Reflections on the BC NDP housing policy, modelling, and analysis

Dec 19, 2023 | Blog, Economy, Governance, Indigenous, Well-being


There is a story about an emperor who proudly walked unclothed through town in front of his subjects. To me it is a story about exposure, pride, vanity, arrogance, and truth-telling.

The emperor was conned into believing weavers could produce magical clothing that is invisible to the foolish. When the emperor is “dressed” in his new robes by the weavers, his desire to not appear foolish forces him to play along. The crowd of his subjects also all play along except for a child who points out the obvious that the emperor is unclothed.

Over the past week or so I have been reflecting on housing policy, the state of the housing discourse and the modelling and analysis I asked the housing minister to release during Bill 44 debate. I have assembled my thoughts in two parts.

In the first part, I will address broad themes of the housing affordability crisis, the erosion of local government democracy, our moral and ethical responsibility to Indigenous reconciliation, “legalizing housing”, profitability vs. affordability, fracturing the land (the new gold rush), and the opaque debate on housing policy led by the BC NDP Minister of Housing (housing minister) and Government House Leader (GHL) Hon. Ravi Kahlon.

In the second part, I will reflect more directly on the Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing and Transit-Oriented Areas Scenarios in British Columbia (von Bergmann et al., 2023) report that models the legislative changes in Bill 44: Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 and Bill 47: Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023 authored by Jens von Bergmann (MountainMath Software and Analytics), Tom Davidoff (UBC Sauder), Albert Huang (Terra Housing), Nathanial Lauster (UBC Sociology), and Tsur Somerville (UBC Sauder). The Report also comments on the potential impacts of Bill 46: Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Ideally, the housing minister would have provided the entire housing policy in one Bill. He would have accompanied it with the modelling and analysis that grounded the policy change. Maintaining a healthy democratic process and acting respectfully of citizens, the government house leader would have required the large statutory change to be introduced well in advance of debate. He would have afforded time to stakeholders, experts, and the public to review and test the public policy.

However, that is not how the housing minister rolled out his housing plan. Instead, he chose a process that is far from ideal, but we have to make the best of what we have.

Part I

Eroding Local Government Democracy

I am pro-housing. I believe housing and food security are the most important basic needs of every human. Housing is a human right and the provincial government has a responsibility to create housing systems that produce a variety of housing products, market and non-market, that meet the needs of British Columbians. The best way to achieve this is through intentional planning and strategic intervention.

I disagree with the BC NDP’s one-size-fits-all approach in Bill 44. It erodes local government democracy and the mass upzoning of vast swaths of British Columbia is non-planning.

As an opposition housing critic in the provincial legislature, it is my job to test the housing policy. It also appears, I am one of the few who is prepared to openly question whether Bill 44 is the correct approach and ultimately whether it will produce the results the BC NDP claims.

The housing minister’s approach is not an urgent response to a housing affordability crisis, but a marketing campaign promoting the good feelings that the housing minister wants British Columbians to feel heading into the 2024 provincial election.

We need a healthy public/private sector housing environment. The private sector real estate market has an important role in delivering a variety of housing supply to people. But not all people. About 15% of the population is in core housing need—their housing is inadequate, insecure and unaffordable because they are spending more than 30-50%+ of their annual income on housing. The market has consistently failed to produce the volume of housing needed to meet the core housing need. It is the responsibility of the provincial government to regulate the market and maintain a balanced production of public sector non-market housing to fill the gaps.

For the past fifteen years I have sat in both local and provincial government seats. While I was not part of an Official Community Planning (OCP) update process, I understand the development process, zoning bylaws, and the broken fiscal framework that funds local governments.

We absolutely need planning and zoning bylaw reforms but it must be done through responsible community planning—ensuring the residents in new housing have adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.) and services (healthcare, education, transit etc.)—requires elected officials and their professional staff to be thoughtful and integrated. Bill 44 is neither thoughtful nor integrated planning.

For example, I asked the housing minister if he was excluding properties that we know are in a flood zone or in a wildfire interface neighbourhood, the answer was no. How is it possible that a government keenly aware of the climate crisis and the costs of flooding and fire include these neighbourhoods. It is irresponsible!

During the Bill 44 debate I raised significant concerns about the amount of work the provincial government is saddling on local governments to update housing needs assessments and align OCPs and zoning bylaws. Many local governments struggle to have enough planning staff to process development applications.

The private sector development lobby and provincial government are waging a war against local governments. The provincial government should be regulating developers not working with them to undermine our community governance. Now the housing minister has buried those planners for the next two years updating plans not approving projects.

The housing minister’s plan is not solving the urgent core housing need or the housing affordability crisis. Instead he delivered a blanket approach across remarkably different communities and regions, and threw our local elected leaders under the bus in the process. The housing minister’s plan is bold, and reckless.

Legalizing Housing

The housing minister used the term “legalizing housing” multiple times in our debate on Bill 44. I also see it used on social media. It is a highly effective, easily spoken, meaningless slogan designed to deliver maximum emotional response blaming local governments for a lack of housing supply.

Was housing illegal before the BC NDP’s Bill 44? No. Did Bill 44 make “missing middle” housing legal? No. Housing is legal and regulated through provincial housing statutes. Bill 44 amended the political and administrative process by shifting the approval of multiplex development from the local to the provincial government.

There is a difference between good politics and good policy. The BC NDP housing minister and his colleagues co-opted a catchy marketing slogan and are leveraging it leading into a provincial election. While they dramatically enrich the people who own the land, they simultaneously convince the people who do not own land that their dream of housing affordability is just around the corner. That is good politics.

The provincial government stepping in with no public consultation, no consideration of local or regional factors, eroding local democracy and community, ignoring geography, climate, and the age and condition of infrastructure is reckless non-planning. That is bad policy.

What is our moral and ethical responsibility to Reconciliation?

Before going any further I must address the 800 lb. NEKIX SPÁ¸EŦ (Black bear) in the room. In 1849, the Crown granted title of Vancouver Island to the Hudson’s Bay Company to colonize the land. The local Indigenous people on Vancouver Island never legally ceded or surrendered it under the Crown’s own rules. Is it legal to grant title to land you don’t own?

I understand that this makes many British Columbians anxious. It should. I strongly encourage all British Columbians to powerfully advocate for the provincial government to act in good faith and find a just way to properly reconcile the land question. The longer they take and the more wealth they create on the land, the more challenging they make it for us all.

Reconciliation is a priority for our provincial government and yet while being fully aware of the 174-year-old unresolved legal dispute, the Indian land question, the housing minister delivered his plan of unlocking a gold rush of real estate wealth, just as Sir James Douglas and Joseph Trutch before him, and callously chose to explain to me he was “legalizing housing.”

I am the Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for Saanich North and the Islands, and I am also a W̱SÁNEĆ person. As I mentioned several times during Bill 44 debate, I step one inch off my Indian Reserve in Brentwood Bay and 100% of our territory has been developed by the real estate industry. From a legal perspective, in light of Yahey v. British Columbia, 2021, (Yahey vs. British Columbia, 2021) and the changing acknowledgement of cumulative impacts of resource development—Yes! Real Estate is a resource—this is definitely a matter a minister of the Crown should be concerned about.

The housing minister entirely dismissed me, he dismissed my arguments, and instead chose to insult me and all Indigenous people in British Columbia by dragging out the “legalize housing” marketing slogan. If it does not offend us on the grounds of basic truthfulness, with respect to Indigenous relations, it is intellectually dishonest and deeply offensive.

Does the housing minister and government house leader have a moral and ethical responsibility to reconcile the land question before delivering a mass upzoning that he needs to fulfill?

Fracturing the Land: Real Estate Gold Rush

Each subdivision of that original single title fractures the land and unlocks more wealth for those who own it. It also creates a wider wealth gap between landowners and non-landowners.

Aside from a few blips, the value of land has only continued to increase under the current zoning and land use framework set in motion by the first surveyor’s chain. Bill 44 ties a rocket ship to the status quo, by creating a real estate gold rush for landowners. Non-landowners will watch the spectacle from the ground.

During the debate, I asked the housing minister if he was concerned about a Statistics Canada report (Mirdamadi & Khalid, 2023) that was released on November 20, 2023. It showed the intergenerational socio-economic benefit of homeownership, and especially the significant increased economic advantage and improvement in quality of life and income for adult children whose parents own multiple properties. Bill 44 unilaterally turns thousands of single property owners into multiple property owners.

I encourage you to look at this report. The findings should cause us to pause and think about the potential long-term impact of the changes in Bill 44. The housing minister wanted nothing to do with the report, likely because his modelling and analysis shows the biggest financial windfall of Bill 44 goes to property owners. Hence the rocket ship/bystander analogy. More on that later.

Creating affordable housing in a profit-driven real estate market requires intentional actions. We demanded affordability measures be required in Bill 44, but the housing minister said it would restrict development. We demanded protections against the Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but the BC NDP voted against our amendment. The housing minister even failed to provide the renter protections Burnaby has in place to minimize tenant displacement.

The BC NDP is hoping that the gold rush created through Bill 44 in the wealth-generating real estate market will suddenly produce results it has failed to produce since the beginning of our province when the Crown was looking to accommodate the original gold rush.

Profitability and Affordability

The provincial government knows what it’s focus should be—non-market housing solutions to urgently relieve pressure on the core housing need.

When the federal and provincial governments got out of the business of publicly funding non-market housing in the 1990’s, they expected the private sector to produce affordable housing. But developers build profitable housing, not affordable housing. As we see in the modelling and analysis that informed the housing minister’s approach in Bill 44, profitability is a key factor.

When the British Crown granted title of Vancouver Island to the Hudson’s Bay Company for 10 years with the purpose of colonizing the place with settlers, has more or less real estate wealth been created?

As I said to the housing minister during Bill 44 debate, the private sector development industry has an important role in the system we have created for them to operate in. They, their investors, and their lending institutions, all expect profit. The authors of the modelling and analysis report factor in 15-22% profit for the developer based on region (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 68). We cannot expect them to produce a different product.

Opaque Debate on Housing Bills

Let’s turn to the economists shall we. I have read all 200 pages of the SSMUH and TOA Scenarios in British Columbia (the Report) (von Bergmann et al., 2023). It is the information that the housing minister relied on through the two-week debate on Bills 44, 46, and 47.

During Bill 44 debate I asked the housing minister to release the data, analysis and modelling that informed his approach. He stated he would release it but only after the housing legislation had passed, the House was adjourned, and the Cabinet had considered and approved, in private, the regulations and extensive policy documents (Provincial Policy & Site Standards, Provincial Policy Manual: Transit-Oriented Areas, Short-Term Rentals: Policy Guidance for BC Local Governments).

This was a politically convenient argument, but with respect to the legislative process, it is a bogus argument. Seven days after the housing minister shuttered debate on the housing bills, he released the information.

The housing minister is also the government house leader and Chair of the Legislative Review Committee. He fully controls the entire legislative process from developing legislation through to the timing of debate. I believe he deliberately withheld the information and autocratically manipulated the legislative calendar to his advantage.

The housing minister ensured a one-way, opaque debate on the issue. He leveraged his knowledge of the report but did not allow his legislative critics access to it to question him. He didn’t want a debate about the Report because his entire program would have fallen apart.

Vaughn Palmer in his Vancouver Sun editorial highlighted the housing minister’s misleading statements about what the analysis stated. The housing minister said that “economic modelling projects that these changes could reduce housing prices by 7 to 14 percent over five years because of the added supply” (Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 2023, 3:40pm, 4:25pm, 4:35pm)(Emphasis added) However, when you read the report, this is far from what the economists actually say is “likely” to happen.

UBC Economist Thomas Davidoff, an author of the Report, said on Global News, “that means a reduction in prices relative to what would have happened everywhere, we don’t have a perfectly functioning crystal ball, but our guess is prices fall by 6-12% relative to what they would have done otherwise.” (Emphasis added)

Are we not concerned at all with this dramatic inconsistency? Are we not concerned that our legislative assembly, responsible for passing laws that govern the lives of all British Columbians can essentially operate in an information-less environment? How can a cabinet minister deliberately impede his critics ability to do their job of ensuring that what British Columbians are being told is truthful and that the snake oil they are sold, is at least snake oil?

Part II

Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing and Transit-Oriented Areas Scenarios Report

The Report (von Bergmann et al., 2023) analyzes and models one scenario. It is a document that supports the housing minister’s approach. There are no alternative options presented as comparators. The authors look at the approach from a variety of angles and the report generally serves the governments purpose.

It provides a high number of potential new housing units—between 44,000 and 293,000 over the next 5-10 years (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 16)— and a potential for decreased housing costs. It is heavily reliant on qualifications based on unknown factors such as construction labour-force and quality of services and infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.). The limitations (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 149) are not insignificant and should be considered when weighing the cost/benefit of the approach.

The Report notes, “recently the CMHC has estimated that British Columbia requires 610,000 housing units above and beyond the usual rate of housing construction by 2030 to bring housing affordability back to levels seen in the early 2000s” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 21). Even with full build out of this program it is more than 50% less than the level of supply CMHC projects is needed in British Columbia.

This illuminates how inefficient it is to wait for the private sector development industry to produce housing affordability. In my opinion, it is further evidence of the need for the provincial and federal government to expend most of their energy and financial resources urgently intervening with public sector non-market supply.

I believe the over-simplification of the theory of supply and demand has conveniently offered insulation to governments and private sector developers because from an all-supply is good-supply perspective you just need to produce any supply, never mind if it is specifically the supply that is needed.

As I pointed out above the Report does not support the housing minister’s claim he made during debate on Bill 44 regarding the levels of affordability that the private sector industry will likely produce with the upzoning.

“The additional 44,000 to 54,000 net growth in dwellings over 5 years estimated by our model would result in 6% to 12% lower prices and rents than what they would have been without the provincial legislation” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 17).

There is a big difference between a drop of 14% of current prices and 6% “lower prices and rents than what would have been without the provincial legislation.”

“In the absence of value capture, we expect any windfall gains from rezoning to accrue primarily to incumbent property owners, which can exacerbate inequalities in wealth without the landowner providing a social benefit” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 123).

The report confirms a primary concern that I raised during the Bill 44 debate, and earlier here, with respect to the potential socio-economic impacts on non-property owners. It also outlines several vulnerabilities to renters specifically.

Notes on Renters

“The primary effect of the SSMUH and TOA legislation on renters is to reduce rents of existing rental homes through supply effects” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 17).

The housing minister and the Report’s authors tie affordability, the reduction in rent, to the supply effects. My approach is fundamentally different in that I believe the provincial government should be focussing our efforts on ensuring housing affordability through securing and constructing non-market homes as a priority. By securing homes in buildings already under construction, or in the planning stages, we can urgently deliver affordability rather than having to wait for the market supply effects that may or may not accrue.

The Report discusses vacancy chains that are created when new housing supply comes online, and people begin to move (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 132). This is definitely a point of interest for me. I pin my argument for the provincial government focussing on urgently securing non-market housing to address the core housing need, and there are likely similar effects on vacancy chains, albeit from a different point of attack.

By securing the housing of the people in the greatest need, social stability is increased. Unfortunately, the housing minister and BC NDP are failing to achieve immediate social stability through their approach. It’s too bad the Report’s authors were not also instructed to model the scenario of providing housing security to the 15%+ of the population in core housing need. What is the impact of that chain reaction through the housing market?

This is not an either/or scenario, it is truly an also/and scenario. I believe there is a role for the private sector development industry. I have watched them efficiently build dozens of new multi-story/multi-family buildings around my constituency office and just within view of my daily commute. Indeed, as I outlined here, the private sector development industry is a critical partner in the extreme short-term, and the partnership must be ongoing. However, my market/non-market priority, timing, and scale is clearly different from the BC NDP housing minister.

Notes on Displacement of Renters

In addition to affordability for renters another focal point in the Report is on potential displacement of renters. The Report notes, “secondary suites are inherently flexible living spaces, and difficult to fully track” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 130). While secondary suites are difficult track in the data we collect, the authors state, “older single-family detached and suited housing is especially less likely to contain renters relative to new stratified row houses and low-rise apartments” (p. 130).

This provides an important point of questioning of the Report and the housing minister. Here is another example of where further debate to clarify important questions about the assumptions in the Report that were carried forward by the housing minister. The Report notes risk to renters but ultimately, “the residual risk of displacement due to the multiplex policy is low compared to most alternative ways to add infill housing” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 135).

I concur with the Report that there is always some risk of displacement for renters/non-property owners. Quantifying the impact of Bill 44 is challenging and the Report provides a solid picture of a variety of potential outcomes. However, in debate the housing minister failed to secure rental housing in the replacement supply created by the mass upzoning, and the BC NDP voted down an amendment to protect redevelopment from predatory Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).

Without protections for the current secondary rental housing stock to be returned by redevelopment, and assurances that a percentage of the new stock will be at least near or at-market rental, the housing minister is taking a hopeful approach, rather than a certain one.

Notes on Security of Tenure

Section 8.1.5 is key. It discusses housing security (one of the three factors considered in core housing need) of primary (purpose built) and secondary rentals. The Report states “we expect that the vast majority of rental units produced via this initiative will be secondary market rentals within strata” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 139).

In the socio-economic analysis, the authors “assume that renters within the secondary rental market (primarily in suites within detached houses) remain at most direct risk of displacement from redevelopment under the SSMUH” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 129).

They highlight the inherent flexibility of the secondary rental market. It is also a key contributor to “additional insecurity for tenants, insofar as landlords can more easily evict tenants for own use or sale of property. Indeed, we see most tenants’ displacement through forced moves occurs in the secondary rental market.” They “expect” the new rentals will be more secure than the secondary market “but less secure than in purpose-built rentals” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 139).

There are two passages in the report to note. The authors write, “British Columbia already has the second highest share of renters in the secondary market among all provinces… the province may wish to consider additional protections to tenants within the secondary rental market to reduce displacement and to increase the security of tenure associated with new housing being constructed” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 139).

They continue, “the province, and municipal governments, may also wish to further incentivize the construction of purpose-built rental buildings. Density bonusing on top of the report modelled here could greatly increase rental development” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 139).

Bill 44 and the associated housing legislation, regulations and policy advanced by the BC NDP are entirely absent of any of these important recommendations. Just as the housing minister used key statements in the Report to justify his approach, he fails to leverage these two key statements to secure the housing of renters and non-property owners.

I am deeply disappointed by the fact that the housing minister failed renters and non-property owners. He failed to take advantage of the moment he was creating when he fracked tremendous wealth for landowners to simultaneously entrench a greater level of protections for non-property owners.

It would have been the perfect time to leverage the tremendous wealth he was creating for property owners, to create greater housing security and affordability for renters and non-property owners. Housing security is in the interest of all British Columbians, the housing minister and our BC NDP government failed us on this occasion.

Notes on Pace of Redevelopment and Construction Labour Force

The Report considers the pace of redevelopment potential post upzoning. Construction labour force is a key factor in determining how quickly the market responds to the new rules, and the ability of the industry to adapt.

Don’t move too quickly past footnote 22 (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 97). Do not overlook one of the key levers the private sector development industry controls with respect to inflated real estate prices and housing scarcity, the “option to wait for further upzoning and improved market conditions to develop.” Can the developer increase the density and improve profitability? If not, it might be better to be patient, or try to renegotiate a better deal from the local government to improve the economics.

The Report notes “labour will become a significant bottleneck once the municipal planning constraints are lifted. Evidence from New Zealand suggests that the labour market will adjust, but that it will take time” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 102). I understand this is not a reason to not move forward with Bill 44, arguably on this point we would have been better to have moved sooner.

However, from the perspective of urgently responding to the core housing need right now, the labour force is one of the reasons for Davidoff’s cautious response on Global News. He was careful to note this approach will take a few years to deliver new supply. In other words, this is not the urgent response to the housing crisis, nor is it the urgent response to the housing affordability crisis.

Notes on Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs) and Impact on Property Taxes

Bill 44 results in a massive increase in housing density, potentially without the services and infrastructure needed to support it.

The authors of the Report discuss amenity cost charges, the ability for local governments to set a fixed charge on new development especially in the highest densities in the transit-oriented areas, but also accumulatively in the newly upzoned single family neighbourhoods.

With my former municipal councillor hat on the capacity of infrastructure and social services is a critical component of community planning. The emergent narrative of local government is that they are ineffective, inefficient, and perhaps captured by vested interests (current residents). However, elected mayors, councillors, regional and electoral area directors have to worry about whether they can service the new development. A malfunctioning sewer system matters to local governments, it is only the housing minister who does not have to care about the minutiae.

The authors “highlight the importance of ensuring an appropriate balance between the desire and need to raise revenue for public capital projects from new development and the effect of these charges on the level of development” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 126).

I imagine the housing minister had no interest in debating on the record the following paragraph in the report noting, “the need for regular review of the ACC policies and levels. Reducing the level of ACCs and Development Cost Charges (DCCs) to preserve the viability of new supply, by necessity would result in an increased reliance on property taxes, which spreads the cost across all properties” (von Bergmann et al., 2023, p. 126). (Emphasis added)

There is definitely a cost of housing scarcity, insecurity, inadequacy, and unaffordability. There is a definitely a cost of supporting current and new housing supply with infrastructure and social services. It will be accounted for in either securing housing or through a variety of social costs. British Columbians will have to decide how best to pay the price. Sadly, neither the housing nor municipal affairs ministers have led that discussion.

Notes on Debating the Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) and Transit-Oriented Areas (TOA) Separately

As mentioned above the report offers a combined analysis of the SSMUH (Bill 44: Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023) and TOA (Bill 47: Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023) initiatives. It also provides some commentary on amenity cost charges (Bill 46: Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023).

It is correct to analyze the potential outcomes as one project, the new legislation should have been one project as well. When I asked officials in the housing ministry why they fractured the housing policy into three distinct bills, they claimed it was easier for the public to understand. However, it is clear they asked the authors of the report to provide modelling and analysis of the whole policy project.

The fragmentation didn’t make it easier to understand and debate, it made it monumentally more difficult. Indeed, the public still knows very little about the policy or the debate. These process issues are often overlooked but no less important.

There was no way for us debate the housing policy as it exists. It was incredibly frustrating. Absent the modelling and analysis, it made for an incredibly challenging fact-less environment to operate in.

So, I leave you with these questions. If the housing minister was so confident in the modelling and analysis, why didn’t he table it with Bill 44 and Bill 47? Also, why did we not get to debate all the housing policy changes at the same time to better understand how the parts interact with each other? Clearly, they do.


If you have got to this section, you are committed to the housing discussion in British Columbia. I will continue to build on these initial thoughts on the Report and a few direct responses of the criticism of my work on the BC NDPs housing policy reforms.

This is by no means a comprehensive analysis. During, and since, the debate on Bill 44, I have produced some 80 pages, 30,000+ words on housing policy and community development. I have listed below links to my 90-minute second reading speech to Bill 44 that covers a range of cultural and socio-economic issues that are directly or indirectly associated with housing policy.

In the committee stage of debate with the housing minister I start at the very beginning—whether the BC NDP housing minister believes housing is a human right or not. He says he does. However, saying housing is a human right legally requires a much different approach and response than the one he is offering.

I encourage you to continue asking questions, demanding transparency and accountability from me (the BC Green Caucus housing critic), Premier David Eby, his housing minister Hon. Ravi Kahlon, your Member of the Legislative Assembly, and your local government elected officials—Mayors, Councillors, Regional and Electoral Area Directors, and Islands Trust Trustees.

But be careful when the next weaver rolls into your town, threading together a hopeful narrative with their silver-tongued marketing slogans promising to “legalize clothing,” or the promise their magic looms will produce you the most magnificent robes.


Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. (2023). Bill 44: Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023. Hansard Services.

Mirdamadi, M., & Khalid, A. (2023). Parents and children in the Canadian housing market: Does parental  property ownership increase the likelihood of homeownership for their  adult children? Statistics Canada.

von Bergmann, J., Davidoff, T., Huang, A., & Sommerville, T. (2023). SSMUH and TOA Scenarios in British Columbia. Province of British Columbia.

Yahey vs. British Columbia, S151727 (June 29, 2021).


Share This

Share this post with your friends!