Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

27, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023)

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 44, R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

On clause 13 (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes

(Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, to order.

K. Kirkpatrick: When we were asking questions on clause 13 the other day, I was asking the minister

about those targets that were set out for those ten communities prior to this legislation

being brought forward. I did have an answer from the minister that said there would

be some additional oversight for those communities.

I do have two questions just to follow that up. What would that additional oversight

look like for those ten communities that were on the so-called naughty list? And why

wasn't this just simply included in Bill 44, since everything is going to relate back

to the housing plans?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question.

The communities that are in the Housing Supply Act…. It's different for those communities.

We're in regular communication with all those communities. They are required to report

back at the six-month mark and then required to report back again another six months

after that. There's a more regular follow-up and a regular engagement with them.

The changes here around the housing needs reports are enabling. What we're saying

to communities is: "Now you've got a housing needs report. You have to update your

OCP over five years."

That's the big difference. We're in regular contact with them, helping them and working

with them. For these other communities, we're saying: "Now you've got the ability

to update your OCP, but you use the housing needs report to do that."

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I'm still unclear as to why these need to be two separate things. I also want to understand,

with the communities on that list from the Housing Supply Act…. They were able to

actually negotiate. That's the word that I understood from a couple of the mayors

I've spoken to. They were able to actually negotiate what those targets would be.

Wouldn't the targets be the same as the regular housing targets? How would they be

able to negotiate that when, I presume, municipalities will not be able to negotiate

with the ministry on these targets?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There wasn't a negotiation. What we did was give local governments an opportunity

to share with us some unique context in their communities, maybe identify some issues

with the targets as we have set them.

It wasn't a negotiation. It was more of a: "Here's what we believe your target should

be. What do you think…? What's limiting you? Where do you think you can do more?"

In fact, a lot of the communities were, "We can do more on this part here," as opposed

to: "Don't make us do this."

I have never said it was a negotiation. I'm putting it on the record. It was not a

negotiation in any way.

A. Walker: I've just got…. I won't say how many, sorry. I have a habit of this.

I want to begin by thanking the minister and the staff. I mean, it was a long week

last week, and I know this is extending. I'm looking forward to this.

I want to re-ask the question from last week just because I'm not sure I was fully

clear.

This clause will require that local governments set up a plan for 20 years. As they

go through this official community planning process, based on these housing needs

reports…. I can see an example, perhaps, where a council could say: "We're setting

up an OCP that has to plan for 20 years. We're doing it today. We'll dedicate a certain

amount of not pre-zone…. We'll designate areas for zoning to get us to the ten-year

mark today and then know that, two OCPs from now, we'll get the rest of the way there."

I don't know if that makes sense to the minister. I'm just looking for some clarity.

We say in here that the zoning process has to accommodate 20 years. Does it mean they

have to accommodate that 20 years today when they do the OCPs? Or can it be sort of

a linear process where they have a plan for how to achieve to those 20 years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The second part of the member's question was the correct one.

[3:25 p.m.]

We are expecting them to plan the 20 years. So not plan for ten years and then update

it for ten years. Plan for 20 years. It is something that the regional growth strategy

is already based on. So it's good practice to be doing that. At the five-year mark,

they will update that accordingly to see where the numbers have changed.

A. Walker: Through the regional growth strategy process, you always plan a general idea of where

that development will take place. But this is going to be far more granular.

What I'm hearing from local government, as they're starting their budget processes,

is…. By setting aside this large amount of designated area for growth, they're seeing

some significant challenges as far as funding infrastructure and planning what that's

going to look like.

If they have to plan today, in their OCP, and designate these areas for growth today….

They don't have the ability to say no to that zoning. It's happening all over their

community. This is potentially going to lead to a very significant cost burden for

local governments.

I'm just looking for a comment from the minister on how local governments can plan

for growth everywhere, knowing that infrastructure in communities is a lot of different

services.

Hon. R. Kahlon: One of the bills that, hopefully, we'll be chatting about soon, which is part of the

package of changes, is why that piece is important.

Now local governments will be able to say, "This is what we need," and then work backwards

and be able to collect the revenues that are needed for that infrastructure: police

stations, fire halls, etc., but also sewers and water and wastewater facilities, which

are now part of that as well. That's why that other bill is important.

Now the communities will plan for longer. They also need to ensure that they have

a stream of revenue that can help them get to the outcomes they want to see.

Of course, the provincial and federal governments are going to have to continue to

support local governments. We had the $1 billion last year. I think it's important

to see dollars flow to support communities with this growth as well.

A. Walker: Yes. It should be interesting to see how this rolls out.

Local governments are starting their budgetary process now. I know that one of my

council's staff has recommended to completely put on hold their strategic plan while

they sort out what this is going to cost. It is unfortunate. Part of that strategic

plan is affordable housing and some of these other things that we want to see in our

communities.

When these housing needs reports come out, in a community like many in my constituency….

They're predominantly all single family. Can a local government now point to the fact…?

All of these properties have been rezoned from one home to allow for four homes. Could

they point to that as potential future growth and not have to come up with any further

development plans for downtown renewal or new community spaces?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member is correct in that. For some communities, this will get them a

long way there. They will be able to have this as part of their overall goals or their

overall community planning. For some communities, this will get them a long way there.

I think, as the member rightfully highlighted…. I believe it was on Thursday, when

we were having conversations about the numbers. In some communities, it just gets

you part of the way there. There are going to be other important conversations happening.

I think the member also raised questions about communities that want to make their

urban containment areas smaller. It means they're going to have to do a lot more in

order to get to the goals, not only, in that case, for themselves but for the region

as well.

A. Walker: In a community that is predominantly single family, if the goal is to…. I don't know

the actual numbers, but say it's doubling the population every 20 years. I'm not saying

that's the goal, but let's make it easy.

If, right now, a community is fully built up with single family…. This new bill, when

it becomes law, rezones everything to four homes from one. A local government could

point to that and say: "We are greatly exceeding what is required in our community."

But it doesn't necessarily mean that homes will get built.

If you're in a community where there are predominantly single-family homes…. If local

government is still not showing progress on growth, yet they have a plan that shows

that they have done way more than is needed…. What tools will government have, through

these housing needs reports, to ensure that, actually, the number of homes we need

are getting built?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This ties in well with the question that the member from West Vancouver raised, which

is: what's the difference between what we're doing here and then communities that

have housing targets? What this does here is it enables the growth.

The OCPs need to be updated with the amount of housing, pre-zoned, that we need. With

communities that are part of the target communities under the Housing Supply Act,

there's a bigger requirement for them to actually work to get housing built. That's

the big difference between the two.

I think the member is generalizing in his example. But fundamentally, the point he's

making is correct, which is: if a community were to have this policy and the transit-oriented

development policies in place, is that included in their overall 20-year goal? Yes,

it is included.

Is it possible that between those policies, they could see themselves coming very

close to their housing needs report? Yes, it's possible. But it may be that they still

need to do a lot more, given the conversation we had last week around how many housing

units we actually need to reach our targets.

A. Walker: I guess it doesn't really address the issue though. If a local government is now running

around trying to figure out how to fund infrastructure, they're running around dealing

with the concerns of neighbours with some homes being built and they have a document

that says that they are doing everything the government wants. In fact, they're exceeding

by multiple orders of magnitude what government is asking for, but the homes aren't

actually getting built.

This new report that councils are supposed to receive may not be effective in actually

delivering the homes in the community that we want to see. I guess there's no real

question from that. It's just a concern I have in a community like mine that's predominantly

single family.

This is one of the strongest measures of this whole bill to ensure housing gets built.

Because we're both rezoning everything from one home to four and setting up this housing

needs report, there's a chance that the rezoning of everything actually restricts

the goal of the housing needs report to actually get things built.

The last frame that I have here is on the modelling. We discussed modelling a bunch,

and I appreciate the minister's patience with this. I had asked if there had been

any sort of peer review by builders, and the answer was no, there was no peer review

of that by developers.

That modelling — was it based on the rezoning of single-family homes to allow for

the four, or was the entire bill itself, including this clause?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The modelling was just on the SSMU portion.

A. Olsen: On the Saanich Peninsula, the three municipalities there started an official community

planning process in 2020. Each of them started at the same time, March of 2020. Sidney

got a housing needs report separately from the CRD report that was done. Central Saanich

and North Saanich get a housing needs report in 2020. Sidney had a housing needs report

in 2019.

The communities begin the process of the official community plan development, consultation

and engagement. They do that for a matter of about three years. The district of North

Saanich's community plan is now paused at kind of the halfway process, but Central

Saanich and Sidney have completed those. Both now have bylaws in place for their new,

updated official community plan — Sidney in late 2022 and Central Saanich in April

of 2023.

[3:35 p.m.]

These are very recent OCP updates. What's the plan for communities who have just finished

this process? As an example, in my community, how do they navigate this new change

now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities that have updated their OCPs and are close to what we have put out as

what the new standardized housing needs reports will be won't see a major change.

The communities that…. Perhaps we have some communities that were, I guess you could

say, picking some things from housing needs reports and leaving some things out. A

few communities like that would perhaps see a bigger shift in their OCP.

Again, with this legislation passing, the communities will have the ability for two

years from now to be able to modify the changes from this to their new OCPs.

A. Olsen: That's the opposite of an official community plan. That's a provincial community plan.

The official community plan is actually a public engagement and consultation process

where the local governments engage the public to draft an official community plan.

Going back after that long, extensive three-year process, informed by the most recent

housing needs reports that the communities were required to have and that were acceptable

by the province, and then modifying the official community plan after the fact, is

exactly the kind of unilateral top-down decision-making that communities are challenged

with and that actually lead to a lot of the concerns that my colleague was raising

from Parksville-Qualicum about being able to plan for that.

The minister, through this debate, has pointed to the removal of public hearings.

I defended those removals by saying that actually the official community planning

process is the appropriate place for community engagement and consultation.

Now what we've learned through this last answer is actually that community consultation

and engagement are just pro forma. It's just kind of a charade. Even though these

are housing needs reports undertaken by the CRD, and they've got the most up-to-date

information of housing needs reports that have been completed, the minister is going

to go back and unilaterally change it, effectively both removing the public hearing

and the effectiveness of the consultation and engagement.

How does the minister justify taking the community in his direction rather than the

direction that the community has set?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member does know we're struggling with housing. The member does know that there

are a lot of people in our community and his community that are struggling for housing.

We need to see the type of housing being built in British Columbia that is more accessible

to the people who are struggling.

This policy that we're discussing now enables for more attainable housing for families.

We've said this a million times. I'll say it again. When a single-family home comes

down, it's unaffordable for most people. Having options is healthy.

What we're saying with this legislation is not that it has to be built, but that it

can be built. In some cases, in the member's community, he'll still get to have single-family

homes. In some parts of the community, you may see individuals say: "I want to make

the home that I was going to build into four units, and they'll be available for folks."

I think we've canvassed this many, many times. I'll repeat the answer since the member

has asked this question multiple times. Communities that have their community plan:

any project that comes forward that fits within that will not have a public hearing.

But anyone that comes to propose something else out of the community plan will still

have to go to a public hearing.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: We'll fast-forward through the questions that I have. I think the minister jumped

ahead, and we'll soon see the reason why his answer is actually problematic in my

communities. But we'll get there over the time that it takes to get there.

I will highlight, though, that neither of the official community plans that have been

completed suggest rezoning single-family homes into multifamily units as the solution.

But don't worry, because actually, the communities did provide an answer to the question

about how we achieve the actual housing needs that exist in the community.

First I'll ask this. The housing needs reports are informed by data — and I think

this will be consistent across the province — that ranges from 2006 to 2016. It's

now seven years old. So what work is being done to recognize the old data that's informing

these housing needs reports?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member will recognize…. His community will recognize that if they're using

data from 2016, 2017, 2018, things have changed considerably. The numbers that have

been coming out of CMHC, in particular, are staggering for the amount of housing we

need. So having the updated data for the housing needs reports, I think, will be important

for all communities.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that. The member communities of the CRD that undertook the CRD housing

needs assessment — precisely the reason why I asked the question about what the impact

is on the newly minted official community plans that have just been drafted…. That's

all based on data that is 2016. Part of the reason why it's 2016 is because that was

the most recent and robust census data that was available, and much of the housing

needs assessments are built off of census data.

So I'm just wondering. That's the most robust data that was available at the time

of those housing needs assessments. I'm exactly concerned with what I think the minister

was suggesting, which was that the housing needs reports that have informed these

official community plans are old or are aging.

What work is being done to reconcile this with communities, like these two that have

just finished official community planning processes, to ensure that the picture that

is being painted is one that is more reflective of the current situation we're facing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The reason we want the housing needs reports to be done in the new year is because

we expect 2021 data to be coming out very soon — again, significant differences in

the numbers, very significant difference in the numbers, which will impact communities

that did planning with the older data.

A. Olsen: Recognizing that the data has changed and that we have communities that have just

done extensive community engagement and official community plans…. The minister has

stated repeated times in this debate that part of the justification for moving the

public hearing process is because that engagement will happen at an official community

planning process that communities who have completed the process will no longer have

available to them. That process has now been passed.

There was three years work done by my local government colleagues. Nonetheless, they've

put together some good plans. They're good official community plans. They highlight

the growing trends of where the housing needs are, informed by old data, nonetheless,

but still data that I think is painting a picture of the trends that we're on, which

is the significant need of housing in our communities.

However, what's interesting about that is that none of the communities suggest that

the way they're going to be able to achieve the need in their community is by redeveloping

or by mass upzoning single-family developments to build more market housing.

In fact, both communities have approved — quite aggressively, in fact — large swaths

of areas within their communities for higher-density apartment- or condo-market homeowner

and rental buildings. The mix of tenure…. The majority have been built recently by

the real estate market. Both identified that 10 percent of new construction should

be affordable.

However, the housing needs reports, the ones that are to be informing the decisions

that are being made, even seven years ago, were identifying a larger population with

[3:45 p.m.]

With such low conversion rates for affordable housing, how does the minister suggest

these communities get to the 20 percent to 25 percent of affordable housing that's

identified in their housing needs assessment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The core housing needs have probably significantly changed in the member's communities

since the data has come forward. There are a couple of things I want to highlight.

One, the official community plans. The majority of the work that's been done in the

official community plans will still remain. We're just talking about the housing portion

of it. The other planning pieces — we're not asking for those things to change. With

the housing needs reports, we're asking them to consider the things the member raised

— what level of affordability you need, what percentage of affordable units you need.

That's why we're investing $7 billion into affordable housing, because we believe

that's one way of directly investing in that type of housing that makes sure that

people's needs are met. The private sector will be able to meet some people's needs,

but it won't be able to meet the needs of many individuals. That's where government

has to play an important role. So it'll be government investment. That's why we continue

to urge the federal government to get back in the game.

We do think that, as the member said, if they've zoned up some larger properties,

there's opportunity for local governments to put levels of affordability into those

projects as well.

A. Olsen: We'll get to that too. Local governments don't build affordable housing. In fact,

the most that a local government can extract from a developer for affordable housing

is 10 percent. There's a gap of 10 percent to 15 percent of people in the core housing

need that…. Municipalities simply can't extract that level of affordable housing out

of a market developer. Been around the table. The most they can get is 10 percent,

and even that is like pulling teeth.

Some of the situations that I've seen is that they'll agree to the 10 percent and

then they'll sit and wait, or they will come back later and ask for a change. Neither

Central Saanich nor Sidney — both, as I've mentioned, with freshly minted OCPs — have

recommended the mass upzoning approach to the single family zone that's been proposed

here as the solution for their housing needs.

The minister has hung all of this on enforcing the municipalities to get their housing

needs assessment, to get the understanding. Neither of the communities has said: "This

is what we need. This is the kind of housing we need to actually solve the problem."

Neither community identifies a lack of zones for more market housing as being the

problem.

In the housing needs reports…. Again, as the minister has already said, this has probably

gotten a lot worse. Let's take what I'm about to say, and then let's put the lens

of "a lot worse" on this and see if, actually, we're more or less comfortable with

the "a lot worse" situation than the picture that I'm about to paint.

In the housing needs reports, it's not mid to high end of market housing having issues

but, rather, people with core housing needs. That's actually a thing. Core housing

needs is a thing. By definition, core housing needs is when a household is struggling

to meet one or more of these three measures: affordability, suitability, adequacy.

On the Saanich Peninsula, as outlined in the three housing needs reports — Central

Saanich, Sidney, North Saanich — affordability is the highest of the three within

the core housing needs, and affordability for the core housing need is between 30

percent and 50 percent. Above 30 percent of annual income expended on housing puts

people in a core affordability need.

If you're spending 50 percent or more of your income, you are actually in what is

defined in the housing needs reports as an extreme core housing need, meaning you

are expending way more of your annual resources on housing than you should be.

There's an interesting dynamic exposed in the housing needs reports, which the minister

says is actually far worse now. Actually, he said: "Probably changed a lot." I don't

suspect it's probably gotten better, because that's not the narrative that we've been

telling about the housing system. We've been saying that it's only getting worse.

[3:50 p.m.]

There's an interesting dynamic that confirms the concerns that I was raising last

week with this minister about creating wealth and giving to those who are already

homeowners while offering absolutely nothing tangible in this bill for renters and

non-homeowners.

Those housing needs assessments exposed this: approximately 6 percent of homeowners,

of owner households in the core housing need, where there is approximately 33 percent

of renter households in that. It's 6 percent homeowners in core housing needs, 33

percent renters.

In Sidney, 15 percent of homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their income on

housing. However, 44 percent of renters spend more than 30 percent on their housing.

With this bill, the wealth gap is widening. The Sidney report covers 2006 to 2016,

and it identifies that homeowners in extreme core housing went from 190 to 70. That's

good. That's suggesting that homeowners are experiencing less extreme core housing

need than they were a decade before this report.

What's scary — and the minister said it's probably a lot worse — is that in the same

time period and category, renters went from 90 households to 210 households in the

extreme core housing need. The renter households are experiencing more core housing

and extreme core housing needs than they were a decade earlier. This is actually painting

the picture that the minister said, which is that it has probably changed a lot, getting

a lot worse.

Along the same lines, only 17 percent of renters have an income over $100,000. It's

no surprise that 43 percent of homeowners have over a $100,000 salary. Conversely,

14 percent of homeowners make less than $40,000. This House will be able to guess,

with no shock, that 42 percent of renters make less than $40,000. The housing needs

assessment that this minister is hanging this housing program on is identifying and

exposing this Housing Minister's own misdirected initiative here, with rezoning the

single-family home.

In 2019, Sidney determined that it needed 555 units of non- or near-market housing

and only 42 units of market rental. How have the minister and his ministry worked

with Sidney over the past two years to meet the needs of Sidney's core and extreme

core housing needs by building non- or near- market rental housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member believes this is so misguided, why did he introduce an amendment last

week to include Salt Spring into this? Is he saying that his community of Salt Spring

is misguided for wanting to be in this legislation? Perhaps they see an opportunity

to get more housing into their communities.

I appreciate the member's question. I will answer the question, but to call it misguided

when he brought an amendment in himself last week to include half of his community

into the legislation because half his community thought it was a great idea, I think….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's 20 percent of his community, but still, I would agree, an important part of his

community. I wouldn't use the term "misguided," especially when an amendment has been

brought forward to include 20 percent of his community.

Now, one of his questions was around core housing needs. The new housing needs report

for each community is based on the understanding of five components: extreme core

housing needs, permanently housing people experiencing homelessness, suppressed household

formations, anticipated supply need over the next five to 20 years, and adjustments

to restore rental supply to a healthy vacancy rate.

The small-scale multi-units provide opportunities in many ways. We have a lot of folks

— I suspect that Sidney is no different than my community — who are living in large

homes, who are in retirement, who are looking for options and who perhaps don't want

to live in a condo.

This provides opportunities for many of those individuals to find housing close to

their community, which isn't a condo, which may be more attainable and which frees

up housing opportunities for others.

[3:55 p.m.]

This also provides opportunities for a lot of people who are renting right now ––

who are renting but are looking for an opportunity to buy a home, but the single-family

homes being torn down and a single-family home being built are unattainable for them.

Providing different forms of housing options means that those people will be able

to get into the housing market, freeing up other rental opportunities for other people.

We need to invest in housing. I agreed strongly with the member across the way last

week, and I'll agree strongly again. This is why we're making the investments into

non-market housing that we are. We need to do more, and the federal government needs

to do more, because we know that there's an important segment of our population that

needs that housing.

Now, we're starting to see the investments that we were making come online, where

these units are starting to open up. But housing takes time, and when you don't have

investments in housing and non-market housing for a long time, it creates a backlog

that is significant. That's what we're dealing with.

Not only that, but we're also, right now, actively purchasing private sector rentals

and bringing them into the non-market sector because we know that in the long term,

they will remain affordable for people longer.

So we're doing many of the things that the member, I think, is advocating for because

we know it's an important part of it. But this is one part of the many pieces we're

bringing forward to address the housing crisis as we have it now.

I will also agree and share with the member that perhaps his community of Sidney right

now is looking at this. The community of Sydney in New South Wales just today brought

in the exact same policies that we're proposing here in this Legislature. I know it's

a different Sydney, but a significant Sydney anyway. They're bringing the same legislation,

same type of policies they've announced today because they know this is an important

part of helping address their housing crisis as well.

A. Olsen: You know what Sydney is not doing this? Sydney, Nova Scotia — they're not doing this.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Yeah, but it's as specious an argument as raising another Sydney from another country.

The reason why, and I was very clear why I moved that amendment, was because the local

governments, the people who are responsible for zoning, identified a desire to be

a part of this, and they've been excluded from it. The minister can try to twist what

I was talking about, what I was specifically talking about. He didn't answer because

he doesn't actually want to confront this reality.

He's been trying to skate around this reality the entire time that I've been painting

this picture, and that is the issue that I raised with respect to the housing needs

report from Sidney. Their official community plan identified that what their core

housing need was, was not going to be achieved by more market housing. It does not

get met by more market housing. Their core housing need is people that are paying

30 percent to 50 percent and above of their annual salary. These are folks that are

not able to engage the housing market.

The minister, by his own admission throughout this entire debate, has said that if

there are any affordability measures that are enforced upon this bill, they won't

get built. That is just a coded way of saying these units will go out into the market

at what the market will bear, the market price.

We have this experience in our society where when the federal and provincial governments

got out of non-market housing, social housing…. No matter how poorly we feel about

those two words being put together, social housing, in our society, we look down our

nose at that. But the reality is that when they got out of it, they forced people

who could not afford market housing into the housing market. That's the problem we're

facing here. That's the problem that Sidney's housing needs report from ten years

ago identified, 555 units.

My question to the minister was what active work has he done over the past two years,

not what are we going to get a long time from now. What work has he done, knowing

this was the need of Sidney, to say: "We're going to engage you, and we are going

to be an active partner to build the housing needs that the community has identified"

— the 555 units, not the 52 units that they have been building?

I'm just going to say this. The OCPs have been planned for increased density. All

of them identify increased density — a lot of it. Both have identified measures, limited

as they are, that local governments can take to ensure affordability.

[4:00 p.m.]

The minister said: "Local governments will build affordability." They don't. They

work with developers, and they try to coerce and convince developers to build more

affordable units than they're willing to put into the projects.

In fact, the problem identified clearly in the housing needs reports is a lack of

affordable housing options, especially below-market housing that will support the

core housing needs of low- to moderate-earning individuals, critical workforce housing

and a variety of other social housing tenures led by the provincial government, the

space that has basically been abandoned for the past 30 years by the provincial government.

How does the minister suggest these communities attract a greater percentage of affordable,

workforce and social housing than the market has been proven willing to build over

the last decade?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are a couple of ways. We have, right now, a community housing fund that

is open. The intake is open for not-for-profits to apply.

I suspect we're going to have a significant uptake on that, where local governments

can partner with a not-for-profit to see this type of housing be built. We welcome

that. That's why we changed the intake process not to be every two or three years

but to be every year. So there's an intake that is now. There will be another intake

next year. There's another intake the year after.

We're also providing PDF funding, project development funding, for local governments

and not-for-profits that are considering building non-market housing but need some

dollars to be able to do preliminary work to prepare their applications. We also have

an intake of an Indigenous housing fund which is coming very soon and will also support

that.

If the city has a rental building that they know is going on sale, they can reach

out to the B.C. not-for-profit association or AMHA or the co-op association, who now

have a half-billion-dollar fund to be able to pull that housing into the non-market.

So there are tools.

Again, I'm willing to work with the partner to make sure that he has the information,

that his community has the information to know where the opportunity for dollars is

to get this type of housing built.

We've also sent a letter to every single local government in the province to say:

"If you have land you've identified in your community, and you want to build workforce

housing, reach out to us, because we're looking at new initiatives to get that type

of housing being built."

Many communities have. I'm not sure if I can say Sidney has at this moment, but I

certainly will look into it. If they haven't, I certainly welcome them to participate.

A. Olsen: It's a really shocking imbalance in the scale and scope of these initiatives. On one

hand, it's a highly bureaucratic process of filling out forms and making applications.

On the other hand, it's a broad, sweeping upzone of single-family homes in 85 communities,

creating nothing but intergenerational wealth for those who own and the increasing

chance of intergenerational poverty for those who are renters and non-homeowners.

That's what the housing needs assessments demonstrated from data that was ten years

ago and that the minister suggests has probably changed a lot and gotten a lot worse.

My review of the official community plans and the narrative…. As someone who comes

from local government, I have to say that I get my back up when I hear members of

the federal and provincial governments kind of kicking the local governments under

the table — that they're the reason why we're not getting the affordable housing that's

needed.

Local governments have never been in the business of affordable housing. Local governments

are in the business of the market housing. It's the provincial and federal governments

who are supposed to be in the business of the social housing, the non-market housing,

They're the ones with all the money, all the revenue.

We've, at local governments, been asking for a new fiscal framework for the last decade,

and still nothing. It's a project that just languishes. And when I look at the housing

needs reports that are going to inform this going forward, I see the community housing

needs reports painting one picture, and the minister and this ministry painting a

different picture as their response. They're not in alignment with each other.

The communities on the Saanich Peninsula have dutifully completed their plan. It's

not been irresponsible in any way. Can their processes be more efficient? Probably.

But it's the province here that's acting in a reckless manner.

[4:05 p.m.]

Part of the reason why it's reckless is because the upzoning of all single-family

neighbourhoods in Sidney or Central Saanich, for example, creates a more chaotic administrative

challenge that my colleague here, from Parksville-Qualicum, was painting earlier —

demand on the aging infrastructure systems and further stretching safety and social

services. The local governments have struggled with attracting the volume of affordable

housing that's needed because they don't have the mechanisms or the tools to be able

to get the volume that they need — 10 percent as opposed to 25 percent, 30 percent.

Without the intervention from the provincial government, which is commensurate with

the change that is being proposed here, to build a greater number of social, non-market

housing, the lack of development of housing in the core need is pushing people into

increasingly unsustainable core housing needs or, as has been identified in both of

the community housing needs reports, right out of the community. So they have to leave.

The actual numbers of the picture that was even painted in 2016 is worse than this

situation, because there are a lot of people who've left the community because of

inaction from the provincial government. Central Saanich and Sidney identified East

Saanich Road, West Saanich Road, Keating, Wallace Drive, Dignan, Verdier and neighbourhoods

near downtown Sidney — all identified as locations for development to be building

the kind of housing that's identified in the housing need reports as what they need.

There's enough potential to eclipse the 1 percent growth rate that Central Saanich

notes in theirs without even touching the OCP. The only barrier is the lack of financial

tools from the federal and provincial governments to support development. The housing

needs reports have identified where the problem is, and it's not at the local government

level.

Why does the Housing Minister complain about local governments when a closer look

at the housing needs reports from these two communities shows the biggest bottleneck

is at our level of government, at the provincial level?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We all have a responsibility to ensure there's affordable housing in this province,

and we're going to continue to work with our local government partners and federal

partners to get there.

The member talked about infrastructure. The question was similar to what was last

week's, so I'll reply with a similar result, which is that Metro Vancouver did a study

on this question, when it looks at infrastructure. The study confirmed that more compact

development forms tend to reduce infrastructure costs on a per-capita basis, support

more efficient use of resources and encourage more cost-effective forms of transportation.

Higher-density forms of development are more cost-effective in urban development areas

where public infrastructure investments can be better utilized. Achieving compact,

complete communities does not necessarily require extremely high-density development

forms. For example, moving from low density to medium densities in urban centres and

along transit corridors can provide significant improvements in infrastructure servicing

cost outcomes.

If the member is trying to trap me into a debate about whose fault it is — is it local

government's fault, federal government's, provincial government's fault? — my answer

is that we all have to work together. We all have to try to address this challenge

together. That's why I spend so much time engaging with communities through UBCM,

through meetings. We have to find creative solutions to move forward.

The member, I'm sure, will agree with me that there are a lot of people who are struggling

to find housing in our communities. I hear these stories every single day. We have

to find ways to get this housing to come online so that we can address the challenges

we're dealing with.

A. Olsen: On that point, I agree. However, the core housing need in our communities is not more

market housing. The core housing need means that we need to be building housing that

is below 30 percent. In fact, we need to be rescuing a lot of people in our communities,

because they're paying more than 50 percent of their annual income on housing.

What's interesting about that…. This is the reason why provincial governments don't

do local planning, because the minister basically just outlined…. I mean, he basically

was reading from the district of Central Saanich official community plan.

Interjection.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: No, no. What I'm saying is that the explanation that the minister just gave suggested

where you build density on top of well-serviced areas with transit corridors. Those

are exactly the neighbourhoods I pointed out and that Central Saanich noted need density.

The minister suggested that he's working with local governments. I said local governments

have identified, specifically Sidney, that they need 555 units of core housing need

houses, not market rentals — core housing needs, out of market, social housing, supportive

housing.

What the minister is actually doing with this by unilaterally taking all the residential

neighbourhoods within the urban containment boundaries of those two communities and

saying, "You now can put from one to three, four or six," is he's saying the increased

capacity infrastructure has to be at the maximum potential to be able to support it.

Engineers and city planners can't plan for less than what the full draw is going to

be.

As I mentioned last week, the entire system is attached and connected to the entire

system. It's not just the little bit that that one development is going to be.

The reality of it is that in order for a community to be able to plan, which Central

Saanich and Sidney did, they said: "Look, we can put the capacity, we can put the

density, in this area but not everywhere."

The minister is the one that's coming in after the fact and saying: "Actually, the

density is going to be everywhere." And that doesn't negate the fact that there could

be some residential density as part of this mix. It's just this unilateral approach

is the approach that is actually putting communities into such a challenging situation.

The housing market has been financialized. Therefore, the development community —

and the developers that are approaching local governments — are not building housing

for people. They're building units for wealth. That's been my experience.

The struggle that is occurring under the narrative of the housing needs reports and

the OCPs on the Saanich Peninsula is the key challenge is extracting housing affordability

from a system that's been designed to produce wealth. That's what happens when the

province turns to the municipal government and says: "Affordable housing is on you

guys." Local governments can only turn to the wealth-generating part of the industry

and say: "Bring us the affordability."

The developers say: "Well, we don't do that. We're not in the gift business. We're

in the development business, the profit business."

Ten percent is the most a local government can get from the development before other

financial interventions are needed to make the project viable.

Has the provincial government created financial tools that can effectively expedite

the construction of the volume of housing that is required and identified in the housing

needs report, and that's delivering housing in the core housing needs for the communities

that I represent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, there's funding available through the community housing fund. There's funding

available through the Indigenous housing fund.

The member will know that we do have projects in Sidney and Central Saanich happening

now.

A. Olsen: Both plans identify the need for more inclusive housing tenures. They note co-living,

live-work, cooperative, below- to near-market rentals, none of which are being built

by the standard, profit-seeking developer, unless the minister can tell me otherwise.

This is not the housing tenure that's built by developers.

Developers cannot get those projects financed, and the provincial and federal governments

have not extended the financial tools to local governments to support that kind of

development.

Similarly, it's highly unlikely that the current cost of borrowing and the cost of

construction of the multifamily — in fact, I think the minister has even said this,

to an extent, himself — units that will be allowed through Bill 44 will be built and

available in the market to support the core housing need. That's bold and underlined

because I know that we're just going to jump to building more supply is going to solve

all our problems — undefined supply.

The majority of the units need to be at below-market rental, because this minister

is not requiring any affordability measures to be in Bill 44, because, by his own

words, he fears that they won't be built because developers can't afford or won't

build the marginal product.

[4:15 p.m.]

Guided by the housing needs reports from Sidney and North Saanich, the minister should

provide a developers incentive, or could provide a developers incentive, perhaps through

taxes, for developing the gap up to the 25 to 30 percent of the units created under

Bill 44 to produce the core housing need houses and homes. Will the minister do that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The housing crisis is going to require both market and non-market housing to be able

to reach it. The member is incorrect. We said three to four units not having affordability,

because it's hard to make sure that they're viable. But the projects that are six

units will have affordability.

A. Olsen: The minister actually said in his speech that the six units "may" have affordability.

Can the minister confirm that the six-unit developments will be required to have affordability?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If a local government would like one of the six units to have some form of affordability

metrics, they will have the ability to do so.

A. Olsen: I'll put it on the record that that's a higher level. Generally one in ten units,

10 percent of the development…. I'll be interested to see if any of those buildings

get built with that level of development.

Has the minister discussed with the Finance Minister the potential of earmarking funds

generated through the property transfer tax of the units that will be built by the

upzoning that he's creating here to exclusively be used to finance workforce and social

housing that meets the core housing needs of British Columbians?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That's not a bill question. That's a Ministry of Finance question.

A. Olsen: Yeah, of course. The minister is not prepared to engage ideas that actually could

produce some housing affordability in this. Just shuffle it off to the Minister of

Finance.

The fact of the matter is that the minister has claimed that there are no ways to

be able to achieve affordability out of this. So the housing needs reports that we're

discussing here in clause 13 have identified a core housing need. The minister has

suggested that there's no way to require the development of these market units to

be able to achieve any affordability — the affordability that's required and identified

in the housing needs reports, the core housing need that's identified in the official

community plans.

I've just provided the minister an opportunity to perhaps tie some of, and inextricably

link, actually, the development of market housing, which he's eager to do here and

is going to be the solution, to the development of a fund that actually could be able

to fund the housing that my community actually needs more of. All I'm asking is the

minister…? Would he consider that and have a conversation with his colleague?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is $7 billion on the table to fund non-market housing. His community has had

projects come through that. There are some that just opened actually a couple of weeks

ago, and there are more underway.

A. Olsen: Again, I think that it's important to continue putting on the record that the scale

and scope of the offerings are dramatically imbalanced here. The housing needs reports

have identified a dramatic increase in the number of people that need core housing

and need housing. The minister is actually answering a different question than that.

In fact, we do see…. I'm not trying to actually divide this provincial government

from local governments, because I don't need to. This provincial government has done

a good enough job of that on their own, with the lack of consultation with these housing

bills, with the lack of engagement. The amount of feedback that I've received from

local elected officials with their head in their hands on this…. I don't have to drive

the wedge. The wedge has already been put in.

The housing needs reports that…. When I looked at my communities, they lay the blame

mostly at the feet of the provincial government for abandoning social housing projects

in a variety of tenures. Currently, the low- to moderate-income British Columbians

are trying to get housing in a market that's extracting 40 to 60 percent of their

annual income. It's not sustainable, and it's driving them to poverty. As I showed

last week, it's actually intergenerational poverty.

Has the minister analyzed or modeled the potential socioeconomic impact of increased

poverty Bill 44 may create?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: As we canvassed many times — this question has been on repeat — there is economic

analysis that will be defined, finalized, once the regulations are approved by cabinet,

and we'll be making that public. I've already shared with the member that we predict

a significant increase among housing available.

I'll say that the member somehow believes that only non-market housing needs to be

built in our communities. I fundamentally disagree. We're going to need both. We're

going to need the private sector to play a role. We're going to need non-market housing

to be dramatically expanded. That's why we're making the investments we're making.

A. Olsen: I think that the record, the long record, will show that I've never suggested that

only non-market housing needs to be built. I'm simply questioning the approach that

this government is taking. On one hand, you've got a massive amount of wealth that's

being generated, intergenerational wealth that's being created out of nothing here,

and it's actually providing housing in the wrong part of the market than the ones

that my community needs.

The minister has included in this bill clause 13, which talks about the housing needs

reports. We're either going to take those housing needs reports seriously or we're

not. We're either going to take the community planning and engagement consultation

processes that are outlined in this bill and in the requirements of the Local Government

Act seriously or not.

So far, through this debate, I've learned that this provincial government is not actually

going to take those reports, either the official community plan report or the housing

needs reports, with any seriousness whatsoever.

The picture that's being painted here is actually that communities are going to be

required to go through the process, the charade of it. But if it doesn't show up exactly

as the minister wants it to show up, then he's prepared to use his power to unilaterally

make that change after the fact, even if the communities have identified in their

official community plans ways to develop the kinds of housing tenures that actually

are identified in the housing needs report.

This is a coherent community development process that I'm describing here. This is

coherent urban planning. What is being identified here, where you actually get the

communities to go through the process and then ignore the outcome of it, is incoherent

planning. It is a government that is scrambling to the wrong finish line, and that's

what makes it so frustrating. That's what makes it so that local governments have

their heads in their hands, saying….

Actually, if you listen to the housing needs assessment that's been sitting there

since 2019 or 2020, depending on which community, you would know that, actually, the

focus that the provincial government should be having is how to expedite the core

housing need tenures, not this work that's being scrambled out here mid-session in

November.

The provincial government has required official community plans and housing needs

assessments. This information is available for every community. It could have been

far more strategic, efficient and planned thoughtfully instead of the blanket approach.

Is the minister reconsidering the initiative that goes against the documents as they

outlined in the communities on the peninsula?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member tells us how misguided this policy is while just last week he was saying

he wanted 20 percent of his community to be under the same policy. He lectures us

that this will do nothing for affordability when he brought forward an amendment asking

for part of his community to be included in this.

I'm sure they wanted to be part of it for a reason, because they believe what we believe,

which was that this will get the amount of housing we need to get to levels of affordability.

We're not saying that we shouldn't have investment in non-market. We're going to continue

to invest in non-market housing as well. We're going to continue to invest in Saanich,

Central Saanich. We're going to continue to invest in Salt Spring as well as Sidney.

The Chair: I'm just noticing that there's a fair degree of repetition, and in the interests of

progressing the business of this committee, I would please ask that a new line of

questioning be undertaken.

In the meantime, I'm going to call just a very short recess of about three minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call Committee of the Whole,

Section A, on Bill 44 back to order. We are on

clause 13.

A. Olsen: Just before the break, the minister repeated his curiosity about why I would raise

an amendment to a bill. I think, as the minister knows and as the record has shown

clearly in Hansard , I've literally been seeking any support from this government with respect to Salt

Spring Island. So far, very little has been delivered, a promise of a couple of dozen

supportive housing units two years ago that B.C. Housing has failed to deliver, for

a variety of reasons. The local government responsible for land use, the Islands Trust

local government committee, has been trying.

Another aspect of this bill, of course, is the secondary suites and accessory dwelling

units, which I think is of particular interest to Salt Spring.

If the minister wants to seize himself of the challenges of housing on Salt Spring

Island, he's been invited to visit the island and see it for himself, and perhaps

it won't become such a game of tennis in this place, where I raise the issues about

Salt Spring, and the provincial government acknowledges them and then does nothing

about it. That's the experience.

I'm raising it here, and I raised it because somebody needs to do something for Salt

Spring. Even if I've got questions about this bill and the application of this bill….

What I was talking about being misguided is actually in direct relation to clause

13 around housing needs reports and the misguided action where the focus is being

put on the development of market units, where actually, what the communities are saying

is that they need non-market social housing units.

Just for clarity for the minister's sake…. I know that I was excoriated for being

repetitive about asking about housing needs reports. I'm going to continue asking

about housing needs reports since that's what clause 13 is about, because the housing

needs reports actually tell us a lot of information about the communities that we're

living in, the communities that we're developing in, the communities that we're trying

to create more housing in.

Those housing needs reports are very important, so they need to be actually listened

to, and they need to be used as guiding documents. In the housing needs reports, there

is a continuum, and it's consistent across the three municipalities. They show the

continuum of housing. It's on a horizontal axis. On the left is social housing. It

makes up emergency shelters, transitional and supportive, supportive and subsidized.

Those are the three areas in social housing.

Then it talks about below-market. That's some sort of a subsidy — below-market rental

and below-market home ownership. That requires government intervention. That's kind

of the bucket in the middle. The bucket on the right, in terms of this graphic overlay,

is market housing. That's market rental and home ownership. This is important because

two-thirds of that housing continuum requires intense federal and provincial government

financial intervention in order to keep those units affordable.

The housing market. For-profit developers only build the bucket on the far right —

the market rental and home ownership. The problem is that the provincial government

has left the market to build affordable units that they don't build. And if you've

spent any time in local government, you know that that is the constant problem. You

can extract 10 percent, but you can't get any more than that.

From the analysis that's been done in the housing needs report…. This minister is

hanging his hat on housing needs reports and how they will inform official community

plans, but from the analysis, the minister is focusing way too much energy on market

housing solutions in Bill 44 and far too little on affordable workforce and social

housing that meets British Columbians' core housing needs. When will the minister

balance the housing needs reports that he's hanging his hat on and the actions that

he's taking?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a lot of clauses in this bill, important ones that we need to discuss. We

have been on repeat with this question and this answer for two days. We spoke about

this last week. The member said we need more non-market housing. I said I agree with

the member. We need more non-market housing. He's saying that consistently today.

Respectfully, on this question, asked and answered.

[4:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: When will we see the new housing needs reports terms of reference and requirements

be made public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: In January.

A. Olsen: Who's involved in developing the requirements for the standard housing needs assessments

and reports?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've got ministry staff. We've also hired a consultant, Urban Matters, which happened

to have done the housing needs reports for both Sidney and Central Saanich.

A. Olsen: Will the advice that has been given by Urban Matters be made available?

Hon. R. Kahlon: They've helped us all the way along. They're working on a guidance document for all

local governments based on their work, and we'll be making that public.

A. Olsen: Will we be able to see the terms of reference, in advance of January, that the government

has provided to Urban Matters to outline and to create the housing needs reports guidelines?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was a public contract. So everything is public.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that. Just on the matter of time, will the minister table that with us

so that we can see it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The staff will get the terms of reference and make them available to the member.

A. Olsen: I think that it is important to acknowledge, and I've long said…. What I'm about to

say is likely to confuse the conversation, because it will likely be used later on

down the road as: "How dare you say anything about actually densifying the neighbourhoods,

because you've been arguing to get information about this process."

Anyway, having looked through the housing needs reports and the official community

plans — specifically the housing needs reports of the three communities on the Saanich

Peninsula, it's important just to note their urban sprawl, which was built in the

1960s, and 82 percent of the properties are homeowners, 18 percent renters, and the

majority are detached homes.

Many of the lots in Central Saanich and North Saanich are large and well serviced.

Infrastructure is aging. Communities are largely rural in scope. All the communities

have already been well on their way of increasing market, multifamily housing options

in recent years. They've been trying to get the market to produce affordable product.

They've not been successful at the scale and scope that's needed.

The market, as I've mentioned, never wants to produce affordable housing; it wants

to produce wealth. The vast majority of the housing stock is market housing. Most

of the single detached homes have three bedrooms or more. On average, only 2.1 people

live in those homes.

In all three reports, as I've noted, housing affordability is the key issue for homeowners

and renters. It's less in North Saanich, moderately in Central Saanich, more acutely

in Sidney. Generally, residents of Central Saanich and North Saanich have higher incomes

than the CRD average. It is a remarkable community to represent, and it is a remarkable

community to live in.

The housing needs assessments detailed information about the number of bedrooms in

each housing unit and the number of bedrooms needed in the communities.

What measures exist in Bill 44, or maybe the minister can talk about what other measures

he might be taking that ensure that the right housing product is being approved and

built based on what the housing needs reports are telling us about the communities?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for the question.

The consultant that's supporting us in this work is the same one that supported Sidney

and Central Saanich, so the housing needs report that he's referring to.

For each community, we have five components — extreme core housing need, permanently

housing people experiencing homelessness, suppressed household formation, anticipated

supply needed over the next five to 20 years and adds adjustment to restore rental

supply for a healthy vacancy rate of 3 percent.

I gave this to the member earlier. He said it sounds very familiar because it's similar

to what's in the report. It's because the same consultant who advises many communities

around the province is giving us support on how we should move forward.

A. Olsen: I'm actually asking the question about how the information in the housing needs report

is linked to what product is going to be built. The housing needs report says something….

I'm being very specific about the number of bedrooms here. We can just build more

market homes, but if they are not the size or of the type that people need in the

communities, then we're not further ahead. We're just simply building more profit

and building more wealth. I know the minister doesn't want to talk about that, but

that's what's happening.

How do we ensure that what is being built is right-sized to the need of the community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The guidance that will be coming out in January will help local governments address

many of the issues or the points that the member raised, both the numbers of types

of units — three-bedroom, two-bedroom, one-bedroom — the types of tenure, etc.

A. Olsen: Does the minister want to take the opportunity that is available to him now to explain

what those initiatives are going to be and what they look like to ensure that the

communities are actually developing the right-sized units for what the community needs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments will have the ability to address their housing needs reports as

they update their OCP, given the information I've shared with the member that will

be in the housing needs reports.

A. Olsen: We've got a situation of 2.1 people living in houses. Let's just say you need three

bedrooms to accommodate that. Maybe the 0.1 can house themselves somewhere else in

the room, but you have, say, three people per house. The local government builds five-bedroom

houses or two-bedroom houses. Or the market says, "We're going to build 50,000 one-bedrooms,"

and we are exactly no further ahead for the people that actually need it.

What I'm asking is: what are the specific things that the minister is going to do

and to require of the local governments? Not opaque answers, none of this: "Wait till

January." Clearly, the minister has thought about it. Clearly, there has been a discussion.

What specific measures are going to be in place to require local governments to not

build a bunch of single bedrooms if the vast majority of people that live in the community

need 2.1 or three bedrooms?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Nothing stops local governments from going even beyond what we're putting in our housing

needs reports. I'll give an example. My community is having a conversation and wanting

more rentals, so they can have rental zones. They can have areas that are zoned for

rental as part of their official community plan. The housing needs reports will inform

the decisions the local governments want to make, giving them the flexibility of getting

the type of housing that they need in their community.

A. Olsen: I think it's important to just acknowledge that as someone who's been in local government

on the Saanich Peninsula previously, we have had an ongoing conversation about infill

densification for a long time. There's no doubt that there are challenges with it,

and it has been challenging and an ongoing discussion.

Again, I think that when I take a look at how we've settled those single-family zones,

they have been large lots, large houses placed in the wrong spot on the land, huge

front yards, huge backyards, inefficient use of infrastructure. The issue that I have

with this bill is the lack of linkage with the solution and the problem. That's primarily

the issue. The scale and scope of this change, the potential socioeconomic impact

of this change and what it will have and the actual potential impact of it, is greater.

I'm not suggesting in any way that there doesn't need to be some densification. I

think that the communities, as they've identified in their official community plans,

have shown that it needs to be more concentrated in specific neighbourhoods. This

provincial government is going to make the decision that that planning doesn't matter

or that the communities are going to have to find a way to accommodate the change

that this minister is going to make. But noting the fact that these are large, sprawling

districts with large lots, it's interesting that….

I'll ask this question: why is it that North Saanich, out of all of these communities,

has actually been left out of this bill? There are gaps in this legislation. An urban-adjacent

community like North Saanich, because it doesn't have an urban containment boundary,

has been removed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: North Saanich is outside of the urban containment boundary.

A. Olsen: I understand that, but it is experiencing the same challenges. I get it. It's experiencing

the same challenges as the neighbouring community right next to it, Central Saanich.

The minister is treating Central Saanich one way and North Saanich the other way.

How does the minister justify that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: North Saanich is outside of the urban containment boundary area, which is the boundary

that we said that the legislation will be. Where communities have decided that they

believe growth should be is where this legislation applies.

A. Olsen: So a neighbourhood adjacent to a B.C. transit hub on a major transit corridor of the

Pat Bay highway has taken a look at the other bill around transit-oriented hubs and

sent out a letter to all of the adjacent property owners saying: "This bill is going

to allow us to build up to multi-floor units." Is that Colliers letter that went out

to that neighbourhood incorrect, based on what the minister just said?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That's the other bill, but we have said that if there's a spot where there's investment

in transit being made, we want to see housing around it.

[4:50 p.m.]

Again, North Saanich is…. The mayor and I met. I shared with them that there are areas

where North Saanich could be doing more. And now, under this legislation, they will

be required to have a housing needs report done. They will be required to have an

updated OCP, which has been delayed far too long in that community.

The Chair: Just a reminder, Members, that we're on clause 13, if we can stay on questions related

to that clause.

A. Olsen: Yeah, we're just canvassing questions about housing needs reports, what the information

is suggesting the communities need, and how the government is responding to the needs.

As we're creating these conditions for local governments to follow, I want to see

how the government is going to be using the information that's generated.

In this instance, we've got a situation where it's clear that North Saanich does not

have an urban containment boundary. However, North Saanich borders, on two sides,

a major transit corridor, a major transportation corridor.

I'm wondering how it is that the housing needs report and how it fits, which North

Saanich has completed, has been excluded from this bill. There are going to be a number

of residents in North Saanich that are going to be thankful that it is, and other

residents that think it should be included.

I'm just wondering how it is that it escapes it, even though there is an airport and

neighbourhoods directly adjacent to transit corridors — which, this minister suggested,

are going to be the key areas where this development intensification should happen.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, North Saanich has housing needs, and perhaps the CRD will consider expanding

the urban containment area.

A. Olsen: The urban containment boundary is a conversation that happens within the local government.

In fact, the local governments are responsible for identifying their boundary. They have to have a context statement about how their

official community plan fits with the regional growth strategies and what those urban

containment boundaries are. Then when the urban containment boundaries change, they've

got to go back to the regional district to make sure that that happens.

Some of the demographic data that the housing needs reports on the Saanich Peninsula

identified — this is important in the context of how the government is going to require

the information generated in these housing needs reports to be used: the average age

on the Saanich Peninsula is 54 years old; for the CRD, it's 45.5. The fastest-growing

demographic identified in the communities is 65 to 84, and all three reports featured

housing affordability gap analysis where seniors housing was the most tenuous in our

community.

They're the closest to the core housing need or one of the highest demographics in

the core housing need. All three communities' housing needs assessments and reports

identify a need for more affordable seniors housing. This has been a growing trend.

What proactive conversations has the minister had with Sidney, North Saanich and Central

Saanich to aggressively begin strategizing and planning to accommodate seniors so

that they can seamlessly transition from living independently, aging in place, to

assisted living and end-of-life care? How is Bill 44 going to support that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The communities can plan their housing needs reports and plan their communities accordingly.

A. Olsen: We have a situation where there is a population demographic that's moving through,

and the baby boomers are aging. The housing needs reports and official community plans

need to have 25-year planning, 20-year planning. Well-constructed buildings last 50

to 75 years. What base modelling and analysis was done regarding the long-term population

demographics of British Columbia, and what are the results?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Housing needs reports will consider 20 years of housing needs, so it will be reflected

in their housing needs reports.

The Chair: Just a reminder, Members, that when you get to clause 16, you'll also be able to ask

questions on this specific topic.

[4:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Are the minister and ministry providing and committed to providing some base data

and modelling to inform the general population of demographic information that's needed

to inform those housing needs reports?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes.

A. Olsen: I should have continued and put the other bit on there. What does that information

look like? What is the frequency with which that information is going to be produced?

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Stats has all the information the member referred to, and it's updated quarterly.

A. Olsen: I recognize that the housing needs reports, which local governments are going to be

required to have, identify certain gaps. What efforts are the minister going to take,

on an annual or cyclical basis, to ensure that the gaps that are not going to be filled

by the housing market — the market housing that's being produced here in Bill 44 —

will be met?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're going to continue to have a community housing fund. We're going to continue

to have various funds available for local governments, with their not-for-profit communities,

to plan where the housing will be built, and come and apply for those dollars.

A. Olsen: The housing needs reports, as I've gone through in detail, have painted one picture.

The minister is providing a solution for another picture. Those threeplex, fourplex

and sixplex developments are going to be available now in communities across the province.

There is a question, and the minister has raised the question, about whether or not

they're rentable at an affordable rate in Sidney or in central Saanich. The housing

needs reports identify a median rent around $1,350. What measures are there in this

bill to ensure that those units will be available to people so that they can meet

their core housing need?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Those small-scale multi-units, if they're made by the private sector, will probably

be at market rents. It's possible that not-for-profits may have opportunities to build

them, but I don't know what they'd set the rates at.

A. Olsen: If the housing needs reports identified that people need to be able to have affordable

housing, and the housing needs reports identify what that number is for housing affordability,

how is this initiative going to tie in? We've not seen any of the current situation….

All we're doing here is zoning.

We're not putting in place any other pieces that require there to be actual connection

and linkage with the information that's generated out of the housing needs reports.

How are we ensuring that the housing market is producing housing affordability, as

the minister has repeated and asserted is going to be the case through this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This bill works with all the pieces that we have coming forward. Some initiatives

help the private sector to get more housing, which helps everyone. Then we have to

also directly invest into affordable housing. I feel like a broken record, because

this question has come 50 times in slightly different ways. In 2018 we announced $7

billion for ten years. In the 2023 budget, we put an additional $4 billion over three

years.

[5:00 p.m.]

A. Walker: Looking through clause 13 on these housing needs reports, is there an expectation

that regional districts will do these as well as town councils?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes.

A. Walker: Is there going to be an expectation that local government electoral areas will use

their powers to ensure that zoning bylaws comply with the housing needs report?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No.

A. Walker: Why is that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's very difficult because of multiple geographies that they have to manage. Just

practically, it would be difficult for them to do.

A. Walker: In my community — I'm trying to do some rough math in my head — I think there are

more people living in electoral areas than there are in urban areas. With that, there's

a requirement that we see more rentals, more affordable housing and more of the types

of homes that these housing needs reports are, hopefully, going to deliver in our

communities.

I recognize it is difficult, but why would the ministry, through drafting this legislation,

not put provisions in there for electoral areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, nothing stops regional districts from taking action. Of course, we want them

to play a role in addressing the housing needs of their communities. Nothing stops

them, but it's important that we're limiting sprawl by directing growth towards municipalities

and away from regional district electoral areas, which are largely rural, more exposed

to hazards and lack servicing and infrastructure.

A. Walker: That certainly doesn't describe my community. We've got very urban areas that are

in electoral areas — French Creek, Nanoose and the surrounding areas. Many of these

communities have sewer, and they have water. They're going to be covered under the

small-scale multifamily units.

I'm just trying to rationalize it. Why would there be a requirement that a town council,

through these housing needs reports, create enough housing — for example, rentals

whereas in these other urban areas, just because they're called electoral areas,

there is no requirement on those governments to develop the affordable housing that

we want to see in our communities.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It may be the case in his, but the majority of the areas have these challenges that

we've highlighted. Of course, if the regional district wants to proceed with taking

steps, they certainly can.

A. Walker: What I get from this, then, is that there is no requirement that a local government

that is managing electoral areas even has to rely on these housing needs assessments

to ensure that we've got the need for the future in our community.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Existing rules remain. They have to consider their housing needs reports when they're

updating their OCPs.

A. Walker: The minister had provided a list of five categories of housing that should be included

in these housing needs reports. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it wasn't five. One of them

was permanent housing for unhoused individuals.

I guess to begin, would the minister be able to read the list of those five categories?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: These are the five things that feed into the methodology.

A. Walker: Is the minister able to list what those five items were?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Extreme core housing need, permanently housing people experiencing homelessness, suppressed

household formation, anticipated supply needed over the next five to 20 years, and

adds an adjustment to restore rental supply to healthy vacancy rate of 3 percent —

for the third time.

A. Walker: Permanent housing for unhoused individuals. As these housing needs reports come in,

we see a number. In my community, the last count, I believe, was 102. Am I to understand

by that, then, that local councils — not electoral areas but councils — now have a

requirement in their OCP to designate, for example, 102 units of housing for unhoused

individuals?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No.

A. Walker: If there is a need in our community for people who are unhoused, would this not be

a perfect opportunity to provide a requirement on councils to actually see that type

of housing that we need in our community get developed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities can, when they get their housing needs report, identify that and make

those decisions.

A. Walker: In my community, we have over 100 individuals that are unhoused. We have hundreds

of people living in tents and in trailers, in sheds, with no running water, no electricity.

It's a serious issue in my community. In these housing needs reports, I am to understand

from the minister, is there no requirement for a local government to address that

circumstance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities should be working with us to address that, and we look forward to working

with communities that want to.

A. Walker: For clarity, the question was this clause, which requires local governments to use

section 479, the zoning bylaws, to permit the use and density necessary to accommodate

at least 20 years of housing units. The minister has said that there will be different

categories that will be included in that designation of 20 years.

In reading this, is there no desire from government to ensure that local councils

create or enable the type of housing that would be required to get people off the

streets?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is a desire for that.

A. Walker: I fully recognize there's a desire — we know this is important — but in this bill,

this clause will not require that of local government.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This will require them to consider this in their housing needs report. Certainly,

we hope communities will identify suitable options for housing.

A. Walker: If this housing needs report, which could potentially identify that there are a significant

number of unhoused individuals in our community, identifies a significant shortage

of rental accommodation, a significant under-build of family-suitable homes, even

though this clause says specifically that councils must exercise powers under

section

479 to permit the use and density necessary to accommodate at least 20 years, I'm

understanding that none of these categories will be required of council. It's just

numbers of units.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that clauses 15 and 16 do cover some of the questions that

are coming up right now and that we're on clause 13 at this time.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No problems, Chair. We'll do this again then, I'm sure.

The housing needs reports are important for communities to identify where the challenges

are. Then they go away and update their community plans. We certainly hope that communities

consider where they would like to have supports for the most vulnerable people in

our communities.

A. Walker: Clause 15 does talk about parking. I'm hoping we're not talking about parking places

if people are incredibly vulnerable.

The concern I have, I guess…. Could the minister explain what clause 13, 481.7(1),

actually does, then, if it doesn't actually require local governments to exercise

those powers?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This requirement will result in municipalities pre-zoning to accommodate the number

of housing units necessary to meet their housing need for the next 20 years as determined

by the latest housing needs report.

Municipalities will be required to complete a zoning bylaw review within a prescribed

time, following the receipt of the housing needs report. The zoning requirement will

align with new requirement official community plans to ensure municipal official community

plans and zoning bylaws are updated in tandem and work together to support housing

supply.

A. Walker: Okay. I'm just trying to…. The language that the minister just read there was very

clear about the goals that we would like to see. The language in the bill here is

very clear that councils must…. But it is my understanding from what the minister

has just read is that these reports will be received, and there will be all efforts

brought by local governments — and just councils; not electoral areas, but just councils

— to do their best. That is my understanding from what the minister has just said.

Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments will not be required to zone for rental or affordable housing. However,

informed by housing needs reports, local governments will be required to include policies

in their official community plans that address affordable housing, rental housing,

special needs housing, seniors housing, family housing and other specific housing

needs.

A. Walker: Those policies that will be included in official community plans for other housing

needs — would that include unhoused individuals?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It may.

A. Walker: As we've seen through official community plans, these often have grown into documents

that are 300 or 400 or 500 pages long. They have many policies about things that we

would like to see in our communities. They talk about value statements. I mean, it's

an official document; it's a bylaw. But often it is very difficult to measure the

results of something that's put in an official community plan.

Is it sufficient to meet this clause to talk about those value statements in an official

community plan, or do local governments actually have to deliver results?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's really difficult to pre-zone for a supportive housing site. That's why we want

them to pre-zone to the amount of housing we need. They have the flexibility in their

official community plans to make those decisions.

If a community were to say that they want to pre-zone a specific parcel of land and

that that will now be the supportive housing site sometime in the future, that would

be great.

A. Walker: I agree that would be great, but the problem is that it doesn't happen. So these supportive

housing sites are often very difficult to get built in our communities.

With the pre-zoning that the minister is talking about, is he talking about the idea

of taking an area and pre-zoning it, like going through for a second, third reading

— obviously, potentially, no public hearings? Or is the pre-zoning that the minister

is referring to designating areas in an official community plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The SSMU policy that we're bringing forward is a form of pre-zoning. I believe Squamish

is one of the first communities to waive requirements for a certain type of housing

that's a supportive type of housing, and local government certainly can do that.

A. Walker: I'm just seeking clarity though. So pre-zoning an area…. We've seen this in huge success.

I think it's West Kelowna or Kelowna or somewhere in that neck of the woods. They

pre-zoned whole areas, they had pre-drawn-up plans, and it streamlined the development

process.

That pre-zoning, where you assign a use to each individual parcel of land, and then

there's no further interaction with council because that pre-zoning has been done,

is one side of this line here. The other is through the official community plan, a

zoning document designating areas for certain uses.

I'm just trying to seek clarity if this particular clause will require local governments

to go through and pre-zone on an individual parcel basis or if they will be required

to pre-zone in the sense of an official community plan to designate use in an area.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities have to update their OCP and their zoning. I think that's what the member

is getting at. So yes, they have to do both.

A. Walker: If there's a community that is currently all single family and the new SSMU, small-scale

multi-unit, housing then rezones it all to four, but then through the housing needs

report, it is determined that they need to get to eight units per lot, would that

force a local government to rezone that whole area to eight units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That part would be up to local government.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that clauses 15 and 16 will cover a little bit more of

this. We're still on clause 13.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair.

I'll read the clause just so that everybody is aware of what I'm concerned with. It

is: "A council of a municipality that is subject to

section 473.1(3) [official community plan … ] must exercise the powers under

section 479…to permit the use and density of use to

accommodate at least the 20-year…housing units."

These questions all revolve around the fact that it's a requirement now of councils

to do this rezoning process. I'm just trying to seek clarity as to how that is going

to actually be operationalized in our communities.

The challenge in the community, if you have to rezone to meet those housing targets….

We've asked this before, I guess. It's not based on the use. It's not based on rental

versus freehold. It's not based on family versus singles. It's not based on high income

or low income. It's just number of units. I'm just trying to understand what this

would look like in a community. The minister hasn't really specifically answered.

If a community housing needs report requires that every property have more than the

four units that this bill would allow, does it force local governments to make that

decision where they say: "We will have to pre-zone everything in our community higher"?

Of course, they could pick notable communities and put their density there, but does

this force local governments to actually pre-zone the individual properties to allow

for that density?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is yes, and then they can decide where they believe that there should be

additional density in their community.

A. Walker: I guess, in my community, where we've got such a large predominance of single-family

homes, there will be lots of runway for this to come into effect.

Can the minister explain, in communities that are smaller, that are denser…? No, I

guess that's…. I mean, it's a requirement of local government to see the homes built,

and I guess that's the intention of this. So councils no longer have that power. They

can pick where it's going to go, but they have to pre-zone, on an individual property

basis, the density of those units.

How does that work for a property owner who maybe doesn't want to see that density,

that their property is going through a rezoning process because their council is being

mandated to do it? How does the property owner have any input on that process?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the property owner doesn't have to do anything. I mean, if the local government

is deciding they're zoning, it only comes into effect when the landlord decides to

take the next steps or do something else with it. So the landlord doesn't have to

do anything.

A. Walker: This particular clause, this requirement for rezoning — was there consultation done

with UBCM on this particular impact?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, the entire legislation was.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

K. Kirkpatrick: Hello, everyone. To the minister, also, just thank you for accommodating my being

virtual. I know this is more difficult, and it's difficult for me because I can't

see the body language and things that are happening in the House. I do appreciate

everyone's patience with that.

With clause 14, we're looking at a requirement that is going to be dealing with off-street

parking for units within a prescribed distance, 400 metres, of a bus stop and enables

guidelines on some other circumstances related to parking minimums. Does this requirement

conflict at all with Bill 47's prohibition on parking minimums?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No problem, to the member. We can see you clearly and hear you clearly. The member

from Kamloops's body language says he's not impressed. I'll give you a description

of what's happening in the room.

I'm just teasing. We can hear you clearly and see you clearly.

The answer is no. For a small-scale, multi unit, it does not.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I just ask…? This might seem an obvious question, but what is a bus stop?

If you're in a community…. I know in my community, on Capilano, there are a couple

of buses that come. They just come in the morning, and they come at the end of the

day. There are usually not very many people on them.

Does there have to be a certain level of ridership? What does constitute a bus stop?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Member, for that question. It's a good question.

I actually answered it in a different way a couple of days ago, which is: we will

prescribe that in regulations, but it's closely aligned with what is a "frequent transit

area" definition of TransLink. But we'll still have to define that in regulation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, that is concerning too. I was approached by someone the other day who's got

a non-profit housing project that they're putting up. They're 350 metres from a bus

stop, but they're not sure what actually constitutes the size of that bus stop. Where

is that 400 metres to?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can I just ask the member for clarification? Is that a small-scale, multi-unit project

that they're considering?

K. Kirkpatrick: Sorry. Yes, it is.

It would be just…. Regardless of the project, but yes, that would be it. But what

is defined as the actual footprint of that bus stop, regardless of the project?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's great to hear that not-for-profits are considering non-market housing for small-scale,

multi-unit. That's great to hear.

The definition is "within 400 metres." So the question, I guess, really is: can they

do six units on that? The answer is yes, but the final regulations will lay out exactly

which bus stops.

Again, it's very closely aligned to what we consider frequent transit areas, as defined

by TransLink, but the final details will come in the regulation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

[5:25 p.m.]

I have some concerns, and some people have expressed concerns to me, on some of the

— handicapped spaces.

I myself this weekend was driving around, trying to pick something up from somewhere.

As you know, I have some mobility issues right now, which is why I'm at home. I finally

had to give up, because I'd circled the block so many times. There was absolutely

no place that I could park where I would be close enough to the building so that I

would realistically be able to get there and pick up what I needed to pick up.

That is the question: what are the considerations with respect to people with mobility

issues? Has there been any consultation with, for example, the Rick Hansen Foundation

in terms of what's appropriate and what's not appropriate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to correct myself. I said TransLink; I meant B.C. Transit. Apologies on

that.

We're talking about small-scale, multi-unit here. If we talk about development near

transit overall, there is an ability — that's the other legislation — for accessible

parking spots and commercial-related parking spots. I don't want to create a door

to talk about the other bill, but I just want to answer that piece for you. There

is the ability in that case.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I guess that's an example of why Bill 47 should have been

part of Bill 44: when we're talking about transit zoning.

Can I just confirm, then, that for SSMU, there is no ability for parking if it's within

that 400 metres, and that there's also, if I understand, no necessity for any kind

of loading zone or someplace for people to pick up and drop things off?

Hon. R. Kahlon: For a small-scale, multi-unit, they will not be allowed to require it, but we expect

it to still be built, because there's an understanding that that's needed in many

cases.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

So it won't be prohibited; it's just not required. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct.

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, how was the decision reached to eliminate the requirement for off-street

parking for the new fourplex developments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The decision was made because we want to encourage more transit-friendly developments.

Again, we expect that parking will get built, but we wanted to make sure that it was

being built in…. That the flexibility was being provided to the homebuilder in the

situation — or the family, or whoever it is who's going to build it — to decide what

level of parking they need.

We'll see. Some folks will build the units and market them just for people who don't

have cars, creating a more affordable unit for people, and more transit-friendly housing

as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

We've talked a lot about the data that backs up the legislation that's being developed.

I believe that we are going to get some of that after everything already gets passed

here.

[5:30 p.m.]

What studies or data support the belief that eliminating these parking requirements

is not going to lead to increased on-street parking congestion or negatively impact

traffic flow?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are lots of studies. There's a lot of research out there. Metro Vancouver

actually did a study that found, I believe, 40 percent of overbuild of parking in

our communities — near transit, in particular. That was the focus of their study.

We also know that it can cost anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 per parking spot for

this type of parking to be built. Allowing the flexibility is what we're trying to

do here. We have heard from not-for-profits who are building housing. I met with one

who is building housing near transit for seniors. They were being required to build

a lot of parking, which was going to make the project very expensive for them. That's

an example where they will take that savings and put it into affordability of the

unit.

I met with a developer-homebuilder in Port Moody. Their market study said that they

actually needed slightly more parking than what the city was saying. This will allow

us to get the right size of parking for each project, that fits every community partner's

needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: I do agree. I don't think there's any debate here. We believe that less parking is

a good thing, because it's going to cut down the cost, certainly, of the units, but

we can't get rid of it altogether. That's going to have a lot of other issues that

are going to be connected to it.

We need to look at traffic needs assessments and whether existing transit is even

appropriate. The example that I gave earlier is that you may end up, depending on

what community it's in, with significant on-street parking issues and fighting…. If

you've ever tried to find a parking space in Kitsilano, you get a bit of a picture

of it.

I will ask about infrastructure capacity. Has the government assessed the existing

infrastructure capacity for water, sewage and other utilities to accommodate the potential

increase in housing units without parking spaces?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member can kind of rephrase her question. We're trying to understand the infrastructure

piece.

We know this type of housing near transit is more effective for the transit as it

is. This enables a market decision on how much housing is needed. We know what will

happen is that it'll ebb and flow. As you have some projects come on board, the homebuilder

will do an assessment to say: "Perhaps I need parking for every single person or every

single unit. Perhaps I don't." It will move over time.

I'm not entirely sure about the infrastructure piece. The infrastructure for that

housing would be similar to other infrastructure. I don't know if there are any specific

infrastructure pieces connected to just the parking.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'll rephrase it. I realized that was not, probably, particularly clear. With increased

housing density, and your potential reliance on public transportation, how will the

infrastructure be adapted to support the transportation needs of residents?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I understand where the member is going with this. Certainly, we're hoping this encourages

more people to use public transit. We believe that not only is that good for addressing

climate change and good for people, but I think it creates more healthy, walkable

communities. As more housing gets built and communities become less dependent on cars,

yes, there will be an increase of demand on transit infrastructure. Of course, that

will have to be modelled by TransLink and by B.C. Transit as they move forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: With the increased density around transit hubs — I've said this to the minister on

a number of occasions — and with these one-off pieces of legislation and zoning requirements

not being done in conjunction with a broader transportation plan and a broader education

plan, there are concerns as to capacity.

It's not just capacity, but are we going to end up building homes, increasing density

and then putting those people that live in those places at a disadvantage because

they don't have appropriate or frequent enough transportation? Are there plans to

invest in alternative transportation infrastructure, such as bike lanes and pedestrian

pathways, to compensate for the reduction in parking spaces?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are doing all those things. We believe that there are multiple ways of getting

around. Active transportation is obviously a key one.

At that conference that we were just at, the member and I, what I heard from some

not-for-profits was real excitement about the ability for them to adjust. In fact,

many were talking about specific stalls for car shares being built — instead of having

parking stalls, having some dedicated spots for car shares. Lots of folks were talking

about how to link their projects to bike infrastructure. It really, I think, creates

a lot of opportunities and helps us imagine.

I would say to the member on the planning piece that knowing that this type of housing

is going to be built, housing that will be a little bit less car-dependent, in fact

helps TransLink, B.C. Transit and others to model how their demand ridership will

increase over time so that they can plan what expansions they'll need.

It also ensures, when we make billions of dollars in investment in that infrastructure,

that we're able to get housing near that infrastructure, which I think makes sense

for anyone that wants to see their dollars go to this type of expansion.

K. Kirkpatrick: Along the same lines, we want to talk about green infrastructure as well.

Transportation is obviously important, but where you've got areas of higher density,

particularly if you want to encourage families to live in these higher density communities,

does the elimination of parking minimums align with plans for green infrastructure?

What steps are being taken to ensure that communal and green spaces are being preserved

or enhanced and that we're not losing them in these higher-density communities?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for this question.

We know that…. I mean, we're talking about small-scale, multi-units here and not the

regular, transit-oriented development. Green space is going to be, obviously, very

important for community health, for climate resiliency, so local governments will

be able to implement not only these density emissions but also be planning for parks,

for green space and other amenities that are needed in the community. They'll still

have that ability to do so, and it's important to make sure that we have not only

walkable communities but healthy and livable communities as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: So although these are…. We'll be talking more in Bill 47 about the considerable increase

in density. But even just if we're quadrupling density in certain places, there really

needs to be a strategy between housing density and the need for environmentally sustainable

urban development.

I'm not going to mention SimCity again, because I got on No Context BC last week,

so I think I was talking about it too much. But here we have another concern, where

we've got these pockets — not just pockets; there's going to be a lot of increase

in density — and that we're doing this in a smart way that is also environmental and

that's sustainable urban development.

Does the minister have a concern that a rapid increase in densification in communities

is going to have a negative impact on sustainable urban development?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To the member's question, I think this type of development close to transit is good

on many levels. I don't have that same concern the member has highlighted when it

comes to additional housing near transit opportunities. I think communities still

have the ability to plan for green space and all the other pieces that come with it.

And if done right, it's the future.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. There will be many fewer opportunities for communities

to have input into the development and the feel and the fabric of their communities

as we go forward. Was there extensive local community engagement where residents were

consulted in the development of this legislation with respect to the increase in density?

I hope that I have a little latitude on my questions on the clause, based on previous

questions on previous clauses.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Member, for the question. Many parts of, say, Vancouver already have this

level of density. So this six-unit change is not going to have a major impact in Vancouver,

given that anywhere where there's frequent transit areas, they've already zoned for

that. In fact, they're engaging on zoning higher, because it is best practice for

planning — planning around transit. That's why Vancouver has gone there.

Burnaby was having conversations on this as well, given that they had a housing advisory

group pull together and give them recommendations. One of them was this type of housing

closer to transit.

We know in Metro Vancouver it's a conversation that's alive. The CRD also had many

reports associated with this. I think those are the larger communities that will have

the most amount of frequent transit areas. So I would say that most of the shift was

already heading in that direction, and there's a good understanding of why that needs

to happen.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister explain how it is anticipated that this

legislation and this particular piece of legislation will contribute to increased

housing affordability and supply when there are no requirements for affordable housing?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I've said this multiple times, which is that the housing near transit, the six units….

There will be the ability for local governments to have at least one of those units

deemed as affordable, as defined by local governments.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

A big concern around this and when you are zoning in an area…. The conversation that

we've had with the minister is that we're not going to see big uplifts in the value

of properties because we're not spot zoning. We're doing it across B.C. So the studies

have showed that there is not a big uplift in costs or in property values because

of that.

But when you are increasing the zoning to this extent directly around the transit

hubs, what safeguards have been in place to prevent speculation — because I think

you're going to see a lot of speculation — and ensure that new developments meet the

needs of local residents?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I assume we're still talking about the six units near frequent transit areas. The

six units, already…. The majority of this area that's covered would be in Vancouver,

so Vancouver is already included in it.

I'll speak about…. If we're defining it close to where B.C. Transit has defined it,

that means I've got one road in my community which is not six units. They're 12 storeys

to 28 storeys. It will vary. I suspect that over time, we'll actually see, around

those transit areas, greater density. So at this point, I'm not concerned that this

piece of legislation will have a major impact on land lift values.

Of course, those that want to see housing be built may see an opportunity to do so

but may want to go higher than where we are now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I'll come back after some of my colleagues.

P. Milobar: Again, it's a little tough for us in opposition, when we frankly have a hodgepodge

of housing bills come forward all at the same time. We're talking about transit and

densification on transit corridors while we have Bill 47 that still hasn't gone to

committee stage yet, which is about transit and transit corridors around infrastructure,

when we have a development cost charge bill that we can't talk about right now, because

we'll talk about that when we're done with this bill.

The minister is saying that…. I thank the minister for the correction around the frequent

transportation

definitions. On the one hand, the minister is saying: "Well, this won't

impact Vancouver, because their neighborhoods are already built around the TransLink

definition."

Well, no. Vancouver would be TransLink because Vancouver is TransLink, and that definition

is 15-minute service up till nine o'clock at night. The problem is the B.C. Transit

definition is 15 to 30 minutes. So it seems that there are large portions of Vancouver

that are currently served by 30-minute service by TransLink that would actually wind

up being part of this as well.

But the minister seemed to make it seem like there will be no change in things going

on in the TransLink area. But it seems that there will be a great many neighborhoods

on the periphery of that 15-minute service within the TransLink areas that will now

be held to a much lower standard of what is considered frequent service.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I said that that piece around the definition will come in regulations. But

what we will see is the ability for six units to be built near transit.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think we all can agree that if we have that type of service and that type of infrastructure

being built, that we want to see that type of housing being built closer to that,

so it encourages people to be able to get out of cars and use that.

A heavy focus of TransLink's service right now is in Vancouver, so that's why I referred

to Vancouver in my comments.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Well, again, part of the opposition frustration is that once again we're already

back to, "It'll be dealt with in regulation," even though we're using examples of

TransLink to try to answer a question.

TransLink is very clear. It's 15 to 30 minutes, what they deem to be frequent-transportation

corridors. That's a big difference in service, because in Kamloops, we don't have

very many 15-minute routes. We have lots that would be 30-minute routes, and then

we have some that are hourly or only a couple of times a day.

In the TransLink area, I agree with the minister. They would have a lot of 15-minute

corridors that are already zoned for densification, and Bill 47 will ensure that even

further. But there's a whole lot of other neighbourhoods that would be logically near

those areas that would have the 30-minute service by TransLink, which will now be

opened up to that area.

Has the minister consulted with the member municipalities of TransLink, for them to

understand that when the government is talking about densification of these transit

400-metre areas, it also includes all those 30-minute service neighbourhoods?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we engage with a whole host of governments. We shared a list of local governments

that we engage with.

Metro Vancouver has the highest amount of this type of transit infrastructure. We

engaged with Metro Vancouver about the impacts, and a lot of the initiatives align

closely with their 2050 goals.

P. Milobar: So what will be the minimum lot size that will fall under this clause?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Two-hundred and eighty metres square.

P. Milobar: So around a 3,000-square-foot lot, to people at home.

Just to clarify, that's for the four lots or the four housing units or the six housing

units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Both.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify again, will there be any required setbacks for these lots, or will

the municipalities no longer be able to control that, and people will be allowed to

build right to their lot line?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Site standards will be coming out in regulations.

P. Milobar: Well, we'll just add that to the list. I did say in second reading, we'd better not

make a drinking game out of these bills, or people would get drunk from the amount

of times we hear that it would be left to regulation.

In terms of other control that the municipalities may lose over their planning with

this clause, then, is there a removal of a maximum lot coverage allowed? Has the minister

given that any thought? We have a 3,000-square-foot lot. Lots of cities only allow

40 percent lot coverage on their lots. Has that been removed with this clause as well?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The reason why this information, this line of questioning, is coming in site standards

is because local governments need flexibility. So part of the site standards will

lay out: if you're in this type of situation, this is what you should do, and if you're

in a different type of situation, here's what you may want to consider.

We don't put that in legislation, because it's not an exact formula for every single

lot. We put it in site standards because local governments need the flexibility to

ensure that the housing can be built, but they can also have green space, etc., being

built.

[5:55 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, this clause is really around prohibiting off-street parking for units, and setbacks

are important because most cities require a 20-foot setback. If they are enabling

off-street parking on the property, 20 feet is generally the accepted length of a

vehicle. B.C. Ferries uses that for the length of your vehicle. Most municipalities

use that. So you can have your vehicle parked off the street, on your property, in

front of your home, and not be blocking a sidewalk.

Has the minister not given any consideration to that, or is it still a wide-open canvas

for municipalities? How does the minister then reconcile if municipalities want to

enact that with them still having the ability to actually say yes to four to six units

being built on a 3,000-square-foot lot?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The site standard document will have a variety of different types of scenarios for

local governments to consider when making decisions about allowing this type of housing.

P. Milobar: I recognize that this is prohibiting the requirement of off-street parking, but there

are a great many neighbourhoods that actually enable on-street parking by giving out

a permit, one per house. You see the signs: "For residents only" or "Resident by permit

only." Does anything in this clause prevent municipalities from still providing residential

on-street parking in those neighbourhoods?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No.

P. Milobar: There are, generally speaking, massive parking problems in neighbourhoods nowadays.

We have a piece of legislation that says you can turn a 3,000-square-foot lot that

typically would have one family living on it into six families living on it. The municipality

will now be forced to be trying to make a decision on whether or not people are allowed

to park on the street or not. That's what I'm hearing from the minister.

Are cul-de-sac lots prohibited from being four to six lots under this piece?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's done by the size of lot. So if you're in a 3,000-square-foot lot or smaller,

it's three units. If you're in a lot that's larger, it's four. If you're within 400

metres of a frequent transit area and above 3,000 square feet, then you can build

up to a six. It doesn't mean that it will always be built that way. There still may

be some single-family homes built, but it allows this type of housing to be built.

P. Milobar: Is there any mechanism in this that would enable municipalities to not allow, say,

a cul-de-sac lot that meets the minimum lot size, that is within 400 metres of a 15-minute

bus route — from allowing the homeowner to tear down the house or renovate the house

and turn it into the multi-unit housing that's envisioned by this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The site standards document will lay out different scenarios that local governments

can consider when they're making decisions based on unique needs.

Given the line of questioning from the member, I hope he can appreciate that putting

one formula in legislation is not the way to go forward. Having that site standard

flexibility is very important. So local governments will have the ability to make

those decisions based off the site standards.

P. Milobar: Well, it's the government that brought forward the one-size-fits-all legislation and

is now telling us that it's all going to be left to regulation. It's not the opposition

suddenly trying to find loopholes here. On the one hand, the minister is saying that

municipalities must, and with that answer, he's now saying the municipalities will

be able to choose which lots are or aren't part of this system.

Now, I can think of a great many. Again, we've all referenced our own local areas,

because we're experienced with that. As with many others, I've served on local government.

I can tell the minister firsthand that the biggest headaches you have are the cul-de-sacs