A challenge in the world of government relations is that it’s inherently a long game. Here in British Columbia, the provincial government has been hearing the desperate voice of the electorate to restore affordability as quickly as possible.

This has manifested into a litany of housing policy announcements that are often big on podium bluster and critically shy on advance research or sector collaboration. The result is often one step forward, two steps back. 

Housing policy often used for populist purposes; ends up rushed, under-researched & weak on advance collaboration 

The BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), in cooperation with a coalition of like-minded and equally concerned housing organizations including the likes of the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, BC Non-Profit Housing Association, Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – BC, LandlordBC and many others, made a public call for the government to establish a permanent roundtable on housing in April 2023.

The ask, however, fell upon resistant ears for a likely series of reasons. One of the most concerning is the governmental tendency to use housing policy for populist purposes. 

It’s my perspective that a true crisis deserves the best minds working to solve it, and it certainly shouldn’t be manipulated to attract votes. What’s necessary is collected expertise working together, a non-partisan approach, in-depth research and evidence-based decision-making. Far too often in B.C., our housing policy is rushed, under-researched, weak on advance collaboration with sectoral expertise, and as a result, significantly less effective than it has the potential to be. 

It’s not that the provincial government doesn’t have good intentions and a genuine desire to effect positive change. However, the influential leaders involved are either unaware of best-practice policymaking or arrogant enough to believe their hodge-podge of ministerial policy staffers is sufficient to solve the incredibly complex housing issues before them. 

Residential Tenancy Regulation changes: A victory with unaddressed concerns remaining

As a result, there are many instances where the government announces policy, only to have to make rapid amendments to correct overlooked issues due to a lack of advanced research. Case in point, over the summer the Province amended the Residential Tenancy Regulation to require landlords to give tenants four months’ notice, instead of two months, when evicting for landlord or purchaser use. The amount of time a tenant had to dispute the notice was also increased from 15 to 30 days.

In response to feedback from the BCREA and the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – BC, on August 1, 2024, the Province announced that it would be further amending the Regulation to require a three-month notice period (down from four months) and would give tenants 21 days to dispute the notice (down from 30 days) when a landlord issues a notice to end tenancy for the purchaser’s use of the rental unit.

These changes took effect on August 21, 2024. This was a sizeable BCREA Government Relations victory in terms of identifying issues created by the new legislation and achieving an almost immediate public backtrack from government. But while this was a partial course correct, there are still a variety of issues and concerns with the legislation that, as yet, continue to go unaddressed. 

Privacy and transaction lead time concerns

We voiced privacy concerns about a new requirement that landlords provide a copy of the Contract of Purchase and Sale (CPS) with the notice to end tenancy. To the government’s credit, the new landlord web portal was then updated so landlords are no longer required to provide a copy of the CPS to the tenant(s). Landlords will still be required to upload a copy of the CPS to the web portal, but it will not be disclosed to the tenant and will only be for internal Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) use.

We would like to see high-ratio insured buyers (including first-time buyers) who will be occupying the property continue to have a two-month notice period because of the financial hardship caused by a longer delay in them taking possession of their property, and the likelihood of them running afoul of financing restrictions.

In future, the B.C. Government should allow much longer lead times for implementation when making changes that involve real estate transactions and tenancy issues. Provisions should always be made to exempt transactions that are already in progress when announcements about these kinds of changes are made.

To protect the privacy of buyers, it would be prudent to eliminate the requirement to report to former tenants for buyers who intend to occupy their own units. The buyer’s intent to occupy could be documented for the RTB by use of a Statutory Declaration or as part of the Property Transfer Tax return process. An early sale of the unit could be tracked through the Land Titles or BC Assessment systems. The government already has its own sources of information to verify the occupancy status of an owner and that the unit hasn’t sold within the year.

Addressing needs of certain demographics and short-term rentals for owners between completions

They also need to provide a more paper-based alternative to the new web portal for use by less technically savvy landlords or allow the existing paper forms to still be used for giving tenants notice. The Ministry’s suggestion for such landlords to visit a Service BC Office or the RTB’s Burnaby office for assistance is hardly a realistic or efficient option and is dismissive of legitimate problems of different demographic groups within our communities.

Lastly, they should also allow the rules for short-term rentals to accommodate property owners or buyers who are stuck between completions if the rental is needed for a period under 90 days.

In about a week, the B.C. election takes place. In the end, the Province will most likely be governed by either the BC NDP or the Conservative Party of B.C. Whichever party emerges victorious, a new, more collaborative future that back-benches politics and puts a newfound focus on non-partisan results is vitally needed.

Please note that it’s BCREA policy to not respond to comments on any of its online articles.

The past half-decade has been a strange one for housing in British Columbia. After almost two decades of underproduction, municipal bureaucratic foot-dragging and a general failure to plan for future growth, affordability issues continue to worsen despite ongoing media fixation and an endless stream of governmental promises, plans, proclamations, policies, podium pontifications and proactive pronouncements.

The writ has yet to drop, but it’s expected British Columbians will once more take to the polls on Saturday, October 19, 2024. While housing and provincial affordability are top-of-mind issues, it’s the shift in public polling that’s particularly fascinating in the lead-up.

Two contender parties: Far-left and far-right

The destabilization started with B.C.’s Liberal Party rebranding in April 2023 into the ambiguously named B.C. United, which resonated with precisely no one. Perhaps this is because it makes them sound more like they should be playing against Manchester United rather than dealing with politics.

But the real story is the upstart Conservative Party of B.C. which has usurped much of the former Liberal following and is now practically equal in polling support to the in-power NDP (New Democratic Party) that once commanded a majority lead. This essentially means that in the coming B.C. election, the two contender parties are either a far-left or far-right option. Quite the ideological showdown in the making. 

What got us here?

B.C. is governed by a two-term progressive NDP government. When former housing minister David Eby took the reins from then-Premier John Horgan (who stepped down due to health issues), a notable shift was immediately enacted.

Eby came at housing policy extremely aggressively. Like or dislike the NDP, there is little argument that Eby arrived well-qualified to tackle the issues. Aside from ample ministerial and attorney general experience, he spent the early years of his career working with the PIVOT Legal Society, a Downtown Eastside non-profit that provides legal advocacy for the impoverished, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

This was a case of a leader ascending to power with a hands-on background and the will to enact immediate steps to contain supply and affordability challenges paired with rampant drug issues and homelessness. What has transpired over his 22 months in power thus far is a litany of aggressive policies. Municipal housing targets, major rezoning, outlawing of short-term rentals and strengthened tenancy rights, to name but a few. 

B.C.’s housing system changes’ billion-dollar consequences should create heavy burden of responsibility

If there’s a notable criticism of Premier Eby leading into the election (and it’s one that will dog him in the months to come), it’s that he has ruled with an iron fist in a velvet glove. Repeatedly, this administration has acted more like a non-profit activist than a balanced government. Often over-focused on certain demographics while negatively portraying others, ignoring mayors and city councils concerned by the dictated pace of development and lack of matching infrastructure funding, protecting tenants with heavy-handed measures while ignoring the needs of the perceived privileged landlords — who are often just struggling families with a rental suite, not faceless corporations.

In short, it’s a complex housing ecosystem in B.C. and it needs to be navigated with extreme caution. Any change can have billion-dollar consequences, and that should create a heavy burden of responsibility. I don’t see enough of that burden with this government and that concerns me. 

So, what do we need going forward? 

Actual collaboration

If we’re going to take all the rhetoric out of the housing crisis and get down to actually building solutions, then the issue requires the proper resources to tackle it. Whatever party takes power, they need to establish a Permanent Housing Roundtable immediately made up of 12 or so carefully chosen policy experts selected from across the housing continuum of market, non-market and Indigenous housing.

Let’s dwell for a minute on who is currently drafting our legislation. As it currently stands, both federally and provincially, a collection of policy analysts staff the respective housing ministries. These are people transferred in either fresh from post-secondary graduate programs or shuffled over from other ministries with little on-the-ground experience. The reality at both the federal and provincial levels is that these staffers are not nearly equipped with the knowledge to tackle the size of the issues under analysis. And the policy we are seeing is reflective of that. The ideas often have merit but the execution is littered with problems.

The only successful path forward is to gather a well-stocked working group of those with years of experience drawn from housing policy work in the private and non-profit sectors to work in collaboration with the government. This would add significant bench strength to the policy teams and would avail the opportunity to pressure-test new legislation before it’s announced for unforeseen consequences. 

Significant tax reform

Housing in B.C. has so many taxes heaped upon it that we need Robin Hood to rescue us. The review and repeal of some of the taxation overburdening the B.C. buyer since 2016 could immediately and significantly lower the cost of housing, as a huge percentage of the cost of housing is pure taxation. For example, the Property Transfer Tax was initially a wealth tax for the top 5.0 per cent of sales but now applies to virtually everyone. There is also the lack of transparency around how taxes are used, as most of it disappears into “general revenues”. 

In addition, significant focus needs to be placed on investor incentivization. This government doesn’t seem to distinguish between “speculative investment”, which they demonize, and all other categories of investment, which our economy is highly dependent upon. Furthermore, they need to stop using developers as a piggybank. Developers are not the solution to every municipal budget shortcoming that crops up amid supply expansion. 

Provincial trades education to offset immigration

It has frequently been said that high immigration numbers are necessary to import the skilled tradespeople needed to expand housing supply across the province. The Feds, however, have begun reining back record-high immigration as its causal effect on national housing pressures becomes more and more apparent.

The government’s Labour Market Outlook estimates about 65,000 openings over the next 10 years in the construction sector, with 55,000 necessary just to offset retirements. To tackle these issues, B.C. can set about incentivizing the next generation of skilled trades labourers in the province — start offsetting tuition costs, offering high school feeder programs, initiating recruitment campaigns for youth, expanding facilities at the B.C. Institute of Technology, etc. 

There is real job opportunity in B.C.’s housing trade sector for years to come. Why not focus on getting new graduates into these programs and upping trade graduate numbers ten-fold over the next decade? 

Foreign buyer ban exemptions

The Foreign Buyer Ban was a slick-sounding federal policy implemented in January 2023 that had very little statistical impact on anything. A major add-on negative for B.C. is that several ski hills (which happen to be incorporated as municipalities) all got captured in this ban.

Ski hills are a critical part of the B.C. tourism sector, already struggling to recover from a multi-year COVID-19 shutdown and then a terrible 2024 season. Now, to protect housing supply, foreign investors can’t invest in ski condominiums? The incumbent provincial government needs to prioritize working with the federal government to get this sorted ASAP in advance of the next ski season. 

Axe the rescission period

Allowing buyers three days to back out of a potential home purchase they have willfully entered into was and continues to be a bad idea. As adults, we all understand the responsibility that comes with purchasing property, and back-out clauses already exist in pre-defined categories. 

The rescission mechanism was put in place to overly coddle the buyer, treating them as ignorant innocents in a competitive market. What it neglects to account for is the symbiotic relationship between buyer and seller. These are intertwined roles, and once a house sells, the seller, in turn, typically becomes a buyer. Allowing “I changed my mind” back-outs of offers with no particular justification is a heavily disruptive tool that causes more harm than good. 

Short-term rental exemptions

Over-focus on housing supply at the cost of the regional economy is not well-thought-out policy. Tourism is still recovering post-COVID-19. Our wine regions are hurting. Multiple ski regions are beaten down by unintended foreign homebuyer bans. And now short-term rental stock is stomped out for theoretical transformation to permanent rental stock?

The data isn’t agreeing and hotels across the province have never cost more. Post-election, the government needs to start working out a litany of exemptions based on season, region, zoning and support of critical sectors such as remote medical workers, people travelling for medical care, film industry employees and students. 

Looking ahead

Regardless of who wins this election, B.C. can solve the challenges before it. To do so, it’s high time partisan politics were extracted from housing policy.

Let’s gather the smartest policy minds in the province. Let’s craft public-private collaboration. Let’s work together. And let’s get this done.

Please note that it’s BCREA policy to not respond to comments on any of its online articles.

In 1979, during the North American Soccer League (NASL) finals between the Vancouver Whitecaps and New York Cosmos, sportscaster Jim McKay passively referenced Vancouver as a “village.” In terms of the size, scale and population of New York at the time, he wasn’t far off. 

Expo 86: A turning point

Skip ahead to 1986, a year that significantly boosted the global profile of both Vancouver and the province of British Columbia. The launch of Expo 86 came with significant global fanfare.

Unlike Expo 67, this event had a singular theme related to transportation and communications. The official statement was “World in Motion — World in Touch,” which spoke to the regional desire at the time to be bigger, better known and more growth-oriented. Mid-eighties Vancouver was a far smaller port city situated on the geographical edge of a much younger Canada. It was rougher around the edges and economically defined by blue-collar industry, especially related to forestry. 

2010 Winter Olympics spend: To get Vancouver to a A-list status

The next major event to boost Vancouver’s profile on a global level was the 2010 Winter Olympics. The Vancouver Olympic Games opened with a governmental statement by then-premier Gordon Campbell in which he stated, “Hosting these Games is an achievement on the world stage that all British Columbians and all Canadians can be proud of. Together, we have welcomed the world with open arms to see and experience our nation, our province and our communities.”

As any British Columbian of a certain age can attest from the intensive lead-up media dialogue, the main justification of the public spend was to transition Vancouver to an A-list city, putting it increasingly on the international map, with the hope of attracting global investment and building out increased tourism. In the end, the Vancouver Olympic Games achieved those goals and set a path of ongoing development and investment underway.

But this also came with significant social and economic consequences.

Vancouver’s social and economic transition

Vancouver now ranks high among world-class cities, repeatedly named as one of the most liveable cities in the world by The Economist magazine. But let’s reflect on the social and economic transition of recent years.

It has happened with such intensity that many residents barely recognize the city compared to just a decade or two prior. The city is now a go-to location for the rich, the famous, winter sports devotees and dedicated outdoor enthusiasts. It’s increasingly become a mosaic of cultures, apparent in everything from the cuisine to entertainment options across the city. In addition to being an industrially driven economy, the tech sector has built up, and a wide landscape of mid-sized businesses have settled in alongside international corporations such as Amazon, Microsoft and Lululemon. 

Rather than celebrate the change, the average Vancouverite spends far more energy bemoaning the past

In conjunction with these big-city trends, an unfortunate byproduct is the notable jump in the cost of living. Home prices have more than quadrupled since the year 2000 and Vancouver rents have skyrocketed as vacancy rates cratered. And it’s interesting that while the city has dramatically changed, its residents have not.

Far from celebrating this transition, the average Vancouverite spends far more energy bemoaning the past. Yet not only has Vancouver transitioned to a city well-positioned in the global gaze, but we’ve done so by our own hand.

The speed of change in Vancouver and the rapid erosion of affordability have left many grasping for a version of the city that no longer exists and will never return. “Why can’t I buy a house for $200,000 as my parents did back in ‘83?” was a complaint relayed to me at a recent social function. The reason is that it’s not ’83, and today’s Vancouver has little in common with its early ’80s incarnation.

Homeownership expectations in other world cities are more tempered; band-aid solutions don’t work

Accepting the new Vancouver by big city standards means a major transition in terms of expectations. Do residents in New York, Tokyo, London and Paris express consistent outrage at the inflated cost of regional housing? Arguably, yes, but the expectation of home ownership in these regions is also decidedly more tempered.  

Not only have Vancouver residents failed to keep pace with this transition, but federal and provincial governments, in reaction to public affordability concerns, focus a great deal on piecemeal legislative measures designed to contain or, at worst, pursue the patently impossible goal of “restoring affordability.”

Not only will these band-aid measures never be able to address the fundamental influences that have driven prices up in the first place, but they divert government focus from where it would be better served, which is aiding local economic development. On the whole, the Canadian economy is not particularly prospering, and much more needs to be done to strengthen our export markets and focus on overall Canadian business efficiency.

Here’s what’s missing

The missing piece of the A-list city reality for most Vancouverites isn’t the cost of housing, rent and living expenses. It’s that rather than living under the false dichotomy that housing prices will magically decline despite record demand and prolonged supply drought, a more sustainable and practical path forward would be to build out an increasingly robust regional economy.

BC business prosperity all too often seems like an afterthought when it comes to provincial governmental priorities. British Columbia would be best served moving forward with a significant focus on our regional and global business competitiveness.

There’s little sustainability living in a city that draws global attention but with a regional economy that’s still parked in village status.

Please note that it is BCREA policy to not respond to comments on any of its online articles.