Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal

Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal

Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

On clause 26 (continued) .

Linda Hepner : I wonder if I could get the minister to clarify for us the significance of clause

Hon. Christine Boyle : Bill 44 established that heritage revitalization agreements following the date the

section came into force can’t be used to prevent properties from being developed to

the minimum density requirements. This provision ensures agreements under development

can proceed if entered into before the legislation comes into force, even if they

affect the small-scale multi-unit housing minimum density requirements.

Linda Hepner : I think we talked about this a little bit last week. If, in the future, there is a

heritage revitalization agreement signed, that same scenario would be permitted under

this legislation. If you’d just confirm that for me.

Hon. Christine Boyle : The question was a bit unclear to me, so I’m going to try to answer it, and if I don’t,

I’m happy to have you clarify. As we discussed last week, a future heritage revitalization

agreement would need to allow for the density permitted under small-scale multi-unit

housing.

[2:50 p.m.]

You’ll remember I named a number of examples, including in my own riding and in Vancouver,

where they’ve done a really excellent job of stratifying, adding laneway or additional

dwelling units to allow for more units while protecting and preserving a heritage

building.

Linda Hepner : If that doesn’t work, I assume that they would then appeal under extraordinary circumstances

and say: “Relative to this particular heritage site, these provisos under Bills 25

and 44 won’t work.” Then they would have to come to you for those extraordinary circumstance

extensions. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Christine Boyle : As we again spoke to last week, yes. If there were other natural-hazard circumstances,

they could apply for an exemption for that reason.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

Linda Hepner : I wonder if the minister could let me know how many municipalities are covered by

these former extensions.

Hon. Christine Boyle : There are 18.

Linda Hepner : Of those 18, and if the extension period extends beyond June 30, 2026, how long do

they have until they must comply with the new zoning bylaws?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Each of those communities has unique circumstances and so will have their own compliance

dates, based on the complexity of those circumstances.

Linda Hepner : Am I to understand that those 18 have already defined what their date of compliance

is? If so, could you share with me that data at some point? Or am I to understand

that come June 30, 2026, they may come to you and say, “I have a particular circumstance,”

and then we would get a defined date?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes, those dates are set and publicly available. They were part of a news release

at the time.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

[2:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : All right, thank you for allowing me some time here to speak to Bill 25. I wanted

to go over something that was brought to my attention last week, actually. It ties

in quite well in regard to clause 28, which talks about the transition and the effect

of a local community plan.

Métis Nation B.C., their Columbia Valley Métis Association, has recently had an application in for housing. Clause 28 is written for the compliance

with

section 481.3, which are zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-unit housing.

Now, I read

section 788 — which is referred to in clause 28 by

section 478(2), that

the effect of local community plan does not apply before the prescribed date — and

then

section 481.3, which is small-scale housing. This particular scenario is not small-scale housing, but I’ll loop back to that

shortly.

It has more to do with purpose-built housing in smaller communities and, more specifically,

culturally sensitive housing in the district of Invermere. I actually have their OCP

printed out, which is this really fabulous document, might I add. It did a really

good job. Specifically, the Columbia Valley site was zoned to CDZ-6 for the purpose

of building a member-focused community.

The community that they originally wanted to build for their members, the Métis in that region, was originally intended for around 36 units, with a cultural centre

on the site as well, but to even apply for B.C. Housing, they were encouraged to increase

the door count to 41.

Some of the challenges are that now, after a reiteration of redesign after community

input, it went from four storeys to three storeys with the removal of the cultural

centre that was to be a part of the Métis community there. It has now increased to 51 doors, which is beyond what they wanted,

with a significant increase in number of studio apartments.

Now again, this was purpose-built. This land was rezoned for this type of housing

based on the OCP of Invermere. The challenge that they’ve got is that a significant

portion of this has been mandated to be studio apartments. But this was supposed to

be purpose-built for the Métis members, families and studio apartments, even though the solution told to them

has been to just put kind of those adjoining hotel doors between units so that somebody

could have two units side by side.

It’s just not really what their intention was. It seems like it has moved more to

door count, instead of really appropriate housing for these members.

As clause 28 is written, it has more to do with small-scale multifamily housing. Let’s

just take that same scenario and downsize it, and let’s just say that the Columbia

Valley wanted to build a culturally sensitive housing unit for a family in need, with

maybe some funding attached to it. Are they now bound by the density that they neither

want nor is appropriate for the application?

Say the local government is in transition of changing zoning bylaws…. Just take this

scenario and put it into any community that hasn’t fully adopted all of the zoning

changes required for densification by Bill 44.

[3:00 p.m.]

So the local government is in transition of changing zoning bylaws by the prescribed

date for SSMUH. Say if the CVMA wishes to proceed with a single-family unit, will

this clause force a redesign to create more units than they want?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The example in question, as the member opposite stated, isn’t relevant to the clause.

The clause is specific to the transitional provision around small-scale multi-unit

housing and is focused on ensuring that local governments have the time to harmonize

their official community plans with zoning bylaws.

I am happy to follow up on the specific project mentioned in the Columbia Valley,

if that’s of interest, at a different time.

Misty Van Popta : No, I do understand that there are specific…. I was just using it more as an anecdotal

piece of how transitioning and even…. You know, the effects of OCPs that this density

has is…. It’s a hypothetical. What if somebody wanted to build a purpose-built home,

a single home for a single family, cultural in nature? Do provisions within this bill

and this clause specifically, as it goes to transitional timing for local governments…?

Does it affect applications like that?

Hon. Christine Boyle : It might stretch a bit from this, but I know folks are coming in and out, so I want

to give this my best shot at answering. Just to be clear, the legislation would still

allow a single-family home if that’s what the owner of the property wanted. It doesn’t

set a requirement of what must be built. It simply sets what the local government

needs to zone for. You can build less than what is zoned for.

It’s focused on the zoning and not a minimum of what needs to be built. A family,

whoever, could still build a single-family home. It’s just that the local government

couldn’t restrict something, a multiplex or such, being built there.

Misty Van Popta : Okay, thank you for that explanation. But it still has a bit to do with questions

around B.C. Housing’s requirements to increase their door count numbers. In this case,

with the with the densification required on municipalities, there is a pressure, especially

when organizations apply for funding through B.C. Housing, to increase the door counts.

If they’re only wanting to build…. The original intent was advertised as 36 units,

and now I think that they’re required to build 51, most of which are studio suites.

I just wanted to use this example for single-family multi-unit. Even if it was only

duplex, but B.C. Housing comes in and says, “No, we want a fourplex….”

If you can speak to that — if the mandate on local governments or the pressure on

local governments has more to do with door counts than it does to the purpose of the

housing that is actually appropriate for certain communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : B.C. Housing doesn’t build small-scale multi-unit housing. I don’t think the two are

comparable in this situation, but again, I’m happy to follow up on that specific Métis

Nation project.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Tony Luck : Really appreciate the opportunity to stand here and be able to ask some questions today,

just a few here on a couple of additional clauses.

One of the beliefs that we’ve had on this bill all along is that we don’t believe that one size fits all kind of thing. I know some of these questions might be repetitive, because we’ve

already dealt with the Community Charter, but now we’re dealing with the Vancouver

Charter. So there might be the odd question that sounds similar to that, but seeing

how one size doesn’t always fit all, I think it’s very, very appropriate to ask some

questions specifically to the Vancouver Charter, which we’re addressing right now.

Having said that, I think the first question I have is: what engineering analysis

demonstrates that existing water, sewer, drainage and road systems can absorb the

density increase triggered by clause 29? Yeah, that’ll be good for now.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Maybe I’m missing something. If so, I invite the member to reframe the question.

Clause 29 is simply adding an interpretive rule for the purposes of the transitional

provisions related to the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck : Okay. Let me see if I can just ask another question, then, in conjunction with that.

What safeguards in clause 29 ensure that municipalities can delay or phase development

when infrastructure data shows systems are already at or near critical capacity? Once

again, these are coming in to change the way the system is done so we can increase

the capacity and the density on these lots. So how are we putting some safeguards

in to make sure that we don’t overstretch the balance of some of that zoning and that

within these communities?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, respectfully, I don’t see how this is relevant to clause 29.

Clauses 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On clause 32.

Linda Hepner : I don’t have a lot of questions on 32, but I do have one.

That is: has there been any extension granted which would be applicable under this

section? If so, could the minister provide the detail on that or them?

Hon. Christine Boyle : No, there isn’t.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

The Chair : We’re on clause 33 and recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis : Well done, Mr. Chair. I know it’s a mouthful. Thank you so much. I appreciate the

opportunity to ask a few questions here this afternoon to the minister and her staff.

In clause 33, I just want to dig into a couple of things for clarity’s sake, I think,

more than anything. In this legislation, specifically in clause 33, which I’ll speak

to in a second, it appears that modern treaty Nations are taking sort of their own

policies, their own governance to short-term rentals within their treaty territory.

I just want to ask a few questions around how that looks.

[3:10 p.m.]

Under point 2 here, it says it replaces the definition of “First Nation law” with

definitions of “short-term rental First Nation law” and “related First Nation law.” I just want to chat about that a little bit.

First of all, in clause 33 of this legislation, how many of the modern treaty Nations

were consulted on the changing of that language in clause 33?

Hon. Christine Boyle : All modern treaty Nations were notified, and we specifically met for further discussion

with the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ First Nation.

Scott McInnis : I understand that it’s probably most applicable to those nations, considering I think

some of the modern treaty Nations may not — I don’t want to speak on their behalf

— have a robust market for short-term-rental capacity at this time anyhow.

We’re looking at clause 33 and the change of this language for short-term-rental First

Nation law. This is kind of drafted through what’s called a coordination agreement.

Could the minister maybe break down what those coordination agreements look like,

how they’re drafted and what some of the outcomes of those would be related specifically

to the short-term-rental First Nation law language?

Hon. Christine Boyle : A coordination agreement is a legal instrument that enables the implementation of

select services or regulations from federal or provincial governments on First Nations

lands respecting First Nations’ right to self-governance. Coordination agreements

are a common approach used by the Ministry of Children and Family Development and

are also included in the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Gavin Dew : Could the minister elaborate on who else was consulted? Were only First Nations consulted,

or was anyone else consulted in the development of these agreements?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m not sure if the member is speaking directly to clause 33 or the legislation more

broadly, but on clause 33, specific to the coordination agreements with First Nations,

as I said earlier, staff engaged with, specifically, Tsawwassen First Nation, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Métis Nation B.C., the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and notified

all modern treaty Nations.

Gavin Dew : Appreciate the answer. What I am looking to understand is any broader consultation

that was undertaken.

Specifically, this is the only tool through which government is reopening the Short-Term

Rental Accommodations Act. There are a number of different issues and dynamics that

have been commented on fairly extensively in public by municipalities and others around

the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

What I’m trying to understand is whether there was any broader consultation undertaken

or whether the only consultation and the only action undertaken was specifically to

address those changes for First Nations.

Again, if I could just get a little bit more information on the broader context of

consultation or the broader conversations within which this was developed, because

I would like to understand whether and why only First Nations were consulted in this

regard, not neighbouring municipalities, not private sector actors, not individuals

that would be operating on platforms.

I’m just trying to understand the narrowness of the consultation because it seems

extraordinarily narrow and extraordinarily disinterested in broader amendments to

the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Hon. Christine Boyle : This is a very focused administrative set of amendments, and the ministry is in regular

contact with local governments, with industry, with the platforms, with the tourism

sector on broader conversations. What’s before us today are, as I said, focused administrative

amendments.

Gavin Dew : If, indeed, government is in contact with municipalities and with the full range of

stakeholders that has been articulated, could the minister clarify what, if any, formal

stakeholder engagement and consultation processes have been undertaken since the Short-Term

Rental Accommodation Act was brought into force two years ago in order to make potential

adjustments to it?

Really, just help me understand why, two years into the life of that legislation,

with a wide variety of different issues having been flagged in public and discussed….

I understand that this is narrow. I want to understand why it is so narrow. Why is

there no evident effort being made if, in fact, the government is here reopening the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act?

[3:20 p.m.]

Why is no effort being made here to address any of the other considerations, any of

the other issues flagged by any of the other stakeholders, and instead focusing only

on a very, very narrow set of changes limited to First Nations?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, as I said, we are in regular contact with stakeholders around these issues.

This has been a phased implementation of the legislation, and we’ve seen significant

positive impacts because of this legislation.

Through that regular contact, there were a few clear administrative areas of improvement

that were identified and are amendments that are being proposed in this legislation.

There’s one piece specific to making sections of the act available to modern treaty

Nations through a coordination agreement as well as three amendments to improve clarity

of administrative process and

interpretation — the amended definition of “principal

residence,” a revised process for reviews of registration and administrative penalty

decisions, and improved information-sharing authorities to ensure consistent

interpretation

of existing provisions.

Those were each identified, and that’s the reason they’re before us today.

Gavin Dew : In light of the regular contact with stakeholders, including but not limited to municipalities,

it sounds as if some areas were chosen to prioritize. What I’d like to understand

is what other priorities were flagged by stakeholders. What other changes were flagged

by stakeholders? Why were some of those changes not included? And on what basis was

the decision made to include only those changes that form part of this legislation?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Of course, the ministry receives a wide range of feedback, everything from clarifying

definitions within the act to people not wanting the act to exist at all.

However, we are seeing positive impacts as a result of this work. In communities with

the principal residence requirement, we saw a 12 percent decrease in the number of

entire homes that were frequently rented as short-term rentals between March 2024

and February 2025. Average asking rents across B.C. for a one-bedroom unit decreased

by 7.6 percent from October 2023 to August 2025. Some communities have seen an even

larger impact.

The ministry takes a balanced approach. We are in regular contact with stakeholders.

We hear a wide range of feedback and then make decisions to balance it and improve

the legislation where we can while remaining committed to its existence.

Gavin Dew : With the utmost respect, that was a complete non-answer and a reversion to talking

points. The question that I am asking, again — and hope that I will receive an answer

this time — is what other feedback and suggestions for changes to make the act more

practical…? What other suggestions were received from stakeholders, in the extensive

regular contact that the minister has described, that were not brought forward through

this act?

I am specifically trying to understand what feedback was received, what recommendations,

suggestions, ideas and requests were advanced that the ministry or the minister concluded

were not appropriate to be included in this, their tune-up job on the Short-Term Rental

Accommodations Act.

I am not looking for talking points. I’m not looking for a generic defence of the

act. I’m looking to understand what specific requests and recommendations were put

forward and were intentionally not included.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, we receive a wide range of feedback on all of these conversations. But I think

I know where the member opposite is going, and so maybe I’ll try to answer that question,

which is that we have heard from Kelowna recently that they would like the opt-in

date moved up. There are a number of reasons we aren’t proposing that now, and we

can get into it. Not particularly related to clause 33, which we’re on though, so

I’m happy to stick to clause 33.

Gavin Dew : I am asking these questions on 33 because they are the beginning of the

section of

the bill amending the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. I certainly expect there

will be opportunities for us to canvass that particular issue in more detail at a

later time. But again, at this stage, what I’m trying to understand is why the bill

is and what the bill is in this particular part.

I’m glad that the minister has proactively mentioned the desire from the city of Kelowna

to see the opt-out timeline changed, and I hope that she will join me in supporting

that as it is an obvious and commonsense change. But I am still looking for a little

more clarity as to what other recommendations and requests were requested.

Since the minister does appear to have public opinions on this, I would like to understand

whether the ministry, the minister or the government have received any feedback with

regard to amendments that could be made to enable greater flexibility in the case

of major events. This government has made quite a significant commitment to supporting

major events like FIFA. It has been very proud of major concerts like Taylor Swift.

We have seen a significant commitment to and a lot of celebration of successes in

terms of major, major events coming to this province in all kinds of different communities.

I would really love to understand, in light of the fact that FIFA is going to be coming

very soon and that there is expected to be a shortfall of thousands upon thousands

of hotel rooms in the Vancouver marketplace, as one example….

I’m curious if the minister can elaborate on whether any feedback was received through

those regular and ongoing conversations with stakeholders around changes that could

be made to enable flexibility for major events and why we don’t see any coverage whatsoever

of that particular issue in this legislation. If in fact such changes are going to

be made, it would only make sense to bring them forward at this time, as once we finish

this fall session, it will not be possible to bring anything forward to the Legislature

until February.

I’m really just struggling to understand. In light of the significant, substantial,

ongoing conversations around FIFA, the desire to ensure economic benefit, the desire

to ensure that the logistics of that particular event are well covered, why do I see

nothing in here about addressing major surges of demand for major events like FIFA?

Again, can the minister explain whether any conversations were undertaken in those

ongoing conversations with stakeholders around how that could have been fixed but

is not in this present legislation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : I assume the member is referring to specific requests for legislative changes that

Airbnb has requested. Those are in the public realm. What I can say is that the ministry,

of course, hears those. We take a balanced approach in hearing those and in recognizing

the very real benefits of the current legislation and a commitment to the protection

of long-term tenants.

The changes that we’ve made through this act are providing business certainty to hotels

and other operators, which is leading to important new investments in hotel supply

in Metro Vancouver and other regions, with many new rooms already open or expected

to open by 2026.

Under these short-term-rental regulations, people who don’t need to be in town for

big events or who want to rent out a spare bedroom continue to be able to do so through

short-term-rental platforms such as Airbnb or VRBO. This has not changed.

What we won’t do is allow loopholes that would see people evicted from their homes

to allow landlords to make a greater profit in renting out those same units short

term for major events and a reason we won’t displace people who work and deliver services

that support these major events and activities. We’re confident that there will be

places to stay for those who come to the province for major events, including FIFA.

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much. I’m struggling to understand what loopholes the minister believes

are being proposed. Are there stakeholders who have proposed what the minister would

deem to be a loophole? I’m just trying to understand whether that’s anything other

than political rhetoric. What specific feedback from stakeholders has been received

that the minister deems to be a loophole that would encourage bad-faith evictions?

I really want to understand that because the minister has made that comment publicly

and seems to believe that there are loopholes on the table that would “encourage bad-faith

evictions.” Just really looking to understand what stakeholders the minister would

characterize as having proposed loopholes that would encourage bad-faith evictions.

Hon. Christine Boyle : There was a request from Airbnb to temporarily remove the principal residence requirement

for special events.

[3:40 p.m.]

This request appears to rely on the assumption that there are many secondary homes

sitting empty that would become available as short-term-rental units by waiving the

principal residence requirements. The reality is that this just isn’t the case. In

addition to the provincial speculation and vacancy tax that applies in Vancouver,

the city of Vancouver also has an empty homes tax, and both disincentivize homeowners

from leaving their properties vacant.

If we were to create a temporary exemption for major events, what would really happen

is that we would see long-term tenants evicted from their homes so that owners can

benefit from the much higher rates they could charge for operating a short-term rental.

Even if those units converted to short-term rental temporarily for a special event

period were converted back to long-term units, that would be of little help to the

people who lost their homes during the event.

The approach we’re taking already allows owners and renters to short-term rent their

own homes during events. This is a balanced approach that provides the ability for

people to make short-term-rental units available without costing anyone their home.

The Chair : We’re on clause 33.

Gavin Dew : I just wanted to go back to the minister’s previous answer and make sure I understand

fully. The minister indicated a lack of desire to make any changes because “there

were more hotel rooms coming on stream.” From what I’ve read in the media, it appears that there is a potential shortfall

of thousands of hotel rooms during FIFA, which, again, is coming down the pipe very

quickly.

Could the minister, having indicated that there is no problem to be addressed here

through amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act…? Could the minister

just help me understand those numbers? Because I’m hearing shortfalls in the thousands

of hotel rooms. So could the minister just itemize all those hotel rooms that are

going to be coming on stream before FIFA?

I would be happy to hear a list. I’d be happy to hear a number. I’d love to hear it

quantified. If the minister does not have a list of all of the hotel projects that

are going to be opening up in and around Vancouver before FIFA that will fill that

hotel room supply gap, then I would be happy for her to provide that at a later time

in writing with numbers attached to it.

But what I’m hearing right now is a vague articulation that thousands and thousands

of hotel rooms will be opened before FIFA. So I would just love to hear the minister

substantiate that claim.

The Chair : Member, I’ve given some leniency already regarding your questions, but I think we’re

straying quite far from the intent of this particular section. If you’d like to ask

a different question, please go ahead.

Gavin Dew : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I…. No, I don’t think so. I think that this is a very

reasonable question. The question I’m asking is an attempt to understand what is in

the scope of the bill.

The Chair : I’ve already….

Gavin Dew : The minister has provided an answer. I’m simply asking her to substantiate it.

The Chair : I’ve already made a decision, and that decision is that you have strayed too far from

clause 33. If you’d like to make a different submission, you’re more than welcome

to do so, but otherwise, we’re going to continue on.

Gavin Dew : It’s my observation that I am being told that I have strayed because the minister

is uncomfortable and cannot answer the question.

The Chair : No. As the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, I’m sitting here looking at

what the clause states, and I’ve made that determination solely. So if you’d like

to sit down, you’re more than welcome to, or you can ask a follow-up question.

Gavin Dew : Thank you.

My follow-up question is…. The minister has made a very specific claim that there

will be an adequate number of hotel rooms available. She’s looking through her briefing

binder for information on that. I’m fairly confident that she has an answer.

Would she like to provide that answer?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : I appreciate the Chair’s redirection to focus on clause 33.

I do have a brief answer. I’m happy to provide that, which is that updated data from

the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport estimates 30,000 available hotel rooms in the region in 2026, based on new hotel

developments, which exceeds the 25,584 hotel rooms cited in the Deloitte report, which

I believe the member is referencing.

Further questions on that can be directed to the Minister of Tourism Arts, Culture

and Sport, and I would request that we respect the Chair’s direction and refocus on

clause 33.

The Chair : Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to me.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. I think, maybe under the context of this line

of questions that I would like to bring forward, if we could maybe use the Tsawwassen

First Nation just as an example, that would be helpful.

In clause 33, replacing “First Nation law” with

definitions of “short-term-rental

First Nation law,” in relation to the Short-Term Accommodations Act and these amendments,

is it fair to ask the question or to assume that any short-term-rental regulation

policy will now fall under the jurisdiction of the Tsawwassen First Nation exclusively?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m going to again do my best to answer what I think is the intent of the question.

Coordination agreements, as enabled through this clause, enable modern treaty Nations

to better access provisions in the act, provide access to business licence information and platform data sharing, and support

First Nations that are interested in using the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

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

In clause 33, maybe just for the record, could the minister help us understand what

could fall under the guise of short-term-rental First Nation law or related First

Nation law, just to get some clarity?

Hon. Christine Boyle : First Nations law means law of a participating First Nation in relation to one or

both of the following: short-term-rental accommodation services or similar services

and platform services.

Scott McInnis : So what was the reason behind narrowing that scope from First Nation law to short-term-rental

First Nation law and related First Nation law?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : This is mirroring the approach that we have taken with local government bylaws, which

is that it captures broader laws that a participating First Nation may use to regulate

short-term rentals in alignment with the provisions available to local governments,

for instance, the First Nations general business licensing law. It is a mirror of

that same approach but enabling those tools to be used by a participating First Nation

should they choose.

Scott McInnis : I think when we’re…. Again, using the context or the example of the Tsawwassen First

Nation, just for a moment, because a majority of the residents living within that

treaty land are not members of the Tsawwassen First Nation, but there are, kind of,

as the minister said, broader laws here under short-term-rental First Nation law.

Who will be communicating to residents there that want to operate a short-term rental

that they may have broader regulation and policy around short-term rentals that is

not necessarily in alignment with the provincial Short-Term Rental Accommodations

Act but is in a broader scope under short-term-rental First Nation law, specifically

what would be, in this case, the Tsawwassen First Nation? How is that going to be communicated to the public as to potentially being under

the guise of some of these broader laws?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Maybe I’ll start by taking a small step back and just…. I’m clarifying or reminding

members that the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act does not apply on First Nation

reserve lands, doesn’t apply on the lands of modern treaty Nations unless they choose

to enter into a coordination agreement. Then information about coordination agreements

are added to the province’s short-term-rental website to help the public understand

where they are in place.

[3:55 p.m.]

Scott McInnis : I appreciate the minister’s answer. As I’m understanding it, when this act eventually

passes, a participating First Nation could enter into a coordination agreement, which

then triggers short-term-rental First Nation law. Then those living within that territory

will be subject to short-term-rental First Nation law, but the details about what

that First Nation law will be posted on a website for operators to view? Am I getting

that right, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Treaty nations have their own law-making powers. We’re talking specifically about

modern treaty Nations. They can currently set their own short-term-rental policies.

The opportunity and proposal here is coordination to ensure clarity and consistency.

To the point about how that information would be found, residents who live on treaty

lands know that they live on treaty lands. They would look to the nation for clarification

around those rules. That is part of regular practice.

Scott McInnis : I’m not trying to get a gotcha moment here on the minister. I can assure her of that.

Roughly speaking, how many people live in Tsawwassen treaty territory?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I don’t have that number in front of me. We can dig it up. I assume the member could

also google it, but I don’t have it in front of me.

Scott McInnis : It was just a question that came up to my mind, based on the answer. I would have

prepared that in advance.

Now, during the consultation process with modern treaty Nations about this amendment

in clause 33, did….

It appears to me, if I just maybe go back a second, that it was Ucluelet and Tsawwassen

that actually provided feedback, if I’m not mistaken, to the government about this

amendment to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. Did they indicate to the government

about what some of the specifics around their own individual short-term-rental First

Nation laws would look like in their own territory?

[4:00 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Oh, thank you. Welcome, Chair.

The Chair : My voice changed.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes, you look different, but we’re glad to have you here.

I know this can get a bit complex, so again, let me do my best to outline it for the

member. Modern treaty Nations have laws on business licensing and land use that they

can use to regulate the impact of short-term rentals on their treaty lands. Some modern

treaty Nations face similar challenges as local governments when enforcing their short-term-rental

regulations. So modern treaty Nations can enter into a coordination agreement to access

provisions in the act that can help them to enforce their own laws that regulate short-term-rental

accommodations.

Those coordination agreements were part of the original legislation. In fact, Tsawwassen

First Nation already has a coordination agreement. The process of negotiating that

first coordination agreement with Tsawwassen First Nation helped uncover provisions

of the legislation that could be better drafted to support those types of coordination

agreements.

Through further engagement with Tsawwassen First Nation, it was determined that legislative

amendments were necessary to achieve the full intent of that act. Those are what’s

before us.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister for that.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

I’m wondering: is it a scenario, when this act eventually does pass, that short-term-rental

legislation and the subsequent regulation will be different entirely for somebody

living on one side of the street outside of Tsawwassen treaty territory, for example,

than somebody living on the other side of the street that is within the Tsawwassen

territory? Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. Christine Boyle : It is the case right now, as treaty nations have law-making ability. Laws may be different

on treaty lands as opposed to off treaty lands, and this act doesn’t change that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Scott McInnis : Now, I understand that the laws can be different in a treaty Nation. But specifically

when we’re looking at short-term rentals and First Nation law, are we creating two

separate systems that could potentially be — regulations and this legislation — for

neighbours, essentially?

Hon. Christine Boyle : We’re not creating that difference. It exists already. The amendments proposed in

this package are intended to expand the aspects of the framework that can be accessed

by modern treaty Nations, so they can access them in the same way a local government

can access them. In that way, we’re moving toward more consistency in terms of access

to the same provisions and tools.

The Chair : We’re on clause 33.

Linda Hepner : Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. Lots of questions from my various colleague

friends. You can understand that this act is giving us some consternation, as did

its sister act, Bill 44, and we’ve seen the results of what’s going on there across

the pond as they head into a discussion of some of those units and what it’s doing

within the Burnaby community.

My question. I’m concerned about the First Nations law and the coordination agreements.

Then, having a visitor from Belgium trying to use a platform and understand the differentiations

of what’s going on in our community as they visit for a significant event — are there

some conversations you’ve had with those platform providers that help them understand

that there will be various laws within British Columbia to accommodate short-term-rental

guests?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, the changes being made in this amendment are to ensure that modern treaty Nations

have access to the same tools as local governments do to address short-term rentals.

From a platform perspective, whether it’s a business licence from a First Nation or

from a local government doesn’t make a difference to the platform. For a visitor from

outside the community or outside the country, it wouldn’t make a difference to them.

If the listing has a business licence and is listed, that’s what they’re seeing.

Linda Hepner : So under First Nations law, they did not have the ability to do short-term rentals

as they wanted to under their own nation law to start with? We had to put it into

a short-term-rental accommodation law specifically here?

Because what I’m hearing you say is that there’s no difference, when I go onto a platform,

to differentiate between me renting for short-term rental and First Nation renting.

If they could do it anyway, why is it so specifically included in Bill 25?

Hon. Christine Boyle : As I’ve said a number of times now, modern treaty Nations have their own law-making

powers, and they have had the ability to regulate short-term rentals ahead of this.

The amendments proposed in this package expand the aspects of the province’s short-term-rental

accommodation framework that can be accessed by modern treaty Nations so that they

can access them in the same way that a local government can access them. The specific

amendments outlined here, again, came out of lessons learned when working with the

Tsawwassen First Nation on the type of coordination agreement that was outlined in

the original legislation.

Linda Hepner : Can the minister table a cost-benefit analysis that would show the expected shifts

from short-term rentals to long-term rental by region and time frame?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m failing to see how this question is related to clause 33.

Linda Hepner : Clause 33 is all around First Nations and the ability for them to do short-term rentals.

So I’m wondering if there’s a cost-benefit analysis showing whether or not there was

short-term-rental benefit and what that would look like if they were just simply doing

long-term rentals?

Has there been any differentiation in terms of looking at what that benefit would

be within the region of, let’s use, Tsawwassen, as an example, or Ucluelet as another

example?

Hon. Christine Boyle : We would leave that economic analysis to the nation as part of their decision about

whether they want to regulate short-term-rental accommodations or not. As a self-governing

nation, that is their prerogative.

The Chair : We are on clause 33. Shall clause 33 pass?

Division has been called.

[4:15 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

The Chair : The question is: should clause 33 pass?

By the way, I remind all members that only the members of

Section A or their duly

appointed substitutes can vote.

Clause 33 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6

Routledge

Lajeunesse

Morissette

Boyle

Gibson

Valeriote

NAYS — 3

Mok

Maahs

Williams

The Chair : We’ll take a short pause while we wait for the staff to return to the room.

On clause 34.

Gavin Dew : Could the minister please elaborate on the intent of this change to the definition

of “principal residence”?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This clause amends the definition of “principal residence” to mean “the usual place

where an individual makes the individual’s home,” to remove the time-based element

of the definition and enable timely enforcement of the principal residence requirement.

Gavin Dew : I note that the prior definition of “principal residence” was that it means the residence

in which an individual resides for a longer period of time in a calendar year than

any other place. Noting the minister’s response that the intent is to remove the time-based

assessment….

I’m just trying to understand the intent there. Is the intent of this changing definition

to make it intentionally looser? Is it to make it easier to define? I’d just like

to understand a little bit more the intent behind the change.

Hon. Christine Boyle : The change will make the principal residence requirement more flexible and responsive

to the host’s actual living situation, such as if they move partway through a calendar

year.

For example, under the old language, if a host sold their home and moved to a new

one in September, the new home would not count as their principal residence until

the following year, even if it’s the only home they have.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Under the new rules, if someone moves partway through the year, they can still short-term

rent their primary residence as long as it is their primary residence at the time

that they want to list it.

The Chair : Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

[4:30 p.m.]

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and lovely to have you in the chair.

Thank you to the minister for the response. Could the minister speak a little bit

more about who was consulted, when and how, in regard to changing this definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This is an administrative change that was identified internally, and the proposed

definition aligns with what’s in place for the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Home

Owner Grant Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

Gavin Dew : To reconfirm, was anyone consulted in the development of this new definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle : As this administrative change relates to

interpretation, only internal and legal consultations

were conducted on it.

Gavin Dew : What I’m hearing is that there was no consultation undertaken before making this change.

Could we get a little bit more detail on what specific issues were identified that

led to this change? I’m just trying to understand, again, if no consultation was undertaken

and if internal discussion only was undertaken, then what were the specific issues

that the government was trying to solve through this change?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The existing definition is straightforward when a short-term-rental host lives in

one property and doesn’t change their residence for the calendar year. Then it is

no problem.

It becomes more challenging when a person’s principal residence changes throughout

the year or if they own multiple properties that may appear to qualify as their principal

residence at a different time throughout the year. That’s why removing a calendar

year from the definition matters. It’s clearer for people who have a change in principal

residence due to life circumstances, such as they get married or divorced, inherit

a property or move for work.

Consistency and clarity across laws will help people understand what we mean by principal

residence, and the new approach better reflects lived realities.

[4:35 p.m.]

The change also makes it easier for short-term-rental hosts to understand and follow

the principal residence requirement.

Gavin Dew : I just want to pick up on something that I heard the minister say.

I believe I just heard the minister say that the principal residence could be different

depending on the time of year. Just to make sure that I fully understand that, is

the minister suggesting that this definition of principal residence is sufficiently

permissive that somebody’s principal residence could be different in the summer than

it is in the winter? That’s what I think I heard her just say.

Hon. Christine Boyle : The definition intends to capture principal residence at the point in time that the property is offered

as a short-term rental. It still has to qualify as your principal residence but is intended to capture somebody

moving midyear.

Gavin Dew : I’m not sure that’s what I heard the first time around, so I’m really still looking

for a little more clarity here.

Based on what I heard the minister say the first time around — which has not been,

in any way, shape or form, clarified by the second answer — it sounds to me as if

she was defining principal residence, for example, to include someone having a summer

principal residence in one place and a winter principal residence in another, which

is not an unusual circumstance, particularly for retirees or for those who have different

work patterns.

It sounds as if she is describing this new definition of principal residence as meaning

that someone could actually define multiple principal residences in a year and continue

to do that on a cyclical basis, year after year, as they move from one principal residence

in a given season to another principal residence in a different season of the year.

Is that what the minister means? Is that what the definition means, or does it mean

something different?

Hon. Christine Boyle : It may be that we had a miscommunication on that first answer, so I appreciate the

opportunity to clarify. An individual can only have one principal residence. They may move their principal residence during a year, but they can’t alternate principal residences back and forth seasonally.

Gavin Dew : I’m still a little bit stumped here on this one, because I don’t think I’ve actually

heard that clarified.

[4:40 p.m.]

If an individual, for example, moves back and forth.... The minister is stating, I

think, clearly that an individual can only have one principal residence at once, and

I don’t dispute that characterization.

But it sounds as though, based on the written and delivered answer provided by the

minister in the first place, the minister was describing what could be called a loophole,

which is that an individual could be moving back and forth between a principal residence

for six months of a year, a different principal residence for the next six months

of the year, and returning to the prior principal residence for the six months of the following

year.

I’m just, again, trying to understand whether what the minister seemed to have described

is in fact the case. So what’s the deal there? Help me understand whether, in fact,

under this new and somewhat unusual definition of “principal residence,” there is

now the ability for an individual to move back and forth seasonally, for example,

on the basis of their work or their retirement pattern or whatever other factor may

be in place for them in their individual circumstances, and to define their principal

residence on a moving basis, thus creating eligibility around short-term rental. Just

trying to understand the meaning of the definition here.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, happy to continue to clarify. If somebody has a winter home and a summer home

in B.C. — very lucky — for tax purposes, that person will have had to declare one

of those homes their principal residence.

This act defines principal residence at a high level. More details are provided through

regulation, policy guidance and the registration process. For example,

section 5.1

of the regulations outlines the documents that can be used to demonstrate principal

residence during registration, including ID, relevant insurance certificates or a

property tax notice. Those are all relevant to only being able to have one principal

residence at a time and not being able to switch them again seasonally.

Gavin Dew : Okay, I’m still a little bit fuzzy here. It sounds as if the minister has just clarified

that there is no connection between the CRA definition of principal residence and

the definition of principal residence that is being used here. Is that correct?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The CRA is a federal act, but the proposed definition aligns with what’s in place

for the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Home Owner Grant Act, the Property Transfer

Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

Gavin Dew : Still on this definition, I have not…. I’m wondering if the minister can speak to

any other legislation where principal residence is defined as the usual place where

an individual makes the individual’s home. I haven’t previously seen “making the individual’s

home” used as definitional language. Perhaps I’ve missed something somewhere, but

this sort of seems like a very new definition.

Perhaps to substantiate that, can the minister provide an example where a person’s

principal residence is both the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s

home but is not the place that they reside the most? I’m trying to understand the

intent of this changing language, because it seems to be becoming less standard, not

more standard, and perhaps to be introducing the kind of loophole that the minister

seems very hostile to.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : For the third time now, the definition aligns with what’s in place for the four acts

that I have listed — the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Homeowner Grant Act, the

Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

The Chair : Let’s try and keep the repetition down a bit. I hear you, but let’s try and think

about that, please.

Gavin Dew : Thank you, Madam Chair. This is obviously a very consequential definition, so I do

think it is relevant and important to get as much clarity as possible here, because

the ways in which this is or is not defined obviously have significant legal meaning.

And the intent behind those

definitions obviously has significant legal meaning as

both lawyers but also everyday individuals try to understand what the intent is here.

Help me understand. I’m hearing from the minister that this new definition around

making the individual’s home is consistent with other legislation. Why, then, was

the previous definition inconsistent with other legislation?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The original “principal residence” definition used in the act was adapted from the

principal residence definition used in the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act. Amending

the definition from the residence “in which an individual resides for a longer period

of time in a calendar year than any other place” to the proposed new definition, which

is “the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home,” aligns with

the intent to capture principal residence at the point in time the property is offered

as a short-term rental.

This consistency and clarity will help people understand what we mean by principal

residence, and the new approach better reflects people’s lived experience.

Gavin Dew : As the minister raised people’s lived experience, I will just circle back for the

question that was left incomplete in my last round here. Can the minister please provide

an example where a person’s principal residence is both the usual place where an individual

makes the individual’s home but is not the place in which an individual resides for

a longer period of time in a calendar year than any other place?

Again, if the intent is to reflect lived experience, if the intent is clarity, I’m

sure it would be easy for the minister to provide an example of an instance where

someone’s principal residence is both the usual place where they make their home but

not the place where they reside the most.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes. Again, as I have stated in previous answers, the example is if somebody moves

in the middle of a calendar year.

Gavin Dew : Was this change in definition also done to accommodate individuals that, for example,

may be in a medical facility or other such institution so that a property is still

their principal residence, even if they have not been living in it for a large period

of time?

Again, I understand where the minister is coming from with regard to the moving example.

I’m just trying to understand if there are other examples and if and how they have been contemplated.

Certainly an individual, whether they be a senior or not, who still retains a principal

residence but has been in a medical facility or other institution for a significant

period of time…. Is that captured by this definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle : That wasn’t the rationale for this change. The rationale was, as I’ve said, consistency

and clarity across laws to help people understand what we better mean by “principal

residence” and specific to the common example of moving one’s primary residence mid-calendar

year.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate that clarity around the intent. I would also like to understand the effect

because the example that I have provided is a real one for a good number of people.

So I just wonder if the minister can expand, for clarity, a little bit on what the

effect would be.

Again, if there is an individual who is in a medical facility or in a jail or in some

other place that means that they are not in their property, but that property is still

where that individual makes that individual’s home or if, for example, they spend

more of their time in a given year staying in hotels than they do staying in that

particular place but it is still what they consider to make their individual home….

I’m, again, just trying to understand what the

interpretation would be there because

there are very real circumstances that could be captured that…. I think it’s actually

very important that the government provides clarity around what they mean because

there might, for example, again, be a senior who is indisposed, who is in medical

care, but who still considers a given place to be the place where they make their

home.

So I just hoped that there was more thought put into this before the legislation was

brought forward, but if there has not been, I would love to hear any thoughts on it.

And, frankly, if there are not thoughts on it today, I fully accept the possibility

that it hasn’t been contemplated, and I would hope that it would be thought through

as this moves forward.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : The short answer is that it depends. We’re dealing in hypotheticals here, which we

try not to do. There are a range of individual circumstances. Obviously, there’s a

difference if you are going into the hospital for a month for a hip replacement surgery

or moving into long-term care on a permanent basis. The statutory decision-maker,

the registrar, would consider any unique circumstances when making a determination

of principal residence.

Gavin Dew : I would submit that those are not hypotheticals. Those are people’s lives, and those

are their circumstances. While I respect that there may be particularly elaborately

complex circumstances where there needs to be a determination made, I think that it

would be very valuable to make sure that as much upfront guidance as possible can

be provided so that a fairly reasonable number of circumstances that occur with frequency

can be appropriately described so that individuals have a clear sense of how

definitions

will apply to them.

Certainly, it makes sense if you’ve got a particularly complicated situation that

you would need to make a phone call and get a definition, but it strikes me that there

probably is some more work to do in terms of just making sure that some basic examples

are provided so that people could have a clear understanding without having to chase

through a government bureaucracy to get it.

Hon. Christine Boyle : There wasn’t a question there, but I just wanted the opportunity to respond to say

that there are so many potential individual circumstances. That’s why there’s a statutory

decision-maker to navigate these decisions.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Tony Luck : The question here is, we’re just looking for some clarity around this clause 35 here.

Can the minister please expand on what authority shifts from responsible official

to registrar or director means? Just to get some clarity on that for us.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : These amendments provide certainty on who can conduct a review and make clear that

the review process is intended to be an initial internal review process, recognizing

that there is a further external review process available through a judicial review

after the initial review is completed.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Tony Luck : On clause 36, has this

section been just purely amended to include the new definition

of short-term-rental First Nations law?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

Tony Luck : So on clause 37, does this mean that the act or regulations will apply differently

to different areas within the Nisga’a lands or the treaty lands of a treaty First

Nation?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The short answer is yes. A nation would have the ability to apply the rules differently

in different parts of their treaty lands.

For example, they could choose to apply the principal residence definition in urban

areas but not in rural areas.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the answer.

I’m struck by the fact that these amendments go out of their way to give to First

Nations levels of flexibility and discretional authority that the legislation similarly

takes away from municipalities.

Could the minister just expand a little bit on the philosophical basis behind differentiating

in legislation so clearly and starkly between the flexibility and self-governance

afforded to First Nations versus that afforded to municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Provincial short-term-rental regulations, like other provincial rules, don’t apply

on First Nations treaty lands, as these are federal jurisdiction.

[5:05 p.m.]

Modern treaty Nations can opt in voluntarily to have aspects of the framework apply

to their treaty lands through a coordination agreement, and the amendments proposed

in this package are intended to expand the aspects of the framework that can be accessed

by a modern treaty nation so they can access them in the same way that a local government

can.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the answer. But just to be clear on the net effect of these changes,

the situation that is being created or maintained is that municipalities have significantly

less flexibility over their control over what happens with short-term rental within

their domain than First Nations do. Is that an accurate statement?

Would a general, reasonable person trying to understand the implications of this legislation

in its totality and of the situation that will exist be reasonable in coming to the

conclusion that there will be different rules for short-term rental on First Nations

and on non-First Nations municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle : To clarify what I have already said, treaty Nations are self-governing nations

whereas

local governments fall under provincial law, so they’re currently different circumstances.

Gavin Dew : At any point did the government contemplate giving the same self-governance and subsidiarity

to municipalities as exists for First Nations?

Again, the outcome here as understood by a regular everyday British Columbian who

is trying to understand what the implications are here…. The outcome that is being

produced is that there is far greater flexibility to do whatever you want for First

Nations and to have market advantages, a greater ability to monetize property through

short-term rental, greater flexibility to define periods of accommodation that differ

from the period of time described in

definitions of short-term-rental accommodation

services.

The net effect being produced here is that neighbours across the street are going

to have fundamentally different rights than one another. And the governing authorities

governing those neighbours across the street are going to have fundamentally different

levels of control over how short-term rental can and cannot happen.

Is it an accurate statement for the general public to understand that this will create

two classes of short-term-rental property owners?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The member seems to not understand the basics of treaty, but this act doesn’t change

anything on that specific front.

Gavin Dew : That wasn’t the question. The question, again, was: will there be, going forward,

two different classes of property owners in their ability to do short-term rental

depending on whether they are on First Nations land or not First Nations land.

[5:10 p.m.]

Please help me understand that, because the public isn’t interested in legal analysis.

The public is interested in understanding why it is that government sees fit to restrict

their municipalities and to restrict their rights, while their neighbours across the

street have far greater rights.

That is the nexus of the exact kinds of conflicts over land and title and rights that

are playing out right now in this province, and the minister seems very unwilling

to engage with that question from the perspective of an everyday British Columbian

who will be affected by it.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, as I have stated earlier, those living on treaty lands know that the treaty

nation is the government of those lands. This isn’t creating a change on that front.

I’ll leave it there.

Gavin Dew : It sounds as if we are harmonizing administrative processes on treaty lands, but in

no way are we harmonizing rights for individuals in municipalities who would like

to have property rights.

Just one more question on this clause. How will potential conflicts between municipal

bylaws and First Nations law be resolved on overlapping jurisdictions?

Hon. Christine Boyle : There are not municipal bylaws on treaty lands. Again, a modern treaty Nation is a

distinct governing form from a local government, and there is not an overlap between

the two.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

Tony Luck : In clause 38, how will the registrar ensure that the process will be fully independent?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This

section ensures that there’s separation between the person conducting the review

and the person who made the original decision.

Tony Luck : Must the person who, as a registered delegate, has “the power to make a decision about

a person’s registration or renewal of registration” be a responsible official for

that purpose?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I need the member opposite to clarify the question. I don’t understand what they’re

trying to get at.

Tony Luck : What we’re asking here is if the person who, as a registrar delegate, has power to

make a decision about a person’s registration or renewal of registration, must be

a responsible official. Is somebody officially indentured to be able to have that

power?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This clause removes the designation of a “responsible official” and clearly allocates

the responsibilities to the director and the registrar, to make it more clear to the

public what to expect from the process.

[5:15 p.m.]

The registrar and the director have the authority to conduct or delegate reviews.

However, to ensure fairness, this clause ensures that the same person can’t act in

both of those roles to review their own decisions.

Tony Luck : Just for clarification, it cannot be the same person? Is that what I heard correctly?

Is that right?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

Tony Luck : Why is the minister limiting the grounds for reviewing a person’s registration?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This amendment is not restricting it. It’s aligning the grounds for review of a registrar’s

decision with the existing grounds for review of a decision on an administrative penalty

and clarifying that the person responsible for conducting the review is the registrar.

Tony Luck : What exactly are the prescribed grounds going to be for when a review can be made, and does the minister have

an idea of what these may be or will be in the future?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Additional grounds that are already prescribed for regulation for administrative penalty

reviews include when technical errors or administrative procedural errors occur. Consequential

amendments to the regulation will ensure that the same prescribed grounds are available

for registration reviews as are already available for reviews of administrative penalties.

Tony Luck : Thank you for that answer and the clarity. Will there be any hardship or fairness

exceptions where evidence exists but couldn’t be gathered in time for review?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes, there are provisions for if a person was unable to be heard because of circumstances

beyond their control, which would include a legitimate timing concern.

Tony Luck : Thank you for that answer. It’s good, because some people run into extenuating circumstances.

So I appreciate that.

Why is the minister limiting the requirements for when new evidence can be considered,

and what will be considered to be “substantial and material” for evidence?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The amendment specifies that the registrar may “consider new evidence only if the

registrar is satisfied that the new evidence (

a) is substantial and material to the

review and (

b) did not exist when the decision was made or did exist...but was not

discovered and could not, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been

discovered.”

[5:20 p.m.]

Tony Luck : Just one follow-up. Is there an appeal process should that evidence not be accepted

by the panel, the registrar or however it works? Is there going to be an appeal process?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The process provides an opportunity for a limited administrative review, not for appealing

the original decision. Appeals of the original decision can be sought through a judicial

review.

Clause 39 approved.

On clause 40.

Linda Hepner : It’s good to be standing up again for a little while. My turn.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

What are the consequences in clause 40 for providing false or misleading information

to the registrar or a designated person by the registrar?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The act allows for revoking of a licence as well as an administrative penalty. An

administrative penalty is a monetary penalty imposed on short-term-rental hosts or

platforms who fail to comply with requirements of the act or regulations.

In the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act’s administrative penalty framework, maximum

daily penalties can range from $500 to $20,000, depending on the contravention. Some

administrative penalty maximums can be issued daily for each day the contravention

has occurred. While the administrative penalty maximums per contravention may appear

low to some, daily penalties can quickly add up.

Linda Hepner : I have a question around enforcement mechanisms. That’s in clause 41, so I’m going

to skip that because when I look at clause 41, it identifies the enforcement mechanisms.

So that’s actually all I have to ask of clause 40.

Clauses 40 and 41 approved.

On clause 42.

Linda Hepner : I do have a question on 42, and that’s about: how will the director ensure that no

person conducts multiple roles under this section? What happens if a person does conduct

multiple roles in relation to the same matter?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Similar to the previous discussion, this clause lays out that the director must not

assign to the same person a file that they have had previously.

Clause 42 approved.

On clause 43.

Tony Luck : So 43. Why is the director not obliged to make the information in subsection (1)(

a) and (

b) available to the general public?

Hon. Christine Boyle : This clause specifies that the director may publish or otherwise make available to

the public orders, notices, agreements or decisions or summaries of them made under

part 4.

Tony Luck : More of a personal one. Why may information made available to the public include personal information, especially after some of the

chat we’ve been talking about around personal information?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Publishing compliance decisions is an effective tool used to deter contraventions

of the law and to ensure accountability and is used in many other compliance frameworks.

Gavin Dew : Appreciate the answer. I think what we’re trying to understand is why the director

may publish versus the director must publish. Just trying to understand the option

of publishing versus the obligation to publish and what the thought pattern was behind

that.

Hon. Christine Boyle : It simply allows some discretion in that publication — for example, if somebody made

an error versus if they are a repeat offender in contravention.

Linda Hepner : Can you give me a real-life example of the kind of personal information that would

be available to the public and what the thinking is behind…? I mean, I get what the

thinking is behind the release. It’s that hopefully you’ll behave better. It’s like

when they used to publish “Joe was drunk and disorderly” in the newspaper years ago.

But is the thinking that you’re bringing it into compliance? What kind of personal

information and how much personal information? What if you’ve made a mistake? How

do you correct errors? How is the liability managed and the reputational damage mitigated

for if you’ve made a mistake and have misunderstood or received payment in a different

fashion?

I won’t identify how the misunderstanding would happen, but if you’ve made a mistake,

how are those mistakes mitigated, given that you’ve given personal information? And

what and how much personal information is given?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : The process to investigate and take enforcement actions provides many opportunities

for the person to address the contravention and come into compliance. By this stage,

the person has had adequate time to assess the impact of having enforcement actions

taken against them and the impact of having their personal information published online.

A basic

summary of the compliance order or administrative penalty would be published

that may include the person’s name, the general location of the property where the

contravention occurred — for example, the municipality or community — the contravention

and reasons for the action taken and the amount of administrative penalty and reasons

for it.

Clause 43 approved.

On clause 44.

Gavin Dew : If I can just get a little bit more elaboration on the kinds of discretion granted

under this section. I’m trying to understand this. As I read it, it sounds like, effectively,

we’re creating mechanisms for a plea deal or a negotiation between an individual who

might be subject to a penalty and the director.

I’m just trying to understand what the mechanics envisioned are for this and, in particular,

in order to not enforce an administrative penalty.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the question. In some cases, the opportunity to have an administrative

penalty reduced or cancelled could influence a non-compliant short-term-rental platform

or host to come into compliance in alignment with the act’s housing objectives.

The residential tenancy branch uses a similar approach, where a notice of administrative

penalty includes an option for the person to approach the rental tenancy branch compliance

and enforcement unit director to negotiate the terms of an agreement appropriate to

their circumstances. The RTB has used this feature to achieve significant outcomes

when daily administrative penalty rates have accumulated significantly.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the answer. That makes sense.

I do want to understand. In the prior section, we’ve talked about disclosures. We

talked functionally about public shame as a mechanism to get compliance. We’re talking,

again, about discretion existing for the director.

Let’s imagine a situation in which, for example, the director has made an error. Let’s

imagine, for the sake of argument, that the director has published an erroneous order,

an erroneous notice that has brought embarrassment to an individual. Let’s imagine

that they find themselves in a situation where they’re trying to reconcile and resolve

that issue.

In that instance, as I understand the way this is laid out, the director has all the

power. The director has all the leverage.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

If, for example, you are an individual who has been wrongly shamed through a notice

or had what you believe to be an incorrect ruling made against you, you then have

a director who can basically say: “Look, I will waive the administrative penalty so

long as you sign this non-disclosure agreement and do not disclose the fact that we

erred in our assessment of your situation.”

Again, there’s some leverage there. I’m trying to come up with a plausible hypothetical

there, but there could very well be circumstances in which an error is made, and the

director has all the leverage to effectively induce silence through waiving an administrative

penalty. What are the appeal mechanisms or the ombuds-type mechanisms that might exist

for those rare circumstances in which there might in fact be an error made in the

administration of the regulation by the director or by their staff?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : The director is a statutory decision-maker, a role that takes these decisions very

seriously. They wouldn’t be drafting them alone. They would have legal counsel involved.

Were there a disagreement, there’s the option of a judicial review.

Clauses 44 to 49 inclusive approved.

Gavin Dew : I rise to speak to the amendment in my name on the order paper.

The Chair : So you need to move the amendment, please.

Gavin Dew : Yes, so moved.

[ CLAUSE 49.1, by adding the following clause:

49.1 The following

section is added:

Short-term rental permits

36.1

(1) In this section:

“major event ” means an arts, culture, sport, academic, political or industry event that is expected

to attract a significant number of attendees requiring accommodation;

“period of a major event” means the period during which a major event is to take place together with the three

days before and the three days after this period.

(2) Subject to subsection (7), if a major event is to take place within the area of authority

of a local government, the local government may, upon application, issue a temporary

permit to a person that would allow the person to provide short-term rental accommodations

in the area of authority during the period of the major event in accordance with the

provisions of the permit and any bylaws made under subsection (4).

(3) The permit referred to in subsection (2) is to be in effect for the period specified

in the permit.

(4) A local government may make bylaws respecting permits referred to in subsection (2).

(5) To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of a bylaw made under subsection

(4) and the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the bylaw prevail.

(6) To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of a permit referred to in subsection

(2) and the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the permit prevail.

(7) A local government may not issue a permit under subsection (2) in respect of any particular

accommodation for a total of more than 45 days in any calendar year. ]

The Chair : Okay, do continue to speak to it. Thank you so much.

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew : I’ve brought forward two amendments. This is the more complicated of the two, but

I believe that it’s a balanced, thoughtful, proportionate response to a specific situation

that we have seen playing out, and that is uncertainty over the ability of municipalities

to accommodate the full breadth of accommodation demand during major events in a way

that reflects their individual local realities.

I’m a big believer in the idea that such issues should be addressed at the lowest

possible level, closest to the situation, which, in this case, would be municipalities.

In other words, we should treat municipalities like grownups and assume that they

are capable of enacting their own rules and policies as it relates to specific circumstances

on the ground for them.

I’m talking, of course, about FIFA-level tournaments, world-class concerts like Taylor

Swift, large conferences, cultural festivities, the kinds of events that bring thousands

of people into a community for a very short time, well beyond the capacity of existing

hotels and traditional rental stock to expand to meet that demand, or well beyond

circumstances where there is, in fact, long-term demand for the full accordion scope

of long-term demand.

What this amendment sets out to do is to create a municipal event exemption. That

would let cities temporarily adjust short-term-rental rules during major events that

create sudden spikes in accommodation demand. The approach that I’ve laid out in the

amendment would still be capped at an absolute maximum of 45 days per year. Municipalities

would have to define that event window, pass a resolution and report to the province.

Temporary permits issued for that period would still be tracked and regulated but

could be faster and cheaper to encourage surge capacity to come on stream.

Effectively, this does not diminish the many different controls and protections that

exist. It does not create imaginary hypothetical loopholes. It is a good-faith effort

to try to create a structure that is workable and that, again, would send a signal

to housing markets that there is demand for additional short-term-rental housing in

the short term.

Even very specifically, if we just look at the timing and cost of permitting, the

process enacted by the province has encountered some criticism for its complexities,

for its slowness, for its inability to keep up, and of course, for its cost.

[5:40 p.m.]

In those instances where a municipality, acting as a grownup, understanding what is

needed for its community, wants to have the ability to encourage a short-term surge

of temporary short-term-rental accommodations, in which the intent is not to take

away from existing long-term-rental stock but simply to get more housing into the

market, more accommodation into the market, that is what this amendment sets out to

do.

Again, it’s a very carefully calibrated, commonsense, subtle amendment that I’ve brought

forward in good faith and which I believe could be a way to address some of the additional

surge in demand for major events and, again, to return a small iota of control to

municipalities on the assumption that they will make good, smart rules because they

are in fact grown-ups who understand their communities, their local housing markets,

their tourism markets and the economic and other consequences of the approach that

they take.

The Chair : First of all, I’d like to say thank you to the member for getting this amendment on

the order sheet a couple of days ahead so that it had the opportunity to be reviewed

fully.

It is the ruling of the Chair that this amendment proposed by the member from Kelowna

is actually beyond the scope of Bill 25 and is therefore considered to be out of order

at this time.

But thank you so much for bringing it forward. That’s appreciated.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Gavin Dew : I anticipated the possibility that that might very well be the case, and as the minister

is aware, I have also brought the exact same amendment forward as a private member’s

bill, which is now sitting on the order paper. If the minister would like to actually

debate this good-faith amendment, I would encourage her to speak to her House Leader

and ask that the bill be called.

The Chair : That is for some other time. Thank you so much.

On clause 50.

Linda Hepner : Speaking to clause 50, can the minister explain why cabinet can now direct what grounds

a registrar or the director may consider when someone asks for a review? Why not allow the registrar or the director to include what they consider to be necessary

in terms of a review?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the clarification question. The act allows additional grounds for review

to be prescribed from regulation, as the member notes. Additional grounds that are

already prescribed in regulation for administrative penalty review, including technical

errors or administrative procedural errors, would also be available for registration

review.

It’s not creating new grounds. It’s just ensuring consistency in mirroring those grounds

that are already prescribed in regulation for administrative penalty to also be grounds

available for registration review.

The Chair : I’m just going to take a minute to remind the committee that at six o’clock, or thereabouts,

the division bells will ring, at which point I will adjourn the committee for this

evening. So just be aware. This is kind of your 15-minute warning.

Linda Hepner : Okay, this question is relatively similar.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering why cabinet needs the power to set the mandatory conditions on penalty

and settlement compliance agreements rather than the director enforcing a fine. It

seems to be a complicated process in terms of involving cabinet when in fact the director could simply have the power to enforce the fine.

Hon. Christine Boyle : It’s very standard to have cabinet oversight over regulations, and it’s consistent

with what’s already in the current rules.

Clause 50 approved.

On clause 51.

Tony Luck : In clause 51, will regulations be made equally between local governments and participating

First Nations? If not, what will be the difference?

Hon. Christine Boyle : So (

a) and (

b) enable new regulation-making authorities for participating First Nations

that are currently already available to local governments.

Tony Luck : Hypothetically, could this potentially lead a participating First Nation to lobby

the minister to restrict all short-term rentals?

Hon. Christine Boyle : As we’ve covered previously, a treaty First Nation has their own law-making authority.

If they wanted a coordination agreement, they would have these conversations through

that.

Clause 51 approved.

Gavin Dew : I rise to move the amendment in my name, adding clause 51.1.

[ CLAUSE 51 .1, by adding the following clause:

51.1

Section 11 (1) (b) (

i) of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Regulation, B.C.

Reg. 268/2023, is amended by striking out “ November 1 ” and substituting “ May 1 ”. ]

The Chair : Very good. Carry on.

Gavin Dew : I have brought forward this amendment on Bill 25 because, as I have alluded to throughout

debate on this bill, I believe there are opportunities to make simple, commonsense

changes to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act and that the opportunity to do

so has, unfortunately, been missed in the development of this bill.

As the Minister of Housing alluded to earlier, the city of Kelowna has been among

the advocates coming to the government and asking them to make this change. It is,

unfortunately, absent from the bill.

The reason why it matters is that communities like mine, Kelowna, are tourism-driven

and seasonal in nature. They face a real and serious challenge under the current opt-out

timelines in the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Under the existing rules, as the minister is aware, a municipality that meets the

vacancy rate threshold and submits its opt-out resolution by March 31 must wait until

November 1 for the change to take effect. That can mean an entire summer season lost

for local businesses, visitors, seasonal workers and hosts, with significant implications

across a tourism-driven economy like Kelowna.

My amendment proposes an extremely simple, commonsense change. Keep the March 31 submission

deadline, but move the effective opt-out date from November 1 to May 1 of the same

year.

In regions like mine, the summer months are the beating heart of the local economy.

Festivals, sporting events, wineries, tourism operators and hundreds of small businesses

depend on the May-to-September season. Being forced to wait until next November to

implement a locally justified opt-out means we risk losing that entire window. That’s

poor policy, and it fails to respect the housing and economic realities of our community

of Kelowna.

[5:50 p.m.]

Kelowna has outperformed. It has built more homes, met our housing targets, raised

our vacancy rates to its highest level in 20 years. Our vacancy rate reached 3.8 percent

in 2024, and it is currently estimated right now today at over 5 percent. That is

significantly in excess of the 3 percent threshold envisioned in the legislation.

If government genuinely believes in made-in-community partnerships with municipalities

and not just top-down direction, then this change should be very simple, totally non-controversial

and fully supported.

This change gives local governments the ability to implement decisions more quickly,

based on real data, real vacancy rates and real seasonal demand, without waiting through

another entire year. The opposite, failing to move it forward, sends a signal to municipal

governments that they can do exactly what the province has asked them to do and still

be confronted with inflexible obstinacy.

This amendment is not, in fact, the first way that I am bringing this forward. I’ve

actually brought forward this exact same change through a private member’s bill, and

I would submit that, actually, government has three easy options available to it if

it wants to make this commonsense change.

The first is that, having already seen that the city of Kelowna is making a request

to the provincial government to allow it to opt out earlier, government could already

have done this through an order in council, but they haven’t, unfortunately.

Government is sitting here today, the Housing Minister is here across from me, and

the Housing Minister could very well choose to support this amendment to Bill 25,

which would be, again, a simple, really easy way to enact a change that should be

totally non-controversial Because again, the city of Kelowna has outperformed the

standards set by the government, and the city of Kelowna is specifically and directly

asking for this provincial government to repay its hard work by giving it some flexibility

from an inflexible and impractical piece of legislation.

Finally, if the government is unwilling to act by moving this forward through an order

in council, unwilling to act by supporting this amendment to Bill 25, then I would

submit that government should have the courage to call my private member’s bill, to

have it debated in the House. And if it will not vote for it, then vote against it.

But do it now, do it soon, and tell the people of Kelowna and the city of Kelowna

whether, in fact, they can rely on the good faith of this government in repaying their

hard work to reach and exceed the necessary vacancy thresholds to be allowed to opt

out of the short-term-rental regulations and to be able to maximize on our summer

tourism season next year.

The Chair : Once again, I say thank you for getting this on the order paper early so that it could

be considered whether or not it was within scope. Once again, it is indeed considered

beyond the scope of Bill 25 through these discussions. Thank you very much for bringing

it forward, and it is considered out of order at this time.

Gavin Dew : I hope that the Minister of Housing will either go to cabinet, secure an order in

council or go to her House Leader and bring this bill forward for debate in the remaining

days of this session so that she can provide clarity to hard-working people in Kelowna

as to whether or not she will in fact continue to frustrate their desire to return

to a greater degree of flexibility and to have a strong summer tourism season.

Can the minister confirm that the intent here is to grandfather undertakings that

were begun before these amendments come into effect?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yes.

Gavin Dew : Residents in my community are curious as to why there is a grandfathering clause that’s

being implemented here, but in Kelowna we have, for example, a development called

Aqua that over the course of 14 years was developed, built, sold and brought to market

on the assumption that it would be short-term rental at all times during that 14 years.

[5:55 p.m.]

It was literally that the land was purchased on the assumption that it would be eligible

to be short-term rental. Individuals made presales contracts on the basis that it

would be short-term rental. The development was built with an amenity package designed

for short-term rental. There are little locks on the bottom drawer of bathroom cabinets

for extra toilet paper on the assumption it would be for short-term rental. There

are hotel-sized fridges on the basis that it would be for short-term rental.

Yet when the government brought in its Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, despite

efforts by the city of Kelowna to carve out and grandfather such purpose-built developments,

there was no willingness by the government to grandfather those kinds of developments. The result is that you have individuals who are stranded

in very difficult financial circumstances because they are unable to secure long-term

tenants at a price that comes anywhere near the mortgages that they are paying.

I’m trying to understand. Why is it that grandfathering is appropriate in this

section

of the act, but there was no consideration for grandfathering previously when it significantly

affected individuals?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The two situations aren’t comparable. Removing legal non-conforming use zoning protections

means that short-term rentals that were operating prior to local STR rules being introduced

are now subject to these rules. We, in fact, heard from some local governments that

non-conforming use rules prevented them from addressing the impacts of short-term

rentals on housing challenges in their community.

Clause 52 approved.

On clause 53.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the answer on 52. I think it is cold comfort to those individuals who’ve

be left in severely difficult situations as a result of the approach.

[Interruption.]

The Chair : Member, if you’ll just stop for a sec.

Have you got control? Great. Thank you.

Member, please carry on.

Gavin Dew : Thank you. As I was saying, I do feel that there’s still a tremendous degree of frustration

from individuals in my community about the way in which grandfathering, or the lack

thereof, was handled, and that frustration is not going away anytime soon.

I will just briefly ask one question on 53. Why is there so much urgency to bringing

section 34 into effect on January 1, relative to almost everything else? Why the urgency

of the changes to the principal residence definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle : It’s simply coming in at the start of the calendar year.

Clause 53 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:00 p.m.