Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

24, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 34, Restricting Public

Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole debate

on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

(continued)

M. Bernier: Welcome back, everybody, after lunch.

Before lunch I was speaking to Bill 34, and I'm pleased to stand and take my place

to continue the debates on this bill. Before lunch we were talking about the messaging

as a whole from government and from this place and what we have to do around educating

the public around drug use.

Now, this bill that we have in front of us, Bill 34, is restricting public consumption

of illegal substances. First of all, let me say it's an unfortunate situation we're

put in where the government is now having to, I will respectfully say, back-pedal

on their failed experiment of decriminalization in the province of British Columbia

of illicit drugs.

[1:35 p.m.]

The reason why I say that is we've heard that since 2016 we've had almost 11,000 people

die in the province of British Columbia from drug overdose. This government's response

to that has been to decriminalize drugs and give the message that drugs are safe.

One of the things that I've been very adamant about is reminding people that drugs

are not safe. There is no such thing as a safe amount of drugs. There's no such thing

as safe drugs in general. The fact that we're educating our kids that it's okay to

take drugs as long as you take a safe amount is absolutely wrong, and we need to do

better.

When we look at the bill in front of us right now…. One of the reasons why I'm struggling

with this bill, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act…. Now, government

has been receiving a lot of pressure, a lot of calls and a lot of comments from the

B.C. United official opposition here about making sure that we do better. Kids should

not be in playgrounds and being exposed to drug paraphernalia, drugs themselves. People

who are struggling are doing open drug use around playgrounds, close to schools, water

parks, skate parks, places that are a refuge and an escape, in a lot of ways, that

should be safe for our kids.

We've seen over this failed experiment a government who's saying it's okay that that

proliferation of drug use has spread through our communities into places where families,

parents, children, used to think were their safe places, and they've lost that. So

after all this time, government has felt the pressure. But rather than doing what

I would say is the right thing, on making sure we just don't have open drug use, they

say it's still okay to use illegal drugs as long as you're now a few metres away from

a daycare or a school or a playground.

By this government's own omission, they're confusing the public even with the wording

within this bill. I look at

section 3 of the bill. In lots of places in this bill,

it's talking about the use of illegal substances and illegal drugs. So the government

is even acknowledging that what people are doing is illegal by their own wording in

this bill. Now, they try to say that we're decriminalizing and trying to wordsmith

around what's happening, but make no mistake. What people are doing is illegal, and

families and children deserve better.

Everywhere I look in this bill, it talks about how a person must not consume an illegal

substance within 15 metres of…. It mentions a bunch of the places that I just mentioned.

So there are hardly any tools here. We're waiting to see what those tools are for

RCMP or bylaw, for communities to be able to deal with this issue. But really, when

you look at the wording in this bill…. I hate to tell anybody watching that what it

really is talking about is…. The government is saying, "Please don't do it," with

hardly any ammunition behind it. But if somebody is now in a park around children,

using drugs or open drug paraphernalia, what the government's saying basically is,

"Please just move 15 metres away," and it's still okay to do illegal drugs.

Now, let me bring it, though, to one of the challenges. In British Columbia, we are

struggling with not just an opioid crisis but with a drug crisis, with people who

are struggling with addictions, people who are struggling with mental health. What

we've been calling for and asking for is supports. Telling somebody to move 15 metres

away from a school is not helping that person get better. Telling a person to move

to the corner is not getting them treatment. That's what we're asking for.

[1:40 p.m.]

We all have, I would argue, in this House, lived experience on this issue, whether

it's a sibling, a child, a friend. We all probably have conversations and understanding

of people who are struggling. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a political

issue in the sense that one party understands and one doesn't, on people struggling.

I think we all understand, in here, that people are struggling. Where the debate is

happening is on what we are doing about it. That should be fundamental to the conversation.

If people are struggling, how do we get them help? We're not seeing that, and that's

what we're asking for.

Somebody in Dawson Creek, where I live, comes to me and says: "I am struggling; I

want help." When I make a phone call from my office and find out that it's seven weeks

before I can get them into a detox bed, in every circumstance that I know of, within

48 hours, that person is back on the street using drugs. In that moment of clarity

when they've asked for help, that help wasn't there. That's where we're failing people.

To put a bill in front of us that says that it's still okay to do drugs, that drugs

are safe, provided you don't overdose — that's an interesting message that we're sending.

As I mentioned before the break, when we had children in the House, in the old days,

we used to say drugs of all kinds were bad: "Don't do drugs. Just say no." As my colleague

from Kootenay East said, that's what we used to tell people. That's how we used to

educate people. That's not the message we're giving anymore.

That's a fundamental failure, I think, of our duties as legislators, as lawmakers,

where we should be speaking up, protecting, putting in policies, putting in resources

to help people who are vulnerable and who are struggling. Yes, this is a tough topic

to have. As I mentioned, I think we all have lived experience, and it can get emotional.

At the end of the day, I think it's time for government to acknowledge that their

experiment around decriminalization, because it did not have the guardrails in that

they should have had, is truly a failed experiment. Rather than putting a bill forward

saying, "Let's just modify our experiment a little bit," maybe they need to go back

to the drawing board and rethink their approach on this. What we've been calling for:

we need supports.

Now, I'll give you some local examples that are coming to my office and that are problematic.

They're why I feel this bill is actually not going to do anything substantial to actually

curb the issue that we're seeing in our communities.

Again, I'll take it home to Dawson Creek, where I live — a small community, 13,000

people. I have never seen it as bad as I have seen it over the last year, and it's

getting worse, with people on the streets — people with no supports, people with no

hope — and the open drug use, the vandalism, the crime, the fear that people have

in going to work in the morning. They've got people loitering in the vestibule of

their business whom they have to step over, people who are passed out, struggling

with addiction issues.

Every single one of these people I talk to has compassion. Every single one of these

people that has come to my office with the complaints has always said: "Look, I feel

bad for these people that are struggling, but I feel even worse that government is

not stepping up and providing any hope or support for them." It's leaving everybody

stranded on what to do.

Right across the street from an arts centre that we built in downtown Dawson Creek

— it's called the Calvin Kruk Centre for the Arts, the Kiwanis Performing Arts Centre

— this government thought it would be a smart idea to build a modular complex right

across the street from the youth arts centre — which, by the way, also houses our

largest daycare in the community.

The only thing separating, basically, this new place, called My Home Place, and the

playground, daycare and the arts centre is a sidewalk and a yellow line down the middle

of the road. That's it.

[1:45 p.m.]

The amount of people who are struggling now and pulling their kids out of daycare

because when they're showing up in the mornings, they're having to walk past people

who are struggling…. These same people are breaking into the arts centre, coming in.

Maybe, in their own struggles, they're looking for warmth, they're looking for a washroom

or maybe looking for something to eat.

That's all fair. I get that. I have compassion around that issue as well. But if they

have to do it openly, in an arts centre — around children and families who are now

having to pull their kids out of dance class, who have now had to quit their jobs

or pull their kids out of daycare because it's no longer safe — and then the government

says, "Don't worry; we're going to make you safe by having those people move five

metres away from you," that does not deal with the root cause or issue.

It's right across the street, again, from this arts centre, so it's probably six metres

away, I'll use. I guess the government could say that they're far enough away with

this bill.

I regret to say that in the last year and a bit, in this modular housing complex that

this government thought was a good idea to house and protect people in, we've had

eight fatalities already in that complex in Dawson Creek. Unfortunately, nobody really

wants to talk about that, and maybe we should, because those eight people were somebody's

husband, father, mother, son.

Rather than supporting these people with actual, concrete, detox centres, supportive

housing that has wraparound services, it's: "No, we're just going to house people

in a modular. When they die, we're not going to talk about it, as sad as this is,

and we'll just put somebody else in that room."

I'm not trying to sound insensitive or crass on this issue, but I think it's important

to highlight what's going on in our communities. Right or wrong, a lot of people used

to say that this was a big-city issue. Well, it's not. This is a provincial issue,

and it's happening in every corner of our province, in every community, large and

small. The one theme that's common through all of them is that people are saying that

there is no support or help for these people. That is where we're failing them.

When this government put in My Home Place in Dawson Creek, it was sold on the fact

that this was going to be a transition housing unit. It was sold as these might be

people who were struggling because, maybe, they had been in an abusive situation and

were looking for a transition until they could find permanent housing. Maybe it would

be somebody who had lost their job and was looking for that transition till they could

get back up on their feet.

What has happened is this housing complex is now full of people who are struggling

with addictions issues. Fair enough. If the government had told us, "This is what

we're building to house people who are struggling with addictions issues, and by the

way, we're going to put in services and supports to help them," then maybe the community

would have said: "Okay, this is a good idea." To house people in modulars and have

no supports is a failure, not just to the people in those rooms but to the community

as a whole. This government should be doing better.

When I go by there when I'm home for the day…. Now unfortunately, it's going to be

harder for these people, because winter is here, and it was minus 15 last night in

my community, with six inches of snow. So you're probably not going to see, hopefully,

too many people out on the streets.

Hoping for winter should not be a hope to clean up our streets. That is not a solution.

A solution should be making sure we have regional supports, regional detox centres,

wraparound services when government is going to be putting these modulars or these

accommodations in our communities.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, I think this government just has to appreciate and understand that their whole

idea around saying that we're going to take away the stigma by decriminalizing drugs

has not worked. In fact, in many cases, I believe, it has made it worse. Now you're

having people, in a very open way, polarizing this issue. This is, unfortunately,

also politicizing it, which is not the way it should be.

I'm hearing from people in my community, again, that I never thought I would hear

from on issues like this because I never thought it would happen. And what are we

doing about it? Nothing.

Please understand. When somebody in northeast British Columbia is told, "You have

to wait seven weeks. Oh, by the way, you have to find your own transportation," it

could be 1,300 kilometres away. Think about this. Somebody who is struggling, day

by day, with no economic means, is told: "Wait seven weeks, and find a ride, possibly

1,200 kilometres away, for supports. We hope you stay clean for seven weeks before

we put you in detox."

Think about that one. If somebody is staying clean for seven weeks before you put

them in detox, they've actually helped themselves. That, in a perfect world, would

be amazing, but that's not reality on the ground.

I've seen firsthand the devastation when…. People have come to me and wanted supports,

and then three days later I'm being told that they had to have a naloxone kit put

to them because they overdosed again.

Government has to realize what their role is. It's not about just putting a bill forward

and saying: "Move along. Move along." That's almost counterintuitive to their whole

process and the point of destigmatizing this issue. Now they put a bill forward to

say: "We're stigmatizing you because you can't be there anymore." So which is it?

I'm also a little perplexed as I go back to the wording in this piece of legislation.

The confusion on our streets and in our communities around the province is around

the definition, I guess I'll say, between illegal use or decriminalization.

There are smarter people in this House than I who have experience in the criminal

justice system and who can speak very profoundly on this issue — like I say, better

than I. But I can tell you that the majority of people will look at that and say:

"Well, isn't decriminalization legalizing?"

The NDP will say: "No, it's two different things." But then, in their own wording

in the bill, they talk about illegal use everywhere through this piece of legislation.

They're saying: "What you're doing is illegal, but we'll make it legal within five

metres." Or: "It's legal if the police don't see you."

This government seems to want to pick and choose when it's okay to follow the law.

It's okay to run a stop sign as long as the police aren't there to see you, I guess.

That's kind of the same approach as we're having here. It's okay to use illegal drugs

provided you're a few feet away from some children, and nobody is watching you.

I don't want to appear like I'm trying to be insensitive to people who are struggling.

We should be giving people that support and giving them that hope. You would think,

after this failed experiment, the government would have acknowledged that and not

come forward with a piece of legislation that really does absolutely nothing, in the

scheme of things, to help those people. It appears to, maybe, pander a little bit

to people who feel like they're upset that it's happening close to them. But make

no mistake. It's really not going to change much, unfortunately.

Now the onus is still going to be on the daycare, the arts centre. To do what? Phone

the police every time somebody is within five metres. Do we really think that's what

the police are going to be doing — driving around every time they get a phone call

that says, "Somebody is three metres away from my business, and it's supposed to be

five"?

[1:55 p.m.]

We can shake our heads on this one all we want. It's not the reality of what's happening

on the ground.

Government, I hate to say, has failed. In all due respect, I would say to my friends

in the NPD that….

I know they agree with us that people should not be struggling, that people should

not be hurting, that people need supports with mental health issues, with addictions

issues. This isn't a one party agrees, one party disagrees. We all agree. Well, let's

do something about it, then.

If we all agree, let's roll up our sleeves and actually put in the resources to help

these people, not use our communities as an experiment to see what'll happen. Because

we've seen it, and it has failed, and people are complaining, and people are scared,

and people need hope.

I am very disappointed, after all of the talk on this important issue, that government's

answer was this piece of legislation that does absolutely nothing to help people.

With that, I'll end my remarks by just saying government needs to do better. We want

them to do better. We've come up with plans, the Better Is Possible plan that we put

forward with the B.C. United caucus, which we feel will help solve some of these issues.

I implore government to look at it. Heck, take our ideas and take credit for them.

I don't care, because it'll help people. But don't sit on your hands and do nothing.

We need to do better.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I adjourn debate on Bill 34.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act.

M. Bernier: With the, for myself, unexpected change of the order here, can I just ask for a quick

recess so we can establish ourselves for the next stave?

Deputy Speaker: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed at 1:57 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL

ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:02 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. For clarity, we are dealing with Bill 35, Short-Term

Rental Accommodations Act.

A. Walker: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Walker: Up above me is a grade 11-12 class from Dover Bay Secondary School. Their teacher,

Alistair King, and Nicholas are doing a tour today. They just got to witness what

recess looks like for us folks here in Victoria — a little different than back home

in Nanaimo.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to my friend across the way for introducing a classroom from his school. That

was as much fun as we have during our recess — that five minutes that you saw people

shuffling their papers around.

Just so all of you know, we're going into committee stage on a bill, a piece of legislation

that will be brought forward on short-term rentals. We brought in a new law that says

that short-term rentals must be on principal residences so we can get more housing

back into the housing supply. We're going to be going through an exchange, line by

line, on the legislation and discussing it. I welcome you all here today.

I want to recognize my amazing team, if I can. I've got my deputy minister, Teri Collins,

who is going to be celebrating 30 years in the public service today at the Long Service

Awards. She started when she was eight years old here at the B.C. Legislature. She

has been just amazing to work with, and I'm lucky to have her on my team.

I've got Bindi Sawchuk, who's my ADM. I've got Jade Ashbourne and Hannah Rabinovitch,

who are behind me, who are phenomenal. They have done much of the heavy lifting when

it comes to making sure this legislation is as amazing as it is in front of us.

I want to thank them all, and I look forward to the exchange with my friend from across

the way.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm sure the minister was shocked that I was not going to stand up.

I just want to take a moment to again thank the minister and his staff — I know his

staff work very hard to prepare for these things — and speak a bit here about this

legislation and our approach that we're going to be taking to this legislation.

[2:05 p.m.]

Although the other side of the House seems to jump to a conclusion in terms of where

we are going to land on this legislation, we do want to approach this in a very balanced

manner. We understand that there's a housing crisis. We know that this province needs

to do better to make sure that we have appropriate housing for people who live here

and are seeking housing and that it's affordable and available for them.

There are a number of reasons that we are in the position that we're in right now.

Much of that has to do with governments not being able to produce the amount of housing

necessary. So we found ourselves in a position here where they are bringing in this

legislation which will regulate, which is good. We like the regulation of short-term

rentals, but we do recognize that there are some things that we would like to amend

and change in order to make this legislation better and in the best interest of all

British Columbians.

I would like to start by moving a motion for an amendment to the bill. This was provided

to the Clerk earlier today, so everyone should have a copy of that.

[ CLAUSE 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

“short-term rental accommodation service” means the service of accommodation in the property of a property host, in exchange

for a fee, that is provided to members of the public for a period of time of less

than 90 30 consecutive days or another prescribed period, if any, but does not include a prescribed

accommodation service;]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for sharing the amendments earlier.

I will share with the member that we do not believe that we should be creating loopholes

in this legislation. Right now the legislation is balanced, as the member has highlighted,

which allows for short-term rentals to remain in communities throughout the province

but also ensures that we get more of the complete homes. The homes that people have….

In some cases, people have bought three, four or five homes and used them, through

short-term rentals, as an avenue of making revenues, while people that are in communities

don't have access to housing.

We think that's wrong. The loophole that's been suggested here, to go to 30 days,

is a concern for us, given that if you look at jurisdictions…. For example, in Toronto,

they went to 28 days. What they saw was, essentially overnight, 2,000 units go to

8,000 units in what they called executive suites. Now they're at 12,000. It essentially

shifted homes that were in short-term rentals to this new class, which essentially

still does the same thing. It keeps housing away from those that need long-term housing

in communities.

We see this as a loophole that we, with legislation, are trying to address. So we

can't support the suggestion the member has made, but I do appreciate her sharing

that with us so we can have a discussion about it.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'd just like to speak to the amendment.

We have heard from a number of different stakeholder groups who are reliant upon using

short-term vacation rentals for their employees. If we have doctors travelling British

Columbia on locums, construction workers working on various projects, the 90 days

is too difficult to accommodate that. These are realistic and legitimate uses of short-term

vacation rental. The 90 days can pose a considerable hardship and, in some cases,

a threat to various projects in British Columbia, including, again, film production

and other groups that use these and rely on the ability to use short-term rentals.

[2:10 p.m.]

We know that there are simply not enough hotel and motel rooms in British Columbia

to accommodate. We feel this isn't a loophole, because this is new legislation. We're

not trying to work around anything. We just want to make sure that the legislation

is fair and appropriate as it is initially presented.

A loophole is when you've got legislation and you're trying to work around it. What

we're trying to do is actually make that legislation so that people don't feel a need

to have to do that and so that we are measuring the rights of those people who rely

on Airbnb or VRBO, or whatever the short-term rental platform is, and, also, those

who rely on it not as large investors but as average folks who may be able to provide

those accommodation services in various communities, particularly in communities where

there simply is not enough accommodation available.

Ninety days, we feel, would be far too restrictive. If you look at those industries

and sectors where people do need to use Airbnb or short-term rentals, it is very unlikely

that the 90 days would accommodate that.

I shall take my seat.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the opportunity just to speak briefly to the amendment on what is reasonable.

I actually take offence with the minister classifying this as a loophole. "Loophole"

is a legal term for getting around something. When we look at what this reasonable

amendment does, it allows….

We have a doctor shortage. Everybody knows that. A nursing shortage. When we bring

those locums in, it is generally for a couple of months, two or three months. While

doctors get the rest they need, they bring a locum in.

I live right next door to a house…. I live right near our hospital in Cranbrook, and

that short-term rental that's provided by the landlord is used all the time. It's

welcome, because we don't have the hotel space all the time in a small community.

I think we still have the same amount of hotels in Cranbrook that we did 15, 20 years

ago. There have been no new builds, yet the population is increasing.

Cancer treatment. I have folks that go through radiation treatment. They either go

to Kelowna…. They're out for two months, six weeks to two months. They need some affordable

options other than a hotel that charges them $400 or $500 a day. Short-term rentals

provide that relief. For the minister to call that a loophole is quite insulting to

those people. All they are looking for is a better quality of life through radiation

treatment.

We had, also, utility workers that came through our area this summer. TC Energy was

there putting in a gas line, very much needed for energy needs that are growing, not

only through Kootenay East but throughout the province. It's linking other pipelines

together. Those utility workers were there for two, three months. They needed that.

Under this legislation, those kinds of options would not be available.

This is not a loophole, as the minister described it. This is a very reasonable amendment

that will allow for folks that need cancer treatment or that do provide for our doctor

shortage and our nurse shortage in the province, and for those utility workers that

are building a better, stronger British Columbia with our energy needs.

I give the minister another opportunity to retract the term "loophole," because I

think it's very insensitive to those people.

R. Merrifield: I, too, appreciate the opportunity just to speak to this amendment and to discuss

Bill 35.

There are some sensible measures within this proposed legislation. What we're trying

to do is take a balanced approach, where this government continues to play housing

Whac-a-Mole and is really missing the main point and the main argument that people

have and the main concern that people have with short-term rentals.

Just as a reminder, the NDP government tried for four years to quell demand through

taxes and fees. Now it seems like they're going to try and do it with short-term rentals.

[2:15 p.m.]

I have to also remind this House as to where that's gotten us to –– the highest rental

prices in all of Canada and the worst housing affordability in North America. That's

not a great track record. So to continue on this demand path seems very short-sighted.

I also want to point out that this government has been sitting on its hands over the

course of the last seven years while short-term rentals have risen dramatically —

up by about 20 percent just in the last year.

I understand that rentals are incredibly expensive right now. I also understand that

within my community…. Short-term rentals have actually become a very vital support

to certain aspects of our economy and to the services that we supply as a regional

centre.

I just want to talk briefly about some of those. One is that we were designated as

a regional hospital, which everyone in the House knows. We are the largest hospital

outside of the Lower Mainland and before Calgary. This actually requires people from

as far north as Prince George, as far south as Osoyoos and all in between in the Interior

to travel to the hospital for care.

Yes, it's a great service, and we have a JoeAnna's House, which is amazing. It houses

11 families, and we have 490-some beds in KGH. At any time, about half of those could

be travelling from outside of the area.

Just recently, on one of my Twitter accounts…. I was tweeting out just about this

housing legislation, and I had two individuals actually tweet below. "I came to Kelowna

for a medical use." "I used a short-term rental for a month and a half."

That's not the only medical usage. I've got an email here. This is from a constituent.

I won't use his full name, because I haven't sought permission. He said: "For what

it's worth, the people who rent short-term from us — over 30 days but less than 90

— are surge nurses working at KGH. They don't stay in hotels, because they want a

kitchen, living room and a normal life. Under these new rules, they will have nowhere

to stay."

Surge nurses, medical physicians as well as medical students all have 30-day and 90-day

rotations. If you look at a map of short-term rentals, you'll find that there's a

large number of them right around the hospital. Why? Because they can walk. Because

we don't have a great transit system yet. I say "yet" with the Transportation Minister

sitting in the House here. We don't have a great transportation system yet. So people

are reliant on either walking or having a rental.

Here's another one for us, though. This is something that is unique, maybe, to Kelowna,

in which we have a very large university. Just over 13,000 students attend the university.

We have 2,000 housing units, of which, I will say, the former government — our government,

the B.C. United government — actually built the vast majority during our tenure. Not

sure where those numbers come from. Over 1,500 of them were built under our tenure.

Where do all the rest of those students stay? Well, I've got another email from a

short-term rental provider who says that they have had, over the last five years,

UBCO students all fall and winter. Then, in the summer, they rent it out to vacationers

for the tourism industry in Kelowna. None of this is addressed within this legislation.

We're not against regulation. The majority of the concerns that I hear are unregulated,

the ones that are the bad actors. I want to have more enforcement. I want to see the

province take a greater lead in where the municipalities are struggling, which is

to actually support the rules and regulations that the municipalities are putting

forward.

The arbitrary 90-day limit for short-term rentals does not address the needs that

we see within our communities. The government has seemingly set this benchmark without

providing any solid rationale and is referring to anything less than that as a loophole.

Well, if it actually works and if people are using it, that's not a loophole. That's

a service. That's something that people need.

[2:20 p.m.]

News flash. Airbnbs are being used by people. Setting the bar at 90 days is problematic

for industries and for those services that require that shorter-term housing for less

than that period. Health care is one of them.

The other I will discuss is construction. There is no secret that our construction

workers are in short supply here in the province. They travel a lot for work, and

the majority of their contracts are for 90 days. To set this 90-day limitation is

going to glut hotels and constrict anyone else needing to travel, because the construction

industry will simply go and run them up for literally indefinite periods of time.

We've seen this happen. We've seen this happen in smaller communities, whether that's

Terrace or Smithers. Try and find a hotel room. I challenge anyone in this House.

Call up and try and find a hotel room. If it were not for Airbnb's or short-term rentals,

you would not be able to have anyone up there to work. How are we going to address…?

It's not a loophole. It's called an amendment, for those 30-day needs, because there

are a large group of people who need those short-term accommodations for a number

of valid reasons.

I won't go on into all of the details further, but I'll conclude my comments in saying

that the B.C. United caucus is committed to sensible regulations for short-term rentals.

We would like to see real enforcement to be able to see the province come alongside

municipalities and the regulations that they create, but to also recognize that we

are so behind in the housing crisis.

We are so behind in supply. This is not going to create any more. Not a single more

home or condo will be created by this legislation. It's more Whac-a-Mole with the

housing industry, rather than focusing on what we should be, which is regulation and

supply.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[2:25 p.m. - 2:35 p.m.]

Members, we're dealing with the amendment to clause 1 on Bill 35. For clarity, it

is on the order paper through the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, striking out

"90 days" and changing it to "30 consecutive days."

Amendment negatived on the following division.

yeas — 26

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Wat

nays — 56

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

A. Walker: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Walker: Above us is the grade 11-12 class from Dover Bay Secondary School. I was reminded

by the member for Richmond-Steveston not to introduce them as the second class from

Dover Bay. Mr. Brennan has a long history in this community. Would this House please

make them feel very welcome.

[2:40 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Debate Continued

The Chair: All right. Let's resume. We are on clause 1.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just would like to remark on some of the previous comments here. We're disappointed,

obviously, that the amendment did not pass. However, it was done with great care and

consideration.

We know that vacation rentals are often very short term, a few days to a week. There

are very legitimate concerns in terms of 30 days. That is not your typical vacationer

using that suite. It is generally for a more compelling reason than that. Using the

term "loophole" to describe an amendment that gives some flexibility…. I'm going to

presume, then, that the minister will not have any exemptions to this legislation

moving forward.

I move the second amendment to clause 1, standing in my name on the order paper.

[ CLAUSE 1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

“short-term rental accommodation service” means the service of accommodation in the property of a property host, in exchange

for a fee, that is provided to members of the public for a period of time of less

than 90 consecutive days or another prescribed period, if any, but does not include

accommodation for travel related to medical procedures or a prescribed accommodation service;]

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is meant to consider those people who have medical appointments, medical needs

where they have to come to Vancouver or to some other community in order to be able

to receive cancer treatments or other treatments that take them out of their own community.

They may not be there for 30 days — certainly, hopefully, not be there for 90 days.

But the ability to afford to stay in a hotel during a very difficult time, undergoing

medical treatment, can be prohibitive from a cost perspective.

It is not a welcoming surrounding for somebody undergoing medical treatment. So this

is something that we think needs to be given clear and real consideration.

I'm not going to read the amendment. I see the Clerk staring at me because I'm probably

rambling.

We look forward to the understanding of government to make this amendment.

T. Shypitka: To speak to the next amendment that's been tabled, it kind of goes into details of

what I said to the first amendment. I used the example of people that have medical

requirements that take longer than 30 days. That was radiation treatment primarily.

A lot of people think that the remote areas of British Columbia are in the North.

But I would argue strongly that in the southeast corner, where we've had a reliability

in the past of having that access to health care in Alberta, it has essentially been

squashed in the last four or five years.

We don't have that access to Lethbridge and Calgary and those other areas that provide

radiation or any other type of medical services. So we do look to those areas across

the province now that we're being forced to go — Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna — in

some cases, over 1,000 kilometres, six mountain passes. In the dead of winter, it's

arguable if it's even safe to go. I've had lots of examples where patients have not

felt safe to travel.

[2:45 p.m.]

But if they do make it, which I hope all of them do, there are real concerns now whether

or not that type of travel is even financially available to them. They look to short-term

rentals to get them through that six weeks to two months of radiation treatment that

they will take in places like Kelowna.

The minister, on the last amendment, used the term "loophole." I certainly hope he

won't use that same terminology now, with this exemption, for the next amendment that

we have, an exemption for medical travel, exempting medical travel.

It's critical. Like I said before, the southeast corner is very remote and very distant

from any kind of treatment. One of the greatest barriers is being financially available

to them. Hotels just don't cut it for six weeks to two months. So they need those

short-term rentals, and this exemption would help those people out a tremendous deal.

I hope the minister would certainly consider that as being a very reasonable exemption.

R. Merrifield: I mentioned some of this in my last words of support for the last amendment, but I'm

going to reiterate it and get into a little bit more detail. I appreciate the opportunity

to do so.

As I had stated before, Kelowna is a regional centre. Its hospital is a regional centre.

It also is a training facility for both medicine and nursing. We rely on short-term

rentals to supply to our nursing staff, to our medical staff, as well as those coming

in for treatment.

I'm going to give a couple of examples where this is very common. It is very common

to have patients airlifted. In fact, it's a daily occurrence in our skies to see the

air ambulances coming into the hospital. It is a daily occurrence to have those that

are seeking radiation, chemotherapy there for weeks on end, using short-term rentals

to supply for those needs.

It is common sense to actually provide an amendment that would allow and protect cancer

patients who are trying so desperately to get the medical treatment that they require.

People undergoing longer treatments may not be able to rely on hotels, and they need

these medium-term rentals available to them.

The other aspect is that oftentimes, and this happens more times than you think, pregnant

women who are in their last four to six weeks of their term…. If they are not close

to a medical facility, they actually have to move into the areas where they will be

delivering. In the case of both Kamloops and Kelowna, oftentimes, we are without GP

obstetrics inside of our communities. Those pregnant women actually have to travel

great distances and have to stay for the remaining four to six weeks in those communities.

This doesn't just happen in Kelowna, however.

There's an actual research project that's going on right now through UBC in which

they're tracking the distance that these women have to travel, and the outcomes. I

can tell you that the farther they are away from those delivery facilities, the worse

their outcomes become.

For example, if you're delivering a baby in some of the smaller, more rural and remote

communities, and Prince George ends up being where you're going to deliver, you have

to be there four to six weeks beforehand. I can tell you that the hotels are not going

to be able to provide the necessary living.

Furthermore, they don't provide the comfort. They don't provide the kitchen services.

They don't provide the living room, where you can actually have a seat, where your

kids can play with you, where your additional family can be supported and you don't

have to be alone. That is the same whether it is chemotherapy treatments for a cancer

patient, whether it's pregnancy services, delivery services for a pregnant woman.

We have to figure out how the reality of our medical system is being actually aided

by this.

[2:50 p.m.]

The other reality for those that live in Kelowna are the wildfire service providers.

Yes, they live out in the bush for weeks on end, but then they come into Kelowna for

respite, for relief, to actually catch a breath. If there are no hotels available,

and they're certainly not going to pay $700 a night for the hotels, these short-term

rentals are very, very valuable. We haven't even included them in this list, but we

are looking at medical staff. We are looking at people that need to travel for medical

treatment, and it's far greater than what you might actually think.

P. Milobar: Just speaking to the amendment, there are so many layers on the medical side of things.

If you're a medical student within the UBC program, and you're in your training phase,

the requirement to move around this province a month or two at a time, to go into

areas to do your rural practice….

Kamloops is considered rural for training, but you need to be there for a month or

two. Then you get moved to a different hospital for a month or two, and then another

hospital for a month or two. That's the training side of it in a time of doctor shortages.

I'm not sure how those students, even though they're having to pay for their own accommodations,

are going to reasonably find ways to find apartments that they can only rent for a

month or two, or a basement suite that they can only rent for a month or two, with

these changes coming through.

But on the actual medical procedure side, speaking as someone from Kamloops, whose

riding goes all the way up to Blue River, what you've heard already from my colleagues

is 100 percent accurate. In Kamloops's case, all of our radiation cancer patients

need to travel either to Kelowna or Vancouver. Unfortunately, the cancer centre that

was promised by this government, in 2020, to be open in Kamloops by 2024 still doesn't

even have a business case. So we're a long ways off from that.

All those residents from that whole surrounding area are travelling. But if you have

a sick child, you're down to Vancouver. If you have cardiac issues, you are down to

Vancouver — sometimes to Kelowna, but a lot of times, still down to Vancouver. Either

way, you're out of your home in one city for long periods of time, tending to a loved

one, trying to have peace and quiet. If you're the loved one trying to heal, having

to go back and forth on a regular basis for daily treatments, or every second day,

treatments for a wide range of health issues….

The reality is, with the cost of restaurant meals, thinking that people could afford

to not only pay upwards of $500 a night for a hotel room but also all restaurant meals,

because there are very few cooking facilities in modern hotel rooms, just simply doesn't

work for the average person.

Although we definitely need to be taking steps to try to corral what we see happening

with short-term rentals, the government, by virtue of this bill and by virtue of the

fact that a lot of this bill will be left to regulation in the future…. It's mighty

rich for the government to say that they can't support amendments because it would

be too regulatory. There are going to be all sorts of regulations attached to this

bill, all sorts of loopholes and exemptions created through that regulation.

What this amendment would do would make it very clear to people that if they need

to travel for medical purposes, they would still have access and a way to access that.

Now, how the government would wind up ensuring that that's actually what the person

on the rental side is doing…. Again, that comes down to enforcement. That comes down

to the rules, but there's going to be a wide range of those anyway in this legislation

as it is.

It's critical that we recognize this, because I've heard members of the government

for people." Well, if you're sick and needing to be in Vancouver for a month, whether

you're in a hotel room or in a short-term rental, that is actually your home.

It's not your permanent home. It's not the so-called forever home. But that doesn't

mean you shouldn't have a right to try to access somewhere that keeps you feeling

comfortable, that's quiet, that you feel is safe, that doesn't have the commotion,

maybe, of a hotel and the extra noise that, a lot of times, comes with that, that

would have actual proper cooking facilities or the privacy and the dignity of washroom

facilities and showers that you might need and things of that nature.

[2:55 p.m.]

That's still a home, and it's incredible to me that we're hearing from government

members, essentially saying that if you rent for only a short period of time, that's

not your home. Well, there's no guarantee, when someone moves into an apartment, that

that person is going to be in that apartment for the next 12 years. Life circumstances

change. Work circumstances change. Financial situations change.

But in the time that they're in that rental accommodation, that's their home, no different

than if it's somebody that owns the piece of property. That's their home.

The people going out for medical care that this amendment addresses deserve to have

that option, because they don't have the option of seeking out medical care within

their communities that they live in.

I get that if you live in the Lower Mainland or if you live in the greater Victoria

area, that's not the same for you. Everyone accepts that, and everyone understands

that the economies of scales of the health care system in this day and age is such

that there's only so many highly specialized specialists and nurses and other highly

specialized medically-trained people for certain conditions. So it predominantly gets

amassed down in Vancouver.

People in Prince George and Kamloops and Kelowna and Cranbrook everywhere else — they

accept that. They understand that. But they also understand that means there's going

to be a little extra travel involved if, God forbid, someone in their family or they

themselves wind up with a serious medical condition.

Back in the '90s, when my father-in-law had cancer, he was down in Vancouver regularly

for treatment. So my wife would have to go down, and she would try to stay in hotels.

It was not inexpensive. Airbnbs didn't exist then. Would that not have been considered

a home for her, as she's going through the stress of watching her father and trying

to support her father in his treatments in her early twenties?

It's very shortsighted of the government to try to fall back, saying, "Well, we don't

want other changes to rules; there'll be too many rules," when they're going to come

up with a litany of rules as this gets passed and as regulation gets brought in.

There's already a difference on how we treat resort communities versus smaller communities

versus bigger communities. There are already all sorts of differences in this legislation.

To not recognize the real-world implications of what happens to people seeking medical

care, simply on the basis that the government doesn't want to admit they had a major

oversight in this piece of legislation, is reprehensible on the part of government,

frankly.

They should support it. It's not going to collapse the housing market by letting people

seeking critical medical care, and their families, actually seek safe and comfortable

accommodations while they're getting their treatments, which would include cooking

facilities, at a price they could actually afford.

I really do hope the government, for once, can admit that they had a bit of a missed

oversight and accept what is a good-faith amendment — it was presented well ahead

of time this morning by the opposition — and agree that people that need to seek medical

treatment in the larger centres in this province actually deserve the ability to have

some semblance of comfort and tranquility while they're going through those critical

medical treatments.

If you're from Penticton, you need to travel. Osoyoos, Smithers, Terrace, Haida Gwaii

— you name it. What, 95 or 98 percent of the geography of the province is going to

need to travel for that care.

It might only be 20 percent of the population, but that 20 percent deserves it. They

deserve a government that will actually admit that they overlooked something in their

zeal to try to bring forward a piece of legislation and agree to the change.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment. Just a question, and perhaps

the minister was prepared to respond to something along these lines.

[3:00 p.m.]

I'm wondering if this particular amendment that the official opposition is moving

and putting into the legislation could not be handled through regulation, and if this

would be something that could be considered.

While I don't tend to like these wide gaps that aren't filled in until much later,

this seems to be one that could actually be prescribed in regulation. I'd like to

hear the minister on that.

The Chair: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the minister.

I wanted to ask the House, to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much for the opportunity to announce some guests before they leave

this debate. They are a large group from the strategic and corporate priorities division

of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. This is….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much. Applause at this point.

These folks are involved in a number of innovative initiatives in government and very

much involved in collaborating across ministries, working on all sorts of things,

investing in information technology and things that make the services of our ministry

more usable for the public.

Would the House please make all of these individuals welcome and thank them for attending

this afternoon.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the members across the way for their comments.

I'll start by saying that the arguments that have been made are very similar to the

arguments that short-term rental companies and platforms made in Toronto when they

had their rules to say that short-term rentals should be defined as 28 days. What

actually happened by setting it that way…. They went from, before, having 2,000 units

that were considered executive suites, or 28 days or more, pretty much overnight,

to 8,000. Now they're at 12,000.

When we say it's a loophole, that's what we're implying. Those units, which were available

for under 28 days, shifted immediately to a different way of ensuring that people

didn't have access to housing. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do is get access

to housing for people throughout the community.

Now, there's a bunch of points that members made. I'll address them. First off, it

was mentioned about students. Most students are in four-month classes. I do appreciate

the member raising that, but I believe that they will be looking for accommodation

for longer than the three months or less.

As far as health care staff, I think…. There was a member that raised a question around

health care staff and, say, a film studio buying a place, etc. These rules apply only

to listings offered to the public. So should a film studio or a health authority wish

to rent one or more apartments on an annual basis and provide shorter term accommodation

to various staff in those units during that year, that would not be an issue under

this act. That's, I think, an important point to make.

For those that are travelling for cancer treatment, etc.… The members will know that

we just made a significant announcement of $20 million to support families that have

to travel for treatment, for their travel but also for their accommodation. Members

will know that there's a travel assistance program that helps both with discounts

for travel but also for hotels.

The member mentioned that those travelling with air ambulance won't be able to get

short-term rental opportunities. If you're travelling via air ambulance, you're not

staying in a short-term rental. I'm not entirely sure what the member was implying,

but I just wanted to make that point.

Fundamentally, I'll say that short-term rentals are still going to be available to

people. If people need to travel to a community, it will still be available to them.

We're not saying that short-term rentals are completely gone. We're saying that folks

who bought three, four, five homes and that only use them for investment purposes….

That's not allowed anymore.

We're saying that we need that critical housing stock. The communities that were mentioned

all have vacancy rates below 3 percent. People in the community are struggling to

find housing, and we need to be ensuring that they are our number one priority. That's

what we're saying. If people have a basement suite or have a laneway home and that's

their primary residence, they can continue to offer that in short-term rentals. Those

opportunities will be available.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, a lot of members raised Vancouver, saying: "Well, people have to come to Vancouver."

I mean, I think folks know. Vancouver had a principal residence ban the entire way

through.

This is fundamentally the problem. When the city of Vancouver says, "We don't want

people buying up housing and putting it on the rental market when our people are struggling…."

They had a rule there, in fact, for more than three years. We still have people saying:

"Well, I've been renting my place out, my complete home, for people," discarding the

local government's rules.

That's why this legislation is so important. Many communities have principal residence

requirements. They realize that people in their community are really struggling to

find housing, and that is the best way to ensure that both housing is available for

people but also that there's short-term rental available for tourism and other needs

in the community.

We can't support the amendment, but I hope I've addressed all the points that the

members have raised.

P. Milobar: Just a couple of things since the minister addressed a couple of things that I had

said.

Just to clarify, I was talking about medical students that as part of their medical

training rotation need to go from a place to a place, a facility to a facility. They

go for a month or two months at a time, and then they get moved on to the next facility

for a month or two months at a time. It is much different than a student enrolling

for two semesters at the same institution and having a Christmas break — completely

different.

I'm surprised the minister wasn't aware of that, that that's how medical training

works. With the medical shortage of doctors, it seems this is going to make things

even harder. That was the statement I made.

It seems that the minister, when he talks about housing…. This amendment is trying

to help people that are needing medical care and their families. So of course, if

you're on the air ambulance, you're not seeking it, but your family coming to support

you does need the accommodations.

It appears that this government is less worried about permanent housing, with the

shortage of workers in Whistler, than the person going to Whistler for a ski holiday,

than the person going to Vancouver for cancer treatment and their families, because

that's what this bill enables.

There's a shortage of housing for workers in every resort in this province, and this

legislation will protect those short-term rental areas. It will not protect and enable

people, if they vote down this amendment, around medical treatments, and that is what

we're saying.

There are already exemptions being made with this piece of legislation. Adding in

the medical exemption is the right thing to do.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call a vote on the proposed amendment around accommodation

for travel related to medical procedures.

Division has been called.

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

All right, Members. We are here for a proposed amendment, moved by the member for

West Vancouver–Capilano, to clause 1, the definition section, of "short-term rental

accommodation service."

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 24

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

de Jong

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

nays — 53

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

The Chair: All right. We're back on clause 1.

K. Kirkpatrick: Could you please explain why the threshold of less than 90 consecutive days, that

number specifically, was chosen?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's question.

It was decided that having a 90-day period is the right balance to help ensure a mix

of renters' needs are met. For example, a 90-day period means that short-term rentals

less than this length will be subject to the principle residence requirement. But

it also provides flexibility for property owners that rent to seasonal workers and

students, which are often for stays that are over 90 days.

K. Kirkpatrick: The speculation tax uses a definition of one month to differentiate between short-term

and long-term rentals. Why is this act using a higher threshold of the 90 days?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's important to note that the speculation and vacancy tax was brought in,

in 2018. We've learned a lot since then.

The Toronto example is a good example for us to consider, and I've already highlighted

that in my comments. In Toronto, when they moved to 28 days, they saw a surge from

2,000 to 8,000 to 12,000 very quickly, where more folks were shifting.

I would say that it's something that we've learned through the last five years, since

the speculation and vacancy tax was brought in. It's very applicable to what we're

trying to do here.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just for clarification. I wasn't following exactly what you were referring to with

the surge — with the 28 days. Can the minister explain? In Toronto, what was that

surge?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was referring to when Toronto changed their rules to 28 days or more. What they

found, essentially overnight, was that the amount of units that were in that category

went from 2,000 to essentially 8,000 overnight and now has grown up to 12,000. That's

what I was referring to.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don't want to spend too much time on this. I just want to make sure that I understand.

So there was no regulation. Then when they brought in their regulation, at 28 days,

there was a surge of listings based on that 28 days.

Okay, thank you to the minister. I'm still fuzzy on that. I may come back after it

percolates for a moment.

A. Walker: I want to thank the minister and his staff for providing this opportunity to ask questions.

In a tourism-dependent community like Parksville-Qualicum, this has been both very

much looked forward to for a long time as something that's important, but it's also

got some challenges attached to it.

In the initial press release, it was discussed that communities with a population

of over 10,000 would be…. It would apply to communities over 10,000. I'm just wondering

why…. It looks like Qualicum Beach was added because it was within the proximity of

the city of Parksville. Qualicum Beach is about 9,300 people. The electoral area that

this, as is my understanding, does not apply to is about 27,000 people — Nanoose,

French Creek and surrounding Qualicum and Parksville.

I'm wondering. Why was it that these urban areas were considered but not the more

rural areas that have a much higher population?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. That's

section 14, which is a ways away, but

I'll try to answer the question for the member now.

There are a few things that need to be…. When we made the announcement, we highlighted

some communities that were within 15 kilometers of communities that were captured.

Through the regulation process, there's some room for adjustment on communities, but

we're not there yet. That's going to be something that happens during that time.

Of course, in the meantime, communities that are below 10,000 have the ability to

opt in. We've already heard from a lot of communities that are below 10,000 who say

that they're going to opt in because they think this is a positive direction to go.

I'm certainly happy to hear from the member if he hears that from his community members

as well.

A. Walker: I want to thank the minister for…. I've got some high-level questions.

[3:45 p.m.]

My concern is, as the minister discussed earlier about loopholes, that if we've got

a community like Qualicum Beach that's fairly tourism dependent — and that has a lot

of these Airbnb, VRBOs — and all of a sudden the signal is being sent to the business

community that there's a much larger geographic area where this is, for the time being,

going to be allowed, it could potentially pose quite a bit of pressure on a more rural

area, having unintended consequences of potentially making the rental market even

worse than better. I will certainly encourage my local governments to reach out once

this legislation has passed this House.

In the statement, as well, there was some discussion about different accommodations

that will be identified as exempt. One of the examples was fishing lodges and time-shares.

The time-share component is interesting for my community. Time-shares don't work like

they used to in the sense that the structure can be quite creative for some of these

developments. I'm just wondering: what other types of exemptions are being considered

for regulation right now as far as different classes or types beyond just hotels,

motels?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for his thoughtful questions. I'll share that, as he's

probably already seen in the press release, the short-term regulation legislation

will not apply to hotels, motels. These types of buildings were never intended for

long-term housing. He's also noted that future regulations will allow us to enable

exemptions on additional types of properties — time-shares, fishing lodges — which

were not intended for the scope of the act.

Of course, that's something that is going to be in regulation, so I can't go into

more than what we've kind of shared at this point. But if the member has got some

unique or specific things in his community, I'm happy to hear that from them.

I also appreciate his comment around adjacency communities. That was something that

we considered part of our legislation. If you make this action, what happens? What's

the reaction in the region? We chose the 10,000 mark because CMHC provides us data

on vacancy rates. Again, if there's something unique in the member's community, I'm

happy to hear from them on it.

T. Shypitka: I just wanted to go back to clarify something the minister said about the surge in

short-term rental units that was experienced in Toronto when that bylaw was reduced

to 28 days. I believe it was reduced. The minister stated that the surge went from

2,000 units, I believe, to 8,000 to 12,000. I think that is what I heard. Can the

minister give me any sense of any data that was collected that would suggest that

long-term rentals were impacted by that surge?

I mean, I can certainly appreciate that more people would want to jump in the short-term

rental market if they have facilities to do that that are not currently participating

in long-term rentals. That would be, actually, in my opinion, a good thing. This bill

wants to put more long-term rentals back into the marketplace. With this surge that

the minister is using as a guideline for the 90 days, was there any data received?

And what data was it that suggested that came from long-term rentals?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was Toronto's intention to get more housing available for long term, away from

short-term rentals.

[3:50 p.m.]

By setting the policy the way they did, what they found was people shifted their properties

to different classifications and just keeping them in short-term rental and not making

them available for long-term rental. That's the comment I was referring to.

T. Shypitka: Could you point me to the report that suggested that? How many of those 12,000 were

indeed long-term rentals?

Hon. R. Kahlon: They were short-term rentals. It was a short-term rental policy change made there.

They classified a 28…. Perhaps I'm not understanding the member's question. Maybe

he could reframe it for me.

T. Shypitka: Well, what I'm trying to establish is that there was a bylaw in Toronto that put parameters

in place on short-term rentals. Here in B.C., this legislation says that 90 days is

what defines a short-term rental. In Toronto, the guidelines that the minister is

using to disqualify our amendment to 30 days, showed that there was a surge in short-term

rentals. More short-term rentals came online because of the reduction to 28 days in

Toronto.

I'm saying that that doesn't necessarily mean that the long-term rental market was

impacted. Maybe the minister can point me to the data that suggested what long-term

rentals were impacted out of that 12,000-unit surge that he saw. Where is the data

for that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think we're kind of saying the same thing, which is that the surge wasn't necessarily

quantifiable to say that it was long term and then moved to short term. It was short

term classified under 28, moving to classifying themselves as executive suites above

28. There was a pool of short-term rentals. Given the data they had, there were 2,000

that were considered executive suites.

My understanding is that when the rule moved to 28 days, many people just classified

their properties to allow them to continue as short-term rentals. That pool went from

2,000 to 8,000 to 12,000.

T. Shypitka: Clear as mud. The point here is that the purpose of this bill is to bring in more

long-term rentals. With this surge, were those long-term rentals negatively impacted?

I guess that's the question. I think it's all great if more short-term rentals come

on, if the parameters are changed to bring it down to 28 days. That's what our amendment

actually spoke to, because a lot of people need those. There are a lot of affordability

issues and things like that.

With this surge, did it negatively impact long-term rentals? That's as clearly as

I can state it. If there is a negative impact, what data did the minister have that

shows how many of those 12,000 units shown in the surge were formerly long-term rentals

that moved to short term?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that that's the point that many are advocating in Toronto: by only having

it at 28 days, they weren't able to get more housing back into the long-term market.

That's why there's advocacy right now about them also moving to 90 days, because then

of those 12,000 units, more of those units will actually become long-term housing

opportunities for people in communities as opposed to remaining as short term.

K. Kirkpatrick: I guess my colleague is talking about the difference between anecdotal numbers and

actual numbers and where the data comes from. However, I shall move to another question.

Is the minister aware of concerns that this will impact various sectors that rely

on temporary accommodations, such as the film industry? I certainly have heard from

them that these short-term rentals are a vital part of housing for out-of-town performers.

They will lose productions in B.C., and there are often not hotels available where

they are and in the manner in which they need to house people.

The question is: was the minister aware of these concerns and issues, and what consultation

— this is one question — was done with those sectors to determine impact?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's question because there's a flip side to that question as

well: how does our film industry continue to operate in our communities if their workforce

has nowhere to live? That's our focus right now — people who live in British Columbia

who are working full-time jobs and can't find a place to live when much of our housing

stock is being used for short-term rentals and they don't have access to that housing

here.

What I would say to the member is that those in the tourism industry that want access

to short-term rentals will still continue to have that ability, because short-term

rentals are still here. Our focus here, of course, is to ensure, when they have a

film being filmed here, that the workforce continue to be able to live and stay in

our community so that we can have a thriving workforce that supports our film industry.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am not really sure where to go on that question. There will be no film industry

here to have workers to be working in.

My question: appreciating that the talent, production and other people working on

films often are brought in from other communities — they come in from the States;

they come in from Toronto — was there consultation done with the film sector by your

ministry or by the ministry responsible? What were the outcomes of that consultation?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks, again, to the member for the question.

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture engages with folks within the film industry

and within the tourism industry. The number one issue that they have identified for

us is that they have thousands of workers who don't have access to housing. They're

really worried about whether they will be able to have the workforce needed to continue

to support a growing film industry. That's the concern that was raised to us.

Yes, there are some folks who come in for short periods, but there are also many that

come for longer periods. The ones who come for shorter periods…. Of course, there

are going to be short-term rentals available for them still. The biggest concern raised

to us is about the long-term workforce that lives here and that is needed for us to

continue to have a strong film industry.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer.

When these issues were raised with the ministry, was it a conversation specifically

talking about Bill 35?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our consultations were with the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. Of course,

they engage with stakeholders on a whole host of issues. Again, workforce housing

is the number one issue that has been identified by them.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand the minister to be saying that the government's consultation was with

government and not with the actual stakeholder groups.

Were there other actual stakeholder groups that government reached out to outside

of its own ministries?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We directly engaged with UBCM. We partnered with local governments, with the platforms,

with First Nations communities, with the tourism industry directly. Then we relied

on our partners within government to engage with others.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that. Did the ministry, when drafting this legislation, give consideration

to the unintended consequences on different sectors — tree planters, film? There are

a number of different groups. Had those unintended consequences been identified? What

mitigation plans are in place to help support impact in those areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the fundamental challenge that we have, and the member may get tired of hearing

me say this, is that…. The biggest challenge we have right now, I think the biggest

threat to our economy, is not having ability for people to continue to live in British

Columbia because of a lack of housing options.

We were very conscious of the impacts that any legislation may have on tourism. That's

why we built in the measured approach that we have, which is that tourism-dependent

communities can continue to find solutions that they believe work best in their communities

— but communities, broadly speaking, ensure that the housing is available for them,

for the people in their communities.

Our number one focus here was people, people of British Columbia, and, in particular,

those that are struggling to find accommodation. If you don't have the housing that

people need, then it'll have major impacts on the economy going forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. As the minister well knows, any time legislation is brought

in, in order to impact one particular thing, you have to be able to look at a larger

picture to see what those things are outside of this legislation, outside of what

we're trying to accomplish here, that could be impacted, and what should we be doing

in order to mitigate those impacts.

We are fully supportive that at the heart of this legislation is the need to provide

additional housing. It is the focus of the legislation, which is commendable, and

that is what we need to do. But legislation cannot be made in one area if it is going

to have larger consequences in other areas that aren't anticipated, recognized and

mitigated.

Is the minister saying that those other ancillary, those other sectors, were not important

enough to work with or that the impacts were not anticipated, as should have been,

while this legislation was being drafted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What I'll say is that the number one priority for us was to ensure that we had housing

available for people in our communities.

The challenge in front of us is that we have investors who bought three, four, five

more homes in British Columbia, taking them out of the long-term housing market and

only using them as short-term rentals.

For us, it was important to see that housing stock come back, but we did consider

what short-term rental policy should look like for tourism, in particular, because

we know it has a big impact. So short-term rentals continue to be available to British

Columbians. Those communities, the 14 communities in British Columbia that are tourism-dependent,

that rely heavily on tourism, will continue to be able to make the rules as they see

fit. Some will adopt principal residence requirement; some may not.

[4:10 p.m.]

That is the type of thing that we tried to do, the balance we tried to strike, with

the legislation that we brought here right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister refers to three, four and five and uses the term "institutional investors."

Why wasn't this legislation drafted specifically for those with three, four, five

units who are institutional investors?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation was designed that way. If you have a home and you would like to have

one bedroom or a suite within your home rented short term, you're allowed to do so.

But if you buy investment properties for the purpose of this, then you're no longer

allowed to. So it is very much targeting those who buy investment properties for short-term

rental that could be housing for people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: This legislation could also impact nurses and doctors, as we talked about previously,

who must travel for their efforts to address the NDP's health care crisis and to serve

communities across B.C., particularly in the North.

Has any analysis been done on whether this could make our health care crisis worse

and make it so that some of these supports in communities would no longer be available?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the biggest threat to health care and access to health care services is our

health care professionals not having homes in communities. We hear often from communities

that they're trying to attract a doctor. It's hard because the vacancy rates are so

low. They're trying to attract health care workers, and vacancy rates are so low.

That is a major concern.

Getting more housing back in the long-term housing market will help us attract the

health care professionals that we want in communities throughout the province. That

is a major concern that I think gets addressed by this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm concerned that the minister is continuing to answer questions where I'm asking

for specific information with the same answer, which is that regardless of anything

else that this impacts, the most important piece is that we are creating housing.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, I say it is very important that we are creating and protecting housing. What

I asked the minister was: has any analysis been done in terms of whether this would

have an impact on health care providers being able to serve communities where they

require short-term rentals in order to be able to do so?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things.

The member says that she is interested in what we've done to mitigate some of the

consequences. You know, there are calls for the full elimination of short-term rentals

in British Columbia. Then there are some who say: "It's fine the way that things are."

What we've done is, I think, found a balanced approach, which is to ensure that more

housing comes back into the housing market, yet we still have it available in communities

throughout the province.

Now, the challenge we have — and certainly it has been highlighted to us from local

governments around the province — is that many communities lack the data on how many

short-term rentals are in their communities. We have some communities, like Vancouver,

for example, that have rules in place. They have agreements to share data. But they

still don't have accurate information on what data…. So that makes it really challenging.

[4:20 p.m.]

Going forward, we will have data on listings, but we won't have data on who is exactly

staying in units. So if the member is wondering about specifics, how many nurses or

how many doctors will be staying in short-term rentals, I can't provide that information

to the member. Given the framework we have, the legislation we have, we will know

exactly how many units are on the market through short-term rentals in every community.

That's why, overwhelmingly, all the communities, through UBCM, have stepped up to

say that this is exactly what they've been asking for.

K. Kirkpatrick: What I'm hoping to find is data. The minister was referring to data. Obviously, that's

important for decision-making. What data is being used to drive the decisions and

the content of this legislation?

I want to just…. Sometimes I feel the minister's response is that our side of the

House is not supportive of the regulation of short-term rentals or creating more housing.

We certainly are, but we'd like to see the data so that the decisions on how this

works are done most effectively.

I'll ask a related question but maybe in a different way. Can the minister say what

the impact on housing numbers would be if an exemption was provided for health care

professionals? What would the impact be if that exemption was granted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think we're kind of crossing paths a little differently on this.

The legislation is about tracking listings and homes and not necessarily people and

who is using short-term rentals and who is not. That, I think, is where our difference

is on the data the member is referring to.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

To clarify, what I'm looking for is…. It's one thing to be tracking the listings,

but is the impact anecdotal in terms of how many long-term rentals are being removed

from the market, or are there specific numbers so that you can connect the dots on

how many listings?

I can't imagine the minister knows, if a listing is not on vacation rental, if it

would actually be rented on a long-term basis. What's the impact of the numbers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've seen studies that say that up to 16,000 homes, or more, are complete homes that

right now would be impacted directly by the legislation. Our view is that even if

half that number of units came into the long-term rental market, it would be substantial.

I often compare the number of how many purpose-built rentals we had this year. I believe

it was around 14,000. So even if you came close to 8,000, that is quite significant.

[4:25 p.m.]

We also know, and I appreciate the member will probably go there, that some people

will say: "Well, we're not going to rent it in the long-term market. We're going to

sell the unit." In that case, that unit will be available for somebody to call home.

This will have, we believe, a positive impact. Certainly, we'll see, as we go forward,

what that impact will be.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I wasn't going to say that.

What I am going to say is that it troubles me that that 16,000 number can't be equated

to a specific number of units that will come on. It seems to be a guesstimation.

As opposed to what the minister thought I would say, there are a number of those,

but we don't know how many, that are people's family…. You know, a second house they've

had in the family for years and years, and they use it for part of the year, and then

they will do some…. It might be a few nights or a week or two on vacation rentals.

Those are the properties. They are being impacted, but the ultimate goal is not being

realized — that those types of listings, those types of properties will not find their

way back into the residential market.

How is that determination being made? Where are the numbers coming from that the minister

is quoting?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I said, the number of 16,000 is out there in studies, and our view is that if even

half of those came back, that's significant. It could be more than that. It could

be slightly less than that.

Regardless, if individuals decide to sell their property because they bought it only

for short-term rental purposes, that will now be a unit, a home that will become available

for a young family that's looking to buy a home. Ultimately, we're saying that these

homes in British Columbia are a valuable asset, and they should be for people who

live here, who desperately need housing.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I'll move to some more, I guess, tactical questions.

The minister said that if there was a lease agreement in place, they'll build an exemption

into the regulation for short-term rentals. What is the form and style of that lease

agreement? And how will regulations work?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can't get too much into the regulations piece other than to say that it is our intention

to not capture anyone that goes month to month, that's less than 90 days.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify, this was something that the minister said during a press conference.

What specifically was he referring to in terms of a lease agreement? That's a rental

agreement. What would that be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I can't get into the piece around regulations other than to say that those

agreements that are month to month, that end in less than 90 days — our intention

is that they would not be captured in this.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that. That helps.

Can the minister confirm if the definition of accessory dwelling unit will be standard

for this and all other acts that deal with ADUs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our definition is specific to this act.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does this act contemplate things like trailers or glamping facilities? How are those

captured?

I had the most wonderful vacation a couple of years ago where I was able to actually

have an Airbnb on a boat, which would not have necessarily been someone's long-term

residence.

Have some of these other, more unusual kinds of listings on Airbnb and other platforms

been anticipated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The general principle we follow in these regulations is that we're focused on returning

units that can be long-term housing to the market. So something like a tent or treehouse

is not intended to be captured. Future regulations will allow us to ensure that they

aren't, in much of the same way as exempting timeshares and fishing lodges, etc.

K. Kirkpatrick: In

definitions, what is the difference between a property host and a supplier host?

Do they need to be the same?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A property host is defined as a person who is legally entitled to possession of a

property where short-term rental accommodation service is provided and who has a responsibility

for arranging for a short-term rental offer. A supplier host, in respect of a short-term

rental offer, means "(

a) the property host, and (

b) the following persons, if applicable:

(

i) a person who, acting on behalf of, under the direction of or as agent of the property

host, has responsibility for arranging for the short-term rental offer, which may

include managing the short-term rental accommodation services."

Chair, can we take a short break?

The Chair: We'll take a two-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I'll call the committee back to order.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister please explain what prescribed services are and which ones will be

excluded in being captured by this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member could maybe tell us what

section the member is referring to, I'll get

the answer for her.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I realized I left out a sentence or a word, which makes

that complicated.

This is under the definition of "short-term rental accommodation service," and it's

a prescribed accommodation service.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question.

This gives us the ability to exempt accommodation service. An example would be like

a Hilton hotel that advertises a specific type of housing. That's what this would

capture in

section 3. I think we'll probably get to that. It would be like a fishing

lodge and an actual hotel, specifically. It gives us the reg-making ability to do

it in each section.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I wasn't completely clear, but what I'm hearing the minister

say is that we'll be dealing with that under the part that deals with the exception

for motels and hotels. Is that related to that section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry. I think I kind of just said a bunch of words that maybe didn't make sense,

and now this is going to be on No Context BC. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is focused on accommodation services, so the types of services that we know a

Hilton provides, that service. Then in I believe it's

section 3, it lets us, through

regs, be specific on the type, so hotel, fishing lodge, etc. That's the difference.

One is more on the service, and the other one is on the type of building.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. On the definition of "principal residence" — this is an

interesting one I hadn't anticipated, but as we hear from people, we get new scenarios

— I was contacted by someone today concerned with the definition. This person is a

seafarer, and they are on a ship for more than half the year, more than 50 percent

of the year. I think it's 190 days or something. While they're away, in order to help

pay their mortgage, they actually provide short-term rentals. It is, in fact, in a

building that's currently nonconforming, which of course won't be the case anymore.

Would there be anything anticipated for people like this, where there could be some

kind of reasonable exemption when they don't have another…? They're not living somewhere

else for that year. They're still actually just at a worksite.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: "Principal residence" means "the residence in which an individual resides for a longer

period in a calendar year than any other place." In the example that the member has

shared, the person is on a ship working, so it shouldn't have an impact on that individual.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. You've just made someone very happy, I'm sure.

A question before I cede the floor to someone else is: what is the average number

of nights that an Airbnb host…? I should say a short-term rental host; I'm picking

on Airbnb. What's the average number of nights that a host in B.C. actually rents

out their unit as a short-term rental? Did I ask that with enough clarity?

When you are a host and you're renting out your home or your unit as an Airbnb, if

you look across British Columbia, surely there is an average number of nights that

the hosts will rent out for. If you look across the data for each of the hosts, is

it an average of three nights a year, or is it three months a year that they actually

are listing and renting out on the platform?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. We've seen various studies that project

numbers, but the companies don't share that information directly with us in government.

It's hard to know exactly, but under this new legislative framework, through the data-sharing

requirement that will be part of the legislation, we will know exactly that information.

Of course, each company may have their own individual information, but they don't

all share that publicly.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will cede the floor to the member for Parksville-Qualicum for now.

A. Walker: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

When the question was asked about a principal residence, I was counting how many days

we spend in the hotel just down the way here. We're safe; it should be fine.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I'd like to bring it back to the questions that I was talking about before. I do recognize,

as the minister mentioned, that a lot of this will sort of fall under clause 3, but

there is a bit of overlap as we talk about these prescribed accommodation services

that are exempt. Carrying on from the line of questions that I had before, when we

talked about fishing lodges and time-shares being exempt, I'm just wondering if the

minister can describe in detail what he would consider a time-share to be.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the core point is there are different models. There are many different types

of models that exist, and that's why we're giving ourselves the ability through reg-making

powers to be able to define that. That's, of course, the reg-making process, and that's

coming after this. So I can't provide much more information to the member at this

point.

A. Walker: I guess the challenge is one that comes back to business certainty. We have in our

community some fairly large investments. I'm not going to give the name of the golf

course, but at 1025 Qualicum Road, there was an application that was approved a couple

of years ago for 225 tourism accommodation units.

The model of this is a little bit different than a time-share. I don't anticipate

it will allow for fractional ownership. There may not even be the ability for the

owner to stay in the owned unit, as a pooled investment. The concern is just where

that lands as far as what a time-share is. I'm receiving texts and emails from people

in my community that are a part of investments that are in the tens or more millions

of dollars. They have a lot of uncertainty right now.

The concern that I have for my constituents is waiting, potentially, until May. I'm

not sure what the timeline is for these regulations, when they come into effect, but

the longer we wait, the more uncertainty there is.

Just seeking: as we define time-share, will that include a component of fractional

ownership? Is that a requirement? Will that include a requirement that there be a

portion where the owner would actually stay at the unit, or could it just be a pooled

investment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's advocacy on behalf of his constituent.

I would say that we expect the regulations to come forward this fall, so there won't

be a big delay for the member. If he wants to bring a specific type of time-share

to me, I certainly will make sure that, once I'm able to, I'll give him a definitive

answer.

[5:05 p.m.]

A. Walker: I recognize the challenging situation as regulation is being drafted. I just want

to reiterate the impact that has on tourism-dependent communities like Parksville-Qualicum,

where this investment for tourism accommodation doesn't take the form of a traditional

hotel. So it's creating some challenges.

In the same vein, I'm wondering how the consideration would be for bed-and-breakfasts.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'll get the answer to the member's bed-and-breakfast question.

I'll just say that I'm cautious to say something specific because, as there are so

many models, I don't want to say something that gives somebody the wrong information.

I can say, generally, that in most cases, we expect that strata hotels will be exempt

from the principal residence requirement but will still be required to register. I

say "in most cases," given that there are different models. I don't want that to be

seen as a definitive piece. I'm just trying to give the member some assurance of,

generally, where we're trying to go.

Even in areas where the principal residence requirement applies, so long as the owner

of the B and B resides on the property, they will continue to be able to operate.

However, they may need to register their listing.

A. Walker: Similar questions to before. I'm thinking of a development that was recently approved

in downtown Qualicum Beach. It was a vacant lot in a commercial zone. It has now been

rezoned to allow for commercial on the ground floor, one floor of short-term rentals,

and then the primary resident would live above. This is an innovative model that we

were hoping to see more of in our community.

[5:10 p.m.]

For property owners like this who have the zoning in place, who likely are working

through the process of financing, what should I, as a representative, communicate

to them as far as what they should be communicating to local governments? I know that

clause 15 will talk about exemption of land, but on case-by-case bases like this,

where the geographic criteria probably will not be met, what can I share with constituents

that have approved projects that have yet to be developed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I'll leave it to the member to give advice to members in his community around

investments. But people generally have an option of either selling the condos to people

who are looking for homes or, of course, renting them in the long-term market. So

those would be options for any investors that are looking to do something within communities

that have principal residence requirements.

A. Walker: I guess the challenge is details. These units are not really designed and built to

accommodate for long-term stays — so limited storage capacity. Parking is probably

not there and kitchen facilities much more reduced than you would see in a traditional

residential unit. These were purpose-built, short-term rentals that went through an

approval process through local government, following the requests from our local tourism

association and local governments to try to create more tourism accommodation.

This particular unit that I'm thinking of I believe has a residency requirement that

nobody is allowed to even stay in the unit for longer than 42 days. So it's not exactly

the type of unit that would be easily converted into a residential unit.

I recognize that I don't want to ask the minister to provide investment advice, but

I'm just wondering: what does somebody in this circumstance do? They've got a building

that's already preapproved. It's addressing a need in our community. It won't fit

into the geographic exemption that we're going to discuss later in clause 15.

I guess the question would be: is it the intention of this act to prohibit this type

of creative tourism accommodation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I certainly won't be giving anybody advice, so hopefully no one is taking it

as such. I know the member won't be giving advice either, other than to say that any

projects…. Any investors that are looking to make investments in a community…. Of

course, if you're going to invest in a hotel, we need the hotel capacity. I think

that's certainly an option. But my hope would be to see people making investments

in accommodation for long term and/or creating opportunities for condos to be sold.

A. Walker: Thank you to the minister.

I guess this is one of the unintended consequences. This lot is too small to accommodate

a full-service hotel. This property owner would have invested significant time and

money into a process that was, up until recently, approved. But that is just the nature

of the beast, I guess.

A similar use, as defined in the prescribed accommodation service…. It mentions specifically

"in exchange for a fee." That made me think of another short-term rental that exists

in our community, and that is of WWOOFers, agricultural stays that are generally less

than 90 days in exchange for work on a farm. I'm wondering if it is the intention

that these will be prohibited.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question again.

The policy intent is not to interfere with farmers' revenues from STRs. On farms,

farm stays or agritourism and tourism accommodations can be a key source of revenue

for farmers.

There'll be more information in the regs related to that.

A. Walker: Well, that's interesting. So if an agricultural property obviously allowed by the

ALC and allowed by local government…. Not creating some precedent here, but if an

agricultural facility had Airbnb or VRBO or similar opportunities and they had more

than one unit, is it my understanding that that restriction will not exist on agricultural

activities, full stop?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The ALR already has criteria, and it includes PR requirements, primary residence requirements,

and limits on the number of rooms rented and lengths of stay.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the ministry know the potential impact to those people employed in B.C. in short-term-rental-related

services?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was so surprised to see some additional faces on the other side.

I think, first, it's important to highlight that short-term rentals are still here.

They're not gone. Every question kind of gets framed as in: everything is gone, and

what are the impacts? It's important to highlight that short-term rentals will still

be present in communities.

[5:20 p.m.]

That means long-term properties will still need property managers. It means that the

services around cleaning will still be needed in communities. We know we have labour

shortages, so there will be other opportunities that come with that.

This question goes to the same premise as we had earlier. We know that there are impacts

and that there are some businesses that operate in communities, but it's hard to know

exactly, when the data is not shared across the board.

When we first approached UBCM and our partner communities, they highlighted for us

the challenges that they're dealing with. The first one was data. They all complained

to us that there was a lack of data. Even those that had agreements in place and even

those that had rules in place couldn't get access to data. It was really challenging

for them to know what was actually happening on the ground in their communities.

Now, with this legislation, we will have data. Local governments will have data. So

we'll be able to assess the impacts on communities in a much more definitive way than

hoping that some of these short-term rental companies, out of the goodness of their

heart, will share information with us.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

We are also looking forward to seeing real data so that decisions can be made.

On the definition of "platform service." I would just like to clarify that we are

only referring to platforms that actually manage the financial transaction. So a platform

service wouldn't be Facebook. A platform service in….

Am I using the right term? Platform service, yes.

It refers to payments in relation to short-term rental accommodation. It doesn't actually

process the payments or facilitate the payments. It doesn't fall under that definition.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member's description would be accurate. All platforms are covered by this legislation.

All hosts are covered by this legislation. The specific item that the member refers

to…. Her description is accurate.

K. Kirkpatrick: A host would still need to abide by this, even if they are not using the platform

prescribed in the act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. That's correct.

A. Walker: Sorry to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. We'll eventually figure out this

tag team.

I'm just thinking back on the agricultural restrictions. The minister mentioned that

the ALC or other regulations will limit the nights stayed or number of units or anything.

For absolute clarity, does that mean that these restrictions will not apply to agricultural

lands?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member, the ALR already has the criteria in place. It already

exists outside of the legislative framework that we have now. The criteria includes

primary residence requirements, limits on number of rooms rented and lengths of stay.

That already exists.

A. Walker: I thank the minister.

I guess the challenge is that I can think of…. I mean, maybe they're non-conforming,

a polite way of phrasing that.

Interjection.

A. Walker: No. For this, I will not.

I guess the question is, though…. I can think of, in my community or near my community,

farms that rely on this. I'm just trying to think if they have multiple, whether they're

yurts or whether they're temporary, dwellings that would traditionally fall underneath

this act or more purpose-built units that may be temporary that fit underneath the

restrictions of the agricultural land reserve. I'm wondering if the minister is saying

that this act will not apply to those.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is trying to drag me into the regs conversation. I'll just, respectfully,

say one more time: I can't get into the regs conversation. I can say what I've already

shared with the member, which is that our intention is not to go into that space.

But it will require some pieces in regulation, which are coming later in the fall.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

K. Kirkpatrick: In March, Destination Vancouver estimated that 20,000 new hotel rooms would be needed

in the region by 2050, at least 10,000 of which must be built in Vancouver. Because

this does relate to the removal of short-term accommodation from the market, can the

minister explain what's being done to address the additional strain that this legislation

will play on hotel stock?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's important, at this point, to highlight that Vancouver had a principal

residence requirement in place. So in fact, our legislation is just giving a tool

to ensure that Vancouver's law that they had in place is actually being enforced.

I think that's an important piece to highlight, given that this is a Vancouver question.

Now, it's also great to hear from the city of Vancouver that they've got 1,100 hotel

rooms that are in the development pipeline for Vancouver. I think everybody would

agree that's good for the tourism industry.

[5:30 p.m.]

For the record, I should also highlight that Walt Judas, the CEO of Tourism Industry

Association of B.C., highlighted:

"One of the biggest challenges for tourism operators in hiring workers is a lack of

available and affordable housing, largely due to the proliferation of short-term rentals

in B.C. So we're very pleased with the legislation introduced by the province that

will lead to a healthier balance between homes for tourism workers and visitor accommodation

while also allowing municipalities the flexibility to use the tools they need to manage

short-term rentals.

"TIABC applauds government for listening and acting on several recommendations brought

forward by the tourism sector to address housing shortages in visitor-dependent communities."

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that answer.

To follow on to what the minister just said, if I understand correctly…. If that is

the case, why have exemptions been given to the 14 tourism municipalities in B.C.?

Wouldn't they also be in a position where those municipalities are having a trade-off

between short-term rentals and their own staff?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly it's a challenge that I've heard from those communities as well. I would

not be surprised if some of those communities choose to opt in to that. That's why

we built in the flexibility for them to opt in.

Many of those communities have been on the front line of trying to grapple with this

challenge for a long time. I hear from them often about the challenge that they have

for their workforce. But as Walt said, we wanted to make sure we listened to them.

They wanted some flexibility, so that's why the legislation is built this way.

I certainly would be happy if they opt in, but those are conversations that are happening

in communities right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just a few more questions with respect to that hotel stock. I'm happy to hear the

city of Vancouver is going to have 1,100 more hotel rooms coming online. Is the minister

aware of the price point of those 1,100? What kinds of hotels are they in? What I'm

trying to figure out is: are they family-friendly in terms of rates and access for

families travelling?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can't give the member specifics, because these are numbers that Vancouver shared,

other than to say that my understanding is, from the tourism industry, that they understand

that they need to build differently.

They understand that the standard one-bedroom structure that many hotels used to have

is okay for some but others want more flexibility. They want rooms that connect. They

want multiple bedrooms. They want a whole host of other things. The tourism industry

knows this better than I do, but they have shared with me that they understand that

they have to change in the way they structure their accommodation.

It's something that I can request from the city of Vancouver — what kind of rooms

the hotel rooms are, etc. But I can say that there's a real recognition that what

people want and the behaviour of tourists and their needs have changed.

We have one of the best tourism industry leaders, especially across British Columbia,

across the country, and they have been really responsive to the needs of those that

come to British Columbia. I suspect they will continue to do so.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I would ask if the minister would be able to get that data to us in writing, once

it is determined, in terms of those types of hotels. Will he commit to providing that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would advise that because it's the city of Vancouver, the member could directly

ask the city of Vancouver. I'm sure they would happily provide that information if

it's not already available to them. That might be a quicker way of getting the information

the member is trying to seek.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I find sometimes we end up with different data, depending on who is asking and what

you're working with. I will let that one go.

[5:35 p.m.]

Families are contacting me, saying this is really impacting their ability to have

a vacation this year, certainly to have a vacation in B.C. There are many families

who have already booked in the Okanagan and various places for the summer. As we know,

this is coming in prior to the summer, so there will be an impact on those people

who have already booked.

My next set of questions is related to family travel. Does the minister know the average

price per night of hotel accommodation in Kelowna, Vancouver and Surrey?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can't share with the member at this point what that is. I'm sure the member is on

the app right now and looking for what that is. I can share, because the member mentioned

the Okanagan, that Kelowna, West Kelowna, Penticton and many other communities have

principal resident requirements already. The legislation that we're discussing now

is just enforcing the rules that they've already set in place.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. We know, again, that a lot of accommodation for families

travelling has been lost during the pandemic. Is the minister able to clarify? Through

the purchasing of what previously was family-affordable and family-focused accommodation

in motels and hotels such as the Travelodge, how many units have been lost for vacation

rental for families because they have either been leased or bought up by B.C. Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I knew this question was coming, thanks to my team here. So 1,127 hotel or motel units

since 2020 have been purchased by the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: During that period of time when these units were being purchased and now, when we

think back on the impact that that has had on travelling families, how does the minister

justify removing more family-friendly accommodation from the market? How would he

recommend that families afford to actually come and visit parts of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would justify it in a way that would be that we had, coming out of the pandemic,

a surge of people who were struggling to find accommodation for themselves to live

in, who had needs related to mental health because of the challenges coming out of

the pandemic.

I think the member…. Maybe "justify" wasn't the right word. But I think we can all

agree that any government — whether it's ours or any government — when they have a

population that's struggling, would do whatever they can, especially through a pandemic,

a crisis that the world was dealing with, to ensure that they can continue to provide

people with supports.

If the member is wondering if I have regrets on that, the answer is no. There are

no regrets. We did what we had to do to ensure that people could get indoors, and

that's always going to be a priority for us.

That being said, we know that there's going to be a need for more accommodation services

in some parts of the province. As I highlighted…. And Vancouver is just one example.

Victoria shared with me that they also have hotel units that are in the pipeline.

I suspect that the market will continue to respond, to ensure that we have the amount

of hotel space that we need to meet the demand.

[5:40 p.m.]

On the flip side — the member mentioned Penticton, mentioned the Okanagan — I've been

getting messages from people as well, people who operate restaurants in Penticton,

in fact, who said their bar could not even operate into the evening because they had

no staff, no workforce housing. They couldn't operate. It was great that tourists

were coming, but if their business can't remain open because they can't find accommodation,

then what's the value for that business?

I think that's a long way of saying…. We did buy, in some communities, older motels

to provide housing for the most vulnerable people in our populations. We have no regrets

about that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I will agree that "justify" was not the correct term. I do believe "rationalized"

would probably be more appropriate.

There is some…. I don't know if it's irony. The 1,100 units coming online seem to

be offset by the 1,000 that have come offline in terms of accommodation. Those coming

on are going to be, very likely, at more luxury rates and not really accessible for

families.

I'll move to, I think, a really significant…. Actually, I do want to also address

something that the minister said.

We know that people needed housing, and they needed it urgently. We fully support

that we need to take care of our most vulnerable citizens. So suggesting that this

is an either-or doesn't represent the situation.

What we need to know in government, as the minister knows…. You cannot make one policy

or one piece of legislation without anticipating that there would be impacts in other

areas.

When I asked the question to the minister about…. How are you mitigating that? Surely,

there was an understanding that when you are removing hotel and motel accommodation,

there's going to be a deficit that is going to have to be made up somewhere. I am

not hearing the minister explain how that was anticipated, rationalized or what is

in place in order to add that stock back and then add more.

This is now leading into the next question. Has the minister assessed the impact that

this legislation will have heading into FIFA 2026, as demand for hotels will surely

skyrocket at that point?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, comparing two different times, I mean, at this point is much easier. Certainly,

when you're in a pandemic and you're in a position of leadership and circumstances

are in front of you, you've got to make decisions. You've got to move. You've got

to move swiftly.

I believe the decisions we made were the correct ones. It was prioritizing the most

vulnerable people in our community, prioritizing people in our communities, our loved

ones, to make sure that they had the supports they need.

The member equated the 1,100 units to Vancouver bringing 1,100 on. I don't think that's

a fair assessment, given that the amount of units we purchased in Vancouver was just

over 300, and now we have 1,100 units coming online. So it's not apples to apples.

When it comes to FIFA, I would say that it's good news that we have 1,100 units coming

online. I suspect that now that we have some certainty, that number will increase.

Also, when this short-term rentals debate or the housing debate was happening in Calgary,

for example, I was following their deliberations at the council level. There was a

lot of discussion about short-term rentals and, in particular, around short-term rentals

when it comes to the Stampede.

[5:45 p.m.]

What they found was…. When that one event happens, there's a surge of new units coming

online on these platforms, where people say: "You know what? I don't want the craziness

and the busyness of town. It's my home, but I'm going to leave for a month and just

put it on some of these sites."

I think it's going to be a combination of the 1,100 plus more. We're going to need

more. As well, we're going to see folks who have their primary residence say: "Hey,

this is an opportunity to make some bucks. We're going to go out of town for a little

bit of a holiday and put our units online."

I do believe we're going to meet the test. There's a lot of excitement, which I'm

also excited about, about having the ability to host these games. I do believe that

we're going to meet that test to make sure that anyone that comes to British Columbia

has the B.C. experience that we all want them to have.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Was there a conversation with the organizers of FIFA, prior to government signing

on to support FIFA, in terms of a commitment to providing accommodation for those

people travelling here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member is wondering if I got the okay from FIFA to bring this legislation in….

I don't talk to FIFA myself. We don't make decisions in British Columbia on the basis

of what FIFA thinks is the right thing.

Now, that being said, the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture has been actively

engaging with our community partners, those that are, obviously, very excited about

the opportunity that FIFA brings.

That goes to my previous answer as well. We're going to see the 1,100 units that are

in the pipeline, which is good news. I suspect we're going to see a market response,

with the certainty now. Those that weren't sure about making an investment into hotel-style

accommodations will, perhaps, now make additional investments.

We'll also see people who want to escape town and who are willing to put their own

personal home or their unit up on short-term rentals.

K. Kirkpatrick: My question wasn't whether the minister was getting permission from FIFA prior to

looking at this regulation. My question was around the commitments th