Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

9, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Representative for Children and Youth report Still Left Out.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call motion 57 on the order paper.

I move:

[That a Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner be appointed

to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of

an individual as Information and Privacy Commissioner, pursuant to

section 37 of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165).

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and

in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees

any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees

all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation

until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

d. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that during

a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk

of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or

in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to

the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Garry Begg (Convener), Michele Babchuk , Dan Davies , Renee Merrifield , Adam Olsen and Mike Starchuk .]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 46, Housing Statutes Development

Finance Act.

In the Douglas Fir committee room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 41, Forest

Statutes Amendment Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 39, Zero

Emission Vehicle Act.

[1:05 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES

(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

N. Letnick: Continuing where we left off just before lunch…. Let's see how much time I have: 23

minutes. Okay, we'll see what we can do with 23 minutes.

I talked a little bit about Bill 46 in general, and I won't repeat everything I said

there. I want to transition now to what can we do, with Bill 46 in the background,

to actually promote the development of affordable housing by reducing costs.

In the first place, I mentioned at the end of my speech before lunch, was the land.

Land is the foundation upon which housing is built. I was describing how a landowner,

if they want to build affordable housing, for instance, with a for-profit or a non-profit

developer, would transfer the land ownership to the developer, even if it's for a

dollar. At that time, the land developer would have to pay property transfer tax.

Then the land developer goes and builds entry-level housing for young people, first-time

home buyers. If they qualify under the threshold, which is currently around $500,000,

they would be exempt of the property transfer tax on that transfer, but they would

not be exempt from the property transfer tax that went from the original landowner

to the developer. They would have to pay that because developers don't swallow costs;

they pass on the costs. So we need to fix that.

The government needs to look at situations where land is transferred over and eventually

ends up in the hands purchased by entry-level buyers. We have to get rid of that property

transfer tax if we really mean business when it comes to helping first-time buyers.

The second piece to that is the threshold hasn't changed in years. What can you get

these days for $500,000 or thereabouts? Not much, which is why we're trying so hard

in this House to try to build more housing. We need to look at that threshold, and

I would suggest a couple of things. One is: to make housing more affordable, increase

the threshold. That's one. The other one is to get rid of the threshold. When you're

looking at Bill 46 and it talks about different charges, here's one charge that we

can actually get rid of for first-time home buyers: that threshold on the property

transfer tax exemption. I would ask government to look at that as well.

They can put it in Bill 46, or they can bring it in, in a misc stats amendment act

for Finance. But it needs to come in somewhere to make sure that we're really focusing

on first-time buyers, because the key is that the land costs need to come in as low

as possible so we can build housing.

It's not going to be swallowed up by developers. That's a misnomer. Developers are

making their profit, whatever it is, 10, 15 percent. If the cost of the complete project

is less, they'll make smaller profit. They don't increase — usually, in a good market

— the cost of the project just to pocket the money. It's really important that we

make sure that these costs are as low as possible.

The other piece, of course, is after you have the land, you have the construction.

Now, here we come right away with the DCCs and the ACCs. These costs either get passed

on to the developer….

In other words, the project will pass that on to the purchasers or the renters. The

renters, in terms of higher rent costs, if the development costs are higher…. Or,

in terms of buyers, they'll have to pay the ACCs and the DCCs as well. So either they

pay it or the community at large pays it in terms of their property tax, or you have

the larger government — the province or the feds, in some cases — help with that.

I would suggest that when you're looking at these particular charges under Bill 46,

is there a way for the charges to be clearly made less or eliminated when it comes

to certain rental properties or first-time homebuyers? I'll discuss that in the bill

itself in just a moment in a specific clause.

[1:10 p.m.]

The other piece after that is carrots or sticks. We have a lot of sticks in this bill.

A lot of charges. Where are the carrots? Where are the incentives for developers to

actually build good housing at an affordable price, both in rental and in entry-level

housing? I'll talk about that as well as we go through each particular clause.

Having said that, moving on to the first clause I want to talk about. It's 570.1,

when it talks about amenities. Now, these are the amenities the legislation proposes

that the charges could be charged on or for: community youth centres, recreation or

athletic facilities, a library, a daycare facility and a public square. It "…does

not include a facility or feature within a class of facilities or features that are

prescribed by regulation not to be amenities."

The problem here is you're trying to address the growth in a community and, at the

same time, address people who are just trying to move out, maybe from rental, and

get their first home. If they are doing that, are they really incurring a larger charge

to the local municipality? Is it costing them more if my son or daughter, in this

case, is moving out of my home and moving into their own home? Are they really looking

at increasing the cost to the system, to the municipal government, to provide the

services?

If they were using the swimming pool before, they're using it now. But if they're

moving into a brand-new home, they're going to have to pay extra fees for something

that has already been covered while they were living in my home, for example. Right?

It makes it really difficult for first-time buyers — or for people who are trying

to rent, to get a rent that's affordable — if we are going to pass all these charges

on to them. I would really ask the government to look at these amenity charges and

if they should be charged across the board or if there are some particular instances

— we'll come to that in a minute — where they could be waived or relaxed.

So 570.2 says: "Amenity…charges may be imposed under subsection (1) for the purpose

of providing funds to assist the local government to pay the capital costs of providing,

constructing, altering or expanding amenities to benefit, directly or indirectly…"

a development. Well, we really need to define what "indirectly" means.

I certainly hope, through the committee stage, we get that. I can be building a pool

in Kelowna, for example, and if all the other people around — Lake Country, West Kelowna

— don't have pools, they will come to Kelowna to use the pool. It's only being financed

by the people in Kelowna but used outside of that.

That happens in municipalities all around the province and, I would say, all around

the world, where you have a situation where the hub gets to provide the services that

are helping people on the outside. Therefore, you have an inequity of who's paying

the taxes and who's getting the services. So I would ask the government to look at

that in the bill.

The next clause in the bill is subsection 570.4(5). It says: "An amenity cost charge

is not payable in relation to a development for any class of affordable housing prescribed

by regulation."

Now, typically, both provincial and federal governments have defined — and you will

know this fairly well, Mr. Speaker — affordable as 30 percent of income. I don't know

of anybody, anymore, who pays 30 percent of income. Rents are so high across the country

and, of course, here in British Columbia, and the cost of housing is so high that

30 percent of income doesn't get you into a home. So I would ask the government, when

they're looking at defining what affordable means, to have a serious look at affordable

housing.

Now, affordable housing could be something that's defined as non-profit housing, for

example, or at least included as part of the definition under "affordable housing."

So affordable housing, 30 percent of income — maybe 35 or 40 or something more realistic

than 30 percent of income. Or it could also be some non-profit housing that's being

supplied.

I would say that not only because of my experience in the delivery of non-profit housing.

I've received many, many calls from local groups, from church groups or other organizations

that have land. They want to know, "What can we do with this land? How can we provide

housing and still maintain our use?" — the church or the community club or whatever

it is.

I would really ask the government to look at, when they talk about a class of housing

as affordable, to expand that to include these kinds of organizations that are trying

to address the lack of affordable housing.

[1:15 p.m.]

At the end of the day, when somebody buys a home that they're providing, 30 percent

of income might not cut it. Right? So if they're offering a unit at cost — at their

cost, whatever that is — then that should be accepted as affordable.

Yes, it won't be affordable to everyone. I recognize that. But it will be affordable

to a

section of the market. Therefore, that means that

section of the market will

be able to get out of the rental units. They'll get into the first-time-buyer units,

which will free up rental units for other people.

I would just ask the government, when they're defining that, if they're doing it by

regulation, to really look carefully, as the class of affordable housing is more than

30 percent. Like I said, it includes other classes as well.

My next question, or suggestion, is under 570.6. I'll read it. I really want to drive

home this one as well. It says in here: "In this section, 'eligible development' means

a development that is eligible in accordance with an applicable bylaw or regulation

under this

section as being for one or both of the following categories." Here are

the categories: (

a) not-for-profit rental housing, including supportive housing, or

(

b) for-profit affordable rental housing.

Well, where is the first-time homebuyer? If we really want to help families get into

their first home, we need to include a (

c) in here and say not-for-profit, entry-level

ownership housing. Not only will that drive developers to build these kinds of units….

Again, to repeat, as I said before, I get calls all the time from different organizations

wanting to build this kind of project. They don't want to get into the rental business

because of things we've discussed in other sessions about the landlord tenancy act.

I won't get into the RTB here. They don't want to get into the rentals, but they want

to provide a first-time buyer with an entry-level home at cost. We're not helping

them here. We're not exempting them from the charges.

I would really ask the government to look at that. Maybe, as I said to begin with,

before lunch….

The government is not going to support an amendment from us, from me, at least not

usually, but they can bring in their own amendments. They've done that. They say frequently:

"We want the best ideas, and when we get good ideas, we'll deliver on those ideas

with amendments." Well, I'm asking the government to do that exact thing right here.

Look at this clause and everything else in the bill. When you've got (

a) not-for-profit

rental housing and (

b) for-profit affordable rental housing, then there should be

a (

c) in here. Have not-for-profit ownership housing or, at least, for-profit affordable

ownership housing or a mix of that. You really have to look at that in here. There's

a lot of land that could be built for entry-level, affordable ownership housing that

we are going to be penalizing because they don't fall under these two categories.

One more. It says in here, 570.6 again, this time subclause (6): "The minister may

make regulations in relation to subsection (3) (

a) establishing, (

b) restricting,

or (

c) establishing criteria for determining what constitutes an eligible development

or a class of eligible development for the purposes of one or more categories of eligible

development described in subsection (1)."

I would prefer, and I think it's stronger, if the minister actually brings an amendment

to include what I talked about under the previous clause, subsection (1)(

a) and (b),

and adds something there. However, if the minister thinks it would be wiser to put

in regulations, then at least put it in the regulations. But bring the regulations

out as soon as possible.

We know the legislation is going to pass. The government has a majority. But bring

it out as soon as possible, because what we're hearing now, on the street, is…. A

lot of developers are throwing up their hands and saying: "There's too much change

going on. There's too much risk. We don't know what's happening with properties."

They can do (a), they can do (b), or they can do (c). Why would I build (a)? If I

just wait a few months, then maybe I could do (c), which is double the density or

twice the height or whatever, that kind of thing. Who, in their right mind, is going

to go and continue with these projects right now? We really need to get the regulations

out as fast as possible and, of course, as correct as possible to make sure that we

can get the building community back into building again.

The last clause I want to talk about, before I describe a specific project that I've

been working on — hopefully, it will help the government in delivering on all of our

goal to deliver affordable housing — is 570.91. It's more of a question than anything

else. Maybe the minister, in his response at second reading, or, at least, through

committee stage, when he talks about it….

[1:20 p.m.]

Subsection (1) says: "In this section, 'in-stream' and 'precursor application' have

the same meaning as in

section 568 (1)."

My question to the minister is: do projects have to be in-stream as far as development

goes, or can you take it all the way back and have conversations with a planning department?

Is that in-stream? If a developer is having a conversation with a planning department,

is that good enough to be grandfathered? At the point where they've submitted a rezoning

application, which happens first, is that the in-stream part? Is that good enough?

Or do they have to submit a building permit to be in-stream?

Developers are going to want to know where exactly the line in the sand is, so that

they can make sure that they're not going to be subject to the new law or that they

will be subject to the new law. Again, certainty is really important in all of this.

Here's the specific project. As I've said before in this House, I am involved in a

not-for-profit housing society. When I was in Banff, we built over 200 homes, entry-level

houses for first-time homebuyers. We sold them at 75 percent of market; that's 25

percent below market. The way you do that is quite simple. You don't charge anything

for the land, and there's no developer's profit, because we're a not-for-profit. Between

no land cost and no developer's profit, we're roughly able to bring in the product

at about 25 percent below market.

The costs are the costs. The concrete is going to cost the same; lumber is going to

cost the same. The plumbers, the electricians, all the other costs are the costs.

Usually non-profits don't get away with paying a lot less for the cost of construction

than the for-profits do. What we can do is leverage the philanthropy of some organizations,

like those churches and other organizations that have land, or even private landowners

that want to give back to the community. We can do that by agreeing to a long-term

lease.

We call this program the lease-to-own program. Instead of the rent-to-own program,

it's a lease-to-own program. The way it works is that someone will come and work with

us. They'll provide us the land. We'll tell them that they'll get their money for

the land down the road. "Down the road" is when the house turns over a second time.

The first-time homebuyer buys in, doesn't pay anything for the land, and doesn't pay

any developer's profit. They get in at roughly 25 percent below market. When they

sell their unit — five, ten or 20 years later, whatever it is — then they sell it

at full market value. They have to, because the land partner at some point wants their

money — unless, of course, they are a philanthropist and they don't want their money.

That's fine, but that's a small portion of the community.

If we want to make this really sustainable and used by many, many people and organizations,

they have to see the opportunity of recovering their costs — right? — and getting

their money out of it.

So a developer would say, "Okay, I have a 100-unit project. For 25 of these units,

I'm going to give you a long-term lease," similar to what UBC or some First Nations

would do. "I'll give you a long-term lease, a 99-year lease." They give them a long-term

lease, and the first-time buyer doesn't pay anything for the land — other than that

right now they pay property transfer tax, unfortunately. Hopefully, that gets fixed.

When they sell, the next buyer pays full market value.

The organization, in our case, for example, then gives the land partner their percentage,

whatever their percentage was at the original time. Let's say their percentage of

the total market value is 20 percent. Then they'll get 20 percent down the road. If

the value of the land has appreciated over those years, they'll get more money. If

the market has crashed, well, then they'll get less money. They take some risk.

The advantage to them is that they get to defer their capital gains. Instead of getting

all the capital gain all in year one, when they sell the property, they now smooth

it out over many years. They claim the capital gain income in the year that they get

their money. Over time, that will help them, of course, lower their marginal tax rate.

So there's a benefit to that.

That's why Bill 46 is contrary to making sure that those benefits are there to encourage

developers. We have to make sure that Bill 46 works to encourage developers to participate

in things like this, where we can get first-time buyers into homes. Then, hopefully,

over time, they build equity in themselves. By building equity in themselves, they

can then use that money to buy a market house.

[1:25 p.m.]

I would ask the government to really seriously look at using carrots instead of sticks

as they look to expand housing affordability in British Columbia.

Now, some might say: "With this lease-to-own program, are you choosing winners and

losers?" The way we'd designed it — again, in Bill 46, I'd hope they'd work the same

way — was similar to what B.C. Housing has, as far as criteria, income thresholds,

what defines a first-time buyer, and whatnot. I would say that this kind of approach

— the carrot approach, versus the stick approach — is far more beneficial to get developers

on side.

Instead of telling them they have to pay all these dollars and then pass those costs

on to first-time buyers and renters, if we can come up with a system like what I've

described to you, where it gives them an incentive to actually provide housing at

cost to first-time buyers, it'll make quite a difference. You just have to look to

municipal governments now, as far as rental goes.

Kelowna has increased the amount of rental stock tremendously over the last few years

because of the incentives they provided developers on the rental stock. They keep

providing these — up to now, of course, because all the rules are changing, and everybody

is backing off for a while, until the dust settles. A lot of rental units have been

put forward, because of the carrots available to developers to build those rental

units, but not a lot of ownership homes for first-time buyers, because the carrots

aren't there, right?

We have to make sure, if we want to get people out of the rental homes into their

own homes, that we provide some form of transition to there. As you know, it goes

from supportive housing all the way to entry-level first-time-buyer homes. That's

the continuum that we always look at.

The reports that come out from B.C. Housing don't stop at rental. They go to the first-time

buyer; they go to those who are entry-level. But what are we doing there? Bill 46

is going to hurt that, unless we change it. Bill 46 will not help get people — first-time

homebuyers, our sons and daughters —into their homes, ownership homes, unless we change

it. It'll make it harder.

I really am hoping for the goodwill of the minister to look at these ideas and incorporate

them into his own amendments if he wants — or with the Finance Minister on the property

transfer tax issue — and bring them in as early as possible. Bring in the regulations

as early as possible, so that we can get some certainty out there.

Projects like the one I'm talking to you about, and the ones that are out there waiting

for certainty, by all these developers, whether they're for-profit or non-for-profit,

will be moving forward, because we all need the housing.

In conclusion, I would just say that Bill 46 needs some tweaking, some changes, for

it to be supportable. I hope that the minister sees fit to do so.

Deputy Speaker: I understand there is a committee here, but if the member is able to adjourn debate,

we will come back to him.

N. Letnick: I move that we adjourn debate.

Motion approved.

[1:30 p.m. - 1:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed on the following division:

yeas — 53

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 23

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Paton

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development

Financing) Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 41, Forests

Statutes Amendment Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 43, enforcement

of money judgment act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[1:45 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES

(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

T. Halford: It's a great opportunity here to speak to Bill 46.

I think we've talked extensively about the dire need for housing in this province,

affordable housing. That's no different in my riding of Surrey–White Rock. I think

we've talked, I know on this side of the House, on the challenges that have arisen

with this bill in terms of added costs.

We talk about the opportunities for first-time homebuyers, and I think we also need

to ensure that we are…. The previous speaker brought up an issue that actually kind

of reminded me of a situation in my riding. It's called Harmony House, and it's developed

by Unity. It's a not-for-profit, and it speaks to some of the challenges that we've

seen in terms of project delays, whether they're at the provincial level or, in that

case, the municipal level and how that can layer on to a substantial increased cost.

The good people at Unity — this is a project that has been absolutely supported across

party lines — put forward to the city of Surrey an application a number of years ago

for a project that was built for multi-use. It was targeting adults with intellectual

disabilities, but it was encompassing all of community, right?

It was a situation where some of these adults were able to live independently with

support and to ensure that they were able to remain in the community that they grew

up in. It was voted down at the municipal level, I think, about two and half years

ago. It was successfully passed last November. But the added cost in that time was

substantial, in terms of concrete, available material, labour. It was sizable.

I want to thank my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country for bringing that to our attention,

because that is paramount to some of the things that we're talking about.

I worry with this bill. We canvassed this today in question period, and we canvassed

the issue in terms of tax increases. When it comes to housing, I think that people

do, or they're starting to, understand that when it comes to the affordability issue,

taxation plays a very, very large role in that.

When we look at…. The fact is that we talked about the amenity cost charges on some

of these in the building codes. We talk about the fact that, as it stands, Vancouver,

obviously, is the most expensive city in Canada when it comes to taxes and fees on

new homes. The figure we're looking at right now is $644,000.

I think that experts would find that this legislation could make that substantially

worse. We've talked about the fact that we have 29 new or increased taxes. This legislation

is now making it 30. We talk about the importance of making housing affordable. But

in order to do that, you have to burden the cost, whether it's the developer, the

labourer or the homebuyer.

We aren't seeing that here. We're seeing layer and layer of taxes put on. We need

to ensure that when we are looking at this legislation, and we are talking about the

challenges…. We'll look at the DCCs.

[1:50 p.m.]

When you look at the development cost charges, and you look at…. In this legislation,

any new home built next to provincial highways or interchanges could face a new tax.

I think that's something that, unfortunately, the public finds out about until it's

too late, right?

We talk about the massive amount of taxes that are blocking new houses being built.

We talk about that. You know, there's also a provision to include policing costs in

DCC, in this legislation. I think that's something that has been, obviously, canvassed

in this House, at least in my riding of Surrey–White Rock, on the challenges that

we faced on that transition.

We look at the fact that when we're talking about affordable housing — I think we've

used the line before — you need to make it affordable. Does this legislation do that?

I think we've outlined some areas in which it hasn't.

We talk about the fact that when we're looking at a new development, when we're talking

about my area of Surrey–White Rock, we have housing that's coming online. In some

of the older buildings, whether they were constructed in the '60s or '70s, they have

residents in there that have sometimes been in there for 40 or 50 years, right? That's

something that we're dealing with almost on a daily basis in White Rock, specifically,

when it comes to making sure that people have housing after there's a demoviction.

Part of the challenge is that we're seeing that rent has doubled to almost, in Vancouver,

$3,000 a month. If you're looking for a townhouse, it's up 33 percent, to $1 million.

A single-family home is now approaching $2 million. You've got to look, and we'll

canvass this extensively at committee: is this legislation making it better, or is

it making it worse?

When we're talking about increased taxation, I think people would argue that that's

probably not going to remedy the situation we currently find ourselves in. When we

talk about adding new charges, whether it's at the land level, the construction level,

the labour level or the purchase level, I think we see that that is going to be a

burden that is owned by everybody.

I think that part of the challenge is that you can't tax your way out of an affordability

crisis. You can't tax your way out of a housing crisis. We see the challenges, specifically

with the ACC costs. This bill is codifying a new taxation power on housing projects

at the local level, all in addition to expanding the development cost charges.

At some point, you know, the well is dry. I think right now we're seeing it. When

it comes to the costs, whether it's in rental or home ownership, I can say that in

Metro Vancouver the well is pretty dry in terms of affordability, in terms of people

being able to afford to at least come up with a down payment.

As the previous speaker spoke, I think that there are some significant issues in this

legislation. I know that my colleague from the Green Party will be speaking in a second,

but I do find a lot of challenges. Like I said before: taxation out of an affordability

crisis, out of a housing crisis, is not the most optimal way to go.

With that, I will take my seat, and I will look forward to the comments from my colleague.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development

Financing) Amendment Act. This is one of five pieces of legislation that are currently

in the mix here in this fall 2023 session and that have to do with changing housing

policy in this province.

[1:55 p.m.]

As I spoke to earlier this week, Bill 44, was the second directly housing-related

bill. The first one was supported by our caucus. Finally, regulations on short-term

vacation rentals — definitely a long time in coming. Bill 44 is about substantively

changing the zoning laws.

I spoke at great lengths — possibly the greatest length that I've spoken to any bill

— on that, sharing my experience first as a municipal councillor who had to deal with

the impacts of decisions that were made in this chamber on the well-being of our communities

and on the ability of local government officials to be able to support the people

that live in our communities, to be able to generate enough revenue and to be able

to maintain and upkeep infrastructure and other services that are much needed in the

community.

It's been no secret that this province has not provided local governments the financing

mechanisms that they need and the funding mechanisms that they need to be able to

capture an appropriate amount of revenue to be able to keep the infrastructure up

to date.

I remember when I first got elected in Central Saanich. I sat down with the finance

director, talking about the strategy that was required by the provincial government

at the time to start to an accounting practice of all of the bits and pieces that

make our communities work, all the things that nobody thinks about. The fire hydrants,

for an example, have a price that you have to pay in order to have a fire hydrant.

From the moment that's installed, that's the piece of infrastructure that's above

the ground that everybody can see, and there's a whole bunch of infrastructure that's

below it that people can't see. Then that infrastructure is attached to high-pressure

pipes that are maintained by a different level or type of government. They have to

maintain those. Then if you follow that back to the reservoir, there has to be a sufficient

amount of capacity in the reservoir to have the type of water that's needed in order

to be able to suppress fires in our province.

All of that needs to be able to be funded somehow. All of that needs to be able to

be paid for. All of that pressure that's in that pipe, the wear and tear that comes

from age…. It needs to be replaced at some point.

For the longest time in this province, we just kind of treated it like: "Well, we

were able to afford it when we first built the fire hydrant. We're going to be able

to afford to replace the fire hydrant in the future." It's not that just one fire

hydrant needs to be replaced; it's entire neighborhoods, usually developed around

the same time — all of that infrastructure aging at the same pace.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Take a look at a fire hydrant. I could have probably spent a little bit more time

to get the actual price of a fire hydrant but, say, a few thousand dollars to do it.

Accumulate that across a municipality like Central Saanich. It's a large number. Take

it over a much greater region, like the capital region. Then of course, just fire

hydrants alone become a very large cost — on who?

I think this is probably one of the reasons why I disagree that we view these development

costs and these development financing mechanisms as a tax. It's just the cost of servicing

the infrastructure that we're building. It has to be captured somewhere if it's not

captured in the development process. If the provincial government….

All brands, all types of all political parties, everyone, all the different brands

that have represented in here — nobody in this building wants to extend adequate amount

of resources to local governments through increasing their taxation power, shifting

some of the taxation that the provincial government collects towards local governments.

I proposed in my speech earlier this week shifting some of the revenue that's generated

through the property transfer tax to the Indigenous nations whose land was never surrendered

or ceded. I thought that might be a good way to recognize the fact that since 1875,

when that packet of documents got handed over, called the Indian land question in

this province…. Still a question. Still not answered over vast swaths of land here

in the province.

[2:00 p.m.]

Perhaps if the Minister of Finance has an issue with transferring some of that wealth

that's generated at the sale of property, the transfer from one owner to another —

there's some wealth that's captured in the process — or has a problem with transferring

that to the First Nations people, maybe they could transfer some of it to the municipal

governments, where, then, that would offset the cost. So maybe it's not a development

cost charge. It's a property transfer charge. Call it a tax. Call it whatever you

want.

The reality of it is that that infrastructure needs to be paid for somewhere. If it's

not paid for, if there are no fire hydrants — if there are zero fire hydrants, if

there are zero pipes, if there are zero fire trucks — then it will be captured in

insurance. The homeowner who's built their nice new home will be paying an astronomical

insurance rate to make up for it. Those of us that have been in local government know

this is a reality.

Another conversation that I had when I was in the district of Central Saanich was

that our fire hall was too far away from a large number of residents. They weren't

able to meet the 12-minute response time. A volunteer fire department. Great value.

Awesome crew. Consistently been an awesome crew of community volunteers in our community

for years. Central Saanich volunteer fire department, North Saanich volunteer fire

department, department, Sidney Volunteer Fire Department. All of the outer Gulf Islands.

Salt Spring Island, Pender, Mayne, Galiano, Saturna.

I think I got them all. I better make sure I've got them all. If not, I'll mention

them in my next speech. All have got great volunteer fire departments, right? If it

takes too long for those fire departments to get to that home that's on fire, then

that homeowner is going to be paying an inflated insurance rate.

The reality is that the system that we're living under…. This was the premise of the

speech that I gave earlier this week. The economic system that we're living under

is producing these results. The fact that we can come in here, and I can hear debate

after debate after debate in here, pretending like something else is possible under

the system that we've got…. Just a little tweak here, a little tweak there, and we're

going to get an entirely different result. It has my mind swirling.

I just don't understand how we can come in here, speech after speech after speech,

and think that somehow the infrastructure that it needs to support the hundreds of

thousands of people that Bill 44 is going to accommodate in this province…. Somehow

the infrastructure that's going to support those houses, those homes, is going to

magically appear.

Somehow all of that infrastructure that hasn't been replaced, that is at the end of

its life, is going to magically be suitable for more density. Somehow none of the

planning that is done by our local governments, none of the planning that considered

this change that we're debating in Bill 44, is going to somehow suddenly be able to

accommodate…. The infrastructure under the ground is going to be able to accommodate

the new density that's going to be put on top of it.

Somehow, magically, just out of nowhere, the reservoir in the Sooke Hills is going

to be able to produce the amount of water, the volume of water that's needed in order

to be able to support the people. So when the fire trucks do get there in eight minutes,

and they plug that hose into that fire hydrant, it's working, and the water starts

to pump. It doesn't just run dry at the end because of the reservoir up at the top

of the hill.

Where's that money coming from? How is that money being generated? Magic. From a lot

of what I've heard in these debates — magic. That's how it's going to be. You can't

capture it here. You can't capture it there. If you capture it over there, you call

it a tax. You make it this boogeyman. It becomes this bad thing. But everybody, when

their house is on fire, 100 percent of people in this province, wants to know that

fire department is going to be there, that when they plug it into that fire hydrant,

that hose fills with water and covers that house.

[2:05 p.m.]

Magic isn't going to get water into that hose. What's going to get water into that

hose is good planning, a solid fiscal framework that's going to be able to generate

enough revenue to be able to keep that infrastructure up to speed, an understandable

and knowable number of people and a growth pattern that's going to be sustainable

and manageable.

That's what the whole idea of regional growth strategies — regional sustainability

strategies, as it was starting to be called in the capital regional district…. Official

community plans. All of those pieces are pieces that are designed in order to ensure

that the development that is planned is going to be able to be supported by the infrastructure.

Pipes in the ground, asphalt on top of the ground, power lines above ground, or underground

in some communities — magic is not going to pay for that.

When the minister tabled Bill 44, there was this ripple through the local elected

officials in this province — a ripple. You could hear them: "How are we going to pay

for a 300, 400, 600 percent increase in some neighbourhoods? How are we going to pay

for the infrastructure in the ground?" So they come out, and they say: "This is not

right. You cannot do this to the zoning and not have a solution for the infrastructure."

The minister runs around, meets with local government people, lets them know it's

going to be all right. And in a couple of days, we get Bill 46 on the table — the

answer, 21 pages. A surprise to only everybody in B.C. except for the minister that

this bill was hot on its heels.

What was the point of that two-day gap? What was the point of destabilizing this conversation

further? Fun? Was it fun for the minister to have to answer to all the mayors going:

"How are we going to pay for the thing that you've known for decades that we can't

pay for?"

Communities on the Sunshine Coast running out of water. Communities on western Vancouver

Island running out of water. Come to Tofino; come see the Pacific Rim national park.

Come and view the beautiful, rugged west coast of B.C., but bring your own water.

For decades, we've known that these communities…. The community infrastructure has

not met the demand already that's on it. The infrastructure that we have in the ground

is aging and coming to an end.

In 2010, I was a municipal councillor. I walked through this in my discussion on Bill

44. I was introduced to the primary challenge that local governments face, and that

is a provincial government and a federal government that simply have neglected to

give them the financing tools that they need in order to be able to maintain the infrastructure

that is expected of them.

Reports came out. Well-known, experienced mayors and councillors sitting around the

table trying to come up, in 2010 and 2011, with a new fiscal framework. Hundreds of

local government officials around the table agreeing that what we need is something

different than the conditional grant framework.

The development cost charges. Municipalities already have a way to be able to generate

revenue off of the cost of development, and it was generated from a point in time

during the rezoning and subdivision process.

But when a huge amount of densification happens, with Bill 44, the provincial government

recognizes that it needs to create a different point in the process for revenue to

be able to be generated.

[2:10 p.m.]

That's why I find it so disappointing that this part of the process, despite what

I think about what the government's doing on land that there still are questions over

that they're not answering, that they're not prepared to answer…. Stand up and sit

down all the time here when it comes to reconciliation.

A few times every year we do ministerial statements about reconciliation. Good ideas

are given to the ministers to be able to address that and to be able to reconcile

the land question in this province.

I mentioned that I've seen the map before the lines were drawn on it. Who started

drawing the lines? This place started drawing the lines. Who asked? Nobody.

It's disappointing, no matter what you feel about Bill 44, when a bill comes out,

Bill 46, to try to accommodate the increased costs that are going to be associated

with densifying neighbourhoods that were never planned to have four people for every

one…. It leaves me wondering how it is that we're going to pay for those things.

Bill 46 is a part of it. It's a part of it, but it's only the future part of it. It's

going to replace some infrastructure, for sure. Absolutely. It's going to replace

the part of the infrastructure that's directly under the houses.

As I talked about, there's a whole continuum of infrastructure that is needed in order

to maintain everything up to the door. This bill doesn't fully answer that question.

It gives a mechanism. No clue as to whether or not what is going to be generated in

this bill is going to be anywhere near what municipalities have.

The former B.C. Liberal government under Gordon Campbell had no interest in providing

a new fiscal framework for local governments. He said so much at the Association of

Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities when I asked him that question back in 2009.

The Leader of the Official Opposition at the time, Carole James…. I asked her the

same question.

This granting system is broken. The provincial government making decisions about whether

or not a local government has pleaded long enough for the money that's needed in order

to fix a sewer pump….

I didn't even give the whole picture. What happens when you flush the toilet? What

happens in a neighbourhood when you flush the toilet and it doesn't go away? It just

backs up onto the floor. We've got sewer pumps. We've got undersized pipes from a

past generation underneath all of these houses.

Bill 46 is supposed to magically solve all those problems, but it won't. Everybody

that has been around this problem in this country, not just in this province but in

this country, agrees that the infrastructure deficit in this province…. The infrastructure

deficit in this country is not $100 million. It's not $200 million. It's billions

and billions of dollars. It's the result of lost time. It's the result of an assumption

that the system that we have is going to magically solve itself.

This mechanism isn't good enough. The building communities fund is about 120 years

too short, if you're going to put $1 billion a year on the table. The $51 million

announced at the last UBCM to placate local governments that were already feeling

the pressure of the infrastructure deficit in this province is a nod in the direction

of the problem. It doesn't solve the problem.

[2:15 p.m.]

Anybody who represents a community in this province that has dikes in it knows we

are in significant problems in this province, right? If the only infrastructure between

your community and the river is a dike that was built in this province, then you know.

When spring freshet happens in this province, you're just crossing your fingers. You're

just hoping.

We've got report after report after report: orphan dams, orphan dikes. Nobody wants

to take credit for them. Nobody wants to take ownership of them. Nobody wants to take

responsibility for them because of the humongous liability that they represent.

This is what we get from this government. We get: "Don't worry. We're going to get

you everything you need in order to put three, four or six times more people in those

neighbourhoods, Merritt. Those neighbourhoods that were just covered in water, Abbotsford?

Don't worry. We're going to get you everything you need to put more people in there.

We're going to give you a bill that looks like we're going to give you mechanisms

to be able to fund them." Except the big-money projects are not being touched by this.

How long did it take in this city, in Victoria, to get a sewage treatment facility?

Hmm. It took years, decades, to get a sewage treatment facility.

We've got communities in this province that have ancient technology, if you can call

it that, for sewer pipes. Stormwater and sewer. Same ditch with a cover over it, right?

We just look the other way. We just prefer to pretend like that's not going to be

a problem for us. If we're going to force these municipalities of over 5,000 people

to put three, four, six more people…. We might be able to articulate in the media

that we're solving one problem, but we are creating a host of other problems.

We've faced intense drought in this province for a few years now. Probably one of

the single biggest investments that all of our communities should be making in this

province is increasing their water supply, increasing their ability to capture water.

One of the biggest projects that the provincial government should be working on is

how it is that they can supplement drinking water, grey-water and black-water recovery

systems.

Communities that I represent on the Southern Gulf Islands have been pleading with

this government. "Please organize this. Please don't make us talk to five different

ministries to figure out whether or not this is Island Health or the Ministry of Health."

No organization on this. Rainwater capture? You can do it for your own personal houses.

Multifamily? You can't do it.

You'd think…. Okay. We're going to be having a situation where…. We're going to take

a single-family home. We're going to turn it into a fourplex or a three-plex. We've

got a drought that has been just lingering over top of our province here for the last

few years. No answer.

I'm just going to end with this. We have a situation that's happening in this House,

in this Legislative Assembly, right now where the housing affordability crisis is

being responded to with five distinct, separate acts of legislation.

[2:20 p.m.]

At one point, next week maybe or the week after next, when we come back here, we will

have, very likely, three different Houses: this chamber; the Douglas Fir Room; and

the teeny tiny House, as we call it, upstairs, where nobody can go, by the way, the

least best place to be debating legislation. No members of the public are welcome

there.

We're going to have three different Houses debating housing legislation at the same

time. We're going to have a misc statutes bill talking about the residential tenancy

branch, we're going to have a misc statutes bill talking about how it is this government

can clean up the encampments more easily, and we're going to be talking about either

Bill 44, Bill 46 or Bill 47.

The rationale we were given for that is it's easier for the public to think about

five things than it is for the public to think about the one thing. Why did this government

not put Bill 44, 45, 46 and the two misc statutes bills in the same bill and give

British Columbians a comprehensive response to a housing affordability crisis that

people need resolved? How did a government think it would be better for the public,

better for the media and better for the legislators to have this fragmented response

that is nonsensical? How did they think that was going to be better for everybody?

The only people that that benefits are the people on that side of the House, because

there is no way for us to take what's happening in Bill 44, what happened in Bill

45, what's going on in Bill 46, what's going on in Bill 47, what's going on in the

two misc statutes and amendments bills and have a debate about it, because those debates

are fragmented across this House.

It makes our job as legislators, it makes the media's job as part of the accountability

mechanism of this House, and it makes the job of British Columbians that much more

difficult. Not just that much more difficult — that much more difficult, times five.

A real approach to solving a housing affordability crisis would be to put a single

document, as large as it would be…. It would be very large.

The housing policy changes represented in these bills are substantive. You know what?

Some are laudable, some are questionable, and some are outright unsupportable. The

reality here is that this government has undertaken a process for the people of British

Columbia to understand what is happening on housing affordability — on their property

values and to them as renters — and they've made it impossible.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I look forward to the

various committee stages of all the housing bills that we've got in front of us, and

I'll take my seat.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT

Bill 43, Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions

Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development

Financing) Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 41, Forest Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the third House, Committee Room C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 42, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3).

[2:25 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES

(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

L. Doerkson: I want to pick up on a few points that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands

was referring to. I certainly have concerns, as well, with respect to a number of

the bills that have been presented this week, including Bill 46 — which, of course,

I'm here to speak about and add my comments on.

I do agree that there's no question that the taxpayers of this province fund the bills.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands was talking about fire departments and

fire apparatus — which, of course, taxpayers pay for. The problem is that so many

communities now, in many respects, are going it on their own.

What I mean by that is…. I've talked many times about the little fire department that

could at Greeny Lake. This is the problem: we have made things so unaffordable in

this province that it's becoming a real challenge. Not just bills like Bill 46 but

other bills and other bureaucracy are causing problems.

There are now, to the member's point earlier, fire departments and different groups

that would serve us as British Columbians, certainly in Cariboo-Chilcotin, and that

simply have no funding at all. They have been faced with the challenge of creating

their own source of funding, creating their own way forward. The member mentioned

that if we don't provide infrastructure for this, then it's going to be the insurance

companies that ultimately enjoy, for instance, profit or whatever to close that gap.

I can appreciate that that's exactly right.

In the case of Greeny Lake, they have had to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars,

literally, to replace fire trucks that time out because of legislation. It's frustrating.

When you look at the fire truck that they are about to replace, it's half a million

dollars to replace a fire truck that is virtually brand-new. I mean, it has been to

a number of fires, of course, but it has been mostly used in other circumstances —

parades and other things.

The only way that that community is being served by the province — or sorry, is not

being served, rather, by the province…. They used to be able to attract gaming grants

and different things that would help them, but that has gone by the wayside. This

community has had to go out on their own, through 50-50 raffles. Just imagine the challenge of trying to raise half a million dollars, an

apple pie at a time.

These are volunteers in their community that have been able to fund this fire department

through running their own campground, through a mechanism that they offer, voluntarily,

to residents: the opportunity to pay a couple of hundred dollars to be a part of this

fire service.

I agree with the member that bills like this need to serve the residents. We do have

an infrastructure out there that is extremely challenged, but I do question a number

of things. My hat is off to Greeny Lake. They have done an absolutely amazing job

of trying to fill that gap that has been created at different levels of our government

apparatus. They're doing it on their own.

With reference to the challenge around infrastructure, we often talk about — I'll

get to some of those numbers — the notion that this might be the most massive housing

tax increase that we've ever seen. I'll get to some of the costs in Vancouver, referring

to $644,000 now being an average cost around these types of items.

[2:30 p.m.]

Let's put that in perspective in rural B.C., where we are challenged daily. What I

mean by that is that a community like Tatla, for instance, in the West Chilcotin,

is struggling right now to raise $100,000 to pay for a water source in their community.

So I absolutely agree that we have many areas of our province that are really struggling

because that tax flow is not making it back.

In rural British Columbia, the challenges are many. We are not, by the way, at all

immune to what is happening with respect to the affordability crisis in our province.

It is affecting everyone. I cannot believe the price of homes throughout the rural

areas of this province, including Cariboo-Chilcotin and Williams Lake. I frankly don't

see how bills like 46 are going to help that.

Now, I can appreciate what the intention is here, but I really question the timing

around it. I question the need for it, and I worry about the loss of the local authority

and their right and their ability to be able to manage this on their own. If they

are going to offer up these new charges and new items….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask members, if they're having a private conversation, to maybe take it outside

so that the speaker is not distracted. Thank you.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

I do want to explain that so many communities are being incredibly challenged. Of

course, where I was getting to was…. The affordability crisis is definitely on everybody's

mind, and I just don't see what is coming forward in bills like 46 and other bills.

There's been a lot of conversation this week about how things have changed for the

small business person, or the senior who is trying to gain a little bit of an extra

edge on the affordability crisis by renting out a basement, and all of those challenges

that we're seeing.

It just seems to me that at every corner, we seem to be adding more pressure to what

is already a pressurized system, with this being the 30th new tax added in the last

couple of years. It's a significant one. Bill 46 is not kind when it comes to the

additional charges. I do want to speak a little bit and try to connect it, because

I think a lot of the conversation in this place is often referring to what's happening

in the cities in our province. But the bureaucracy around just land development itself

has become very frustrating in rural British Columbia as well.

I can give you a case in point in a small community in the South Cariboo. It's a beautiful

town called Lone Butte. For those people that don't know of it, they should definitely

visit and have a hamburger at the Sweet Ash Bistro. It is an amazing, amazing restaurant.

I did say "ash," by the way, Madam Speaker.

I do want to talk a little bit about a ten-lot subdivision. That was a ten-lot subdivision,

and years ago, it was converted to one lot. All the pins are there. All the documentation

is there. We have the plot plans. We have everything to make that a ten-lot subdivision.

These are not small lots. They're one-acre lots. So it really is as simple as saying,

"Look, we're ready to go," and we could have ten homes. In a housing crisis, we could

have those ten homes up.

The simple fact and the simple reality is that by the time the studies are done for

different things that they have to do, and there are a number of different things

that they will have to go through, the owner of that property has simply said: "I'm

going to sell it as one ten-acre lot." That owner was in a position to, certainly,

build the ten homes. We could've had those by the fall of this year, had we been able

to move that subdivision forward.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think that's the frustration. There is an opportunity to do so much good. But there

has been such a challenge put before not just developers…. As I said, we've got people

that are trying to deal with the affordability crisis in different ways. They're trying

their level best to perhaps rent out a suite, and we seem to continue to add challenges

in different bills that we've got before the House right now. I just think it's shocking

that we continue to do that.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a toll on new building, and I am very concerned with

the impact that Bill 46 may have or could have on developments.

The other thing…. I just tried to point that out with this little community of Lone

Butte. That subdivision has ground to a halt under the pressure of bureaucracy in

British Columbia. I can guarantee you that it's not the only one. It's certainly not

the only one in Cariboo-Chilcotin, but I'd be shocked if it was the only one throughout

the province. I think that many people are simply saying: "I'm not going to go ahead

with this. The challenges are too great. The cost is too much. Will I be able to recover

that investment?"

I know that often, when we talk in this place, we refer to big businesses. But I can

assure you that the effect that this could have is not just on large companies, large

developers. Rather, Bill 46 will also affect the small developer, and, I dare say,

they might outnumber some of those large developers and large folks.

We talked about that under Bill 44 and other bills, with respect to the senior citizen

that is just merely trying to deal with affordability in their own way. I spoke about

a woman who has rented out her basement and is trying to simply make ends meet with

that extra income. Frankly, the challenges that have been put before her are enough

to derail her. I can guarantee you that she will not be renting her basement suite

going forward because of rules and bureaucracy and the fact that she is not being

helped or supported by any level of government, frankly.

That is the same thing that I think we're going to encounter with the host of bills

that we've seen this week and, particularly, Bill 46.

I think that instead of increasing taxes, certainly, there should be a bit of an obligation

on the part of the government to consider some support. I mean, I talk about Tatla.

We've been trying to get this well, which is a mere $100,000. We're talking about

increased cost to communities that will obviously be passed along to developers and

taxpayers, etc. But we're talking about a mere $100,000, and we're having challenges

getting that funded, right?

I think it is very important to understand that the challenges before our communities

are great. I just don't see us getting through this on our own. I think that we need

to find ways to encourage development in our province. We are at an all-time unbelievable

cost for housing in the province. As I stated before, it's simply not just the cities.

You're talking four or five, a half-million dollars now for a home in the Cariboo

as well. Those are definitely challenges I don't know that we would have predicted

a few years ago, but the challenge is very, very large before us now.

I do just want to add a couple more comments on Bill 46. Of course, it goes without

saying — and we've talked about that all afternoon — that housing affordability is

on everybody's minds. I can suggest that it's on the minds of a university student

that's certainly trying to find homes.

[2:40 p.m.]

I do have friends and also family who live in the Lower Mainland. The struggle that

they're seeing with the cost of a condominium now as much as a $1 million, with a

small one-bedroom apartment in the area of as much as $3,000…. I've actually heard

of one friend who was renting for almost $3,700.

Of course, they have looked at different ways to subsidize that rent by renting out

a room — different challenges that they're trying to get past. But it's certainly

on everybody's mind. There's no question about that.

I guess, going back to Bill 46 and the timing of it, we are without question at the

most unaffordable time, certainly in my lifetime. I've never seen anything like it.

My first house that I purchased was $52,000. Now, I can appreciate that things have

changed in our province. When I purchased that house, my mortgage was at 14 ¾ percent, and it was doable because the house was $52,000. But even now, at 6 and 7

percent, people are struggling because those homes, even in rural B.C., are half a

million dollars, and I'm frightened to think of the cost in some of the cities.

I just think that with the challenges we've seen around rentals and Airbnbs and everything

else that we're seeing happen this week, those challenges are going to get worse under

some of this legislation.

I do know that with respect to 46, I've already heard from a number of people that

have very significant concerns about how this is going to affect their communities

and their towns.

I do just want to talk a little bit about that, because there's been a lot of confusion

around where these things are going to happen, where these items will happen, how

they'll happen. I think the member before me spoke about the notion that this was

zoned for multi-family, or there was a mass development sort of contemplated for that.

And now the government of the province has introduced a notion that you might only

build four on that property, so that changes the whole equation.

But those zoning regulations and those options have been presented by local governments,

and now there's a certain amount of overreach that's happening from this place to

those governments, as though we've got the solution here. I'm telling you right now

that the local governments that I've had conversation with certainly don't feel that

that's the case. They're very frustrated with this.

I think it's a little out of touch, frankly, with what's happening out there. I can

appreciate that the challenges might be somewhat different between the city and rural

B.C. But as I said, even in Williams Lake, there's an attempt to try to densify that

population, believe it or not. There is an attempt on the ground there.

But the problem, of course, is funding coming back to those communities to be in a

position to be able to properly serve those developments. We have had a few that have

gone forward, but there have definitely been challenges under the ground where that

infrastructure lies.

I think there is definitely a need for British Columbia, if they're going to see their

way through to this with plans like Bill 46, for that to be taken into consideration.

I do want to just chat a little bit about…. As far as the affordability crisis is

concerned, there is no question…. We have had, up until this legislation, 29 new taxes

in this province; this is number 30. Frankly, I'm surprised that we're paying tax

on things like Netflix and fizzy drinks and even one of my personal favourites — I

call it the black book tax — and that's, of course, the tax that you may not have

even paid on a vehicle, but you're going to be charged for it anyhow on the value

of the vehicle.

[2:45 p.m.]

I just think that the timing of this, when we are seeing rents doubled in Vancouver

to $3,000, when we're seeing a 33 percent increase to $1 million…. Single-family homes

are now approaching $2 million, and we want to add to that burden by doing things

like Bill 46.

I'm very concerned that this is going to have a horrendous effect on our housing market.

I guess I'll just close by suggesting that we really need to reconsider what we're

doing on the housing market.

I want to go back to that subdivision for just a moment. I just outlined to you about

Lone Butte. That gentleman had a plan to build ten houses. I cannot stress this enough.

It's not just the city that is struggling under this housing crisis. That gentleman

had a plan to build ten houses. He had the wherewithal to build those ten houses.

He had the ability to build those ten houses but absolutely chose not to.

He chose not to, not because he didn't want to, not because he wasn't interested in

making some money. I mean, that's not a crime in this province, or it shouldn't be.

He chose not to build those homes because of bureaucracy, because of the challenges

that he saw going forward with respect to that.

I have, myself, been a landlord, and I have, myself, been a tenant. I can appreciate

that either may have its benefit. But at the end of the day, we are all paying so

much for housing. I don't think that bills like 46 or 44 or any of the bills this

week are going to affect that in a good way. I am very concerned about that because

at the end of the day, it's not just a housing crisis.

As the member for Saanich North and the Islands mentioned, we have a crisis when it

comes to our infrastructure in many communities too. Tatla is absolutely living proof

of that that. They are trying to raise money there to replace a water source. I can't

imagine a more important part of your infrastructure than that. But I just do not

see how these development costs…. How is this going to solve the issues of affordability?

I certainly don't see how it's going to solve the issues around us with respect to

our infrastructure.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 46, and I thank you

very much for the time today, Madam Chair.

R. Merrifield: I have a friend who is an economist. In one of our lunch meetings, he looked at me

and said: "Renee, it's a fundamental tenet of any economy that whatever you tax costs

more." Lately our leader has been almost echoing somewhat of a similar sentiment by

saying: "If you want to make housing more affordable, you have to lower costs."

I'm standing up on this bill because we have a housing issue. Yes, I am so privileged

to represent the constituents in my Kelowna-Mission riding. But today I'm standing

up for all British Columbians provincewide because we have a housing affordability

crisis.

It's our duty in this assembly to combat rising costs and strive for a province where

choice between essentials and a home is not a dilemma faced by our constituents. Regrettably,

the track record of this NDP government over the past seven years demonstrates a consistent

shortfall in delivering affordable housing solutions.

[2:50 p.m.]

In fact, I would actually go so far as to say that the housing crisis that we find

ourselves currently in is solely the responsibility of this NDP government. Why do

I say this? Well, we currently have the highest housing prices in North America, the

highest rents in Canada. And why? Well, because of legislation just like this, because

this government, in the first five years of their majority, chose to layer costs and

taxes onto new developments, onto current resales, trying to quell demand.

Quell demand. That was their response to seeing escalating housing costs. It failed.

And because the NDP failed at supplying the necessary subsidized housing builds, they

instead started buying up anything that was affordable and ghettoizing them. I would

challenge anyone in this House to go and walk through the SROs that were purchased

on the Downtown Eastside and ask yourself if you would live in this space.

I had the privilege of meeting with a group of medical students who had committed

their summer to serving the communities inside of the SROs on the east side of Vancouver.

With tears in their eyes, they talked about the squalor that people were living in.

They called it inhumane.

This is an utter failure, and instead of providing safe subsidized housing, this NDP

government has created warehouses for people to barely subsist. And when this NDP

government finally decided to actually wake up and focus on supply, now they've thrown

a grenade into the middle of planning processes, throwing city staff, councils and

mayors into utter chaos.

This legislation, Bill 46, before us today, rather than rectifying these shortcomings,

threatens to exacerbate the situation. I recall meeting with the former Minister of

Housing, who is now the minister of higher education, begging her to consider DCCs.

Begging her to say…. And as a layperson in the business sector, to say and plead —

to say that it will absolutely, unequivocally increase costs on housing.

And the introduction of amenity cost charges, the ACCs under this bill, represents

an unprecedented escalation in housing taxation within our province. As a member of

the official opposition, it is our responsibility to scrutinize and challenge these

government actions, particularly on matters as crucial as providing homes. Homes for

British Columbians.

This legislation appears completely disconnected from the realities of our citizens'

needs. The ACCs, along with the broadening of development cost charges, or DCCs, signal

an increase in the financial burden on housing, a burden inevitably shouldered by

first-time homebuyers and renters through heightened market prices.

Vancouver already holds the dubious title of the most expensive city for new home

taxes and fees in Canada, with each home bearing an average cost of $644,000 of fees

and taxes. Ask yourself…. Do the math. How much does someone have to earn to qualify

for a mortgage on those fees and taxes? Not on the 2-by-4s and roofing, just on the

fees and taxes. It's $172,319.

[2:55 p.m.]

That's $172,000 to afford the taxes and fees. And this government's answer to that

is to increase taxes and fees. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

This bill threatens to aggravate an already dire situation, making it the 30th tax

increment by this current NDP government. Despite all the taxes, $20 billion more

every single year that this government is extracting from British Columbians, despite,

for five years, promising to build 114,000…. Now, this new…. It's going to be 140,000.

Neither of these numbers do I even believe remotely. Why? Because we have the highest

rents and the most unaffordable housing market in North America.

Compare ourselves. Look to our neighbours, any of our neighbours. What are they doing

differently? What have they achieved that we haven't? Does a 2-by-4 cost more in Saskatchewan

or Manitoba? Does it cost less in Manitoba or Saskatchewan? News flash: it doesn't.

What does cost more are the taxes and fees in British Columbia. Our caucus has made

appeals to the Premier to intervene against Metro Vancouver's proposed tripling of

DCCs, which would add significant costs to housing. Why? Because this is on top of

the municipalities' DCCs.

Such governmental actions reveal a perplexing strategy. How can increasing the cost

burden on housing translate to affordability for our citizens? News flash: if you

want to make something more affordable, you have to lower the costs. True affordability

requires cost reductions, not enhancements, and this bill piles on expenses that deter

the construction of new homes.

Rather than levying more taxes, our province should be initiating infrastructure and

investments and catalyzing new home development. Is it possible? Absolutely.

Look at what Seattle did in 2018. In one year, with some very revolutionary innovation,

they went from 2,000 housing starts to 18,000 housing starts — all because of very

simple processes that expedited new development and that lowered the cost of new development.

Seattle recognized a desperate need for housing. Do you know who doesn't have the

highest costs of housing in North America? The United States. Do you know whose housing

costs are lower than British Columbia's? Washington state.

This bill is actually reintroducing tolls, not on our vehicles but on our homes. It's

a severe misstep, because additional taxation on homes that are near provincial highways

and adding potential policing cost inclusions in DCCs is a clandestine strategy, perhaps.

Perhaps they're trying to finance other initiatives at the expense of new homeowners.

It would seem that the inclusion of policing costs within DCCs introduces a concerning

and covert financial manoeuvre. This backdoor provision raises serious questions about

the government's transparency and its methods of funding public services. It seems

to hint at a clandestine plan to finance the Surrey police transition by imposing

a levy on every new home constructed.

[3:00 p.m.]

Mark my words. These measures, contained within this bill, will not only further inflate

housing prices but also represent an alarming shift in policy-making — a shift that

sees essential public services being funded through indirect taxation on housing,

rather than through property taxes. This is not only unconventional but also deeply

unfair to potential homeowners, who are already grappling with soaring prices. I hope

we ask the question: where else is this being done?

The cost of policing is exorbitant in our province because of the Premier's lax catch-and-release

policy. It is now the largest line item on most municipalities' budgets. In fact,

it represents 45 to 55 percent on any municipality's budget. Putting this cost burden

onto housing will absolutely increase the cost of housing, not lower it.

If the safety and security of our communities are a priority, which I would argue

they are, then the funding for such fundamental services should not be bundled into

the cost of someone's home. This is a cost that hits at the very heart of affordability

first-time buyers and average residents simply cannot afford.

But wait, shouldn't development pay its own way? Shouldn't the new residents of a

community pay for the increased costs? Absolutely. But this is a far cry from paying

their own way. This will obliterate the costs of housing because it's not just going

to affect the cost of new housing but all housing.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

But wait, you might say. Isn't a DCC on new housing only? Yes, but when a jurisdiction

increases costs on new housing, all housing receives an indirect equity bump.

A project has four phases. Two of those phases are subject to one DCC. By the time

the next two phases come in, there's a new increased cost. Let's call it $10,000 for

those new ones. Those new ones pay for it. The old ones don't. The new ones are at

a higher cost than the old ones because that is a flow-through line to the consumer.

What happens to the first two phases' appraisals? What happens to what they're able

to resell for? It goes up. There is an absolute, indirect equity bump and escalation

of resale pricing when new fees and DCCs are introduced.

It's something that we simply have not understood here in B.C. We complain about the

high cost of housing. We complain about all of the housing needs that we have, yet

we haven't figured out that the more costs we put onto new housing, the higher that

everyone can resell for. It's no wonder that our youth, our young professionals, our

young homebuyers, first-timers, can't get into housing. We have simply — I'll even

say indirectly — as an unintended consequence, made housing so expensive.

Our province deserves better. We deserve lawmakers who actually understand the housing

market and instead of playing checkers, actually start to play chess. Ones who don't

understand how increasing the costs of development and of housing will increase the

costs of that house — to every homebuyer, to every purpose-built rental building,

to every renter — simply should not be.

[3:05 p.m.]

It's an attempt to obscure the costs of our communities, what they actually cost,

what policing costs, what affordable housing costs. If this government could have

actually done a better job with the imploding B.C. Housing or with actually getting

into power and starting to deal with supply, then we wouldn't have these measures

necessary.

British Columbians should not have to subsidize essential services through hidden

charges in their quest to own a home or their desire to rent an apartment close to

their university or close to their work. This backdoor approach to public funding

is neither sustainable nor justifiable, and it must be addressed with utmost urgency

and transparency, because British Columbians are in desperate need of relief from

the staggering costs imposed by this current government taking $20 billion in taxes,

taking $644,000 in DCCs and ACCs.

Taking money, however it is taken, is only taken from one place, and that is from

the bank account of a British Columbian. That is the only source. There is one taxpayer.

There is one fee payer. There is one ratepayer. There is one consumer. They are all

one and the same.

Adding another financial barrier to home construction is not only counterintuitive,

but if this government is truly serious about providing housing to those that desperately

need it in our province, then this bill is also counterproductive to that shared objective

of increasing housing availability and attainability.

I'm so refreshed to be in the B.C. United caucus, where we have candid conversations,

deliberate conversations, invigorating conversations and exciting conversations of

how we are going to lower the price of housing. How, when we are in government, we

will actually make it work for British Columbians — that they will be able to see

their dreams realized.

It's hard to sit on this side of the House and see moves like this latest one, which

is just consistent with the pattern that we've observed from the NDP. Lofty rhetoric.

Big, big ideas followed by substantial tax hikes, escalating costs of living and negligible

alleviation. A pittance for the people of British Columbia.

The track record is clear, and there is scant reason to believe that these added costs

will yield the promised outcomes for our province. This bill is like taking a band-aid

and trying to address the 1,000 cuts on a bleeding housing industry. If you want to

make something more affordable, you have to make it less expensive.

G. Kyllo: It does give me a great amount of pride to rise in the House today and speak to Bill

46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023. It is definitely

worthy to note that I believe this is the fifth housing bill that we have actually

seen just in this legislative session.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is, I believe, a very strong admission that this government has yet to get their

housing plan right. In 2017, I recall a very lofty goal and some big promises by the

members opposite, by the NDP, about improving housing affordability for British Columbians.

Big, lofty goal: building 114,000 homes over ten years. Building — that was the commitment

that this government made to British Columbians in their profestations to B.C. residents

to earn their trust.

Of course, it's worthy to note that the NDP did not win the election in 2017. They

won 41 of 87 seats. The then B.C. Liberal Party won 43 seats, two seats more than

the current government. However, through a confidence and supply agreement and some

dealings, the NDP were able to convince the Green Party to support them and allow

them to form government.

I like to explain it as: it's like the silver and bronze medallists teaming up to

throw the gold medallists off the podium. But that is exactly what happened. I do

believe that the Green Party have many reservations that their choice to side with

the NDP back in 2017 did not achieve the results that they were looking for.

Back specifically to this bill and the promises that this government made to British

Columbians as part of that election platform: "Trust us. We've got a plan to provide

and reduce housing costs in British Columbia." What an utter failure that has been.

Legislation after legislation after legislation, and here we are, 6½ years into the

NDP's term in office. Just in this session alone, five different pieces of legislation

tinkering with various aspects of housing policy, which is a clear admission that

they have yet to get it right. They have failed miserably.

Of that big, lofty goal of 114,000 homes, delivering just barely over 16,000 homes.

Just think about that. "We're going to build 114,000 homes in ten years." And 6½ years

in, only 16,000 actually completed. Utter failure by this government.

As we've seen, housing costs in British Columbia continue to soar. Not just the highest

housing prices in Canada — no, that's not good enough. They had to strive to get housing

up to the highest in North America. It's utterly unbelievable that a government could

fail this miserably on their housing plan.

We only have to look at the increased homeless populations that are springing up all

around the province. Some communities' homeless populations…. I believe Merritt grew

by like 400 percent. If this government actually had a plan and was actually achieving

their goal of reducing housing affordability, increasing housing supply, we wouldn't

see these record numbers of individuals in our communities.

As my colleague who spoke before me indicated, this idea of SRO, single-room occupancy

— buying old hotels and motels and putting in individuals that have very complex needs,

with drug addiction, mental health disorders, warehousing them in these small complexes

— is absolutely the wrong thing for this government to have been undertaking. It hasn't,

certainly, helped with reducing the homeless populations. But it has drastically reduced

the opportunity for those individuals to actually get on a path to get themselves

off of drugs, and it's destroyed public safety in many of our communities around the

province.

I think that kind of sets the context on why we're here and why this government is

continuing to flounder with little pieces of legislation that seem to get drabbled

in here and there. One bill creates unintended consequences, so they've got to come

and bring in another piece of legislation to try and fix the mess caused by the other

piece of legislation. There is no well-thought-out plan.

[3:15 p.m.]

It is not like this government, who sat in opposition benches for 16 years and had

lots of advice to members about how they were going to solve all of British Columbia's

problems…. Sixteen years to plan, and when they went to execute, absolute failure.

Just have to look at the number of different pieces of legislation they brought forward

to try and monkey and manoeuvre and manipulate the numbers they've been presenting

to British Columbians.

Because their goal of building 114,000 homes is such an absolute failure, they had

to try and find other ways of counting towards trying to achieve that goal. Let's

put in a speculation tax, hoping that that might actually free up some rental units.

I'm sure it probably did in some parts of the province. Well, let's count those numbers

towards our lofty goal. Those aren't homes that were built under this government.

That was manipulation of the way they're going to start counting.

We've seen a new piece of legislation recently passed in this Legislature on Airbnb.

I'm quite certain that it will only be a matter of weeks before all those 575 communications

staff that work in government communications and provincial engagement, in the Premier's

office, will be busy working and manipulating the numbers to try and come up with

some kind of an estimation on how many homes that might actually free up and put back

in the rental market. And guess what. They'll count that towards their lofty goal.

I shared in my remarks yesterday of a project in Salmon Arm, a housing development

that was underway — fully zoned, fully permitted, building permits in place — and

under construction. It was supposed to be for market housing, for the general public

to purchase. But government decided to dangle a little carrot in front of the developer,

find a way that they could take advantage of some funding mechanisms so that government

could then call all of those housing units part of the construction that they had

undertaken.

Well, this government had nothing to do with the construction of that housing. It

was already underway. Because they provided some funding, certainly, it might have

reduced the cost on some of those houses, for sure, that may have gone out to the

general public. But the government counted those towards their housing count.

The most recent numbers we're now hearing government touting about…. They've moved

away from their big, lofty promise of 114,000 homes because they failed so miserably

on that. "Well, let's come up with a new target." So now the new target is 130,000

homes over the next ten years. There's no more conversation, even, about the old target.

"Well, let's throw that away. We failed so miserably. Hopefully we can move on. Let's

ignore that conversation."

Now it's 130,000. "Trust us. Just trust us. We failed this province miserably, but

hey, we got a new goal." Those 130,000 homes that government is indicating that they're

now going to be responsible for in the next ten years fall miserably short of the

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has indicated that for B.C. to be

on track to even meet the needs and demand, there's a requirement for 600,000 homes

— 600,000 — by the year 2030. CMHC says B.C. needs to build 600,000 homes in seven

years, and the NDP's big goal is 130,000 in ten.

We know that in 6½ years, they could hardly get 16,000 units completed. If that is

not a failure, I do not know what is. How British Columbians could in any way, shape

or form have any confidence that what this government is saying might actually come

to fruition is beyond me.

Now, Bill 46, with respect to development financing, is not going to make homes less

expensive. There are lots of conversations about improving affordability, but I think,

as many of my colleagues have spoken about, that to make homes more affordable, we

need to find ways to make them less expensive.

There are many tools the government has at their disposal to help reduce the cost

of housing. Lumber and plywood — we saw some huge spikes during COVID. A sheet of

plywood went from, like, 34 bucks a sheet for ¾-inch tongue-and-groove to a lofty

$108 in a short amount of time.

It's interesting. Their former Premier, Premier John Horgan…. I remember him making

a comment, when he was leader of the then NDP party, saying that no mills would ever

close under his watch, when it came to a mill that was closing down in Merritt.

[3:20 p.m.]

The NDP, in opposition, made the bold claim that mills in B.C. would never be shut

down under their watch. Well, what have we seen? What efforts has this government

undertaken to try and help resolve the softwood lumber tariff?

Deputy Speaker: Can the Member help the Chair find the connection to the bill? We're widely ranging

off course. If we can bring it back on course, I'd appreciate it.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, I appreciate that.

This is really about affordability. There are certain specific efforts undertaken

with this piece of legislation which will not improve housing affordability but will

add additional costs on. I think it is important to note that there are things that

government could be doing or could have done in past years to help reduce the cost

of construction materials.

How about actually making an effort in trying to resolve the softwood lumber tariff

dispute? Once resolved, I would guarantee — I bet most economists would agree — that

once that tariff is off, we would see a significant reduction in the cost of lumber

and plywood here in British Columbia. Absolute failure. We don't even hear about that

anymore. Boy, their former Premier, John Horgan, was going to be down to Washington,

D.C., and he was going to solve the softwood lumber problem. Well, 6½ years in, we

don't even hear them talking about that anymore.

As we look to development cost charges…. I had a short stint on council in the district

of Sicamous for about a year and a half before I was fortunate enough to win the respect

and support of members in Shuswap and become their representative here in Victoria.

DCCs are one of the few ways that municipalities have to try and get cost recovery

on much of the infrastructure that's needed to grow their community and to upgrade

different services.

For a municipal government, clearly, one of their only sources of revenue is property

tax. That's really their only source of revenue. They don't have, really, any other

taxing authorities of any great significance. Any changes with respect to this legislation,

which might increase the opportunity, through either development cost charges or community

amenity charges, I'm sure, will be welcome news to local governments.

The piece that's really important to note is: how is this going to make housing less

expensive? Any increase in DCCs will only prove to increase the cost of housing. Any

increase in amenity cost charges will increase the cost of construction. All of those

costs will be bundled up and presented to the consumer in the form of an increased

price.

This piece of legislation, part of the government's lofty housing plan, although an

important piece, will not do anything to reduce the cost of housing. This piece of

legislation will only increase the cost of housing in communities throughout British

Columbia.

Vancouver is already the most expensive city in Canada for both taxes and fees on

new homes: estimated costs of $644,000 to build a single-family home — just think

about that — just for taxes and fees. Most people can't even afford a mortgage on

a $644,000 home, and $644,000 wouldn't even cover all the taxes, fees and levies associated

with a home in downtown Vancouver.

If that isn't outrageous enough, the current government, the NDP government decided,

"Hey, what a wonderful idea. Let's allow Vancouver to triple those fees," adding another

$25,000 on the cost of a single-family home in Vancouver. I'm sure the bureaucrats

in Vancouver are quite happy with that. Anybody that's looking to find an opportunity

for buying a home must be thinking: "That's another $25,000 that I can't afford."

[3:25 p.m.]

This is now the 30th new or increased tax introduced by the current government. It

is part of a blizzard of new taxes that have utterly failed to make housing more affordable.

For any young families out there that have yet to enter the housing market, they've

given up hope.

We heard that the average cost of a townhome in the Lower Mainland is $950,000. I've

got some stats just to share with those that might be listening. A $950,000 home will

require a $190,000 down payment, unless folks seek to pay additional costs of insurance

through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which would provide the opportunity for

a reduced down payment. But most lenders would require a $190,000 down payment.

Now, I don't know how many young families that have just, maybe, entered the workforce

still have student loans and other things that they're trying to pay off — maybe a

young family, a new kid on the way. How are you going to save $190,000? I don't think

there are many members here, without outside income, who would be able to save $190,000

in ten years. Somehow that is what the new normal is under the NDP: to obtain new

housing for a new couple, trying to find $190,000. It is absolutely unattainable for

the majority of young families in British Columbia.

To make matters worse, not only do you need to come up with $190,000 for your down

payment portion, but in order to be eligible for that mortgage, you'd have to have

a family income of $205,000 a year. It's an absolute impossibility for a single-income

family where, maybe, mom has chosen to stay home and look after their children — which,

I would say, is probably the most important job you could ever have on the planet.

What could you ever do that could be more important than raising your family, spending

time with your children, making sure that they're going to be good people, good members

of society?

Housing costs have absolutely soared under this NDP government. They've basically

told young families: "If you ever had the dream and desire of staying home and having

a single-income family, forget it. Impossible." The number of individuals that make

over $205,000 a year in B.C.? I don't know the stat, but I'd be guessing that it's

a very small number of those that are actually working in B.C.

Not only is it nearly impossible to even think of being approved for a mortgage for

a townhouse in British Columbia; the only way you could even have any hope of attaining

that is if mom and dad both decide — or mom and mom, or dad and dad: "You know what?

We've both got to work, and we're going to have to rely on somebody else to raise

our kids, because there's no hope, no ability for us to even think of home ownership

in this province as a single-income family."

This bill specifically brings back tolls to pay for highways. Now, I was really surprised

when I saw this in this piece of legislation. Again, I'm quite sure that municipal

bureaucrats and municipal leaders will think that this is a good initiative. If they

want to have a look at the opportunity for how they're going to fund, maybe, a new

connection to a major route or highway, they'll have the ability of raising some funds

in order to help cover that.

It used to be that when the province made significant improvements in communities….

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, although their primary objective

is just for the safe movement of goods and people through our province, also have

an obligation to help improve connectivity to communities.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have seen project after project scaled back, accesses to major routes reduced and

diminished. Because of this government's failure to be able to deliver good, solid,

well-thought-out highway construction projects that include improvements to connections

to the community….

We see government saying: "Well, let's not do that anymore. Let's find a way…. I know

communities are going to be upset if they can't get that extra on-ramp or off-ramp

into a community. Let's give them a funding mechanism so they can go and put more

tax burden on the backs of other developments in their community." Then government

is off the hook.

I'll give an example. The Highway 1 construction project through Chase was initially

designed and laid out with four different accesses into the community. Chase is on

Highway 1. It's in my colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson's riding.

Well, this government decided: "When we contract out these projects, you can't just

belong to any trade union." I certainly thought that in this province, there was the

opportunity for workers, under a charter, to choose the right to associate. Many workers

have chosen to associate with a specific union for one reason or another. There are

many progressive unions.

We saw in this House, just a few short days ago, members of the Christian Labour Association

of Canada, representing 60,000 workers across B.C. They currently have 5,500 workers

working on Trans Mountain, 1,200 workers on Site C and another 800 workers just finishing

up on Coastal GasLink. This is an organization that represents a ton of workers. Those

workers were respected and provided with the choice to choose which union to represent

them.

What we have seen with the current government is that those unions are not good enough.

If you want to work on any horizontal construction projects — Pattullo Bridge, Highway

1 expansion project — your union is not good enough. You've got to quit them. You

have to turn around and join — guess what — one of the 19 handpicked friendly unions

of the NDP.

Deputy Speaker: If the member could focus his discussion on this bill.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, hon. Chair. I appreciate your advice.

This is where it comes down. A specific reference in this bill is to provide the ability

and the opportunity for municipalities to now include — it's right here — accesses

onto highway interchanges to provincial highways.

An opportunity. This bill provides the opportunity for the communities now to raise

taxes, in the form of increasing housing prices, in order to offset and cover the

costs of initiatives that used to be undertaken by the province, with support, in

many instances, from the federal government.

Back to the Chase to Hoffman's Bluff highway expansion project. This government chose

to restrict the opportunity for workers, limiting it to only 15 percent of the available

construction workers in this province, forcing workers, in a discriminatory manner,

to disregard their union of choice and have to join one of the 19 NDP-friendly unions

under the building trades. It drove up costs. Costs went through the roof. What do

we see in Chase to Hoffman's Bluff? They had to reduce the number of off-ramps.

I guess this is, maybe, how this government decides, when they cannot fulfil their

obligations to community members…. Well, rather than do what's right and actually

provide those necessary interchanges to improve connectivity between communities and

to our major routes….

"No, we'll just cut that out of the project. We know we've got to pay a whole bunch

of premiums through these community ripoff agreements to our friends. Then let's be

good guys, and let's open up a new way for municipalities to increase taxes, to add

costs to the price of housing." That's their solution.

[3:35 p.m.]

A similar issue happened in my community of Salmon Arm, the Salmon Arm highway construction

project. This, actually, was a great project. It included not only a new bridge over

the Salmon River. It was a 6.1 kilometre four-laning project. It improved accesses

at both ends of the city. New service roads. Infrastructure upgrades.

It was designed and laid out as an amazing project. But three years behind schedule,

under this government, and $20 million over budget. And guess what. They only delivered

half the project — $20 million more for half the project — and the interchanges that

were promised at the western entrance to Salmon Arm still haven't been built.

Maybe this is the solution to government's failure on highway infrastructure, with

their costly community ripoff agreements. This may be saying to municipalities: "Hey,

look. We might be doing some blacktop on Highway 1. If you want to have any reasonable

connections to your community, you're going to have to figure it out and pay for it

on your own. We'll provide the tax tool to allow you to do that so you can continue

to jack up housing prices, making houses yet less affordable in our communities."

This is missing the mark in a big, big way. There are many different aspects of the

housing file that are under government's direct control. There are many tools that

government has that could be employed to reduce the cost of housing. Adjustments to

taxation, which may be on building materials and supplies or labour. How about the

opportunity for just having good governance and ensuring that the different measures

that are under this government's control are done in a timely fashion?

I shared yesterday that there were three different builders and homeowners in Salmon

Arm that got hold of me. They were really concerned. These three particular homes

were going to be built within close proximity to a couple of creeks and one river.

They are required, by statute, to actually create a riparian area assessment, which

was undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, with a stamp on it.

It used to be the case that a QEP report was completed and submitted to the local

building department. As long as the QEP report was there and it was stamped, it meant

that QEP had liability should there be anything in that report that caused any environmental

damage or concern. But the building departments could move forward.

This government decided that's not good enough. "We have to create a whole new department

to review all these QEP reports."

You know what's interesting, hon. Chair? I did have a conversation with the Environment

Minister earlier this year. Guess who is reviewing those qualified environmental professionals'

reports. Well, they're not even QEPs.

Imagine having an engineering report completed by an engineer, stamped, sealed, their

B-1s, their B-2s, and then submitting it to the local planning department and having

somebody that doesn't even have the qualifications of an engineer review it and second-guess

the contents of that report. That's exactly what's happening under this government's

watch.

When it comes to the timely issuance of permits…. These folks were losing their minds.

The QEPs…. They started to look at…. They presented all their information to the local

building department. The building department says: "Yeah, we're all ready to go. We're

ready to issue a building permit. We just need to hear back from government."

You know what they got when they submitted and loaded up their riparian area reports

on the government's website? They got an automatic response. "We've been overwhelmed

with applications. It's an eight-month backlog. We'll get back to you in eight months."

Not even that we'll have an answer for you in eight months. The email that went out

said that they were going to take eight months just to review those riparian area

assessments.

It's no wonder we are seeing increased costs, increased delays and red tape. We know

that the longer a project might sit before getting approval…. The interest clock just

keeps ticking. Drag that project out. Prices are going up. The developer is not going

to suddenly reduce any potential margin on that project just because it takes longer.

All those costs just get passed right on to the backs of the consumer.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. This is really an admission of

the NDP's failure on housing in this province.

[3:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: As I rise to speak to Bill 47, I have a quote here. "No tax policy is going to put

a roof over someone's head." Let me repeat that. "No tax policy is going to put a

roof over someone's head." That was the Premier declaring this on January 13, 2022.

Yet here we stand today, talking about Bill 46.

I apologize. When I stood up, I said: "I stand to speak to Bill 47." That's the next

housing bill. I got confused because we just finished the misc stats bill, with 79

clauses on housing, in the little chamber. That was going on at the same time as this

debate. I think there was a Bill 42 or Bill 44. It's actually getting confusing how

many bills we have in the last couple of weeks of this session that are suddenly dealing

with housing.

Why that's important is because in the quote the Premier came up with on January 13,

2022, he promised action by this time last year on a lot of these same issues. He

actually said they would be coming forward in October of 2022. So this government's

response to the housing crisis has continually been to delay and distract and point

fingers and not actually take action and miss their own deadlines.

It's important because if you look at the timelines of Bill 46, and if you look at

the timelines of implementation of the other bills that have been brought forward,

they all magically won't actually really be starting to take effect until after the

next provincial election in October of next year. Wasn't that convenient timing for

the Premier? Isn't that convenient timing for the Premier that the fundamental pieces

of Bill 46 and other housing bills won't actually take effect until after the election

next year?

If he had actually stuck to the timeline he committed to in January of 2022, and we'd

been dealing with these bills last year, people would be seeing, right now, what the

true cost impacts of a bill like Bill 46 will actually do to housing. They would have

had a year's time to judge this government on their horrific track record on housing

and just how flawed these multiple pieces of legislation are.

Again, for political expediency, it was more important to put everything on hold for

literally a year in the middle of a housing crisis in British Columbia than to bring

forward these initiatives a year ago, as promised by this Premier. He was actually

the Housing Minister at the time, when he said that, but it got put on hold so that

he could run in the farce of the leadership race at the expense of everyone else in

British Columbia.

That's the British Columbia that this Premier is presiding over and how he chooses

to conduct business, the people's business, at any cost, to any homeowner, at any

time, as long as it suits his political narrative and his political need.

Of course, the mayors are more receptive to Bill 46 than they were to Bill 44. Bill

46 gives them a glimmer of hope that they can actually close the infrastructure gap

that they see growing in their cities because this government has not properly partnered

with municipalities for the last seven years on infrastructure programs. They came

up with $1 billion at the end of the year — $1 billion for the whole province. They

talk about the $1 billion because that's a very large number.

[3:45 p.m.]

But when you talk about $15 million to the city of Kamloops, it doesn't go very far

when you're talking about pipes and pavement and recreation centres and fire halls

and police stations. It doesn't pay for much. City council is looking at a new police

station. It's costing somewhere to be $80 or $90 million and it might only have a

ten- or 11-year lifespan before it's full again.

Back when there actually was infrastructure money from senior levels of government,

we were able to get $23 million for a water treatment plant. We were able to get $15

million for our sewage treatment plant a few years later. Those types of programs

haven't existed under this government. No wonder the mayors around this province were

thrilled when they heard that $1 billion was being distributed on a per capita basis.

They'd been starved for six years previous.

So when you look at Bill 46, which will enable municipalities…. If you talk to the

building community, they're not really fans of development cost charges. They grudgingly

understand them — needing. But it's a long process of give and take, of discussion

between the city and the development community — any city, if it's being done properly.

A development cost charge bylaw is a very complicated bylaw. I should know.

Mr. Speaker, I'm actually your designated speaker. I forgot to mention that at the

beginning, as I got into the complexities of DCCs.

Deputy Speaker: Designated speaker. Thank you.

P. Milobar: This is a very important piece, and this is the sole focus of Bill 46. Development

cost charges, to the average person, get very complicated very quickly. They do to

a lot of councils, especially if they're new, as we have across this province. They

do with the building community if it hasn't been well laid out in partnership with

their city and their planning department and their council.

For the public, if you're looking to do a development, the city takes a look at that

development, and they say: "Okay, we're going to add 10,000 housing units. When we

add those 10,000 housing units, we're going to need to upgrade a certain amount of

our water system. We're going to need to upgrade a certain road. We need to add a

park — those types of things."

They come up with a calculation, and they say: "Okay, well, we were going to rebuild

that road anyway, in ten years, and we don't need to expand it till ten years from

now." So it's reasonable that the existing residents pay for 50 percent of that roadwork

and the sewer and water work that needs to happen. Most cities line it all up at the

same time now, even though it's three different funds the money comes out of, because

you don't want to be digging up and replacing pipe after pipe after pipe and repaving

each time.

So they look at that, and they say: "Okay, the existing homeowner should pay about

50 percent through taxes and water charges and sewer levies. But on the new development,

all those 10,000 units, they need to pay the other 50 percent." You calculate how

much money that's going to take, you divide it by those 10,000 units of growth that

you're expecting, and you come up with a charge per housing unit.

You can do it by square footage. You anticipate how much square footage you're going

to build for residential and commercial and industrial. You can do it by type of housing,

be it a condo or a lane house or a single-family dwelling. But it gets to be a very

complicated calculation. You then send that all off, after you pass the bylaw, back

to the province and you hope for a quick turnaround. Usually it takes the better part

of a year to get it from the province.

Bill 46 is proposing that all the communities are going to be able to do this en masse

and all at the same time to update and flood the system provincially, where we're

already seeing massive delays across the border as it relates to housing. It's important

to municipalities, because until the province actually signs off on what that new

charge calculation is, you have to charge, by law, the old rate. You don't get to

charge the new rate.

So a large portion of those 10,000 units we were counting on…. If there's suddenly

a bit of a rush, you could lose 1,000. You could lose 10 percent of those, waiting

for the province to sign off. What Bill 46 is proposing to do is add to those calculations,

which is why all the cities are going to want to quickly start doing recalculations.

[3:50 p.m.]

Now, in the city council's case, it's kind of a rolling discussion you have with developers,

and it gets updated about every two years. But there are ongoing discussions, and

there are typically a couple of city councillors or the mayor and a councillor at

the table — the planning department, homebuilding representatives. It's a back and

forth, and it's a give-and-take discussion.

That's going to start up again across this province with Bill 46. Then they're all

going to drop them at the feet of the provincial government, as they have to do by

law, and hope for a quick answer — "Yes, you can start charging these new fees and

charges" — except the government is likely going to take a year and a half to two

years to get back to you. More delay to housing, more uncertainty to housing and more

uncertainty for people that are trying to build, people that are hoping to buy and

people that are just trying to make decisions on what they should do with their piece

of land or not.

It's going to be the same planning department people that are dealing with this piece

of legislation that have been told in Bill 44 they have to deal with a whole bunch

of zoning changes at the exact same time and get those submitted to the province.

While they're doing those two things at once, oh, by the way, those same people have

to start and continue to deal with local applications for building permits and variances

and all manner of application, even down to if you want to have a six-foot fence where

you're only allowed a five-foot fence. It goes through the same people. People could

be waiting an extra year just to be told whether or not they can put their fence in

or not.

That's the real-world implication of these bills, which have all been designed to

take effect after the next election. It has all been wrapped up in Bill 46 to make

it look like it's being very proactive. Make no mistake about it. Development cost

charges, when you look at the expanded scope that they're allowed to have, and codifying

community amenity charges that don't actually exist in a lot of cities, but now they'll

have the green light to…. That's a tax policy that's going to add to the cost of housing.

In January of 2022, as the Housing Minister, the Premier said that no tax policy is

going to put a roof over someone's head. That's exactly what Bill 46 is. It's clause

after clause of tax policy that's not going to put a roof over anyone's head.

When you look at what's being expanded to development cost charges and when I touched

on police, the reality is that in a municipal budget, police and fire…. When you look

at your property tax bill at home, police and fire account for about 40 percent of

what you're being taxed for in a municipality, in almost any municipality of any size.

Firefighters all get paid about the same across the province. They all get staffed

at about the same ratios to population. Police detachments are all about the same.

I guess one could argue Surrey is going to be the outlier here, because there's a

bit of a problem going on there. While that gets straightened out with what their

cost structure is going to look like….

If you take Surrey out of the equation, for the rest of the province it's about 40

percent of your overall tax bill. It's not a cost recovery piece. You don't charge

people when you send firefighters out or police out. You might have a false alarm

charge — 100 bucks here and there. It's not like a swimming pool or a hockey rink,

where you hope to get maybe 50 cents back with people paying admission fees and ice

rental charges and field rental charges.

Under Bill 46, fire halls, police stations, those types of pieces of infrastructure,

will be able to be added to the bill. Now, there is an argument to be had back and

forth. Did you really need another fire hall, if not for expanded growth? I can understand

that as an argument.

[3:55 p.m.]

But to try to cloak Bill 46 as another step to providing affordable housing when it's

actually going to add thousands more to the development cost charge across this province

just simply isn't factual. Bill 46 is a bill about tax policy to add on to the cost

of building a house or an apartment or a condo, whatever term you want to use, be

it for rent, purpose-built rental or resale. It's going to add costs, and it's going

to add delay.

Now, if you look at the community amenity agreement piece of Bill 46…. Community amenity

agreements came by way of cities starting to negotiate during the rezoning process,

ahead of the rezoning process, with developers and saying: "Well, maybe we could support

that tower going in, but we would need you to pay a couple million dollars towards

a park we want to develop." Why? I'm not entirely sure, because parks can be part

of development cost charges.

Cities started to come up with this whole list of other community amenities that they

wanted done in exchange for the rezoning. I agree that the concept was flawed and

that it created almos