing for young people, first-time homebuyers, maybe buyers that

are moving up…. They have one child, and they want to find a little bigger

place because they’re going to have two children or something like that. All

the way from there to entry-level for people who just can’t afford it. They

have no income.

With that, it’s my hope that after the minister and government hear

these speeches, they’ll decide to pause on this and have sober second thought

and invite everyone to the table to solve the problem.

I was walking, as I usually do at lunchtime, outside and listening to

music, and I heard different songs. One of the songs was Paul Simon, who

basically said: “People will hear what they want to hear and then do what they

want anyway.” Unfortunately, that’s probably what’s going to happen right

here.

I was actually looking forward to hearing what the government MLAs had

to say about this bill. So I’ll reiterate my surprise from the beginning that

they are not willing to stand up and defend it. If so, that speaks volumes as

to why we’re not going to vote in favour of it either.

[1:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, it’s customary to make comments like: “I’m pleased to be entering

the debate.” I’m not particularly pleased to be entering the debate, for

reasons that the committee has already heard and, I think, will hear for some

time.

This is a pretty sad day. It’s a sad day with regard to the substance of

the issue before us and the tepid response the government has offered. It’s a

sad day because what is taking place here has ramifications that go far beyond

an issue which is, admittedly, very, very important, and that is the

availability and affordability of housing.

I’m going to take a moment to reflect on a little bit of history around

this place. When I and the party I am a member of formed government in 2001, it

was on the strength of a document and a platform called the New Era

document. It was chock full of material and undertakings and objectives. I

reflect fondly and positively and with a measure of pride on the steps that

were taken over the subsequent years to breathe life into that new

era.

I think we are entering another new era, although I don’t expect to hear

anyone from the government side use these terms. In fact, it doesn’t sound like

we’re going to hear anyone from the government side say much at all about a

subject matter that everywhere else, they want to talk about. Everywhere else

you go, the government wants to talk about this issue. Except when they table a

bill that they claim addresses the issue, they don’t want to talk about

it.

Why is that? Well, I’m going to suggest it’s because we are entering a

new era in legislative drafting, a new era in the opaqueness of laws, a new era

in attempts by government to deliberately shield their intentions and hide

their intentions.

This bill, in ways that have been hinted at previously, makes a mockery

of the parliamentary process. I cannot think of another way to describe Bill 12

and the provisions contained on the page and a half that it represents. It

makes a mockery of the legislative process.

Somewhere in Nanaimo, there is a mayor by the name of Leonard Krog who

is looking at this and remembering every single speech he made about the

dangers of governments avoiding this parliamentary process and hiding behind

the creation of regulatory powers. For Mayor Krog, this represents the climax,

the highlight, the absolute moment when government has decided that it will no

longer have regard for the parliamentary process that takes place within this

chamber. It will assume unto itself, within the walls of the cabinet chamber,

exclusive responsibility for governing the province of British

Columbia.

I remember those speeches from Leonard Krog. To be fair, he made them

when my colleagues and I were in government, but he also made them when his

colleagues were in government sometime ago. He’s not here anymore, and it seems

no one else within the government benches is at all troubled or wants in any

way to defend what we have before us.

I thought to myself: what does the parliamentary world look like in this

new era that we are apparently in the midst of creating, that the government is

in the midst of creating?

[1:50 p.m.]

I walked into the chamber and people…. Actually, they can see it, so

it’s not a prop. If you look behind me, there’s a shelf. It’s right there. The

shelf contains the laws of British Columbia. There are, I think, 16 volumes of

laws of British Columbia, but it has occurred to me that in the new era the

government is embarking upon, we won’t need those laws, because those laws

represent the statutes that have been introduced and debated, clause by clause,

in this chamber. But in the new era, we won’t need those.

I took one of them. It’s the Statutes of B.C. , volume 1, A to

B. I said: “I wonder what this approach that the government is now signalling,

not just in Bill 12….” Others have referred to what we just went through with a

bill from the FOI minister — Citizens’ Services — where, in legislation she

brought before the House, she asked for permission from this House to create

regulation.

She wouldn’t tell anyone during the course of the debate. She wanted the

power, the authority, the legal authority to create regulations — laws that

would govern British Columbia — but when asked how she intended to exercise

that power, she refused to engage in any kind of a conversation to justify why

she needed those authorities. “I haven’t made the decision yet,” she said.

Except that within minutes of being granted the power, with the bill receiving

royal assent, she exercised the authority, and she signed off on the

regulations.

If the government wonders why people are suspicious and why, in

particular, the opposition is suspicious, it’s because there is a track record

of opaqueness and of abuse. It is abuse of the parliamentary process. What does

the new era legislatively look like, given the approach this government clearly

intends to follow? Well, you go to the A’s.

There is an Administrative Tribunals Act. It’s 191 sections. That’s one

of the laws on the books; 191 sections. It’s 30 pages long. It talks all

about…. It was introduced into this chamber. It’s been amended by past

governments. It creates the authority to have certain administrative tribunals,

the rules that govern them — the procedural rules — and it’s all laid

out.

If changes are going to be made, this assembly must be involved.

Ministers must defend those changes. In the new era, the Administrative

Tribunals Act will say this: “The government may create administrative

tribunals. Details to follow.” It’s a little thing.

There is an Adoption Act. Pretty important stuff; 103 sections of law

that were introduced, debated, questioned, discussed in this chamber that set

out all of the details, all of the protections around adoptions. In the new

era, the government will say the new version of this, under this government:

“The government may create rules around adoptions. Details to

follow.”

The Adult Guardianship Act. Pretty important stuff. Go a little bit

further along in volume 1 — 66 sections, 25 pages of details around adult

guardianship. In the new era, there won’t be a lot for MLAs to discuss, because

the government will say: “A person may make a representation agreement. Details

to follow.” If I’m wrong, if that’s not the case, someone from the government

benches will stand up and point out why that is not so.

[1:55 p.m.]

Why, in the new era, the agricultural land title act, which today is 91

sections and 45 pages…? Why, in the new era, shouldn’t we just expect a piece

of legislation that says: “The government may create an agricultural land

reserve. Details to follow”?

Is no one troubled by the direction this government is taking,

legislatively? Is no one troubled that a member of the cabinet, just a few

months ago, would stand up and ask for the power to make laws, which is what

regulations are, and refuse to discuss at all how they intend to exercise those

powers? Does that not trouble anyone?

They’re called the New Democratic Party. What happened to the democratic

part? This is where the democratic exercise is supposed to take place. But

there is something that makes members of this government uncomfortable about

having to come into this chamber and answer questions about the laws they want

to create. Far better for them, far easier for them to have a little discussion

amongst themselves in the cabinet offices.

“We don’t need an architects act that’s 85 sections long. Why do we need

an architects act that’s 85 sections long? Why don’t we have a one-page

architects act that says: ‘The government may create the profession of and

regulate architects. Details to follow’?”

There must be an element of embarrassment. There has to be. I wouldn’t

excuse it, but I think I’m more troubled by the possibility that there isn’t

even an element of embarrassment.

Bill 12 purports to alter some basic rules around the law of contract.

Now, my colleagues and I would like to discuss and debate the merits of what is

being proposed: an attempt by the government to reshape rules around the law of

contract that’s been developed over centuries. I was going to say it’s hard to

do…. It is impossible to do that when the government refuses to disclose the

nature of the changes they want to make.

I predict we are going to get the same answer from the sponsoring

minister that we got from the Minister of Citizens’ Services: “I’m not going to

talk about it. Give me the regulatory power to do everything, and well, you’ll

find out what my intentions are around how to use that power at some point in

the future.”

This is the “Laws of contract will be changed; details to follow” act.

If I’m wrong about that, I want to hear a member of the government benches

explain why I am wrong. We have heard — and we will continue to hear from, it

sounds like — opposition members of this assembly who are concerned about how

these powers may be exercised and what the impact and the effect may

be.

It’s all speculative, as the speakers prior to me have been forced to

admit. It’s all speculative because we don’t have a clue. We don’t have a clue

how the government intends for these powers to be exercised.

How do you have a meaningful conversation? Ironically, the government

does a disservice to itself. It does a bigger disservice to the public and the

people of British Columbia, but ironically, it kind of does a disservice to

itself because with more details, the government might find it actually

attracts some support from the opposition benches. But it’s not going to get

support from the opposition benches with a piece of legislation that says:

“Give us the power to do something generally, but we’re not going to tell you

what we’re going to do.”

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I wonder what Leonard Krog would say about this. His successor is here.

Leonard Krog would not remain silent in the face of this. Leonard Krog would

denounce this as an example of fundamentally flawed legislative drafting — and

not accidental. It is entirely purposeful. There is a representative from

Nanaimo here, a successor to Mr. Krog.

Leonard Krog and I had all kinds of battles in this chamber. Sometimes I

was sitting over there; sometimes I was sitting over here. But we agreed on the

respect that this chamber and the people that occupy it are due. This is a

profoundly disrespectful piece of legislation. Yes, disrespectful to the

individuals but, more importantly, disrespectful to the institution itself and

an indicator and an indication that what we saw from the Minister of Citizens’

Services is but a glimpse of what this government intends to do in the

future.

Armed with that majority, the belief in the need to bring matters before

this chamber for meaningful discussion and debate has disappeared every bit as

quickly as a supply and confidence agreement. That’s no longer on the

agenda.

There are 45 sections, about 100 pages, dedicated to the Auditor General

Act. Well, the good news is in the future, we won’t need that. Just need

one-page legislation. Government may create an Auditor General, details to

follow. We’ll get back to you. Just give us permission to create an Auditor

General, and we’ll look after the rest. We’ve got this great office. I’ve seen

it. It’s right above the Premier’s office. It’s called the cabinet room. Now,

no one is allowed in there. It’s a small group. There are 20, or whatever it is

— 21 people. It’s gone up.

No one is allowed to hear what goes on in there. In fact, there are laws

that preclude anyone from talking about what goes on in that room. But that’s

where all the details will be worked out. Details to follow.

We’re trying to guess how the government might want to exercise the

power it is seeking to achieve here. We are told that decisions in that regard

will be influenced by a report that is due on the minister’s desk, if it’s not

already there. She hasn’t been clear about that. The manner in which the powers

that are being sought in Bill 12 will be exercised will be influenced by the

information contained within a report, but we’re not allowed to see the

report.

The minister wants this chamber and the people in it to vote on granting

her and the government the powers — and the government, in perpetuity, the

powers — without even seeing the report that she says she’s going to make those

decisions based off of. People watching this…. I suspect there aren’t that

many, although, given the nature of the subject, I think the audience is

growing.

I think the audience is growing because the nature of the subject is of

profound importance to so many people. Obviously, people who are looking to

purchase and sell a home, the professionals, the tens of thousands of

professionals who are engaged in that noble profession, are asking us…. I’ll

tell you what they’re asking us. How are we going to vote on this? They ask

that.

[2:05 p.m.]

They know how the government is going to vote. It’s their piece of

legislation. So they ask the opposition: how are you going to vote on this?

Part of that is: how do you think it’s going to work? Our answer: well, we

don’t have a clue. We don’t have a clue because the legislation refuses to

provide any indication of how this is intended to work. The minister is

refusing to provide any details. She has purposely tabled the legislation

apparently days before a report she is due to receive which she refuses to

share with any of us.

If recent past history is any indication, when it comes time in these

proceedings to put the detailed questions to the minister about how the general

powers being sought in Bill 12 are going to be exercised, she’s going to say:

“I can’t talk about it” or “I won’t talk about it.” If I’m wrong and if we’re

wrong and if we’re being unfair, then I presume some member of the government

will have the parliamentary decency to stand up and point out why we’re

wrong.

The issue itself is so important. The impact, the effect of a change

like this, we are told, could be profound in terms of the cascading effect of

changes to the law of contract. That’s all speculative because we don’t know

the details. That, in and of itself, is cause for tremendous concern and should

be the subject of a vigorous debate in this chamber.

You can’t debate in a vacuum. You can’t debate meaningfully a provision

that says: “Give us a power, but we won’t tell you how we intend to exercise

that power.” That is why, given the trend we are seeing from this government, I

am perhaps presenting as a little more agitated than the normal.

I mean, maybe this is part of the clean green movement. We’re not going

to need any of those books anymore. We’re going to save a lot of paper. We’re

entering the age of one-page bills. The government may amend the laws of

contract. Details to follow.

It will be interesting to see if anyone from the government benches, and

particularly from the cabinet, accepts the standing invitation that of course

exists in this place to defend this piece of legislation. I take it that we had

one private member attempt to do so. Based on my listening, it didn’t go very

well. It doesn’t sound like we’re going to hear from anyone else.

Aside from the specific issue itself, this government’s new era of

legislative drafting format represents an abuse, an abuse that is amplified by

their refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion about how they intend to

exercise the broad regulatory powers they seek approval for and, by the way,

are going to get. They’re going to get it. I never was great with numbers — odd

thing for the former Finance Minister to say — but 57 trumps 29, or whatever

the numbers are.

[2:10 p.m.]

That doesn’t make it right. “We’re doing this because we can,” as others

have said during the course of other debates, in particular the Citizens’

Services’ freedom-of-information amendments. “We’re doing this because we can.

We’re stonewalling because we can. We’re not sharing information that is

essential in rendering an informed decision on the part of members. We’re

withholding that information because we can.” It doesn’t make it

right.

I’m going to send him the transcript, because I don’t think he would

ever have expected to see the day when I stood in this place and cried out:

“Leonard Krog, where are you?” Leonard Krog would be embarrassed. Leonard Krog

would be embarrassed to have his name attached to a piece of legislation that

seeks to shield the government from any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of

the exercise of its powers.

I have absolutely no confidence that the government is going to change

its mind about the path they are on. The path they are on…. This is yet another

example of an overall approach and strategy. It is an egregious example, to be

sure, but it is only yet another example of the mockery they are now making of

this parliamentary institution.

I cling desperately — perhaps naively, perhaps foolishly — to the hope

that a member of the executive council and members of the government caucus

will have the courage to stand up and try to defend a piece of legislation

that, for reasons that I have laid out and others will continue to lay out, is

indefensible. It may be indefensible substantively, in terms of the impact it

will have. We don’t know that yet. It is entirely indefensible procedurally. It

is entirely indefensible procedurally in its present form.

As I say, I get the numbers, but a reliance on the heavy hand of a

parliamentary democracy to achieve things that are indefensible speaks to a

government that has acquired, in a few short years, the kind of arrogance that

it usually takes governments over a decade to achieve. And I’m well positioned

to say that.

I’m going to leave the chamber in a moment. I’m not supposed to say

that. I apologize. I withdraw that remark. I’m going to go to my office. I have

this television. It’s a small television, but it’s a small office now. I’m

going to turn it on. Every time I turn it on, first of all, I’m impressed. It’s

the first colour TV I’ve owned, and I’m not even sure if I own it. I don’t

think I do.

I’m going to watch this debate unfold. I am going to cling to that

faint, desperate hope that in the face of this abuse on our parliamentary

institution, at least some members of the government stand and try to

rationalize and explain why it is justified. In my view, it is not.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just as the member for Abbotsford West was mentioning, I had my

television on — no, we don’t own them — in my slightly bigger office than his.

I was listening to him speak to this. After listening, I felt compelled to come

up and add my voice to this debate, because he’s making a lot of really

important comments.

I’ve talked a lot about democracy. You could go into Hansard ,

and you could search through there, right back to 2017. One day maybe I’ll

tally up how many times I’ve talked about democracy and my commitment to

democracy and how important it is that we protect and nurture and improve

democracy. Because it’s never done, the work on democracy, but it’s always at

risk. It’s not been the natural or regular way of governing through most of

human history.

The other night when we were all together, I talked about when I bring

shadows into the Legislature. I had one today, Darya. She’s a student in high

school. Her family is in Russia, and they are deeply concerned about their

safety and well-being. There is a country that is not a democracy. It has the

appearance of democracy. There are elections, but the outcomes of those

elections are predetermined.

I talked the other night about the role that we all have to play as

elected representatives of our communities, as members of this chamber, as

occupiers of these seats — that upon us is a burden, and it’s serious. It is

the burden to protect the democratic institution that we’ve been elected to. It

is the burden to protect the processes and the procedures and the rules that

govern this institution. It is a burden upon us to ensure that the dignity of

this institution is upheld in how we comport ourselves, how we engage in

debate, what we bring.

It is important for us to remember that we represent the citizens. We

also serve them. We serve.

As has been talked about quite a bit in this debate, there is a trend

that’s happening, and it seems to be accelerating. That is a trend of

legislation coming before us for debate in this chamber, and that legislation

has enormous gaps. This piece of legislation is, actually, spectacular in that

it consists of nothing but gaps.

When our policy staff had a briefing on this piece of legislation, at

the end of the briefing, they were so agitated. For every single question they

asked, the response was the same. “We can’t answer that. That’s a question for

the minister. There is no answer to that question.” There is no substance in

the legislation.

The legislation, as has been pointed out, gives the ability to cabinet

to put into it anything it wants. Details to follow. The examples of this, as I

say, have been accelerating.

[2:20 p.m.]

Back in December of 2020, there was a piece of legislation around paid

sick days, but it was missing a significant piece. How many paid sick days?

What it did grant was for… Again, it was enabling. It granted the government to

come up with a number on their own.

For that not to be subject to not just debate but to the process that is

meant to happen in here, which is investigation…. What is the intention? How is

that going to work? What are the implications for individuals? What are the

implications for small businesses? How does this get covered?

Now we have this piece of legislation that is significant, potentially,

in this housing crisis, yet we can’t really investigate or be able to probe

what the intention is, what the outcomes are supposed to be. How are we going

to measure the success of those outcomes? How are we going to interpret what

the intention is? There isn’t anything in the legislation to be able to do that

with.

A parliament is, essentially, where things are to be spoken

of.

An Hon. Member: There’s a word for that.

S. Furstenau: Parler .

On Monday night, I was actually going to talk a little bit about the

Magna Carta, but I was advised not to by my staff. My wonderful, incredibly

wise chief of staff, Maeve, said: “Those words should never be spoken in a

speech that you’re giving, Sonia.” I’m going to prove her wrong.

When I studied medieval history and then became a teaching assistant in

medieval history, we would get to the Magna Carta. Inevitably, we would get to

the Magna Carta, this document. It’s often thought of as being the foundational

document of democracy.

Well, it was really kind of a power struggle between land-owning barons

who were trying to wrestle some of the power out of the hands of the most

powerful baron, which was the king…. These were disgruntled barons who were

tired of feeling overtaxed and taken for granted and not being engaged and

involved enough in the important decisions that were being made, particularly

around how much taxes they were going to pay.

While it may not be really the origins of democracy, it was the origin

of the idea that there should be a check on power, that a problem that we have

in society stems from unchecked power.

Then, as we know, the development of a parliamentary system, the

Westminster parliamentary system — we are all descendants of that in here — was

to establish institutional checks on the power of the monarch in England. The

idea was that you had a parliament that was engaged in the expression of power,

in the recognition of how authority and power play out in people’s lives, and

that you had representatives inside this institution who brought forward the

issues of the people.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here we are today, the 21st century. We are part of this long tradition

of parliamentary democracy. We have a government in place that won a majority

of seats, 57 out of 87 seats, in an election in which just over 50 percent of

eligible voters voted. Right around just under 50 percent of those voters voted

for this party that is now in government, which means 25 percent of eligible

voters in British Columbia delivered a pretty overwhelming majority to one

party.

That party and that caucus get to make decisions every single day, with

every single act, with every single piece of legislation, with every motion.

With every way in which they interact in here, that party gets to make

decisions about how much it strengthens the parliamentary democracy or how much

it weakens it.

This decision, this bill, weakens it. This puts the weight on the wrong

side of the scale. I know that the member for Abbotsford West was saying he

wants to hear from the members of government, from the executive, from the

caucus, to stand up and make the case for why this is a legitimate approach to

bringing legislation to this chamber.

We wanted to hear from members of government on Bill 22, the amendments

to the freedom-of-information act, which had many of the same problems. In

fact, we didn’t even get to finish debating that bill. The current Government

House Leader was actually stopped mid-sentence because time allocation was

called. Debate on the bill was closed, and a few minutes later royal assent was

granted. Not long after that, oh, suddenly the figure for cost of freedom of

information — the cost of that now for citizens to access what is their

information, what is public information — was determined.

I had a friend who was considering running, and she reached out to me. I

said that you need to write a letter to yourself. If you get elected and you

find yourself on government benches, you’re going to find that the first time

will come, guaranteed, that you will be expected to vote in a way that does not

align with your principles and values. Before you get to that moment, you need

to write yourself a letter, as the person you are exactly right now.

When you’re faced with that decision of voting in a way that doesn’t

align with who you are, with what you believe in, with what your values are,

you need to read that letter to yourself, because you need to make that

decision now: how you are going to respond in that moment. You need to make the

decision now: are you in service to the people of British Columbia? Are you in

service to the institution that you have been elected to? Are you in service to

the idea of democracy? Or, and this will be the decision you’ll be faced with,

are you in service to a political party?

[2:30 p.m.]

I said that the first time you make the decision will be the hardest.

The first time you vote for something that you don’t believe in, that doesn’t

align with your principles and values, will be the hardest time, but after

that, it’ll get easier. Then it will become, in your mind,

justifiable.

It becomes: don’t listen to the people on the other side of the House.

Don’t listen to what they’re saying, because it’s all just a game. They’re just

trying to score points. Don’t worry. We’re doing this for something bigger.

Don’t worry. On the whole, we’re doing good things. Sometimes we have to make

hard choices. Sometimes we have to compromise our values. But it’s okay,

because, on the whole, we’re better.

You slowly but surely start to justify these decisions over and over

again until you don’t even have to think about them anymore. You don’t even

know what you’re voting on. You just stand up and vote according to what your

side says to do. We did it this week. We debate motions in this chamber on

Monday mornings. We debate the motions back and forth, and then we don’t vote

on them. Why not? Why not vote on them?

Deputy Speaker: If I might draw you back to Bill 12.

S. Furstenau: There’s so much in there. You’re right. I shall focus on

that.

Deputy Speaker: They are the rules of the place to debate the bill in front of

us.

S. Furstenau: It sure would be great to know what it is we would be voting on when we

vote on Bill 12.

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: This is true. It is a little challenging to know exactly where to focus

the debate and where to focus our comments. It seems to be pretty wide open,

what’s going to end up in this legislation, which one day we will see, after

it’s brought in through regulation, by cabinet, in a room that nobody gets to

go into or know what was said or done or why.

Again, on legislation. On voting. The premise of democracy is that

citizens understand why governments are making the decisions they’re making.

Citizens get to have access to that information. Citizens get to hear

governments make the case for the legislation that they’re bringing forward and

for the policies and proposals.

That’s the idea. Shine a light. Make it public. Put it on the record.

Tell us what you stand for. Tell us why you’re making the decisions you’re

making. Bring the public into that conversation. Make the case. If it’s good

legislation, and you believe in it, make the case to the public for why it’s

coming forward, what it’s going to accomplish, how you’re going to measure its

success and how it’s going to serve the people.

Believe me, in a housing crisis like we’re in, the public is starving

for solutions. They’re starving to know that the government feels this crisis

as urgently as they do. People are faced with being unhoused in a two-income

family with children. They’ve never faced these conditions before, and there is

nowhere for them to go. They want to know from government: if you’re bringing

in a measure about housing, help us understand exactly how this is going to be

a solution to the crisis that we’re facing in every single one of our

communities.

Most people don’t have time to pay attention to the debates, to the ins

and outs of what happens or the procedures in this House. That’s why we’re

elected to represent. That’s our job. It’s in here.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are legislators. That is our number one job. If we can’t do that work

on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the citizens, then we’re all

failing.

I think it’s really important to hear this as a plea, really, to bring

our best selves to this work and to remember we are all only temporarily here.

We are transient occupiers. But the order that we leave this place in matters.

If we diminish it, government over government, parliament over parliament, and

we just diminish it a little bit more each time, and we justify that

diminishing by saying, “Well, the folks before us diminished it, and they

showed us some diminishing, so now we’re going to diminish it a little bit as

well, and that justifies our diminishing,” then we send a signal to the next

people.

Believe me, there will be next people, and they’ll be able to say: “You

know what? These procedures — so cumbersome, so inefficient. We can get so much

more done if we don’t have to spend time in the Legislature talking about it,

debating it, hearing from the opposition about the problems, or about ways to

improve, about proposed amendments. We don’t have to spend time in the

Legislature actually collaborating on anything, because it’s so cumbersome.

It’s so tiresome being criticized or being told that this isn’t

perfect.”

The next generation that sits in those benches is going to point to the

last generation and say: “Well, they diminished it, so we’re going to diminish

it a little bit more.” This has to stop. This has to end, because at some

point, it gets diminished to the point of not mattering, and I don’t want to be

a part of that. I don’t think anybody here wants to be a part of

that.

I think people here care. I think people here do want to bring their

best work and their best selves. I believe that deeply. But it is a matter of

asking: what is the level of priority of my service? Where is the top? Is it to

the people of this province and the future of this institution, or is it to a

political party? That’s the question that has to be asked.

Along with the member for Abbotsford West, I echo this. I hope to hear

from members of the government caucus about why approaching legislation in this

way is justifiable, is appropriate. How does this not diminish the

parliamentary work that we’re supposed to be doing in here? I can’t see a

justification for it. Efficiency is not a justification. The whole purpose of

this institution is actually to be inefficient. It is a check on power. It is

oversight. It is accountability. It is transparency. That’s why we’re here.

Shine a light.

I’m certain that members of the government caucus would be echoing these

sentiments exactly if they were on this side of the House. I guess the question

to ask is: which side of history do people want to end up on?

[2:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, I want to thank the member preceding, from Cowichan Valley, and

the member for Abbotsford West for making some interesting points about a bill

that has been brought in….

I love the terminology about the new era. I’m thinking about: is that

really what it is? I have to say that one of the things that I can remember

around the cabinet table is having the discussion about the legislation and

what the drafters had time to work on and create and make certain. It is a new

era in the sense that we continue to see challenges with bills that are

written, and they’re coming back here for amendments after they’ve just been

passed.

I have to wonder: is that really what we want? Is that what we’re

talking about? I mean, we’re talking about a piece of legislation that is

really nothing more than a shell. It’s kind of the framework about how we would

do things. I could see this as a guiding document in terms of what it is that

the minister has outlined in her remarks, etc., but the bottom line is it’s

incomplete.

The bottom line is that I’m not even certain. I’d be interested….

Probably, the member for Abbotsford West knows better. Is this really proper

parliamentary procedure, to be drafting a bill that’s so hollow and shallow and

without anything in it? Is that what the government…? Is that what the people

of British Columbia expect? Is that what the hundreds of years before we got

here in this Legislature actually expected parliament to do?

It was designed to bring laws in, as has been eloquently stated, about

the fact that it’s meant to help govern and make this a better place to be, and

also deal with other issues. But in this particular case, when it was announced

in early November…. I mean, it’s talking about consumer protection. This is not

the first jurisdiction that this has been attempted or tried to be instituted

in. I understand that it’s been tested in the U.K., in Australia and other

countries. The bottom line is it is not perfect. It is about the lack

of….

I mean, it tries to create certainty around the fact that a willing

buyer and a willing seller come to an agreement on a contractual arrangement to

buy a piece of property, that is intended to have a cooling-off period — make

certain that things aren’t overlooked, like home inspections, and other factors

like that are not overlooked.

I have to say that the whole idea…. I know that the idea of having

transparency with this type of legislation is important, but we’ve got a

problem. Why are we dealing with this in the first place? I mean, the Minister

of Housing is not here. The Minister of Finance, who was the former Minister of

Housing…. The reality is….

Deputy Speaker: Just to remind the member, we don’t comment on the presence or absence

of members in the chamber.

B. Stewart: What I’m really referring to is the fact that we have this housing

crisis. Nobody here. We’ve talked about it. The government has talked about it

time and time again, about building more supply and making certain that there

is supply. The Minister of Housing has made it very clear, over the last number

of months and the past few years, in the use of tools that the government has

in order to force municipalities to help achieve certain results in terms of

zoning, the timelines and the speed at which to get developments

done.

Now, the Premier’s own riding, just down the road here, has the city of

Langford. It is probably a model in terms of what the mayor and his council

have been able to achieve over the number of years in the speed and the

certainty — the process — of getting development through their community. Why

is there an attraction for development out there? Why are they a community

that’s been able to take input, like the community contribution agreements,

DCCs, put that into a pot and been able to come up with first-time homeowner

grants? What an incentive to buy a home in Langford.

The part about it is…. We have lots of other municipalities that don’t

meet that timeline or don’t meet those standards. One of the things that we’re

talking about is we’re trying to regulate or legislate this whole problem, and

really, we know that it’s a supply issue. It’s about densification.

[2:45 p.m.]

I mean, I know that in my own community, we’ve seen the same as the rest

of the province: skyrocketing housing prices. Why is that? Because the supply

is choked off. The fact is that we’re not getting to yes.

You can’t have a province that’s growing at 60,000 people per year and

expect that…. The minister said in the House earlier that the government had

started measuring, and they had something like 53,000 new rental units created

in the last 12 months. I think that’s his statement. If that’s accurate, then

we shouldn’t have the housing crisis that we have, but we do have it, and it’s

a shortage.

The fact is that we’ve got market conditions, low interest rates. The

fact is that people were sitting around and starting to rethink their future

with COVID the last two years. We’re just past the two-year mark. And the

reality is that people have made a conscious decision that they want to take

savings or whatever it is and buy that first house.

Not everybody is going to be able to afford a house, nor are they going

to be able to afford a house at the high prices. But when it comes to

protection, consumer protection, the easiest way to get consumer protection is

bring back and bring on the supply that everybody is desperately talking about.

We have lots of councils and lots of neighbourhoods and people that speak out

against development. They’re against it. Why is that possible?

Many British Columbians, I’m sure, have travelled around the world, and

they’ve been to communities that are millions of people living in a city. I

mean, okay, so Vancouver is 2½ million to three million people in the city and

surrounding areas. What about London? What about New York? What about Hong

Kong? What about Beijing? Shanghai? They’re not sprawling. They’re not going

out. They have farmland right outside the city. You jump on the train from

Beijing to Shanghai, and you’re in farmland within the next ten or 15

minutes.

The reality is that they have densification right in close. They have

transit and everything. We talk about all the things that we desire about a

cleaner planet and all of those types of things. But when it comes to this

cooling-off period, as Bill 12 talks about, the whole thing about it is: is it

really addressing the issue? What it is, is it’s window dressing around the

outside.

Here’s an

article that came out yesterday in the Vancouver Sun

written by Vaughn Palmer. He quotes the minister. “‘People need to have the

protection as they are making one of the biggest financial decisions of their

lives,’” said Minister Robinson in a news release.

Deputy Speaker: Of course, no names, Member.

B. Stewart: Okay. Minister of Finance, I should say. Thank you.

The fact that in this particular…. When it was announced and the bill

was brought in, the press conference was done, and there are next to no

details. Some of the things that the bill’s proposed amendments to the Property

Law Act would create — the right of rescission, whereby a property buyer can

rescind the deal by written notice to the seller within a fixed number of days

after the offer to purchase was accepted…. However, the relevant details of the

so-called homeowner protection period were left to be determined by the NDP

cabinet once the legislation passes.

It’s a fairly significant activity in the province of British Columbia —

real estate transactions. Even on the government revenue side, we’ve seen the

home purchase tax, the property purchase tax, increase to somewhere north of $3

billion per year. We’re fiddling around with the marketplace with what is

stated as consumer protection. We’re not really getting to what I think

is….

People are making conscious decisions. I know from my own experience

buying my very first house…. It was a very modest $28,500, which is a few

decades back. Needless to say, the part about it is that I didn’t really know.

The house was built in 1908, and I can tell you that there were probably all

sorts of things that I knew nothing about. I had a basement that was more of a

crawl space with a furnace in it. Honestly, I’m sure that the home inspection

services today would probably say that this isn’t inhabitable. But it was good

enough for me at that price, and it worked out. Anyway, I doubt it’s still

standing.

[2:50 p.m.]

Anyway, I think that the other thing that was mentioned in here…. It’s

unusual.

Vaughn Palmer, as most of you know, has been around this Legislature for

some time. He’s well respected, and he says: “Just in case the New Democrats

forgot something in the drafting stage, the open-ended powers allow the cabinet

to define ‘a word or expression used but not defined’ in the legislation. Call

it the Humpty Dumpty clause,” as he refers to it, “after the character Alice in

Through the Looking-Glass : ‘When I use a word, it means just what I

chose it to mean — neither more, nor less.’”

I have to say that I go back to my earlier comment about the fact that

when we were working on legislation, ministers like myself pored over the

wording with staff and the legislative drafters to make certain that the

intent…. I’m sure that some of the members in the House here, in government,

sit on leg review. You review it, you go back, you perfect, or you try to catch

all of those things.

I don’t know whether that’s something that…. Maybe that committee

doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe it doesn’t have to because everything will be done

in regulation, and it’ll be determined by the minister so that leg review won’t

actually have to review this because there are clearly undefined statements and

policy that are going to be by regulation.

“So sweeping are the regulatory powers that at one point in talking to

the reporters, the Minister of Finance herself appeared to have overlooked one

of the provisions. A reporter asked if a willing buyer and a willing seller

could choose to waive the cooling-off period and simply cut a deal. ‘The idea

is to not allow that,’ the minister said.”

I think that this is where we’re starting to believe that we can

control, regulate, through bureaucracy, what is happening with the marketplace.

It doesn’t work that way.

The minister also “justified the lack of specifics by saying she was

waiting for the results of consultations with the real estate sector

undertaken…by the B.C. Financial Services Authority.” It’s my understanding

from other clippings that I’ve read that that review is now complete. I’m not

certain if the minister has it, but that’s essentially the grounds: that we

want to rush this into the House, get this passed so that we can make the

regulations and get this in place sometime by summer.

I think that it just…. You know, in all the years that I’ve been in this

House, and I’m sure in the decades that the province has been around, that type

of approach with legislation would never be accepted. The idea that some things

are controlled by regulation — we’ve taken it to a new level, as the member for

Abbotsford West said. A new era.

I think that the other thing…. We have already had a recent example with

Bill 22 about the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act

modifications, which was hotly debated in the House — what everything meant,

what were going to be things such as the cost, etc. But what ended up happening

was that it was closed in terms of debate. The government used closure — the

introduction, the timing of it. I haven’t gone back to look at when it was

introduced and how many days it was actually debated.

The bottom line is that that’s what this House is here for. It’s to make

certain that rules that are going to be imposed on the citizens of British

Columbia through law are debated and to make certain that they’re passed with

the idea that we have debated it. I understand that there are exceptions to

that, and that’s the whole idea of closure. But the idea of closure on bills

that have no information — there’s no guts to them; they’re by regulation — is

just…. I mean, that’s unprecedented and a poor example of what this parliament

is supposed to be doing.

I think that, you know…. I mean, I don’t need to remind the members on

the opposite side. There has been some criticism about transparency, secrecy,

in that particular bill, Bill 22. I don’t think that it’s any surprise that in

that particular case, that this bill, Bill 12, is lacking in a lot of specifics

that the public, the industry, the buyers, the sellers, expect.

This idea that we’re going to be able to hand-hold them through the

transaction, make certain that every deal is…. That they’re not buying into

something that is going to be like a leaky condo or something like

that….

[2:55 p.m.]

There’s a comment about the support from the home inspection industry,

and I don’t disagree. I’ve used home inspectors buying property, etc., and I

think that there is a place for home inspections to point out the obvious

things. I also know that the home inspectors are often…. They go through a

training process, etc., but they’re not perfect either. I know that in selling

a townhouse that I had a few years ago, it was pointed out by the buyer that

there were some imperfections on a house that was only a few years old. I was a

bit surprised. I didn’t even notice myself. So there is a value in

that.

I guess my point about this is that I think the idea that we might end

up with mandatory home inspections…. I mean, that’s added cost, for one.

Secondarily, I’m not certain that they are all professionals. I know that some

people have way greater understanding of construction and the methodology.

Think about the eras of construction and how the building code has changed over

time. Constantly I hear from engineers and people like that, “Well, you can’t

do this, because it doesn’t meet the building code of today,” or whatever it

is. And it is substantial.

We passed legislation earlier this session on handling or removal of

asbestos in buildings. It’s important. But it was used for a period of time,

and many of the homes that are in our province have products like that that are

inside the home, etc., and we need to be aware of that. I’m not certain that

every home inspector would be able to identify that unless he knew that file

intimately in terms of homes built between 1963 and 1970, or whatever it is. I

don’t know the numbers. But I have been surprised myself, in doing a renovation

to one of our buildings back in Kelowna, where we had to do asbestos removal,

and it was a considerable expense.

I don’t disagree that there is a place for home inspections, etc., but

the idea that we do it by regulation…. Most times I think that it’s like buying

a used vehicle. I mean, you can get it checked out, but there’s no mandatory

car inspection service. You don’t have to do that. I would say that in a case

of a willing buyer and a willing seller, sometimes there are unforeseen gaps in

terms of what’s happening.

Now, in this particular case, the minister herself has said that if

there’s a willing buyer and a willing seller, we’re still not going to allow

them to close the deal. There’s going to be a cooling-off period

regardless.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

What’s going to prevent the willing buyer from not putting in multiple

offers, putting multiple offers in on different properties and becoming part of

the problem, where they’re tying up real estate that should be in the

marketplace? It should be there for other people to consider, and it could be

tied up under that cooling-off period, under Bill 12.

I do think that this bill, Bill 12, is very much like what we saw with

Bill 22, and that’s not the way that regulations should be handled. They should

be for fine-tuning things that we want statutory officers to be approving or

making certain that they’re the ones that are making the adjustment.

I have to say that this label that the government has taken on as being

the most secretive government in Canada…. I’m thinking: “Well, geez. How did

you get a label like that?” Well, if you’re hiding things…. That’s kind of what

I would say Bill 12 tends to do. It’s hiding what the rules are going to be,

because it’s going to be done by regulation.

The government says that it’s modelling this from the same provisions in

the Real Estate Development Marketing Act for presale condos, but it’s a

completely different type of transaction. Those are new builds. They’re not

complete yet. There is a cooling-off period in those situations where you can

purchase, and then you’ve got a seven-day cooling-off period. Also, with

presales, you can’t necessarily do a home inspection on those particular types

of purchases. So it’s a completely different type of transaction we’re talking

about — homes and buildings. I mean, the limitations on where this starts,

where it stops, is undefined at this point.

[3:00 p.m.]

These details that will be decided at a later date include the

prescribed number of days after the sale where the offer can be rescinded;

limiting waivers of the right of rescission and the circumstances in which that

may or may not be waived; respecting service of the notice of rescission;

penalties paid by the purchaser to the seller if the purchaser exercises the

right of rescission; the timing of payments of the deposit under a contract of

purchase and sale despite any provision of the contract to the contrary;

establishing procedures for the payment of the deposit under a contract of

purchase and sale; respecting the return of the deposit paid under a contract

of purchase and sale if the purchaser exercises the right of rescission,

including exempting the types of property and classes of buyers.

It continues to…. There are a lot of regulations or rules that are going

to be done by regulation that I think Bill 12 doesn’t properly address. I guess

I did question whether this is the new era. Is this a way of doing legislation?

Or is there something in our history, Westminster rules, that maybe makes this

type of legislation illegitimate? Is it the type of thing that is not the way

to be doing things? Is it a backdoor route to doing things?

I know that in the U.K., they’ve instigated a model where it’s turned

out to be a complete disaster in terms of having a cooling-off period. It can

take upwards of four months to see property change hands, and deals fall apart.

So how can members of this House adequately debate this legislation when it

appears and raises far more questions than it answers? We want to adequately

debate this legislation because we know that it will have a profound impact on

so many people.

We want to talk about housing affordability, which, even though this is

consumer protection, from what I’ve read, that the minister has suggested, I

think the fact that the lack of affordable housing in B.C. is certainly the

biggest issue that the province is facing, in terms of certainty for people

that want to live here, want to work here. We know that there’s no shortage of

jobs, but we certainly know that there’s a shortage of housing and the fact

that a Vancouver home costs nearly $600,000 more today than it did five years

ago.

Far too many people can barely afford the rent, let alone purchase a

home in this province. We desperately need to see measures to improve housing

and housing affordability. But this bill will not accomplish that goal. The

average home price in B.C. surpassed $1.1 million, up 25 percent just in the

last year alone. It now takes 36 years to save a down payment on an average

house in Vancouver, according to the National Bank.

B.C. Assessment figures. I think everybody here that’s a homeowner would

know that assessments are up significantly. Chilliwack, 40 percent. Langley,

39. Abbotsford, 38. Port Coquitlam, 35 percent. Surrey, 34 percent. Squamish,

31. I know, in my home area, that it’s around 40 percent. So it’s a big number

to have assessments going up like that.

The fact that people are paying what appear to be unreasonable prices….

I’m sure that the members opposite are aghast. Why would people have to pay

$1.1 million for an average home in British Columbia anywhere, let alone if it

was Vancouver? I’m sure that number is more than double, the $1.1

million.

I think that the situation is that I’m surprised by it. I think that the

main thing that we should be recognizing and the government should be trying to

do with Bill 12 is to bring in things like I suggested earlier, like the city

of Langford uses, in accelerating development through certainty and procedures

that staff use at a bureaucratic level where they get to yes.

I know that the mayor himself has told me that if it doesn’t have the

rezoning within 90 days, he wants the file on his desk so he can see it himself

and find out why it is, why we are having these problems. The culture in

Langford has changed,

whereas other communities are still lagging behind. We

need to change that culture in order to get the housing supply that we

need.

We desperately need to see measures to improve housing affordability in

B.C. This bill is not going to do anything to accomplish that goal. It’s

incredibly frustrating because this NDP government has promised time and time

again that they would improve affordability.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that we’ve talked a bit about that during question period. But

under their leadership, we’ve only seen it get worse. As always, the NDP say

the right things but then fail to deliver when it counts.

Well, in my new critic role, I haven’t seen too much accomplished when

it comes to transportation — lots of rhetoric, lots of

announcements.

I mean, we’ve got the Massey Tunnel that was under construction in 2016.

Now it’s been stopped, and we now have a promise that we’re going to build a

new tunnel, but we have to do more environmental studies, and it’s not going to

start construction for another three years. It will be complete in 2030. Many

of the members that actually drive and take ferries here would be using that

new bridge this year that would’ve been complete had it not been, you know,

paused on.

The Pattullo Bridge….

Deputy Speaker: I’ll remind the member that we’re speaking to Bill 12.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really referring to the

housing.

The government made the promise in successive elections: “We’re going to

solve the housing problem.” You have the tools. You have the answers. That’s

what you’ve said. In Bill 12, all we’re seeing here is more bureaucracy and

regulation. We’re not getting to the solutions.

Interjection.

B. Stewart: That’s right. Why don’t you stand up and speak to it, Member?

I don’t need to reiterate some of the things that I know that we’ve

heard before here about the annual renters rebate. We still haven’t seen that.

That was even asked earlier today. Madam Speaker, that’s not about Bill 12. So

we’ll get back to the point here.

I do want to talk a little bit about some other things that the B.C.

Real Estate Association…. When this was announced in early November and they

were given the information, there was considerable concern, obviously, by the

Real Estate Association of British Columbia. It’s a change, and who’s not going

to be concerned about a change, upsetting what has actually become a

super-heated market? There’s no question about it.

The idea of the government is…. This

article came out from the B.C. Real

Estate Association on November 10 about this particular concept. So I guess,

really, considering how much substance is in this bill, Bill 12, we were still

in session, and the fact that the minister had asked the B.C. Financial

Services Authority to investigate, consult…. Well, why didn’t we just bring

this bill in back in the last session and get ‘er done and do it through

regulation the same as it is here today? The bottom line is that it wouldn’t

have been very popular, and it’s not very popular today. I know that there are

many people still concerned.

As I mentioned, in Vaughn Palmer’s

article in the Vancouver Sun

yesterday, this is a…. I mean, it’s a bit of a charade in the sense that it’s

not necessarily getting to the protection that consumers are really needing. I

mean, it’s creating an artificial waiting period which allows for all sorts of

other things in the background to happen.

I think that one of the concerns that the B.C. Real Estate Association

says in this article:

“While the government’s goal of the cooling-off period has increased

transparency, it’s worth considering the potential impact the policy could have

on B.C.’s housing affordability crisis. If implemented, more buyers would

likely bid on more properties, potentially causing an increase to housing

prices. That’s over the 40 percent of B.C. Assessment. In B.C.’s extremely low

supply conditions, this could increase prices by an additional 2 percent to 3

percent on the initial research done by the B.C. Real Estate

authority.”

In addition, the minister had asked that the consultation include

following consumer protection policies, restricting blind bidding, mandatory

conditions such as home inspections or financing — which I touched on about

home inspections earlier — and other practices that may be identified as

consumer protection risks.

Bill 12 is a blank sheet of paper without any of the real rules about

how we’re going to get to consumer protection and safety. It’s being done by

regulation. It should be right here in the House, where we get a chance to

debate the bill and make certain that the public knows what’s coming and what

we have in front of us.

[3:10 p.m.]

On that particular point, I find it difficult, without the information,

to be properly supporting Bill 12.

L. Doerkson: I had hoped that someone from the government side would have stepped up

to speak to Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act, but it doesn’t appear

that’s going to happen this afternoon.

I’ve spent most of the afternoon sort of tuning in. I was tuning in for

the purpose of hearing the opposite side speak to this bill, to hopefully offer

some clarity. Of course, that hasn’t been offered up.

Bill 12, of course, comes as a shell of legislation, and it doesn’t

provide any clarity for anybody, really, to make any kind of a decision on

where you might place a vote on this legislation. I’m shocked, to be honest,

that it’s before the House. I mean, we’ve heard many comments this afternoon….

In fact, we just heard comments like, “a new era of legislation,” which is, to

me, shocking and frightening.

We’ve heard other comments from two opposing parties that have been the

only people to speak to this bill. I think it is imperative for someone from

the government side of this House to stand up and explain why they would vote

“yes” to a bill that does not provide any information as to how long these

cooling-off periods will last, how those cooling-off periods will be passed to

a second or a third offer. There’s no information about that.

As we’ve heard this afternoon, and we’ve heard multiple times, those

decisions will be made in a cabinet room with no one else being privy to that

information. I’m not sure how everyone outside of cabinet is able to vote to

pass a bill like this unless they know information that we don’t as

opposition.

I’ll suggest again that both opposition parties have spoken quite

extensively against this bill this afternoon. I certainly hope that someone,

this afternoon, will suggest something. As I said, it’s been suggested that

this is a new era of legislation, which frightens me, to be honest. Others have

said, “Is this even proper parliamentary procedure?” with respect to Bill

How can a bill come to the floor, to have a very serious decision be

made this quickly, on something that is so serious for the people of British

Columbia? So serious. I suspect that a lot of people are watching this, and

I’ll get to the reasons I think that in a moment.

We’ve heard comments this afternoon that would suggest that bills like

this weaken democracy, that they create more secrecy. We have seen other times

in this House when no one gets up from the government side to speak to convince

me or others that this is the right thing to do. For me, as I said, I have

actively watched and tuned in as much as I could this afternoon, because I was

hoping to learn more about the contents of the bill.

We’ve heard other members say we’re proud. I think I probably said it

right off the top — that I’m happy to add my comments to the debate. But it’s

hard to suggest that this is actually debate. Again, as I have pointed out, it

is simply two opposition parties that are making a desperate plea to a

government to clear up the confusion that once again has been introduced to not

only the House, but certainly to the people of British Columbia, by way of Bill

12 and other bills that are not complete. They don’t make sense in many ways,

and there’s been no clarity offered.

The thing I heard most this afternoon with respect to Bill 12, that

really stood out for me, was the comment that one of the members made earlier,

saying that they still believe in this place. I’m a new member to this House,

and I’m proud to be here. I’m proud to represent the folks of

Cariboo-Chilcotin.

[3:15 p.m.]

I am deeply saddened and deeply concerned that when we see legislation

like this come before the House, we know it’s likely going to pass later

because, simply put, the government has, obviously, very strong representation

here. We know it’s going to pass in spite of the effort that we make on behalf

of British Columbians to question bills like Bill 12.

Today, so that people that are watching know and understand fully what

I’m talking about, is the fact that we have a bill that has introduced a

suggestion that we will see cooling-off periods between buyers and sellers in

the British Columbia real estate market, and simply put, we don’t know anything

about that. We don’t know timelines.

Again, we don’t know how things are going to be passed on. I do want to

talk about that a little bit. What I mean by “passed on” is how they’ll be

passed on to second-place and third-place buyers, and how that’s going to

affect vendors.

I am very concerned that we’re not debating this bill, that we’re simply

opposing it and trying to share our comments on behalf of British Columbians

and industry members, realtors, appraisers, etc. I just don’t get a sense that

this government is listening to the stakeholders. In this case, the

stakeholders are, for certain, British Columbians that are faced with an

unbelievably unaffordable time to live in.

With respect to the affordability, I can appreciate that Bill 12…. I

would suggest that it was hoped that it’s going to somehow to create

affordability, but I can assure you that in many ways, it could create a lot

more problems in the real estate market than it’s going to solve. I want to

talk a little bit about those for a moment.

First off, we’ve heard numbers like 1.1 and 1.2 and all of those things

with respect to homes in the Lower Mainland. I can assure you that this is a

massive problem for residents in rural British Columbia as well. I have lived

in Williams Lake for two and a half decades or so, and I’ve lived here twice. I

remember coming here as a young man, thinking how affordable real estate was

here at that time. I can assure you now that it is definitely not affordable in

a way that it has ever been before, and that price is rapidly

rising.

We see that even in small dwellings, apartments, those types of things,

that are available in both communities — 100 Mile or Williams Lake. There’s no

question that the prices are on the rise in a very, very steep climb. I know

that we need to deal with this, and I definitely want the government to make

strides to help in some way to make homes more affordable. We all agree that it

is supply and demand — and a shortage of supply — that we are seeing in this

province. I have heard the government acknowledge that myself. We know that

this is a serious issue, but where this legislation comes from is beyond

me.

Frankly, as I’ve pointed out before, it’s not something that I can

support the way it’s been presented. I mean, if there was any more information

about it or its intent or how long these cooling-off periods would last for,

then certainly, I could give it consideration. But at this point, for me, I am

unable to support this bill.

I do want to talk a little bit about what it aims to do. It suggests

that it’s going to protect buyers. I would suggest, and certainly

others….

I do want to read a quote from the Victoria Times Colonist ,

from Darlene Hyde, who is the chief executive of the B.C. Real Estate

Association. She has said that this measure could create more problems than it

solves. She actually suggests that the cooling-off period could increase

competition for property and that it could actually drive prices up.

I think the member from Kelowna, speaking just prior to myself, had

suggested that very thing — that we could certainly see people that are now in

a position as purchasers to make multiple offers now have a way to get out of

some of those offers.

[3:20 p.m.]

I want to see, just for a second, what impact that might have on a

seller. As much as we have talked about buyers and what the price is right now

for homes throughout all of B.C. — rural B.C. and, certainly, the cities — I

want to talk a little bit about a vendor.

Oftentimes the sellers are actually buyers at the same time. None of the

information that I have seen has been able to clear the air for me with respect

to how that seller will actually make an offer on another piece of property.

Now, I can understand that they can make a subject offer, and that’s all well

and good. I’m not sure how they line up dates. I’m not sure how they line up

dates not only to remove their own subjects if they’re unaware of when their

subjects will remove, and I’m not sure exactly how they will set completion

dates or anything else.

Now, I’ve reached out and spoken with realtors and professionals in this

industry. The simple fact is no one is really clear on that, and the reason is

because they haven’t been fully engaged in the conversation.

Again, I mean, this is a bit of a theme that we’re seeing from this

government. It’s not just bills like Bill 12. We’ve heard this from other

stakeholders, with respect to other bills and other changes in government, that

they have not been consulted, not in a fair way.

I understand that there has been some conversation, but it hasn’t been

significant. I think that the stakeholders — certainly, the realtors of this

province and appraisers — are looking for more conversation between the

government and themselves to come up with a solution. I’ll get to a couple of

potential suggestions that some of those industry players have made.

With respect to vendors, I want to just talk a little bit about a

personal situation that my mother has found herself in, to be honest. She often

watches. I hope she’s watching this afternoon. If she is, I’ll give her my best

— Mom.

She was in a position of selling her property recently. I was shocked to

see how much pressure there is in the real estate market. It’s not as though I

don’t think that there’s a problem. There’s definitely a problem. In my mom’s

situation, she was not a vendor and a buyer at the same time.

One of the things that I want to note is that her property was tied up

with multiple offers as well. As someone that was trying to help their mother

get through a very complicated situation, my concern was: when you accept one

offer, what happens to the other offers that are waiting to be a part of the

purchase? The fear for me was…. By accepting one offer over another, the other

offers, of course, move on.

In this case, she had multiple offers that were different in nature.

Some were subject to financing. Others were cash. Others had different dates.

To be honest, in my mom’s case, she had a difficult decision to make. There was

an interesting offer that was subject to financing, but it was more money than

a cash no-subject offer. That decision, obviously, is a complex one. She didn’t

want to risk not selling the property and, of course, losing the other buyers

that were interested in the property.

I want to say that if she was to accept an offer in what appears to be a

very hot market and lost the other offers…. For her, she is really going back

to square one and starting over. That might be okay in a market like this, in

her situation, where she’s not necessarily in a panic to sell and where she’s

not buying another piece of property and connected to other dates and other

obligations.

Certainly, for a lot of people, that is a very bad situation to be in

for a seller. I guess that’s one of the concerns that I have. How much thought

has been given to how this will impact the sellers that, as I pointed out,

oftentimes are buyers?

[3:25 p.m.]

Going back to the multiple offer situation…. One of my colleagues was

just mentioning that it could have the effect of driving up the market. Of

course, now there’s all this perceived activity that really isn’t there. I

mean, the activity is on paper. Yes, there are multiple offers out there, but

it’s not connected to an actual purchase, right? Any one of those offers can

collapse at any time. Again, where does that leave our vendors?

I want to talk a little bit about conversations that I’ve had with

respect to Bill 12 with industry professionals. Now, appraisers are concerned

about this legislation, and the reason they’re concerned is that they’re

concerned that legislation, often once in place, is perhaps difficult to remove

or change. One of the concerns that appraisers have is that this market, of

course, is rocketing upward. They don’t see how this will solve that problem.

They don’t feel like they’ve been consulted. But their fear, of course, is when

the market starts moving in a different direction, in a downward

trend.

What happens in that moment when…. Again, we don’t know how long these

cooling-off periods are. We don’t know how that will be moved on to a multiple

offer or a second offer in wait. So how will that affect a vendor in a market

that is falling quickly? It’s not as though we haven’t seen those before. I

mean, we’ve seen those in my lifetime. I’ve certainly been a victim of that in

my own real estate purchases.

The fact is that there is a grave concern that if those are week-long

cooling periods, or two-week long cooling periods, and then passed on to a

second buyer that’s in second place or third, does this vendor or seller now

end up with their property off of the market for a period of three or four

weeks? Of course, in a falling market, that’s not so good. With all due respect

to the minister that’s introduced this, it’s not great even in a rising market,

to be honest, because the vendor, if they are a purchaser, can be left

behind.

In other words, on March 1, you’ve accepted an offer, and perhaps you’ve

accepted two or three that fall in place. Now, while everything else is rising,

you have determined the price of your property. If we’re talking a period of

three or four weeks in a really hot market — and as I’ve said, I’ve just

witnessed how hot the market really is through a personal experience of my own

— that could be the difference of thousands of dollars for a vendor. So there

is a lot of concern about that.

I wanted to talk a little bit about realtors too. They’re very concerned

about this, and they’re concerned about the impact that it’ll have on the

vendors. Of course, realtors have a complex relationship, and by and large,

they represent vendors. I know that they show property, and their aim is

obviously to sell property.

Oftentimes they probably build a closer relationship with a buyer, but

they’re actually contracted to the vendor in most cases. Now, I know that there

are special exceptions, etc., that would have them contract to a buyer as well,

but for the most part, they are contracted to a vendor. So their obligation

really is to do the best job that they can for that vendor.

Part of the problem, I think, that realtors have…. I’m going to read

this from a B.C. Real Estate Association pamphlet that has just been released

as a bit of a brief. It’s under, I think, on the second page…. “The stakeholder

engagement” is the title. It says:

“BCREA, regional real estate boards and realtors are disappointed that a

mandatory cooling-off period was announced without adequate prior consultation

with the real estate sector. The intent to introduce a cooling-off period in

legislation was announced without a problem statement, supporting rationale,

review of alternative measures, evidence of its anticipated effectiveness based

on a case study analysis or consideration for its impacts on the many real

estate sub-markets.”

Of course, they’ve offered up a few recommendations as well that haven’t

been completely heard or digested, and I guess that is my biggest fear, is that

we have time to put the brakes on this legislation.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have the time to fully understand the impact that Bill 12 is going to

have on the people of British Columbia, the impact that it’s going to have on

both buyers and sellers and how that impact could carry out through a domino

effect over multiple deals that are connected to one home sale. We have the

time. We have the ability in this House to debate and to have real and

meaningful conversation about how all of us could have input on how to best

help the people of British Columbia.

One of the recommendations that came from this pamphlet I have been

consuming is that instead of a cooling off period, the realtors of the province

are suggesting that there could be something referred to as a pre-offer period.

I know that is one of the tools that was basically used in the sale of my

mother’s property. It was helpful to be able to gather those offers together. I

think that all of the purchasers were aware of what was going on. They had a

time to view the property and those types of things.

I can appreciate that there is certainly stress on both sides of this

equation. I can appreciate that the government is making an effort to try and

introduce something that might help. But I just can’t see how this will. Even

in my wildest dreams…. Unfortunately, it’s the only way to do it. In the

absence of information, we have to fill in the blanks ourselves. In my wildest

dreams, even if these are a week or ten-day cooling off periods, I can see how

people will find their property off the market for two or three weeks, easily.

I can absolutely see that.

Again, to the point that the appraisers have made that I’ve discussed it

with…. I’ll confess. It’s only a couple. They bring up a fantastic point in

that no matter which way the market is going, this really exposes, or could

expose, a vendor, depending upon how fast that market is moving. Again, we’ve

seen it a lot of times.

I think, more importantly, that Bill 12 has done something else here,

this week. It has opened up the conversation around what I started to discuss

at the top of my comments, which was that this is somewhat a new era of

legislation, when a bill can come to 87 members representing all of British

Columbia and the content really is just not there to be able to make a

decision.

I’m not sure how even members opposite could support it. As I said

before, I don’t know how a member could vote for Bill 12 unless they know

something that the opposition parties don’t. At this point, I just can’t see my

way to supporting this bill.

It’s been a pleasure to be part of the conversation today. I can’t call

it a debate. I would certainly take that comment back if I heard from some of

the members opposite this afternoon just to hear some of the details that

perhaps they know that we don’t.

I certainly do look forward to more information this afternoon on this

bill. I think British Columbians and the members of this House are all owed

that information before we are forced into a position to make a decision that,

as I said, will have a very serious impact on the people of British

Columbia.

With respect to that decision…. I mean, I’m certainly not introducing

anything new here today. The fact is that this is oftentimes the largest

investment of people’s lives. We have heard over and over that the cost is

rising and that people are trying to get into the market. We’ve heard contrary

to that. We’ve heard that there are potential bubbles and that prices can

quickly go down as well. So there is a lot of anxiety in this marketplace right

now.

[3:35 p.m.]

The problem is not a cooling off period. The problem is one of supply

and demand. That supply and demand, as I said before, is having a very serious

effect throughout rural British Columbia, as well, where it’s getting more

difficult every day to get into a home. That is an impact that is largely

because of people moving out of the Lower Mainland and coming to places like

Cariboo-Chilcotin, which are certainly some of the most beautiful places on

earth.

That is definitely having an impact. There’s no question about it, but I

just genuinely cannot for a moment believe that legislation like this bill is

going to do anything to cool off the prices. I think that I’m going to have to

side with industry professionals that know about this. They certainly know far

more than I do.

I’m going to have to side with the people of British Columbia and say to

the minister and to the government that we absolutely demand more information

before we are made to make a choice on this. As it sits right now, I will

certainly be voting against Bill 12.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the time here this afternoon,

and thank you for the opportunity to inject my comments on this

bill.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of Muni­cipal Affairs.

[Applause.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the enthusiastic support from behind and, I’m sure, in

front as well. [Applause.]

There we are. All good politicians know how to call in applause from a

crowd.

I’ve been listening to the debate, and opposition members have been

very, very enthusiastic to hear from some of us in government. They might not

have tuned into the Minister of Finance’s discussion about this, both in the

public when introducing this or…. The bill is not long, but it has details in

it that explicitly talk about what this measure is, which I’ll speak to, as

well as the process that the Minister of Finance has talked about.

The process is already taking place in terms of consultation with many

of the varied people that the opposition is concerning themselves with — as we,

too, are concerned — and the process that follows out of this: the

regulation-making powers that exist within this bill and the consultation with

those same interested parties to make sure that it does what the stated intent

of the government is.

Now, I represent Stikine — as you know, Madam Speaker — a great big,

beautiful, vast, very rural part of our province, the largest jurisdiction in

this House. We have, for a generation now almost, been watching the effects on

our friends and family, particularly in Vancouver, of some of the overheated

aspects of the housing market in B.C.

The days of it being concentrated within a few neighbourhoods or within

a few communities are long over. The effects of the housing crisis, the

overheated housing market, are I think affecting, I can safely say, all of our

communities. We are watching, particularly for the generation coming up behind

us, the ability to own a house going further and further away.

As one young person said to me…. They have a pretty decent job. They’ve

gone and got their education and are working hard. They can’t save their way

into a house, no matter how prudent they are, no matter how careful they are

with their finances. With what’s happening in our housing market now, and has

been happening for the last number of years, it just moves further and further

away.

I think that’s important, certainly, for some generations to appreciate,

because I think there was a lot of criticism landed upon generations to follow,

saying: “They’re eating too much avocado toast. They’re not being respectful of

what we all did and struggled, and generations before mine did to struggle, to

own a house.”

Well, we have heard testimonials in this place this afternoon from

members of a slightly more advanced age talking about their first house

purchase at $28,000, at $35,000. Fair enough, that was in 1910 maybe. No,

probably closer to 1940 and ’50. The hon. members that I’m trying to make fun

of may not be here, so it’s not as much fun to poke fun.

The point is this. There is sometimes a generational gap going on in

this conversation. “Why can’t you kids save like I did and get a house?” Well,

if the starting average price is $1.2 million, unless you come from substantive

means and someone is cutting you a bequeathment cheque, that’s very

difficult.

In Stikine, we’ve been seeing this reality as well. We’ve been seeing

not only housing prices rise but that frenzy that happens around a house

becoming available and people making offers, as we’ve all talked about, on one

of the most significant decisions in their lives — especially your first house

but any other house that follows after that — and making it in a panic, a panic

buy.

[3:40 p.m.]

You wouldn’t go out and, probably, buy a bicycle that way, unless they

said: “This is the only bicycle. There are 100 people in line, and you need it

to get to work.” Suddenly our normal calculus changes. The pressure has

changed.

What Bill 12 attempts to do is address one piece of this conversation.

We don’t make claims of great affordability measures in this. Our government

has done a number of other things on the question of affordability —

speculation tax and on down the line — and that’s important. Despite all of

those efforts, all of those changes to law that have happened since we have

formed government in the last four or five years, the pressures on the market

remain.

We’re adding more supply. We’re trying to cut down on the speculators.

We’re trying to cut down on the people who are being exploitative in the market

— foreign currencies and whatnot that have distorted the market realities. This

has been, as some realtors and some economists have talked about, a market

failure, where the supply and demand has been distorted by other effects that

have come in. And it’s also just an incredible place to live. We happen to live

in a really amazing place.

If anyone had told us that we were going to have a global pandemic that

would last — still on — and that the severity of it would be two years, and in

that two years, housing prices would, in fact, go up…. No one was predicting

that. No one was saying: “People are going to stay at home and then go out and

get another house.” Or they were going to stay at home and then look to improve

their thing. With all the economic uncertainty that the pandemic created, we

still watched the rise in housing prices.

Now, this is a protection for buyers in a market, without attempting to

— the intent is serious; I’ll talk about the consultation process — create any

undue harm to the seller. It’s always the two participants. We have known

with…. Everybody in this place should have examples, and it wouldn’t take much

of a Facebook post or just standing at your Tim Hortons and saying: “Has anyone

experienced what it’s like to be in the bidding process when it’s just ramped

up and ramped up?”

The pressure is on the buyer to remove normal restrictions, normal

conditions, that we would all say are reasonable, like a home inspection, for

example. Buying a house without a home inspection is rolling the dice. How’s

the foundation? How’s the roof? How’s the heating system? How are the major

costs that could hit you after you purchase the house? How are they doing? We

know in some of the overheated housing markets in this province — this is a

startling figure — as much as 70 percent of the purchases are now being done

while all conditions are waived, including home inspections.

Who is one of the groups who is supporting this effort today, the

seven-day cool-off period? The Home Inspectors Association. I have the quotes,

and I can read them out for members. The experience, as a home inspector…. I

have friends who are home inspectors. They know a friend or a relative who is

in the process of buying a home — we live in a small town; everybody knows

everybody — saying: “Have you had the home inspection yet?” They say: “I had to

waive the condition. If I didn’t, I would have lost the opportunity to buy the

house.”

We have a near-zero percent vacancy rate in my community, little

Smithers, B.C., northern B.C. It’s been that way, actually, for quite a while.

It’s a very livable community. It’s hard to build housing stock — very

expensive.

The home inspector says: “That’s not smart.” It isn’t smart. It isn’t.

Generally speaking, to waive a condition on something as big as a house

purchase when…. We know that the inspection is there for a very good reason —

to understand what it is that you’re buying. Is it going to fall apart? We

heard some anecdotes from members opposite earlier, buying their first house —

again, at a much lower price some decades past — and realizing after they get

in that the basement tends to flood and the foundation wasn’t…. “But we worked

it out.”

Imagine that if your debt burden is going in to buy a $1 million, $1.3

million, $1.5 million house, and you found out that you’ve got to redo the

foundation. You’re stretched already. You’ve just made it work. Maybe you have

a renter or two in the house. You’re just making the ends meet, and then you

get a $50,000, $80,000, $100,000 bill, because you didn’t do an

inspection.

Some people say this is unprecedented, what we’re doing. That’s not

true. This measure exists already on pre-construction sales. So when someone is

making a purchase on a pre-construction sale, there is a seven-day cooling-off

period. There is a seven-day period of consideration and reconsideration.

That’s on a place that hasn’t even been built yet. But it exists. It hasn’t

hurt the pre-construction sale industry at all. It exists.

[3:45 p.m.]

There are some important things that have been said in various speeches

that we just have to correct — that this measure doesn’t exist anywhere in B.C.

law. Not true. People have said this was just invented out of whole cloth. Not

true.

Let’s talk about the process that happens next. We see the intent. We

understand the pressures on the buyers. They’re trying to get into a market. We

have this somewhat strange blind-bidding process in B.C. Anyone who has ever

bought a house has been through the process. You engage a realtor. You see the

price. You don’t know what the other bids are going to look like.

It’s the opposite of an auction. I don’t know if anyone’s been to a

Rotary auction or anything.

It’s a strange way to do an auction, where you have these blind, sealed

bids, and your realtor says: “It’s listed at $800,000. It’s listed at $1

million. But you shouldn’t bid that. I think you should do $1.1 million.” They

try to do an assessment of what’s going on.

We see the propensity…. I think this is happening more and more — a very

aggressive underlisting of housing prices to encourage the bidding war. That’s

the seller’s purview, and the realtor will give advice sometimes. I’ve seen

that advice given as well. “Let’s mark it clearly well below what it’ll get. We

want to encourage a lot of bids coming in, and we want that stoked-up feeling

to happen.” That’s the seller’s prerogative. That makes sense if you’re trying

to maximize what you can get for your home. But into a housing market like

this, it is clearly causing systemic challenges for those who are trying to buy