Susie Chant

BC NDP

11/24/2025

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

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.

60 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

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. 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. 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. 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.

740 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

11/24/2025

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

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.

82 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

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? 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?

82 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

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. 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?

568 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

22 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

11/24/2025

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

19 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

11/24/2025

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports Bill 25 complete without amendment.

8 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Just to clarify, Bill 25 doesn’t change any of those heritage provisions that were established in Bill 44. This is just a transitional piece. It is off topic, but I’m happy to follow up on the Emily Carr building at another time.

42 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Bill 44 established that heritage designation bylaws, following the date the section came into force, can’t be used to prevent properties from being developed to the minimum density requirements. If a property is in the process of getting a heritage designation bylaw and has passed first reading when Bill 25 takes effect, then the density requirements don’t apply. So it’s a transitional provision protecting heritage designation bylaws that are being reviewed and finalized and which otherwise may not have been permitted if the bylaw impacts the property meeting the small-scale, multi-unit housing minimum density requirements. The provision allows in-process heritage bylaws going through readings to proceed, even if they limit the minimum density requirements for small-scale, multi-unit housing.

118 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Members, I call the committee on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 back to order. We are on clause 22.

24 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Bill 25 is about making sure the system works for people who need housing now and sets clear expectations for local governments to meet the small-scale, multi-unit housing requirements to ensure the conditions exist for homes to get built. We know that a central issue for getting new housing supply on the market quickly has been the challenges local governments can face in approving housing in a timely way. As the member noted, many of us have served at the local government level. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that local governments do. They know their communities best. We know that the housing crisis doesn’t stop at municipal boundaries, and neither can the solution. Councils are responsible for establishing the overall vision plans and policies for their community through their official community plan. Official community plans go well beyond just housing and include policies related to other land uses, transportation, recreation and more. Councils also continue to make decisions on project proposals that don’t align with their community’s official community plan or that go beyond allowable densities. In this specific case, while not a formal appeals process, councils have 30 days to respond to a ministerial order and outline the reasons why they weren’t able to comply. I’ll just end this question by saying that when families are being priced out, when workers can’t live near their jobs and when housing approvals are stalled for years, the province has a duty to act.

247 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call the committee on Bill 25 back to order. We are on clause 10. With no further questions, shall clause 10 pass. Division has been called. Members, before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

55 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

I’ll be brief because the question, in my opinion, strays quite far from the ministerial orders referenced in section 10 here. Bill 25 is focused on adding residential density in neighbourhoods that have already been residential, single-family neighbourhoods to allow more people to find a good home in the community that they know and love.

55 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

These legislative changes are necessary to ensure all local governments have clear expectations for compliance and implementation and to remove legal barriers to development. The intent of Bill 25, as I have stated, is a consistent approach. I’ll add, because the member referenced it, we are working with all municipalities, including municipalities whose zoning is not currently compliant. That’s always our first and second and third approach — engaging with local governments directly and attempting to work to come to alignment.

81 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, to order.

21 words

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025 (continued)

Section A reports progress on Bill 25 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

21 words

Section A reports progress on Bill 25 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Yes. Again, we worked with a team of planners and architects and engineers, as well as an advisory group of local government planners, to get the site conditions right, including consideration of all of these relevant and important urban questions. Bill 25 allows the province to establish exemptions from the requirements, which could include for snow removal, for waste collection, etc. Those local conditions were part of the larger work that was undertaken and also, were regulations to be implemented — which, again, we aren’t planning for right now — would be taken into account.

95 words