British Columbia Hansard — 29 April 2025, p.m., Issue 50 (43rd Parliament, 1st Session)

20250429pm-Hansard-n50

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 50 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC First Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ..........................................................................................Hon. Christine Boyle Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation ....................................................................................Hon.

Diana Gibson Minister of State for Trade ...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ...........................................................................................................Hon. Garry Begg Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ....................................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon. Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ..........................................................................................................................................

John Rustad Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services ..................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon. Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Hon.

Garry .......................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie ............................................. North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj .................................

Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, Hon. George ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC ....................................... Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon.

Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne .........................................................

Burnaby Centre Krieger, Nina .........................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................ Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon.

Josie .........................................Mid Island–Pacifc Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Jessie ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn .............................................

Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon ....................................

Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ........................................................... Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Sturko, Elenore .........................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 41 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 3

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford ....................................................... Hon.

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton .................................................................. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview ...........................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ..........................................................Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Afternoon Sitting Page Routime Business Motions Without Notice ................................................................................................................................................. 1757 Membership Change to Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee Hon. Mike Farnworth Orders of the Day Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 1757 Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued) Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Tony Luck Linda Hepner Scott McInnis Kristina Loewen Bryan Tepper Trevor Halford Misty Van Popta Macklin McCall Claire Rattée Rosalyn Bird Gavin Dew Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 1805 Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions (continued) Larry Neufeld Hon.

Adrian Dix Hon Chan David Williams Gavin Dew Ward Stamer Jeremy Valeriote Rob Botterell Jordan Kealy Dallas Brodie Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Hon. Christine Boyle Scott McInnis

1757 TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2025 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Routime Business Motions Without Notice MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO PRIV ATE BILLS AND PRIV ATE MEMBERS’ BILLS COMMITTEE Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I call the orders of the day, I want to, by leave, move a notice of motion: [That Susie Chant replace Mable Elmore as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.] Leave granted. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call con - tinued estimates debate for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Minister of Energy. The House in Committee,

Section B. The committee met at 1:35 p.m. [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS (continued) The C hair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating the es - timates of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry. On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued). The Chair: Thank you very much. To the member…. I beg your pardon, Minister. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My apologies, Chair. I want to just start by welcoming….

Right now we have 31 students from Sutherland Secondary School that have just arrived here in the gallery. On behalf of the MLA for your area, the Minister of Infrastructure, I want to welcome you all to this place. We are now debating the budget of Ministry of Hous - ing, so you’ll be hearing an exchange back and forth about infrastructure and housing. This is an important process that we all go through in government to ensure that the dollars are being spent and that there’s accountability of where the dollars are going. Welcome to the House today, and I hope you enjoy the debate.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Indeed, welcome to everyone joining us today, and we’ll turn it over to the member for Fraser-Nicola. Tony Luck: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that. Just a little

preamble before we get into some questions here. This is around one of our favourite topics in the province right now, infrastructure. The provincial gov - ernment’s blanket upzoning policy, Bill 44, mandates in - creased density across municipalities without adequately considering local infrastructure capacity. Smaller cities and towns across British Columbia al - ready face enormous pressure due to spiralling inflation, soaring infrastructure costs and ever-increasing regu - latory burdens imposed by senior levels of government.

These communities are now struggling to provide even basic core services, with property tax bases insufficient to support essential infrastructure investments in these communities. Municipalities such as North Cowichan starkly illus - trate these challenges, currently facing an unprecedented backlog of 370 building applications totalling approxi - mately 10,100 new homes. Yet local water and sewer infra - structure can only handle roughly 4,200, less than half.

Such a scenario highlights the provincial government’s lack of practical planning and support, casting severe doubts on Bill 44’s viability without significant provincial infrastructure funding. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, other - wise known as UBCM, has repeatedly urged the prov - ince to address these escalating costs, calling for a more diversified and flexible municipal financing framework.

With a current infrastructure deficit provincewide esti - mated at approximately $25 billion — that’s right, folks; that’s with a b — the promised municipal infrastructure fund, provincial property tax waivers for purpose-built rental projects and expanded middle-income housing on public lands have yet to materialize. Critics argue that this government’s approach, man - dating higher density without meaningful provincial sup -

1758 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 port, endangers the fiscal health and very sustainability of many of the smaller rural communities in this province. Given your government’s imposition of Bill 44’s blan - ket upzoning, how exactly do you propose smaller com - munities manage the unprecedented strain on their infra - structure capabilities, particularly in towns like North Cowichan, Merritt, Lillooet and little communities like that — North Cowichan where 10,100 new homes have been proposed but local water, and sewer systems can only handle fewer than half of those? [1:40 p.m.] Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the first question in our exchanges. First off, I’d have to respectfully disagree with the mem- ber’s statement in the beginning. The member is actually not correct. Communities that didn’t have infrastructure didn’t have to bring on Bill 44. We’ve had a lot of commun- ities that had an independent engineering report that high- lighted that parts of their community didn’t have the infra- structure to be able to have that housing and in fact have extensions multiple years down the road for them to be able to build out that infrastructure.

It’s important to note that communities under the size of 5,000 did not have the same level of requirements as other communities. We understand that those commun - ities have unique challenges. Communities that are operat- ing on septic, for example, did not have to incorporate the changes. I appreciate the member raising North Cowichan. We provided North Cowichan $7.8 million last year to invest in infrastructure. Of course, I’m sure North Cowichan used those dollars for critically important infrastructure like water, like sewer. I’m sure the member knows that they’ve got those dollars as well.

Tony Luck: So what we’re to understand is that smaller communities have been left off this list needing the infra - structure change. Somehow, when I go travelling around my riding and that, they feel the same pressure as larger communities as well. Here nor there, their infrastructure is still failing. Lillooet, $100 million in infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Merritt, $120 million in infrastructure replace - ment. Terrace, Prince Rupert — all these communities around the province want to be part of housing because they want to do development in these communities, but they can’t do it.

What we have is a tremendous down - loading of requirements on these cities without the avail - able infrastructure money to pay for them. Given that little bit of an explanation, and given the UBCM’s repeated calls for provincial support to ad - dress spiralling infrastructure deficits and the challenges smaller communities face, will your government commit today to immediately implementing the proposed munici - pal infrastructure fund, which has so far failed to mater - ialize despite clear campaign pledges? If so, where would it fall in these estimates votes and processes? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: Again, I want to emphasize the point I made earlier, which is that communities that clearly could show, through an independent engineering report, that they lacked the infrastructure to see this type of hous - ing could move the requirement until such time that they have the infrastructure. I just want to emphasize that. It’s important for the member to know, and I know the member is new to this side but has local government ex - perience, that we provided $1 billion to local governments to invest directly.

It’s the largest direct investment in lo - cal governments for their infrastructure, certainly in my lifetime. The member’s question around future infrastructure dollars…. I would say that one of the important pieces we were waiting for was for the federal election to end. The reason why was that it’s important that we not create a pro- gram with no connection to what the federal government is doing. If we end up creating a program that has differ - ent criteria than the federal government’s…. We’ve heard from local governments.

Having multiple processes, try - ing to link one application to two different programs are just unnecessary additional hurdles for local government. Now that the federal election is over almost officially, we’ll be able to now engage with the federal government on what future infrastructure dollars can flow to local governments. The member follows politics as closely as I and will know that there were strong commitments for building Canada and making infrastructure investments to unlock housing. We look forward to those conversations and will be able to share that when those conversations have concluded.

Tony Luck: Let’s go back to North Cowichan for a min- ute here. Their infrastructure gap is a lot larger than the $7.8 mil- lion that you funded them. There are still going to be gaps in there that need to be done — sewer upgrades, water up - grades. Is there additional funding coming to North Cowi - chan so that they’ll be able to fully build out the infrastruc- ture that they need to accomplish your goals that are laid out in Bill 44? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that those infrastructure needs were not because of the legisla - tion that we brought in.

Those infrastructure needs in the communities existed previously. Many communities have infrastructure needs that are well beyond the changes that we have brought. [1:45 p.m.] That being said, local governments have the ability to collect fees for building infrastructure. Local governments

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1759 use those fees to be able to build the infrastructure. I ex - pect that to continue. Of course, we’re going to continue to support local governments with infrastructure like we have been, like I’ve highlighted with the $1 billion, like I’ve highlighted with the other infrastructure programs that we’ve had in alignment with the federal government. Tony Luck: Municipalities across British Columbia are currently facing an infrastructure deficit, as we’ve talked about, estimated at $25 billion.

It’s probably more than that as we stand here, with inflation the way it is. What specific new financing mechanisms or fund - ing formulas is your government actively developing with UBCM to help communities address this staggering shortfall? Even though we talk about how we’ve funded so much, we know that aging infrastructure around the whole province is failing everywhere. We need to find some way of doing it. I know you’ve been sitting down with the UBCM to work out, maybe, a new funding formula. Could you talk to us about that, please? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that those conversations with UBCM are ongoing. It’s a joint process between us, the Ministry of Finance and UBCM. I can share with the member that North Cowichan, over the last several years, has received $14.6 million for five dif- ferent projects. I can also share that we’re not aware if…. Actually, from our understanding, North Cowichan did not apply for the community housing infrastructure fund, which is a fund that’s available, for infrastructure, from the federal government.

Tony Luck: Seeing how this is pretty critical in the province right now with the funding, and you say you’re in ongoing conversation with UBCM, can we get a firm timeline for when these conversations will end and ac - tions will be put into place, please? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I can’t give a firm timeline, but I appreciate the attempt from the member. We are having these conversations and, of course, the federal government is going to be an important player in this. They’ve got the majority of dollars available to build the infrastructure, and we want to be good partners.

I have said to UBCM that we’ll continue to work with them in our joint collaborative approach to getting the federal government at the table and aligning our pro - grams. I think there is an understanding from the UBCM table that that’s an important step that we have to take. I can share with the member that I met with the Min - ister of Housing in late January, and our number one ask to the federal government was infrastructure and some consistent flow of dollars so that we can build the critical infrastructure that we need.

Tony L uck: Your government, some time ago, prom - ised to waive provincial property taxes for new purpose- built rental projects. Has this commitment been aban - doned, or will you announce today when municipalities can finally expect relief through this essential tax measure for them? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a Ministry of Finance piece. Any tax measure, any measure that requires spending out - side of what’s in our portfolio, has to be directed to Min - istry of Finance. Tony Luck: Well, I don’t like that answer.

You can’t tell me that you’re running the Municipal Affairs portfolio and that you don’t know costing of some of these pro - grams you decide to implement. You can’t just be pluck - ing projects out of the air and just throwing to Finance to figure out costs for that. You must know. Could we please get a little bit better answer on that one? You must know what some of these programs are costing. [1:50 p.m.] The Chair: Member, just to remind you that all ques - tions must come through the Chair, please. Thank you very much. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member never asked that in the first question.

The member never asked what is the cost measure. The member asked whether the plan is proceed - ing, and my point is that that’s a measure that comes from the Ministry of Finance. I can speak to what’s in the allocation that I have, the 1.5 billion-and-something dollars. I can answer those questions. But anything that might come in the future re - quires the Ministry of Finance, and it’s a question better suited to them. Tony Luck: UBCM has clearly requested a flexible, di - versified blueprint for municipal financing.

Is your government seriously considering revenue- sharing models involving instruments such as the prop - erty transfer tax or provincial sales tax? If so, what specific progress has been made on those discussions? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I won’t be able to share an an - nouncement today with the member, but there have been lots of different proposals from UBCM of where the money can come from. I think it’s important for us to ensure (

a) that we con - tinue to support local governments with infrastructure dollars and (

b) that we have a strong partner with the fed -

1760 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 eral government and that whatever we do is aligned. This call from UBCM is no different than FCM’s calls across the country, and we want to make sure that we’re align - ing best we can to get the same outcomes that everybody wants. Tony Luck: Do we have a timeline for getting close to maybe making some announcements on a thing like that? I know that the communities that I visit in my par - ticular riding are really struggling for this infrastructure piece.

I know one of the communities basically stopped developing because they cannot afford to fix their infra - structure at this particular time. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The federal election ended less than 24 hours ago. I look forward to hearing the new cab - inet and the new Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and we’re going to have those conversations. We’ll have a better sense when we have those initial meetings.

I can share with the member that at the last FPT meet - ing, the federal-provincial-territorial meeting, this was one of the biggest topics across the country, so it is vitally important that we align now. I would say that not only in our time in government but even in the time of the previous government, there has been good alignment with the federal government in aligning our programs. I think that’s been a success for British Columbia that we want to make sure we continue, going forward. Tony Luck: As we talked about infrastructure…. Of course, this

section is about infrastructure. For example, the costs of a fire truck or road construction largely cost identical compared to a small community or a large com - munity, in rural communities as in large urban centres. Minister, what practical solutions for our funding for - mat is your government implementing to ensure that small towns are not disproportionately burdened compared to large, wealthy cities? [1:55 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we have a $60 million regional district and small com - munity grant program that is available to communities.

I can also share with the member, on the specific ex - ample that the member shared, that in the previous gov - ernment, in the previous term, we expanded the eligibil - ity under DCCs to include public safety measures. Also, we’ve introduced an ACC tool for critically important amenities that communities want to build. That is the rea - son why. That was a request from local governments, and we expanded both of those.

Tony Luck: Will your government undertake a com - prehensive review, in collaboration with UBCM, to ana - lyze the cumulative impacts of provincial downloading regulatory burden and upzoning on municipalities and publicly release a clear, actionable plan to relieve these un - precedented local infrastructure and financial pressures on these smaller communities? Hon. R avi Kahlon: Again, the communities that had challenges with infrastructure and could not enable this type of housing just had to get an independent engineer - ing report showing that. Richmond is an example.

Parts of Richmond didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to support this type of housing. They have an extension for multiple years, and they are building out a plan to build that infrastructure. So that exists. As I mentioned to the member…. Actually, I should also mention that Metro Vancouver in fact released a re - port within the last two years that highlighted that small- scale multi-unit housing is actually the best way of getting more housing with less dollars impacting their infrastruc - ture. That was within Metro Vancouver’s own reporting.

What we’re trying to do is address both challenges, which are: we know we need more supply of housing, and we also want to limit impact on infrastructure. That’s also why we kept our housing requirements within regional growth strategies. We didn’t want to encourage sprawl out- side of communities, because we know that type of infra - structure is particularly expensive for the type of housing that we want to see. Tony Luck: Before we recognize how much money we need to throw at a problem and those kinds of things, we need to understand how big the problem is.

Has your ministry ever done a needs assessment for the entire province, or do you provide funding to local com - munities so they can make those assessments so we have a much clearer and more defined understanding of exactly what the total bill for infrastructure spending in the prov - ince would be? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide money through Asset Management B.C. to support local governments to do an assessment of their needs. It’s hard to put an exact num - ber because they change so often.

You know how a com - munity decides they need a new rec centre, or they decide they don’t need a new rec centre, or they decide they need something else. These things are always moving. We do engage with local governments who come for - ward and say: “This is our need.” In fact, I’ve had meetings with some local governments where the need started at a certain number. It changed over time because there were different needs and different priorities from a local gov - ernment, election changes, and those priorities get com - pletely wiped out, and something new comes in. It’s hard to have one number.

But we do engage with local govern -

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1761 ments often, and they share whatever specific challenges they’re trying to deal with. Again, $1 billion to local governments. We didn’t ask them to…. The only ask was to tell us where the money is going. We didn’t say to them: “You have to invest in pro - ject A, project B, project C.” We put faith that they knew where they wanted those dollars to go. They also have access to the MFA. I don’t know if the member knows that. They have access to that to be able to borrow to invest in critically important infrastructure.

We’ll continue to have a conversation with the federal gov- ernment about what future programs could look like. [2:00 p.m.] Tony Luck: Finally, on this particular topic for now, and I reserve the right to ask more questions in the fu - ture: what accountability and transparency measures will your government introduce to assure municipalities and taxpayers that provincial promises such as infrastructure funds, middle-income housing development on public land and tax relief are fully honoured rather than continu - ally delayed or ignored? Hon. R avi Kahlon: There were multiple things in there.

I’ll just say that we’re pretty public about government lands and where the projects are going around BC Builds. That’s on the websites. It’s available to people. Happy to talk about that, because I think it’s a huge success. And hats off to B.C. Housing. That program was put together…. I recall being in the city of North Vancouver a year ago announcing the first project, and shovels went in the ground. That’s a remarkable time and speed for a project that size. We do share that information. If the member has some- thing specific, I can certainly try to get that to the member. Tony Luck: I’ll start with a

preamble on this one. We are going to talk about some of the cities’ favourite topics: DCCs, CACs and ACCs. Nice acronyms, but we’ll get to that part. The current state of development cost charges, DCCs, and community amenity contributions, CACs, in Brit - ish Columbia, is characterized by a lack of transparency, consistency and predictability, significantly impacting housing affordability and market viability. We hear from contractors all the time how confusing it is in the DCCs, moving from different communities and things like that.

CACs are certainly something that developers don’t like, yet they can work with them. Developers frequently face unpredictable municipal requirements, including arbitrary increases in CACs and the imposition of stringent social housing mandates, lead - ing to considerable project uncertainty and inflated hous - ing costs. Regularizing and legalizing uniform processes of DCCs and CACs could eliminate these uncertainties, streamline approval processes, enhance transparency and ultimately improve housing supply and affordability.

The B.C. government has introduced the ACC, amen - ity cost charges — I believe that is to replace the current process we have of CACs — and is seeing many munici - palities overly allowing higher density but including oner - ous poison pill regulations, such as requirements for social or deeply discounted housing. Removing these is essential to restoring confidence and predictability in the develop - ment community.

First question is: while the move towards regularizing the CAC process into ACC is commendable, why has the ministry opted to introduce a 60-page policy document full of bureaucratic guidelines instead of simply setting out standardized dollar amounts or a clear rate per square foot for ACC areas across British Columbia? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I really appreciate the member’s

preamble. I actually wish the member had been here last term, because we addressed this very thing. I’m sure if he was here then, he would have encouraged his colleagues to actually support the bill, because this is the very thing we were trying to address. If I can just maybe rephrase or capture what the mem - ber has highlighted, which is a challenge that we hear as well.

Imagine trying to build an affordable housing project for seniors and having it come close to the finish line and then all of a sudden getting a phone call that your DCCs are increased, your CACs are going to be increased, as well as the parking requirements going up. That’s an expensive venture when you’re already far along in the project.

We’ve actually had the situation where we’ve had to go to communities and say: “We actually have to cancel this affordable housing project in your community because of these new measures that you’ve introduced.” The purpose of the new ACC tool was to try to address this specific challenge. The changes we’ve made in the last year move local governments to plan where they want their housing every five years. Go and engage the com - munity, figure out where you want the housing, make sure it aligns with where your housing needs are.

By doing that and not having public hearings, because the commun - ity’s already engaged on where they want the housing and how it should look, we’re going to see less public hearings. When you see less public hearings, there’s less opportunity for the negotiation of CACs. [2:05 p.m.] I hear all the time, from not-for-profits and the private sector, that that process can take a year to two years. It’s not done in a public, transparent way. It’s not good for the local elected officials either.

There are accusations al - ways made about local government officials that somehow they’re giving somebody a favour compared to somebody else because there’s no rhyme or reason for the formula. What we did was that we brought in this ACC tool. The

1762 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 point of the tool is to build more transparency into the process, so now local governments can identify, with their community, what amenities they need. They put into their bylaw what amenities they want. The cost is at the front, people know what the cost is, and that cost goes towards building the important amenities they need. Local gov - ernments are happy because they’re going to get dollars for their amenities. Now, it’s important to note, I hope the member would support this notion, that the ACC tool can only be charged to net new.

If you’re replacing ten units with ten units, well, you can make the argument that you need a brand-new community rec centre for the same amount of units. But if you’re building above and beyond that, you can charge the ACC tool to that. The reason why it’s getting good response from com - munities is because it ensures that local governments can still get the amenities that they need. There’s a require - ment that they do an analysis, so that whatever cost struc - ture they put in does not deter development. They have to do an analysis to see what levels they’re setting. The member also mentioned….

I think inclusionary zoning was the member’s point. Even with the tool for in - clusionary zoning, the reason why we don’t do a blanket is because what can be done in Vancouver will be different than Surrey, Maple Ridge or Kamloops. Each community now will have to look at their own opportunities in their community and identify how much inclusionary zoning, if at all, they want to have. We’ve now provided them the tools that, I think, will help decisions to be made in a more transparent way.

It’ll protect local government officials from accusations that, quite frankly, are mostly unwarranted, and it ensures that those that are building homes have a greater level of transparency. This is just rolling out, and it’s going to still take a little bit of time. It’s not as clear to local governments, but those that have a good understanding of what we’re trying to do appreciate the direction we’re heading to. Tony Luck: Thank you to the minister. How does the ministry plan to monitor and enforce compliance with any standardized approaches to ACCs and DCCs? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: Any DCC bylaws go through the inspector of municipalities. For ACCs, we’ve built in a re - quirement that when it comes to development of the ACC bylaw, there must be some form of consultation with the public, with homebuilders, etc. There are rules around how the local government can set charge amounts, including whether charges that are being charged would deter development, so some import - ant measures there. There are public economy measures around rules on how the funds can be used and the re - porting requirements. It has to be made public.

And of course we have, within the legislation, regulation-making authority, so the province can set additional requirements, if needed. Tony Luck: What proximate timelines for introducing legislation or regulatory amendments to eliminate the po - tential of municipalities to include restrictive poison pills in that, such as excessive social housing requirements in development areas? Do we have a timeline thing? Have you got anything around that? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, there are many forms of poi - son pills, I’ve learned, in the housing space.

It can be any - thing from communities putting limits on height, limits around an extensive amount of parking and not allowing setbacks. [2:10 p.m.] You know, we can talk. I’m happy to talk about any of those pieces if the member would like, but specifically when it comes to ACCs, there are pretty clear guidelines and rules that are in place for when it can be used. Now, I think the member is aware that it’s an ongoing conversa - tion, and I’ll use Metro Vancouver’s DCC increase.

You hear, from those in the development community, some serious concerns about the cost and the implications for them when they’re trying to build housing. I know we’re not supposed to speak about legislation in the House, but I will say that there are measures in front of the House that will help address some of that. There are processes in place for DCCs and ACCs to have guardrails to ensure that the rules are being followed. It’s my expectation that we continue to have that, with the understanding, on the flip side, that local governments do need access to dollars to build the infrastructure.

I think we’ve struck a good balance, but we’ll continue to work with local governments as we go forward. Tony Luck: I think you’ve covered a little bit about what steps are being considered to ensure developers can accurately assess the financial viability of projects without facing uncertain and changing municipal requirements. Is there any look around at putting in things like KPIs and that? These communities and the developers, which are always complaining that things change and timelines change….

This is the first I’ve heard where cities can ac - tually change things halfway through or at 90 percent of the project, which doesn’t even make sense. Is there any way of measuring some of these things, putting in place, so that the transparency is very clear to the developers that often are looking at these projects? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve got a document that might be helpful to the member. It is available publicly, but the rea -

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1763 son why I want to share it with the member is that there’s guidance for elected officials on how to use the tools in a fair way. This was just issued within the last few weeks. It may help answer some of the questions. I’ll add the cover page, just so the member knows which document it is and where they can find it. The second page, page 7, has all the information I think the member is looking for. Tony Luck: I’ll move on from there, but I reserve the right to come back and ask a few questions around that.

Now I’d like to speak to the Auditor General for Local Government. In 2020, the B.C. NDP government elimin - ated the Auditor General for Local Government, signifi - cantly weakening oversight, transparency and fiscal re - sponsibility at the municipal level. Since the role’s termination, numerous questionable de- cisions by municipal councils and regional districts have underscored the urgent need for an independent auditor with meaningful oversight and authority.

Recent contro - versies, including exorbitant salary increases for various Lower Mainland mayors and egregious mismanagement of infrastructure projects such as the North Shore wastew - ater treatment plant, highlight how taxpayers are left vul - nerable when municipalities lack independent oversight. [2:15 p.m.] Similarly, revelations that the city of Vancouver sold an asset like a garbage truck significantly below market value only for it to be immediately resold at an immense profit by the person that bought it demonstrate clear disregard for fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The reinstatement of a robust and empowered auditor general for municipalities would provide crucial financial oversight, conduct pre-emptive reviews of municipal deci - sions and help prevent wasteful spending and fiscal mis - management before taxpayer dollars are squandered. To the minister: your government eliminated the Aud - itor General for Local Government several years ago, sig - nificantly reducing accountability and oversight for mu - nicipalities. Can you clearly explain the rationale behind removing critical mechanisms that safeguard taxpayers’ interests? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: It’s always fascinating to get into this conversation, because the conversation is usually two things. One: “Why do you get into so much local govern - ment business? Let them be. They’re elected officials.” Then the flip side is: “Well, why don’t you have more over- sight of them to make sure you keep an eye on them?” It’s always a challenge between the two. That being said, I think the concern that the member raised around Metro Vancouver has obviously been can - vassed in the public. There is a review happening at this time. All of the documents for local governments….

They have to have financial statements audited, made public, available. At the end of the day, all of these elected offi - cials have to represent their community and have to stand up for the decisions that they’ve made. For local govern - ments, that’s coming very soon. That is, I think, a great accountability measure that we all have to go through as elected officials. Tony Luck: Well, yes, we always have accountability when it comes time at the ballot box and that kind of thing, but in the meantime, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are out billions of dollars.

In the meantime, could the ministry not agree that maybe we have to have some kind of oversight within government to be able to have a body that municipalities could go to and ask for help? I’m thinking of… Especially for us who are in smaller rural communities that don’t have the financial resources to be able to hire streams of accountants and things like that…. Do you think the ministry could be looking at re-im - plementing the Auditor General for Local Government to help those municipalities that struggle to make sure that their projects will come in on time and on budget? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: Again, this topic is not in the budget, but I think we can have a little bit of latitude to have a discussion about it. [2:20 p.m.] Some of the questions are: UBCM elected officials are asking for this; why won’t you do it? In this case, UBCM was the one saying that it was unnecessary and that they were autonomous and should be able to make decisions. I think that’s the paradox of the questions that we get. Now, I share the concern around Metro and some of the decisions and some of the challenges they’re dealing with, with their infrastructure projects.

Again, there’s a full review happening right now, and we certainly will be keeping an eye on it and making public whatever informa - tion that can be made public. Tony Luck: We talk about a full review going on with Metro Vancouver, but we know that’s an internal review set up by their own individuals and that. Under the Local Government Act, the government has the ability to call for a completely, totally independent review. Why would this ministry not do that to protect the integrity of the taxpay - ers in that community? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve highlighted with Metro, we have an independent observer that’s watching the process. If it comes to a point where we believe additional steps are needed, that’s something we’ll consider at that time. But, at this point, the people that they’ve put forward are reput- able individuals. In no way…. The member is not doing it; I’m certainly

1764 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 not raising concerns about who these individuals are and the work that they do. We have to have faith that the pro - cess will happen. Our independent observer will be watch - ing. If there are issues, then certainly we’ll take additional steps. Tony Luck: Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to ask further questions from this

section in the future. Could we take a five-minute recess as my colleague will get resettled for her next line of questioning as she gets reseated? Is that okay? Does she need five minutes? Can she just…? Just a couple of minutes. The Chair: I think we’ve got time to wait. Are we good to go? Perfect. There you go. Thank you, Surrey–Serpentine River. Linda Hepner: Thank you for recognizing me. Just before I get on to my next set of questions, I would put through you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding Bill 44 and whether or not the ministry has determined….

If people were to accommodate the densification that the ministry is suggesting, has the ministry also acknow - ledged what the contributions would need to be from the province relative to hospitals, highways and schools? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is probably just staying up so that she doesn’t have to go up and down. I apologize. I was waiting. I would say we have people in our communities that are underhoused, people already in our communities. I think there’s a misunderstanding sometimes with some of the pieces we’re bringing forward that this is about bringing a lot more people to our communities.

This is about making sure the people that are in our communities have housing. We have individuals…. I raised this in the debate of the bill last year. Twelve people were living in a single-family house, students all crashed into a three-bedroom place. There was a lack of housing. Now, that’s increasing. We’re setting records for hous- ing starts. The federal government has made some deci - sions to slow down some of the immigration numbers, so that will have an impact. But certainly, the social infra - structure needs to continue to be expanded.

The member is aware that south of the Fraser, we’ve got new transit, we’ve got new hospitals, and we’ve got new schools. We can debate all day long whether it’s enough, if it’s coming fast enough, but it’s coming. It is being done in communities, and we’re going to need to do that in com - munities around the province. [2:25 p.m.] Linda Hepner: Well, I acknowledge the minister’s com- ments, and he is certainly right that we could debate that all day long and where the deficits are and continue to be.

But I think the more critical question around Bill 44 is that there is a large expectation of local governments to provide this housing, to make sure that they have the roadways that are going to accommodate more vehicles, that are going to accommodate garbage trucks and that could have four to five or six houses on a lot now. To that end, you also have to have the corresponding provincial requirements of: do we have enough hospi - tals to care for those expanded uses? Do we have enough schools to prepare for those students? And yes, we have….

When we’re growing this province as quickly as we are, I think that is an analysis that should be made relative to the Bill 44 requirement. I’ll leave it at that, and I thank the minister for his re - sponse. But I still believe there is a lot to be done relative to that, and I reserve the right to query more. I would like to now move on to what I’m going to call, likely not happily to the minister, the hidden car - bon tax on housing, which I will call the step code.

The step code regulations have emerged as a significant tax on new housing, substantially escalating costs, intensi - fying bureaucracy and hampering the province’s already strained housing market. Intended to progressively increase energy efficiency in new construction, the step code imposes stringent guide - lines on insulation quality, on thermal loss mitigation, on window sizes, on lighting and overall design specifica - tions. Industry professionals have estimated compliance costs as adding 10 to 20 percent to new home prices, ex - acerbating affordability concerns in the middle of a severe housing crisis.

These regulatory layers not only inflate housing costs but introduce unnecessary complexity and delays in per - mitting and project execution, leading directly to fewer homes being built. This is exactly the red tape that stran - gles new-home building. Given the complexity and bureaucratic nature of step code compliance, has the ministry calculated the exact cost burden, both direct compliance costs and indirect permitting delays, borne now by builders and, ultimately, homeowners in B.C.? Hon. R avi Kahlon: There are a couple of pieces, a couple of questions within the question from the member.

I know that we’re moving on from topics. I did just want to make one comment on the last piece, which is that we also need nurses, we also need teachers, and we also need trades folks, and they need housing. [2:30 p.m.] It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg. We need to have the hous- ing to have the people to be able to support the social infra- structure we need, but we’ll have lots of time. We’re here for a while, so I suspect we’ll come back to this. On the building code piece, I think it’s important for

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1765 folks, those that are watching at home, to understand that, with any code changes, we try to give time for the home- building community, for industry, to adjust to the changes that are coming. The member’s question was what’s the cost. It’s very difficult to come up with a number, given that design choices can change from building to building. So it de - pends on what your design choices are. It depends on market of supply. We do look at all these things.

I just met, within the last few weeks, with folks within this industry that supply goods, to discuss how we’re changing technologically, how we’re adapting. In fact, what I heard from them was that the technology exists; the technology is not the challenge. How do we skill people up and train them up to be able to install and do these differ - ent changes that we need to do to be able to get there? I do acknowledge that there are often potential costs as - sociated with building code changes, and the accessibility piece was one. We brought in some changes to accessibil - ity.

Given that there were some serious concerns around supply of building supplies — the fact that 40 to 60 per - cent of our building supplies come from the U.S., and the uncertainty of cost pressures — we have now made some changes to that accessibility code requirement so that we can build more predictability in costs. That’s a tough thing to do because anyone that’s been advocating for accessibility in housing will tell you that these changes are long overdue. I think of Stephanie Ca - dieux, who was a minister here and who is now the na - tional advocate in this space. They want to see it move forward.

We’re trying to find a balance between wanting to move forward on important measures and, at the same, time en - suring that we can still get housing built. We do that with the energy code as well. Susie Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Susie Chant: Thank you so very much. Earlier in the day on the precinct was Sutherland Sec - ondary School from North Vancouver.

It was their global perspectives program, which was designed to enrich stu - dents’ understanding of global affairs by fostering engage - ment in the interconnectivity of economic, political, en - vironmental and social systems. The global issues curricu - lum is interwoven through four courses, with an emphasis on field studies to ensure students’ learning extends be - yond the classroom. The class group, grade 11s and 12s from Sutherland, spent their time in the Legislature. They met with Min - ister Ma, and they’ve been touring through the building.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get here fast enough, and they’re off the precinct now. But I hope that the House can warmly welcome them at this time, so that we can show it to them on Hansard. Debate Continued Linda Hepner: I don’t think I got an answer relative to the costing and the cost burden of compliance to the step code. But I’ll help answer that question, if I may, because the people I’ve been meeting with within the industry tell me it adds 10 to 20 percent to the hard costs of a project.

How can you justify to British Columbians why their government chooses to impose a step code — essentially, a hidden carbon tax that raises home prices by that kind of a percentage — all in the midst of an unprecedented hous - ing affordability crisis? [2:35 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member must acknow - ledge that operating those buildings will be cheaper. Yes, there may be a cost for the developer. They may not make the profit margins that they want, but those that are liv - ing in those units will be able to operate in a more cost- effective way — lower bills, lower heating bills, etc.

Those buildings that are rentals will have better cash flows. There are other benefits. I know the member knows the climate benefits of it, but there are other benefits beyond that as well, which I think are important. I’ll leave it there, and I’ll come back to it after. Linda Hepner: I don’t think we got an answer that the public would consider to be significantly useful to their pocketbooks when we’re talking about a 10 or 20 percent increase in housing and an onerous red-tape scenario.

With housing plummeting by 59 percent in Vancou - ver alone, can the minister confirm how many approved housing projects have been halted or cancelled, specific - ally due to the step code–related escalations? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of a single project that has been cancelled because of just the step code. If the member has a project that was cancelled just because of the step code, I’m happy to hear it. I can share with the member that there is research that was released in 2022.

There was a construction cost analy - sis of high-performance, multi-unit residential buildings in B.C., and it showed that the cost was 3 percent or less for housing types under step 3. There are a lot of factors in projects. The biggest one I hear, by far, is the time it takes to get approvals. So we’ve been taking those steps. Again, this research showed a 3 p ercent cost, and it doesn’t show the savings for individ - uals that move into those units. Both are important.

1766 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Linda Hepner: Has the government conducted any rigorous economic or social-impact analysis measuring whether the marginal energy efficiency gains — I think he said 3 percent — justify the substantial deterioration in af - fordability, livability and market viability, and if so, could we have those analyses made available? Hon. R avi Kahlon: Again, this research showed that there was a 3 percent or less cost. The ongoing savings were around 20 percent. That’s significant for those that are living in the unit after, the savings.

Now, the member wants the research. I’m happy to share the research with the member. It’s a report that’s from a few years ago. If it’s easier for the member, maybe we’ll have someone email the link to the research so that the member can have it. [2:40 p.m.] Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not they have met with industry and gone through a pro forma of a building project and been able to determine through various agencies, as I have, that those numbers no longer work for viability in the marketplace. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I meet with industry on an ongoing basis.

I think it’s not fair to characterize the step code as their challenge that they can’t get housing on. There are a lot of challenges. There were interest rate challenges. There were labour shortage challenges. There is the fact that rents are com - ing down and that home prices are coming down, and a lot of pro formas don’t work right now. There is trade un - certainty around building supplies. Those are the topics that I discuss with industry all the time. That’s not a new thing. The changes to the step code were not something we did this year. This was multiple years ago.

We built in the predictability so that people knew it was coming, so that it gave a market signal to industry to be able to adapt. I just met two weeks ago with some industry stake - holders that provide products that support us to be able to meet our goals. They said: “Technology moves quick.” Technology is moving quick. They said: “We still need support for training people up so that they have the skill sets to be able to install and make sure that these build - ings can continue to operate.” There are a lot of advancements happening in Eur - ope. We’re seeing the price of a lot of the products coming down.

That’s what happens when you give the signal: you see the market react and start to produce the products we need to be able to achieve the goals that we want. Over time, those costs will continue to come down. Linda Hepner: I think it would be very advantageous for both the minister and the critic for the ministry to meet with the same players. We’re hearing different stor - ies from what I just heard now from the minister. That is certainly not what I’m hearing, both in the community I live in and in the various agencies with which I’ve met. I would like to ask whether it is the ministry’s pos - ition….

Could the minister define what measurable en - vironmental outcomes have been directly attributed to the step code regulations and whether they merit the harm attached to housing affordability and availability? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I didn’t want the people at home to be confused that all of a sudden there was something brand-new being introduced this year. The energy step code was introduced in 2017. The member is asking for research and data that was done at that time. I don’t have anything new that I can share, other than the research that I’ve committed to share with the member.

If the member has questions about the climate change roadmap, that’s a question for the Ministry of Energy, which is actually in estimates right now. I suggest that’s a better place for that question. Linda Hepner: Considering that the industry reports that the step code compliance results in darker, less com - fortable and aesthetically compromised home interiors, how does the ministry defend sacrificing that quality of life for the marginal energy efficiency? [2:45 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It depends on design choices. It’s a vague question. It’s hard to answer the question.

It just de- pends on how projects are being designed, and they’re all being designed differently. Many projects are starting to use more natural airflow, etc. I don’t know exactly how to…. I don’t want to avoid the question, but I just don’t know how to answer the question because it’s a little vague. Linda Hepner: I did not mean to be vague, but can I build a big window? A big one? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member can, if the mem - ber chooses to, have a big window. I encourage a big win - dow. Of course, it depends on the manufacturer and their ability to produce it.

But there are homes that can meet that step code with larger windows, so yes. Linda Hepner: I’m very glad to hear the minister say that, because that is not what I’m hearing from the build - ers. I’ll be sure to pass that on, that we can have as big a window as we would like under the step code. What evidence, if any, does the ministry have that Brit - ish Columbians support these regulations that signifi - cantly raise housing prices and lower home quality, except for the big window, merely for marginal improvements?

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1767 Hon. R avi Kahlon: I think the fact that we have a ma - jority government, the fact that we ran on a commitment to make some progress when it comes to addressing cli - mate change…. Building envelopes are an important piece, an important measure on that. I appreciate that in every election, there are people who campaign who say: “Don’t do anything.” We campaigned to say that this is an important step to move in that direc - tion. I think that’s an important measure of support. Again, I think our numbers….

We disagree on the numbers of the impact of the step code. This was intro - duced in 2017. A lot has happened in that time. A lot of in- novation has come online, and we’re going to continue to see that. Anytime a marker is set and the market is given some time to adjust, you see the market adjust. We’re starting to see that here as well. Linda Hepner: I’m surprised the market has to adjust if we can have big windows. In fact, I’m rather surprised that all the new buildings that you see have long, narrow, dark windows.

I would suggest that perhaps the ministry needs to make their design options much clearer to the marketplace, because I don’t think the marketplace as yet understands that they can build as big a window as they like. Finally, Minister, in this topic, given the significant social harm and economic harm caused by the step code, and the documented decline in housing starts, will you reconsider and repeal these regulations so that we can re - store some affordability and some attractiveness to British Columbia’s new housing market? Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to, maybe, put in context that the work to have a step code didn’t just happen under our government. In fact, this idea started when Rich Coleman was the Minister of Housing and Christy Clark was the Premier. That’s when the work started. That government understood that you need to make progress, and you need to move the dial. We just carried that work on when we came into government. [2:50 p.m.] At this point, the member is asking if I’m prepared to cancel regulations.

The next step code is, I think, projected for 2030, and, at this point, I’m not considering changing any of those regulations. Linda Hepner: I hear what the good minister is saying about previous folk sitting here in the House, but I think it’s fair to suggest that, under what is considered to be a housing crisis, we should all be looking for solutions to how we resolve a crisis, not how we are going to continue. What you’re suggesting is somebody else’s idea, and we’re just going along with it.

I’m not impressed with the ministry’s response to that regulation, because I believe that in a crisis, we all need to be swimming in the same direction, saying: what is it we need to do? This minister likes to suggest that there are all sorts of positive things happening in housing, when some of the very things that could easily help the cost of housing and home ownership are to simply get rid of some of the barriers we have within our own government regulations. I’ll move on to the building code accessibility require - ments and the cost impacts and the consultations under that particular subject.

I understand that the ministry is undergoing those consultations related to universal design, accessibility and adaptable housing. These may align or relax accessibility- related design standards, including those inspired by the accessible design for the built environment — CSA B651 and similar to federal or ADA-equivalent models. Stakeholders in the development industry have raised concerns about the cost impact of requiring a majority of units in new buildings to be accessible and adaptable.

De - velopers suggest that full compliance would add another 8 to 12 percent to the construction cost per unit, particu - larly in a multi-storey residential building, due to wider corridors, turning radius, additional elevator space, re - inforced walls for grab bars and plumbing modifications. At the same time, advocates for universal design point to demographic data. As to the most recent surveys, ap - proximately 4 or 5 percent of British Columbians would rely on wheelchair or mobility aids, and that number is ex - pected to rise, obviously, with an aging population.

I can tell you, right here, I’ve got my cane. So for a short period of time, I’ll be among that 4 to 5 percent. Questions please, Mr. Minister. Can you confirm whether or not your ministry has provided input into the accessibility and adaptability policy development as it re - lates to the B.C. building code? The Chair: Once again, just a reminder that questions will come through the Chair, Member. Thank you very much. Minister. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, for keeping us disciplined. I appreciate that. I will do so.

When I first got elected, my first task as an MLA was to bring back a Human Rights Commission to British Col - umbia. So I travelled to talk to folks about human rights and met with the accessibility community. I heard many stories of people that couldn’t visit a family member because although they had units in the building that were accessible, the unit that their family member lived in was not.

Doors weren’t wide enough, so the entire family would go up to visit the family, and that one individual in a wheelchair would just wait outside. [2:55 p.m.] This is an important conversation from a human rights perspective, which I take seriously. I reflect on the former

1768 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 minister, Stephanie Cadieux, who was in here, who has now got the job to be advocating for more progress at a national level. I think it is important for the member to know a couple of things. We have moved the percentage requirement to 20 percent. We did that in consultation with industry. We committed that we’ll continue to follow the na - tional process. The member has asked if we provided some feedback at that process. I can confirm that we have a team that is engaged with the national process.

It’s mov - ing slow, but the conversations are happening at a national level. Linda Hepner: I agree with the minister’s comments about how important accessibility and adaptability are. But to the degree that they’re doing consultation and that there is an expectation of a significantly larger percentage of design of the built environment being accessible into the now unaffordable….

Well, I’ll just ask the question this way: what is the esti - mated construction cost increase per unit associated with making a typical apartment fully accessible versus adapt - able only, and has the ministry commissioned any third- party costing studies on this? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have done costing on adapt - ability, not on accessibility. If the member would like a copy of that report on adaptability, I am happy to share it with the member. Linda Hepner: Thank you. I would like that. I appreciate the minister providing that to me.

I wonder if the ministry has an understanding of what percentage of British Columbians currently require mo - bility aids or wheelchairs, and if there has been a housing demographic forecast of what that would look like over the next ten or 20 years? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team doesn’t have a number right now. But we’re here for a couple of days, I think, so we’ll make sure we get that to you. Linda Hepner: I appreciate that. Thank you. Does the ministry plan to mandate accessibility in 100 p ercent of new units, or did I hear the minister sug - gest that only a portion of suites — up to 20 percent…?

On what basis is this policy being set? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: At this point, we are only at 20 per - cent adaptability. We are not in a position to expand that or announce any expansions of that. It is not something that is being considered at this time. Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask for the full cost- benefit analysis, stakeholder feedback and any imple - mentation plan for these code changes to be made pub - lic before any final recommendations or regulations are adopted. [3:00 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think I have answered this ques - tion.

We have a space-and-cost impact report based on adaptable changes, and I’m happy to share that with the member. My team was just going to email something over so that the member has it. Linda Hepner: Does that include an implementation plan? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think, perhaps, we are talking about two different things. Our plan is to go to 20 percent. At this point, we don’t have a plan to go beyond that. The federal government is contemplating further chan - ges. We’re engaged with them at that table, but we don’t have a final report or a final plan.

I assume the federal gov- ernment will have a full cost-benefit analysis done with whatever end result they come with, but we’re not there yet. Linda Hepner: I’m hearing the minister suggest that they’re talking adaptability, not full-on accessible. If I’m correct in that, then I believe my question…. If the min - ister provides me with the information that has been sug - gested, that would satisfy me. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct, 20 per- cent adaptability. That’s as far as we’re going at this stage, and we’ll wait for the federal process. I commit to the mem- ber that I’ll get that report.

It also includes some of the an- alysis around earthquake code. I’ll make a comment just to say that at a national level, there was research done around soil and impacts from po - tential earthquakes. In fact, I would say the bigger concern from industry is how we adjust the building code to meet those earthquake requirements — less on the energy, less on the accessibility, because of our changes recently, and more on the earthquake pieces.

I’m sure the member would fully agree with me that if the research is clear that there’s a risk because of potential earthquakes, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure that we mitigate the best we can any of those concerns in the building code. That work is happening as well. Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, we’re talking 20 percent adaptability, not 100 percent adaptability. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct. Twenty percent adaptability, not 100 percent accessibility. Linda Hepner: If I could ask for a break to bring in a couple of other people that would like to speak….

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1769 The Chair: Looks like we’re going to be okay with that. I think we’re going to recognize one of the members right now. Scott McInnis: I’m okay to continue if the minister and his staff are okay with that as well. Thank you, Minister, for those questions. I want to shift gears a little bit and just talk about some of the unique housing challenges we face in regard to resort mu - nicipalities and some of the short-term-rental regulations that are coming up in the next couple of days for those that want to be part of the new registry system.

Just to start off, if I could just get a brief outline as to what the stated goal is with the Ministry of Housing when it comes to this new short-term-rental registry application process and fee for small municipalities that are allowed to have short-term rentals. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Nice to have an exchange with the member. We haven’t had a chance yet, so I appreciate the question.

The changes we’ve done around STR, or short-term rentals, were to ensure that we are prioritizing housing opportunities for people in our communities. [3:05 p.m.] Prior to the member being elected, UBCM, in fact, had a resolution asking for the province to step in this space, in particular, because local governments were trying to create their own licensing system. But often they did not get cooperation from the platforms. So you could set up something and then you were finding out through house parties where the short-term rentals were as opposed to where they actually were.

The city of Vancouver had an agreement to share data, but even they struggled to actually get the data of where short-term rentals were. So we took the first steps last year, and the registry now is…. People are registering their properties, and we are starting to see some good progress. We’re starting to see the numbers coming up, and now that data will be shared with local governments. Local governments now will be able to compare what they think is happening in their communities to what is actually happening in their communities.

That was a big, big ask from local governments because there was a major blind spot when it comes to that. Now, I think I know where the member is going, be - cause I’ve seen some correspondence from the member. It’s important to note that when we set the system up, we want to make sure that we’re recovering costs to set up the system and operate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see local governments moving away from having their own sys - tems, because the province has created one that has more teeth than they can possibly do. I mean, the reality was local governments were not able to compel anything from platforms.

Now, of course, with our system, that information will be transparent, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see local governments moving away, because our system now does all the things that they wanted to see, and it will help them better mitigate chal - lenges in their communities. Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I think the minister will agree that resort municipal - ities are unique. These are small communities that have huge tourism influxes in peak seasons, but they don’t ne - cessarily have the hotel capacity to house these tourists when they come to town.

I appreciate that the minister is stating that perhaps some of these municipalities will be moving away from their local registry systems and fee-collection pieces, but as of right now, they’re not. That’s somewhat of a stream of important revenue for local resort municipalities as they exist today. I completely understand that not all resort municipal - ities are one and the same. I’m sure there will be resort mu- nicipalities that find that perhaps this short-term registry and the additional fee are a deterrent to providing more stable and long-term housing for specific communities.

I’m just wondering if, before this came into existence for resort municipalities specifically, did the ministry do any canvassing among the 14 resort municipalities in the province to see what their individual needs were? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When we were building this out, there was extensive engagement done with communities. We exempted some regional districts. We exempted tour - ism-dependent communities from the principal residence requirements for that reason. We know that they often de - pend on that for tourism activity.

The member will know that there are tourism-dependent communities that have wanted to opt in because they see the benefit of it. Osoy - oos is an example. Likely the member is also interested in the fact that we require everyone to register, whether they’re a tourism- dependent community or not, because the tools that we have in place allow us to do a level of enforcement. If we don’t know where the homes are in communities, whether they’re tourism-dependent or not…. If we don’t have a sys- tem in place, we can’t have an enforcement process. There are many short-term rentals.

Maybe I’ll just use Whistler as an example. It’s not a real example, but an ex - ample. You could have a whole host of short-term rentals in that community, and it’d be great. But you could have a few that are owned by somebody who doesn’t live in town, and it’s a major problem. Having everyone registered al - lows the local government now to use their licensing to say: “We would like that one shut down for whatever rea - son because of non-compliance, etc.”

1770 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Now our registry provides them the tool to actually have the enforcement. Before that, it would be goodwill. You could ask, but the platforms may not respond. Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Again, I think the issue here is specifically for resort municipalities. My question originally was: did the min - istry actually canvass the 14 resort municipalities to see what their unique housing needs were? Again, I have five of the 14 resort municipalities in my riding.

I’ve shared with the ministry a lot of concerns, because of some of the unintended consequences with a second registry and a second fee that the province has brought in, are that a lot of these small-time STR operators are now choosing to close their doors because they’re paying in excess of $1,000 per door for the registry plus a lengthy process — and one that the municipalities already have in place. They’re extremely frustrated, and the result being that people are cancelling bookings. That’s very devastating for some of these local, small resort municipalities within Columbia River–Revelstoke specifically.

I just want to see if I can get an answer out of the min - istry as to whether they canvassed, specifically, resort mu - nicipalities to see what kind of existing systems they al - ready had in place, and would this registry be helpful for them? The feedback I’m receiving is that it is not, and the unintended consequence is that people are closing their short-term rentals. Just as a footnote, these are not big corporate entities that are owning these short-term rentals.

These are small- time people within the community that maybe have a second property that they’ve saved up a lot of money and time to be able to afford, or perhaps they’ve renovated their existing primary residence to have a secondary suite within there. It’s not these big corporate real estate invest - ment trusts or things like that. These are local folks. [3:15 p.m.] Again, I think the result is that, yes, they’re pulling their short-term rental off the market.

Yes, that does pro - vide housing locally for people that need it, because we still do have a crunch, but the unintended consequence is that people are cancelling bookings to these resort municipalities. I just want to ask the ministry if they canvassed spe - cifically, through a questionnaire or through a town hall, with the resort municipalities. Were they asked what their specific needs were, based on the tourism and fluxes that they see every season? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can tell the member that we spe - cifically engaged with Revelstoke in 2023 when we were preparing to make the legislation.

If the member is asking specifically about the fee, the fee is again important be- cause if Revelstoke wants us to use the powers we’ve cre - ated, in order to actually enforce the rules that they have in place for them, then it’s important for them to register. I appreciate that for somebody who’s renovated a place, an additional $100 is $100. I get it. But it’s important that we also have a measure for cost recovery so that if we’re investing in infrastructure, a system, an opportunity for people to check, we’re able to recover some of those costs.

I just think that the cost-recovery piece was an important piece for us as we move forward. Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that. Beyond Revelstoke…. I have five resort municipalities in my riding — Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, Radium Hot Springs and Kimberley; and they’re all very unique. Not all of those communities disagree necessarily with the short-term-rental registry policy that’s in place, but several of them do, Kimberley specifically.

I know Tour - ism Kimberley has written the ministry, asking them to reconsider this policy, and they were sent a message that said: “Well, maybe you should consider locally reducing your fees.” I just want to again double-check to see if all the resort municipalities were canvassed to see what their unique, specific needs related to short-term rentals are. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We sent notices to Golden, Revel - stoke, Rossland, Ucluelet, Tofino, Kimberley and Radium Hot Springs, and the teams met with Revelstoke, Golden and Rossland. We didn’t hear back from some of the others.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Sending a notice sounds like sending something that’s, “This is what’s coming,” not kind of an engaged, back-and- forth dialogue with those communities potentially. I do appreciate that he did speak with a couple of com - munities, Golden and Revelstoke — and Rossland, which is outside of my riding but, nevertheless, still a resort municipality.

As I’m wrapping up this line of questioning here, will the minister agree with me that having a secondary set of fees in place, on top of the local municipal fees and a second set of application fees, is not redundant, and that asking municipalities to remove their fees and their ap - plication system, which is working in some of the resort municipalities, is not taking money away from local gov - ernments and putting it directly into the coffers of the province? This is extremely frustrating for resort municipalities.

At times, they feel like they’re treated like an ATM in this province, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and not seeing a lot of return on investment. Just to summarize that question: does the ministry not

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1771 see, because we still have both fees and application pro - cesses on the table as we sit here today, that they’re taking away local revenue for municipalities and bringing it here to Victoria? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A couple things. First, I’ll say that the notices to those communities were notices to engage with us. We don’t send them a notice saying: “It’s happening.” We say: “We’re thinking about moving this direction, and we’d like to engage with you.” UBCM sent us this recommendation to do it.

UBCM did their own engagement with all the communities, so that’s an important piece. Lastly, I’ll say to the member that local governments wanted the ability to be able to enforce the rules. Right now you can have…. I’ll give Burnaby as an example. Bur - naby had their own licensing agreement. They had people say to them, literally…. Bylaw would go there, and they’d say to the bylaw officer’s face: “Thank you for coming. I’m not doing anything you’re asking me to do.

You have no power to be able to do any of this.” That was what they heard. [3:20 p.m.] I know that recently Surrey decided to start their own bylaws because of the challenge. But the problem funda - mentally still exists, which is if these communities want to actually take some action, they need the ability for our registry and our legislation to be able to enforce those rules. I appreciate the additional $100. It is a cost; I get that. But it allows the local government to have a level of en - forcement that they were not able to have previously. I know with any level of enforcement, it’s a challenge.

But again, this was something the UBCM felt really strongly. There were motions passed on this topic, and we’re seeing the benefit. We’re seeing now, because of the registry, actually an increase in registries at local government level. Local gov - ernments — when we started sharing the preliminary data with them, their numbers were small compared to how many short-term rentals were in their community.

By requiring them to go through our process, now local gov - ernments are actually seeing an increase in registrations with them because the people that are operating short- term rentals realize that the only way they can operate is if they actually follow the city’s rules. Cities are seeing a benefit, a significant increase in registries, as well, which brings them additional revenues for the important things that they do. Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I totally understand that bylaw officers sometimes feel a little bit, no pun intended, handcuffed with their role in enforcing the rules. What additional enforcement strat - egies is the province going to use from here in Victoria in order to ensure that there’s compliance with their provin - cial short-term registration process that’s new here? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Two parts I’ll just share with the member. In Revelstoke, they’ve seen a 14 percent increase in compliance with local government rules, with local government licensing, because of the registry already. That is in seven months. That’s something.

In the enforcement piece, there are two mechanisms. A local government can use our new portal to send a direct message to anyone that’s got a unit, with a notice to say: “We believe you’re out of compliance” or “You’re not fol - lowing the rules.” And then they have another tool avail - able to them to notify directly to the platform to remove the listing. That is a powerful tool for local governments that they didn’t have before, because before, it was, again, begging and hoping and wishing.

Now the data portal allows them to send a notice, and then the platform has a certain amount of time in order for them to remove it. They’re required to remove it. If they don’t remove it, then there’s a fine associated with not doing that, so it’s in their inter - est to do that. Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that an - swer. I just have one more question, and then I’ll pass it off to my colleague from Kelowna Centre.

I’m hearing from people on the ground who operate short-term rentals in the resort municipalities, specifically in Columbia River–Revelstoke, that there is some friction, some tension and some unhappiness with the new registry system. Will the minister today commit to revisiting and per - haps canvassing again resort municipalities after six months or a year, just to see how the new registry is play - ing out within these communities?

It’s extremely import - ant in these small resort municipalities that are under a population of 10,000 people that short-term rentals are available for the tourism seasons. [3:25 p.m.] It would be great today if I could get a commitment from the ministry that they will review this in six months or a year to see if compliance rates are working and the consequences and the outcomes of this new registration policy are, in fact, working. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t commit to the member that in six months there will be a review.

But I can commit to the member that we’ll continue to engage with commun - ities as we go forward. We will share the compliance level that we see over time. If the member is interested, after a period of time, we can check in. I can share what numbers we are seeing for compliance. We are continuously engaging with local gov -

1772 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 ernments on how we move forward, but I can’t commit to a specific time. The need for folks to register through our system is vitally important. It’s not only important for this; it’s also important because we are able to share this data with the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance has regis - tries created to ensure compliance around money laun - dering, etc. So there’s another level of importance for us to have this registry that is beyond just short-term rent - als.

But we’re happy to share with the member after six months or so what kind of progress we’re seeing in the community, and the member can come to me anytime to engage on it. Kristina Loewen: In Kelowna, the municipality is now allowing business licences for short-term rentals in suites and carriage homes. While this loosening of rules and ex - pansion of short-term rentals is welcome to many, the dates do not coincide well with the provincial require - ments. The province requires a registration number as of this Thursday, in just two days, but the municipality says to expect two to five weeks’ wait for a licence.

At this point, the risk is put on the shoulders of the homeowner, the mom-and-pop, the small-time entrepre - neur who are expected to pay $450 for a carriage home registration number. These are people who own a second property and have really struggled or have a second suite in their primary that they’ve not been able to utilize for the past year and a half. My question to the minister is: will he consider waiving the fee or making it payable upon final approval?

Will he extend the provincial date by a month or two, or will he consider some kind of support for citizens who are trying to do the right thing but are caught between two levels of government? The Chair: This feels like a great time to remind mem - bers to have their electronic devices on silent mode. Not you, Minister. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Good. I thought I was not hearing something. I appreciate the member raising this concern. I’ll ex - plore with my team if we can put in some sort of provision to allow individuals to provide proof that they are making the application.

So we’ll explore that, and maybe I can get back to the member by tomorrow on whether we can ac - commodate that. I’ll try. I can’t commit to it, but I’ll try. The fee is required to be part of it. We can’t waive the fee, but we will do what we can to ensure that that gap in time is covered so that people who are doing it in good faith can continue to operate. We’ll follow up with you as soon as we can. Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. My constituent will really appreciate that. I have just one more question for the minister.

A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from a realtor and a builder in Kelowna. They cited a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 per new build in Kelowna to add the province’s new seismic requirements. We’re in an affordability crisis; we’re in a housing crisis. [3:30 p.m.] What is the rationale in extending costly seismic re - quirements to the entire province when most of the prov - ince doesn’t have the same risk of seismic events? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team has let me know that we will provide Kelowna the ability to have proof of applica - tion so that they are covered for the two weeks.

We’ll share a link with the member on that so that you can see that and share that with your constituents. I appreciate the member raising the question about seismic code changes. We were just canvassing this, be - fore the member arrived, with the critic, the member for Surrey–Serpentine River. It’s a challenge. I fully acknow - ledge that it’s a challenge. When you have research from the federal level come down, which says that under cer - tain soil conditions there are greater risks of seismic issues connected with buildings, we can’t turn a blind eye to it.

In my meetings with industry, I have always said the same thing, “Do you refute the data and research?” and they say no. Then I say: “Now it’s our responsibility to build housing that is safe for people, because god forbid that we have this data and builders are not building hous - ing properly on that soil, and then we have a big one. How do we respond to the public?” Beyond that, even if industry or someone were to come in and say, “You know what? We’re going to disregard that,” the insurance industry has come to us and said: “It doesn’t matter if you change the code or not. We know the soil sample.

We are going to ensure that we price or not provide any insurance to anyone on that soil if you don’t do the proper mitigation to protect from that.” That’s the challenge we’re in; I fully acknowledge it. There’s no easy solution. I can share with the member that we have a partnership that we’re forming with industry to look at how we can mitigate costs, what we can do in the design, in the engin - eering, to be able to continue to build this housing, but to do it in the most cost-effective way. That work has started, and that will help inform what we do as we go forward.

It’s a significant impact on the coast in some communities. It’s not us imposing it community-wide. It really de - pends on the soil. It could be something that impacts one project somewhere, but it could be a few blocks away are not impacted. I’m pretty open about the challenge that we have here, but I’m resolute and clear that I, as the minister

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1773 responsible, will not put any lives at risk by not making the changes when the evidence is clear. Kristina L oewen: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Just as you were answering, I was thinking about the common sense in this reality. The reality is that I lived 22 years on the coast. Yes, we had earthquake drills; yes, we talked about earthquakes in schools. I have now lived in Kelowna Centre for 27 years. We never speak of earthquakes; it’s not a thing there. So it de - fies common sense to apply this logic.

Furthermore, I got to sit today at lunch with the hon. Speaker and with some scientists, one of whom is an en - gineer and works for a research team. He was asking: “Where are we getting these codes from? Who’s doing the research? Who’s doing the engineering? This doesn’t make sense to me.” We were actually talking about seismic code at lunch. That’s anecdotal; that’s one engineer. But I would like to see where these reports are coming from, what the science is, and who’s putting these forward, because it doesn’t seem to make sense. Thank you for your answer.

If we could get more infor - mation on where the science and research is coming from, I would love that. Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member. The research is done by the National Research Council. I assume that’s as reputable as it gets for research in this space. Seismic is an issue. The member may be talking about seismic in her community, but there may be other wind elements that are also an impact.

If the member has spe - cifics and writes me, I’ll try to get information on if it’s wind-related or if it’s soil- and seismic-related. [3:35 p.m.] I’ll go back to my original comment, which is: actually, at this point it doesn’t even matter if we make a change or not. No insurer is going to insure, knowing the National Research Council has done this research. No one is refut - ing the research. The information is in front of us.

Even if somebody wanted to build and we didn’t change it, it’s going to have a major impact on them because they’re not going to find somebody to insure it, because that research exists, and there’s a huge liability that’s out there. I hear the member. I can assure the member that every question the member is thinking about, in every way of avoiding this, I have asked my team and considered be - cause I know there’s an impact. But unfortunately, the re - search is pretty clear.

Now, there is some hope, because some of the discus- sions we’re having with the engineering community, in particular, and some homebuilders…. There are some innovative solutions that are coming forward, and I’m hoping that this work that we do together, which will be made public, will help us mitigate a lot of these concerns. [George Anderson in the chair.] Bryan Tepper: I have a question about a certain prop - erty, and I’m hoping we can get an update on it: 5625 Lad- ner Trunk Road. I am to understand that’s going to be a project going forward for below-market housing — 5625 Ladner Trunk.

I’ll just ask, first of all, is there any information on that? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is going to work through that. Does the member have something specific around…? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange while the team looks it up, if there are some specific concerns about that. It’s in Delta, so I have a sense of what it might be, but I’m happy to hear from the member on it. Br yan Tepper: I’ve had this brought to my attention a couple of times by people in the area. It’s a townhouse complex on 1½ acres. It was set for redevelopment, but people have been out of the townhouse for several years now.

It’s been empty and apparently going downhill. It should be for redevelopment, but at this point, nobody’s living in it. It hasn’t been made use of. I’m wondering if we can get a time frame on what’s go- ing on there. [3:40 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When the member gave the ad - dress, it took me a second to get the memory back, but we did canvass this. The member from Delta and I canvassed this last year. This one has got a long history. I think it was in front of council in 2022, and it was rejected. Then it went back to council just recently, and it’s going through the process.

My understanding from the team is that we’re ex - pecting construction to start this fall. If something chan - ges, I’ll certainly get back to the member. But we finally got the approval from local government, and it seems like we’re proceeding in a good direction. It has had a long history in Delta. The member for Delta South will remember this, because it was on, and then it was off. The community was upset. We had to change the design. I think we’re in a better place now and hoping to proceed soon. Bryan Tepper: Okay, the question around that would be, then…. The permits.

It sounds like it’s a city issue that has been holding us up. Do we have a time frame on the completion date of it? I think the completion date was sup- posed to be this year at some point. Do we have a comple -

1774 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 29, 2025 tion date or a length of time, depending on when we get the permits, that the project will take? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we expect construction to start this fall. It’s 150 units, so it’s a pretty big project. It’ll probably take about two years for construction. Bryan Tepper: Could you repeat the number again? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s 150 units. Br yan Tepper: As this was a previous project, do you know if this is budgeted out of previous moneys, or is it this year’s budget?

Do we have an idea of where it’s being funded from? [3:45 p.m.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is part of our CHF budget currently. Again, it was announced some time ago, and then council rejected the proposal, and we had to go back to the drawing board and start again. But we’re starting, which is a good thing. Br yan Tepper: Back to short-term-rentals ban. Hope - fully I’m correct, and if I can just use the terminology short-term rental or Airbnb. With the short-term rental ban on people using their hard-earned property as they see fit, how many of the housing units came available for long-term rent in Kelowna?

Do we have any estimates on that? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to know the exact num - ber because there was no baseline in the beginning, but I can give the member a number that kind of blew my mind, which was…. The vacancy rate in 2023 in Kelowna was 1 p ercent. In 2024, after short-term-rental rules jumped in, it jumped up to 3.7 percent. That’s a significant shift in one year, from 1 percent to 3.7 percent. Bryan Tepper: I have brought this up several times.

There was at least one housing project scheduled for 360 units for Kelowna cancelled with the short-term rental ban when the pre-sales started falling through. Do you know if we could have replaced those 360 units? Would that be completing fairly soon here? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The investors in that property had an option that’s available to others, which was to con - tinue their project and operate as a strata hotel. The re - quirements are very simple — just having somebody at the front desk, some cleaning services, which they would, I suspect, require anyways.

But they made a decision, and I can’t control the decisions others make. I can share that that option was available to them, and in fact it’s an option considered by others. Bryan Tepper: Well, I appreciate the 1 percent to 3.7 p ercent, but I think we could have expected an initial surge in rental listings to be a significant number. [3:50 p.m.] I think we have had reports from experts saying this would be a short-term effect, and I’m curious about that. UBC Housing Research Collaborative noted that strong demand and low vacancy rates mean the influx of new listings is likely temporary.

With long-term rent trajector - ies decimated due to structural supply issues, the regula - tions do not address the need for new housing construc - tion, which experts argue is critical to resolving the issues. Is there anything in the budget to actually address this? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m going to try to extrapolate from what the member is saying. The member is saying: “Yes, you may have short-term impacts, but the long-term solution is still more supply,” and I agree with that. We still need more long-term sup - ply.

We have been seeing historically high levels of supply come on the market here in British Columbia, some of the highest in the country, and we’re certainly going to need more supply. A whole host of measures we’re doing around small- scale, multi-unit and around transit-oriented development is meant to help facilitate that increase in supply. But you can do both. You can address the short-term challenges. I mentioned, from Kelowna, the 1 percent vacancy rate to 3.7 percent is significant, especially for those who are desperately looking for a rental in the community.

But yeah, we have to continue our work for increasing housing supply as well. Bryan Tepper: Just to follow up on the 1 to 3.7 percent, over what period was that? Is it expected to increase or level out there? What are our projections on that? Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share another important data point for the member, which is that the asking rent has decreased in Kelowna in that same time period. Every year CMHC releases data. It was between 2023 and then 2024 when they released the data. That’s the increase in vacancy rate.

Rent has come down for new units — for a one-bedroom, by 7.7 percent, and for a two-bedroom, by 9 percent in Kelowna, some of the largest decreases in new- unit rents in the country. It’s an important provision to note that if a community has a vacancy rate of 3 percent or above, which is CMHC’s definition of a healthy vacancy rate, for two years, then they have the ability to opt out of the short-term rental principal residence requirement if they choose so. West Kelowna, for example, is a community that had that va -

Tuesday, April 29, 2025 British Columbia Debates 1775 cancy rate, so they chose to opt out. That’s allowed within the legislation. Bryan Tepper: Critics of this, including

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20250429pm-Hansard-n50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20250429pm Hansard n50
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d823a808b0f069cabbf813995f2e910f19e8eca4

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).