Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, April 2, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 148

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Tributes

Lawrence Joiner

Bruce Banman

Introductions by Members

Statements

Williams Lake Mustangs

Ward Stamer

Tributes

Ashley Chester

The Speaker

Michael Sather

Hon. Lisa Beare

Ram Labhai Sarpal

Sunita Dhir

Question of Privilege

Claire Rattée

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Bryan Tepper

Hon. Grace Lore

Misty Van Popta

Sharon Hartwell

Macklin McCall

Scott McInnis

Korky Neufeld

Lynne Block

Hon. Christine Boyle

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Jeremy Valeriote

Sheldon Clare

Bryan Tepper

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Thursday, April 2, 2026

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Lawrence Joiner

Bruce Banman : I stand in this House with a heavy heart. I learned that one of British Columbia’s

outstanding agricultural legends, Lawrence Joiner, passed away last night.

For those who don’t know Lawrence, there is probably not a

section of agriculture

that Lawrence or his family were not involved with — mink farming, chicken farming.

Joiner’s corn barns were scattered throughout the valley every year.

Most importantly, he also ran the OK Ranch up in the southern Cariboo. I believe the

personal acres of that were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16,000 acres. We have

probably had a beefsteak that was grown on that ranch at one time in our lives, if

we are British Columbians. Lawrence has forgotten more about agriculture than most

people will ever know.

My condolences go to his family, to those who know him.

May we take a moment to reflect on the great life that Lawrence lived and what he

has contributed to agriculture and to feeding British Columbians. May he rest in peace.

Introductions by Members

Heather Maahs : My condolences to the Joiner family as well.

On the other end of life, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my two granddaughters,

Marigold and Violet, a happy birthday.

[2:05 p.m.]

Statements

Williams Lake Mustangs

Ward Stamer : I’d like to bring to everyone’s attention that the Williams Lake Mustangs were fortunate

enough — good work on their part, hard work — to be able to beat the Kamloops Storm

in their series four straight. On behalf of MLA Milobar and myself, we’d like to congratulate

the Williams Lake Mustangs.

Good luck on going through the playoffs with your next opponents in Princeton.

From our perspective, and from the House, can we give them a great round of applause

for their win and carrying on in the playoffs.

Tributes

Ashley Chester

The Speaker : Hon. Members, it is on behalf of all of us that I rise today to express deepest condolences

to former Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Janet Austin, who recently lost her dear husband,

Ashley Chester, a friend to many of us here and whose memorial service at Government

House earlier today several of us were privileged to attend.

At the service, Ashley was remembered, over and over again, for his genuine interest

in people and his intellectual curiosity. He was known for his wit, quiet thoughtfulness

and creativity, and Her Honour perfectly summarized his extraordinary character by

describing him simply as a lovely man.

Our deepest sympathies go out to his wife, the Hon. Janet Austin, his sister Carole

and all of those who loved him.

Michael Sather

Hon. Lisa Beare : I rise today to honour the life and service of Michael Sather, who had been a Member

of the Legislative Assembly for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and who passed away on March

27 at the age of 78. Michael was a good friend to so many of us here in this House.

He was a fierce advocate for the people of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and a passionate

environmentalist.

Before serving in public office, Michael led a life of community advocacy in many

forms. Alongside the Pitt Polder Preservation Society, he helped drive preservation

of the Blaney Bog and Codd Wetland regional parks. He was also involved in fighting

wildfires, studying wildlife as a biologist and being a wilderness tourism guide with

Hummingbird Nature Tours. He fought both for nature and for its preservation.

Outside of his advocacy, Michael remained connected to the world around him, often

spending his days fishing for salmon on the coast of B.C. or birding. In fact, in

speaking with his wife, Annette, she shared fond memories of his hiking together with

their daughter on the Santa Rosa trails in Palm Springs and the work that they all

did to protect the land around them.

While his love for the environment ran deep, it was his desire to help people, coupled

with his strong respect for community, that drove him to public office. He started

with an eight-year tenure as a constituency assistant to former MLA Bill Hartley.

In 2005, Michael was elected to the B.C. Legislature, where he was able to represent

his constituents with perseverance, thoughtfulness and a deep sense of responsibility.

Throughout his time as MLA, he was known as someone who listened carefully, spoke

honestly and approached public service with integrity and an independence of mind.

Michael never shied away from thoughtful debate. He was reflective and committed to

evidence-based decision-making, guided by the belief that public office exists to

serve people, particularly those whose voices are often unheard.

He was a different type of politician. Michael was not afraid to uphold his values

and provoke his colleagues with conversation and a difference of opinion. After all,

it was his community that he was fighting for. This included reaching across the aisle

at times to achieve the greater good or being present for tough conversations.

Annette shared a time with me where Michael worked with over 30 charities that had

been cut off from funding. He took action, working directly with the minister to reinstate

the funding, protecting all those services for people in our community.

Perhaps the strongest we saw Michael was in his public battle with frontal-temporal

dementia and aphasia later in life. Michael held a master’s degree in psychology and

was able to self-diagnose his disease, catching it at an early stage.

[2:10 p.m.]

While vacationing in Hawaii, he realized he was not able to recall the names of the

birds that he loved. Later in life, this resulted in aphasia-related shortcomings

in communication and impairment of language.

As a result of this diagnosis, Michael founded another community through the Maple

Ridge Purple Angel dementia support group. Annette shared that they supported him

with grace and kindness. I’ve been so privileged and honoured to participate in the

community walks that the Purple Angel organized to help carry on Michael’s story and

legacy.

But to be clear, this disease never slowed Michael down. He continued to return to

nature and admire his environment. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Michael

must be remembered as a kind, curious, deeply humane individual. His compassion for

others and his enduring commitment to public life left lasting impressions on colleagues

on all sides of this House and on the community he served.

His impact to Maple Ridge’s ecosystem is clear. Thanks to Michael, agricultural land

was protected. He left a lasting impression on colleagues on all sides of the House

and in the community that he served. Regional parks were stewarded and an ongoing

awareness of dementia grew. While we mourn Michael Sather’s passing, we also give

thanks for his years of service and the legacy that he leaves behind.

Given his passion for nature, I want to leave the House with a funny story shared

to me by the member for Port Coquitlam. During a hike one day, Michael came across

two baby bears, and he immediately thought to himself: “Uh-oh. Where could the mother

bear be?” No sooner than the thought had crossed his mind, Michael turned around and

was smacked down by a big mama grizzly. When Michael came to, he later reflected that

he could tell he was still alive because he could immediately feel the pain. It was

a story he would tell time and time again in this building.

On behalf of all the members, I extend our sincere condolences to his wife of over

30 years, Annette, his family and his friends, who all had the privilege of working

with him. And I want to thank Annette and his whole family for sharing Michael with

us, for sharing Michael with the province. May his memory continue to inspire a moral

and thoughtful service in this Legislature and beyond.

We will all miss you, Michael.

Ram Labhai Sarpal

Sunita Dhir : I rise today with profound sadness to honour the life of Mrs. Ram Labhai Sarpal,

a cherished and respected member of our community who passed away on March 24 at the

age of 82.

Mrs. Sarpal leaves behind a loving and devoted family — her husband, her four children

and their spouses, nine grandchildren, two great-grandchildren and many extended family

members who will continue to carry her legacy forward.

Thirty-eight years ago she immigrated to Vancouver with her family, and together with

her husband, Mr. Devraj Sarpal, she built a life rooted in love, hard work and determination.

In 1998, they opened a clothing business on Main Street that remains a valued part

of our community today. She will be remembered for her gentle nature, her kindness,

her hospitality and the warmth she extended to everyone she met.

Mrs. Sarpal was also an active and valued member of the Sunset Seniors Society, where

she regularly participated in weekly gatherings, making new friends and strengthening

community bonds. Her passing leaves a deep void, but her love and kindness will always

be remembered.

May her soul rest in eternal peace.

Question of Privilege

Claire Rattée : I’m rising on a question of privilege. I reserved my right yesterday, and I am raising

this at the earliest opportunity.

This matter concerns statements made in this House by the Minister of Health regarding

the destruction of addiction, homelessness and public safety data. During question

period, I asked the Minister of Health:

“Dr. Somers spent over two decades building one of the most comprehensive databases

in the world on addiction, homelessness and public safety in British Columbia, tracking

real outcomes for more than 300,000 people.

[2:15 p.m.]

“In his letter, he confirmed that just as the province was preparing to move ahead

with major policy changes, including decriminalization, his team was ordered to destroy

that data — data that he says would have allowed independent evaluation and could

have pointed this government in a very different direction.

“I’ll ask again: why did this government order the destruction of critical addiction

and public safety data right before launching its decriminalization experiment, and

will she release all underlying data for independent review today, or is this government

still choosing to control the evidence, instead of being honest with British Columbians?”

The Minister of Health stated:

“Let me be perfectly clear. This is false and absolutely misleading, what the member

is saying.

“The data that Dr. Somers collected was not destroyed. He had been contracted by government

some years ago to undertake research, and, in 2021, he was asked to transition his

data to a new government database. The data still exists. That database allows for

increased data collection and provides broader availability to researchers and academics.

The data was moved to this new database. It is being used to this day by researchers.”

Those are categorical statements. They go directly to the integrity of the information

being provided to this House. This matter is highly material. It concerns one of the

most comprehensive data sets in the world on addiction, homelessness and public safety,

a data set tracking outcomes for more than 300,000 individuals — data that relates

directly to major public policy decisions, including decriminalization.

I’m now going to refer to a written directive issued by Leigh Greiner from the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General to Dr. Somers on March 5, 2021. Dr. Somers

received this letter one week after his deputy minister briefing “incorrectly stating

that all our ISAs were about to expire and that the DIP could replicate all our data.”

It states: “All data must be destroyed, and all media storage devices that housed

ministry data must be sanitized. This includes all backup copies, uploads and data

on any media devices.” It further requires confirmation that this destruction has

taken place. “Once complete, please send me a confirmation letter that these steps

have occurred and the data has been destroyed.”

This creates a clear contradiction. The minister told this House that the data was

not destroyed. The government directive states that the data must be destroyed. Both

of those statements cannot be true. I have confirmed with Dr. Somers that he never

transferred the data to the government.

In addition, the data collected by Dr. Somers was the result of numerous research

projects designed by international collaborators and funded by external grants, not

under contract to the B.C. government.

I will also place on the record Dr. Somers’s statement: “Any denial that scientific

data were irretrievably destroyed is demonstrably incorrect.” He further indicates

that this included unique data sets, including randomized trial data, that cannot

be recreated. “The data we were forced to destroy included data from randomized, controlled

trials that were obtained with the consent of participants. There is no way to re-create

that data. Those studies alone are valued at more than $30 million in taxpayer funds.”

When Dr. Somers refers to data being irretrievably destroyed, he is not referring

to general information that could be re-created elsewhere. He is referring to linked,

longitudinal data sets and randomized trial data developed by teams of scientists

over the course of decades, data that cannot simply be reconstructed after the fact.

This is not a question of administrative transition or duplication. This is a question

of whether unique and irreplaceable research data was destroyed. The minister suggested

that this data was simply transferred to another system. However, the directive before

us does not describe a transfer of identical data sets. It explicitly requires destruction

of the data and sanitization of all storage devices.

Instead of addressing that contradiction, the minister chose to dismiss the concern

and characterize it as misleading. She further chose to attack the credibility of

the researcher rather than address the substance of the issue.

Dr. Somers is a trusted adviser to governments in Canada and internationally. He is

one of North America’s most accomplished researchers regarding addiction policies

and services, and until this government launched our decriminalization and safe supply,

his expertise was regularly sought by the B.C. government.

The Speaker : Member, I would ask the member to conclude her remarks quickly, because when we are

speaking on a point of privilege, we don’t have to go into extended debate. The member

can provide her submission to the Chair, and the Chair will take that under consideration

and seek information from the other side as well. So you don’t have to go into the

details.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member…. In order to inform the House of the relevant elements of privilege….

That’s stated on page 399, Parliamentary Practice , fifth edition.

Claire Rattée : I will just jump ahead to that, then.

First, was the House misled? There is a clear and direct contradiction between what

the minister told this House and what is set out in a written directive issued by

government. The minister stated that the data was not destroyed while the directive

explicitly requires that it be destroyed irretrievably. For the record, I have the

letter that states that, and I will table that as well.

Second, was it material? This issue goes to the core of government decision-making

on addiction policy and public safety. It concerns the evidentiary basis for a major

public policy initiative, including decriminalization and their supposed safe supply

experiment.

This government implemented a first-of-its-kind experiment, costing millions of dollars,

that it now admits did not achieve the results it had hoped for. At the same time,

British Columbians were told this approach was evidence-based. Dr. Somers’s team had

designed an evaluation plan for B.C.’s….

The Speaker : Member, again, all the Chair needs to hear are the elements of the privilege question

that you are raising. We don’t need a detailed submission. You can provide that in

writing to me.

Claire Rattée : I will provide it in writing, then.

The last point is, was there intent or recklessness? I think I’ve already gone over

that in some detail.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you find that a prima facie breach

of privilege exists so that this matter may be properly considered by this House.

I will table these documents.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Government will take its time,

and the minister will respond at a later opportunity.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson : In here, I call continued second reading on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment

Act, 2026.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Safe

Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

In

Section C, Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Bryan Tepper : I was partway through my speech and was put off till today. I’d just finished actually

through clause 20 so moving on from that.

I would actually, before I get started…. I had time to reminisce about what debate

has gone on before myself. I note that I’m very glad to see that there has been a

lot of agreement with the Third Party, with my comments that I had made after the

fact, and even from some of the government speakers that had agreed on a lot of my

points.

I will start again at Bill 11. It talks tough on safety, but it ignores unsafe housing

conditions that fuel the problems day after day. It targets tenants with broader eviction

powers, especially the narrow weapons clause, while completely ignoring drugs, fire

risk and lack of supports. The weapons provisions in

section 4.8 simply allow eviction

of people found with weapons and nothing further. No mandatory police involvement,

no risk assessments and no protections for elderly residents nearby who could be in

danger during removal.

Our seniors in recovery deserve better than eviction only. They need prevention through

staffing and treatment. The government left police, fire and paramedics entirely out

of the room — no integrated protocols. Housing workers are put at risk without clear

rules or protection.

[2:25 p.m.]

Locking people out inflames conflict, especially for those in crisis. Who responds

when a tenant is armed? It’s not clarified. Eviction takes time, unlike current 911

urgency.

Bill 11 expands eviction but ignores smoke, fires and unsafe buildings. Supportive

housing needs staffing, safety and treatment, not punishment. This is about looking

tough, not real work.

Consider real stories. In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, fires from butane torches

have killed residents in SROs with faulty sprinklers. Current RTA doesn’t fix buildings.

Bill 11 seizes torches but ignores wiring. Elderly tenants with dementia wander into

danger. Lockouts exacerbate this. Municipalities like Surrey and Burnaby report endless

calls, needles, overdoses, yet no mandatory supports here.

Compared to current law, Bill 11 weakens tenant property rights in

section 32 without

reciprocal landlord duties for safe housing. Eviction expansions under

section 47

sound strong, but residential tenancy branch backlogs, RTB, mean delays, displacing

problems.

Weapons clause. Current danger grounds actually do cover it. This just rebrands without

urgency.

No protection for recovery folks. Eviction sends them back to the streets, worsening

cycles. If serious about safety, mandate 24-7 staffing ratios, fire retrofits, addiction

services. There are none here. Fund treatment beds. Consult first responders. We’ve

had silence.

The elderly deserve dignity, walkers, meds, safe spaces that we provide to our college

students, but government dodges costs, fools municipalities with eviction carrots.

Problems displaced, not solved.

They say: “Fix the system. Enforce building codes. Integrate services.” This bill

fails. It’s symbolic, not substantive. British Columbians demand more in 2026, but

this appears to be par for the course for this government — bills full of symbolic

wording, but no real effect to those words. This displaces risk rather than eliminating

it at the source. I’ve found myself saying that every day this week during speeches

and debate.

British Columbians expect far more than this kind of symbolic legislation from their

government in 2026. They expect homes that are genuinely safe and supportive for all

residents, not regulatory experiments that prioritize political optics over real outcomes

and try to fool municipalities into accepting more of the same failed approach that

has caused so many problems already. This bill fails that fundamental test.

I have a little bit of time left, so I actually would like to say a couple of more

things. On this bill, I’ve found that strengths are minimal and procedural, with clearer

definitions. There’s some consistency in how supportive housing fits under the RTA,

and it does have the targeted weapons language that operators have requested.

But weaknesses dominate this entire thing. Everything of substance is delegated to

future regulation. We have no minimum staffing, no mandatory supports, no police integration

required at all. Tenant protections, looking through it, are diluted. We have property

seizure, access restrictions, easier evictions with vague safeguards, left to cabinet

though.

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill ignores root causes — underfunded treatment, crumbling buildings and absent

on-site clinical supports. It creates real risks of abuse or displacement of the very

vulnerable people it claims to help.

This bill has had critics, which are tenant advocates. They’re already warning it

could increase homelessness by making eviction easier, which…. I will note the Third

Party mentioned that that exact scenario was their number one fear in this bill.

It has become classic incrementalism. We respond to operator and municipal pressure

with regulatory tweaks and headlining safety measures while dodging the far harder

and more expensive work of funding actual supports, enforcement and treatment.

No one wants to be seen as soft on weapons in supportive housing, but this bill solves

none of the underlying policy failures. To me, it appears this is more political management

of municipal backlash than really genuine system reform.

So I would thank you, Madam Speaker, and have my seat.

Hon. Grace Lore : I’m grateful to be here today and to have a chance to speak to this legislation.

I’m also grateful to the Minister of Housing for bringing the work here forward. A

lot was done to thread a needle to balance really difficult questions, and this legislation,

in my opinion, does this.

As the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I represent a lot of communities with supportive

housing in them, and I represent a lot of people who need and have benefited from

supportive housing. That includes the provision of meals, available supports, life

skills training and other care and services that sometimes people need.

There is a lot of this supportive housing in the community I represent. Unlike some,

I think this is a good thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think my community

benefits from this supportive housing. It means people in my community are in this

housing instead of, for example, sleeping rough or in encampments. That’s good.

One thing has been clear. Supportive housing is housing. It is people’s homes. It

is meant to offer to people that sense of home, that sense of stability and the services

and supports that our community members often need.

Supportive housing, however, for all the same reasons that it’s essential, especially

for those who need additional supports than they can access in market or low-income

housing — for those facing substance use, mental health or concurrent disorders; for

those who have experienced brain injury or addiction; or any number of other reasons

that people need supportive housing — can have its own challenges.

This is what these changes are about. It’s about giving practical, usable tools —

tools that reflect the reality in supportive housing — while still protecting the

rights of tenants and keeping supportive housing under the RTA.

It’s not about choosing between safety and rights. It’s about doing both and doing

both well. Frankly, that’s what providers need. It’s what communities need. It’s also

what tenants themselves deserve. They deserve protection of their rights as tenants,

and they deserve safety and security in their own buildings.

Let me walk through what some of these changes actually do. I do this because some

of these changes reflect conversations I’ve had with community providers who are looking

for new tools and who are looking to do something other than eviction.

First, and very importantly, this legislation provides a clearer, stronger tool to

deal with weapons. Of course, supportive housing has always had rules around weapons.

The ban is not new. Until now, though, providers have often had to prove not just

that a weapon was present but that it was used or intended to be used to cause harm.

That can create delays and uncertainty and risk.

[2:35 p.m.]

This legislation and these amendments fix that change. Now the presence of a weapon,

whether it’s a firearm or a replica, whether it’s Tasers or other dangerous items….

The existence of them themselves can be sufficient grounds to end a tenancy.

That’s a practical shift. It means providers can act earlier. It means less time spent

building complex evidence when providers know and the neighbours of someone with a

weapon in their supportive housing know that the whole building community would be

better served.

Now, this concrete change, this practical and usable change, is one of many. I’m going

to share a few others. I also want to ground us in something really important. The

vast majority of people living in supportive housing are doing exactly what all of

us want. They’re working towards stability, healing and building a sense of home.

They’re our neighbours, community members, people trying to build or move their lives

forward.

When I talk about the challenges, say, of weapons in supportive housing, I do so to

talk about the tools that are available and what supports might need to be there to

help someone do just that — to rebuild their lives.

In doing so, it’s important that we don’t suggest that people in supportive housing

are inherently dangerous or not worthy of safety and security. We need to be able

to ensure that folks have safety in their own units to pursue that life improvement,

to find that stability. This is the balance that this legislation is seeking to find.

In those cases where something difficult happens, where there’s a real and immediate

risk to other tenants, to staff, to the broader community…. When those moments happen,

we know that in the past, providers have not always had, and they tell us they have

not had, the tools that they need to respond quickly and safely. So this is about

those practical, usable tools.

I need to say that for myself, in my community with significant amounts of affordable

and supportive housing, there have been real tragedies. There has been violence. There

has been loss. But there has also been hope. There has also been recovery. There has

also been connection. We add these practical tools so that there can be more of the

latter and less of the former.

These changes also provide a continuum of response, not just eviction. This is a direct

ask I’ve had from my community. These are conversations I’ve had with housing providers,

particularly those who’ve dedicated their lives to creating housing, to ensuring everything

possible is done for those folks that we might call “hard to home, hard to house.”

I hate that language. People need services and supports. They are not inherently hard

to house. Folks have had experiences, violence, brain injury.

There are folks in our community who dedicate their lives to wrapping around these

neighbours, to making sure everything possible is done, that they can be housed and

stay housed. Part of this, part of their ask, is a continuum of options and not just

eviction.

Before these changes in the status quo, it could be difficult to manage a dangerous

situation with limited tools, or it could force moving straight to eviction. Neither

of these options work well in complex human environments with complex neighbours and

tenants, like supportive housing.

Housing providers in our community that I know are not in the business of housing

to evict people, though of course it is a necessary tool. It’s an important tool.

But I think of one housing provider in particular who told me about the nature of

the work, the work to support people with harm reduction, with care, with recovery.

[2:40 p.m.]

They need the tools and opportunities to keep folks connected in their housing. They

need the tools and opportunities so they can share and provide those tools and opportunities

with their neighbours. That is what these changes offer.

Amendments will create, essentially, a cooling-off period. Not every situation should

result in someone losing their housing. Sometimes what is needed is time, space, de-escalation.

This tool allows providers, again, to respond immediately to safety risks, because

we must stabilize a situation and, where possible, preserve tenancy. People who are

living, say, with addiction or concurrent addiction and mental health, who’ve had

brain injuries, don’t disappear when they are evicted. They remain in our communities,

and they do so with less support, less security, less stability.

This is not about forcing staff and tenants to remain in an unsafe situation either

while trying to keep someone housed or while a complex process unfolds to move towards

eviction. It’s about something different altogether, alternative tools.

There are also faster, clearer pathways for urgent action, because sometimes these

situations do require speed and clarity. Providers have told us when serious incidents

occur — violence, fire-setting, repeated threats — the system can be too slow to respond.

These changes support faster access to the residential tenancy branch in these high-risk

cases. Instead of prolonged uncertainty, there’s a clear path forward — immediate

safety measures followed by a fair and expediated process.

That’s the balance. Quick action and due process. Both are essential, and they’re

essential to staff doing the work and to tenants, both the tenant involved and their

neighbours.

Again, I want to ground all of my comments here in two realities.

Most folks, I would say all folks, in supportive housing are trying to rebuild or

build lives; to move forward; to get the security, hope, connection and services that

all people deserve. Yet these are complex environments. These are situations in which

we need to be able to react to someone quickly.

The second thing I want to ground my remarks in, once again, is the reality of some

instances in supportive housing. Again, in my community, that has been violence in

cases, that has been the loss of people. Providers need these tools, and their neighbours

deserve quick action as well.

Several tools to manage guests. Sometimes the risk doesn’t come from a tenant; it

comes from someone brought into the building. The amendments provide stronger abilities

to enforce guest policies, limit access when needed and respond to non-residents when

they are creating unsafe conditions.

I know some of the situations here in Victoria that have raised significant concern

were the result of guests, not tenants. Residents don’t want to live in buildings

that aren’t secure themselves. They don’t want to live in places that aren’t safe

from the guests of their other tenants. These tools are necessary.

We’re also talking about protection for workers and others. These changes strengthen

these broader protections. While tenants need a safe place to live and people deserve

housing, staff also have a right to work in safety, to go to work and know their safety

is an equal consideration. So now providers will have clearer authority to act when

anyone on site, not just a tenant, is put at risk.

Finally, these changes bring more clarity, greater clarity, between supportive and

transitional housing. That may sound technical, but it has real-world impacts. Transitional

housing is meant to be that — transitional, temporary. It’s not meant to be a forever

home. Clarifying the difference provides understanding of what rules apply when and

where, ensures tenants can understand their rights and ensures that response is quick

and appropriate to the type of housing involved.

Let’s also be clear what this bill is not doing. These changes are not about making

it easier to evict people. In fact, creating additional tools is about the exact opposite.

[2:45 p.m.]

When we have tools to de-escalate and preserve housing, we’re talking about less eviction,

not more. When eviction is necessary, though, it should have both quick results and

due process.

Also, supportive housing remains, of course, under the Residential Tenancy Act, so

tenants keep their rights. Due process remains in place, but it is about more tools

for cooling off or accountability. It is about being able to act fast, especially

when tenants or staff are unsafe.

This bill, these amendments, are part of a broader commitment. This bill is about

improving a system, one that we have been investing in. In my community alone — I’ve

mentioned my community a number of times specifically — 742 units of supportive housing

since 2017. That’s huge. There are 304 more supportive housing units under construction.

These are folks who are not camping in Beacon Hill Park, who are not among the folks

who are still making Pandora or other locations their home.

Those housing units are the right kinds of homes, with supports. They’re meant to

support people in such a way as…. Additional efforts have been made to ensure they’re

person-specific.

We have youth-specific supportive housing. I can see it from my downtown office, my

community office, and I love it. I love when I see it across the street. That is supportive

housing for youth who may otherwise be unhoused and extremely vulnerable. The vast

majority of them have had experience with MCFD. It’s about doing what’s right.

We also have recovery-oriented housing that opened just this week and culturally grounded,

Indigenous-led supportive housing.

I connect regularly with service providers and recently met with neighbours, police

and providers all at once. This is about collective work, community work. At the end

of the day, it’s not just about policy. It is about the place we call home. It’s about

our neighbours, and it’s about getting it right by those neighbours, housing providers

and the broader community.

I’ll close with this. Supportive housing works. It is a gift to have it in my community.

I welcome all 742 units. I look forward to the remaining 300. It helps people stabilize

and improves health outcomes.

A provider in my community always tells me that they took photos of folks when they

first moved in, and six months later they had to take them again. People were unrecognizable.

They did not look the same. They had their photos taken for ID so staff could get

to know them. They were unrecognizable. It works. It builds stronger community.

But for it to work, it has to work for everyone. It has to be safe. It has to be safe

for the people who live there, for the people who work there, for the surrounding

communities. These changes are about making that possible, improving the system with

practical tools, balanced policy and through a continued commitment to doing this

work thoughtfully, responsibly and together.

I am thrilled to support this bill and appreciate the opportunity to speak to it.

Misty Van Popta : I am here today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026,

a piece of legislation that, at first glance, seems responsive to the complex realities

of housing insecurity in our province. It is a bill that attempts to reconcile two

difficult truths — that housing systems must adapt to serve vulnerable populations

and that legal protections must remain firm, predictable and just.

Yet as we examine this bill more closely, we find ourselves confronting a far more

complicated picture, one that demands not only cautious support in select areas but

also serious critique; scrutiny; and, frankly, concern.

Let me begin by acknowledging a few things. For too long, our legislative framework

has struggled to adequately account for supportive housing. The original Residential

Tenancy Act was built around traditional landlord-tenant models, ones that assume

independence, stability and relatively equal bargaining position between the parties.

[2:50 p.m.]

But supportive housing does not fit neatly into that framework. It involves individuals

who are often navigating homelessness, mental health challenges, addiction or systemic

marginalization. It involves operators who are not merely landlords but service providers,

caregivers and intermediaries between tenants and broader social supports.

In this respect, Bill 11 performs an important function. It recognizes that supportive

housing is different. By formally defining supportive housing, supportive housing

rental units and housing stability support, the bill brings clarity where ambiguity

has long existed. It attempts to bring these arrangements into the legal fold rather

than leaving them in a grey zone of partial exemptions and inconsistent application.

That, in principle, is a positive step but has taken entirely too long to get here.

Similarly, the bill’s effort to remain certain outdated exemptions, particularly those

related to housing connected to health facilities…. It reflects a desire to ensure

that residents in those environments are not entirely outside the protections of tenancy

law. Moving from a model of total exclusion to one of conditional inclusion has the

potential to extend at least some degree of legal recognition to individuals who previously

had none.

Yet this is where the bill’s promise begins to unravel. What Bill 11 ultimately creates

is not simply inclusion but stratification. It establishes, in effect, a two-tier

tenancy system, one for traditional renters and another for those in supportive housing.

And while differentiation in law is not inherently problematic, the nature of that

differentiation matters profoundly.

In this case, the distinctions introduced by the bill overwhelmingly trend in one

direction, toward the dilution of tenant protections. Let us consider what that means

in practice. Under this bill, tenants in supportive housing may face reduced protections

in several key areas: entry into their units, access to their property, control over

their personal belongings and even the stability of their tenancy agreements.

Landlords, redefined in this context to include supportive housing operators, are

granted expanded authority, often through mechanisms that will be defined not in legislation

itself but in future regulations. This brings us to one of the most troubling aspects

of the bill, the dramatic expansion of regulation-making power.

Almost every piece of major legislation we’ve touched in the past year continues to

move important information into regulation, where it doesn’t get scrutinized. Traditionally,

core rights and obligations in tenancy law are set out clearly in statute. This ensures

transparency, predictability and democratic accountability. Changes to those rights

require legislative debate, public scrutiny and the consent of this assembly.

Bill 11, however, shifts a significant portion of that authority away from the Legislature

and into the hands of the executive. It allows for the creation of rules governing

entry into rental units, restrictions on tenant access, seizure of personal property,

amendments to tenancy agreements and even the circumstances under which tenants may

be evicted — all through regulation. This is not a minor procedural change; it is

a fundamental rebalancing of where power resides in our legal system.

While flexibility is often cited as a justification for such shifts, and indeed there

are situations where flexibility is necessary, we must ask ourselves: flexibility

for whom and at what cost?

For tenants, particularly those in supportive housing, flexibility can translate into

uncertainty. It can mean that the rules governing their homes may change without the

full weight of legislative oversight. It can mean that protections they rely on today

may be altered tomorrow, not through open debate but through administrative decision-making.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is especially concerning given the population that supportive housing is meant

to serve. These are not individuals with abundant resources, legal expertise or the

capacity to navigate complex and shifting regulatory landscapes. They are, by definition,

among the most vulnerable members of our society. Yet under this bill, they are the

ones who will be subject to the most flexible and therefore the least certain legal

framework.

Let us now talk about issues of tenant rights within supportive housing. The bill

introduces provisions that allow landlords to enter units under broader conditions

than those permitted under the original act. It enables restrictions on tenant access

to residential property. It creates the possibility of interfering with tenant property

in ways that were previously prohibited.

Each of these changes may be defensible in isolation. One can imagine scenarios in

supportive housing where staff need to enter units more frequently, where safety concerns

necessitate restrictions on access or where intervention in a tenant’s personal environment

is part of providing care. But the problem lies not in the existence of these powers;

it lies in the lack of clear, enforceable limits on them.

By leaving the specifics to regulation, the bill does not establish a firm baseline

of rights. Instead, it creates a framework in which those rights can be adjusted,

expanded or contracted over time. In doing so, it risks normalizing a lower standard

of tenancy protection for a specific class of residents.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This raises a fundamental question. Should the level of legal protection one receives

in their home depend on their vulnerability? If anything, we might argue the opposite

— that those who are the most vulnerable should be afforded the strongest protection,

not the weakest.

Another area I’d like to discuss is the expansion of eviction powers. Bill 11 introduces

new grounds for eviction, including provisions related to the possession or presence

of weapons. It broadens existing grounds by replacing specific references to landlords

and other occupants with a more expansive term, “authorized person,” which includes

a wide range of individuals.

On the surface, these changes may appear reasonable. Safety is, after all, a legitimate

concern, particularly in shared or supportive housing environments. But we must be

careful with overreach.

The introduction of weapon-related eviction grounds, for example, raises important

questions about proportionality and context. What constitutes a weapon? Under what

circumstances is its presence considered grounds for eviction? How will these provisions

be applied in practice, particularly in cases where individuals may possess items

for legitimate or non-threatening purposes?

Similarly, the expansion of eviction grounds to include impacts on any authorized

person significantly broadens the scope of what may be considered disruptive or harmful

behaviour. This could lead to situations where tenants are evicted not for clear violations

of tenancy agreements but for conduct that is interpreted, perhaps subjectively, as

affecting a wide range of individuals. Again, the issue is not that these concerns

are invalid, but that the bill does not sufficiently constrain how they are addressed.

It is also worth noting the changes to tenancy agreements themselves. Under the original

act, amendments to tenancy agreements generally require the consent of both parties.

This reflects a basic principle of contract law that agreements should not be altered

unilaterally.

[3:00 p.m.]

Bill 11 introduces exceptions to this principle, allowing for changes to standard

terms under certain conditions, particularly in supportive housing contexts. While

there may be practical reasons for this, such as the need to adapt agreements to evolving

support needs, it nonetheless represents a departure from foundational legal norm.

It shifts the balance of power further toward landlords and operators and away from

tenants.

Finally, we must consider the broader philosophical implications of this bill. At

its core, tenancy law is about more than contracts and regulations. It is about homes.

It is about spaces in which people live, rest, recover and rebuild their lives. When

we create different standards for different types of housing, we are making a statement

about whose homes are entitled to what level of protection.

Bill 11, intentionally or not, creates a hierarchy of housing rights. It suggests

that those in supportive housing, those who arguably need stability and security the

most, may receive a more conditional; more flexible; and, ultimately, more precarious

form of tenancy.

There are elements within this bill that are necessary, even overdue. The recognition

of supportive housing within the legal framework is one such element. The effort to

bring previously exempt housing into the scope of the act is another. The acknowledgement

that a one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy law may not be sufficient is, in itself,

a valuable insight.

But support for these objectives does not require full acceptance of the bill in its

current form. If anything, it demands that we do better. It challenges us to ensure

that flexibility does not come at the expense of fairness, that efficiency does not

override dignity and that the needs of the system do not eclipse the rights of the

individual.

At the same time, in that sense, this bill is not an end point. It is a beginning.

We must ensure that the creation of a specialized framework for supportive housing

does not come at the expense of fundamental rights. We must ensure that flexibility

does not become a euphemism for reduced protection. We must ensure that the expansion

of regulatory power is accompanied by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.

Above all, we must ensure that the people at the centre of this legislation, the tenants,

are not treated as an afterthought.

A true measure of this bill will not be found in its

definitions or in its clauses

but in its consequences. It will be found in how it shapes the daily lives of those

who depend on supportive housing. It will be found in whether it provides stability

or uncertainty, protection or vulnerability, dignity or diminishment.

Let us proceed with caution, let us amend where amendment is needed, and let us strengthen

where strength is lacking. Let us remember that in the pursuit of flexibility, we

must never lose sight of fairness.

Sharon Hartwell : I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, and

I do so with a growing level of concern the deeper one looks into what is being proposed.

At the outset, I think it is important to ground this discussion in what the Residential

Tenancy Act is intended to do. It is the primary piece of legislation that governs

the legal relationship between landlords and tenants in this province. It establishes

rights, it establishes responsibilities, and it provides a framework that is supposed

to bring clarity and stability to something as fundamental as housing.

On the surface, that sounds straightforward, and for many people, it is. So it is

entirely reasonable to ask why changes of this magnitude are being brought forward

at this time, who has been asking for them and whether the consequences have been

fully considered.

[3:05 p.m.]

This legislation introduces a new framework for what is described as supportive housing

within the residential tenancy system. It creates a new division dealing specifically

with supportive housing rental units. It expands the authority of the Lieutenant Governor

in Council to make regulations, and it alters provisions related to tenant conduct,

landlord authority, inspections, compensation and dispute resolution.

These are not minor adjustments. They represent a shift in how housing is categorized,

managed and enforced within the province. That shift carries with it implications

that extend well beyond the wording of the bill itself.

One of the first challenges that arises when reviewing this legislation is the lack

of a clear and practical definition of “supportive housing.” The term is used broadly,

yet it captures a wide range of circumstances that are not the same and should not

be treated as though they are.

There are individuals who require affordable housing due to income constraints, including

seniors who are trying to maintain independence on fixed incomes. There are individuals

experiencing homelessness who require stability and access to services. There are

those dealing with mental health challenges. There are those navigating substance

abuse.

There are distinct realities, each with different needs, different levels of support

and different expectations around supervision and safety. What this bill appears to

do is bring those different realities together, under a single legislative approach,

without sufficient distinction.

That creates uncertainty for those who are expected to implement the policy and for

communities that must live with the outcomes. When

definitions are unclear,

interpretation

fills the gap and that leads to inconsistency. It also makes it difficult to establish

appropriate standards because the needs of one group may be very different from the

needs of another. Without that clarity, there is a risk that housing solutions will

be mismatched to the populations they are intended to serve.

There’s also the question of who has been consulted in the development of these changes.

Concerns have been raised about the process; about the level of engagement; and about

the absence of key voices, particularly those involved in public safety. Fire service

stakeholders and emergency responders have been clear in expressing that their concerns

have not been adequately addressed.

These are individuals who understand how buildings function under pressure, who respond

when situations escalate and who are often the last line of defence when something

goes wrong. Their perspective is not theoretical. It is based on experience. It reflects

what is happening on the ground in communities across the province.

When those voices are not meaningfully included in the development of legislation

that directly affects the environments they respond to, it raises serious questions

about whether the full scope of risk has been considered.

This bill addresses tenant behaviour, and it does so in a way that suggests conduct

is at the centre of the issue. While behaviour is certainly a factor in any housing

environment, it’s not the only factor, and, in many cases, it is not the root cause

of the challenges that are being observed. There are broader issues that come into

play, including building safety, security staffing levels, maintenance and environmental

conditions within the units themselves.

There are also concerns related to drug activity within these spaces, which adds another

layer of complexity that cannot be addressed simply through tenancy provisions.

Focusing on behaviour without addressing those underlying factors risks creating a

situation where the symptoms are managed without dealing with the cause. It also places

expectations on tenants and on those managing these facilities that may not be realistic

given the conditions that they are working in.

Housing environments are shaped by their design, by the resources available to support

them and by the systems that are in place to respond when issues arise. Without a

comprehensive approach that takes all of these elements into account, the framework

remains incomplete.

There’s also a practical concern about enforcement and responsibility. The bill does

not provide a clear indication of who is responsible for ensuring safety when situations

escalate beyond what would normally be considered tenancy matters. In cases where

tenants may pose a risk to themselves or others, where there may be the presence of

weapons or where behaviour becomes unpredictable or dangerous, there needs to be a

clear understanding of who is responsible for responding and what authority they have

to do so.

In many of these environments, supportive housing workers are the individuals present

on a day-to-day basis. They are tasked with providing support, managing cases and

assisting tenants in navigating complex challenges. Their training is centred on support

and harm reduction, not on enforcement or crisis intervention at a level that involves

significant risk. Expecting them to manage situations that fall outside their training

creates pressure that is not sustainable and raises concerns about safety for both

workers and residents.

[3:10 p.m.]

This issue becomes even more pronounced in smaller and rural communities. Many of

these communities do not have facilities that were designed with supportive housing

in mind. Instead, they are dealing with temporary shelters or adapted spaces that

may have little or no supervision and staff who may not have the specialized training

required to respond to a wide range of situations.

Resources are limited, and access to additional support services is not always readily

available. In those settings, the introduction of a legislative framework that assumes

a certain level of capacity can create additional strain. It can place communities

in a position where they are expected to meet standards or manage situations without

having the necessary tools or support to do so effectively.

That is not a reflection of a lack of willingness at the community level. It is a

reflection of the reality that different communities have different capabilities and

policy must take that into account.

Another concern relates to the classification of those housing environments. Many

of the buildings being used for supportive housing were originally designed as single-room

occupancies. They were not built as care facilities, and they do not necessarily include

the features or safeguards that would be expected in a setting where residents may

require a higher level of supervision or support.

When those buildings are used in ways that extend beyond the original design, it introduces

risks that need to be fully, carefully managed. Those risks are not limited to structural

considerations. They extend to how spaces are used, how occupants interact and how

emergencies are handled.

Without clear standards and appropriate oversight, there is a potential for conditions

to develop that are not safe for residents, for staff or for the first responders.

The legislation does not provide sufficient detail to address those concerns in a

way that inspires confidence.

There is also the broader context of housing supply in the province. There is no question

that there is a shortage, and there is pressure to find solutions. However, the approach

reflected in this bill suggests an attempt to incorporate supportive housing into

a broader effort without fully addressing the unique requirements that come with it.

Housing is not a single category, and the needs of different populations cannot always

be met with a single framework. When policy moves in that direction, there is a risk

that solutions become generalized to the point where they lose their effectiveness.

Housing that is intended to serve one purpose may be asked to serve another, and over

time, that can lead to challenges that affect both residents and communities. It can

also place additional demands on systems that are already under strain, including

emergency services and local support networks.

Emergency responders are already dealing with increasing demand, and supportive housing

environments often contribute to that demand due to the complexity of the situations

involved. Calls may involve medical emergencies, mental health crises or incidents

that require coordination between multiple agencies. These are not routine situations,

and they require resources, training and clear protocols to manage effectively. The

legislation does not appear to address how these pressures will be mitigated or how

coordination will be improved.

There is also the matter of regulatory authority. The bill expands the power of the

Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations related to supportive housing.

While regulation-making authority is a common feature of legislation, the scope of

the authority being granted here raises questions about how key aspects of the framework

will be defined and implemented. When significant elements of policy are left to regulation,

it can reduce the level of scrutiny and debate that would otherwise occur within this

House.

That approach may offer flexibility, but it also creates uncertainty. Stakeholders

may not have a clear understanding of what is expected until regulations are developed,

and those regulations can be changed without the same level of legislative oversight.

For a framework that has such broad implications, there is a strong argument to be

made for greater clarity within the legislation itself. All of these considerations

point to a broader issue, which is the need for a more comprehensive and deliberate

approach to supportive housing policy.

The intent to provide housing and support for those in need is not in question. It

is something that all members of this House recognize as important. The context lies

in how that intent is translated into policy and whether the framework that is being

established is capable of achieving its objectives in a way that is safe, effective

and sustainable.

[3:15 p.m.]

The decisions we make in this area have real consequences. They affect individuals

who rely on those housing environments for stability and support. They affect workers

who are committed to providing assistance under challenging circumstances. They affect

communities that are working to balance compassion with safety. They affect the systems

that respond when things do not go as planned.

For those reasons, it is essential that legislation of this nature is clear with this

intent, grounded in practical reality and informed by those who have direct experience.

At this stage, there are too many unanswered questions and too many areas where clarity

is lacking. That is not a position that lends itself to confidence in the framework

being proposed.

As I continue, I think it is important to reflect on the communative effect of what

is being proposed. Legislation of this nature does not operate in isolation. It interacts

with existing systems, with existing pressures and with the realities that communities

are already navigating. When those interactions are not fully considered, the result

is often a layering of complexity rather than a solution of the underlying issue.

There’s a growing concern that what is being advanced through this bill is an attempt

to streamline or consolidate multiple challenges to a single legislative approach,

and while that may appear efficient on paper, it does not reflect the lived experience

of those who are directly affected. Housing challenges are not uniform across this

province. They vary by region, by population and by the resources available to support

them. A framework that does not account for that variation risks creating outcomes

that are uneven and in some cases counterproductive.

In many communities, there is already a sense that systems are being stretched beyond

their intended capacity. Local governments, non-profit organizations and service providers

are doing their best to respond to increasing demand with limited resources. They

are adapting, they are innovating, and they’re often stepping in to fill the gaps

that exist at a broader level.

When new legislation is introduced, it should serve to support those efforts, to provide

clarity and to strengthen the overall system. It should not introduce additional uncertainty

or place further strain on those who are already operating at their limits.

What is particularly concerning is the absence of clear accountability mechanisms

within the framework being proposed. When responsibilities are not clearly defined,

it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible when something goes wrong. That

lack of clarity does not remain within the pages of legislation. It manifests in real

situations where decisions must be made quickly and where the consequences of an action

or misdirection can be significant.

There are also implications for landlords and housing providers who may find themselves

operating within a framework that is not fully defined. Expectations around inspections,

compliance and dispute resolution appear to be shifting, yet the details of how those

expectations will be applied remain uncertain. That creates a level of risk for those

providers, particularly smaller organizations that may not have the capacity to navigate

complex regulatory environments without clear guidance.

It is also worth considering the impact on tenants themselves. Individuals who reside

in supportive housing environments often face complex challenges, and stability is

a key factor in their ability to move forward. When the framework governing their

housing is unclear or subject to change through regulation, it can create uncertainty

that undermines that stability. Predictability in housing is not a minor consideration.

It is a foundational element of well-being.

Another issue that arises is the relationship between this legislative framework and

existing enforcement mechanisms. When disputes occur within the residential tenancy

system, there are established processes for resolution. The introduction of a new

category within that system raises questions about how those processes will adapt

and whether they are equipped to handle the unique circumstances that may arise within

the supportive housing environments. These are not always straightforward disputes,

and they may involve factors that extend beyond traditional tenancy matters.

The role of inspections is also an area that warrants attention. Inspections are a

critical component of maintaining safety and ensuring compliance with standards. However,

the effectiveness of inspections depends on clarity in what is being assessed and

consistency in how those assessments are conducted. Without clear standards that reflect

the realities of supportive housing, inspections may vary in their application, leading

to inconsistencies that undermine their purpose.

There’s also the broader issue of how this framework aligns with other areas of policy,

including health services, social services and public safety.

[3:20 p.m.]

Supportive housing does not exist in a vacuum. It intersects with multiple systems,

each of which has its own mandates and challenges. Effective policy in this area requires

coordination across those systems, and that coordination must be reflected in the

legislative framework.

At present, there is little within this bill that provides assurance that such coordination

has been fully considered. The absence of that consideration raises concerns about

how effectively the framework will function once implemented. It also raises questions

about whether the burden of coordination will fall on those at the local level, who

may not have the authority or resources to manage it effectively.

It is also necessary to consider the long-term implications of the approach being

taken. Housing policy is not something that can be addressed through short-term measures

alone. It requires a long-term perspective that takes into account demographic trends,

economic conditions and the evolving needs of the population. When legislation is

introduced without that perspective, there is a risk that it will need to be revisited

or revised in relatively short order, creating further uncertainty.

The expansion of regulatory authority within this bill contributes to that uncertainty.

While it allows for adjustments to be made over time, it also means that key aspects

of the framework may shift without the same level of public debate or legislative

scrutiny. That can make it difficult for stakeholders to plan and to invest in the

systems and infrastructure needed to support supportive housing effectively.

There’s also a question of balance that must be considered. The Residential Tenancy

Act has traditionally sought to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords

and tenants. That introduction of a new framework within that act must maintain that

balance while also addressing the unique circumstances of supportive housing.

Achieving that balance requires careful consideration and a clear articulation of

how rights and responsibilities are allocated. At this stage, it is not evident that

the bill achieves that balance. The emphasis on certain aspects, combined with the

lack of clarity in others, creates a framework that appears uneven. That unevenness

can lead to challenges in implementation and can affect the confidence of those who

are expected to operate within it.

Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring theme, and that is the need

for clarity — clarity in

definitions, clarity in responsibilities, clarity in standards

and clarity in how the framework will be applied across different contexts. Without

that clarity, even well-intentioned policy can fall short of its objectives.

It is also important to recognize that clarity is not something that can be achieved

solely through regulation after the fact. It must be built into the legislation itself.

It must be present at the outset so that those who are affected by the policy have

a clear understanding of what is expected and how the system will operate.

There’s an opportunity here to take a more deliberate approach, to engage more fully

with those who have expressed concerns and to ensure that the framework being established

is one that reflects its realities on the ground. That approach may take more time,

but it is time that would be well spent on developing policy that is both effective

and sustainable.

I do not believe that anyone in this House would suggest that the challenges associated

with housing can be addressed through a single piece of legislation. They are complex,

they are interconnected, and they require a range of responses. Supportive housing

is one part of that response, but it must be developed in a way that acknowledges

its complexity and its importance.

The bill before us represents an effort to move in that direction, but it does so

in a way that leaves significant gaps. Those gaps are not minor, and they have the

potential to affect the safety, stability and effectiveness of supportive housing

across the province. Addressing those gaps requires more than incremental adjustments.

It requires a reconsideration of how the framework is structured and how it will be

implemented.

As members of this House, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation

we pass is not only well-intentioned but also well designed. That responsibility includes

taking the time to ask difficult questions, to listen to those who are affected and

to adjust where necessary. It also includes recognizing when a proposal is not yet

ready to proceed in its current form.

This is one of those instances. The concerns that have been raised are substantive,

and they reflect the experience of those who are directly involved in housing, in

public safety and in community support. They are not abstract concerns, and they should

not be set aside.

[3:25 p.m.]

There is still an opportunity to address these issues, to refine the approach and

to bring forward a framework that commands broader confidence. Doing so would strengthen

the policy and would better serve the individuals and communities that it is intended

to support.

In its current form, however, the bill does not provide that level of confidence.

It introduces significant changes without sufficient clarity, it expands authority

without corresponding details, and it does not fully address the practical realities

of implementation. For those reasons, it is difficult to support.

The goal of providing safe, stable and appropriate housing for those in need is one

that we all share. It is a goal that deserves careful attention and thoughtful policy.

Achieving that goal requires more than broad frameworks. It requires precision, consultation

and a willingness to address complexity rather than simplify it.

I would encourage the government to take a step back, to engage more fully with stakeholders

and to ensure that the framework being developed is one that reflects the diversity

of needs across this province. That approach would not only improve the legislation

but would also contribute to more effective outcomes in the long term.

Macklin McCall : I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, and specifically

to the parts of this legislation that are being presented as addressing safety within

supportive housing.

Let me say this at the outset. Safety in supportive housing matters. It matters to

the people who live there, it matters to the workers who show up every day, and it

matters to the communities around these buildings who are relying on the system to

function properly. When it doesn’t, we don’t see small consequences. We see escalation.

We see instability. And, in many cases, we see real risk, both to the people inside

those buildings and the people responding to them.

Now, this bill is being framed as a step toward improving safety. But when you actually

read it, when you look at what it does and, just as importantly, what it does not

do, a very different picture starts to emerge.

This legislation creates new powers, it creates new mechanisms, and in particular,

it introduces a pathway to end a tenancy based on the presence of a weapon. On its

face, that sounds reasonable. Most people would hear that and think: “Of course, that

makes sense.”

But legislation isn’t judged on how it sounds; it’s judged on how it works. The moment

you move from how this sounds to how this actually would be applied on the ground,

you run into a very real problem, because this bill does not clearly define what a

weapon is. That is not a small oversight. That is the foundation of the entire provision.

If you are going to create a law that allows someone to be removed from their housing,

you need to be absolutely clear about what triggers that consequence — not vague,

not left open, not deferred to regulation at some other date. Very clear. Without

that clarity, you are not creating safety. You are creating uncertainty for tenants,

for staff and for the people who will ultimately be expected to respond when something

goes wrong.

That’s where I want to focus. The difference between something that looks like safety

in legislation and something that actually functions as safety in the real world comes

down to whether the people on the ground understand exactly what they’re dealing with

and exactly what they’re expected to do. Right now this bill does not give them that.

This is where the problem becomes very real. When we talk about a weapon, most people

picture something obvious — a firearm, a large knife, something clearly designed to

cause harm. But that’s not how this actually works in the real world, and it’s not

how the law treats it either.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada,

section 2, a weapon is defined broadly and intentionally

so. It is not limited to firearms and knives. It includes anything used, designed

to be used or intended to be used to cause injury or to threaten or intimidate another

person. That means a weapon is not just about what something is. It’s about how it’s

used.

That distinction matters because a knife on its own is not necessarily a weapon. It

depends on the context, and it depends on the intent. The law recognizes that.

[3:30 p.m.]

In fact, we see this play out very clearly in the courts when conditions are imposed

on someone after they are released. A judge doesn’t just say, “Do not possess a knife,”

because everyone understands that a knife can mean many things. It could be a machete,

it could be a large combat-style knife, or it could be something as simple as a butter

knife.

The courts are precise. They will say: “You are not to possess a knife, except for

a knife used in the preparation of food or except under specific, clearly defined

circumstances.” That level of clarity is not accidental. It exists so that police

know when a condition has actually been breached, the individual understands what

is allowed and what is not, and a judge, after the fact, can fairly determine whether

an offence occurred.

Without that clarity, you create confusion, you create inconsistency, and you risk

punishing behaviour that was never intended to be captured in the first place. Without

that level of clarity, you create absurd outcomes. A person preparing food in their

unit, using a knife for its intended purpose, should not be put in a position where

the same subject, without context, could trigger enforcement or eviction. That is

why the courts are precise. They understand that the object is not the issue. The

behaviour is.

Take that reality and apply it to this bill. Here, we are not talking about a criminal

charge. We are talking about someone losing their housing. Yet the legislation does

not clearly define what a weapon is. It leaves that to regulation. It leaves that

to

interpretation. That creates a very real problem.

In supportive housing environments, the distinction between a tool and a weapon is

not a theory. It happens in real time. A kitchen knife used to prepare food is not

a weapon, but that same knife held in a threatening way during a conflict becomes

one. A piece of broken furniture, a tool, even something as simple as a rock can become

a weapon depending on how it is used.

That’s the reality that the law has to account for. If you don’t clearly define what

triggers action, then the people on the ground are left to guess. In situations involving

potential violence, guessing is not acceptable.

This is where the issues move beyond definition and into real-world risk. Once you

accept that a weapon is not always obvious, that it can be anything depending on how

it’s used, the next question becomes unavoidable. Who is expected to deal with that?

This bill creates the condition, but it does not clearly define the response. It does

not say who makes the call that something is a weapon, who is responsible for intervening

and what that intervention is supposed to look like in the moment. That matters, because

in supportive housing environments, those situations do not happen in a controlled

setting. They happen quickly. They escalate unpredictably, and they often involve

people who are already in crisis.

Now, I’ve dealt with these kinds of calls, and I can say this clearly. A situation

involving a weapon, real or perceived, is not a low-risk situation. It is a high-risk

call. It is the kind of call that requires training, equipment and backup.

When police respond to someone who is armed or potentially armed, they do not walk

into that situation casually. They assess. They coordinate. They rely on their training.

They have tools available to them — a firearm; a baton; OC spray; communication skills;

and, most importantly, backup. Even with all that in place, those calls are still

unpredictable. They can turn in seconds.

Now compare that to who is actually present in supportive housing: housing staff,

support workers, in some cases volunteers — people who are there to provide support,

not to manage violent encounters, not trained to assess threat levels in the moment,

not equipped to intervene safely and not backed by immediate support when something

escalates.

Yet under this framework, they are the ones most likely to be first on scene. They

are the ones who will see the behaviour. They are the ones who will have to decide.

Is this a weapon? Is this a threat? Do I act? Do I wait? Do I call police? Those decisions

are being made without clear legislative guidance.

Let me walk through how this actually plays out. A staff member observes a tenant

in distress. There’s an object in their hand. Maybe it’s a knife. Maybe it’s something

else. It’s not immediately clear whether it meets the threshold of a weapon. Now that

staff member has to make a decision. Do they intervene? Do they wait? Do they call

police immediately? Once police are called, this is no longer a low-level situation.

This becomes a high-risk response.

If that call is delayed because the situation wasn’t clearly understood, then by the

time the police arrive, the risk has been escalated.

[3:35 p.m.]

That is how these situations unfold — not in a controlled, clearly defined way, but

in real time with incomplete information and real consequences. That is not a safe

system. Hesitation in those environments can lead to escalation, and overreaction

without clear standards can lead to unnecessary conflict.

Either way, the people placed in that position are being asked to manage risks that

they were never trained to manage. That is not fair to them, and it is not fair to

the tenants. It is not fair to the first responders who will ultimately be called

when something goes wrong, because by the time the police are brought in, the situation

has already escalated. Now we are no longer dealing with prevention. We are dealing

with response.

This brings us to the core issue with this bill. When you step back and look at it

as a whole, what it is really focused on is removal, ending a tenancy, removing someone

from a unit, creating a mechanism to push risk out of a building.

Again, on its face, people hear that and think that makes sense. If there’s a problem,

remove it. But that’s not how safety actually works. Removing someone after a situation

has escalated, after a weapon is involved, after a threat has been made, is not prevention.

That is response.

Often it’s a late response, because by the time you are invoking these provisions,

the risk has already materialized. The situation has already reached a point where

someone feels threatened, where staff are concerned, where police may already be involved.

The question becomes: what has this bill done to stop that from happening in the first

place? The answer, when you look at it carefully, is: very little.

The reality in supportive housing is this. The behaviours that lead to these incidents

do not appear out of nowhere. They’re connected to unmanaged addiction; untreated

mental health issues; unstable environments; and a lack of consistent, structured

support. Those are the drivers. That is where risk begins.

This legislation does not address those drivers. Instead, it focuses on what happens

at the end of the chain. It creates a mechanism to remove someone from the situation

if it becomes serious enough. What happens next? That individual does not disappear.

They do not suddenly become more stable. They are simply moved to another building,

perhaps another neighbourhood, another part of the system that is dealing with the

same pressures and often without the supports they needed in the first place.

The behaviour continues, the risk reappears, and the cycle repeats. We remove someone

from one building, but we do not remove the underlying issue. What happens? That individual

ends up somewhere else — another building, another neighbourhood, often the same conditions,

the same pressures and the same lack of support. The behaviour does not disappear.

It follows them, and now another group of staff, another group of residents, are dealing

with the exact same risk.

This is not resolution; this is repetition. This is not a solution; this is displacement.

We have seen this pattern before. We move the problem instead of solving it. We respond

to the outcome instead of addressing the cause. Then we wonder why these same issues

continue to show up in different places under the same conditions.

If the goal of this legislation is truly safety, then it cannot stop at eviction.

It has to address what is happening before that point. It has to reduce the likelihood

that these situations occur at all. Right now this bill does not do that.

This is where the gap in this legislation becomes even more clear. While this bill

focuses heavily on the idea of weapons, it largely ignores the risks that are most

commonly present in these environments — the risks that actually drive calls for service,

the risks that put people in danger on a daily basis.

One of the biggest of those risks is fire — not theoretical risk; real risk. We’re

talking about open flames inside units, butane torches being used indoors, improvised

heating or cooking methods and electrical setups that are unsafe. These are not rare

situations. These are the kinds of conditions that lead to fires that put entire buildings

at risk, not just one unit; that put other tenants at risk; that put staff at risk;

and that put fire crews in danger when they have to respond.

[3:40 p.m.]

Yet when you look at this legislation, those realities are not the focus. Instead,

we see an emphasis on control measures tied to individuals rather than addressing

the conditions that create the danger in the first place.

It doesn’t stop at fire risk. There are also ongoing issues tied to drug use within

units, the storage of substances and the presence of materials that can be volatile

or hazardous.

Again, these are not isolated issues. They are part of the day-to-day reality in many

of these buildings, and they require a coordinated response, not just from housing

operators but from fire services, paramedics and police officers, because each of

those services sees a different part of the problem. Fire sees the hazard. Paramedics

see the medical impact. Police see the escalation and the risk to others.

This bill does not bring those perspectives together. It does not create a framework

that reflects how these situations are actually managed on the ground. Instead, it

narrows the focus. It identifies one type of risk, labels it in broad terms and builds

a response around removal. In doing so, it misses the bigger picture.

Safety in supportive housing is not defined by a single factor. It is the result of

multiple risks interacting at the same time — fire risk, health risk, behavioural

risk, environmental risk. If you do not address those together, you are not improving

safety. You are only addressing part of the problem and leaving the rest in place.

When we talk about safety in these environments, we cannot ignore the people who are

there every day — the staff, the support workers, the people tasked with managing

these buildings and supporting the individuals who live in them. Right now under this

framework, they are being placed in the middle of all of this. They are expected to

observe behaviour; to assess risk; to determine when something crosses a line; and,

in the case of this bill, to recognize when something constitutes a weapon and decide

what to do next.

Let’s be clear about what we are asking of them. These are not police officers. They

are not trained to respond to high-risk, potentially violent situations. They do not

have the tools, the authority or the backup that is required to safely intervene when

someone is armed or acting in a threatening way.

Yet they are the ones who will be the first to encounter these situations. They are

the ones who will have to make that call. That puts them in an incredibly difficult

position because, if they hesitate, if they are unsure whether something meets the

threshold, the situation can escalate. And if they act without clear guidance, they

risk inflaming a situation that could otherwise have been managed differently.

Either way they are being asked to manage risks that the legislation has not properly

defined. That is not fair to them. It is not fair to place that level of responsibility

on individuals without giving them the clarity, the structure and the support they

need to do it safely. And it is not just about physical safety. There is also the

reality of what they are exposed to on a daily basis — high-stress environments, unpredictable

behaviour, situations that can shift very quickly.

Adding uncertainty on top of that, especially around something as serious as potential

weapons, does not improve safety. It increases pressure, it increases risk, and it

increases the likelihood that something will go wrong. When systems are unclear, the

burden does not disappear. It gets pushed down onto the people on the front lines,

the people with the least authority to change the situation but the most exposure

to its consequences. If this legislation is serious about safety, then it needs to

reflect the reality of who is actually carrying that responsibility, and right now

it doesn’t.

When you step back from the individual provisions in this bill, there is a broader

issue that cannot be ignored. This legislation does something very deliberate. It

creates powers in law, but it leaves the details to regulation. Over and over again,

key elements of how this weapon will actually function, what qualifies as a weapon,

how tenancy agreements can be changed, when access can be restricted and what procedures

are followed are not clearly set out in the legislation itself. They are deferred,

left to be determined later by cabinet.

That matters because there is a fundamental difference between what is written into

law and what is left to regulation. When something is in legislation, it is debated

in this chamber. It is scrutinized. It is visible to the public. But when it is placed

in regulation, those decisions can be made without the same level of transparency,

without the same level of debate and without the same level of accountability.

[3:45 p.m.]

In some cases, regulation is appropriate but not when you are dealing with things

like this; not when you are creating powers that can remove someone from their housing;

not when you are dealing with safety, risk and the responsibilities of people on the

ground. Those are not minor administrative details. Those are the core elements of

how this system will operate. Yet instead of clearly defining them in law, this bill

pushes them out to be decided later. That creates two problems.

First, it creates uncertainty because the people who are expected to work within this

system — staff, operators and first responders — do not have a clear framework to

rely on. They are being asked to operate within rules that are not fully defined.

Second, it creates a lack of accountability. If the system does not work as intended,

if there are unintended consequences, if people are put at risk…. Those decisions

were never fully tested here. They were never fully debated. That is not how legislation

dealing with safety should be structured.

If the government is confident in these powers, then they should be clearly laid out

in this bill so that everyone understands them; so that they can be properly examined;

so that the people affected by them, both tenants and workers, know exactly where

they stand. Clarity is not optional in a system like this. It is essential. Right

now that clarity is missing.

When we talk about safety, especially in environments like supportive housing, we

have to be honest about what that actually means. Safety is not created by broad language

in legislation, it is not created by leaving key

definitions unresolved, and it is

not created by introducing powers that only take effect after a situation has already

escalated. Safety is created through clarity — clarity in what constitutes a threat,

clarity in who is responsible for responding and clarity in how that response is carried

out.

In the absence of that clarity, what you do not get is flexibility. What you do not

get is consistency. You get hesitation in moments where decisions need to be made

quickly. You get uneven application from one building to the next. Ultimately, you

get a system that does not function the way it was intended.

This bill had an opportunity to bring forward a framework that reflects the realities

on the ground, a framework that recognizes the risk in supportive housing is not defined

by a single factor but by a combination of behaviour, environment and available support.

It could have brought together the perspectives of those who actually respond to these

situations — police, fire, paramedics and the workers who are there every day. It

could have provided clear

definitions, clear roles and a coordinated approach to managing

risk before it escalates.

Instead, what we have is a piece of legislation that focuses on one outcome, removal,

without fully addressing how we prevent situations from reaching that point; without

clearly defining the threshold that triggers that outcome; and without ensuring that

the people responsible for managing these environments have the tools, the guidance

and the support they need to do it safely.

The consequences of getting this wrong are not theoretical. They are very real. They

affect the safety of tenants, they affect the safety of workers, and they affect the

safety of the broader community.

If we are serious about improving safety in supportive housing, then we need to do

more than create mechanisms to respond after the fact. We need to build systems that

reduce risk in the first place; that provide clear direction; that support the people

on the front lines; and that ensure that when something goes wrong, there is no confusion

about how it is handled.

Safety is not defined by what we intend; it is defined by what actually happens when

the system is put to the test. Right now this bill leaves too much uncertainty in

the moments that matter most.

Scott McInnis : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to start by wishing you a happy Easter

and everybody in the gallery a happy Easter coming up.

I also want to make a note of the Deputy Speaker’s comments earlier today and how

brave she was in her words that she delivered to the House. It was quite an emotional

delivery, and I applaud her courage for doing that.

[3:50 p.m.]

I understand there’s quite a remembrance ceremony taking place in her community over

the break, and I just wish everybody that was impacted by that tragedy all the best

over that time. I’m sorry I can’t be there, but I will be there in spirit.

My comments are going to be relatively brief for a couple of reasons. One, I’m not

a housing expert. My critic portfolios are, as everybody knows, Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, tourism and resort municipalities and the Columbia River treaty.

Also, I live and represent constituents of a riding that has small communities and

some of the supportive housing models…. I don’t think it’s as prevalent, obviously,

as we see in some of the more urban areas. I’m going to try and address my comments

from more of a rural lens, specifically, and some of the challenges, perhaps, that

will be faced with this legislation related to communities such as Revelstoke.

I have to start by saying that it is unfortunate…. I understand where the government

is coming from on this. I really do. There’s an attempt here to make these spaces

safer for everybody who occupies them. I understand that component of it. I think

there’s some really good debate to have in the committee stage of this bill about

some of the particulars and the nuances that come along with this.

As my friend from West Kelowna–Peachland made very clear, we’re talking about a spectrum

of issues here, when we’re looking at those that are in distress for various reasons.

Everybody that requires various levels of supportive housing has a different story.

We’re looking on that spectrum at the end result here. If something wrong happens,

we kind of boot them out.

I think there’s a lot more to be discussed here as far as what the challenges are

that individuals face before we get to that point. I know my friend from West Kelowna–Peachland….

His expertise specifically in law enforcement made that very, very clear.

Before I get into that, I want to say that, unfortunately, one of the housing projects

that was scheduled for Revelstoke is one of the ones that’s on pause. I do have a

call with an individual later today to discuss that. She’s quite upset and frustrated.

It’s been a long process since 2018 to get this project moving forward in Revelstoke.

I know the minister knows this, because we’ve had lots of communication.

Revelstoke is in a bit of a unique housing crisis in its own right for various reasons.

But that’s a debate for another day.

Some of the supportive housing that we’re talking about here in the communities I

represent are small organizations, and the units are not large, like with the number

of rooms. In turn, they are staffed at a bare minimum. Sometimes it’s kind of a skeleton

staff.

I know a lot of these staff members are not necessarily equipped with the skills and

the training needed for some of the situations, the crisis situations, that arise

when individuals, for various reasons, whether it’s mental health challenges or addiction

issues, are faced with a crisis. A lot of the employees at these various centres just

simply don’t have the training or the expertise available to them in order to deal

with some of these situations.

I really worry, to be honest with you, about…. Situations do arise in the small communities.

I’ve spoken with the RCMP and operators about this as well. Although it’s a little

bit different than we see, I think, in some of the more urban centres, they do arise.

It’s complicated, and it’s difficult for folks who run some of these facilities to

deal with those situations. I worry that with some of the regulation and legislation

that comes down here, by essentially locking people out, that might escalate some

of these situations and perhaps create a situation that’s worse than what we see.

The reality is that in Columbia River–Revelstoke, we don’t have a lot of full-circle

wraparound services. We don’t have the additional shelter spaces, detox facilities

and other services that are required for people that are going through challenges

in their life.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s a by-product of…. Again, our communities are quite small, and these issues

that we’re talking about are fairly localized. Having said that, like I mentioned,

they still exist.

With the enforcement piece here…. Just to kind of lay a bit of a picture out for this,

our first responders in Columbia River–Revelstoke are world-class. I want to start

by saying that. But at times, they can be a little bit understaffed. The resources

aren’t quite there for several reasons, particularly the geography.

Police and fire in Columbia River–Revelstoke are managing quite a large geographical

area. I’ve spoken to the firefighters in Golden many times, as well as Revelstoke,

and I’m using these two specific examples for this reason. They cover a huge area

over Kicking Horse Pass between the two communities, Golden and Revelstoke. When there

are accidents, the ability for them to respond to these issues can be very strained

at times — to these situations that will arise from, I think, the intention of this

legislation.

I just worry a little bit here. I didn’t see…. Again, I think it’s a good conversation

for committee stage. We’re looking at the removal of weapons, which I think is a positive

step in the right direction, obviously, to keep everybody safe in these housing units.

As everybody has mentioned, a weapon can be fairly subjective. I know the member for

Saanich North and the Islands mentioned a broom handle. Others had mentioned forks,

steak knives. These things can be used as weapons, so I think we have to sort of delineate.

What does it look like to have a regular tool for life, and when does it become a

weapon?

I think that’s a fair conversation to have. I didn’t see it, going through the legislation,

and I’m sure this will be, perhaps, in some of the regulation that’s talked about

in the discussion.

But when a tenant is going through crisis and is armed and perhaps dangerous, who’s

the first line of response to that? Again, I know that the folks that I know personally

that are employed in these units are definitely, like I said, not trained for this.

Coming back to my point about first responders, if they are at a call, halfway up

Kicking Horse Pass, to a fatal car accident, heaven forbid…. It’s the most dangerous

stretch of highway in the country. That’s a reality. How do we deal with that? It

could be hours before the ability of a first responder to address the situation.

I just worry about, knowing the people that run the operations, them being in a potentially

dangerous situation that has an escalating chance of risk for them being a serious

consideration. Again, there are a lot of volunteers that work at a lot of these supportive

housing facilities in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Again, I just hope there’s a really good conversation in the committee stage about

how we equip them with the proper tools to deal with what is an increasing number

of people that require this supportive housing.

That’s the reality. We have seen, over the past ten years in Columbia River–Revelstoke,

an increased need for this, and I think part of it is just changing social dynamics.

But also, I think there are…. People come to these communities for various reasons,

whether they’re working in the resort sector and then aren’t able to leave, perhaps.

I just wonder. If people are forced out of these units, there’s just really nowhere

else for them to go. That’s my biggest concern, especially when we’ve seen additional

spaces being paused. The result of that is increased encampments or people being on

the street. That’s a serious worry.

I mean, in Columbia River–Revelstoke, when people don’t have those supportive housing

facilities available to them, they end up in encampments just outside of town on Crown

land. That creates a whole new set of risks on its own. So I worry about the ability

to remove people. Then what happens?

[4:00 p.m.]

I think this is a pretty common concern across rural British Columbia, for my friends

that represent different areas of the province as well.

Again, it wasn’t clear to me in the legislation who is responsible for the confiscation

of a potentially dangerous weapon. Where is it stored until it can be properly disposed

of or taken care of? I just think those are important details that we have to get

around here, when we’re looking at some of this.

We did have a…. Unfortunately, in a private operation in Radium, there was a fire

which burned several units a few months ago. So it’s a serious concern.

I worry, again, about how, on overnight watch and supervision and things like that,

it’s often a single employee here. So again, dealing with a crisis situation, if somebody

is removed or weapons have to be confiscated…. I just worry about the safety aspect,

thinking about it from a rural British Columbia lens.

I think there’s a lot to pull through here. I know my colleagues who are experts in

housing have a lot of really good questions to ask about the details of this legislation.

Unfortunately, again, it’s a piece of legislation which enacts a series of regulations

which we don’t have the chance to look at or debate here today. So we’re kind of counting

on the government to get those pieces right.

Specifically for rural British Columbia, again, I just have those specific concerns

that are unique to us when we’re looking at the changes to the Residential Tenancy

Act here. I really hope that there’s some really good conversation and questions asked

about those specific components, when we get to it.

Thank you for the time today.

Korky Neufeld : Again, it’s a privilege to be here to serve the constituents of Abbotsford West,

and I’m honoured to rise to speak to legislation that impacts all of British Columbia.

I rise today to speak, with reservation, to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment

Act, 2026. I really appreciate the lens that the previous speaker brought up, which

I think needs to be highlighted here, and that is that different areas of the province

have unique challenges with respect to supports, wraparound supports, for these housing

units. What I also want to do is start off by talking about the context which I live

in.

Supportive housing in the Fraser Valley provides low-income adults experiencing or

at risk of homelessness with private, self-contained units and 24-7, on-site support

services such as meals, counselling and life skills training. Managed by organizations

such as B.C. Housing and local partners, key sites include, in Abbotsford, Hearthstone

Place, an 18-24 month program providing 24-7, on-site supports. The second one is

Riverside Road, but it’s up-and-coming — 63 new supportive housings near Cole Starnes

Residence focused on Indigenous programming.

But there was, on Riverside Road, a 40-bed temporary shelter right in my neighbourhood.

So if you can picture this, I would drive out of my driveway, turn right on King Road,

go down a windy road and head to Riverside. Right at the corner of Riverside, there’s

this 40-unit temporary housing. You turn left, and you go right under Highway 1.

Every day, sometimes at 6:30 in the morning or seven o’clock in the morning, I’d be

heading off to my construction job. Then at about 4:30, five o’clock, I’d be driving

right back to that same location. Here are some of the things that I noticed, just

keeping an eye on this 40-unit temporary housing unit.

[4:05 p.m.]

Cars were parked there — not of people who resided there, but they were offering their

goods to the people living inside the units. Drugs. I saw open drug use. I saw violent

and aggressive behaviour on a regular basis. Now, I didn’t witness half of it because

I was only driving by, but I know there were many visits by the police, by the ambulance

and by city staff on a regular basis.

We also have, in our city, SARA for Women. It’s also another supportive service. It

offers transition housing in Abbotsford for women and children escaping violence or

at risk of homelessness — a great facility. I visited there. I had an event there

and talked to the ladies there. It’s a really great, safe environment. Nobody knows

that they’re there. It’s kind of quiet, stuck in right by a school, and it works for

them.

Then we also have Lookout Housing and Health Society, which operates shelters on Pauline

Street in our region — 24-7 care.

Now, what are some of the concerns in the Fraser Valley of supportive housing? These

are some of the key ones. It’s not exhaustive.

The first and foremost is safety and crime. It doesn’t take long to go through the

Abbotsford newspaper or to watch the news on Global or CTV to find a story relating

to some sort of supportive housing unit in our province and even in our city of Abbotsford.

That safety and crime causes neighbourhoods to push back. When proposed projects come

into our area, they face questions and opposition and the concerns about proximity

to schools, secondhand fentanyl smoke and fire risks. Those are the main things that

keep coming up in the Fraser Valley when it comes to supportive houses.

Another one is operational challenges, increased reports of crime in surrounding areas.

I was in my house, oh, ten or 11 o’clock at night, just before bedtime. I was just

watching the highlights of the Blue Jays. I’ve got a window looking out my back here,

and there’s this guy trucking off with my propane tank. So I go out and I say: “Hey,

what’s happening?” He looks at me, puts it down and just walks right on by. Anyways,

I’m not sure where he was from, but I would imagine….

Anyways, reports of crimes in surrounding areas where supportive housing is located,

alongside the need for specialized care for residents with severe mental health and

addiction challenges…. Again, I witnessed that firsthand just in my neighbourhood.

Let me begin by acknowledging what this government will say in defence of this legislation.

They will say it’s about safety, and the reason is because most of these facilities

have safety concerns. They will say it’s about protecting residents of supportive

housing from dangerous neighbours. They will invoke images of weapons, fires and chaos

in single-room occupancy and say that this bill is the solution British Columbians

have been waiting for.

Those problems that they’re speaking about are real. Anyone who has spent time in

supportive housing communities or who has spoken to front-line workers, who has read

the incident reports from housing providers across this province, knows that the status

quo is not working.

When I went on my wonderful ride-along with the APD, we made several stops at these

locations in my city. So I saw firsthand what these officers were dealing with just

in one shift. You can imagine now in a week how many times they go by, in a month

and in a year, how many resources are spent.

People living in supportive housing do deserve safety, they do deserve dignity, and

they deserve a stable place to call home. But the community around these units does

as well.

The test of this legislation is not whether it identifies real problems. The test

is whether it actually solves them and whether it does so without creating new ones.

I would say that on both counts, Bill 11 fails on that count. This bill talks tough

on safety while ignoring the conditions that make supportive housing unsafe in the

first place.

[4:10 p.m.]

It dramatically expands the power of cabinet and operators to evict, to restrict and

to seize while doing almost nothing to address the staffing shortages, the drug crisis,

the fire risks and the lack of mental health support that makes supportive housing

a daily emergency for the people who live and work there, for the community around

them and for the first responders. This is a bill about looking like you are doing

something. It is not a bill about actually doing the work that’s required.

Before we get to the specific provisions, we need to talk about the structure of this

bill, because the structure itself is the problem.

Bill 11 is not — and I am going to repeat: is not — in any meaningful sense, a complete

piece of legislation. I cannot emphasize that enough, and here’s the proof. It is

an authorization for cabinet to write the legislation. When? Later — in private, without

debate, without amendment, without the scrutiny of this House. That is not democratic

process, and the word “democratic” is in their party name. Look at how many times

this bill defers substance to regulation.

Section 4.2, what qualifies as a supportive housing rental unit? The answer? It’s

subject to prescribed criteria not yet created.

Section 4.3, whether landlords can unilaterally amend tenancy agreements, is subject

to regulation, deferred sometime in the future.

Section 4.4, whether landlords can seize tenant property, is subject to regulation,

sometime in the future. “Trust us. We’ll get it right.”

Section 4.5, when landlords can enter units, is subject to regulation. Who knows when;

who knows what.

Section 4.6, when landlords can restrict tenants from accessing their own homes, is

subject to regulation. No one will be able to question or debate this now or in the

future.

Section 4.8, what constitutes a weapon, is subject to regulation, not yet clarified.

Section 4.9, what compensation tenants are owed when landlords violate their rights,

is subject to regulation.

This bill is woefully incomplete. It is not ready for debate. What are we debating?

We’re debating something in the future. The expansion of regulation-making authority

is perhaps the most consequential clause in this entire bill, and it has received

almost no public notification. It authorizes cabinet to make different regulations

for different classes of persons, for different classes of residential property and

for different circumstances or purposes. This is an extraordinary grant of executive

authority.

When we pass legislation in this chamber, we’re accountable to the people of British

Columbia for what we can enact. Considering that side of the House, I need just to

remind them that this is not democracy. This is not how democratic processes are made.

It’s in fact the opposite. When cabinet writes legislation, that accountability disappears.

The public cannot amend the regulation. The opposition cannot propose changes. This

Legislature cannot reject it. This isn’t democracy.

We need to make sure, in a democratic process, that the public can see it, that the

opposition can see it and that we can debate it in this House. The government has

chosen to put the most important decisions — what can be seized from tenants’ homes,

when a tenant can be locked out, what counts as a weapon, how much landlords owe for

violating rights — not in this bill, but in regulations that have not yet been written.

So what are we debating? We’re debating a hollow bill, in fact. It cannot be debated

here, and the public has no meaningful ability to shape it. That is not good governance.

It’s actually a blank cheque that says: “Trust us. Trust us. We’ll get it right.”

[4:15 p.m.]

Let us turn to the eviction provisions because this is where the real-world consequences

of this bill become most clear. Clauses 15 and 16 significantly expand the grounds

for ending tenancy. Under the existing act that we have now, conduct that could trigger

eviction is tied to the tenant. This new bill expands those grounds to include the

conduct of occupants and persons permitted on the property.

In other words, individuals that the tenant did not necessarily invite, did not necessarily

know and may not have been able to control could trigger an eviction. Think about

what that means in the context of supportive housing. A resident whose neighbour enters

their unit uninvited and causes a disturbance — I’m sure this happens on a regular

basis — or a resident whose caseworker brings in a colleague who behaves inappropriately;

or a resident whose family member, during a visit, gets into a conflict with another

resident.

Under this bill, the resident’s tenancy can be terminated for the actions of who are

not them. That is a profound departure from the basic principle that we are responsible

for our own conduct. It will fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable people

in the province — people with complex mental health needs, people in recovery, people

who have already experienced homelessness and for whom losing housing is not just

an inconvenience; it could be potentially fatal.

When we evict them, where do they go? As the previous speaker said, in some of these

remote communities, there’s no place for them to go except on the streets, in a park.

Then there’s

section 4.8, the weapons eviction provision. I’m not going to stand here

and defend weapons in supportive housing. No one should be at risk from a neighbour

with a knife, a machete or a firearm. That is not a debatable position. But

section

4.8 creates an expedited pathway for eviction tied to the possession of a weapon or

— here’s the key one — the observation of a weapon in plain view in a unit. It doesn’t

say whose observation.

It raises more questions than it answers. What is the definition of a weapon? The

bill does not say. That definition is left entirely to cabinet by regulation. When?

Well, nothing that we can debate here today. It’s going to come sometime in the future.

Does it include a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a hunting knife owned by someone

who has never threatened anyone? We genuinely do not know because the government has

chosen not to tell us. That’s why I say Bill 11 is incomplete.

Some more questions. Who assesses whether a weapon has been observed in plain view?

A housing worker who entered the unit for inspection; an operator; an employee who

may not have training in crisis intervention, de-escalation or safety assessment?

Think about that. If someone is brandishing a weapon and you’re an operator or an

employee of an operator and, like my previous speaker said, you’re the only one in

the building and, in some cases, the police are far, far away, what are you going

to do, put your life in danger? I don’t know.

What happens when the person who possesses the weapon is armed and in crisis at the

moment the eviction is served? The government left police, fire and paramedics out

of the room when they wrote this bill. It does not address who responds when a tenant

is armed and dangerous. It does not establish protocols for front-line housing workers

to safely navigate those situations. It creates new eviction pathways but does not

build the safety infrastructure to support the people who have to carry it out.

I’ve said this before. We can write legislation in this building, but we’ve got to

look at that legislation. How is it going to be fulfilled on the ground, on the front

lines? Housing workers are being put at risk. Without clear rules, without clear authority

and without clear protection, this is not tough on safety. That is offloading risk

onto the most underpaid, under-resourced workers in our social system.

Section 4.6 may be the most troubling provision in this entire bill. It allows cabinet

to create exceptions permitting landlords to restrict tenant access to residential

property in prescribed circumstances, and it permits the interim orders to be made

without notice.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let us be clear about what this means in practice. On the ground, under this provision,

a person living in supportive housing, who is likely dealing with mental illness,

possibly addiction and mental illness, trauma and housing instability can be locked

out of their home, potentially without warning, based on criteria that have not been

defined.

You know, I think Swiss cheese has less holes in it than this bill. There’s no guarantee

to the right to notice. There is no guarantee to the right of hearing before the order

takes effect. There’s no guaranteed timeline for challenging the restriction. These

are all left to regulation, but regulations that do not yet exist. Again, this bill

is woefully incomplete.

Locking a person in crisis out of their home does not make them safer. I want to repeat

that. Locking a person in crisis out of their home does not make them safer. It does

not make their neighbourhood safer. It puts vulnerable people on the streets.

We have heard from businesses and we have heard from neighbourhoods that see this

day in, day out, and now we’re going to kick them out of their home when they’re aggravated,

when they’re angry. Now we’re going to kick them onto the streets in front of businesses,

in neighbourhoods, potentially in withdrawal, potentially in mental health crisis,

potentially in danger. Now we’re endangering everyone they come in contact with. They’re

left on the street while their belongings remain inside, their legal status in limbo.

This government prides itself on details. It prides itself on making evidence-based

decisions. Well, let’s look at the research. The research on this is not ambiguous.

Temporary evictions, temporary lockouts and temporary displacement in supportive housing

populations consistently lead to worse outcomes. It leads to more hospitalization,

more emergency room visits and more deaths, never mind the havoc it creates in the

surrounding neighbourhood and the possible danger it puts on to first responders.

The government is proposing a tool that the evidence tells us will inflame conflict,

not resolve it.

Section 4.4 allows cabinet to create exceptions to the existing protections

preventing landlords from seizing or interfering with tenant property.

The government has given the example of butane torches, fire hazards that pose genuine

risks in supportive housing buildings. Again, no one disputes that fire safety is

important. It is. Buildings with shared kitchens and common areas and residents who

smoke present real fire risks, and there are legitimate conversations to be had about

how to manage those risks.

But the provision is not limiting butane torches. It grants cabinet the authority

to prescribe the classes of property that can be seized, without defining those classes,

without establishing independent oversight, wi