First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 18

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

B. Stewart

S. Chandra Herbert

C. Oakes

Hon. B. Ma

L. Doerkson

A. Mercier

Hon. N. Cullen

N. Sharma

B. Banman

R. Leonard

E. Ross

A. Olsen

H. Yao

A. Walker

J. Rice

B. D’Eith

M. Dykeman

M. Elmore

K. Paddon

Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 7.

[1:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to be here again, being able to speak about an

important objective in terms of helping make British Columbia more

affordable for people that are renting and some that would like to buy

at some future point.

I think one of the things that I just want to recap before we go

on to other speakers is…. I want to talk a little bit about the issues

that I think the government…. It’s talking about renters and rules

around protecting them in terms of their landlord-tenant agreements and

the RTB.

I think, at the end of the day, there needs to be a case made that

the province has to invest in communities. Some of that cost — I

mentioned it earlier when I was talking about transportation links — is

working around the agricultural land reserve so that services such as

water or sewer can get to the right places. Frankly, if we continue to

put that burden just onto local residents, either their taxes increase

or they can’t do the projects. They can’t create access to where more

units of housing could be constructed. I think that that’s a bigger

issue.

We see communities continuing to look at community contribution

agreements and DCCs. Frankly, there’s that side of it that is a burden,

not only on the development community. They first have to pay for these

beforehand, or at least have letters of credit in place before they can

actually start to invest. They have to buy the land, get it through the

process of getting it accepted by local government, and then they have

these contribution agreements. By the time that goes on, if the period

of time that it takes stretches out so that it’s a couple of years or

more, what we end up with is added costs, which get built into the cost

of the actual projects.

We also have the other things that we haven’t really talked about.

We have this protection for renters against their landlords. Well, what

about people that are trying to develop and bring on rental

accommodation? What about the property purchase tax? What about some

relief in those areas, to help make it so that there’s an incentive to

help bring on capacity in those communities? I really do think that if

you look at some of the buildout in our transportation networks —

whether it’s SkyTrain, bridges, roads and things like the Kicking Horse,

etc. — this type of infrastructure that I am referring to is something

that we’ve got to take a longer-term view to.

If you are reaching out into communities that are out in the

Fraser Valley, or even outlying of the central Okanagan, where I live,

the reality is that that infrastructure is something that the province

needs to look at so that it can address the capacity issues and help

communities be able to address the high costs. In some cases, it’s

completely unattainable. I do think that there needs to be more

collaboration and collaborative links between local government and the

province and regional districts in terms of being able to bring this

on.

We also need to make certain that we have their OCPs plugged in so

that there are regular updates. I think the once-every-ten-years updates

are a thing of the past. I think, considering the pace that some

communities are growing at, they really do need the ability to have

those OCPs in front of government, where there can be collaboration with

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and working towards a solution of

building more capacity. We haven’t addressed that in this

bill.

I do understand that this particular bill is really there to bring

more security for renters and landlords in terms of the things that have

been identified in the Rental Housing Task Force. I do think that there

is certainly a case to be made that we’re trying to make certain that

there are affordable rents. I know that there are some other

contributing factors that have been brought in — the speculation and

vacancy tax. I know that that was cited yesterday in remarks in the

morning — that it’s doing its job. But frankly, if you look at the

numbers, it’s far below the forecast of the Minister of Finance of the

day in 2018 when she brought it in. The reality is that it’s taxing a

lot of stock that, frankly, isn’t creating more capacity. It’s not

actually adding to the capacity that we keep talking about.

[1:40 p.m.]

We look at the foreign buyers tax. I know I had a situation in my

riding where somebody got caught after entering in the contracts in 2017

but was unable to complete before the deadline. So I think that some of

these things have to be looked at as to whether the rules are the right

rules to incentivize the capacity, to get the rental stock that we

need.

Bill 7 is really about bringing some equity for renters in dealing

with landlords and the RTB. It puts a lot of power into the hands of the

director of the RTB. I hope that there are checks and balances in that

as well. I look forward to asking questions of the minister as to how

those people are going to be selected to be in that position of power

and authority. What are the checks and balances to make certain that

they’re not abused?

Madame Speaker, I want to thank you. I look forward to continued

debate on second reading and committee stage on this bill in the near

future.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to thank, obviously, the minister for bringing this

legislation forward. I want to thank the former minister, now Finance

Minister, for her work to bring this forward as well. Mostly, I want to

thank the renters and rental housing providers who gave the rental task

force this advice, who urged us to take these kinds of steps to make

housing more secure, to make it more affordable, but to also find ways

to make the system more efficient, more accessible and also

fairer.

We know, and members will know, that I have been working on these

issues my whole political life, I guess, and prior to that, as a

community advocate, standing outside of buildings, working with renters,

trying to encourage the, at times, sometimes large corporate landlords

to do the right thing — not just focus on the profit that they can make

out of the unit, but focus on it as a home, and that they do have

obligations under the law.

I’ve also worked with landlords and helped them work through

challenging situations with tenants. I understand that it’s not all one

side or the other, as it sometimes looks in the media and as it

sometimes looks in this House. I think the speaker who spoke before me,

the member for Kelowna West, did join the Rental Housing Task Force when

we came through Kelowna, and certainly, I believe at the time, supported

the legislation that came out of that process. I hope he will, with his

colleagues, support the legislation that’s before the House

today.

It’s balanced legislation. I know there are some on one side who

believe that there should be no rent controls at all. Raise rents as

high as you can whenever you want. In fact, I think the former Housing

critic, the former member for Vancouver–False Creek, used to make that

point. There are those on the other side who think that rent should

never be allowed to increase and that we should just automatically

somehow make it all free. Of course, that’s not where we’re at

today.

We are trying to find a way to keep people in their housing

secure, which is why we’re freezing rents through till the end of the

year, as we promised. It’s why we’re keeping rents to the cost of

inflation, rather than 2 percent plus inflation, which is what it used

to be. I think the highest increase constituents faced under that

formula was 4.3 percent. That was really hard, because wages haven’t

been going up to keep pace with that kind of increase. It’s cumulative

each year on top of each other, which can lead to really, really large

increases compared to where people’s wage levels are at.

We’re trying to find that balance. I understand that the smaller

landlords have raised issues and said: “Well, look at our costs.” I know

that the minister is looking at ways to try and address that and find

that balance here. I just really want to say thank you to those who have

had the patience, who have had the will to push for change for so long.

It wouldn’t happen without tenants organizing. It wouldn’t happen

without good landlords trying to understand and hear that point of view

and find ways that would work for them as well and serve as

examples.

Another piece of this legislation, which I think is important, is

the question of renovictions. What is a renoviction? It’s a term that

was created in my community of the West End, a word that didn’t exist

until then. I guess because so many of them were going on, we had to

come up with a term for what was happening. Evictions for renovations

that are not substantial, renovations that are a coat of paint,

renovations that are some tile work, renovations that could go on with a

person still living in their home.

[1:45 p.m.]

A few companies decided, management companies and others, that

they would target the longer-term tenants. That was often seniors — has

been, sometimes, seniors who’ve been in a unit for a while. They were

paying their rent. They paid every yearly rent increase. They were more

than covering the costs for the building. But maybe the building sold

and the new owner wanted even more money because they paid too much for

it when they bought it, so they then hired a company to go and slap up

eviction notices on doors and try and force people out for renovations

that didn’t require them to be out.

Most landlords don’t do it, I’ve got to say. There are a number

that I’ve been speaking with recently, and they’ll show me their

buildings where they’ve renovated the entire building, top to bottom,

massive reno, and the people never had to leave. They didn’t lose their

homes. They didn’t lose their tenancies. The landlord kept them in place

because he wanted good, dependable tenants. That’s created a community

there.

That’s the kind of thing that I think we see, we know happens, but

we don’t hear about it in the press. Of course, when people are

challenged, we want to hear it so we can step up and help. So those are

the stories that get reported.

This is the kind of thing that should be happening all the time,

not just when a landlord is doing the right thing. We need the system in

place to make sure that this is what happens. Ontario does this, makes

sure that eviction for renovation…. It has to be so substantial that

there’s no way that you can live there in any safe way while it goes

on.

I think of some of the buildings that I’ve tried to help across

B.C. that were failing, buildings where maintenance was allowed to

completely go sideways. Tenants applied again and again to try and get

some action for help. The system wasn’t set up in such a way that real

action ever occurred. The buildings would run down so far that the

people would lose their homes.

We need to get in before that and support that kind of proactive

maintenance, in cooperation between landlords and tenants. I think this

legislation will help us move more in that direction, as opposed to the

kind of fly-by-night situation of eviction or dilapidation that we

sometimes have seen in the past.

How do you do this and ensure it actually happens? One of the

things I’m proudest of is the compliance and enforcement unit. It’s

something I called for, for years when I was in opposition, to say:

“Listen, we have a law, the Residential Tenancy Act. That law needs to

be enforced.” It can’t just be applied…. “Oh, look. That person broke

the law,” and then the residential tenancy branch says: “Well jeez, you

shouldn’t have done that. You should give back the money that you took.”

“Oh, okay. Well, I guess I won’t do that again.”

Well, in too many cases what happened is either the people were

never caught or, if they were caught, they saw that the cost of doing

business, a small refund to a tenant or to the landlord, was outweighed.

They got greater benefit by breaking the rules. Obviously, that should

never have been on.

The rules should always be the ones that we incentivize people to

follow. But in this case, because of the large amount of money you could

make through phony renovations, through bullying people, people

continued to break the rules — in some cases, tenants as well, learning

that they could game the system in such a way to get away without paying

rent.

We’ve brought in changes through the compliance and enforcement

unit so that people who break those rules do get repercussions, so that

there is actual penalty and there’s actually some teeth in the law. It

should have been that way a long time ago. I’m glad it’s there now. The

changes in this legislation to increase the ability for the compliance

and enforcement unit to do its job, to do the investigations, to levy

penalties are well needed.

If you’re going to make up something, if you’re going to lie and

create a fraudulent claim about what you may or may not have done as a

renter or as a tenant, there’ve got to be penalties for that. You can’t

get away with pretending and lying and creating division and creating

false circumstances. You should never have been allowed to get away with

that. Yet you could.

This legislation will stop that. Sometimes you hear these things

and you go: “Wait. How could that ever have been so?” But it was, and I

thank the minister for catching that and the compliance and enforcement

team for creating that whole structure so that we can actually get

repercussions when people break rules — and to change the culture.

Frankly, too many people on too many sides for too long thought they

could get away with bending the rules of the residential tenancy

branch.

I think there are some changes in here, as well, to speed up the

process for landlords, speed up the process for tenants so that

legitimate hearings, legitimate issues can actually get the time they

deserve.

[1:50 p.m.]

Investing in the residential tenancy branch, as was done a couple

of years ago — a couple, I think $4 million or $5 million yearly

increase in investment in the branch — has made an incredible

difference. I hear from landlords across B.C. I hear from renters across

B.C. who call. They get the help they need fast. They get the

information they need fast so that they can work something through. Most

issues get solved through collaboration between the landlord and

tenant.

The residential tenancy branch hearings are often that last call.

That’s why we also need to be taking action — to make sure that that

last call is as fair as it can be. I’m encouraged that there are some

more provisions for administrative fairness, something that was lacking

for too long.

Under the law as it existed, it couldn’t be solved. Even if the

director saw that something was unfair, the law didn’t let them step in

to fix it unless one of the folks that had been wronged tried to appeal

the decision. It was on them to try and fix what could have been a

residential tenancy branch error. Maybe somebody was on a hearing. They

were presenting their evidence, and they got bumped off the call, and

they could no longer present that evidence. Well, the hearing might be

decided in favour of the person who didn’t get bumped off the call.

Well, that’s not fair, because the person who was bumped off the call….

It wasn’t their fault that they got bumped off the call or that the

evidence that they presented got lost somewhere in the residential

tenancy branch system or that the evidence that was attached for one

case got switched with the evidence for another case or something like

that. Now, that should have been solved a long time ago. It is being

solved today.

From big, from small — these are good changes. As always, I’m keen

to hear from renters, from landlords, from rental housing providers on

other ways that we can improve the situation. This doesn’t solve

everything, and I think there’s a tendency sometimes to want one piece

of legislation to solve all the problems in the world, but it never

happens, because you’ve got to actually put in the work and put in the

time to make sure you find the right balance and that the law will

work.

I think there was a discussion earlier around the supply of rental

housing. Maybe it’s because of the West End, where I am. In my

community, I see rental housing projects going up all around me all the

time. People complain to us about too much construction. “Can you slow

it down? There’s too much building and too much going on.” Some

higher-end condos that were commissioned a couple of years ago, many of

them rental housing and some of them middle- to lower-income affordable

housing are being built under the government’s affordable housing

strategy. It’s happening all across B.C.

I looked at the latest statistics, and I know statistics are

dangerous, because you move the year by one, by two, by three years. You

average one, and you average another. People can make statistics look

like they want to make a case. Because one month happened to be down,

thus that must be a catastrophe, when, overall, the trend has been up. I

think there are still more affordable housing starts that are rental

building starts until this year, in 2021, than over the last ten-year

average. That’s good. Is it as good as it could be? Obviously, COVID has

had a big impact. People are holding on to their money a bit more.

They’re not investing in the same way that they were, but also,

construction has been hampered and things have slowed down.

Municipalities being able to approve projects and get them going

has been slowed down. The public participation process — and onwards.

There definitely is work to be done on that side. The supply of housing,

no question, is vitally important. I’m encouraged that we have more

under construction and going now than the previous 16 years, on average,

and that’s with the rental changes that we’ve made.

Is there more to do? No question. I’ll keep pushing, and I know

many others will. I’m glad that the member for Kelowna West, the Housing

critic of the opposition, is making that a focus as well. I think the

focus of helping people is where we all need to be, and I think we all

need to, again, be looking at renters and the rental housing providers

to make sure that those homes are there for people, that people are

secure in their homes, can afford their homes, and that those who are

providing those homes get the support they need, too, to make sure that

those homes are top quality and that they are doing their jobs to

provide that housing.

In Canada we talk about housing as a human right, and that’s

something that we should remember. One of the challenges we’ve got

around homelessness has been…. I’ve seen it in my own community. I think

of 2009, going into Stanley Park and meeting a woman in a tent with her

big dog. She’d moved in there, she said, one day before we found her out

in the bush.

[1:55 p.m.]

She’d been happily housed in a rental apartment on Robson Street.

I think it’s called the Kenilworth. Anyways, that building had been mass

evicted. She didn’t know her rights. She didn’t have the ability to

stand up for herself, and she hadn’t connected to anybody. The building

largely just left, moved out, because they didn’t know what to do. She

was homeless because of losing that apartment. There are real

circumstances when we look the other way or when the law is not there to

support people.

I’m happy that these changes are coming in. I’ll continue to push

for change, each and every day, as I always have, and keen to learn, as

always. Learning from renters and learning from those who rent out their

buildings and their homes has been one of the true privileges of being

able to be the chair of the Rental Housing Task Force, but also just

being an MLA, long before I was asked by the Premier to take on that

role, long before the Housing Minister asked me to take on that

role.

I just think of the people. One of the people that impacted me

most was a woman who passed away earlier this year. Her name was Anne

Gregory. She was an immigrant from Austria. No, she was an immigrant

from Poland. She just loved Austria.

Anyways, long story short, she grew up during the Second World

War. She remembers seeing Hitler promising everybody a car in their

driveway, and she would remember and tell me stories about how important

affordable housing was for her, postwar, about how rental housing needed

to be there so that she and other immigrants who came to Canada had that

safe place to call home, so that they could set down roots and join a

community.

She was always there pushing me, pushing, pushing. “Don’t just

listen to the speculators,” she would say. I can hear her voice now and

the accent coming through strongly, loud and clear. “Think of the

people. Think of the people that built this province. Think of the

seniors,” she would say. “Think of those that should be heard and are

too often ignored. Think of those who have more than paid off the unit

that they’ve rented in, because they’ve lived there so long and they’ve

paid so much rent over the life of that building, and think of how you

can help them,” she would say.

She was an incredible woman who did incredible things. She helped

create pocket parks west of Denman for people to enjoy. When we’re all

tightly packed into rental apartments, you need some outdoor space. She

helped create that pocket park space in our community, as a renter, as a

lifelong renter.

I know there is sometimes a tendency for some to think of renting

as just a way station on your way between leaving your parents’ home and

moving off into your new house that you bought, or new condo, I guess,

as it has become more and more these days. But for many people renting

is what they will do for their entire lives. The wages that they get

aren’t enough. They’re not able to save enough.

Of course, the powers of capital have created so much demand, and

we live in such a beautiful place, that the cost of housing has gone up

so much. So for some, in order to keep their home and keep their

community, renting is the only option. We need to value that and accept

that and honour what they are doing as equal citizens.

Folks might not know, but of course, when we started this colony,

when this province of B.C. came into being, if you were a renter, you

weren’t allowed to vote. Only property owners — male, with a certain

amount of money, white — were allowed to vote. So class was part of this

as well. Renters were often not seen or not heard, because they were

seen as temporary.

Well, renters are here to stay. They have a loud voice, a strong

voice and are very, very much integrated in our communities. We need to

include that point of view more often when we’re thinking about housing

and how we’re working. The voice of the homeowner, the voice of that

concern, is heard very loudly. The voice of the renter, not so

much.

I want to thank the Minister of Housing for hearing the voice of

renters. I want to thank the minister for hearing the voice of rental

housing providers and trying to find that way to balance it so we can

make sure that there’s enough investment in the housing to keep it

whole, to keep it good, to keep it a great place to live, to build more

housing so there are more places for people who want to join us but also

to make sure it’s fair, so that those who live in those homes can live

there in security, can live there with peace, can become great

neighbours, can become fully invested in their community without always

fearing that a knock will come on the door or an eviction notice might

be posted there.

[2:00 p.m.]

Thank you to the minister, thank you to everybody for working to

bring this legislation forward. I look forward to hearing further

discussion and further work to improve housing for all British

Columbians.

Thank you so much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity.

C. Oakes: It is truly my honour to be able to speak today to the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act. I wanted to bring forward a voice that I feel

has been lost in this debate today. That is the voices of students

across this province.

I rise in the House today to respond to Bill 7, the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act, as it is my hope that, as we review and debate

the legislation before this House, meaningful policy changes that have

been requested by post-secondary students have been included. It is my

hope that this bill is more than just political rhetoric and that it has

listened to the real concerns that students and advocate groups have

brought forward to this government around the affordability challenge

that students are living with.

This venture of creating a world-class higher education system

requires the provincial government to adapt to the financial needs of

students and their families. In the months that the government has had

to develop this legislation — and comments made of comprehensive

consultation — what I hope becomes evident in the debate before the

House is that post-secondary students’ voices have been heard and will,

in fact, be reflected in this legislation. And if it has not been so, it

is my hope that the government will introduce the necessary amendments

to address the policy changes that the tenancy act brings to student

housing.

The pandemic has certainly given us insight into the many flaws in

our higher education system. As this legislative session proceeds, we,

as legislators in the government, should be addressing supports to

students and their families for generations to come. I recognize the

defensiveness governments may feel when flaws are identified. In our

partisan posturing, often solutions are overlooked in an attempt to be

right. It is my hope that the government resists this

approach.

Let us instead fix the bill to reflect what we’ve heard from

post-secondary students. It will be a great disappointment, in fact, a

grave lack of government sincerity…. If, in fact, it becomes apparent

through this debate of the bill that the very real challenges that the

post-secondary students living in student housing are doing their best

to identify to government, and how they are going to financially manage

continuing on their post-secondary education journey, becomes addressed

through this process….

At the start of this pandemic last May, we heard that over 76

percent of students cited some type of financial concern, and

approximately 50 percent of students cited financial hardships in

regards to accommodation. Housing expenses serve as one of the largest

expenses for students, and they continue to take a large portion of

savings, student loan payments, part-time employment income and, in many

cases, grocery allowances.

At UBC, over 65 percent of graduate students and 47 percent of

undergraduate students experience severe financial hardship due to the

cost of housing. Taking into account that this data was collected prior

to the COVID-19 pandemic, this data will be amplified even more due to

the impending economic impacts of the continued pandemic.

We review statistics one year later, and we find that young adults

have been one of the most deeply impacted demographics by the pandemic.

Youths aged 15 to 24 are down 23,000 jobs relative to February 2020.

Youth unemployment is 16.8 percent compared to 9.4 percent prior to the

pandemic.

[2:05 p.m.]

This does not include the significant impacts on the loss of co-op

programs and other programs that indeed support our post-secondary

students.

Right now post-secondary students are making the decision of what

they will do in the fall. For many, due to the uncertainty of the

pandemic, loss of a job, they’ve taken a year off their studies. For

others, they’ve survived the year on loans and credit, and while they

were hopeful to see the return of programs and summer job opportunities,

it continues to be uncertain, unclear and very concerning.

Our young people are our future. Our social and economic

vibrancies following the pandemic will require that we have done

everything that we possibly can to be supporting all of our citizens. Up

to now, there has not been equitable support for our young people,

post-secondary students, who’ve been deeply impacted. Their voices that

they have been raising — I know that they have met with government, and

I know that they’ve shared their concerns — need to be listened to by

this government.

During our post-secondary advocacy days in this Legislature, and

for all members of this House, it provided an opportunity to review the

challenges that students are facing, but also they identified solutions.

I wish to bring forward some of the comments and solutions brought

forward, for example, by the Alma Mater Society and the Graduate Student

Society of the University of British Columbia, which represents over

58,000 undergraduate and graduate students.

I can also say, from having the opportunity to have listened to

and engaged with other student organizations, such as the Alliance of

B.C. Students and the B.C. Federation of Students, that the concerns

around affordability as it relates to this piece of legislation being

debated before the House and the concerns on policies around student

housing — and the clear solution — are something that government can and

should address in this bill. If it re­quires the government to

make a necessary amendment to the bill, now is the time to do

such.

I would like to make some of the comments that I’ve heard from

organizations, and this comes from one of the organizations that we

talked to. Throughout the 2020 provincial election, a large part of the

NDP platform was dedicated to making housing more affordable and

available. The important points discussed in this

section of the

platform allow students and their families to retain their hope for an

affordable and equitable future when it came to the costs associated

with housing and tenancy rights altogether. A key point in this

section

of the platform was the establishment of a rent freeze to the end of

2021, along with capping rent increase to only inflation, as opposed to

the previous formula. On November 9, the provincial government

established the rent freeze, and of course this is part of the

legislation that we are reviewing today to extend it to the end of the

year.

These commitments, while supportive of the general B.C.

population, forgot that student housing once again. All provincial

housing support programs, such as the tenancy rental support program

since the beginning of the pandemic, left out student housing. This

bill, this policy, this rent freeze, continues to leave out student

housing, a key choice of residence for many students due to the close

proximity to campus.

This exclusion, as recognized by the provincial government since

the rent with rights campaign in 2015, results in student housing

providers being able to work outside the legal framework of the

Residential Tenancy Act. While the act is responsible for establishing

the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords, the statute is

also used as the eligibility criteria item for support programs like

TRS. Effectively, this eligibility item leaves students out of programs

and policies, such as the 2020 rent freeze and now the extension of the

rent freeze which this legislation brings forward. Another important

platform point that was due to the unaffordable nature of housing in

British Columbia and the establishment of a renter’s rebate

program….

[2:10 p.m.]

While I recognize that this is outside the purview of this

discussion today, it’s important to note that our post-secondary

students require our support. Let us get this piece of legislation

right.

Let us include the voices of our post-secondary students and our

future generations. Let us ensure that this bill provides that students

living in student housing are in fact eligible for all programs that the

province puts forward and, in particular, as we discuss this piece of

legislation, the rent freeze. Let us not leave our students out in the

cold. Let us make sure their voices are included in the legislation that

we put forward in this House, and let us make sure that there are

changes made so that students’ concerns are addressed.

Hon. B. Ma: It is my honour and my privilege to rise today — or rather, I

guess, join virtually today — to speak in favour of Bill 7, the Tenancy

Statutes Amendment Act. I come to you as both, of course, the Minister

of State for Infrastructure but also the member representing the

community of North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

I know that in my community, nearly half of the people who live in

the area that I represent are renters. Life has been difficult for many

of them. I remember meeting with many constituents early on in my time

as an MLA and hearing about their struggles. Having been a renter for

most of my adult life myself, it certainly brought back a lot of

memories.

I remember needing to struggle and worry about being able to pay

rent on time. I remember the feeling of instability that comes with

being a renter, never knowing how long you have to live in a place —

whether or not the landlord is going to want to sell the unit or

renovate it or whether the landlord has different ideas about what kinds

of tenants that they want in the future. It’s feeling like you have a

lack of power over your own life situation. This is something that

thousands — tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands — of people in

British Columbia continue to struggle with.

Certainly, I need to acknowledge the incredible work of the member

for Vancouver–West End, who also represents Coal Harbour — which I’ve

learned recently to also mention, given that West End doesn’t always

describe the full scope of the area that he represents. I remember when

I was starting out as an MLA how many renters would come into my office

with concerns about their living situation and how often I would turn to

the member for Vancouver–West End to get advice from him, because I knew

about his advocacy over many years. I am so, so grateful for the advice

that he was able to provide me, which then allowed me, in turn, to

provide it to constituents, and for the work that he has done over the

last 3½ years to improve the situation for renters.

When I was first elected, I remember that the frequency and volume

of rent-related casework that would come through my doors was enormous.

Requests for help from renters dominated the work that we did on a

day-to-day basis. There were renters whose landlords were using a

loophole at the time, known as the fixed-term-lease loophole, to force

renters who had already lived in a unit for a year or more to sign new

agreements, with rent increases that were far above and beyond the legal

maximum, by using the argument that they could otherwise be

evicted.

[2:15 p.m.]

They would say: “Here is a lease for one year. At the end of this

lease, you have to sign a new lease, or else we’ll find another tenant.”

What they would offer was that the new lease wasn’t tied to the old

lease at all. Therefore, the rent increases that they were allowed to

put into the new lease were not subject to the legal rent increase

maximums that were set by government. That was known as the fixed-lease

loophole.

There were also renters who struggled to figure out how to get

basic services out of their landlords, like maintenance and repairs that

should have been happening as a matter of course, only to be ignored or

handled very dismissively. There were also landlords who came to my

office because they wanted to do the right thing, but they couldn’t get

advice or direction from the residential tenancy branch in a reasonable

amount of time because the wait times on the phone and for arbitration

were just unacceptably long.

I remember, in particular, two renters named Emily and Jolee, two

women who bravely stood up for their rights as renters against a

landlord who was threatening to increase their rent by 43.7 percent

through the use of what was known at the time as the geographic rent

increase clause. It was introduced by the former B.C. Liberal government

in 2012. I believe that it was likely introduced in good faith, but

sadly, there were many landlords that used the geographic rent increase

clause in the Residential Tenancy Act in order to bully or pressure

renters into willingly accepting higher-than-legal rent

increases.

This was a really stressful time for Emily and Jolee, but with a

lot of work, some stress, for sure — a lot of stress — and the help from

me and my staff, we were able to support them in taking their case to

the residential tenancy branch, and an arbitrator of the residential

tenancy branch ruled in their favour.

Shortly after that fight was won, our NDP government announced

that the entire clause that put them through this battle in the first

place would be eliminated from the Residential Tenancy Act. This meant

that no other renters would have to go through what Emily and Jolee

did.

In fact, our government made a lot of changes to the Residential

Tenancy Act that removed clauses that were used by some landlords as

either loopholes or ways to intimidate tenants into agreeing to rent

increases that they didn’t need to agree to. There were changes that

closed the fixed-term lease loophole that I mentioned. There were

changes that removed the threat of an enormous rent increase based on

the geographic rent increase clause that I mentioned. There were changes

that reduced the allowable rent increases from as high as 4 to 5 percent

per year down to inflation and then what it is today during this state

of emergency, which is zero percent.

Now, these changes have brought increased stability for renters

throughout the province. Certainly, in my office, what we noticed is

that after these changes were brought in, the number of constituents we

heard from who needed help with a serious rental-related issue has

substantially dropped off, partly because these changes that help

in­crease stability for renters were working but also because the

residential tenancy branch now has the resources to be able to handle

the volume of inquiries that they were receiving from people, and people

— renters and landlords alike — are now able to get help through the

system as they should be able to.

Part of the capacity investments enabled the creation of the

compliance and enforcement unit, which I was able to work with in 2019

to strongly encourage a building property manager with multiple

buildings from using clauses in their own lease agreements that were

designed specifically to try to get around the legal rent increase

limitations. This was something that we were able to do with the

compliance and enforcement unit without requiring that renters put

themselves into a situation to take the landlord to the residential

tenancy branch and take them through an arbitration process one at a

time.

I’m incredibly proud and grateful for the work that we’ve been

able to do for renters already, but we also know very clearly that our

work is not done yet, and that’s why I’m very pleased to be able to

support the bill before us, Bill 7. This is a bill that will confirm the

rent freeze through to the end of 2021 and provide further protection

for renters against renovictions by requiring landlords to apply for the

ability to evict a renter for renovations.

[2:20 p.m.]

This builds on protections that we’ve already added with respect

to rent and evictions that require things like increased notice for an

eviction due to renovations and changes that added penalties of up to 12

months’ rent payable to the wronged tenant if it is discovered that the

landlord lied or was otherwise dishonest about the reason for evicting

that tenant.

These changes now…. What it adds to all of that work that we’ve

already done is it takes the onus off of a tenant to be an expert in

construction and renovations. Right now the way that renovictions

happen, or the way that a tenant is able to challenge a renoviction, is

that they need to establish that a renovation isn’t significant enough

to warrant an eviction, that it’s a renovation that could be done with

them still living there, and then they need to take that eviction notice

and challenge it through the residential tenancy branch.

This is, I think, something that usually causes — or rather, this

barrier to being able to…. How do I say this? A renter isn’t necessarily

going to be in the best position to understand the details or

complexities of a piece of renovation. Putting the onus on the renter to

prove that an eviction is not necessary I think is a bit

backwards.

What this change does, what we’re introducing through Bill 7, is

that, instead, it will be up to the landlord to prove to the residential

tenancy branch that the eviction is necessary for the work that they’re

doing to be completed; or, they will otherwise be able to receive advice

about how to work with their tenant to enable the renovations without an

eviction.

I mean, let’s be clear. Renovations are very important work. It

is, to an extent, an obligation of a good landlord to be able to keep up

the quality of the unit that they are renting out. Renovations are

really important. We don’t want to prevent renovations from happening.

However, we do want to prevent minor renovations from being used as an

excuse to evict a tenant.

I believe that the vast majority of landlords want to do the right

thing. They want to do the right thing by their property. They want to

do the right thing by their tenants. They want to be good landlords.

Sadly, there are some landlords who have stretched the rules to raise

rents, to evict tenants or to otherwise neglect their obligations as

landlords.

I believe that these changes that we’re bringing on today, and the

changes that we’ve been bringing on over the past many years, provide

renters with more protections. They also level the playing field for the

many, many good landlords out there, who would no longer have to watch

as some landlords make bank from bending the rules or acting in

dishonest ways.

I’m very supportive of Bill 7. I’ve very grateful that it’s been

brought forward to us today. I’m grateful for the work of the Minister

of Housing; the Minister of Finance, who previously served as the

Minister Responsible for Housing; and, of course, my colleague the

member for Vancouver–West End.

L. Doerkson: Today I rise and represent the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I’m proud to be here representing those hard-working folks.

I have a great many concerns about the outcome of what this bill

will be, moving forward. For certain, I’m confused about what its

intention actually is. If it is to lower the cost of rent or to create

capacity for thousands of people, I don’t believe this bill will

accomplish that.

I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for advocating on

behalf of students. They have of course been caught on this issue. They

have been forgotten with this bill, and I would echo her comments with

respect to including them, going forward, if the bill is to pass

today.

[2:25 p.m.]

A member speaking earlier had referred to larger companies that

are being affected by this. I’m sure that the legislation is having an

effect on those companies, but it’s the small entrepreneur that we’re

really deterring from this business. That, I believe, is having a

massive negative effect on the number of rental units we actually have

in this province.

The bill itself will continue a freeze on rent increases through

2021. It creates more paperwork and red tape around renovations and

repairs for thousands of landlords that are truly trying to do the right

thing. They, I might add, are dealing with their own issues with respect

to COVID, as we all are.

I appreciate what Bill 7 will try to accomplish. How­ever,

for those people that operate these rentals, and for those people who

are using these rentals for a source of retirement income, these groups

of people are ultimately going to pay the price for this bill. Of

course, most people in those groups are unable to qualify for any of the

hundreds of millions of dollars available through the business recovery

benefits.

I would note that the cost for most of these existing rentals has

not stayed stagnant. Rather, their cost is going up year over year. Of

course, some of these individuals have a mix of residential and

commercial rentals, which creates another level of complexity and also

creates a double hit, if you will, for those landlords that have both

types of tenants. The commercial side of this business is experiencing

some very tough challenges with the impact that the pandemic is having

on retail business, of course, in our province.

We really must stop, rethink this bill and — at least if the bill

is to go forward — perhaps consider some potential support for landlords

that are struggling through this extremely tough economic time. I can

understand why we have done this for a period, and I understand that we

really must take a look and pause for a moment to reassess whether it is

accomplishing what the government actually hopes it to do.

What is the motivation for this bill? Is it to create more

capacity for the rental market? If so, as I said before, I don’t think

it will. Again, I want to point out that I thought we have done, in the

past, a temporary pause to understand what is happening in our rental

market because of COVID. I don’t believe it has created more capacity. I

believe it’s quite the opposite. I believe it has taken small operators

out of the market and is slowly driving up the cost of rent for very

many of us.

This is a complex decision. It requires extra thought, and again,

we must be clear on what the motive is for the bill. If it is to create

capacity, then we really must create an opportunity for our residents to

show an interest in this type of business that will create capacity by

way of creating more investment and more interest in that rental

business.

Again, I must question what the motive is. We’re seeing increased

costs in our small communities. This is, in large part, due to lack of

capacity. Deferrals of increases, like this, are a deterrent to the

small investors. It is these investors that are losing interest in this

investment opportunity, and ultimately, it is the renters and tenants of

this province that will pay a high price.

In the end, if this bill and rent freezes were working — or did

work over the last year — we would not see an average rental increase of

$2,500 per year in Metro Vancouver. This has not created, over the past

year, more housing starts. In fact, we’ve seen a reduction, by 18.3

percent, in this category as well. It seems to me that this bill, and

the rental increase deferrals, are hurting the renters of this province

far more than it is helping them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

What is most interesting about the bill, and the continuing

deferral of rent increases, is that we know that it hasn’t worked over

the last year. It has created capacity issues and less building starts.

I sincerely hope that we are not standing here in this place a year from

now, trying to explain to the residents of Metro Vancouver how a bill

like this has, over the past two years, increased the rent by more than

$400 per month.

[2:30 p.m.]

Finally, I believe this bill will not only hurt the people it

serves to help but also all of those people that have risked so much to

get into this business. I’m also very concerned for the individuals who

rely on this rent as a source of income. Not only is that income not

going up, but because of their own rising costs, it’s actually going

down.

Bill 7, to me, shows no positive signs at all, only negative, and

I believe it will be a lose-lose situation for the residents of this

province.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to make a few comments, before speaking to Bill 7,

about what we’ve heard so far in this debate. I’ll go back to a comment

by the member for Cariboo North who said that up until now there has not

been equitable support for our young people from the government. I’d

agree with that comment in part, which is that up until the NDP were

elected in 2017, that definitely was the case. I mean, the opposition

has talked a lot in this debate about the harm being done or the harm

they perceive being done. Crying that Rome is burning would be more

credible if you weren’t carrying matches and holding a cannister of

gas.

The fact is that the issues in residential student housing come

from the fact that, under the B.C. Liberals for 16 years, only 130 beds

were added in student housing — 130 in 16 years. We’ve built or are in

the process of building, since 2018, 5,106 new beds for student housing.

It’s the biggest increase in student housing in B.C. history. So I think

we need to have a bit of a sense of perspective when we speak about this

stuff.

We heard the member for Kelowna West call this window dressing,

saying a rent freeze is window dressing. It’s not if you rent. If you

rent, it goes to the core of your household expenses, and I know that

because I’m a renter. I’m a renter that’s benefited as well from the

vacancy tax, because the unit that I’m renting currently for my family

is being rented out as a consequence of that tax. I know that because

I’ve talked to the property manager about it. So these policies are

really working in a real way, and Bill 7 is going to add so much

relief.

I just want to take a moment to thank the member for

Vancouver–West End, because I know how tirelessly he has worked

throughout this process and how tirelessly he has worked in his entire

civic and political life to advocate the rights of renters. It’s paid

off, and it’s made huge, demonstrable differences for people’s lives and

for the lives of families, at the end of the day.

This is a good bill. This is a good bill that is going to help a

whole ton of people. In my community, in Langley, 38 percent of folks

that live in the city of Langley are renters. Now there are new rentals

because of city council. There are new rentals being added every day. We

just tore down the West Country Hotel. There’s going to be a whole

slough of new rentals that go up in place of that, right in the city of

Langley.

Right now the city’s actually going over their new official

community plan, specifically to help set the planning for SkyTrain so

that we can live in a community that people can afford to live in and so

that we manage the supply of rentals. There’s a lot of good work going

on here.

This bill has broad support. LandlordBC has

expressed support for these changes. There is no added cost or added

bureaucracy that’s built out as a consequence of this bill. I really

think we just need to look at the changes and look at their operation

and how they’re going to be operationalized to really understand

that.

You hear a lot from the opposition about needing to provide market

certainty. That’s what this does. This provides certainty for all the

players in the market. It’s very balanced. But we need to remember that

tenants are important stakeholders when it comes to this, as well, and

landlords evidently are. But the bill is balanced, and it addresses

that.

So what does this do? Well, this extends the rent freeze to the

end of 2021, and it caps it at inflation.

[2:35 p.m.]

We’re not saying that the rent freeze is extended in perpetuity.

We’re saying that it’s capped at inflation. Most folks don’t get a wage

increase that is equal to inflation at the end of the day. There’s not

an upward inflationary pressure on wages for most folks who are renting

right now. So what this does is this helps preserve the household budget

so that you’re not living hand to mouth.

The reality of it is that most young families…. I’m a renter in a

three-bedroom townhouse. For most young families, purchasing is a long

way off. It’s not the fault of the Residential Tenancy Act or changes to

the Residential Tenancy Act that that’s the case. There are broader

problems that have largely been created by 16 years of complete

mismanagement of the housing file.

This goes back to the great work that the member for

Vancouver–West End has done on renovictions. The chan­ges to

renovictions here are process changes that are going to stop real harm.

Renoviction is about exploiting a loophole. It’s about throwing up a

coat of paint and throwing people out of their homes.

We have heard the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talk about all the

red tape and all the bureaucracy this will add. Well, you know what? If

you’re about to kick someone out of their home to do necessary or

substantial renovations, there ought to be a process to make that

determination. It ought not to be decided on a whim. What this bill does

is locate the determination of that process with a neutral arbitrator

that sits through residential tenancy disputes as a matter of their

profession so they can assess credibility. They can assess it on a

case-by-case basis, which is really what we want.

There are some renovations that are necessary. We want to be able

to make that determination, and the most balanced way to do that is the

approach that we’ve taken. Hey, guess what. This is very similar to the

approach in Ontario, and it hasn’t stopped anyone from doing business in

Ontario. To say that this creates red tape and that it’s going to

prevent people from renting out units is just not a credible statement.

It’s not a credible statement at all.

Coming from Langley…. In my previous life as a lawyer, a member of

the bar, I did some pro bono work for the Lower Mainland Manufactured

Home Owners Association, dealing with evictions and the tenancy board.

Often, in terms of discussion, the manufactured home owners are

completely left out. They’re an afterthought, and they shouldn’t be.

You’re not a second-class citizen if you live in a manufactured home. It

is a great form of independent living that is reasonable and allows

people to preserve their independence well into retirement. It’s good to

see some things that maybe have been smaller kinds of process issues get

cleaned up there in terms of manufactured home parks.

One that’s great is the rent freeze applying to manufactured home

parks. Like most of the rentals in Langley, in the city of Langley…. The

home parks tend to be in the township, which is also in my riding. In

the city of Langley, the people renting tend to be either young families

or senior citizens on fixed incomes, people that are hurting. Likewise,

in manufactured home parks, you tend to get a lot of folks who are

seniors who have moved in there. They sold their homes and moved in

there to preserve their independence and continue living in a community.

Making sure that the rent freeze applies to that, that it applies to the

proportional amount covering utilities and taxes, is so

important.

It goes to another issue that flies under the radar. It clarifies

and addresses conflict between park rules and tenancy agreements.

Currently, new park rules can be added with no limit and can override

tenancy agreements. What this act will do, what Bill 7 will do, is

create regulatory authority so that future changes can be limited by

frequency. It can change the rules around that. This will allow the

minister to engage in a full consultation with park owners and homeowner

stakeholder groups to try to find that balance within there to make sure

that the regulations are crafted appropriately. This is so necessary for

anyone who has dealt with manufactured home parks.

[2:40 p.m.]

The result of a change in park rules can be the contracting out of

a tenancy agreement. To the extent that that may or may not be allowed,

it definitely needs to be controlled and have a fair degree of certainty

brought to it.

I think this is just great for all renters and, frankly, market

participants. It’s very hard to argue against this bill. I think the

only way to do that is to engage in kind of straw-man

arguments.

This is about process. Listening to the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale describe the bill, the idea that you could give false

or misleading information, just blatantly false information, during an

investigation or a dispute resolution proceeding with the residential

tenancy branch and there’s no penalty for that, no disincentive for

that, is absolutely wild. So this will fix that problem as well, by

ensuring that administrative penalties against persons giving false or

misleading information during a dispute resolution process or

investigation can be brought forward. Likewise with folks that refuse to

comply with demands for records issued by the RTB, either by a tenant or

by a landlord.

This is about a clear, good, expeditious and balanced process. To

suggest otherwise is just simply incorrect, and it’s not

credible.

We’ve heard many members make statements today that this doesn’t

fix the general issue of housing supply. Well, look. The fact of the

matter is that fixing the tenancy act fixes tenancy issues. Right now,

separate from this, we’re making the biggest investment in housing

supply in the history of British Columbia. It wasn’t just student

housing that the last government neglected. We’re investing $7 billion

over ten years to build housing, and we’re making good progress on new

construction. That’s going to create a whole slew of good-paying jobs

for tradespeople.

I support this act. I think this is a good act. This is good for

my constituents, and this is good for the people of British Columbia. I

frankly don’t understand the opposition to it, and I hope that the

members opposite, once they read the act and once they speak to their

constituents, speak to renters in their ridings, will see the light and

vote for it.

Hon. N. Cullen: As I rise for my first speech in this Legislature, I wish to

acknowledge a number of things. One, of course, being that representing

the incredible and beautiful constituency of Stikine is an immense

honour for me.

I am speaking to you today not from the Legislature but

from my home in Smithers, in Wet’suwet’en territory and Gitdumden

territory specifically. I am honoured by those friends and those

friendships that I have built over many years with the Wet’suwet’en,

that they allow me to raise my family here and conduct my business as

the representative for Stikine.

I wonder if this is true for other members of the assembly and

other legislatures around the province and around the country. I feel a

bit like Matt Damon in The Martian , talking into a screen day

after day. On occasions like this, talking about renters and renters’

rights, we want to connect with people, want to be able to demonstrate

for working people in this province that the government is on their

side, that we understand the realities of life today, as strange as it

is, and are doing something about all of those many challenges that we

face.

It feels like today is appreciation day for the member for

Vancouver–West End, and that is long overdue and well deserved. Our

colleague from Vancouver was obviously instrumental in making this

legislation happen, in listening to renters and property owners from

around British Columbia, both in the city and the rural environment

where I live, and not just listening but coming up with

solutions.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, this pandemic — maybe we are, hopefully, beginning to see the

end of the race — has exposed much in our world, in our province, in our

country and certainly in our communities. It has exposed the

vulnerabilities that we have. It has made some things that were terrible

much worse, like the opioid crisis and the many hundreds and hundreds of

British Columbians that we’ve lost to that tragedy.

It has exposed the vulnerability of many British Columbians who

live from paycheque to paycheque, live with precarious work, live and

work in such a way that, through no fault of their own, they have a

great deal of insecurity and uncertainty in their lives. This pandemic

has made that much worse.

It has also exposed that there are great divides within our

communities still, between the haves and the have-nots. We’ve seen

certain members of what they have self-described as the elite who feel

like renting a private jet and flying up to the Yukon to get vaccines

from First Nations communities means that different rules apply for

different people. We as a government think that’s wrong.

When it comes to the issue of security of home, of place, there’s

a fundamental and cultural belief that we have as a government that a

home, whether owned or rented, is not just an investment decision. It is

not just an opportunity for someone to make more and more money. It is

also a home, and it should be underlined as such.

Now, we have also seen an enormous amount of resiliency in our

communities over this difficult time. Over these many, many long months,

we have seen people pull together, come together, help one another out,

reach out to those that are left too often alone — much more

conversation and help towards mental health. We’ve seen from our

minister from Nanaimo and others that the response to this pandemic has

also brought forward some of the very best of who we are.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t see you, but I’m going to assume that the

same Speaker is there as when I started. I myself grew up in rental

homes, often, as the son of a single mom, a working mom, going from rent

to rent, wondering how we were going to pay the phone bill and the

electricity and the heat and the rent at the same time.

I can remember the fundamental power imbalance that existed

between my mom and whoever owned the apartment that we lived in at the

time. In those days, with a whim, we could be evicted for the smallest

and slimmest of pretenses. We didn’t even have the term “renoviction.”

They just evicted for whatever reasons.

That sense of lack of security, basic security of where your home

is going to be, was certainly felt by my mom and, I think, was also felt

by me. So when I saw this piece of legislation being proposed by the

minister — the Attorney General, the Housing Minister and the Finance

Minister all deserve a ton of credit for this — it really spoke to me

about some fundamental values of our government. Who is it that we’re

fighting for? Who is it that we’re concerned with, and what kind of

world is it that we’re trying to create?

I watched the previous government pretend, I think, to care about

renters and what was happening with rental prices across the province as

another housing boom was sweeping through the Lower Mainland, which of

course is like dropping a huge rock in the pond. The ripple effects out

to…. Communities further up the Lower Mainland, all the way out to

places where I live, were affected by this, prices generally

escalating.

If you want to watch what the sources of some of those escalating

prices were, tune in to the Cullen inquiry — nothing to do with me. It’s

a very good and devastating inquiry into what government negligence

really looks like and how it impacts real people.

Now, if I look around the northwest, where I represent here in

Stikine, and I start to think of the profile of who it is that is

renting, who it is that we’re talking about, I think of young families,

young people getting into rental units. I think of seniors on fixed

income. I think of some marginalized people and people who are just

struggling, sometimes referred to as the working poor, who are just

trying to get by.

[2:50 p.m.]

Those are the people that we’re talking about today. Those are the

people that we’re talking about protecting today with the measures under

this bill, under Bill 7, that will freeze rental prices right now

through the end of the year, and then forevermore afterwards not allow

landlords to hike up rents, sometimes with the flimsiest of excuses, way

beyond the cost of inflation — 4, 5, 6 percent.

We hear of renovictions that took place where the rent would

double instantly. For a senior on a fixed income, for a young family

just trying to make ends meet, this is devastating. You now have to look

for another place because you simply can’t afford to stay in it. You

just don’t have the money. Because that rental unit is more than just an

investment opportunity. It’s a home for someone.

So this bill, in its prescriptions to put some limits and some

accommodations and understanding that never should rental increases go

beyond what inflation is doing, I think is important. It is going to

make and has already made a huge difference. That you don’t read every

day on Facebook or in the newspaper another story of someone having to

lose their home, unable to pay the rent or mortgage. That this

government has come in with…. One of the only governments in the

country, I think the only government in the country, who brought in

rental supports.

The evidence has been incredibly profound. Outside of, I believe,

Newfoundland, we have had the best performance as a province in people

being able to meet the rent, being able to stay in their homes even in

the midst of a global pandemic, which was no one’s fault in particular,

but everybody’s responsibility, and this government has stepped

up.

Now, tying the rental increases to inflation is really important.

The other piece was noted by my colleague for Vancouver–West End, where

I understand the term was invented — this notion of “renovictions,”

where someone is living in a rental property and the landlord comes

forward and says: “Well, I’m doing some renovations, and you need to

move out. You were paying $1,500 a month and when you want to move back

in, it’s going to be $2,000, $3,000.” Or even more.

We saw this. We saw this up close. I served for a number years as

the Member of Parliament for Skeena, which represented places like

Terrace and Kitimat. Anytime there was an economic boom going on — when

they were refurbishing the smelter at Alcan, or when other economic

opportunities were coming up and suddenly rental properties were

becoming more scarce — we saw waves of these renovictions taking place

in which landlords, owners of these properties, would change the

countertop in the kitchen and the rent would double. They would change

the carpet in the hallway, evict the person because they had to do this

renovation, and suddenly the rent went up 30, 40, 50 percent.

Again, who we’re talking about are working people, people who are

just trying to make those ends meet and are doing the jobs that we need

every day. The people cleaning our hospitals, the people serving us food

at the restaurant, the people who are taking care of our kids — those

are the people who would take the hit.

I’m surprised. I don’t know if I’ve heard from my colleague from

Skeena yet. That is a living-proof example, of those two communities in

particular, Terrace and Kitimat, that saw many years of renovictions.

The previous government just simply didn’t care. Maybe they didn’t

understand, but I find that hard to believe. They were in there for more

than a decade and a half. You’d think they would have figured out that

there’s some sort of connection.

The great irony was that many times the owners of these properties

not only did not live in the community in which they were jacking up

rents on people; they didn’t even live in the province or country. They

were numbered companies that owned a whole suite of apartments across

the community. So do you think they cared at all about what their

nefarious practices were doing to people and their families? Well, of

course not.

Those that are on the extreme right, like some of my colleagues

across the way are would say: “Well that’s just the market. This is a

market-based decision.” Tell that to family who’s scrambling to look for

a place for them and their kids to sleep at night — that suddenly it’s

just the market that their rent went up 50, 60 percent because someone

put in a piece of carpet in the living room.

What frustrated me was that that’s not a healthy economy. That’s

no longer an economy performing well for people, which is the point of

an economy. These numbered companies, these offshore landlords, were

able to make these decisions. They had a compliant and complicit

government in Victoria at the time under the Liberals that simply didn’t

understand or didn’t care. Unfortunately, I think it was the

latter.

We’ve already saved working people hundreds and hundreds of

dollars, never mind the rent support but in other ways on their rents.

This, for practical terms, is, I believe, one of the most noble forms of

government, where we can look, especially in a moment of crisis, where

our true colours come forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is true in our daily lives. If some great crisis comes upon

us or upon friends of ours…. How we act, how they act really truly

describes who they are and who we are.

This is also true for government. When this crisis came upon this

government, one of its primary interests was looking out for people, not

just in terms of health, but in what kind of advice and prescriptions we

would need to listen to and getting it from the good doctor, Bonnie

Henry — not from a political spokesperson but from the head of the CDC —

and then following that advice to try to keep people safe, to make sure

that we’re making investments across the board. That showed what a

progressive government actually does. It looks to the best evidence

available and tries to administer that in a caring and sympathetic way

to the people we seek to represent.

Coming out of the last election, we see the pandemic continuing,

and we’ve seen the effect of a lot of those pol­icies, whether it

was the direct support to individuals or supports to small businesses,

to try to keep them going and keep the lights on. We have seen that 98.5

percent of the jobs that existed before the pandemic have returned. Of

course, those haven’t happened evenly. Some sectors, especially the

tourism industry, have taken a disproportionate hit. We’ve brought in

measures to help them as well.

But across the board, we’ve seen work return. We’ve seen life

change. We’ve seen our ability to communicate this way rather than in

person. We’ve seen travel change as well. There’s much more to do. That

is also true for what’s happening within the rental markets of this

province.

We know that there is still a shortage in the communities that I

represent, in places like Hazelton, Smithers and Telkwa; further up the

line in Stewart; and in some of our more remote communities like Dease

Lake, Iskut and Telegraph Creek. On reserve, off reserve — all can see a

desperate need.

I was speaking with the good people in Atlin just a couple of days

ago. Now, for those who don’t know their B.C. geography very well, Atlin

is the northwesternmost community that we have. It tucks into that

little part of British Columbia nestled up against the Yukon border. In

Atlin — small, beautiful little Atlin — being able to get rental

properties or properties for seniors to be able to stay at home in their

retirement years is incredibly difficult, because the cost of building

housing has gone up as well.

We have some reforms to look at that way. We’ve seen the major

licensees making quite a bit of money. But I also know from going down

to my local lumberyard, here in Smithers, B.C., the price of putting up

a shed in my backyard has more than doubled in a few years. We need to

know that that has an impact on our ability to have housing stock on the

market. What is happening with prices in our province, and how do we

make sure that we have a province that’s viable for

everybody?

Now, there are other things to talk about that this government has

done that I think are incredibly impressive and important, with respect

to the cost of living, the ability for people to make it from week to

week, month to month.

Now the vaccines are showing up in our community. I saw a notice

out today for Witset. It’s going to be having…. That is the Wet’suwet’en

village just down the road from where I am right now. I know in some of

the Gitxsan communities, as well, and I know in Fort St. James, just to

the east of me, that there have been vaccination clinics and that those

are coming, more and more.

It was fantastic to see the announcement with the Minister of

Health, the Premier and Dr. Bonnie Henry recently, talking about what

the rollout is going to look like for our most elderly, people above 90,

and then 85 and then those north of 80, so that our most vulnerable are

being taken care of.

We also need to make sure that they have a roof over their head,

and what I think this bill does is ensure for not just now but for years

to come that the nature of rental properties and the relationship, that

power relationship I talked about earlier between those that own the

properties — whether they’re an individual or a numbered holding

company, here or overseas — and the people renting the properties, is a

little more balanced.

The new compliance and enforcement unit, which avoids people

having to take their landlords, individuals, one by one, through other

remedies, is a great solution. It allows us to make sure that what’s

actually happening in the property is true and that no one is taking

advantage of loopholes in the rules, as has been done in the past,

essentially to evict people and jack up the rents way beyond what the

law allows.

[3:00 p.m.]

This, to me, is flipping the onus a bit, where before, renters had

to go before various boards and prove that the renovations were either

unnecessary or being exaggerated, as opposed to the landlord having to

make the case that those people are being evicted for reasonable reasons

because they’re tearing entire rooms out and making the rental property

go through significant, significant changes, in which somebody just

simply couldn’t live in the unit. Now what ends up happening at the

other end, in terms of the actual rent, is also somewhat justifiable and

in accordance with decent human values.

I think, in some conclusion, it’s interesting for me that this is

the first speech that I was going to make in the Legislature —

interesting for me, on a personal note, because it’s being done from

some hundreds and hundreds of kilometres away from the Legislature. I’ve

been able to get to the Legislature once, but not while it was open, and

I look at that room that you’re all in right now as a sacred democratic

space. I look forward to the time when we can all return, because I

enjoy being with colleagues and hearing from different parts of our

province as to what is going on and what the different realities

are.

I think it’s also interesting for me, personally, that this is the

topic that I first get to speak to — a topic that affects people’s lives

every day. And that is the philosophy and the culture of our government

in action. What is it when you vote NDP? Well, it looks like this. We’re

going to help out renters. We’re going to make sure that working people

have a fair shake in this world. There are enough challenges as it is,

being evicted for some sort of false, fake half-renovation and watching

your rent skyrocket while your paycheque doesn’t match and doesn’t

follow suit.

I think that shows what this government’s about. It’s why I

decided to run. It’s why I wanted to be a part of this government: to

see what a truly progressive government could do in action when it comes

to mental health, when it comes to poverty reduction, and when it comes

to systemic racism and uprooting it from the very foundations of what

this province is, as we come up on our sesquicentennial. It seems to me

that much has been exposed through these number of months. It seems to

me that our government has been attempting to be nimble, to look at the

research and the evidence that’s before us, to understand what we can do

about poverty eradication — not in speeches like this, but in real-time

action, like this bill that we’re talking about.

That will make a real difference in people’s lives, each and every

day, so that when they open up the hydro bill, when they open up the

heat bill, it’s not with so much pain, because they know their rent is

not going to suddenly go through the roof. They know that they’re not

going to be renovicted and suddenly pushed out of their home and

struggling and looking for a place for them and their kids to call home.

That’s what we’re talking about today.

It’s an honour to be able to address the House this way to talk

about this. I look forward to the support from all sides of the House.

If they talk to their constituents who are renters, they will understand

how much this means to them. Is there more to do? Of course there is.

There always is. There are always new challenges. That’s what the joy

and the thrill of this kind of work is — that there’s always something

new. But is this a good bill? Yes, it is. Does it help out people today

and tomorrow? Yes, it does. Does it deserve our support? I very much

think so.

N. Sharma: I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m coming to you from

Zoom on the traditional territory of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and

Musqueam people. It’s just a real honour, and I’d like to acknowledge

that.

It’s my pleasure today to speak on behalf of Bill 7 in this second

reading.

These are challenging times for many people. In my riding, housing

is one of the biggest challenges. In Vancouver-Hastings, over 40 percent

of the people are renters, and in these challenging times, renting can

be insecure and unaffordable. I’ve heard from many people, especially

young people, who have had a tough time affording rent or have been

evicted from their homes far too many times for illegal

reasons.

The issues in the rental market lead to housing insecurity for

many and even homelessness for some. I’ve certainly seen that in my

riding. These issues, as we all know, have been made worse during the

pandemic. If all you can afford is a share of a unit with many other

people, it may be difficult for you to lower your risk of exposure to

COVID-19. That’s something that our office has heard of far too

often.

[3:05 p.m.]

These are real challenges for many people, and this legislation is

part of the answer. I think we can all agree, no matter where we come

from in B.C., that we need to continue to improve the situation for

renters and landlords across this province to make housing more secure.

I’m so glad that this government is investing in housing across the

spectrum under the housing for B.C. 30-point plan and that there’s a

special focus on renters.

I would like to acknowledge the member for Vancouver–West End,

who’s been a strong advocate for his whole political career, even

locally, when it comes to protecting renters. It’s such an important

issue in Vancouver and I know across the province.

The member chaired the rental tenancy task force to take a look at

how we make life better for renters. A great way, in my opinion, to

solve complex problems is to bring people together, to allow them to

share their perspectives and concerns about how to improve the situation

for the real lives of people. I know that renters and landlords across

this province have asked for these changes. This legislation responds to

some of their main concerns. I know that this will make life better for

the renters if it passes in this House.

What do these changes do? First and foremost — and this is the

thing I hear about the most in my riding — is affordability. Communities

across B.C. are suffering from an affordability crisis when it comes to

rental units and housing. This problem was only exacerbated by the

pandemic, as people have insecure employment and have really felt the

impacts of the public health orders on their employment.

First up with the rent freeze. I want to acknowledge that the

province already introduced a rent freeze during COVID-19. I heard from

so many people that these changes provided much-needed relief about the

concerns of rising expenses and the sense of stability in at least one

very significant expense for many people — that’s their rent.

It is going to be way more impactful if this rent freeze through

this legislation would increase to last until 2021. It’ll take us some

time to recover from the pandemic, and we’re all just figuring out the

hope that’s on the way and the vaccine rollout plan. I know that many

people are looking forward to that. But it will take some time for those

especially highly impacted communities and industries to recover from

this. This rent freeze extension to 2021 I know will help a lot of

families and seniors out there who are looking for a break on their

expenses.

Under this legislation, there could be no rent increase in 2021,

even if you’ve already received a notice of a rent increase. Those

people who are wondering how they’re going to pay or respond to that

notice can get that sense of relief knowing that the government is on

their side and thinking about how to help them through this

pandemic.

More importantly when it comes to affordability, it’s not just

about recovering from the pandemic. It’s about the long-term

affordability that renters are feeling, especially in Metro Vancouver

and in my riding. That means that this legislation will cap rental

increases. Starting in 2022 and beyond, rental increases will be capped

at the rate of inflation. This is fulfilling a commitment by this

government.

I know that this will save renters hundreds of dollars a year.

I’ve heard far too often, and I’m sure people across this province have

heard, about the staggering rises in rent over the years when we had a

government that turned away and looked away — looked at renting as just

being a fun and wacky time in somebody’s life and something that they,

at some point, would get over;

whereas rent is something that families,

seniors and people across B.C. face every month and will continue to

face because it’s too unaffordable to purchase housing in this province.

I know this rent freeze will be welcome to many people across the

province.

Another issue that I’ve heard of very often in my riding is the

issue of renovictions. Again, I want to start by acknowledging the

member for Vancouver–West End for his work. As he mentioned, somebody in

his riding coined the term when it came to renovictions. It was

certainly something that we were feeling and hearing in

Vancouver-Hastings when landlords were misusing the rules and saying

that they were doing renovations to the unit to kick out the renter and

increase the rents.

This has had a serious impact on renters in my community and has

led to homelessness for many and some of the impacts that we see in and

around our streets in Vancouver-Hastings. I know that illegal

renovictions can be devasting to people. Some have told me stories of

people who have been in their houses for decades, only to be renovicted.

Imagine the stress in looking for a place after a renoviction and trying

to compare what you were paying in the past to what you are now forced

to pay with the current market rents.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that these protections in this legislation for tenants

against these renovictions will be very welcome for people in my

riding.

The process, I think, is also something I wanted to point out,

which is very important. It shifts the onus away from renters in proving

illegal activity of their landlord in having a renoviction that isn’t

actually needed. What this legislation will do is further protect

tenants as the landlords will be required to apply to the residential

tenancy branch before they can evict tenants for renovations.

In addition, landlords will not be able to end tenancies for

renovations that are not substantial and do not require the rental unit

to be vacant. This is huge for people and I know will help to cool some

of the increases in the rental costs for people across my riding and

across the province.

I also wanted to comment on how I believe this legislation takes a

very balanced approach. As I mentioned earlier, the residential tenancy

task force really had a voice from people on all sides of this issue.

Landlords and renters and a whole bunch across the province weighed in

on how they thought we could make things better. These improvements are

real improvements that are balanced. They will also make sure that we

can continue to improve our housing and our rental units.

If landlords need to make improvements to their properties, which

is very important, they can apply to the residential tenancy act to make

those investments, even if this requires an increase to the cap. If they

can prove it and it’s going to be benefiting their rental unit, then it

would be allowed under this legislation.

I also wanted to comment on the other improvements that this

legislation will bring forward to all landlords and tenants in this

province. That has to do with making it easier on them when they come to

the residential tenancy branch.

I think all those, including myself, who have rented, who have

encountered issues under the Residential Tenancy Act and had to go

towards the branch, have really appreciated the investments that we’ve

made in that process. But I know that this legislation will go further,

that it will make it easier to enforce when there are breaches in some

of the rules that, at this stage, don’t have proper enforcement. It will

expand the scope of administrative penalties that the compliance and

enforcement unit can level, including, if anybody gives false or

misleading information against the act, there are fines and there are

ways to enforce it in a better way.

I know that that will help a lot of people who oftentimes are

unrepresented by lawyers, who are going through this process trying to

make sure that their rights are respected.

I know it will also improve fairness in the residential tenancy

dispute resolution process by expanding grounds and providing a new

review process for the decisions that are made.

I also wanted to comment on the much-needed im­provements

under the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to address the conflicts

between park rules and tenancy agreements.

I know that this is part of a much-needed plan for renters that is

bigger than just this legislation, even though this legislation is a key

part of it. Our government has made important improvements to rental

housing policies in B.C. We’ve saved renters money, and we’ve better

protected them. We’ve also improved services that renters and landlords

can count on.

Part of these protections are putting more units on the market. In

2020, we’d already registered more rental units for construction by July

than the old government ever did in an entire year. Eighteen thousand

more condos are being rented out in Metro Vancouver instead of sitting

empty, thanks to the speculation and vacancy tax. We’ve got over 26,000

homes complete and underway in 90 communities, including 6,800 complete

and 19,200 in active construction.

We’ve improved the fixed-term-lease loophole, making it harder —

once again protecting renters from landlords’ misuse of some of the

rules.

We’ve known for many years that this has been a problem and a

growing problem. We’ve actually stepped up to the challenge to address

it. I’m so proud to be part of a government that’s on the side of making

lives better for people, investing in their lives, making the rules

fairer and making it better for renters who are struggling with the

unaffordable housing in their communities.

I know that there’s more work to be done, as there always is, but

I do know that our government has a strong commitment to continuing to

do that work. This legislation shows the progress that we’re already

making in meeting our commitments, listening to landlords and tenants

that came before us, under the task force, to make these changes and

agree with them.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would just like to end by saying I would hope that this

legislation would have the support across the aisle, as we know, and we

all must hear, that this is much-needed relief for renters across the

province.

B. Banman: It’s a pleasure for me to speak to this particular bill on the

floor of the House today, albeit virtually. The first thing I’d like to

bring into it is that I was the mayor of Abbotsford, and I also sat on

council. I’d like to talk to you about the issues and the challenges

that this city faces.

For decades now, it has been…. Because of the migration east and

the growth of population, we suffered with a low vacancy rate. One of

the things that Abbotsford did to look at things in a different aspect

is that we started aggressively legalizing secondary suites. What that

did was allow for affordable housing. It had a mortgage helper for those

that wanted to purchase their first home or purchase a home and move

from a condominium or townhouse to a single-family home.

It also, in the pooling of the school districts, allowed for a

large diversity of students that were now able to do that. For instance,

in some of the more affluent neighbourhoods, there were suites where

there was a balancing within that school system, and it worked. So I’m

familiar with the challenges, and I am familiar with some of the

solutions. I will say that we were one of the leaders in doing this, and

it provided thousands of legalized suites — safe suites that were

inspected and had to meet certain criteria.

I’ve heard some mentions…. I applaud the intent of this bill, and

I applaud the task force, which was established in 2018. It was designed

to provide fairness and security to both renters and landlords. Much of

the discussion, unfortunately, that I’ve heard, has put landlords in a

very, very unfavourable light. I think that that is blatantly unfair,

because the majority of landlords, as are renters, are good people.

Their intention as well….

I know, based on my experience…. I rented, and I remember moving

from one place to another when I was renting. I always held my breath

when it was time for the checkout — whether I was going to get my

security deposit back and whether any damage had been done. Luckily, I

was never assessed a penalty, because I was one of those tenants that

looked after the place, as the vast majority do.

I have also personally experienced, and I have heard stories,

absolute horror stories, where, within a very short period of time, the

rental unit is virtually destroyed, and the minor, minor damage deposit

doesn’t come anywhere close to fixing the damages that have been

incurred. That’s a very minor group of renters that do that, but they

exist.

What I don’t want to do…. I guess what I’m trying to say is that

we need to paint a brush of fairness, and we need to go back to why that

task force was put in place. It was put in place to apply fairness and

security for both renters and landlords.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s also worth mentioning that that task force was put together

in April of 2018, and by December of 2018 that task force did the job

that was asked of them. They had 23 recommendations. If this government

was serious…. I’m sorry. Some of it just falls a little hollow to me

that it’s now 2021, and nothing was done. It’s been three years — three

years of inaction.

I’m glad we’re getting to something, but this government could

have helped those that they say they want to help a long time ago. In

the process of that, the rents have gone up on average of $2,500 a year,

and this government…. Also, there’s no sign of the $400 that was

promised to renters.

In addition to that, I think it’s worth mentioning that no piece

of legislation is perfect, and part of the opposition’s job is to point

out: “Wait a minute. We think you missed a spot here.” One of the

glaring omissions that was pointed out was the students. They have been

totally left out. This legislation should be changed to include them for

that very reason alone.

Those students are some of the most vulnerable. I remember being a

student, surviving on $400 a month, sharing a place with my colleagues.

I remember what it was like, where there just wasn’t a lot of money left

over. To leave students out, I think, is a glaring omission in this

particular bill, and I would encourage this government to rectify

that.

I know what they want to do is the right thing. But it’s worth

mentioning that 114,000 units have been promised by this government, yet

only 3,000, approximately, have been built. At that rate, it’s going to

take 100 years to get this job done. I think there’s room for

improvement. I think we can all agree that there is room for

improvement.

What I see is a history here of…. A task force was put in. The

task force came within a short period of time. The promise was denied.

We’re now, three years later, getting at this. And $400 was promised.

There’s no sight seen of that. Hundreds of thousands of units were

promised — 114,000 — and we’ve got less than 3,000 that actually have

hit the ground.

But the biggest erring omission to this that I see is…. I have

talked to landlords where their tenants just refuse to pay, and they

were left not being able to evict them. Then when they went to try and

see what was wrong, they were told: “Oh, you can’t come because I have

COVID.” No proof of that was ever given. No doctor’s note of that was

ever given. That excuse was used many, many times. This landlord,

finally, was able to look at the house, and it was a mess.

This is just a guy that works a simple job, decided to invest in a

property and rent it out with the hopes of being able to make a little —

you know, just trying to get ahead. It wasn’t some multimillion-dollar

person. It was just a guy that works a normal job. He and his wife put

everything they had together to do an investment, and it has not panned

out well. He’ll be able to survive, but it has cost him tens of

thousands of dollars.

The problem that Abbotsford had was supply. We’re quickly running

out of available buildable land, and partly why we went with suites was

to encourage density, because everybody believes, and I agree, that we

want to improve density in our cities. In order for that to happen,

investors have to be willing to have a return on their investment. Now,

how much that return should be, well, we can have a discussion about

that.

[3:25 p.m.]

But if you make the rules so onerous and treat landlords as if

they’re the enemy, which is kind of what I’m hearing — it’s painting

them in that bad light — people will stop investing in real estate, and

they’ll find other ways to take their moneys to build that retirement

nest egg, as the gentleman that I was talking about did. They’ll stop

investing in this, and we will actually have a worse problem on our

hands than we have now.

There has to be balance, fairness and security for both landlords

and the tenants. What I see here is legislation that is well-intentioned

but that has missed the fundamental core, which is that you need to have

people willing to want to invest in rental incomes, to want to invest in

rental properties. I’ve heard stories about these numbered companies and

multinationals that don’t even live here, and others painting the brush

that’s pretty wide. While well-intentioned, it’s just

inaccurate.

Many people either have a small basement suite, as in my neck of

the woods, or they also have a willingness to want to assemble

properties and to get into the rental business itself. If you make your

rules so full of red tape and bureaucracy that it becomes so difficult,

people will end up just investing in other areas, and this will end up

being worse.

I would caution this government to make sure that you go back to

the original things of fairness and security for both parties. Landlords

are not the enemy. Yes, there are some bad ones out there, and they need

to be dealt to be dealt with. We need to have rules put in place to deal

with the bad apples on both sides. This legislation, in my opinion, is

weighted unfairly towards one side, and it paints those that are

providing a service in a bad light. I don’t believe that that was the

original intention of what was wanting to be done here.

I would say to you: take a look at this. Listen to what some of

the folks on this side of the House are saying to you. Let’s tweak this

legislation so that it meets the goals it was originally done for, where

it has fairness and security for renters and the landlords. Do not make

the rules so tight that you scare people away.

I know the gentleman I talked to said: “I’m out. I’m going to

sell. I’m going to go do something else.” He said: “I’ll survive.

Luckily, my wife and I were both working, and we had help from family.

But if it had not been for that, I would have lost everything I owned.”

That’s the unforeseen consequence of painting the brush and that

pendulum swinging too far to one side.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I believe that there needs to be some fairness for renters. There

needs to be some security. I go back to when…. I remember what it was

like. I remember wondering whether my rents were going to go up. That’s

another thing. You have now guaranteed that every single year, rents are

going to go up, every year, because it’s going to be tied to inflation.

If we don’t increase the rent, we’ll miss out. The unforeseen

consequence.

For some renters, rents have never gone up for years. I know of

people like that. I know landlords who say: “You know what? I’ve got the

best tenant in the world. To me, I know that ever time I go there, the

place is spick and span. They’re great. They look after it. They’re just

fantastic. I want to reward them by keeping the rent low.” With this new

inflationary thing, that will cease to happen. You will end up,

actually, in some cases, hurting some people that never would have had a

rent increase. So be careful of those….

[3:30 p.m.]

One of my city managers used to say that you need to be wary of

the unforeseen consequences of the decision. Quite often, we try to fix

one problem, and we create three or four more. I believe, long term,

that this legislation has pushed the envelope to the point that we are

going to chase investment away. It will make the rental vacancies worse,

not better.

Those that have a place they’re renting…. Maybe they’ll do okay.

But if the goal is to provide more housing, not less, I think this needs

some revamping. I think it’s been a little too punitive in some

areas.

I agree with the intent. I applaud the intent to protect renters

from unscrupulous landlords. I don’t think you’ll find anyone on this

side of the house that disagrees with that, but I think that this falls

short, and it will actually create a worse housing crisis. But it may

take a few years for that to come, because people will start changing

where they invest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the time.

I hope that my experience, having been sitting around the mayors’

table where we’re quite often putting our hands up to approve or

disapprove of a certain project that comes before a city…. I’m talking

about dealing with problems in Abbotsford that we lived. I’m not just

making stuff up because it sounds good. I’ve sat around that table. I

have watched developments come before council and those decisions that

are made.

To paint cities, saying that they’re part of the problem…. That’s

somewhat fair, but it’s also incredibly unfair at the same time. There

are some provincial bureaucracies and rules that cities have to follow

that also make it incredibly challenging for us. The thing I’ve learned

is that you don’t know what you don’t know. There are times when the

pendulum swings a bit too far, and I think that is exactly what has

happened in this particular legislation. There have been some errors.

There have been some omissions. There’s still time to fix

that.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time. I hope that my

colleagues on the other side of the floor will ponder over what I’ve

said, will reflect upon what I’ve said and come up where we can actually

have good legislation that provides that fairness and security for both

landlord and renters.

R. Leonard: It is a great privilege for me to stand here to speak to Bill 7

today. I was a member of the residential tenancy housing task force. Too

many words in that name. I really appreciated the leadership that the

MLA for Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour, provided. His many years of

experience have given us, across the board, a lot of opportunities to

advocate for more fair processes for everyone.

I wanted to just share a little bit about the experiences that I

had, going from place to place across the province. You would think that

tenants and landlords have the same kinds of experience in every

community. But that was not the case. Not even close. The experience

with landlords in Terrace was so very different from the experiences of

landlords in Burnaby. Tenants in the Interior experienced a whole

different set of circumstances from Vancouver or Victoria. We got

hundreds of submissions. We heard hundreds of organizations and

individuals coming forward with a vast array of experiences. Landlords

had tenants who were…. I can’t use the word in this House for what they

were described as. We had tenants who had landlords who were considered

monsters.

[3:35 p.m.]

The people we didn’t get were the people — the vast majority of

people — who are just living their lives, going about their business,

making sure that they can pay the rent, taking care of their homes.

Landlords who were taking care of their investment and building

relationships. That’s one of the big things that we found — that when

conflict arises, it’s because there’s a broken relationship. That’s kind

of the key, which makes the issue of the marketplace, with housing, so

different from any other entrepreneurial enterprise, whether you own a

big apartment building or whether you own a house with a suite in

it.

That’s the key — that there’s a human element to the enterprise,

so it demands a very different lens. We certainly got to hear about what

would be the right way to go about things. The issues of fairness and

creating balance…. It was so important that we have an open ear and

listen to all parties. So I think that we came to a good balance from

all those hundreds of submissions and just as many recommendations, to

pare it down to something that was realizable.

I have to say that the folks who organized all of the meetings did

just a fabulous job. It’s kind of like corralling cats to be able to

have those conversations in a few hours in different communities and

come up with something that’s substantial. They shared it very

articulately to help guide us in what was the best way

forward.

I think that one of the comments that I’ve heard from speakers

from the other side is that we haven’t done anything. Well, we got to

business right away. I think that that’s a tribute to our public service

as much as it is to the commitment of our government to find ways to

close the fixed-term leases, the loophole that was causing rent

increases. We gave more time around renovictions. We increased

compensation. Those are the sorts of things that made a difference

immediately, without requiring quite the degree of legislative research

that’s required to make sure that you get it right.

We also saw an increase in education. We saw the resources to the

residential tenancy branch increase so that the time in which disputes

could be resolved and people got the answers to their questions reduced

significantly, after years and years and years of frustration, and

really trying this sector in our society, which is so vital for

everybody — to have a roof over their heads.

I was really impressed with the immediate impact with the

compliance and enforcement unit. When they were introduced, there was

opportunity for redress. It made the ability to be a landlord and it

made the ability to be a tenant that much more secure, because there was

a place to go. There was somebody who was going to listen. We also ended

up with a liaison officer to help with resolving issues before they get

out of hand.

I just want to talk about the rent freeze first. This is within

the legislation that’s before us today. It takes us to the end of 2021.

We have been dealing with COVID over the space of a year. Actually, it

was on March 13. I was going to have a workshop in my community with

TRAC, the tenant rights advocacy centre. They were going to come over

from the Lower Mainland. The night before, Friday the 13th, I had to

cancel it because we knew that the province was going to be shut

down.

[3:40 p.m.]

People’s lives were changed. One of the first things that we

started to hear about was how people were worried about how they were

going to pay the rent. By freezing rents and by stopping evictions, it

gave people some security while they got their lives in order during

this pandemic.

As we’ve progressed through the pandemic and peo­ple have

gotten back to work, it has been an opportunity for people to stand up

proud and pay their rent and, if they were in arrears, to find ways to

move forward and get those debts paid back, in a reasonable way, when

they’re dealing with such constraints. We have the lowest rental arrears

in the country, outside of Newfoundland, which is pretty impressive.

We’re doing all right in British Columbia. Some of us are struggling

harder than others, for sure, but we have set a path forward to make

life more affordable.

That rent freeze. While it is a constraint on landlords that they

can’t raise the rent, we have a program called the recovery benefit. It

helps people throughout British Columbia who are in a variety of

circumstances to make it through where there’ve been some

losses.

I just want to recall that prior to 2017, the rent increases were

up to a 4.3 percent increase, far above inflation. If rents were allowed

to increase today — inflation is down — there would be no additional

allowances. It was 1.4. But even that can make the difference for

somebody being able to buy that loaf of bread to make sandwiches for

their kids to take to school. Those are the sorts of decisions that you

make during the tough times.

I am very glad that we are freezing it until the end of the year.

People who have gotten notice, even now, don’t have to pay a rent

increase; they may not know that. Come September, there’s a possibility

that people will see their notices, and they’ll take effect in 2022, but

not before that.

Oh, I want to talk about the rent increases because we also heard

another member talking about student housing. It is true that student

housing doesn’t pertain to this particular piece of legislation.

However, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training has a

program to bring in up to 8,000 housing units for students, of which

there are now 5,000 that have been created since 2018. They have been

priced and supported below market value.

I got some of the numbers just before I came in here. BCIT in

Burnaby. Their rent for those student housing units is 10 percent below

market value. At Coast Mountain College in Terrace, it’s 15 percent

below market value. In the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook, it’s 30

to 40 percent less than the market value. That’s pretty significant, and

it’s a recognition that students are living in a vastly different world

than the rest of us. The constraints that they have around being able to

earn money while they’re getting an education are very tough.

Oh, yeah. We also stopped interest on the B.C. student loans, and

that has an impact on affordability in terms of housing. It’s not just

the students. Once you’ve graduated and you still have a debt load and

you don’t see debt rising because you don’t have interest, that gives

you opportunity in the future. That gives you, when you’re out of the

student housing, space to be able to pay rent within the

marketplace.

[3:45 p.m.]

One of the other amendments is around stopping illegal

renovictions. Come July 1, there’ll be a whole dispute resolution

process that is a replication of something similar that’s happening

already in Ontario. It’s not about trying to stop landlords from

maintaining their properties. It’s about landlords who would take an

opportunity beyond the scope and try and evict people for things that

are not substantial and for which people do not have to leave the

home.

That’s important, because it is about that security of tenancy. It

doesn’t stop renovations, and it doesn’t stop people from being able to

maintain their properties. In fact, it’s continuing to be encouraged.

Something we’re looking forward to in the future is around a process to

allow landlords to find ways to recoup their costs when they do more

substantial renovations while still maintaining that same

tenant.

I wanted to quote David Hutniak from LandlordBC. On this

legislation, he’s saying that it mitigates “what has, at times, been an

unnecessarily confrontational process.” I go back to what I said

earlier. This is about relationships. When you set up a system that

doesn’t work unless there’s confrontation, you’re not helping the

situation. This is paving a much more positive path forward so that we

can have a more robust rental housing marketplace, both for tenants and

for landlords.

I want to talk about the question around procedural fairness. We

heard a lot from people who wanted to not have to jump into the courts

for judicial review on matters that were not trivial but not so

substantive that they needed to go…. They were barred from getting

justice because they couldn’t afford the lawyer to take it up for

judicial review. Taking that forward, to expand the grounds for

procedural fairness, is something that people really wanted to hear

about. They wanted to hear of us taking action, and we have. That’s

what’s coming forward with this amendment.

I think I’ve mentioned already about the compliance and

enforcement unit. Just to reiterate what they are getting more of —

taking a good thing and making it better: they’re being given more

authority for investigation, to compel records. They will get more

authority around levying administrative penalties and being able to

apply penalties for false or misleading information. This is paving the

way for a much more positive road for people when they’re considering

becoming a landlord.

When considering making an investment in something as difficult —

I raise my hands to people who become landlords, because it’s not easy —

it’s not like buying something that just appreciates in value. You have

relationships there. You’re not going to get the best bang for your

bucks in your investment unless you work on that human element. It’s so

important that we make sure that we create a system that helps landlords

to make good on those kinds of investments that they’re

making.

I wanted to point out, as well, that this legislation brings in a

way forward to avoid the layers of hearings that landlords would need to

get orders for outstanding rent that might be owed. Instead of having to

go back for a second hearing, they get to have it dealt with at the

time. This is that balance of finding ways forward that are about

fairness.

[3:50 p.m.]

I wanted to talk about the one piece that I haven’t heard a lot

about. I think I heard the previous speakers mention it — the

manufactured home parks. That is something near and dear to my heart. I

grew up all over Canada and sometimes living on military bases. Always

there was a

section of the PMQs, permanent married quarters, that was

manufactured homes. We didn’t call them manufactured homes at that time,

but that’s what they were. It becomes a lifestyle. People take their

homes with them from place to place. Not all manufactured home parks are

like that now. They are a lot more permanent, but they are affordable.

This is affordable housing for so many people.

One of the challenges, though, is that they have that pride of

ownership of owning their home, but they don’t have the security of the

space where they park it. One of the challenges that we heard while we

were on the road was the challenge of not having that

security.

When the mobile home park owner, the manufactured park owner,

changes the rules and makes the circumstances so that you can’t stay

there, there’s no security in that. There’s no sense of fairness. This

legislation is going to do something about that. We’re going to see the

opportunity for those homeowners and the manufactured home park owners

to consult on a regulation to see how often park rules can

change.

One of the more substantial pieces that’s within the legislation

itself is the fact that there will be…. It clarifies that manufactured

home parks’ rules cannot be changed to override your tenancy agreement.

That’s something that people who rent…. That’s sort of a basic tenet of

being a tenant is to know that you can’t have rules that…. It’s a tenet

of life that you can’t have rules that override legislation. It’s the

same thing. You have an agreement in place. You can’t override it by

just unilaterally changing the rules.

So these are all just…. They’re substantial pieces to making life

more secure, they’re making life more affordable and making good on our

promises that are not quite finished yet. We know that there’s still

more work coming, but it’s getting there. We know that we’re working

hard to continue to make life better.

I almost interrupted myself earlier. I wanted to talk about the

trips that we had to different communities and hearing people’s

experiences. I just wanted to share this, because Prince George is an

amazing place. I never got to visit Prince George before I was an MLA. I

got to go to one of these events, and it was very well attended. I was

walking back to my hotel and a thunderstorm started. My hotel is in

downtown Prince George. You could see it coming. I sat in my window of

my hotel room, and for half an hour I filmed with my little phone

because it was like a strobe light show.

Knowing that there are people living out rough and having to

endure that…. While it was amazing for me to be safe inside, to look out

and watch and to know that there were some people that were having to

experience that — it was pretty tough.

[3:55 p.m.]

But I also got to see, on my walk back to the hotel room, a new

Foundry that had opened up, one of our mental health and substance use

wraparound services for youth. It was very uplifting to know that we’re

making a difference every day and in different ways to make life better

for all British Columbians.

Just on a final note, I got stuck in the Prince George Airport for

eight hours on that trip. Because of that storm and because of

wildfires, the people of British Columbia have shown just how resilient

they are. They endure weather like no other that I’ve ever experienced.

They have endured floods. They have endured incredible wildfires, and

sometimes they endure a lot of hardship because life has not always been

affordable. I am just so proud, since 2017, that we have taken steps

every single day to make life more affordable, to bring the services

that people need and to be able to build a more sustainable future not

just in the downtown core of Vancouver but throughout all of British

Columbia.

I appreciate the committee work that I get to be a part of, where

I can go and have some comradeship with people from the different

parties that sit in this House and find some common ground — and also to

find ways forward together.

As we go forward with COVID and the vaccination program, I know

that landlords, tenants and people throughout British Columbia will work

together to make sure that we all get the protection that we want, that

we need and that we can move forward.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this

amendment, and I look forward to seeing the passage of Bill

E. Ross: Thank you to Skeena for sending me back to the Legislature to

represent them here in Victoria, as well as my sympathies and

condolences to those who are suffering throughout B.C., whether it be

medically or mentally. We’re in the same boat as you, wherever you are

in B.C., whether it be in urban areas or the rural areas or in our First

Nations communities.

This is an interesting topic, and I’ve already heard somebody

mention my constituency and wondering whether or not I was going to get

up to speak or not. I’ve got a lot to say on this, because I’ve actually

seen both sides of this equation over my lifetime, as an adult. I’ve

been a renter for over 20 years, and when I got elected to council in

2003, I was surprised to learn I was a landlord, but in a different

context.

Over those years as a renter, I rented in Prince George, Kitimat.

I rented in Abbotsford, and never once did I feel that I was treated

unfairly. In fact, I was treated more than fairly on more than one

occasion when I couldn’t make my rent.

I’ve heard some of the conversation here, and I commend both sides

of the House for those that talk about a balanced approach to this

problem. That’s the right way to have this conversation.

For those MLAs that have spoken already and are trying to pinpoint

the landlords as the bad guy here, where there’s something wrong with

the landlord system, whether it be a private owner or whether it be a

block apartment owner, shame on you, because this is a complicated

issue. There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not there are

enough rental units or what affects the price, and it’s