Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

26, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Sharma: I'd like to extend a welcome to the board of directors of the British Columbia Notaries

Association.

[10:05 a.m.]

In attendance today are Daniel Boisvert, board president and city of Delta councillor;

Morrie Baillie, board vice-president; Jackie Tait, board secretary and treasurer;

Brendan Rothwell, director; Cam Sherk, director; Kate Roome, director; and Chad Rintoul,

chief executive officer and town of Sidney councillor.

It's the role of B.C. Notaries Association to advocate, educate, promote and support

notaries throughout British Columbia and work collaboratively with my ministry to

increase access to justice and legal services. I thank them for their work.

N. Simons: I think we're on introductions right now.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

N. Simons: Yeah, it's so early in the roster. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a distinct pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House Judy and Jeannine Bousquet,

who join us from the beautiful harbour city of Nanaimo.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

S. Furstenau: I just want to extend a special welcome to Kate Roome, who is here from Duncan with

the B.C. Notaries Association. Kate is a constituent and a hard-working notary up

in Duncan.

Would the House please make Kate feel most welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DESERT HILLS FARM MARKET

J. Tegart: As we celebrated Agriculture Day this week, it seems appropriate for me to talk about

an incredible business in my riding that grows food and feeds the world.

Desert Hills farm in Ashcroft is known across the province for the quality of their

produce. They are living proof that you can grow just about any crop in Ashcroft —

with a seed, add some water, some natural sun, a farmer and voila. You have melons,

peppers, onions, potatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, tomatoes, carrots,

apples and pears. The list goes on and on.

This year Desert Hills added over 80 ice cream flavours to their menu. On a hot summer

day, there is nothing better. I have to admit the ice cream selection is one of the

main reasons my grandchildren like to go to the farm.

This past summer Desert Hills found itself with a challenge. They had produce that

did not fit the size requirements for their main retailer, so they put a message out

on Facebook that they would be giving away 50,000 pounds of cantaloupe to whoever

came to the farm to pick it up. They encouraged people to share the produce with friends,

neighbours and their local food banks, and the cantaloupe was gone in a weekend.

Next came 65,000 pounds of onions. Same scenario — lineups of cars, people taking

food home and sharing it in neighborhoods and with their food banks. This is a farm

that lost crops to flooding, to smoke damage and wildfire, but their generosity continues.

I'd like to say thank you to the Desert Hills farm, to the Porter family and their

staff. We appreciate your generosity and the work that you do to feed us all.

COMMUNITYVOTES CHILLIWACK

COMMUNITY RECOGNITION AWARDS

K. Paddon: Well, it's that time again where I rise to share all about the incredible people in

Chilliwack-Kent.

Recently, many of my favourite service providers, businesses and organizations in

Chilliwack made the award list for CommunityVotes Chilliwack. CommunityVotes Chilliwack

is an online award where the community nominates and votes for the best in Chilliwack

in dozens of categories.

We both know, hon. Speaker, that I only have two minutes and that the ASL interpreter

only has two hands, so I will share only some highlights from the list. Buckle up.

There are a lot of awesome organizations in Chilliwack, my friends.

Let's start with a little entertainment. The platinum prize for theatre goes to Chilliwack

Cultural Centre, followed by Secondary Characters and the Chilliwack School of Performing

Arts, who earned a silver place in addition to their gold standing in the performing

arts category.

[10:10 a.m.]

It's no surprise to me that the top prize in the college and university category went

to UFV, with a gold place going to ElderCollege.

Chilliwack's favourite non-profits, undoubtedly a tight race in Chilliwack, were Chilliwack

Hospice Society, Wilma's Transition Society, Tydel Foods and Chilliwack Pride Society.

You may recognize some names in the outstanding community organization category, where

it was Chilliwack Hospice with platinum, Chilliwack Community Services with gold,

Chilliwack Pride with silver and the fantastic Stó:lō Youth Services to round out the group.

The top votes for community groups were Chilliwack Community Services, Chilliwack

Jets Junior A hockey and the Chilliwack Community Arts Council.

For restaurants, there are many categories. Overall, Farmhouse Brewing took the platinum

prize, followed by a gold for Shandhar Hut and a silver for the Little Beetle bistro.

In the category of farmers markets, first place went to Yarrow Farm Market followed

by Hofstede's Country Barn and the Downtown Chilliwack Community Market.

Finally, to finish off with some ice cream, the platinum prize holder is Banter Ice

Cream, with a gold for Kent's Ice Cream and Mighty Moose Ice Cream with silver.

There it is. The smallest of highlight reels from the CommunityVotes Chilliwack awards.

Thank you for your attention.

Please join me in congratulating those I listed and those I couldn't for their excellence.

WEST COAST TRAIL

T. Stone: Imagine, with me, the iconic scenes of the west coast. The morning mist blanketing

rugged coastlines, the monstrously huge trees, the creeks, canyons, sandy beaches,

the sometimes eerie and always stunning beauty of our temperate rainforest.

This summer I had the privilege of spending seven days traversing this incredible

terrain, tackling the essential B.C. experience of the West Coast Trail from Gordon

River to Pachena Bay. The last week of July my wife, Chantelle, and I packed up everything

we would need on our backs and headed into the wilderness, with our friends Marie-Helene

and Justin, for one of the most physically and, sometimes, mentally challenging experiences

of our lives but also one of the most rewarding and, certainly, amazing for the soul.

As we trekked along the 75 kilometres of trail with 40 pounds of gear on our back,

we were tested by over 100 ladders, fast-flowing waters, deep mud and even, one day,

over 55 millimetres of rain in four hours. We were also treated to meaningful connections

with so many people from around the world that we met along the trail, stunning views

and diverse wildlife — orcas, seals, sea lions, sea wolves, bald eagles and bears.

The West Coast Trail is, indeed, one of our province's most iconic back-country trails.

It's also a living piece of B.C. heritage, as it follows routes used by First Nations

since time immemorial.

Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and Pachena villages and camps were established in the region

long before European ships ever sailed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As the

number of ships on our coast increased, so did the number of shipwrecks, giving this

place the infamous title of Graveyard of the Pacific. Over the last century, it was

given other names, including the West Coast Telegraph Line and the west coast lifesaving

trail.

Today the trail welcomes and challenges thousands of adventure seekers every year,

testing their mettle and giving them an experience like no other. It's indeed a B.C.

treasure and one that I am so immensely thankful to have been able to witness firsthand.

FOSTER CAREGIVERS FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

K Greene: October is Foster Family Month. Let's all take this time to recognize and thank foster

parents, who provide safe and loving homes to children and youth who need a supportive

place to live while they're temporarily unable to live with their own families.

Fostering a child or youth can be an incredibly rewarding life experience. It's a

unique opportunity to have an impact on the life of a child or youth in need of support,

an impact that can last a lifetime.

Foster caregivers are there for children and youth in difficult circumstances, providing

a home that is inclusive and understanding. A nurturing environment is so important

for the developmental needs of young people, and the effort and patience that caregivers

put into creating that space is deeply and gratefully appreciated.

We also want to recognize the love and dedication of extended families and kinships

that have opened their doors to support the needs of their loved ones to ensure that

the children they care for continue to be connected to family, community and culture.

While the individual circumstances of foster caregivers, extended families and kinships

may vary, they all share a common goal of making a positive difference in the life

of a young British Columbian in need. I offer this quote from Tonia Christle. "You

might be temporary in their lives. They might be temporary in yours. But there is

nothing temporary about the love or the lesson."

[10:15 a.m.]

On this 33rd Foster Family Month, I want to express my deep appreciation and gratitude

for all those who have answered the call to step forward and help a child or youth

who needs a safe and supportive home.

If you are interested in caregiving, please reach out to the B.C. Foster Parents Association

at bcfosterparents.ca.

SAANICH PENINSULA HOSPITAL

FUNDRAISING EVENT

A. Olsen: Saanich Peninsula residents have long fought to preserve our community hospital. For

many of us, it was where our family members were born, and it is where we've said

our last goodbyes.

The hospital supports more than 30,000 households on the Saanich Peninsula and the

southern Gulf Islands. Over the past 35 years, the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and

Health Care Foundation has organized more than 30 fundraising drives, collecting nearly

88,000 donations and raising more than $75 million to upgrade and modernize our hospital.

The work includes 12 major renovation and construction projects and hundreds of pieces

of invaluable life-saving equipment.

This summer, when the emergency room was forced to close in the evenings, I heard

from the residents on the Saanich Peninsula renewed vocalization about the positive

feeling we have for our hospital. That is why when the Saanich Peninsula Hospital

and Health Care Foundation hosted its annual gala fundraiser this past weekend, for

the first time, at the Mary Winspear Centre, the community showed up to return the

support the hospital provides for us.

This year the generous people of the Saanich Peninsula donated a record $619,000 for

the latest fundraising campaign. Chaired by the one and only Dr. Ambrose Marsh, the

fundraising goal is $15 million to renovate the 50-year-old acute care unit. If you're

interested in supporting the campaign, visit sphf.ca.

Finally, I must raise my hands in gratitude to the retired CEO of the foundation,

Karen Morgan. Karen is retiring again, this time from her role as the interim executive

director of the Shoreline Medical clinic.

Thank you, Karen, for your powerful service in health care on the Saanich Peninsula.

Welcome, Heather Edward, the new executive director of the Shoreline Medical clinic.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

LHATS’AS?IN MEMORIAL DAY

J. Phillip: Today I'd like to acknowledge in the House that October 26 is Lhats'as?in Memorial

Day. It marks 159 years since five Tsilhqot'in Chiefs were wrongfully imprisoned,

tried and executed in 1864 after accepting an invitation to discuss a peaceful resolution

to the Chilcotin uprising. Lhats'as?in, the head war Chief, was hung in 1865.

Today is a day of remembrance for the Tsilhqot'in National Government and for all

British Columbians. It's an opportunity for us to reflect on and redress government's

tumultuous relationship with the Tsilhqot'in Nation during the Chilcotin uprising

and the unjust actions that government took, which resulted in the unwarranted deaths

of six Tsilhqot'in leaders.

Today I acknowledge the difficult history of the mistreatment and misrepresentation

inflicted on the Tsilhqot'in Nation. I also recognize the work that we are doing to

right the wrongs of the past. In 2014, British Columbia exonerated the six Chiefs

and began the process of healing with the Tsilhqot'in Nation.

Today the Tsilhqot'in National Government and the Williams Lake mayor and council

are commemorating the 159th annual Lhats'as?in Memorial Day by hosting a ceremony

at the site of the hangings of the five Chiefs in what is known as downtown Quesnel.

Our government is committed to continuing the reconciliation journey with the Tsilhqot'in

Nation, and we will continue to work to build a secure and more just future for us

all.

limləmt. Thank you.

[10:20 a.m.]

T. Halford: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: I just got tipped off that my two boys are going to be subjected to question period

in their class at Semiahmoo Secondary, I think, so hopefully, they will be proud of

dad and everybody in this House.

I ask the House to please make Semiahmoo Secondary welcome online as they take in

the next half hour.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO

DRUG USER ORGANIZATIONS

K. Falcon: For weeks now, including as recently as Monday, we've raised the serious concerns

that we have about the NDP government's contribution of $1.2 million in public funds

to the Drug Users Liberation Front and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, VANDU,

as part of the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug trafficking.

Now tax dollars given to them by the NDP enabled the Drug Users Liberation Front to

buy heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine from organized crime on the dark web. Today we

now learn that the Vancouver police have raided the NDP's taxpayer-funded Liberation

Front and made arrests.

My question to the Premier is this, Will the Premier take full responsibility and

accountability for the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and ensure his government's

absolute cooperation with the ongoing police investigation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As the member knows full well, the contract

that the group that he is talking about was awarded by Vancouver Coastal Health for

the testing of drugs for overdose prevention and assisting people and helping people

in preventing them from dying. In no way, shape or form were any of those funds intended

for the purchase of illegal drugs, and the member knows that.

As well, police are conducting and have conducted an investigation which has led to

the arrest and warrants for individuals. Those who break the law are held accountable,

and that's exactly what is happening.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, Vancouver Coastal Health is an arm of the provincial government. And it is this

provincial government, through…. The reckless, irresponsible decriminalization efforts

have resulted in these kinds of events taking place.

Now, when confronted about the issue this week, the Premier, unbelievably, said: "It's

unfortunate, because they were providing essential, life-saving work." This is incredibly

dismissive of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and the harms that are caused by buying

illegal drugs from the dark web, a haven for organized crime, gangs and drug cartels.

Does the Premier, and this government, stand by his earlier comments as an adequate

justification for the NDP's involvement in such illicit activities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll repeat again for the member. What the Premier was talking about and what the

health authority was doing with the contract was to save lives. Supposedly, that's

something that the opposition wants to see happen. A contract was given to the organization

the member is talking about to save lives, to test drugs, to prevent overdose deaths.

It was not, in any way, shape or form, for taxpayer money of any kind to purchase

illicit drugs, and the member knows that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Vancouver police department has been investigating, and they have made arrests

and issued warrants. That's what happens when you break the law.

This government fully expects, when a contract is awarded for a specific purpose ––

of that contract are followed.

[10:25 a.m.]

When they weren't and the government found out, the contract was immediately cancelled.

Anyway, the police have been investigating, and they have enforced the law of the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Official opposition leader, supplemental.

K. Falcon: This is incredible. We have a situation where they refuse to acknowledge the problem.

They take the word of the people that are involved in the drug trafficking over the

opposition who raised this issue weeks ago…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's hear the question.

K. Falcon: … and try to diminish the fact that this is dangerous, illegal and harmful activity,

because they apparently think the people involved are good people. Well, I'm sorry,

but buying drugs from the dark web, supporting organized crime, is not life-saving

work. It actually puts police and the public at risk.

Does the Solicitor General really believe that British Columbians are blind to the

reality of what you are doing and who you are supporting and the fact that we have

to have the police raid and arrest people before you finally realize it's the wrong

thing to do as part of this reckless decriminalization program of your government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I'll say to the Leader of the Opposition is this. British Columbians are not

blind to the almost 14,000 people who have died because of the toxic drug crisis in

this province. The public of British Columbia wants government to do everything that

it can to work to save lives, and that's exactly what's been happening.

As the member knows, the contract was for drug testing. And to somehow suggest that

government authorized or wanted funds to go to buy illegal drugs is just straight

nonsense, and they know it.

I'd like to finish just with a quote…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …from the Vancouver police department, who made the arrests and issued the warrants:

"While we support progressive drug policy and believe harm reduction strategies reduce

the number of lives lost due to drug toxicity, we are steadfast in our insistence

that all strategies be fully compliant with the law. Anyone who ignores the law or

fails to obtain proper legal exemptions should expect to be the subject of enforcement

action."

That's exactly what should happen, and that's exactly what this government supports.

E. Sturko: I feel absolutely outraged, and I'll tell you why. It's to hear that this government

is saying, "We have to do everything that we can," because they're trying to save

lives, and that would somehow justify supporting organizations that are putting money

and guns into the hands of people that kill British Columbians through gang activity.

And you know what? It doesn't matter whether the government money…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

E. Sturko: …was used to purchase those drugs or whether it supported a building or their staff

or anything else. Surely in the province of British Columbia, there are other organizations

that are not buying drugs on the dark web that you could have funded.

In my community of Surrey, people are murdered as a result of drug trafficking — Paul

Bennett, a nurse, murdered in his driveway, an innocent bystander, because of organized

criminals. And this government supported DULF to the tune of $200,000, putting that

money potentially into the hands of murderers. You should be ashamed.

Let's make one thing clear. The Premier subsidized an organization that not only used

cryptocurrency to buy illegal drugs off the dark web; they funded an organization

that was openly bragging about it. Think about that.

There is no way that this should come as a surprise to the Premier. The Premier has

ignored, dismissed and hand-waved this issue, and now there's a criminal investigation.

Will the Premier order a forensic audit of the government's funding to VANDU, to DULF

and to other organizations that are involved in criminal activity and funded by the

government?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when they sat on this side

of the House, they funded VANDU.

Let's be clear. What occurred was unacceptable and illegal. When this government found

out, the contract was cancelled.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The police did their investigation, as they should, and have made arrests according

to the law. That's what we expect to happen. Let's also be clear that we have worked

with health authorities. We've been working with public health officials in working

to do everything we can to prevent toxic overdose deaths in this province.

Some 14,000 people have died in the toxic drug crisis in this province. The funding

through Coastal Health to this organization was for the testing and the prevention

of overdose deaths. That's what it was for, and nothing else. That's what happened.

We need to continue our work to ensure that we're doing everything we can to prevent

overdose deaths, but we will continue to make sure that it is done legally.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: I want to apologize. I think that you might have heard me using some unparliamentary

language. But this is extremely upsetting, knowing the impact of drug trafficking

on communities across British Columbia.

It's also extremely hard to believe that this government would not have known that

this was taking place, considering that the BCCSU and UVic were actually assisting

in this project at DULF. These are organizations working very closely with the Minister

of Mental Health and Addictions.

This should not be a surprise, and they were bragging about it for almost two years

in the media. It's either wilful blindness, or it's ignorance.

Will the Premier commit today to an audit, yes or no?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I take issue with the member's statements that this government is not concerned about

organized crime and drug trafficking. This government has done more investment in

fighting organized crime and drug trafficking than that side of the House ever did

when they sat on this side.

Whether it's working with the federal government to get additional funding to fight

organized crime, or it's putting in place a forensic lab to identify firearms and

crack down on illegal firearms coming into this province and this country…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …this government continues to work with police agencies, government agencies at the

federal level and Border Services to do everything we can to deal with organized crime.

That's one of the reasons. We use not only civil forfeiture but unexplained wealth

orders to strengthen the tools that police have, to be able to crack down on drug

traffickers and organized crime. We will continue to do that.

FEDERAL FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATIVE

COSTS IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

S. Furstenau: On Tuesday, we asked the Minister of Health what he's doing to not only recruit but

retain nurses. Although this health care system is failing to create the conditions

needed to retain nurses, it has been great at hiring and retaining corporate and executive

staff.

We are encouraged by the bilateral agreement between B.C. and the federal government

to support health care in our province, but there are concerns that these funds will

be spent on administration, rather than on the systems and people in need.

To the Minister of Health, can he assure the people of B.C. that all of the money

transferred will go to improve front-line health care delivery, rather than administration,

and that there will be complete transparency on how that money is spent?

Hon. A. Dix: Indeed, we have a bilateral agreement with the federal government for the next three

years.

Of that money, $200 million this year, $250 million next year and $300 million the

following year will go to support our nurse ratio proposal, which we worked on together

with nurses across British Columbia. Another $246 million of that money will go to

the continuing support for mental health and addiction programs that are so important

in this time when so many people are at risk in this province for both mental health

and addiction issues.

[10:35 a.m.]

The amounts are detailed in the agreement, and they support the government's initiatives

to hire front-line health care workers, of which we've set records this year and will

continue to set records, I believe, in hiring new people. That includes doctors, nurses,

health science professionals and health care workers.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: There has indeed been record-setting spending.

From 2016 to 2017, the Ministry of Health spent $1.42 billion on administrative costs,

$288 per person in B.C.

In 2022-23, that spending skyrocketed to $3.26 billion, $603 for every person in B.C.,

yet the population of B.C. only increased 10 percent during this time. Health administrative

costs have more than doubled, with executives at the top being paid hundreds of thousands

of dollars, while nurses in Prince Rupert are having to use the food bank because

they can't make ends meet.

One in five British Columbians do not have primary care. We have a shortage of over

5,000 nurses in the public system. ERs are closed more and more regularly. We are

sending cancer patients to the U.S., yet administrative spending in this province

has ballooned.

How can the minister justify the massive expansion in ministerial and administrative

spending in health care while British Columbians are languishing?

Hon. A. Dix: These things are actually measured by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

B.C. has some of the lowest administrative costs in the country for health care, and

that share of administrative costs, which is measured every single year as a share

of health care expenditures, has gone down since I've been Minister of Health.

We have been investing record amounts in front-line health care workers. We have 5,221

net new nurses this year. We've set records for surgeries and for diagnostic testing.

I think the health care system has led us through very challenging circumstances in

two public health emergencies.

I would note, for example, that amongst those administrative costs are the amounts

spent on PPE in our health care system — which is vitally important and, as everyone

knows, increased dramatically during the pandemic because of international conditions

— but I don't apologize for spending money on PPE to keep health care workers safe.

CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING

J. Rustad: Over the last number of weeks, clearly this NDP Premier doesn't want to talk about

the NDP's assault on the rights of parents and the innocence of our children. He doesn't

want to talk about the assault on private property rights and hard-working British

Columbians. Yesterday he refused to talk about struggling farmers going broke because

of this government's policies.

Perhaps this NDP Premier will talk about his government's punishing carbon tax.

Will the Premier admit that this NDP carbon tax is taking more than $3 billion from

British Columbian families, getting them less at the pumps, driving up inflation at

the grocery store and adding to the cost of every new home built in this province?

Hon. G. Heyman: What the member fails to note is that British Columbia's economy has been transforming

significantly as a result of the carbon tax, brought in by the party that he was once

part of when it sat on this side of the House. It has put British Columbia in a good

position to fight climate change, which over 70 percent of British Columbians believe

is a pressing crisis.

I know the member fails to recognize that climate change is human-caused. I know the

House Leader of the Fourth Party says he needs more information about climate change,

but the carbon tax has made a significant difference in British Columbia emissions.

Other jurisdictions are struggling to keep up with us.

With our government, the principles of the carbon tax are that we give back to low

and middle-income British Columbians. By 2030, 80 percent of British Columbians will

get the climate action tax credit, and a significant majority of them will get more

back in the tax credit than they pay in carbon tax. I think that's the right path.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

J. Rustad: Well, half the people in this province are struggling to put food on the table, and

the consumption of fossil fuels per capita has gone up at the same rate as the rest

of the country, so I don't quite understand what this minister doesn't get about the

failed carbon tax.

Quite frankly, enough of the deflection from this NDP. For every voter that our party

is taking from British Columbia from the defunct B.C. United party, we are also taking

one from the NDP party. British Columbians want change. They're done with politics

as usual, and they're done with being taken advantage of by a government that asks

for more and more and delivers less and less to everyday hard-working people.

Why has this NDP government abandoned hard-working, blue-collar voters, and when will

they slash this punishing carbon tax so that everyday workers can afford to live?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we've canvassed this issue many times in this House. I get it. The member,

the Leader of the Conservative Party, doesn't believe climate change is real. He says

he's going to scrap the carbon tax.

He says he's going to scrap the carbon tax, says that climate change is maybe real,

maybe not, I'm not sure. While he was sitting on the other side, with the B.C. United

forum of the B.C. Liberals, he supported all those measures, clapped and spoke at

any opportunity he had about how great they were. So, as much as we don't know where

the B.C. United stand on issues, I really don't know where the Leader of the Fourth

Party stands on issues either.

LYTTON FIRE RECOVERY PROCESS AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

L. Doerkson: Residents of Lytton are already devastated and without homes for 848 days.

They now face astronomical fees related to archaeological work. They are saddled with

mandatory archaeology costs of up to $22,000 plus daily monitoring fees of $6,000

per property per day. These are costs that insurance doesn't cover and that the government

has frankly failed to fund.

Why hasn't the government provided provincial support for these significant expenses?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the government has provided to the village

of Lytton $57 million to assist in the recovery. Of that, $23 million has been targeted

to archaeological debris removal and other parts of the recovery that's required.

As I said, two days ago, or as I said yesterday, but the day before, I spoke with

the mayor of Lytton. She made some suggestions about how we might move forward more

effectively. We're considering those, and we expect to move forward.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

L. Doerkson: It has been, of course, 848 days, and many of these residents have not been funded

in any way. Lytton residents are getting a tab for $22,000 monitoring a ditching trench.

Another resident got a quote for $6,000 per day. These are astronomical fees, especially

when the government hasn't made it clear whether or not people will actually be permitted

to rebuild on these sites.

Why on earth should residents in Lytton pay daily fees of $6,000 for archaeological

monitoring, especially when the government has failed to offer clear timelines and

there is no guarantee they can even build on their own property?

Hon. B. Ralston: Again, in the conversation with the mayor of Lytton, what she did tell me is that

the first building permit for a new house was issued just very recently. There are

approximately 20 homeowners who plan to build, and progress is being made. There's

a temporary police station there, and the rebuilding effort is continuing.

I'm optimistic. I share with the mayor her optimism about the recovery process in

Lytton.

M. Lee: Let's be clear. It's been 848 days, and not a single home has been rebuilt in Lytton.

Some residents have actually died waiting to get back and rebuild their homes. The

lack of timelines and certainty from the government at this stage can only be described

as de facto expropriation.

Is there a plan for compensation?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I would think the opposition critic for Indigenous matters would have some sensitivity

when understanding the important archaeological work that is taking place at the site.

This is a site that has been inhabited by Indigenous people for approximately 7,000

years. The old village was built upon that very site. So when it came to recovery,

the archaeological work that became apparent was much more than people anticipated.

That took time. And that is acknowledged. It is very frustrating for the residents.

Nonetheless, the process is moving forward. A building permit was issued for the first

house, and there are more that are coming forward very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

M. Lee: This is the sort of dismissive attitude that we hear from this government. They're

out of touch.

These issues aren't just about Lytton; they matter all over the province. Indigenous

and non-Indigenous communities are being kept in the dark when they deserve clarity

from this government.

Greater Victoria has thousands of lək̓ʷəŋən sites. Imagine a home in Central Saanich

or Oak Bay burns down and needs to be rebuilt.

Can the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation tell us if residents of

Oak Bay would face the same uncertainty, red tape, huge costs and endless delays?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question.

The steps under the Heritage Conservation Act are clear, and that's a legal obligation

that a property owner is obliged to take measure of.

Again, I would think that the member would support those measures in the Heritage

Conservation Act given that on occasion, even in habited areas where building took

place long ago, there are undiscovered archaeological remains which appear during

the rebuilding process.

That is the law. Those steps are taken, permits are issued, and ultimately, a building

permit is issued.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT

TRANSFORMATION PROJECT

P. Milobar: Well, it's no wonder there are such delays in the heritage branch processing archaeological

permits, because the minister in charge two years ago, in his mandate letter, was

instructed by the Premier, with the Heritage Conservation Act, to do a transformation

project. And it was very clear: the timeline was that was supposed to be done by the

fall of 2023.

It is the fall of 2023. Two days now we haven't had one hint of that coming forward

by the minister's answers.

When can the minister deliver the update on the historical transformation mandate

project that was in his mandate letter?

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Hon. B. Ralston: The Heritage Conservation Act and potential revisions to it are the subject of intense

and detailed discussion between ourselves and rights and title holders, the First

Nations Leadership Council, and that process is ongoing.

I'm optimistic that the result will be the legislative change that I was directed

to lead and expect to lead very shortly.

T. Stone: There is currently a backlog of 11,000 permits and a 255-day average wait time for

archaeological permit processing through the arc branch. Frankly, this is unbelievable,

considering this government has grown the size of government by 137,000 positions

in six years.

But the government also demands that individuals navigate a bewildering 42 steps,

from permits and forms to committees, just to find out if they're even going to have

the possibility of rebuilding on their land. The experience in Lytton has been massive

costs, delays and uncertainty.

Does the Premier recognize the implications for people who want to build homes all

over the province, considering the significant fees and massive delays related to

archaeological work on their properties?

Hon. B. Ralston: To return to Lytton and the challenges there, because I think it's an example of the

challenges faced by the Heritage Conservation Act…. Indeed, we do understand the pressures

that have been faced by citizens seeking to rebuild their homes in Lytton.

[10:50 a.m.]

We have provided… I gave a number of $23 million. It's to the village, who have selected

an archaeological contractor. They are administering those funds in the archaeological

work that goes forward.

We are in discussions with the village of Lytton — not all of that money has been

expended — about how we might use that money to further assist residents of Lytton

in the recovery process.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

T. Stone: Only the NDP would say that they're making progress against the backdrop of residents

at 848 days since their village burned down, and nobody has been able to move back

and begin the rebuild process.

The fact of the matter is that there has been a complete lack of transparency from

this NDP government. We know also that behind closed doors, the government continues

to make plans that will inevitably affect every homeowner in this province. Here's

the bottom line. People want to know that their rights matter, they want to know that

their properties matter, and they want to know that their homes matter.

When will the Premier pull back the curtain and be transparent about the process and

timelines to be informed about artifacts discovered on their properties, and will

the NDP government fully compensate those impacted by outrageous fees related to the

discovery of artifacts on their properties?

Hon. B. Ralston: The government is leading a transformational process of the Heritage Conservation

Act. There is intense interest among Indigenous people and their organizations and

their representatives in this process. That process is continuing. I expect to bring

that forward shortly, and I'm sure that the opposition will be very pleased by the

results of that process.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the annual report of the British Columbia Ferry Commission

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Just as he's walking out the door, I want to acknowledge Chad Rintoul, who is the

CEO of B.C. Notaries and, as well, a councillor in the town of Sidney. It's great

to see him here again in the gallery.

Could the members here make him feel welcome.

Hon. B. Ma: I seek leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave granted.

Personal Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

Hon. B. Ma: Now that I have that leave, I have to admit that it's not quite an introduction, more

of a brief comment to the House.

I'm sure everyone has noticed I've been getting a little round lately. As my pregnancy

has progressed, it has been making some basic things more challenging — walking, talking,

breathing. I just want to acknowledge that I know the political sphere is often very

cut-throat, but I've been incredibly grateful for the kindness, patience and support

of all members of this House, as well as all the staff of the Legislature, who have

really been just quite supportive during this time of growing life.

I wanted to take a moment to just say how proud I am of how the Legislature has evolved

to better support people from all walks of life and different life and family circumstances

so that we can better represent the people of British Columbia.

I need to acknowledge that a lot of that progress comes from the women who have worked

and served in this place over time, from Kate Ryan-Lloyd being the first woman to

serve as Clerk of the Legislature; to women like Michelle Mungall and Jenny Kwan;

to Linda Reid and Christy Clark, who have raised babies in these hallways; to every

single woman who has served and continues to serve in this House for your leadership

and for how you've moved the dial forward for all women in British Columbia.

Of course, it's not just about the women in the House. It's also about the men that

you have positive influences on, and all the men positively influenced throughout

the House as well. I've definitely seen an evolution through time — an evolution that,

I think, we can all be very proud of.

The reason why I'm making this statement today is because, as things get more difficult,

this will likely be my last day physically in the Legislature for the remainder of

the calendar year.

[10:55 a.m.]

I want to thank my critic from Cariboo-Chilcotin for his patience and understanding

on that. I know it's not the same, asking questions of someone over the screen, but

the virtual option, the hybrid option that we've developed here together over the

last few years, is also another incredibly important tool to making service in the

Legislature more accessible to a wide variety of people and to people under different

life circumstances.

My gratitude to the Speaker, to our House Leader, to the government Whip for allowing

me to do this, and for all of the work and support that I have received from everyone

in this House. [Applause.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 31,

Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 33,

Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL

ACCOMMODATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 11 a.m.

The Chair: We'll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental

Accommodation Act.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

K. Kirkpatrick: When we were on clause 13, the minister suggested I move some of those questions to

clause 17. I'm just going to go back in my book here for a minute.

What consultation did the minister undertake with companies like Airbnb about the

feasibility of ensuring compliance with this measure?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff did engage some of the larger platforms regarding this section. Concerns around

how, I guess, Quebec had approached this had come up in the conversations, and we

tried our best to accommodate the issues that they had raised about Quebec in our

legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: What are the consequences for failing to comply with this requirement?

Hon. R. Kahlon: In event of non-compliance, the legislation includes several enforcement mechanisms,

including compliance orders that can be filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, administrative

monetary penalties and injunctions.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

K. Kirkpatrick: We're talking about compliance, so some of these questions can kind of fit into any

of these clauses here.

[11:05 a.m.]

Could the minister explain the role of municipalities versus the role of the province

with respect to enforcement and recognition of non-compliant listings.

It's unclear to me kind of who's in charge of what and how you'll work together, how

government will work together with the municipalities.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The provincial statute will require short-term rental platforms to enable and display

local government business licence numbers. It requires hosts to display this number

in addition to a provincial registration number.

Local governments may send notice of failure to comply with business licence requirements

to platforms and hosts. They will also be able to require a platform to cease providing

services to non-compliant hosts. If the bill passes, further details about the process

will come through regulation.

K. Kirkpatrick: I know UBCM was in favour, in part, to the legislation — not all of it, but to the

legislation being put forth.

Was there consultation done with the municipalities in terms of the sharing of those

responsibilities? It sounds a bit like the province is downloading kind of the heavy

lifting in terms of compliance as opposed to doing it themselves.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wouldn't agree with the frame of that. This is, first off, something local governments

have been asking for. This legislation, essentially, makes it easier to enforce the

short-term rental rules that they have in place. I would not, in any way, characterize

this as downloading in any way.

K. Kirkpatrick: So for clarification, each municipality would have some kind of relationship with

each one of the platforms that is operating in that community. We keep using Airbnb.

It's like the Kleenex of short-term rental.

The platforms themselves, the multiple platforms themselves, would be dealing with

multiple jurisdictions and multiple people in terms of taking down listings.

So it's not a centralized director or registrar they're dealing with; it's all the

municipalities individually.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: They have the power now to do that. What this legislation does is help ensure that

their rules are being followed. Local government could ask the platform to remove

a listing, for example. If, for some reason, it didn't happen, they could come to

us through this legislation, and we have tools to make sure that it happens. But our

expectation is that the platforms will respond to the local government's request.

K. Kirkpatrick: So just to clarify that this isn't necessarily a streamlining of this process. This

is an additional layer of the process of enforcement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is a step to ensure that there are teeth to a request that local government has.

So if a local government wants something done, it's not something that can be easily

shrugged off or moved to the side of the desk.

If the local government feels that it's not being taken seriously, they now have a

mechanism. These are powers that they have been asking for, local governments. It

gives them the ability to enforce the local bylaws. This is supporting their work

but giving them some strength to make sure that the rules are being followed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is the minister…? I don't know if the word is "sure of." But has he consulted with

municipalities that maybe don't have this kind of regulation in place now and haven't

been doing enforcement and haven't been...? Do they have the capacity to be able to

now work within the new legislation?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments that have bylaws and rules in place will be able to continue to

enforce them. Communities that don't have a bylaw now –– this is the floor –– will

be doing that, so it could be in various ways.

You may have a local government that doesn't have a bylaw, but they get, I don't know,

complaints about somebody doing a short-term rental in their neighbourhood. They'll

be able to check with the data set to see if that in fact is registered, and then

we as the province will be able to take steps.

K. Kirkpatrick: The question is really about capacity and, I guess, standardization as well. So some

of those communities, their capacity to actually have the staff and the people in

order to do this…. If they don't have it now, they've got to build up that capacity

by springtime when this comes in.

I believe there's some flexibility, from what the minister said, in terms of how that

will be done. Will there be a standardization?

I want to make sure I'm explaining this right. I know that the legislative framework

has to be abided by, but will there be a standardization of how each of those communities

will actually undertake the monitoring for compliance to ensure that? You know, if

some aren't really doing it, how will government actually know that the rules and

regulations aren't being monitored in a certain community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities that don't have bylaws, we're not asking them to do anything more. The

communities that have bylaws will be able to continue to enforce them. They'll have

an ability to go directly to platforms. Those that don't, we're not asking them to

do anything more.

We talked, I think yesterday or the day before, about different tools we have to be

able to check to see if those that are registered on sites have the correct registration

number. So we're going to be able to validate ourselves.

We'll be building some mechanism through digital tools, etc., to be able to ensure

that most people that are marketing themselves on these platforms are following the

rules, but we're not requiring local governments that don't have bylaws to build a

new team and do all these things. That is not something we're asking. It's only for

those communities that already have it, they now have that relationship, because that's,

I think, something important for many of them.

But we, through our enforcement team and other mechanisms, will be able to address

the communities that don't have that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

A moment ago, I understood that government's role, the province's role, was not administrative

but more kind of at a higher level, but the municipalities themselves would be responsible

for searching out and finding non-compliant listings.

Now what I've just heard the minister say is that those municipalities that don't

already have something in place are actually not going to be expected to do anything

more. But I understood that they would be required to do something more, which is

actually abide by this legislation, which means they are responsible for finding those

listings and contacting the platform. So that is additional work and an additional

need for that municipality to undertake.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities right now that have bylaws in place are struggling to enforce them, so

this supports them. Communities that don't have bylaws in place, there's no additional

requirement of them, because those that don't have the additional bylaws will be able

to enforce that through the tools that we'll have through enforcement mechanisms.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I am still fuzzy on who's doing what and who's got responsibility,

because what I'm hearing the minister say is if they don't have the tools to do it,

the province will step in and provide the tools to do it.

[11:20 a.m.]

One more time at this question, and then I'll move on to a different line of questioning.

I still need some clarification on who's doing what.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I apologize if I maybe confused a little bit with my answer.

I'll try to reframe the answer, which is, regardless if they have a bylaw or not,

we will monitor and investigate both hosts and platforms to ensure compliance with

the legislation and regulations. Regardless if they have a bylaw or not, we'll do

that. We'll issue compliance orders to persons who have contravened the legislation

or regulations. We'll seek injunctive relief or compel persons such as platforms to

comply with legislation and regulations. Regardless if they have rules or not, we

will do those things.

We heard from the platforms that the manual approach that some jurisdictions use is

challenging, so we'll digitize that process to make it much easier for both sides

— us to monitor, and them to monitor as well. We're doing that regardless of whether

they have bylaws or not.

Now, some communities are going to have bylaws that are higher than what we said,

so that's what I was trying to imply — that if they've got rules beyond what we have,

they have the ability now to enforce that directly with platforms, but this is going

to be the minimum we do for everyone across the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I'm still fuzzy, but I'm going to move on to the next line

of questioning here.

There will be some non-compliance. I mean, we know there's going to be non-compliance.

Starting in May, when this comes in, if somebody books on a platform after that time

and it's a non-compliant listing but it hasn't been recognized as non-compliant yet,

are refunds guaranteed for people who accidentally book non-compliant listings? Have

Airbnb or the platforms committed to ensuring those people get their money back?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's our understanding that most of the platforms have policies in place that if the

host cancels in advance, the guest receives a full refund. Of course, it's up to hosts

and platforms to ensure that they're following their rules, but my understanding is

most of the platforms have that rule already.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I'm presuming that these hosts wouldn't be cancelling,

because they are operating in a non-compliant way.

[11:25 a.m.]

The scenario I just asked is kind of future-focused. The scenario I'm hearing from

people right now that they're very concerned about is somebody's having a wedding

next summer, and 50 of their closest friends and relatives are coming. They've already

booked. They've got Airbnbs booked for June or July or whenever that wedding is.

What is going to happen to those Airbnb listings and to those people who are relying

on those accommodations to be able to have their wedding? They've already booked,

but by the time of the booking, it is now a non-compliant booking.

Hon. R. Kahlon: So there's a three-part answer. One, I think this is why it's going to be so important

for the platforms to follow the rules, because there's a real reputational risk if

they don't of a situation like the member described.

The second is an important note for anyone watching right now, which is, if you have

an event, it's important to ask your host if they're compliant, because if the host

is not compliant, the host has to cancel the event so the refunds can be issued. People

shouldn't cancel it until the host tells them that they're not compliant.

Third is when the registry is fully up, the platforms won't be able to have a listing

on there without getting from the province a registration number. That will preclude

people from going to the platforms and setting up their listing without having a proper

registration number from the province. That's what the registry will help us do.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I'm sure if there's anybody watching right now that has

a wedding booked for the summer, they have no idea what they're able to do now.

[11:30 a.m.]

This registry is coming in, or the act is coming in, right before summer. We're in

October right now. People don't usually wait till the very last minute to set up their

wedding and spend their thousands of dollars with their event planner.

The question is: if the wedding or if the event is booked now, and the Airbnbs are

booked now, and they're compliant today under the communities' regulations, but they

become non-compliant when this legislation comes in, so that by the time the wedding

is happening, these are now non-compliant Airbnbs, will they be…?

I mean, whether the host notifies them or not, the platform may notify them. Government

may notify them. What happens? Do they no longer have accommodation for the wedding

that they booked in June?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's very simple. Maybe I'll simplify it even more. If you've got a booking, you should

contact your host to say: "Is the host compliant with the rules on the date that we

have set up?" It's a simple question to the host, because the host will know, after

May 1, if it's a principal residence or not.

Of course, hotels and motels and others are excluded from this. So venues would not

be part of this. But if we're talking about just a person's accommodation, they should

just contact their host and say: "Are you compliant to the law of the date that we're

coming to book"? Because if the host is not, they must notify the person, which means

the person gets a full refund.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Holy smokes. I bet there's a lot of people out there right now who are really, really

worried about that. It would have perhaps made sense to bring this in after the summer

season so that people could actually make appropriate plans, because those people

may be getting married the next summer, and then they can plan their wedding around

the fact that they already know at that point that they can't stay in these Airbnbs.

But if people have planned on bringing families in…. I know, because people have already

contacted me on this exact issue. They've got families coming in. They've rented homes.

Now we're being told, after they've booked the wedding, that they either have to move

their 50 family members or 50 guests into an expensive hotel, which may not have capacity

anyway, or they can't have people come to their wedding.

I'm understanding that that is what the minister is saying. They've booked while it

was compliant. When the actual booking takes place, now it's not compliant.

Can I ask the minister to perhaps suggest to these families and people getting married

what they should be doing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The rule for principal residents comes in on communities over 10,000 in population

that have a vacancy rate below 3 percent. My message to families that may have bookings,

in particular after May 1, which is more than six months away, is to contact your

host to ensure that they're compliant with the rules that are being discussed right

now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh my goodness. So people book their…. They wait for six months, and then they book

their wedding for next summer? These have been booked for years. The Airbnb has probably

been booked for six months. Or they're not going to….

Wow. Okay. This is something I hadn't even anticipated until people started contacting

me in a big panic about this. I thought: "Surely that can't be the case." But it does

appear to be the case. There are going to be a lot of wedding planners upset right

now across British Columbia.

That's all I have to ask.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I think it's important to remind folks that communities under 10,000 in population,

smaller communities, are not impacted by this. Tourism-dependent communities are not

impacted by this.

It's also important to note that many communities had principal residence requirements

already in place. I certainly hope that hosts that had their properties on platforms

check to ensure whether the principal residence requirement was, in fact, a rule in

their community, because many of those communities, of course, had principal residence

requirements anyway.

[11:35 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister.

So what we're saying to those people who have chosen their wedding event to be in

a community that's larger than 10,000 people, that currently doesn't have restrictions

in, is that they should intend to move that event to a community with less than 10,000

people instead.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The message to communities and folks that are looking to do that is that short-term

rentals will still be available in communities. Short-term rentals are still available

in communities.

What we're saying is complete homes that are desperately needed for people in communities,

communities that have vacancy rates that are so low that people are struggling to

find housing — that the housing for people in our communities needs to be a priority.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday when I asked the minister if he could tell us the percentage of the Airbnbs

available currently that are in principal residences and that are not in principal

residences, the minister did not have that number.

Continuing to say that Airbnbs will still be available can mean nothing, because we

have no idea if there are five in a community or 500 in a community. I don't think

that is an answer that is accurate and really means anything, because we have no idea

what the data is behind that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the example the member gave of five to 500, it still means that there are short-term

rentals available in communities — even in that example.

We know a lot of folks have short-term rentals. They have a place, have an extra suite,

and they have a garden suite where there are short-term rentals available. I think

that's important to note — that there will be.

We need to prioritize housing for people in our communities. We know more and more

people are finding it challenging to find housing. Of course, that's why we've taken

this step with this legislation.

M. Bernier: I wasn't going to speak until, you know, listening to these unfortunate answers from

the minister that really don't give any concrete answers or supports, I think, for

the people that have these concerns.

We've seen people, as the member on our team has highlighted, who have already started

making bookings. The minister continues to stand up and say: "Don't worry. There will

be availability for short-term rentals."

I'll give him another opportunity. He's had 24 hours now to get the research done

and find out, because he was unable to give an answer yesterday. This question can

go away very quickly. Can the minister stand up and give us exact numbers then, for

these communities that are going to have short-term rentals, of how many there will

be?

Then we can stand up with the member, united, to say: "Don't worry. You won't have

to cancel anything because there's an abundance of short-term rentals after this legislation

passes that will still be available." Can the minister give us direct numbers today?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member, there are several studies out there that have indicated

that there are more than 16,000 units, complete homes, that are being used as short-term

rentals.

There's lots of research from local governments that have shown that the numbers are

increasing dramatically year over year, meaning more housing that is needed for people

in our communities is shifting to these platforms.

If the members need me to explain to them the challenge that communities are facing….

I mean, surely they've talked to local governments who are telling them that this

is a major issue. I certainly know that the member across the way has heard from other

communities who say: "This is growing and growing every year in our communities. We

have no way of managing it. We need the province, desperately, to step up in a big

way to support us on this."

Yes, we're prioritizing the valuable housing stock that we have for people in our

communities. Yes, there will be short-term rentals available in communities. Yes,

we're going to need more hotel capacity. Vancouver has indicated they have 1,100 hotel

rooms in the queue. Victoria has indicated that they have significant numbers.

We can do this all day long, and I'm happy to do it. But I think it's important to

note that the reason why we built in the time till May 1 was to ensure that those

that had bookings had time to be able to adjust accordingly.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. Bernier: What we're looking for from the minister is not just hypotheticals. We're not just

looking for maybes. This is a very specific piece of legislation that people in the

province have concerns about because this government is unable to give them direct

answers to the questions that we're asking. That is the challenge here.

My colleague said an example of five to 500. It could be zero spaces available in

a community.

Is the minister actually willing to stand in the House today and say to the people

of British Columbia: "Do not worry. You will not have a problem next year. The booking

that you have will be fine"?

I know he's going to stand here and say: "No, you have to do your due diligence and

follow up." They made bookings in good faith, based on the rules of the day, and the

government is coming in now afterwards — right before summer, right before graduation,

where people from my community are going to Kelowna, to Vancouver, to get ready for

their children's graduations and have started booking short-term rentals for those.

We've talked about weddings.

Here's a thought. Is the minister willing to say they will grandfather, then, anybody

who's made a booking already to date, based on good faith, online — what they've done…?

Will they be grandfathered and not penalized when this legislation gets rammed through

by this government?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member used Kelowna and Vancouver as examples. Kelowna had a principal residence

requirement in place already, before this legislation. The member mentions Vancouver.

They have a principal residence requirement right now, already, before this legislation

comes.

What we're saying with this legislation is that now, those local governments who have

been saying to us, "We can't enforce our bylaws. We're struggling to enforce the rules

we've been putting in place," have the ability to be supported in that.

I appreciate the member giving me examples, and I'm giving him real, concrete things

that are already rules in place. Surely, they would agree that if communities have

bylaws in place, then everybody should be following those rules.

Now, I've said already, also, that there are multiple studies that have shown a very

significant amount of housing stock that is now going towards short-term rentals,

not available to people in our communities. So 16,000 is what we've seen in studies.

Just to put that in context, when the other side was in government, they were building

roughly about 3,000 to 4,000 purpose-built rentals a year. Okay. You can do the math

to say: "What does that 8,000 mean?" It would have taken at least two years, maybe

more than two years, to build the amount of purpose-built rentals under the record

that they had during that time.

We're building 14,000 a year — purpose-built rentals. It shows that there's a significant

shift in that direction. Now, we can go about this all day long, and I'm fine to do

that.

The core question that my friend across the way asked was that the rules come in place

on May 1. So people who have bookings past May 1 should check with their hosts to

ensure that they are compliant with the rules.

A. Walker: I want to thank the minister for his lenience as we debate clause 18 here, allowing

for a fulsome conversation. There are significant impacts in communities like mine

that are tourism-dependent. It's good to have an opportunity to ask those questions.

I want to clarify to the minister, who mentioned that communities less than 10,000

won't be impacted. Of course, Qualicum Beach will be. There will be some. If there

are people watching, I just wanted to make sure that clarity was there.

I appreciate the powers this grants to local governments. The regional district of

Nanaimo, a few years back, had a challenge. They had a complaint in a short-term rental.

They took it to court. The judge was, I think, a neighbour — or possibly, I don't

know the details — and had to recuse himself from the decision. It ended up costing

taxpayers in my community a lot of money. This power, this clause, will enable local

government to enforce the bylaws they have. So it's appreciated.

The concern I'm hearing from that same local government, though, is that they don't

want to be responsible for enforcing this. I've heard some back and forth, and I appreciate

the clarity. I'm looking.... If a local government, through policy, dictates that

they will rely on the provincial enforcement of this, will that be sufficient to ensure

that the rules are followed in our communities?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I believe that communities that don't have bylaws in place will see a benefit from

the legislation that we have and the level of enforcement that we're going to be able

to do.

When the registry is up, it's in the interest of the platforms, given there is a requirement

for them to play ball, essentially, and for the host as well. Given that both have

responsibility, I feel way more confident that the rules will be followed in communities.

Even communities that don't have the bylaws in place may identify, through a party

being thrown every night at a house…. That happens, and certainly, I've heard from

some folks in regional districts where they know of the house that's having a party

every year. They may not have a full bylaw, but they may be able to come to us and

say: "Hey, this is a site that there are events continuously happening at. Can we

verify through the data whether they are on a short-term platform, etc.?"

Yeah, there's going to be greater ability for rules to be followed through the system,

the legislation and the registry that we're bringing on.

A. Walker: I guess the clarity that I'm seeking is probably not needed. As in the regional district

of Nanaimo electoral areas, this won't even apply for the time being until they proactively

request…. I'm just concerned with communities in my constituency. Their bylaw is stretched.

They have a bylaw in place. I just want clarity.

Can these communities rely on the province to enforce the provincial component, not

the local bylaws but the provincial components…? Can they direct complaints to the

province if the need comes up?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's question. The answer is that local governments, regional

districts, can come to us to enforce what we, within the provincial rules, are putting

in place. So they can come to us.

Now, what we heard from mayors…. For example, Mayor Alto, when we made the announcement,

said: "The bylaws are stretched because they're having difficulty enforcing their

rules."

This will alleviate pressures from them because a lot of the rules that we have put

in place with this legislation…. That requirement on their bylaws won't be as heavy.

The investigative requirements won't be as heavy, because we do a lot of that with

the legislation that we have here.

A. Walker: I fully recognize that the registry will eliminate most of these complaints. I guess

I'm hearing from the minister that if a complainant comes to a local government bylaw

enforcement and says, "I have this concern", a local government could then refer that

complainant to the provincial authorities to investigate that complaint.

It may violate the local government bylaw. But it obviously would violate the intentions

of this act. So just for absolute clarity, is that something that a local government,

through policy or otherwise, could expect to do?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just wanted to confirm before I gave the answer. First off, I think if there's just

a noise complaint, that's the bylaw's responsibility. I just want to make sure that's

clear.

Now the premise of the question is: if there's a complaint that is made to bylaw in

a community, do they need to investigate if that's a short-term rental or not? And

the question is…. Through our data sharing, they're going to have data already on

what the short-term rentals are in their community, so they're going to be able to

verify it.

If they believe it's illegal…. Say they don't have a bylaw, right? They don't have

the bylaw capacity. They're going to be able to come to us and say, "In our data,

it doesn't show as a short-term rental, but we believe it's being operated as one,"

and we're going to be able to take that step for communities that don't have bylaw.

A. Walker: That clarifies the question I had.

I guess the one last question is: can the minister describe any proactive enforcement

that we'll take in communities related to potentially unregistered short-term rentals

across our communities?

The Chair: I wonder if the member could repeat the question.

A. Walker: Certainly. I'm just wondering what proactive enforcement will take place that's not

complaint driven, related to non-conforming short-term rentals.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The proactive tool here is that the platforms won't be able to list a property that

does not have a provincial registration number. That in itself is a major deterrent.

If a host decides to try to do that, there's now, with legislation, a requirement

from the platforms to ensure that it has it. A data-sharing agreement between us and

the platforms and data sharing available for local governments to ensure they know

what's happening in their backyard — so both.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada