First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 50

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

Routime Business

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tony Luck

Linda Hepner

Scott McInnis

Kristina Loewen

Bryan Tepper

Trevor Halford

Misty Van Popta

Macklin McCall

Claire Rattée

Rosalyn Bird

Gavin Dew

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions (continued)

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Hon Chan

David Williams

Gavin Dew

Ward Stamer

Jeremy Valeriote

Rob Botterell

Jordan Kealy

Dallas Brodie

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. Christine Boyle

Scott McInnis

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routime Business

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to

Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Before I call the orders of the day, I want to, by leave, move a notice of motion:

[That Susie Chant replace Mable Elmore as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’

Bills.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Housing and

Municipal Affairs.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Minister

of Energy.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Housing and Municipal Affairs

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating

the estimates of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued) .

The Chair : Thank you very much.

To the member….

I beg your pardon, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : My apologies, Chair. I want to just start by welcoming…. Right now we have 31 students

from Sutherland Secondary School that have just arrived here in the gallery.

On behalf of the MLA for your area, the Minister of Infrastructure, I want to welcome

you all to this place.

We are now debating the budget of Ministry of Housing, so you’ll be hearing an exchange

back and forth about infrastructure and housing. This is an important process that

we all go through in government to ensure that the dollars are being spent and that

there’s accountability of where the dollars are going.

Welcome to the House today, and I hope you enjoy the debate.

The Chair : Thank you very much, Minister.

Indeed, welcome to everyone joining us today, and we’ll turn it over to the member

for Fraser-Nicola.

Tony Luck : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that.

Just a little

preamble before we get into some questions here. This is around one

of our favourite topics in the province right now, infrastructure. The provincial

government’s blanket upzoning policy, Bill 44, mandates increased density across municipalities

without adequately considering local infrastructure capacity.

Smaller cities and towns across British Columbia already face enormous pressure due

to spiralling inflation, soaring infrastructure costs and ever-increasing regulatory

burdens imposed by senior levels of government. These communities are now struggling

to provide even basic core services, with property tax bases insufficient to support

essential infrastructure investments in these communities.

Municipalities such as North Cowichan starkly illustrate these challenges, currently

facing an unprecedented backlog of 370 building applications totalling approximately

10,100 new homes. Yet local water and sewer infrastructure can only handle roughly

4,200, less than half. Such a scenario highlights the provincial government’s lack

of practical planning and support, casting severe doubts on Bill 44’s viability without

significant provincial infrastructure funding.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, otherwise known as UBCM, has repeatedly

urged the province to address these escalating costs, calling for a more diversified

and flexible municipal financing framework. With a current infrastructure deficit

provincewide estimated at approximately $25 billion — that’s right, folks; that’s

with a b — the promised municipal infrastructure fund, provincial property tax waivers

for purpose-built rental projects and expanded middle-income housing on public lands

have yet to materialize.

Critics argue that this government’s approach, mandating higher density without meaningful

provincial support, endangers the fiscal health and very sustainability of many of

the smaller rural communities in this province.

Given your government’s imposition of Bill 44’s blanket upzoning, how exactly do you

propose smaller communities manage the unprecedented strain on their infrastructure

capabilities, particularly in towns like North Cowichan, Merritt, Lillooet and little

communities like that — North Cowichan where 10,100 new homes have been proposed but

local water, and sewer systems can only handle fewer than half of those?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thanks to the member for the first question in our exchanges.

First off, I’d have to respectfully disagree with the member’s statement in the beginning.

The member is actually not correct. Communities that didn’t have infrastructure didn’t

have to bring on Bill 44. We’ve had a lot of communities that had an independent engineering

report that highlighted that parts of their community didn’t have the infrastructure

to be able to have that housing and in fact have extensions multiple years down the

road for them to be able to build out that infrastructure.

It’s important to note that communities under the size of 5,000 did not have the same

level of requirements as other communities. We understand that those communities have

unique challenges. Communities that are operating on septic, for example, did not

have to incorporate the changes.

I appreciate the member raising North Cowichan. We provided North Cowichan $7.8 million

last year to invest in infrastructure. Of course, I’m sure North Cowichan used those

dollars for critically important infrastructure like water, like sewer. I’m sure the

member knows that they’ve got those dollars as well.

Tony Luck : So what we’re to understand is that smaller communities have been left off this list

needing the infrastructure change. Somehow, when I go travelling around my riding

and that, they feel the same pressure as larger communities as well. Here nor there,

their infrastructure is still failing.

Lillooet, $100 million in infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Merritt, $120

million in infrastructure replacement. Terrace, Prince Rupert — all these communities

around the province want to be part of housing because they want to do development

in these communities, but they can’t do it. What we have is a tremendous downloading

of requirements on these cities without the available infrastructure money to pay

for them.

Given that little bit of an explanation, and given the UBCM’s repeated calls for provincial

support to address spiralling infrastructure deficits and the challenges smaller communities

face, will your government commit today to immediately implementing the proposed municipal

infrastructure fund, which has so far failed to materialize despite clear campaign

pledges? If so, where would it fall in these estimates votes and processes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, I want to emphasize the point I made earlier, which is that communities that

clearly could show, through an independent engineering report, that they lacked the

infrastructure to see this type of housing could move the requirement until such time

that they have the infrastructure. I just want to emphasize that.

It’s important for the member to know, and I know the member is new to this side but

has local government experience, that we provided $1 billion to local governments

to invest directly. It’s the largest direct investment in local governments for their

infrastructure, certainly in my lifetime.

The member’s question around future infrastructure dollars…. I would say that one

of the important pieces we were waiting for was for the federal election to end. The

reason why was that it’s important that we not create a program with no connection

to what the federal government is doing. If we end up creating a program that has

different criteria than the federal government’s…. We’ve heard from local governments.

Having multiple processes, trying to link one application to two different programs

are just unnecessary additional hurdles for local government.

Now that the federal election is over almost officially, we’ll be able to now engage

with the federal government on what future infrastructure dollars can flow to local

governments. The member follows politics as closely as I and will know that there

were strong commitments for building Canada and making infrastructure investments

to unlock housing. We look forward to those conversations and will be able to share

that when those conversations have concluded.

Tony Luck : Let’s go back to North Cowichan for a minute here.

Their infrastructure gap is a lot larger than the $7.8 million that you funded them.

There are still going to be gaps in there that need to be done — sewer upgrades, water

upgrades. Is there additional funding coming to North Cowichan so that they’ll be

able to fully build out the infrastructure that they need to accomplish your goals

that are laid out in Bill 44?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think it’s important to note that those infrastructure needs were not because of

the legislation that we brought in. Those infrastructure needs in the communities

existed previously. Many communities have infrastructure needs that are well beyond

the changes that we have brought.

[1:45 p.m.]

That being said, local governments have the ability to collect fees for building infrastructure.

Local governments use those fees to be able to build the infrastructure. I expect

that to continue. Of course, we’re going to continue to support local governments

with infrastructure like we have been, like I’ve highlighted with the $1 billion,

like I’ve highlighted with the other infrastructure programs that we’ve had in alignment

with the federal government.

Tony Luck : Municipalities across British Columbia are currently facing an infrastructure deficit,

as we’ve talked about, estimated at $25 billion. It’s probably more than that as we

stand here, with inflation the way it is.

What specific new financing mechanisms or funding formulas is your government actively

developing with UBCM to help communities address this staggering shortfall? Even though

we talk about how we’ve funded so much, we know that aging infrastructure around the

whole province is failing everywhere. We need to find some way of doing it.

I know you’ve been sitting down with the UBCM to work out, maybe, a new funding formula.

Could you talk to us about that, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member that those conversations with UBCM are ongoing. It’s

a joint process between us, the Ministry of Finance and UBCM.

I can share with the member that North Cowichan, over the last several years, has

received $14.6 million for five different projects.

I can also share that we’re not aware if…. Actually, from our understanding, North

Cowichan did not apply for the community housing infrastructure fund, which is a fund

that’s available, for infrastructure, from the federal government.

Tony Luck : Seeing how this is pretty critical in the province right now with the funding, and

you say you’re in ongoing conversation with UBCM, can we get a firm timeline for when

these conversations will end and actions will be put into place, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : No, I can’t give a firm timeline, but I appreciate the attempt from the member.

We are having these conversations and, of course, the federal government is going

to be an important player in this. They’ve got the majority of dollars available to

build the infrastructure, and we want to be good partners.

I have said to UBCM that we’ll continue to work with them in our joint collaborative

approach to getting the federal government at the table and aligning our programs.

I think there is an understanding from the UBCM table that that’s an important step

that we have to take.

I can share with the member that I met with the Minister of Housing in late January,

and our number one ask to the federal government was infrastructure and some consistent

flow of dollars so that we can build the critical infrastructure that we need.

Tony Luck : Your government, some time ago, promised to waive provincial property taxes for new

purpose-built rental projects. Has this commitment been abandoned, or will you announce

today when municipalities can finally expect relief through this essential tax measure

for them?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That’s a Ministry of Finance piece. Any tax measure, any measure that requires spending

outside of what’s in our portfolio, has to be directed to Ministry of Finance.

Tony Luck : Well, I don’t like that answer. You can’t tell me that you’re running the Municipal

Affairs portfolio and that you don’t know costing of some of these programs you decide

to implement. You can’t just be plucking projects out of the air and just throwing

to Finance to figure out costs for that. You must know.

Could we please get a little bit better answer on that one? You must know what some

of these programs are costing.

[1:50 p.m.]

The Chair : Member, just to remind you that all questions must come through the Chair, please.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member never asked that in the first question. The member never asked what is

the cost measure. The member asked whether the plan is proceeding, and my point is

that that’s a measure that comes from the Ministry of Finance.

I can speak to what’s in the allocation that I have, the 1.5 billion-and-something

dollars. I can answer those questions. But anything that might come in the future

requires the Ministry of Finance, and it’s a question better suited to them.

Tony Luck : UBCM has clearly requested a flexible, diversified blueprint for municipal financing.

Is your government seriously considering revenue-sharing models involving instruments

such as the property transfer tax or provincial sales tax? If so, what specific progress

has been made on those discussions?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I won’t be able to share an announcement today with the member, but there have been

lots of different proposals from UBCM of where the money can come from.

I think it’s important for us to ensure (

a) that we continue to support local governments

with infrastructure dollars and (

b) that we have a strong partner with the federal

government and that whatever we do is aligned. This call from UBCM is no different

than FCM’s calls across the country, and we want to make sure that we’re aligning

best we can to get the same outcomes that everybody wants.

Tony Luck : Do we have a timeline for getting close to maybe making some announcements on a thing

like that?

I know that the communities that I visit in my particular riding are really struggling

for this infrastructure piece. I know one of the communities basically stopped developing

because they cannot afford to fix their infrastructure at this particular time.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The federal election ended less than 24 hours ago. I look forward to hearing the

new cabinet and the new Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and we’re going to

have those conversations. We’ll have a better sense when we have those initial meetings.

I can share with the member that at the last FPT meeting, the federal-provincial-territorial

meeting, this was one of the biggest topics across the country, so it is vitally important

that we align now.

I would say that not only in our time in government but even in the time of the previous

government, there has been good alignment with the federal government in aligning

our programs. I think that’s been a success for British Columbia that we want to make

sure we continue, going forward.

Tony Luck : As we talked about infrastructure…. Of course, this

section is about infrastructure.

For example, the costs of a fire truck or road construction largely cost identical

compared to a small community or a large community, in rural communities as in large

urban centres.

Minister, what practical solutions for our funding format is your government implementing

to ensure that small towns are not disproportionately burdened compared to large,

wealthy cities?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member that we have a $60 million regional district and small

community grant program that is available to communities.

I can also share with the member, on the specific example that the member shared,

that in the previous government, in the previous term, we expanded the eligibility

under DCCs to include public safety measures. Also, we’ve introduced an ACC tool for

critically important amenities that communities want to build. That is the reason

why. That was a request from local governments, and we expanded both of those.

Tony Luck : Will your government undertake a comprehensive review, in collaboration with UBCM,

to analyze the cumulative impacts of provincial downloading regulatory burden and

upzoning on municipalities and publicly release a clear, actionable plan to relieve

these unprecedented local infrastructure and financial pressures on these smaller

communities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, the communities that had challenges with infrastructure and could not enable

this type of housing just had to get an independent engineering report showing that.

Richmond is an example. Parts of Richmond didn’t have the infrastructure to be able

to support this type of housing. They have an extension for multiple years, and they

are building out a plan to build that infrastructure. So that exists.

As I mentioned to the member…. Actually, I should also mention that Metro Vancouver

in fact released a report within the last two years that highlighted that small-scale

multi-unit housing is actually the best way of getting more housing with less dollars

impacting their infrastructure. That was within Metro Vancouver’s own reporting.

What we’re trying to do is address both challenges, which are: we know we need more

supply of housing, and we also want to limit impact on infrastructure. That’s also

why we kept our housing requirements within regional growth strategies. We didn’t

want to encourage sprawl outside of communities, because we know that type of infrastructure

is particularly expensive for the type of housing that we want to see.

Tony Luck : Before we recognize how much money we need to throw at a problem and those kinds

of things, we need to understand how big the problem is.

Has your ministry ever done a needs assessment for the entire province, or do you

provide funding to local communities so they can make those assessments so we have

a much clearer and more defined understanding of exactly what the total bill for infrastructure

spending in the province would be?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We provide money through Asset Management B.C. to support local governments to do

an assessment of their needs. It’s hard to put an exact number because they change

so often. You know how a community decides they need a new rec centre, or they decide

they don’t need a new rec centre, or they decide they need something else. These things

are always moving.

We do engage with local governments who come forward and say: “This is our need.”

In fact, I’ve had meetings with some local governments where the need started at a

certain number. It changed over time because there were different needs and different

priorities from a local government, election changes, and those priorities get completely

wiped out, and something new comes in. It’s hard to have one number. But we do engage

with local governments often, and they share whatever specific challenges they’re

trying to deal with.

Again, $1 billion to local governments. We didn’t ask them to…. The only ask was to

tell us where the money is going. We didn’t say to them: “You have to invest in project

A, project B, project C.” We put faith that they knew where they wanted those dollars

to go.

They also have access to the MFA. I don’t know if the member knows that. They have

access to that to be able to borrow to invest in critically important infrastructure.

We’ll continue to have a conversation with the federal government about what future

programs could look like.

[2:00 p.m.]

Tony Luck : Finally, on this particular topic for now, and I reserve the right to ask more questions

in the future: what accountability and transparency measures will your government

introduce to assure municipalities and taxpayers that provincial promises such as

infrastructure funds, middle-income housing development on public land and tax relief

are fully honoured rather than continually delayed or ignored?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There were multiple things in there.

are going around BC Builds. That’s on the websites. It’s available to people. Happy

to talk about that, because I think it’s a huge success.

And hats off to B.C. Housing. That program was put together…. I recall being in the

city of North Vancouver a year ago announcing the first project, and shovels went

in the ground. That’s a remarkable time and speed for a project that size.

We do share that information. If the member has something specific, I can certainly

try to get that to the member.

Tony Luck : I’ll start with a

preamble on this one. We are going to talk about some of the cities’

favourite topics: DCCs, CACs and ACCs. Nice acronyms, but we’ll get to that part.

The current state of development cost charges, DCCs, and community amenity contributions,

CACs, in British Columbia, is characterized by a lack of transparency, consistency

and predictability, significantly impacting housing affordability and market viability.

We hear from contractors all the time how confusing it is in the DCCs, moving from

different communities and things like that. CACs are certainly something that developers

don’t like, yet they can work with them.

Developers frequently face unpredictable municipal requirements, including arbitrary

increases in CACs and the imposition of stringent social housing mandates, leading

to considerable project uncertainty and inflated housing costs. Regularizing and legalizing

uniform processes of DCCs and CACs could eliminate these uncertainties, streamline

approval processes, enhance transparency and ultimately improve housing supply and

affordability.

The B.C. government has introduced the ACC, amenity cost charges — I believe that

is to replace the current process we have of CACs — and is seeing many municipalities

overly allowing higher density but including onerous poison pill regulations, such

as requirements for social or deeply discounted housing. Removing these is essential

to restoring confidence and predictability in the development community.

First question is: while the move towards regularizing the CAC process into ACC is

commendable, why has the ministry opted to introduce a 60-page policy document full

of bureaucratic guidelines instead of simply setting out standardized dollar amounts

or a clear rate per square foot for ACC areas across British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I really appreciate the member’s

preamble. I actually wish the member had been here

last term, because we addressed this very thing. I’m sure if he was here then, he

would have encouraged his colleagues to actually support the bill, because this is

the very thing we were trying to address.

If I can just maybe rephrase or capture what the member has highlighted, which is

a challenge that we hear as well. Imagine trying to build an affordable housing project

for seniors and having it come close to the finish line and then all of a sudden getting

a phone call that your DCCs are increased, your CACs are going to be increased, as

well as the parking requirements going up. That’s an expensive venture when you’re

already far along in the project.

We’ve actually had the situation where we’ve had to go to communities and say: “We

actually have to cancel this affordable housing project in your community because

of these new measures that you’ve introduced.”

The purpose of the new ACC tool was to try to address this specific challenge. The

changes we’ve made in the last year move local governments to plan where they want

their housing every five years. Go and engage the community, figure out where you

want the housing, make sure it aligns with where your housing needs are. By doing

that and not having public hearings, because the community’s already engaged on where

they want the housing and how it should look, we’re going to see less public hearings.

When you see less public hearings, there’s less opportunity for the negotiation of

CACs.

[2:05 p.m.]

I hear all the time, from not-for-profits and the private sector, that that process

can take a year to two years. It’s not done in a public, transparent way. It’s not

good for the local elected officials either. There are accusations always made about

local government officials that somehow they’re giving somebody a favour compared

to somebody else because there’s no rhyme or reason for the formula.

What we did was that we brought in this ACC tool. The point of the tool is to build

more transparency into the process, so now local governments can identify, with their

community, what amenities they need. They put into their bylaw what amenities they

want. The cost is at the front, people know what the cost is, and that cost goes towards

building the important amenities they need. Local governments are happy because they’re

going to get dollars for their amenities.

Now, it’s important to note, I hope the member would support this notion, that the

ACC tool can only be charged to net new. If you’re replacing ten units with ten units,

well, you can make the argument that you need a brand-new community rec centre for

the same amount of units. But if you’re building above and beyond that, you can charge

the ACC tool to that.

The reason why it’s getting good response from communities is because it ensures that

local governments can still get the amenities that they need. There’s a requirement

that they do an analysis, so that whatever cost structure they put in does not deter

development. They have to do an analysis to see what levels they’re setting.

The member also mentioned…. I think inclusionary zoning was the member’s point. Even

with the tool for inclusionary zoning, the reason why we don’t do a blanket is because

what can be done in Vancouver will be different than Surrey, Maple Ridge or Kamloops.

Each community now will have to look at their own opportunities in their community

and identify how much inclusionary zoning, if at all, they want to have.

We’ve now provided them the tools that, I think, will help decisions to be made in

a more transparent way. It’ll protect local government officials from accusations

that, quite frankly, are mostly unwarranted, and it ensures that those that are building

homes have a greater level of transparency.

This is just rolling out, and it’s going to still take a little bit of time. It’s

not as clear to local governments, but those that have a good understanding of what

we’re trying to do appreciate the direction we’re heading to.

Tony Luck : Thank you to the minister.

How does the ministry plan to monitor and enforce compliance with any standardized

approaches to ACCs and DCCs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Any DCC bylaws go through the inspector of municipalities. For ACCs, we’ve built

in a requirement that when it comes to development of the ACC bylaw, there must be

some form of consultation with the public, with homebuilders, etc.

There are rules around how the local government can set charge amounts, including

whether charges that are being charged would deter development, so some important

measures there. There are public economy measures around rules on how the funds can

be used and the reporting requirements. It has to be made public. And of course we

have, within the legislation, regulation-making authority, so the province can set

additional requirements, if needed.

Tony Luck : What proximate timelines for introducing legislation or regulatory amendments to

eliminate the potential of municipalities to include restrictive poison pills in that,

such as excessive social housing requirements in development areas?

Do we have a timeline thing? Have you got anything around that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yeah, there are many forms of poison pills, I’ve learned, in the housing space. It

can be anything from communities putting limits on height, limits around an extensive

amount of parking and not allowing setbacks.

[2:10 p.m.]

You know, we can talk. I’m happy to talk about any of those pieces if the member would

like, but specifically when it comes to ACCs, there are pretty clear guidelines and

rules that are in place for when it can be used. Now, I think the member is aware

that it’s an ongoing conversation, and I’ll use Metro Vancouver’s DCC increase.

You hear, from those in the development community, some serious concerns about the

cost and the implications for them when they’re trying to build housing. I know we’re

not supposed to speak about legislation in the House, but I will say that there are

measures in front of the House that will help address some of that.

There are processes in place for DCCs and ACCs to have guardrails to ensure that the

rules are being followed. It’s my expectation that we continue to have that, with

the understanding, on the flip side, that local governments do need access to dollars

to build the infrastructure. I think we’ve struck a good balance, but we’ll continue

to work with local governments as we go forward.

Tony Luck : I think you’ve covered a little bit about what steps are being considered to ensure

developers can accurately assess the financial viability of projects without facing

uncertain and changing municipal requirements.

Is there any look around at putting in things like KPIs and that? These communities

and the developers, which are always complaining that things change and timelines

change…. This is the first I’ve heard where cities can actually change things halfway

through or at 90 percent of the project, which doesn’t even make sense.

Is there any way of measuring some of these things, putting in place, so that the

transparency is very clear to the developers that often are looking at these projects?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’ve got a document that might be helpful to the member. It is available publicly,

but the reason why I want to share it with the member is that there’s guidance for

elected officials on how to use the tools in a fair way. This was just issued within

the last few weeks. It may help answer some of the questions. I’ll add the cover page,

just so the member knows which document it is and where they can find it.

The second page, page 7, has all the information I think the member is looking for.

Tony Luck : I’ll move on from there, but I reserve the right to come back and ask a few questions

around that.

Now I’d like to speak to the Auditor General for Local Government. In 2020, the B.C.

NDP government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government, significantly

weakening oversight, transparency and fiscal responsibility at the municipal level.

Since the role’s termination, numerous questionable decisions by municipal councils

and regional districts have underscored the urgent need for an independent auditor

with meaningful oversight and authority. Recent controversies, including exorbitant

salary increases for various Lower Mainland mayors and egregious mismanagement of

infrastructure projects such as the North Shore wastewater treatment plant, highlight

how taxpayers are left vulnerable when municipalities lack independent oversight.

[2:15 p.m.]

Similarly, revelations that the city of Vancouver sold an asset like a garbage truck

significantly below market value only for it to be immediately resold at an immense

profit by the person that bought it demonstrate clear disregard for fiscal prudence

and respect for taxpayers.

The reinstatement of a robust and empowered auditor general for municipalities would

provide crucial financial oversight, conduct pre-emptive reviews of municipal decisions

and help prevent wasteful spending and fiscal mismanagement before taxpayer dollars

are squandered.

To the minister: your government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government

several years ago, significantly reducing accountability and oversight for municipalities.

Can you clearly explain the rationale behind removing critical mechanisms that safeguard

taxpayers’ interests?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s always fascinating to get into this conversation, because the conversation is

usually two things. One: “Why do you get into so much local government business? Let

them be. They’re elected officials.” Then the flip side is: “Well, why don’t you have

more oversight of them to make sure you keep an eye on them?” It’s always a challenge

between the two.

That being said, I think the concern that the member raised around Metro Vancouver

has obviously been canvassed in the public. There is a review happening at this time.

All of the documents for local governments…. They have to have financial statements

audited, made public, available. At the end of the day, all of these elected officials

have to represent their community and have to stand up for the decisions that they’ve

made. For local governments, that’s coming very soon. That is, I think, a great accountability

measure that we all have to go through as elected officials.

Tony Luck : Well, yes, we always have accountability when it comes time at the ballot box and

that kind of thing, but in the meantime, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are out billions

of dollars.

In the meantime, could the ministry not agree that maybe we have to have some kind

of oversight within government to be able to have a body that municipalities could

go to and ask for help? I’m thinking of… Especially for us who are in smaller rural

communities that don’t have the financial resources to be able to hire streams of

accountants and things like that….

Do you think the ministry could be looking at re-implementing the Auditor General

for Local Government to help those municipalities that struggle to make sure that

their projects will come in on time and on budget?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, this topic is not in the budget, but I think we can have a little bit of latitude

to have a discussion about it.

[2:20 p.m.]

Some of the questions are: UBCM elected officials are asking for this; why won’t you

do it? In this case, UBCM was the one saying that it was unnecessary and that they

were autonomous and should be able to make decisions. I think that’s the paradox of

the questions that we get.

Now, I share the concern around Metro and some of the decisions and some of the challenges

they’re dealing with, with their infrastructure projects. Again, there’s a full review

happening right now, and we certainly will be keeping an eye on it and making public

whatever information that can be made public.

Tony Luck : We talk about a full review going on with Metro Vancouver, but we know that’s an

internal review set up by their own individuals and that. Under the Local Government

Act, the government has the ability to call for a completely, totally independent

review. Why would this ministry not do that to protect the integrity of the taxpayers

in that community?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : As I’ve highlighted with Metro, we have an independent observer that’s watching the

process. If it comes to a point where we believe additional steps are needed, that’s

something we’ll consider at that time. But, at this point, the people that they’ve

put forward are reputable individuals.

In no way…. The member is not doing it; I’m certainly not raising concerns about who

these individuals are and the work that they do. We have to have faith that the process

will happen. Our independent observer will be watching. If there are issues, then

certainly we’ll take additional steps.

Tony Luck : Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to ask further questions from this

section in the

future.

Could we take a five-minute recess as my colleague will get resettled for her next

line of questioning as she gets reseated? Is that okay?

Does she need five minutes? Can she just…? Just a couple of minutes.

The Chair : I think we’ve got time to wait.

Are we good to go? Perfect. There you go.

Thank you, Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner : Thank you for recognizing me. Just before I get on to my next set of questions, I

would put through you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding Bill 44 and whether or not

the ministry has determined….

If people were to accommodate the densification that the ministry is suggesting, has

the ministry also acknowledged what the contributions would need to be from the province

relative to hospitals, highways and schools?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I know the member is probably just staying up so that she doesn’t have to go up and

down. I apologize. I was waiting.

I would say we have people in our communities that are underhoused, people already

in our communities. I think there’s a misunderstanding sometimes with some of the

pieces we’re bringing forward that this is about bringing a lot more people to our

communities. This is about making sure the people that are in our communities have

housing.

We have individuals…. I raised this in the debate of the bill last year. Twelve people

were living in a single-family house, students all crashed into a three-bedroom place.

There was a lack of housing.

Now, that’s increasing. We’re setting records for housing starts. The federal government

has made some decisions to slow down some of the immigration numbers, so that will

have an impact. But certainly, the social infrastructure needs to continue to be expanded.

The member is aware that south of the Fraser, we’ve got new transit, we’ve got new

hospitals, and we’ve got new schools. We can debate all day long whether it’s enough,

if it’s coming fast enough, but it’s coming. It is being done in communities, and

we’re going to need to do that in communities around the province.

[2:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner : Well, I acknowledge the minister’s comments, and he is certainly right that we could

debate that all day long and where the deficits are and continue to be. But I think

the more critical question around Bill 44 is that there is a large expectation of

local governments to provide this housing, to make sure that they have the roadways

that are going to accommodate more vehicles, that are going to accommodate garbage

trucks and that could have four to five or six houses on a lot now.

To that end, you also have to have the corresponding provincial requirements of: do

we have enough hospitals to care for those expanded uses? Do we have enough schools

to prepare for those students? And yes, we have…. When we’re growing this province

as quickly as we are, I think that is an analysis that should be made relative to

the Bill 44 requirement.

I’ll leave it at that, and I thank the minister for his response. But I still believe

there is a lot to be done relative to that, and I reserve the right to query more.

I would like to now move on to what I’m going to call, likely not happily to the minister,

the hidden carbon tax on housing, which I will call the step code. The step code regulations

have emerged as a significant tax on new housing, substantially escalating costs,

intensifying bureaucracy and hampering the province’s already strained housing market.

Intended to progressively increase energy efficiency in new construction, the step

code imposes stringent guidelines on insulation quality, on thermal loss mitigation,

on window sizes, on lighting and overall design specifications. Industry professionals

have estimated compliance costs as adding 10 to 20 percent to new home prices, exacerbating

affordability concerns in the middle of a severe housing crisis.

These regulatory layers not only inflate housing costs but introduce unnecessary complexity

and delays in permitting and project execution, leading directly to fewer homes being

built. This is exactly the red tape that strangles new-home building.

Given the complexity and bureaucratic nature of step code compliance, has the ministry

calculated the exact cost burden, both direct compliance costs and indirect permitting

delays, borne now by builders and, ultimately, homeowners in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There are a couple of pieces, a couple of questions within the question from the

member.

I know that we’re moving on from topics. I did just want to make one comment on the

last piece, which is that we also need nurses, we also need teachers, and we also

need trades folks, and they need housing.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg. We need to have the housing to have the people to

be able to support the social infrastructure we need, but we’ll have lots of time.

We’re here for a while, so I suspect we’ll come back to this.

On the building code piece, I think it’s important for folks, those that are watching

at home, to understand that, with any code changes, we try to give time for the home-building

community, for industry, to adjust to the changes that are coming.

The member’s question was what’s the cost. It’s very difficult to come up with a number,

given that design choices can change from building to building. So it depends on what

your design choices are. It depends on market of supply. We do look at all these things.

I just met, within the last few weeks, with folks within this industry that supply

goods, to discuss how we’re changing technologically, how we’re adapting. In fact,

what I heard from them was that the technology exists; the technology is not the challenge.

How do we skill people up and train them up to be able to install and do these different

changes that we need to do to be able to get there?

I do acknowledge that there are often potential costs associated with building code

Given that there were some serious concerns around supply of building supplies — the

fact that 40 to 60 percent of our building supplies come from the U.S., and the uncertainty

so that we can build more predictability in costs.

in housing will tell you that these changes are long overdue. I think of Stephanie

Cadieux, who was a minister here and who is now the national advocate in this space.

They want to see it move forward.

We’re trying to find a balance between wanting to move forward on important measures

and, at the same, time ensuring that we can still get housing built. We do that with

the energy code as well.

Susie Chant : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant : Thank you so very much.

Earlier in the day on the precinct was Sutherland Secondary School from North Vancouver.

It was their global perspectives program, which was designed to enrich students’ understanding

of global affairs by fostering engagement in the interconnectivity of economic, political,

environmental and social systems. The global issues curriculum is interwoven through

four courses, with an emphasis on field studies to ensure students’ learning extends

beyond the classroom.

The class group, grade 11s and 12s from Sutherland, spent their time in the Legislature.

They met with Minister Ma, and they’ve been touring through the building.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get here fast enough, and they’re off the precinct now. But

I hope that the House can warmly welcome them at this time, so that we can show it

to them on Hansard .

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner : I don’t think I got an answer relative to the costing and the cost burden of compliance

to the step code. But I’ll help answer that question, if I may, because the people

I’ve been meeting with within the industry tell me it adds 10 to 20 percent to the

hard costs of a project.

How can you justify to British Columbians why their government chooses to impose a

step code — essentially, a hidden carbon tax that raises home prices by that kind

of a percentage — all in the midst of an unprecedented housing affordability crisis?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think the member must acknowledge that operating those buildings will be cheaper.

Yes, there may be a cost for the developer. They may not make the profit margins that

they want, but those that are living in those units will be able to operate in a more

cost-effective way — lower bills, lower heating bills, etc. Those buildings that are

rentals will have better cash flows.

There are other benefits. I know the member knows the climate benefits of it, but

there are other benefits beyond that as well, which I think are important. I’ll leave

it there, and I’ll come back to it after.

Linda Hepner : I don’t think we got an answer that the public would consider to be significantly

useful to their pocketbooks when we’re talking about a 10 or 20 percent increase in

housing and an onerous red-tape scenario.

With housing plummeting by 59 percent in Vancouver alone, can the minister confirm

how many approved housing projects have been halted or cancelled, specifically due

to the step code–related escalations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m not aware of a single project that has been cancelled because of just the step

code. If the member has a project that was cancelled just because of the step code,

I’m happy to hear it.

I can share with the member that there is research that was released in 2022. There

was a construction cost analysis of high-performance, multi-unit residential buildings

in B.C., and it showed that the cost was 3 percent or less for housing types under

step 3.

There are a lot of factors in projects. The biggest one I hear, by far, is the time

it takes to get approvals. So we’ve been taking those steps. Again, this research

showed a 3 percent cost, and it doesn’t show the savings for individuals that move

into those units. Both are important.

Linda Hepner : Has the government conducted any rigorous economic or social-impact analysis measuring

whether the marginal energy efficiency gains — I think he said 3 percent — justify

the substantial deterioration in affordability, livability and market viability, and

if so, could we have those analyses made available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, this research showed that there was a 3 percent or less cost. The ongoing

savings were around 20 percent. That’s significant for those that are living in the

unit after, the savings.

Now, the member wants the research. I’m happy to share the research with the member.

It’s a report that’s from a few years ago. If it’s easier for the member, maybe we’ll

have someone email the link to the research so that the member can have it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Linda Hepner : I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not they have met with industry and

gone through a pro forma of a building project and been able to determine through

various agencies, as I have, that those numbers no longer work for viability in the

marketplace.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I meet with industry on an ongoing basis. I think it’s not fair to characterize the

step code as their challenge that they can’t get housing on. There are a lot of challenges.

There were interest rate challenges. There were labour shortage challenges. There

is the fact that rents are coming down and that home prices are coming down, and a

lot of pro formas don’t work right now. There is trade uncertainty around building

supplies. Those are the topics that I discuss with industry all the time. That’s not

a new thing.

The changes to the step code were not something we did this year. This was multiple

years ago. We built in the predictability so that people knew it was coming, so that

it gave a market signal to industry to be able to adapt.

I just met two weeks ago with some industry stakeholders that provide products that

support us to be able to meet our goals. They said: “Technology moves quick.” Technology

is moving quick. They said: “We still need support for training people up so that

they have the skill sets to be able to install and make sure that these buildings

can continue to operate.”

There are a lot of advancements happening in Europe. We’re seeing the price of a lot

of the products coming down. That’s what happens when you give the signal: you see

the market react and start to produce the products we need to be able to achieve the

goals that we want. Over time, those costs will continue to come down.

Linda Hepner : I think it would be very advantageous for both the minister and the critic for the

ministry to meet with the same players. We’re hearing different stories from what

I just heard now from the minister. That is certainly not what I’m hearing, both in

the community I live in and in the various agencies with which I’ve met.

I would like to ask whether it is the ministry’s position…. Could the minister define

what measurable environmental outcomes have been directly attributed to the step code

regulations and whether they merit the harm attached to housing affordability and

availability?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I didn’t want the people at home to be confused that all of a sudden there was something

brand-new being introduced this year. The energy step code was introduced in 2017.

The member is asking for research and data that was done at that time. I don’t have

anything new that I can share, other than the research that I’ve committed to share

with the member.

If the member has questions about the climate change roadmap, that’s a question for

the Ministry of Energy, which is actually in estimates right now. I suggest that’s

a better place for that question.

Linda Hepner : Considering that the industry reports that the step code compliance results in darker,

less comfortable and aesthetically compromised home interiors, how does the ministry

defend sacrificing that quality of life for the marginal energy efficiency?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It depends on design choices. It’s a vague question. It’s hard to answer the question.

It just depends on how projects are being designed, and they’re all being designed

differently. Many projects are starting to use more natural airflow, etc.

I don’t know exactly how to…. I don’t want to avoid the question, but I just don’t

know how to answer the question because it’s a little vague.

Linda Hepner : I did not mean to be vague, but can I build a big window? A big one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes, the member can, if the member chooses to, have a big window. I encourage a big

window. Of course, it depends on the manufacturer and their ability to produce it.

But there are homes that can meet that step code with larger windows, so yes.

Linda Hepner : I’m very glad to hear the minister say that, because that is not what I’m hearing

from the builders. I’ll be sure to pass that on, that we can have as big a window

as we would like under the step code.

What evidence, if any, does the ministry have that British Columbians support these

regulations that significantly raise housing prices and lower home quality, except

for the big window, merely for marginal improvements?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think the fact that we have a majority government, the fact that we ran on a commitment

to make some progress when it comes to addressing climate change…. Building envelopes

are an important piece, an important measure on that.

I appreciate that in every election, there are people who campaign who say: “Don’t

do anything.” We campaigned to say that this is an important step to move in that

direction. I think that’s an important measure of support.

Again, I think our numbers…. We disagree on the numbers of the impact of the step

code. This was introduced in 2017. A lot has happened in that time. A lot of innovation

has come online, and we’re going to continue to see that. Anytime a marker is set

and the market is given some time to adjust, you see the market adjust. We’re starting

to see that here as well.

Linda Hepner : I’m surprised the market has to adjust if we can have big windows. In fact, I’m rather

surprised that all the new buildings that you see have long, narrow, dark windows.

I would suggest that perhaps the ministry needs to make their design options much

clearer to the marketplace, because I don’t think the marketplace as yet understands

that they can build as big a window as they like.

Finally, Minister, in this topic, given the significant social harm and economic harm

caused by the step code, and the documented decline in housing starts, will you reconsider

and repeal these regulations so that we can restore some affordability and some attractiveness

to British Columbia’s new housing market?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think it’s important to, maybe, put in context that the work to have a step code

didn’t just happen under our government. In fact, this idea started when Rich Coleman

was the Minister of Housing and Christy Clark was the Premier. That’s when the work

started. That government understood that you need to make progress, and you need to

move the dial. We just carried that work on when we came into government.

[2:50 p.m.]

At this point, the member is asking if I’m prepared to cancel regulations. The next

step code is, I think, projected for 2030, and, at this point, I’m not considering

changing any of those regulations.

Linda Hepner : I hear what the good minister is saying about previous folk sitting here in the House,

but I think it’s fair to suggest that, under what is considered to be a housing crisis,

we should all be looking for solutions to how we resolve a crisis, not how we are

going to continue. What you’re suggesting is somebody else’s idea, and we’re just

going along with it.

I’m not impressed with the ministry’s response to that regulation, because I believe

that in a crisis, we all need to be swimming in the same direction, saying: what is

it we need to do? This minister likes to suggest that there are all sorts of positive

things happening in housing, when some of the very things that could easily help the

cost of housing and home ownership are to simply get rid of some of the barriers we

have within our own government regulations.

and the consultations under that particular subject.

I understand that the ministry is undergoing those consultations related to universal

design standards, including those inspired by the accessible design for the built

environment — CSA B651 and similar to federal or ADA-equivalent models.

Stakeholders in the development industry have raised concerns about the cost impact

of requiring a majority of units in new buildings to be accessible and adaptable.

Developers suggest that full compliance would add another 8 to 12 percent to the construction

cost per unit, particularly in a multi-storey residential building, due to wider corridors,

turning radius, additional elevator space, reinforced walls for grab bars and plumbing

modifications.

At the same time, advocates for universal design point to demographic data. As to

the most recent surveys, approximately 4 or 5 percent of British Columbians would

rely on wheelchair or mobility aids, and that number is expected to rise, obviously,

with an aging population. I can tell you, right here, I’ve got my cane. So for a short

period of time, I’ll be among that 4 to 5 percent.

Questions please, Mr. Minister. Can you confirm whether or not your ministry has provided

the B.C. building code?

The Chair : Once again, just a reminder that questions will come through the Chair, Member. Thank

you very much.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thank you, Chair, for keeping us disciplined. I appreciate that. I will do so.

When I first got elected, my first task as an MLA was to bring back a Human Rights

Commission to British Columbia. So I travelled to talk to folks about human rights

I heard many stories of people that couldn’t visit a family member because although

they had units in the building that were accessible, the unit that their family member

lived in was not. Doors weren’t wide enough, so the entire family would go up to visit

the family, and that one individual in a wheelchair would just wait outside.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is an important conversation from a human rights perspective, which I take seriously.

I reflect on the former minister, Stephanie Cadieux, who was in here, who has now

got the job to be advocating for more progress at a national level.

I think it is important for the member to know a couple of things. We have moved the

percentage requirement to 20 percent. We did that in consultation with industry.

We committed that we’ll continue to follow the national process. The member has asked

if we provided some feedback at that process. I can confirm that we have a team that

is engaged with the national process. It’s moving slow, but the conversations are

happening at a national level.

are. But to the degree that they’re doing consultation and that there is an expectation

of a significantly larger percentage of design of the built environment being accessible

into the now unaffordable….

Well, I’ll just ask the question this way: what is the estimated construction cost

increase per unit associated with making a typical apartment fully accessible versus

adaptable only, and has the ministry commissioned any third-party costing studies

on this?

a copy of that report on adaptability, I am happy to share it with the member.

Linda Hepner : Thank you. I would like that.

I appreciate the minister providing that to me.

I wonder if the ministry has an understanding of what percentage of British Columbians

currently require mobility aids or wheelchairs, and if there has been a housing demographic

forecast of what that would look like over the next ten or 20 years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : My team doesn’t have a number right now. But we’re here for a couple of days, I think,

so we’ll make sure we get that to you.

Linda Hepner : I appreciate that. Thank you.

I hear the minister suggest that only a portion of suites — up to 20 percent…? On

what basis is this policy being set?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : At this point, we are only at 20 percent adaptability. We are not in a position to

expand that or announce any expansions of that. It is not something that is being

considered at this time.

Linda Hepner : I wonder if I could ask for the full cost-benefit analysis, stakeholder feedback

and any implementation plan for these code changes to be made public before any final

recommendations or regulations are adopted.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think I have answered this question. We have a space-and-cost impact report based

on adaptable changes, and I’m happy to share that with the member. My team was just

going to email something over so that the member has it.

Linda Hepner : Does that include an implementation plan?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think, perhaps, we are talking about two different things. Our plan is to go to

20 percent. At this point, we don’t have a plan to go beyond that.

The federal government is contemplating further changes. We’re engaged with them at

that table, but we don’t have a final report or a final plan. I assume the federal

government will have a full cost-benefit analysis done with whatever end result they

come with, but we’re not there yet.

Linda Hepner : I’m hearing the minister suggest that they’re talking adaptability, not full-on accessible.

If I’m correct in that, then I believe my question…. If the minister provides me with

the information that has been suggested, that would satisfy me.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes, the member is correct, 20 percent adaptability. That’s as far as we’re going

at this stage, and we’ll wait for the federal process. I commit to the member that

I’ll get that report. It also includes some of the analysis around earthquake code.

I’ll make a comment just to say that at a national level, there was research done

around soil and impacts from potential earthquakes. In fact, I would say the bigger

concern from industry is how we adjust the building code to meet those earthquake

recently, and more on the earthquake pieces.

I’m sure the member would fully agree with me that if the research is clear that there’s

a risk because of potential earthquakes, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure

that we mitigate the best we can any of those concerns in the building code. That

work is happening as well.

Linda Hepner : Just to clarify, we’re talking 20 percent adaptability, not 100 percent adaptability.

Linda Hepner : If I could ask for a break to bring in a couple of other people that would like to

speak….

The Chair : Looks like we’re going to be okay with that. I think we’re going to recognize one

of the members right now.

Scott McInnis : I’m okay to continue if the minister and his staff are okay with that as well.

Thank you, Minister, for those questions. I want to shift gears a little bit and just

talk about some of the unique housing challenges we face in regard to resort municipalities

and some of the short-term-rental regulations that are coming up in the next couple

of days for those that want to be part of the new registry system.

Just to start off, if I could just get a brief outline as to what the stated goal

is with the Ministry of Housing when it comes to this new short-term-rental registry

application process and fee for small municipalities that are allowed to have short-term

rentals.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Nice to have an exchange with the member. We haven’t had a chance yet, so I appreciate

the question.

The changes we’ve done around STR, or short-term rentals, were to ensure that we are

prioritizing housing opportunities for people in our communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Prior to the member being elected, UBCM, in fact, had a resolution asking for the

province to step in this space, in particular, because local governments were trying

to create their own licensing system. But often they did not get cooperation from

the platforms. So you could set up something and then you were finding out through

house parties where the short-term rentals were as opposed to where they actually

were.

The city of Vancouver had an agreement to share data, but even they struggled to actually

get the data of where short-term rentals were. So we took the first steps last year,

and the registry now is…. People are registering their properties, and we are starting

to see some good progress. We’re starting to see the numbers coming up, and now that

data will be shared with local governments.

Local governments now will be able to compare what they think is happening in their

communities to what is actually happening in their communities. That was a big, big

ask from local governments because there was a major blind spot when it comes to that.

Now, I think I know where the member is going, because I’ve seen some correspondence

from the member. It’s important to note that when we set the system up, we want to

make sure that we’re recovering costs to set up the system and operate. I wouldn’t

be surprised to see local governments moving away from having their own systems, because

the province has created one that has more teeth than they can possibly do.

I mean, the reality was local governments were not able to compel anything from platforms.

Now, of course, with our system, that information will be transparent, so I wouldn’t

be surprised if we see local governments moving away, because our system now does

all the things that they wanted to see, and it will help them better mitigate challenges

in their communities.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I think the minister will agree that resort municipalities are unique. These are small

communities that have huge tourism influxes in peak seasons, but they don’t necessarily

have the hotel capacity to house these tourists when they come to town.

I appreciate that the minister is stating that perhaps some of these municipalities

will be moving away from their local registry systems and fee-collection pieces, but

as of right now, they’re not. That’s somewhat of a stream of important revenue for

local resort municipalities as they exist today.

I completely understand that not all resort municipalities are one and the same. I’m

sure there will be resort municipalities that find that perhaps this short-term registry

and the additional fee are a deterrent to providing more stable and long-term housing

for specific communities.

I’m just wondering if, before this came into existence for resort municipalities specifically,

did the ministry do any canvassing among the 14 resort municipalities in the province

to see what their individual needs were?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : When we were building this out, there was extensive engagement done with communities.

We exempted some regional districts. We exempted tourism-dependent communities from

the principal residence requirements for that reason. We know that they often depend

on that for tourism activity. The member will know that there are tourism-dependent

communities that have wanted to opt in because they see the benefit of it. Osoyoos

is an example.

Likely the member is also interested in the fact that we require everyone to register,

whether they’re a tourism-dependent community or not, because the tools that we have

in place allow us to do a level of enforcement. If we don’t know where the homes are

in communities, whether they’re tourism-dependent or not…. If we don’t have a system

in place, we can’t have an enforcement process.

There are many short-term rentals. Maybe I’ll just use Whistler as an example. It’s

not a real example, but an example. You could have a whole host of short-term rentals

in that community, and it’d be great. But you could have a few that are owned by somebody

who doesn’t live in town, and it’s a major problem. Having everyone registered allows

the local government now to use their licensing to say: “We would like that one shut

down for whatever reason because of non-compliance, etc.”

Now our registry provides them the tool to actually have the enforcement. Before that,

it would be goodwill. You could ask, but the platforms may not respond.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Again, I think the issue here is specifically for resort municipalities. My question

originally was: did the ministry actually canvass the 14 resort municipalities to

see what their unique housing needs were? Again, I have five of the 14 resort municipalities

in my riding.

I’ve shared with the ministry a lot of concerns, because of some of the unintended

consequences with a second registry and a second fee that the province has brought

in, are that a lot of these small-time STR operators are now choosing to close their

doors because they’re paying in excess of $1,000 per door for the registry plus a

lengthy process — and one that the municipalities already have in place.

They’re extremely frustrated, and the result being that people are cancelling bookings.

That’s very devastating for some of these local, small resort municipalities within

Columbia River–Revelstoke specifically.

I just want to see if I can get an answer out of the ministry as to whether they canvassed,

specifically, resort municipalities to see what kind of existing systems they already

had in place, and would this registry be helpful for them? The feedback I’m receiving

is that it is not, and the unintended consequence is that people are closing their

short-term rentals.

Just as a footnote, these are not big corporate entities that are owning these short-term

rentals. These are small-time people within the community that maybe have a second

property that they’ve saved up a lot of money and time to be able to afford, or perhaps

they’ve renovated their existing primary residence to have a secondary suite within

there. It’s not these big corporate real estate investment trusts or things like that.

These are local folks.

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, I think the result is that, yes, they’re pulling their short-term rental off

the market. Yes, that does provide housing locally for people that need it, because

we still do have a crunch, but the unintended consequence is that people are cancelling

bookings to these resort municipalities.

I just want to ask the ministry if they canvassed specifically, through a questionnaire

or through a town hall, with the resort municipalities. Were they asked what their

specific needs were, based on the tourism and fluxes that they see every season?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can tell the member that we specifically engaged with Revelstoke in 2023 when we

were preparing to make the legislation. If the member is asking specifically about

the fee, the fee is again important because if Revelstoke wants us to use the powers

we’ve created, in order to actually enforce the rules that they have in place for

them, then it’s important for them to register.

I appreciate that for somebody who’s renovated a place, an additional $100 is $100.

I get it. But it’s important that we also have a measure for cost recovery so that

if we’re investing in infrastructure, a system, an opportunity for people to check,

we’re able to recover some of those costs. I just think that the cost-recovery piece

was an important piece for us as we move forward.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that.

Beyond Revelstoke…. I have five resort municipalities in my riding — Revelstoke, Golden,

Invermere, Radium Hot Springs and Kimberley; and they’re all very unique. Not all

of those communities disagree necessarily with the short-term-rental registry policy

that’s in place, but several of them do, Kimberley specifically. I know Tourism Kimberley

has written the ministry, asking them to reconsider this policy, and they were sent

a message that said: “Well, maybe you should consider locally reducing your fees.”

I just want to again double-check to see if all the resort municipalities were canvassed

to see what their unique, specific needs related to short-term rentals are.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We sent notices to Golden, Revelstoke, Rossland, Ucluelet, Tofino, Kimberley and

Radium Hot Springs, and the teams met with Revelstoke, Golden and Rossland. We didn’t

hear back from some of the others.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Sending a notice sounds like sending something that’s, “This is what’s coming,” not

kind of an engaged, back-and-forth dialogue with those communities potentially.

I do appreciate that he did speak with a couple of communities, Golden and Revelstoke

— and Rossland, which is outside of my riding but, nevertheless, still a resort municipality.

As I’m wrapping up this line of questioning here, will the minister agree with me

that having a secondary set of fees in place, on top of the local municipal fees and

a second set of application fees, is not redundant, and that asking municipalities

to remove their fees and their application system, which is working in some of the

resort municipalities, is not taking money away from local governments and putting

it directly into the coffers of the province?

This is extremely frustrating for resort municipalities. At times, they feel like

they’re treated like an ATM in this province, bringing in hundreds of millions of

dollars in revenue and not seeing a lot of return on investment.

Just to summarize that question: does the ministry not see, because we still have

both fees and application processes on the table as we sit here today, that they’re

taking away local revenue for municipalities and bringing it here to Victoria?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : A couple things.

First, I’ll say that the notices to those communities were notices to engage with

us. We don’t send them a notice saying: “It’s happening.” We say: “We’re thinking

about moving this direction, and we’d like to engage with you.” UBCM sent us this

recommendation to do it. UBCM did their own engagement with all the communities, so

that’s an important piece.

Lastly, I’ll say to the member that local governments wanted the ability to be able

to enforce the rules. Right now you can have…. I’ll give Burnaby as an example. Burnaby

had their own licensing agreement. They had people say to them, literally…. Bylaw

would go there, and they’d say to the bylaw officer’s face: “Thank you for coming.

I’m not doing anything you’re asking me to do. You have no power to be able to do

any of this.” That was what they heard.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know that recently Surrey decided to start their own bylaws because of the challenge.

But the problem fundamentally still exists, which is if these communities want to

actually take some action, they need the ability for our registry and our legislation

to be able to enforce those rules.

I appreciate the additional $100. It is a cost; I get that. But it allows the local

government to have a level of enforcement that they were not able to have previously.

I know with any level of enforcement, it’s a challenge. But again, this was something

the UBCM felt really strongly. There were motions passed on this topic, and we’re

seeing the benefit.

We’re seeing now, because of the registry, actually an increase in registries at local

government level. Local governments — when we started sharing the preliminary data

with them, their numbers were small compared to how many short-term rentals were in

their community. By requiring them to go through our process, now local governments

are actually seeing an increase in registrations with them because the people that

are operating short-term rentals realize that the only way they can operate is if

they actually follow the city’s rules.

Cities are seeing a benefit, a significant increase in registries, as well, which

brings them additional revenues for the important things that they do.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I totally understand that bylaw officers sometimes feel a little bit, no pun intended,

handcuffed with their role in enforcing the rules. What additional enforcement strategies

is the province going to use from here in Victoria in order to ensure that there’s

compliance with their provincial short-term registration process that’s new here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Two parts I’ll just share with the member. In Revelstoke, they’ve seen a 14 percent

increase in compliance with local government rules, with local government licensing,

because of the registry already. That is in seven months. That’s something.

In the enforcement piece, there are two mechanisms. A local government can use our

new portal to send a direct message to anyone that’s got a unit, with a notice to

say: “We believe you’re out of compliance” or “You’re not following the rules.” And

then they have another tool available to them to notify directly to the platform to

remove the listing.

That is a powerful tool for local governments that they didn’t have before, because

before, it was, again, begging and hoping and wishing. Now the data portal allows

them to send a notice, and then the platform has a certain amount of time in order

for them to remove it. They’re required to remove it. If they don’t remove it, then

there’s a fine associated with not doing that, so it’s in their interest to do that.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that answer. I just have one more question, and then

I’ll pass it off to my colleague from Kelowna Centre.

I’m hearing from people on the ground who operate short-term rentals in the resort

municipalities, specifically in Columbia River–Revelstoke, that there is some friction,

some tension and some unhappiness with the new registry system.

Will the minister today commit to revisiting and perhaps canvassing again resort municipalities

after six months or a year, just to see how the new registry is playing out within

these communities? It’s extremely important in these small resort municipalities that

are under a population of 10,000 people that short-term rentals are available for

the tourism seasons.

[3:25 p.m.]

It would be great today if I could get a commitment from the ministry that they will

review this in six months or a year to see if compliance rates are working and the

consequences and the outcomes of this new registration policy are, in fact, working.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can’t commit to the member that in six months there will be a review. But I can

commit to the member that we’ll continue to engage with communities as we go forward.

We will share the compliance level that we see over time.

If the member is interested, after a period of time, we can check in. I can share

what numbers we are seeing for compliance. We are continuously engaging with local

governments on how we move forward, but I can’t commit to a specific time.

The need for folks to register through our system is vitally important. It’s not only

important for this; it’s also important because we are able to share this data with

the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance has registries created to ensure

compliance around money laundering, etc. So there’s another level of importance for

us to have this registry that is beyond just short-term rentals. But we’re happy to

share with the member after six months or so what kind of progress we’re seeing in

the community, and the member can come to me anytime to engage on it.

Kristina Loewen : In Kelowna, the municipality is now allowing business licences for short-term rentals

in suites and carriage homes. While this loosening of rules and expansion of short-term

rentals is welcome to many, the dates do not coincide well with the provincial requirements.

The province requires a registration number as of this Thursday, in just two days,

but the municipality says to expect two to five weeks’ wait for a licence.

At this point, the risk is put on the shoulders of the homeowner, the mom-and-pop,

the small-time entrepreneur who are expected to pay $450 for a carriage home registration

number. These are people who own a second property and have really struggled or have

a second suite in their primary that they’ve not been able to utilize for the past

year and a half.

My question to the minister is: will he consider waiving the fee or making it payable

upon final approval? Will he extend the provincial date by a month or two, or will

he consider some kind of support for citizens who are trying to do the right thing

but are caught between two levels of government?

The Chair : This feels like a great time to remind members to have their electronic devices on

silent mode.

Not you, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Good. I thought I was not hearing something.

I appreciate the member raising this concern. I’ll explore with my team if we can

put in some sort of provision to allow individuals to provide proof that they are

making the application. So we’ll explore that, and maybe I can get back to the member

by tomorrow on whether we can accommodate that. I’ll try. I can’t commit to it, but

I’ll try.

The fee is required to be part of it. We can’t waive the fee, but we will do what

we can to ensure that that gap in time is covered so that people who are doing it

in good faith can continue to operate. We’ll follow up with you as soon as we can.

Kristina Loewen : Thank you, Minister, for that answer. My constituent will really appreciate that.

I have just one more question for the minister.

A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from a realtor and a builder in Kelowna.

They cited a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 per new build in Kelowna to add the province’s

new seismic requirements. We’re in an affordability crisis; we’re in a housing crisis.

[3:30 p.m.]

What is the rationale in extending costly seismic requirements to the entire province

when most of the province doesn’t have the same risk of seismic events?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : My team has let me know that we will provide Kelowna the ability to have proof of

application so that they are covered for the two weeks. We’ll share a link with the

member on that so that you can see that and share that with your constituents.

I appreciate the member raising the question about seismic code changes. We were just

canvassing this, before the member arrived, with the critic, the member for Surrey–Serpentine

River. It’s a challenge. I fully acknowledge that it’s a challenge. When you have

research from the federal level come down, which says that under certain soil conditions

there are greater risks of seismic issues connected with buildings, we can’t turn

a blind eye to it.

In my meetings with industry, I have always said the same thing, “Do you refute the

data and research?” and they say no. Then I say: “Now it’s our responsibility to build

housing that is safe for people, because god forbid that we have this data and builders

are not building housing properly on that soil, and then we have a big one. How do

we respond to the public?”

Beyond that, even if industry or someone were to come in and say, “You know what?

We’re going to disregard that,” the insurance industry has come to us and said: “It

doesn’t matter if you change the code or not. We know the soil sample. We are going

to ensure that we price or not provide any insurance to anyone on that soil if you

don’t do the proper mitigation to protect from that.” That’s the challenge we’re in;

I fully acknowledge it. There’s no easy solution.

I can share with the member that we have a partnership that we’re forming with industry

to look at how we can mitigate costs, what we can do in the design, in the engineering,

to be able to continue to build this housing, but to do it in the most cost-effective

way. That work has started, and that will help inform what we do as we go forward.

It’s a significant impact on the coast in some communities.

It’s not us imposing it community-wide. It really depends on the soil. It could be

something that impacts one project somewhere, but it could be a few blocks away are

not impacted. I’m pretty open about the challenge that we have here, but I’m resolute

and clear that I, as the minister responsible, will not put any lives at risk by not

making the changes when the evidence is clear.

Kristina Loewen : Thank you for your answer, Minister.

Just as you were answering, I was thinking about the common sense in this reality.

The reality is that I lived 22 years on the coast. Yes, we had earthquake drills;

yes, we talked about earthquakes in schools.

I have now lived in Kelowna Centre for 27 years. We never speak of earthquakes; it’s

not a thing there. So it defies common sense to apply this logic.

Furthermore, I got to sit today at lunch with the hon. Speaker and with some scientists,

one of whom is an engineer and works for a research team. He was asking: “Where are

we getting these codes from? Who’s doing the research? Who’s doing the engineering?

This doesn’t make sense to me.”

We were actually talking about seismic code at lunch. That’s anecdotal; that’s one

engineer. But I would like to see where these reports are coming from, what the science

is, and who’s putting these forward, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.

Thank you for your answer. If we could get more information on where the science and

research is coming from, I would love that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thanks to the member.

The research is done by the National Research Council. I assume that’s as reputable

as it gets for research in this space.

Seismic is an issue. The member may be talking about seismic in her community, but

there may be other wind elements that are also an impact. If the member has specifics

and writes me, I’ll try to get information on if it’s wind-related or if it’s soil-

and seismic-related.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll go back to my original comment, which is: actually, at this point it doesn’t

even matter if we make a change or not. No insurer is going to insure, knowing the

National Research Council has done this research. No one is refuting the research.

The information is in front of us. Even if somebody wanted to build and we didn’t

change it, it’s going to have a major impact on them because they’re not going to

find somebody to insure it, because that research exists, and there’s a huge liability

that’s out there.

I hear the member. I can assure the member that every question the member is thinking

about, in every way of avoiding this, I have asked my team and considered because

I know there’s an impact. But unfortunately, the research is pretty clear.

Now, there is some hope, because some of the discussions we’re having with the engineering

community, in particular, and some homebuilders…. There are some innovative solutions

that are coming forward, and I’m hoping that this work that we do together, which

will be made public, will help us mitigate a lot of these concerns.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Bryan Tepper : I have a question about a certain property, and I’m hoping we can get an update on

it: 5625 Ladner Trunk Road. I am to understand that’s going to be a project going

forward for below-market housing — 5625 Ladner Trunk.

I’ll just ask, first of all, is there any information on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The team is going to work through that.

Does the member have something specific around…? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange

while the team looks it up, if there are some specific concerns about that. It’s in

Delta, so I have a sense of what it might be, but I’m happy to hear from the member

on it.

Bryan Tepper : I’ve had this brought to my attention a couple of times by people in the area. It’s

a townhouse complex on 1½ acres. It was set for redevelopment, but people have been

out of the townhouse for several years now. It’s been empty and apparently going downhill.

It should be for redevelopment, but at this point, nobody’s living in it. It hasn’t

been made use of.

I’m wondering if we can get a time frame on what’s going on there.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : When the member gave the address, it took me a second to get the memory back, but

we did canvass this. The member from Delta and I canvassed this last year. This one

has got a long history. I think it was in front of council in 2022, and it was rejected.

Then it went back to council just recently, and it’s going through the process.

My understanding from the team is that we’re expecting construction to start this

fall. If something changes, I’ll certainly get back to the member. But we finally

got the approval from local government, and it seems like we’re proceeding in a good

direction.

It has had a long history in Delta. The member for Delta South will remember this,

because it was on, and then it was off. The community was upset. We had to change

the design. I think we’re in a better place now and hoping to proceed soon.

Bryan Tepper : Okay, the question around that would be, then…. The permits. It sounds like it’s

a city issue that has been holding us up. Do we have a time frame on the completion

date of it? I think the completion date was supposed to be this year at some point.

Do we have a completion date or a length of time, depending on when we get the permits,

that the project will take?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member that we expect construction to start this fall. It’s

150 units, so it’s a pretty big project. It’ll probably take about two years for construction.

Bryan Tepper : Could you repeat the number again?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s 150 units.

Bryan Tepper : As this was a previous project, do you know if this is budgeted out of previous moneys,

or is it this year’s budget? Do we have an idea of where it’s being funded from?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It is part of our CHF budget currently.

Again, it was announced some time ago, and then council rejected the proposal, and

we had to go back to the drawing board and start again. But we’re starting, which

is a good thing.

Bryan Tepper : Back to short-term-rentals ban. Hopefully I’m correct, and if I can just use the

terminology short-term rental or Airbnb. With the short-term rental ban on people

using their hard-earned property as they see fit, how many of the housing units came

available for long-term rent in Kelowna? Do we have any estimates on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s hard to know the exact number because there was no baseline in the beginning,

but I can give the member a number that kind of blew my mind, which was…. The vacancy

rate in 2023 in Kelowna was 1 percent. In 2024, after short-term-rental rules jumped

in, it jumped up to 3.7 percent. That’s a significant shift in one year, from 1 percent

to 3.7 percent.

Bryan Tepper : I have brought this up several times. There was at least one housing project scheduled

for 360 units for Kelowna cancelled with the short-term rental ban when the pre-sales

started falling through.

Do you know if we could have replaced those 360 units? Would that be completing fairly

soon here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The investors in that property had an option that’s available to others, which was

to continue their project and operate as a strata hotel. The requirements are very

simple — just having somebody at the front desk, some cleaning services, which they

would, I suspect, require anyways. But they made a decision, and I can’t control the

decisions others make. I can share that that option was available to them, and in

fact it’s an option considered by others.

Bryan Tepper : Well, I appreciate the 1 percent to 3.7 percent, but I think we could have expected

an initial surge in rental listings to be a significant number.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think we have had reports from experts saying this would be a short-term effect,

and I’m curious about that. UBC Housing Research Collaborative noted that strong demand

and low vacancy rates mean the influx of new listings is likely temporary. With long-term

rent trajectories decimated due to structural supply issues, the regulations do not

address the need for new housing construction, which experts argue is critical to

resolving the issues.

Is there anything in the budget to actually address this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m going to try to extrapolate from what the member is saying.

The member is saying: “Yes, you may have short-term impacts, but the long-term solution

is still more supply,” and I agree with that. We still need more long-term supply.

We have been seeing historically high levels of supply come on the market here in

British Columbia, some of the highest in the country, and we’re certainly going to

need more supply.

A whole host of measures we’re doing around small-scale, multi-unit and around transit-oriented

development is meant to help facilitate that increase in supply. But you can do both.

You can address the short-term challenges.

I mentioned, from Kelowna, the 1 percent vacancy rate to 3.7 percent is significant,

especially for those who are desperately looking for a rental in the community. But

yeah, we have to continue our work for increasing housing supply as well.

Bryan Tepper : Just to follow up on the 1 to 3.7 percent, over what period was that? Is it expected

to increase or level out there? What are our projections on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share another important data point for the member, which is that the asking

rent has decreased in Kelowna in that same time period. Every year CMHC releases data.

It was between 2023 and then 2024 when they released the data. That’s the increase

in vacancy rate. Rent has come down for new units — for a one-bedroom, by 7.7 percent,

and for a two-bedroom, by 9 percent in Kelowna, some of the largest decreases in new-unit

rents in the country.

It’s an important provision to note that if a community has a vacancy rate of 3 percent

or above, which is CMHC’s definition of a healthy vacancy rate, for two years, then

they have the ability to opt out of the short-term rental principal residence requirement

if they choose so. West Kelowna, for example, is a community that had that vacancy

rate, so they chose to opt out. That’s allowed within the legislation.

Bryan Tepper : Critics of this, including B.C. Real Estate Association’s chief economist, have argued

that the regulation’s impact on housing supply is small and that it’s more on broader

factors, like population growth.

Simon Fraser University also noted that the rent and condo price declines may be influenced

more by interest rates and economic conditions, or again, population immigration changes,

than the short-term rental rules.

What’s in the budget to help with the economic conditions that we’re going through

right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I would just say that I read the BCREA’s information, and I would say that there

wasn’t evidence to back that. That was the chief economist making a statement that

he presumed. I did ask the team to look to see what data was being used to make that

statement, and there was no concrete data.

[3:55 p.m.]

As to the assumption of reduction of newcomers, immigration numbers, those changes

were well past when the changes to the short-term rentals were introduced in the province.

So you can’t connect the two. If the economist was suggesting that having a lower

number of international newcomers will have an impact on the housing market, that

would be correct, I suspect, but the two can’t be linked together.

Bryan Tepper : Just to follow up on that, do we have population data for Kelowna over the past two

years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : B.C. Stats has the information, by community, on their website. I don’t have it on

me. If the member needs us to get that, we can, but it’s pretty accessible on B.C.

Stats’ website.

Bryan Tepper : Airbnb has claimed that the listings they have represent less than 1 percent of B.C.’s

dwellings, which would suggest that the return to short-term rentals is going to have

a smaller effect and not have a significant impact on our housing shortage. Then again,

in 2023 the Conference Board of Canada found that there was no statistically significant

link between Airbnb activity and rent prices.

What evidence do we have that a ban on the use of people’s personal property has affected

rent prices?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Well, the evidence we have is what’s in front of us, which is that from when we brought

the legislation in to a year later, we saw the vacancy rate increase from 1 percent

to 3.7 percent in Kelowna and rents come down about 9 percent for two-bedroom units.

It might not be the only factor, if that’s what the member is suggesting, but it’s

an important factor. The changes around population that the federal government made

—those numbers will really not be seen until ’25, ’26, ’27. We may see a greater decline

because of less people coming, but that’ll be in the out years, not in the year that

it was announced. We’ll continue to monitor that.

As far as getting new housing supply online, yeah, there’s a whole host of work that

we’re doing — you know, trying to find ways to make the decision process more streamlined,

to create more certainty of costs. Prior to the member being here, we had a good exchange

with his colleague the critic for Infrastructure around certainty of costs. How do

we ensure that those that are building housing can do so with some level of certainty?

There’s a whole host of work that’s happened over that.

Of course, we have more work to do because there’s a lot of uncertainty with potential

tariffs and building supplies. There are estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the building

supplies come from the U.S., so that may have an impact. There’s a whole host of things.

The member asked what we are doing to help address some of the cost pieces. I can

share with the member that our recent agreement with the federal government is just

an example, where the federal government agreed to provide Metro Vancouver with $250

million for their Iona wastewater facility, on the condition that there be two-year

in-stream protection for projects and that they move their payment structure to completion.

That offsets the costs. It helps the home-building community with direct costs. It

ensures that Metro Vancouver has the money they need. We’re looking for those types

of relationships with the federal government now that the election is over.

Bryan Tepper : It just worries me that we’re dealing with correlation and causation on some of that

with the price, with no real evidence as to whether this is causing our prices to

level or stabilize so that things can be affordable.

We’ll move on. We have a tourism-heavy area; this is why I brought up Kelowna. A lot

of people in my riding, and throughout Surrey, have worked hard throughout their lives

to get a second property, which they have used with the hopes of renting it out while

they’re not using it.

[4:00 p.m.]

This has made it unreasonable for them to actually be able to continue owning a property

like that, which then brings us to realtors now reporting that we’re a saturated market

in Kelowna. Condos and vacation homes are sitting, waiting for sale, due to these

regulations.

The low sales rate suggests these units may not quickly convert to long-term rentals

or affordable ownership for that matter. What do we offer these people that are now

stuck with a property they can’t sell due to this regulation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : This conversation on housing has moved quite a bit.

I’ll share with the member that when I first became the Minister of Housing, I was

told by the home-building community: “This is not about investors; we’re trying to

build homes for people in our communities who desperately need it.”

When we brought in the short-term rental rules, we had similar homebuilders come back

to us and say: “This was about investors; we need more housing for investment opportunities.”

I appreciate in an environment where rents are coming down that a lot of pro formas,

a lot of proposals for homes, they’re not pencilling.

What we hear is that we need to help address the cost, and I get that. We’re working

on ways to do that, but if the model was just to build housing, not for people in

our communities who desperately need housing but just because there was a lot of investors

with deep pockets that want to buy it, that’s a challenge. That’s a challenge for

us in all of our communities.

Surrey showed some leadership in bringing a registry for short-term rentals. They

did it because they realize it’s a problem in their community. They’re hearing from

people who are struggling, and they want to make sure housing is being prioritized.

[Interruption.]

Okay, that was a little bit weird. Siri on my phone decided to jump in. I don’t think

I said anything but, weird. Google and Apple are listening to everything we’re saying.

I don’t even know where I was with the comment. Just to say that we understand that

there are some cost pressures, especially in an environment where the price of new

homes is going down and rents are declining. It’s good for renters. It’s good for

potential future homebuyers that the price is coming down, but it does create new

dynamics and new challenges.

Lastly, I’ll just say the member, again, reiterated that there was no clear data.

I just shared with the member that data from ’23 to ’24, that vacancy rates went from

1 percent to 3.7 percent. Now, maybe the member is suggesting that all of a sudden,

a lot of people just left town. It’s unlikely because we would have noticed. Kelowna

is a popular place. People continue to go there. It’s more likely that the amount

of housing became available on the market for people to rent.

Obviously, we have more work to do. We have more work to do to increase the availability

of housing in our community.

Chair, could I suggest we take one more question and then we take a short recess?

My voice is starting to break on me.

Bryan Tepper : I was going to try and get to a last question here as well anyway, so that works

out well.

It wasn’t so much that 1 to 3.7 percent wasn’t a proper statistic, it was the others

— how do we know the rents have come down — and everything else.

I will quickly go through this. Property owners who purchased units specifically for

short-term rentals, especially in zoned areas like Kelowna’s, feel blindsided. Some

face significant financial losses and must pivot to long-term rentals, which may yield

lower returns. Is there any support in the budget to assist these people?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think the member, in the question, has actually touched on a core issue, which

was that folks were buying not one or two but multiple properties, because they wanted

to maximize profits. That’s fine, but people in the community couldn’t get access

to that housing. That had some real challenges for people who were, quite frankly,

struggling — struggling with rents. When the supply of housing is being purchased

up to run mini-hotels, it makes it more challenging for young families to be able

to get into the market.

The message we’re sending here is that homes are for people in our communities. We

need to prioritize those homes.

[4:05 p.m.]

We struck a balance, I believe. If you look at New York, they went to an extreme level,

just saying: no more short-term rentals. That was something that we had to look at,

what New York was doing. They also have new challenges, which is that now it’s going

underground. So having a balance of short-term rentals available, as well as prioritizing

housing for communities I think is a balanced approach.

Now, I shared with the member that new asking rents are coming down in Kelowna. I

can share with the member that it’s similar in many communities, especially communities

where we saw a lot of investments in short-term rentals.

When we brought our changes in…. We’re seeing in Vancouver rents for one-bedrooms

down 11.4 percent; down for two-bedrooms, 8.9 percent; North Van, 8.7 percent; and

10.6 percent for two-bedrooms. I’ve got a list of communities where we’re seeing it.

Again, leadership from Surrey. They decided that they knew it was a problem. They

brought in some changes themselves. They’ve seen rents down 8.8 percent for one-bedrooms

and 5.7 percent for two-bedrooms. So it is having an impact.

You could make the argument, I guess, that all these communities just lost people,

but I think that’s hard to believe. I think we have to acknowledge that these actions

are making an impact. I appreciate the member’s point that maybe it might not solve

the problems well into the future. I would agree with the member that we need to increase

housing supply in all of our communities as a more structural change, but this is

having an impact. It is helping people in the short term.

The Chair : The committee shall take a short ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : Calling the committee back to order.

Trevor Halford : Thank you to my colleague the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine for allowing me some time

here in our estimates.

This could be really quick. The strata electrical planning report — does that exist

within the Ministry of Housing, or is that within the scope of the Minister of Energy,

through CleanBC?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes, we can answer those questions.

Trevor Halford : We’ve obviously seen a little bit of moving the goalposts and things like that in

terms of EVs. Even today we saw some announcements regarding rebates and such.

Obviously, we are in the middle of an affordability crisis. People are feeling strapped.

I know in my area, there are a number of seniors that are living in stratas. I’ve

had a meeting with a few of them, such as some of my colleagues, regarding some of

the pricing that’s been put on for stratas for EV charging stations.

Does the minister still stand beside the targets that are listed — I guess it’s between

December 31, 2026 — to have these implemented in these stratas?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We’ve done a lot of work in order to put this in place. I think it’s important to

note that we worked with B.C. Hydro, the Condominium Home Owners Association, Vancouver

Island Strata Owners Association to make sure that we had plain language guidelines

for stratas.

It’s also important to note the costs associated with this, as the member raised.

We’re looking at approximately, for 40 strata homes, about $6,000, so it’s $150 a

unit. Obviously, for the larger stratas, it’s about $12,000, which on average is around

$30 per unit. It’s important for the stratas to do this work, so we are continuing

to proceed. The requirement is for this work to be done by the end of next year.

Trevor Halford : I thank the minister for his answer.

The minister is right, to some degree, in terms of the numbers that he just cited,

but I’ll give him an example of how that might not add up in some certain locations.

If you look at 530 Martin Street in White Rock…. It is a complex, a small building,

18 units, all seniors, older building. They have to pay this. That’s $6,000 for them.

I guarantee you the majority, if not all, of those seniors are on fixed incomes.

I know the numbers that the minister just cited. By the way, none of these seniors

have electric cars. I’ve gone and met with them in this strata complex. But they are

now having to get organized and save money for this, all while we are facing high

uncertainty whether or not the province is going to move their EV targets.

My question to the minister: is an 18-unit or smaller…? They’re still going to be

on the hook for the $6,000 that the minister just mentioned. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I thank the member for raising the example. I think there’s also a flip side to that.

If there are energy needs, upgrades need to be done. Similar to depreciation reports,

it’s important for the strata to have a sense of where they’re at, what their challenges

might be with the building so they’re not caught by surprise on bigger-cost items

later.

So it’s both, I understand, but it is an important measure, I think, for stratas as

they go forward.

Trevor Halford : In this, was there any consideration in terms of rebates for seniors, anything like

that? Have they looked at that, in particular in some of these older units, where

these upgrades are going to be required? Are there rebates available for low-income

earners that are existing within that strata?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There are no rebates at this time. I think the member knows that, but I’ll just say

that.

I can’t commit to something future because I’ve got to go through a very, very tough

Minister of Finance. We’re certainly going to keep an eye on it as we go forward.

Trevor Halford : I get the minister about the future, but we are asking these residents on low incomes

that are trying to make ends meet in their strata, trying to get their bills paid,

to make this commitment now.

My question, and it’s probably going to be a difficult one to answer, if it can be

answered at all, is: if the province changes those EV targets, is this still going

to be enforceable? A lot of these stratas are making these financial decisions now

or have already made them. My question to the minister is: are they going to be reimbursed?

[4:25 p.m.]

What happens if there is a change to the EV targets? Is this all still having to be

done by December 31, 2026, keeping in mind that a lot of these stratas are already

making that financial commitment right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member knows I can’t get into a hypothetical of: what if? What if? What might

happen if this happens? But I can share with the member that that’s something we will

keep an eye on as those discussions go forward.

Trevor Halford : Again, we’re looking at these older buildings that all have to be retrofitted for

this stuff, and it is a sizeable…. If you look at some of these units that are under

18 units in there, this is a large financial commitment. I know the minister talked

about $150 here or $200 there. It’s much more in some of these units.

The government is backing off on rebates today. We are hearing that they’re hedging,

in terms of where they’re going with EV vehicles, but they are still mandating all

these areas to comply with their legislation that exists within this minister’s portfolio,

at a time where affordability is an absolute crisis right now.

Has the minister contemplated pausing this, or is this going to be mandated for all

stratas, and are they going to adhere to this December 31, 2026, timeline?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I know the member is talking about just EVs, but this is more than EVs. A lot of

older buildings get upgrades for heat pumps, for air conditioners, for a whole host

of things, and these reports are important for them to get an assessment of what the

load is and what can be done with those buildings.

Maybe the individuals right now don’t want to do those things, but if it’s an older

building, they’re likely going to do some renovations to those buildings. So this

is still a necessary piece to be done on that, and there are rebate programs for the

other items. There are rebate programs for heat pumps, etc. So it’s not just the EVs,

as the member has highlighted. It’s much broader than that.

Trevor Halford : I do thank the minister for the answer.

I guess my final point on this is if the province is going to adjust or change the

goalposts…. Sometimes we understand that’s necessary. They did that today, and they

may do that again tomorrow and, at some point, they may do that in the future regarding

EV targets. They’re able to adjust and modify to the climate that they’re in. They

have that power to do that. They also have the power to enforce and make sure that

these strata units comply. And this was all done at the same time that these targets

and rebates were put in place.

I guess my question is that…. They’re okay to move the goalposts, but when it comes

to actually trying to help people in an affordability crisis comply with this piece

of legislation, it doesn’t seem to work.

I’ll leave that with the minister — that I do hope that this is monitored. There are

a lot of people in these units where it’s below…. It could be ten units, 12 units,

six units, eight units. The minister is right. Sometimes it could be 50 units. It’s

a flat $6,000. I get that. But in some of those smaller complexes, especially right

now, this is a lot of money.

At times that we are hearing…. It’s not this minister’s estimates; it’s the one down

the hall. But we can’t get an actual answer in terms of whether or not they’re going

to stick with their EV targets. It depends on what minister, when the Premier is talking

to media that day. But we’re expecting these seniors all to pay.

I can tell you that in this building that I just referenced here, they are tight on

money. But they have to do this because this government has ordered for them to do

it. They’re hearing in the media quite often, and they’re going to hear again today,

that things are changing. I’ll leave that with the minister.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know that some of my other colleagues have questions, and I’ve got other questions

on housing that I’ll pop back in for. I just think that we’ve got to be very cognizant

of some of the situations that people are in, the oldness of the building.

I get that it’s not just for EV vehicles; I get that. But this was done with the intention

of those targets in mind.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thanks again to the member for raising the concern on behalf of his constituents.

Again, I just want to say that it’s not just about EVs. It’s heat pumps; it’s air

conditioners. There’s a whole host of things. I note his concern, and we’ll consider

that as we go forward.

Misty Van Popta : Up until two weeks after the provincial election, I was building houses, boots on

the ground.

It’s said in our industry that the ability to build housing, by both contractors and

developers, is eroding like death by a thousand paper cuts. I had the experience on

my last project of having half of my houses under the old building code and the last

half of the houses under the new building code in 2024. One of those paper cuts was

an item that caught us all off guard, actually — not even the architect caught it

at first — and that is radon mitigation.

The cost differential between my first set of houses and the second set of houses,

just on material costs alone, was $10,000 in material costs. It’s partly due to the

fact that the material required for radon mitigation is proprietary, and there’s only

one wholesaler that sells it in all of Canada.

My question for right now is: what reports or research were used as the basis of determining

the need for radon mitigation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : This change was brought in, in 2024. It was a national response. It was a response

to the National Research Council’s research as well as Health Canada’s recommendation

for changes, so it’s aligned with the national changes. It’s not just a B.C. change.

[4:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : Can the minister please drill down a bit into what the effects of radon are and the

incidence of radon-specific illnesses are in British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, this was research done by the National Research Council, which we are happy

to share with the member, as well as information provided by Health Canada as an important

safety measure. I mean, it’s available online, but if the member would like, we can

send that to the member.

Misty Van Popta : Okay, so taking that information that it’s a national recommendation, can I ask why,

if radon is so dangerous, the requirement is only that radon mitigation is a rough-in?

It’s not even required. At least on my last project, we only had to rough it in.

The Chair : Recognizing the member. There is no eating in the chamber.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thank you, Chair. Very strict.

The rough-in is a requirement of the national code.

Misty Van Popta : It’s a part of the national code?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That’s correct. It’s part of the national code, which B.C. adopts.

Macklin McCall : I’m just going to ask a few questions here regarding my riding, West Kelowna–Peachland,

and specifically in the community of West Kelowna.

The Ministry of Housing purchased the property at 2570 Bartley Road for $3.7 million

in October of 2023. What are the ministry’s plans for this property, and when can

the community expect to see development or services initiated on site?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Does the member have the address, by any chance? Could he say the address one more

time?

Macklin McCall : It’s 2570 Bartley Road in West Kelowna.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thanks to the member for the question. Now, 2515 is also owned by B.C. Housing; that’s

where the temporary shelter is. This site has been purchased by B.C. Housing. B.C.

Housing is in conversations with the city, in concept design planning at this stage,

to identify what can be possibly done on that site.

Macklin McCall : Okay. I appreciate the answer there. With that facility being in the planning stage

and whatnot, I know the city has some concerns with wraparound services associated

with the housing.

I have a question relating to that. Given the increasing demand for mental health

services in West Kelowna, what steps is the ministry taking to enhance access to mental

health and addiction support in the region?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We’re going into a bit of the Health conversation, but I can maybe speak generally.

On the other side of the water, with Kelowna, we’ve got 90 units of temporary supportive

housing that have opened, and an additional, I believe, around 40 that are coming

online in the last eight months. They come with inreach supports from the health authority.

There are wraparound supports that are provided to individuals, and we are seeing

some success.

[4:45 p.m.]

In fact, I just got a note from the city that in the first nine months of those units,

56 percent of the people that have moved in have already found themselves either into

employment, into market rent or connected with family. So the supports seem to be

working.

Of course, it would depend on what goes on that site, and we’re not there yet. This

is just what’s happened at other sites.

Macklin McCall : The proposed Westside resource hygiene centre at 2545 Churchill Road has faced delays

and community concerns. What is the ministry’s position on this project, and how does

it plan to address the community’s feedback?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m just hoping the member can clarify. My understanding of the address he’s given

us…. It was a temporary shelter, and we’re now using 2570 Bartley Road for that. Is

there something very current or very recent that the member is raising concerns about?

Macklin McCall : No, that’s a separate facility, the separate location.

Just to confirm, from your perspective, from the ministry’s perspective, this program

is no longer happening as per your ministry? Is that a done project now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes. My understanding is that that site that the member referred to is no longer

operating. It was a temporary winter shelter, so they’re usually temporary in nature.

If there’s a new development, I certainly will have my team follow up, maybe in writing,

with you.

[4:50 p.m.]

Macklin McCall : My next question, then.

West Kelowna has been assigned a target of 2,266 new homes over the next five years.

What support is the ministry providing to the city to meet these targets, particularly

concerning infrastructure and land acquisition?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member that we provided West Kelowna $10.2 million for infrastructure,

part of the growing community fund. My understanding is that it’s just being held

in reserve, that they may not have allocated those dollars yet for infrastructure.

As far as land acquisition, I’m not entirely sure what land the city might be contemplating.

Perhaps the member can share with me if there’s a specific parcel o