The Contenders

British Columbians will head to the polls in October capping off one of the more invigorating election seasons seen in some time. When we interviewed opposition leaders for this issue of LOCUS, there were still three parties in contention—Kevin Falcon’s BC United, Sonia Furstenau’s BC Greens, and John Rustad’s BC Conservatives. Having run feature interviews in our previous two issues with key NDP ministers on the housing strategy—Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, and Transportation & Infrastructure Minister, Rob Fleming—we felt it important to give equal time to challengers’ views. Since then, the landscape has been redrawn. On August 28, BC United suspended its campaign, with leader Kevin Falcon urging his party to support the Conservatives, adding fuel to BCC’s growing momentum. Our interviews with the remaining opposition leaders reveal two fundamentally different visions for voters seeking a change.

FVREB: The NDP housing strategy is built on measures designed to bring greater supply into the market more quickly. Is it enough to solve the crisis?

Sonia Furstenau: I can understand the allure of the idea that if we just build more, we solve the problem of there being enough housing. But I think that what we demonstrated in the debate around Bill 44, pushing back on that narrative and the [Housing] Minister himself, revealed that affordability was not going to be solved with this approach. And we see that in cities around the world, including Vancouver, that have produced some of the biggest increases in housing supply, they are the most expensive cities in the world. It’s a story that, of course, we want to believe, given the crisis that we’re in but the reality is it’s more complicated than that. This is a government that in 2018 promised 100,000 affordable homes and we have gotten to maybe 10 per cent. It’s now six years later and they don’t talk about it anymore. I’ve been critical of the NDP government since 2020 and have seen again and again that it’s not until it’s a five-alarm fire, do they seem to wake up and start to react. They would argue, look at all this legislation we put forward. The legislation is not addressing the moment of emergency that the people in BC are experiencing right now.

FVREB: What do you see as the fundamental flaw with their approach?

SF: Much of the legislation around housing seems to have been driven very much by the housing and development industry. Naturally, their job is to maximize the return on investment and to create a product that serves those objectives. But government’s job is to be that buffer between private sector, profit-driven interests and the interests of the public. And after four decades of government abandoning the building of not-for-profit, co-op and social housing, we find ourselves in the current housing crisis. We’re at a place where if left only to the market, the financialization of housing is going to lead to a huge amount of no-fault evictions and the raising of rents between tenancies because they’re unfettered and unabated by any policies, as well as an increase in the overall cost of housing and the value of the land on which the housing sits. This government is more focused on making announcements than they are in ensuring that what they are announcing actually happens. It’s a recurring pattern. Some responsibilities of government should transcend politics—health care, public education, a right to housing, transit, infrastructure. We should be able to count on governments of whatever stripe to understand that they are the caretaker of an endless long-term project and their job is not to privatize this or commodify that. I do not support the use of public land for private, for-profit housing. It should be used for affordable public housing; it is a public good. Non-market, social, affordable housing has not only been neglected—it was promised but not delivered.

FVREB: The magnitude of the housing challenges here and across the country require all stakeholders to work together to find solutions. Given that part of the Green Party’s drive to create greater social equity is to reduce the profit motive, what role should the private sector play?

SF: Housing is and has been financialized, commodified. But housing is not the same as a barrel of oil or a banana—it is a human right. We cannot expect people to be fully functioning members of society without a place to live. Growing up, it never occurred to me that being homeless was something that could happen in Canada. I mean, you had to work really hard to be homeless—it was not by accident. Today we now see a deepening and incredibly distressing crisis of homelessness in all of our communities across this province and across the country, and building supply that is affordable to only a very few people is not going to solve the crisis. There are a number of policy tools we propose to engage the private sector. For example, rezoning provides benefits and incentives to developers, and in return they provide these public goods, This has always been how we’ve been able to deliver private housing for profit, as well as public housing. The problem with the current suite of legislation is that we’re undermining even that level of delivery of public good in housing because the rezoning process has been basically excised from local government’s control.

FVREB: We need to increase supply by some 60,000 homes over the next ten years. Tied up in the issue of supply is the issue of affordability and one of the concerns with densification is that there will likely be a jump in land prices, which, together with development costs, could have a follow-on effect as the increased costs get passed onto the consumer. How do we make sure that’s contained?

FVREB: Yes, and municipalities have been critical of the government’s lack of engagement and collaboration with communities to help solve housing issues. Would you envision giving that control back to the municipalities?

SF: Local governments are operating with a fraction of the budgets that provincial government has, and they are having to fill in the ever-growing gaps from the province not holding up their end, whether it comes to transit or childcare or health care or infrastructure. They are on the ground trying their best to serve their constituents, working way outside of their jurisdiction, and then along comes the province, which says we’re going to put you on the naughty list. It’s not just offensive; it’s a weird kind of paternalism that undermines the essential relationship of trust that should exist between the two levels of government. I’ve heard directly from mayors, and one in particular who has demonstrated with data that they have met their quota—so it’s not the municipality which has not held up their side of the bargain.

FVREB: Increasing the number of homes requires the adequate skilled and unskilled labour to build them. Have we done enough in this respect regarding the people we’re bringing in?

SF: The BC building trades is saying they are going to have a massive shortage of construction workers to build the housing we need. If we aren’t more proactive, we’re going to see over 50,000 empty spots in the construction trades by 2032. The long-term horizon view of immigration and immigration policy has to be one which recognizes that we have a negative birth rate, so without immigration we’d have a shrinking population, which is not good for the economy. We need to stop siloing policies and decisions—we need a clear plan for things like infrastructure and immigration in conjunction with housing policy. Governments are meant to look at the horizon, 25, 50 years out, and then work back from that place to ensure that we’re putting in place the investments and the policies that will get us to that vision. And unfortunately, in our political system the horizon is four years. Housing policy is one of the victims of short-term political thinking and if you are more focused on the benefit of political wins than the burden of public service you’ll forget that the horizon has to include actions and outcomes that occur after you’re out of office.

FVREB: Although the focus is on increasing supply, research has shown that it doesn’t necessarily equate to greater affordability. How do we ensure that BC remains a viable option for people who want to live here and raise a family?

SF: The disconnect that exists between the wages people earn and the cost of housing has created the conditions of despair for a lot of people in this province and in this country because for so many, there is no attainable housing. Look at the rental situation. The precarity of being a renter in BC right now is undermining the fundamental well-being of people in this province. We need to put in controls about how much rent can increase because we are creating the conditions where people are saying, “I have to leave,” which means losing educated people, talented people, people who are part of our communities, people who have families here and we are starting to fray the fabric of our communities and our society. And this to me, is an emergency. In 2020 we proposed a program that supports the people who are paying above 30 per cent of their income towards rent, recognizing that there is a growing crisis for people who are spending more than they can afford on basic housing necessities. I am more and more deeply committed to the position that the most important affordable housing is the affordable housing that exists right now, and we need to protect that.

FVREB: What sets the Greens apart from the other parties in this election?

SF: The difference between us and all the other parties is that our orientation is to people. We are not beholden to industry or a kind of corporate view. We embrace the notion that government doesn’t just represent the people, it serves them and this is central to who we are. The BC Greens were the first to talk about climate change and insist that it be on the political agenda. We were the first and only party to really talk about protection of biodiversity. We have proposed solutions to the social and economic crises that no other party has, like establishing community health centers as a way to save and protect our publicly funded health care system—for $10 million, we could have 100 community health centers funded and up and running. We don’t look to see which positions poll “most popular” but instead arrive at them based on a deep understanding of the crises we face, and importantly, the solutions that we could put in place to actually solve them.

FVREB: The NDP government housing strategy is focused on increasing supply and density built primarily on three pillars: transit-oriented development, residential “upzoning”, and municipal quotas. They’ve committed to having over 100,000 new homes open or under construction by 2028. Do you believe the goal is realistic?

John Rustad: What we’re seeing from the NDP, quite frankly, is a lot of virtue signaling. Regardless of the bills passed last year, there’s no real plan in place or any real engagement with the municipalities. The reality is that there’s lots of existing housing that’s being built, but new starts are falling off a cliff. When I talk to industry, they’re looking at working in other jurisdictions, not in British Columbia, because it’s just too difficult to get anything done here—there’s too much red tape and there’s too much cost built into it from government. They had a target of 125,000 homes in ten years, which they built, what, 15,000 or something like that.

FVREB: What should government’s role be when it comes to housing?

JR: We need to ask ourselves, should the government be building housing, like the old Soviet Union’s approach? Or should we work with the private sector to make sure [non-market] housing is included in their projects? Because you know, government just isn’t very efficient at doing certain things. For example, up in my riding there was a project that was originally supposed to be built out at $300,000 to $400,000 a unit. By the time BC Housing was finished building up the project, it came in around $1.2 million per unit. How is that now affordable?

FVREB: Knowing that the wheels are already set in motion, what aspects of the housing strategy need to change?

JR: The private sector, not government should be building those homes. But we have to solve a few things first to incentivize developers, like some of the labour issues, which means we have to solve the immigration issues. And we have to come to the table with money for municipalities for things like water, sewer, parking, parks—the basics—to try to bring down development costs. We need to work with municipalities on ”pre-zoning” as part of their official community plan so that when projects do come forward, they don’t need to go through a zoning process because it’s already in the plan. Single project, single permit so you don’t have these multiple layers of permitting and bureaucracy to go through. The role of government is to create a better environment to reduce cost structures, in which time is a critical component. If we form the government we intend to repeal Bill 44. The province should not be making decisions that should be made by local governments. Local governments do the business licenses, they do the zoning, and so they should be the ones making a decision as to how their communities handle tourism as well as housing.

FVREB: Would you include Bill 47 [Transit-Oriented Development Act] in that assessment?

JR: I fully support the idea of densification around transit.
That’s something municipalities need to be on board with, and if they’re resistant, then maybe there’s a role for government to step in. But more importantly, municipalities need to be responsible for their own official community plans. If they want densification or to build significantly more housing, then that should be pre-zoned in an official community plan and a plan from the city for the required services, so when a developer comes forward with a project, the zoning is already in place.

FVREB: What about Bill 35 [short-term rentals]?

JR: We will also repeal Bill 35. These components I just mentioned need to be done by municipalities and the same goes for short-term rentals. Take a look at Downtown Vancouver. Before the change in short-term rental policy, hotel rates last spring were about $250 to $280 a night. Today, it’s $450 and up per night and that’s clearly a direct impact from these policies. We desperately need to build out rental stock. We haven’t been building out any significant rental stock for many, many years. Back in the 60s and 70s, when we were building rental stock, it was successful because we allowed companies to write off capital and get to profitability faster. Ultimately, the whole issue I see with short-term rentals is that the government is pointing the finger at municipalities, but they should be pointing at themselves because they are the ones creating this problem in our housing market.

FVREB: Increasing supply is one thing–how do we ensure it improves affordability?

JR: No single set of policies is going to dramatically bring down housing prices. Given the right environment, the market will take care of that based on supply and demand. For example, right now, sales are down significantly, and supply has started to increase. That’s going to have a natural correction, eventually, in terms of prices. But if you were to try to force them to come down significantly, you’d have all kinds of unintended consequences in your economy. We need to be working on people’s ability to be able to buy in order to address the affordability. Supply, of course, is a big part of that, because that can help stabilize prices from going up any further.

FVREB: Yes, and one of the factors driving demand is the high levels of immigration.

JR: I sometimes joke about immigration from the perspective of, “Welcome to British Columbia—your first task is to build your own home!” It’s not that far off the reality. Look, if we’re going to be able to build additional stock, we’re going to need people that have the skill sets and the ability to do that. As a province, we need to take ownership of our own immigration issues; how we work with people coming in from other jurisdictions, making sure that they’re pre-qualified, etc. That way they can go directly to work and make sure that we’re bringing in the skill sets our economy needs—everything from truck drivers to doctors. We need to take control of our own coasts and immigration. We shouldn’t have a government 3,000 miles away making those decisions for British Columbians.

FVREB: Beyond housing, people are struggling. How do we help them make a life here?

JR: As you are probably aware, recent polls have shown that 1 in 3 people are thinking about leaving BC. In many ways, I think that’s David Eby’s approach to solving both traffic and housing issues—if people move away, then you don’t have to worry about it. I jest, but only a little because I do wonder if that is part of their strategy. I mean, when you see them building a new four-lane bridge to replace an existing four-lane bridge, they’re obviously not planning for any additional traffic. The way to deal with it is you have to get the economy going, and David Eby has driven our economy into the ground. If you take out immigration and you take out the growth in government spending, we basically would be stagnant as an economy. And if you take out the major projects that were started before he came along, like LNG Canada, Site C, and Trans Mountain, we would actually have had negative GDP growth. Nobody wants to invest in this province, and we need to change that. We need to make sure that we can drive the investment that’s needed in British Columbia to create jobs, but more importantly, to create wage growth because it’s one of the most important pieces in solving affordability. When you look at GDP per capita in Canada and in BC, we’ve been stagnant eight years while the rest of the world has advanced—our quality of life, our affordability has been in decline over that whole period of time, and that is a clear signal that the approaches taken by this government has been an utter failure.

FVREB: Why should voters choose the BC Conservatives?

JR: The reality is pretty simple. It doesn’t matter what you look at, we’re in a crisis under an NDP government. And what has been missing over the decades, even from the government that I was part of, you know, 10 years ago, is a concise vision for actually advancing the province and getting things done. The big difference between the Conservative Party and the other parties is that we aren’t putting our finger up in the wind and trying to figure out where people are, and then try to get in front of it. We’re just putting our principles out there to show what we stand for: fighting for what’s right, fighting for the average everyday person, bringing common sense back, getting back to the basics. What we’re trying to build here isn’t so much what people would think of as a stereotypical Conservative party but rather a party that wants to stand for what’s right. Which is why we’ve got NDP, and Greens like Andrew Weaver, supporting what we’re doing. That’s why we’ve got federal Liberals and federal Conservatives. We’ve got people from across the spectrum that are coming in because it’s not about an ideology, but instead about standing for what’s right.

FVREB: Is it a coincidence that the Conservative momentum here is gaining strength at the same time we see it happening at the federal level?

JR: There are things that they’re doing which we’re doing, and then there are things that we’re doing that they’re adopting as well. It’s actually really funny to see some of our language and messaging being used two months later by Pierre Pollievre. I really enjoy that because everyone says, “you’re just riding a coattails,” but in many ways, we’re the tip of the spear, pushing for things on certain agendas and they’re more cautious. But having said that, you know, there are differences between us. There are places where I’m going to be taking on the federal government, regardless of whether it’s the federal Liberals or federal Conservatives, because we need to fight for what we need to do in British Columbia.