Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

23, 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; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 1:08 p.m.

On clause 10 (continued) .

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

Amendment Act, 2023, to order.

We are on clause 10.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

K. Kirkpatrick: I actually have no questions on clause 11.

The Chair: Thank you.

Member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Just as I go through this new

section that's being added. In drafting this clause,

sub (5), it says, "The council of a municipality must, within the prescribed period

after December 31…in which the council received…adopt an official community plan"

— with housing and all of the stuff.

[1:10 p.m.]

I'm just wondering. What is it that the minister is expecting that will be included

in these official committee plans once these housing needs reports have been accepted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Official community plans are including housing

policy regarding six classes of housing needed to be included in the housing needs

report. The six classes of housing needs are affordable housing, rental housing, special

needs housing, housing for seniors, housing for families and sheltered housing for

individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

A. Walker: It's a power that was given to local governments — I'll say recently, in the last

six years or so — with the ability to zone for rental housing. As one of the classes

is the ability to have affordable housing and rentals are obviously going to be important,

will these changes preclude the ability for a council to zone a property or a region

for rental only?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no.

A. Walker: That will make some folks in my community quite happy.

The next question I have here is on subclause (2), that the council must consider

the most recent housing needs report received by local government. Can the minister

explain what these are going to look like, and are they to be provided by government

to councils, or are councils going to generate these based on guidelines?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Around the housing needs reports, the regs will come out in January. With that will

come guidance to local governments on how we're hoping to standardize all the housing

needs reports across the province.

A. Walker: So those regs…. Is it the intention of this act that it will provide a guideline for

both quantity as well as price metrics? Both a number of units but also a price of

units both for sale and for rent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The guidelines will be…. It'll be focused on quantity, but there will be guidance

on affordability, tenure and unit size.

A. Walker: One of the things that we've seen through other legislation is measuring vacancy rates

in communities with vacancy rates. Was it intended, when this clause was put into

this bill, to also include vacancy rates?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Housing needs reports always consider that, and that's data that comes from the federal

government.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

K. Kirkpatrick: I rise to move my first amendment on

section 12. I have copies of this amendment to

circulate for the committee's information.

[ Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Exemptions related to small-scale multi-family housing

481.4

(0.1) Section 481.3 (4) and (5) does not apply in relation to a local government which

has a zoning bylaw in place that

(

a) accommodates at least the 20-year total number of housing units required to meet

anticipated housing needs as identified in the most recent housing needs report, and

(

b) has been approved by the minister responsible for the Act. ]

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: For the committee's information, this amendment does speak to kind of a differential

treatment in certain communities that have really shown that they are meeting the

targets that they need to be meeting. I can explain more after.

All of you, I'm sure, in this House received this letter from the mayor of Nanaimo.

When we reviewed it, we thought that the proposed amendment that council from Nanaimo

was suggesting made sense.

As we know, there are a number of communities in British Columbia that have strong

housing plans, strong housing targets. They're doing the work that the spirit of Bill

44 is suggesting.

So rather than this be blanket and applied to all communities, should there be a few

things set out where the community is seen to already be accommodating at least the

20-year total number of housing units required, that there is an ability to have approval

from government. This is an exemption for them.

The Chair: We are going to be taking a two-minute recess while we take a look to see if the amendment

fits the rules.

The committee recessed from 1:17 p.m. to 1:22 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: I will call the committee back to order. The member has moved an amendment, and you

all have a copy of it in front of you. The amendment is in order.

Just for clarity, what I will be doing is going to the member who moved the amendment,

and then I will recognize other members to speak. I wish to remind all members that

all remarks, including questions and answers, must be strictly relevant to the amendment

and what the amendment proposes to do. In other words, this is not where we want to

go with a flyover of the bill.

Members may speak more than once, provided that the remarks remain relevant.

Interjection.

The Chair: I hope you heard that, Member.

Members may also choose not to speak to the proposed amendment. I invite any member

who wishes to speak to the proposed amendment to have that opportunity at this time.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am going to read some of the letter that was provided, which I'm sure the minister

and other members have read, just to remind us what this is about.

Council in Nanaimo is asking government to consider an amendment that will uphold

the intention of Bill 44 — so the same results — but it will mitigate some unintended

consequences. It provides respect to local government autonomy in a community that

has progressive city building policies and practices in place.

This is obviously not just with respect to Nanaimo but any community in British Columbia

where they have progressive and real policies in place that are going to achieve what

the intent of Bill 44 is. There would be an additional exemption in

section 481.3

that would allow municipalities to identify parcels that wouldn't be subject to the

small-scale multifamily housing.

It is setting out that if the municipality has a zoning bylaw in place and accommodates

at least the 20-year total number of housing units required, and the municipality

has a zoning bylaw in place that accommodates the prescribed number of the small-scale

family units….

[1:25 p.m.]

This is really an opportunity for some autonomy and control in those communities that

are already doing what Bill 44 is attempting to do. Obviously, they will need to be

able to demonstrate that to government, but then an exemption should be provided to

them.

A. Walker: I will speak specifically to the motion. I don't have to read the letter now, which

will save all of us a little bit of time, which is great.

I want to first commend the Chair for the clarity — allowing to speak to this more

than once. This has been something I've discussed with the Speaker.

To the motion that we're discussing right now, I just want to commend the city of

Nanaimo. I've been going back and forth with members of their council. This is a city

that recognizes fully that we are in a housing crisis, that we need to increase supply

to address this.

They are showing true leadership in this. The Sandstone development, which has 2,200

new homes proposed in Nanaimo, is a perfect example of a community working together

over 20 years to come up with a new vision for what a new community would look like.

The challenge with the city of Nanaimo is that right at fourth reading, these rules

are announced, and it changes dramatically. When you've got a community with 1,000

single-family units that were proposed in this master plan, there's a huge level of

uncertainty — is what that means. A 2,200-unit community is approved, and 1,000 is

single family. So that goes from 2,200 to 5,000 homes very quickly.

What this council is proposing through us is to work with government to figure out

how we can define areas in our community that maybe will have a different approach

to the density while meeting, overall, the goals of the housing needs reports.

I want to commend the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the city of Nanaimo for

bringing this forward. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to this.

A. Olsen: I am not going to repeat anything that's already said. I will, though, on the other

hand, acknowledge the advocacy of the city of Nanaimo. The fact that all three of

us — the official opposition, the Third Party and the independent member — all came

prepared to move this motion…. We all have a version of this motion here. It's an

indication of the good work that local government is doing on behalf of their community.

I think that it's an indication to this government that the work is sincere, the effort

is sincere. As the member for Parksville-Qualicum said, they're really trying to make

a difference.

I just wanted to raise my hands to the city of Nanaimo for doing good advocacy work.

Clearly, they got their message across to the representatives of the opposition, in

this instance.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, too, want to thank the mayor of Nanaimo. I've had many opportunities to speak to

my old friend. We agree sometimes; we disagree sometimes. But that's the beauty of

having good relationships with folks that are in local government.

This motion…. Although I appreciate the members from across the way bringing this

forward, it undermines the principle, I believe, of what we're trying to do here,

which is to get more housing — and not to be isolating housing just to highrises but

to have gentle density in communities, for many reasons that we've canvassed over

the last few days.

There are exemptions within legislation for issues such as if there's lack of infrastructure,

if there are hazards, if there are issues around water and septic. Those provisions

are there for those areas or properties, in particular, that have those issues. So

we believe that there's still that flexibility for local government.

Although I appreciate my colleagues across the way bringing this forward, we unfortunately

will not be supporting this motion at this time.

The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you also for allowing me to know that I can speak

twice to the same thing.

[1:30 p.m.]

I would just like to draw to the attention of the minister that there's been a lot

of discussion on Bill 44 and how much of it was modelled off of the New Zealand model.

I would just like to draw to his attention that this is actually something you will

find within the New Zealand model. It does respect the autonomy of those communities

who already have got their community plans to a place where they will meet the community

housing needs that they have.

So I would, again, just ask for that consideration from the minister before we vote

on this amendment.

The Chair: We have passed clause 11 –– this is for Hansard –– and right now we will be voting

on an amendment to clause 12.

[1:35 p.m.]

Members, I'm calling the committee back to order to see if we have unanimous consent

to waive the time. We seem to.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent members

of

section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?

Before you vote, I am going to read the amendment into the record: "481.4, (0.1)

section

481.3(4) and (5) does not apply in relation to a local government which has a zoning

bylaw in place that (

a) accommodates at least the 20-year total number of housing

units required to meet the anticipated housing needs as identified in the most recent

housing needs report; and (

b) has been approved by the minister responsible for this

act."

[1:40 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division.

yeas — 4

Kirkpatrick

Olsen

Sturdy

Sturko

nays — 7

Begg

D'Eith

Kahlon

Kang

Lore

Parmar

Rice

The Chair: Back to you, member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm going to cede the floor for a moment to the member.

A. Walker: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Interjection.

A. Walker: It's unrelated to the bill.

I just want to express the absurdity that a motion that was brought forward by a local

government in my community, that was raised in this House…. The rules of this place

preclude me from the ability to do my job and vote on this motion. I was not allowed

to do so, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

K. Kirkpatrick: I do support the comments of the member.

I rise to move my second amendment to

section 12. I have copies of this amendment

to circulate for the committee's information.

[ Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:

481.4

(1) Section 481.3 (4) and (5) does not apply in relation to any of the following

land:

(

a) land that is protected under

section 12.1 (2) of the Heritage Conservation Act ;

(

b) land that is, on the date this

section comes into force, designated as protected

under a bylaw made under

section 611 [ heritage designation protection ] of this Act;

(

c) land that is not connected to a n adequate water or sewer system provided as a service by a municipality or regional district;

(

d) land within a zone in respect of which the minimum lot size that may be created

by subdivision is 4 050 m2;

(

e) a parcel of land that is larger than 4 050 m2.]

For the committee's information, this speaks to just providing a bit more clarity

with respect to land that's not connected to a water or sewer system provided as a

service by a municipality or regional district — to have that as an adequate water

connection.

This may seem like a small amendment, but it could be quite significant. As we know,

infrastructure, as we spoke about earlier, can mean very different things in terms

of whether something is adequate in order to support development. If you've got four

units as opposed to one unit, you're going to be drawing more power. You're going

to be drawing more water. Simply having land that's connected to water is not enough

to actually justify the requirements under Bill 44.

The Chair: We will now be taking a short break while we check the admissibility of the amendment.

The committee recessed from 1:43 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order, and I'm going to turn to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: I do not have anything more to contribute to the conversation, other than what I said

previously: that I think it may seem like a minor change, a minor amendment, but I

do think it could have significant consequences.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, the amendment was deemed to be in order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's actually not minor; it's a pretty big shift from the legislation. Essentially,

what this, as the member called it, "minor change" does is it says that local governments

will never have to allow any types of housing as long as they don't touch the pipe,

the infrastructure.

What we already have in the legislation, in clause 25, is the ability for local governments

that don't have the infrastructure to have a pathway to build that infrastructure,

to enable that housing in the future. So we believe we do address that.

There's a pathway for housing to be built when that infrastructure is built. But this

basically says that local governments can say: "We will never upgrade that infrastructure,

because we don't want any more people coming in this neighbourhood or other housing

to happen." That's contrary to the need to get the housing in communities within urban

containment areas.

So although the member says it's minor, it's actually a major shift. We disagree with

it.

A. Olsen: Is it legal for a municipality that has citizens on a system that they're contributing

to, to deliberately not upgrade the system? I'm not sure that that's a decision that

a council can make.

The Chair: There was no question in that.

Interjection.

The Chair: The amendment is on the floor, so you can speak to the amendment and only to the amendment.

Did you want to speak to the amendment?

A. Walker: The minister said that were this to pass, local governments could restrict infrastructure

development to preclude the density and the development. The member for Saanich North

and the Islands asked: "Is that legal?" It was a question. It's germane to the response

that was brought forward.

I'll leave those two members to sort that out.

I just want to, again, mention the fact that in my community, there's an area called

French Creek.

I was just chatting with the member for Kelowna-Mission, slowly figuring these out.

This is a community that's quite dense. It's an electoral area. They're within a growth

containment boundary. They literally do not have any more water units. It is a private

water purveyor. Under this, it is technically connected to a water system provided….

Well, they've got sewers, as well, so they would be definitely connected.

[1:50 p.m.]

They have the right pipes. It's not about the infrastructure. When the minister mentions

further on that there can be restrictions on development based on infrastructure,

the pipes are there. There just isn't the water.

The amendment that's being proposed by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is:

is there adequate water? It's not about whether the infrastructure is capacious enough

to take it. It's: when somebody goes to turn the tap on, does water come out?

There's a very big difference between a house and a home. A house is a building that

perhaps somebody's not in yet. You don't have your occupancy. The power might not

be hooked up. There's no water. If people live in a home, and their water is shut

off, it's not a home anymore.

So this amendment, to ensure that there's an adequate level of water, seems to be

a fundamental right of a local government.

A. Olsen: After listening to the comments that were just made by my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum,

I think that what's interesting about the way that the minister chose to respond to

this is that apparently, houses could be connected to a water system that doesn't

have an adequate water supply.

Actually, this amendment that's being proposed by my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano

requires there to be an adequate water supply, from the way I read it. The issue is

that currently, right now, as I understand this legislation to be proposed, the minister

could be forcing a community to upzone an area that doesn't have adequate water and

sewer. That seems to me to be the issue that is creating a potentially huge liability.

I'm not sure. I think the minister's taken the position that there are no questions

that can be asked about this. But I think I do have a legitimate question, and that

is: shouldn't we be looking to see if there's a liability that's incurred, requiring

a community to upzone an area that has a system but might not have water?

K. Kirkpatrick: Just as a continuation of this, as well, I don't believe that municipalities will

appreciate that they're being accused of not wanting or not being willing to upgrade

infrastructure.

Again, mirroring what my colleagues have just said, there are significant issues that

could arise if it is not appropriately addressed within the wording of the legislation.

A. Walker: The clause that the minister mentions as far as lack of infrastructure says that local

governments can apply to delay. Yet clause 12, that we're looking at, says that local

governments must exercise the power to rezone. So local governments can apply to make

that exemption, as mentioned by the minister, if the local government is in the process

of upgrading that infrastructure.

In French Creek, there is no upgrading that makes more water appear. It is ground

sourced, and the aquifer is depleting both in quantity and quality. We can't just

put more wells in. There are enough straws in there already, and it's having tremendous

impact.

They wouldn't qualify under this as a local government that's going through an upgrading

infrastructure. The infrastructure service that is in compliance is likely to increase

the risk to health, public safety or environment in the area. They could argue that

the continuation of the depletion of the aquifer impacts the environment. But I don't

know if the minister would consider that to be adequate.

The risk to health. If you've got half the water flow that you expect, if you're getting

30 psi, that wouldn't qualify under that or extraordinary circumstance.

Would the lack of quantity, not the infrastructure pipes, not the water treatment

facilities…? Would the lack of water itself be qualified under this new exemption

that's being brought in under clause 25?

[1:55 p.m.]

Would that lack of water be sufficient to allow for that delay, or should we be considering

the amendment from West Vancouver–Capilano, that there's adequate water?

I was asking questions to the minister specifically on this, and if the minister chooses

not to respond, that's fine. But I just want to get on the record that we have tried

to get certainty on this issue and the minister is refusing to answer if that's what's

happening.

The Chair: We are now going to be voting on the amendment to clause 12.

[2:00 p.m.]

I'm calling the committee back to order. I'm seeking unanimous consent to waive the

time. We are now going to proceed.

Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent

members of

section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?

I'm just going to read out what the amendment is. The amendment adds, kind of, two

words to 481.4(1)(c): "land that is not connected to" — the amendment is "an adequate"

— "water or sewer system provided as a service by a municipality or regional district."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 4

Kirkpatrick

Olsen

Sturdy

Sturko

nays — 7

Begg

D'Eith

Kahlon

Kang

Lore

Osborne

Parmar

A. Walker: My father had a record collection, and when you had a broken record, it was always

annoying. I'm that person. Again, I just want to get on the record that I was unable

to vote on this important amendment, and the minister was unable to provide answers

to the questions that I'd asked.

J. Sturdy: To the minister and staff, I really want to bring forward an issue with regard to

Bill 44 and what I think may well be unintended consequences — I hope that the minister

will appreciate where this is coming from — specifically to the resort communities

and perhaps more than a few other communities in the province that have had ongoing

difficulties in providing affordable workforce housing.

I speak specifically in this case about the resort municipality of Whistler, but I

know that Sun Peaks and likely Tofino and other resort communities are also sharing

this challenge. In the case of Whistler, as I'm sure the minister knows, the community

has had in place for decades a comprehensive policy objective of ensuring that at

least 70 percent of the workforce of the community live in the community.

[2:05 p.m.]

This policy came as a result of the negative experiences of resorts in other parts

of the world, notably in the United States, where places like Aspen became empty communities

the majority of nights of the year as employees left town to drive downvalley.

The communities of Basalt and Carbondale have been bedroom communities for day workers

in Aspen, where high property values have increasingly strained the ability of low-

and middle-income workers to afford the cost of living and the affluence that marks

the upper Roaring Fork Valley and is gradually leaking into the rest of the valley.

This is certainly the situation in the Sea to Sky. Whistler has attempted to mitigate

this challenge through the development of the Whistler Housing Authority and the supply

of employee-restricted ownership and rental units. The funding for the building of

these employee-restricted units has largely been provided through community amenity

funds, AACs or CACs.

This effort has largely been successful, but as the resort has grown over the last

number of years, the community has fallen behind. It has recognized that there's a

significant shortage of available employees across the resort, largely attributable

to the housing shortage and several thousand employees seeking accommodation, either

underhoused or, in some cases, severely underhoused. This housing shortage has also

leaked into the neighbouring communities of Squamish and Pemberton, contributing to

a severe housing shortage in all of these communities.

Unfortunately, the consequence of Bill 44 is likely to be an increase in the number

of homes constructed in Whistler in particular, but it's very unlikely that these

homes will be available to workers. These homes will instead inevitably become empty

second homes, acquired by non-residents, be it Vancouverites or owners from farther

afield, as Whistler is very much a global destination and a global resort.

Beyond the construction activity and the workforce needed to build these second homes,

ironically, will be the creation of additional workforce demand to maintain these

mostly vacant homes and to provide services to second-home owners when they do visit.

The RMOW and many residents have been expressing concern about the impacts of this

bill on Whistler in particular, but it's by no means unique to Whistler.

The impact may be exacerbated when combined with other legislation before this House

which will potentially exclude employee-restricted housing from benefiting from CACs

or AACs, which is how they've traditionally been funded, as I said.

I worked with the RMOW to help draft an amendment that could turn this risk into a

real opportunity and ensure that half of the new homes built as a result of the densification

initiative are available to house Whistler residents, with an additional benefit that

the homes would be built by the private sector,

whereas the Whistler Housing Authority

is often public sector contributions. The amendment allows for the establishment of

conditional density rules so that up to 50 percent of the allowable floor area could

be designated as resident-restricted housing.

I'm sure the minister appreciates the concern of Whistler and other communities that

grapple with employee housing shortages. Dan Wilson, a longtime Whistler resident

who is a sustainability expert, sent me a note the other day. I'd like to add it to

the record, if I may.

"I'm quite concerned with the cookie-cutter approach being suggested and recognize

that this will do very little for affordable housing in Whistler. Instead, this policy

may be one of the greatest development giveaways in Whistler's history and undermines

most options to provide affordable housing from infill, with a condition for affordable

housing. As proposed, the legislation will only result in significantly more vacation

homes and add to peak visitation in Whistler, without fixing the affordable housing

situation and the employee shortage."

With that, I'd like to submit for consideration of the House an amendment that is

designed to remedy what could have a serious and detrimental impact on Whistler and

communities like Whistler, yet it could create unprecedented opportunity to create

housing for Whistler residents and Whistler employees.

With that, I rise to move my amendment on

section 12. I have copies here to circulate

for the committee's information.

[ Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Density benefits related to small-scale multi-family housing

481.5

(1) In this section, "conditional density rule" means a density rule established under

section 482 (1) [ density benefits for amenities, affordable housing and special needs housing ] to apply for a zone only on applicable conditions being met.

(2) Despite

section 482 (1) but subject to subsection s (3) and (3.1) of this section, a zoning bylaw must not establish conditional density rules for

the purpose of achieving the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted

under

section 481.3 (4) or (5).

(3) A zoning bylaw may, under

section 482 (1), establish conditional density rules

for only one of the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted under

section 481.3 (5) but, despite

section 482 (1) (b), may establish applicable conditions

in relation to that single housing unit only in accordance with

section 482 (2) (

b) and (c).

(3.1) A zoning bylaw may, under

section 482 (1), establish conditional density rules for

up to 50% of the allowable floor area to be permitted but, despite

section 482 (1)

(b), may establish applicable conditions in relation to that floor area only in accordance

with

section 483 (2). This conditional density acts to ensure that a minimum of floor

area is meeting the specific needs of a community to support housing identified in

their respective Housing Needs Report.

(4) This

section does not prohibit a zoning bylaw from establishing, under

section

482, conditional density rules, or applicable conditions, in relation to any number

of housing units in excess of the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted

under

section 481.3 (4) or (5).]

The Chair: Member, did you want to speak to the amendment?

J. Sturdy: I think I already did. I think the minister understands what we're trying to accomplish

here.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think if I want to reiterate anything, it would be that in the case of Whistler,

this is an opportunity for Whistler to generate employee housing as well as create

additional overall housing in the community. I think this could be a real asset to

those communities that are in similar situations.

The Chair: We are now going to be taking a short recess to see if the amendment is admissible.

The committee recessed from 2:10 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. The amendment is deemed to be in order.

Did you have any further remarks?

J. Sturdy: I hope the minister understands the intention of this amendment. It really is just

to try and solve a problem that may well be an unintended consequence in some unique

communities like Whistler.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment, because it goes further than

the resort municipality of Whistler. The government has this definition of resort

communities that they treat differently, and then they have these

definitions around

island communities that also get treated differently.

What the member from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky mentioned is very similar to the impact

that this has on Salt Spring Island. The reality is that Salt Spring does not have

the protection of the speculation and vacancy tax, which the government often refers

to as one of the insulating factors. It doesn't have that insulation. It also has

a workforce housing crisis that we've been trying to elevate to the point of action

by this government, yet the government continues to exclude it.

Recognizing that Salt Spring is only a 35-minute boat ride away from the second-largest

urban area in the province, that provides just enough of a buffer for it to be a very

desirable place. If it is the only community guaranteed to have single-family homes

in the area — I hear that the minister doesn't think that every neighbourhood is going

to do the multifamily stuff — this is only further exacerbating a problem.

I asked the minister a series of questions about what action was going to be taken

on behalf of Salt Spring Island. More discussions, more talk — which is what we've

been doing for the last decade on Salt Spring — not more action. Unfortunately, excluding

Salt Spring from some of this legislation — in fact, every piece of legislation, so

far, on housing — has created significant issues, around workforce housing specifically,

which I heard my colleague raise.

I just want to highlight that islands are being created — literally, Salt Spring is

an island — these single-family-home-zone islands, because of what's going on around

them. There's intense pressure that's put on those communities, and they're not given

the tools. They don't have the tools to be able to deal with it.

[2:20 p.m.]

Even though members bring these issues forward, government is reluctant to do anything

to support the communities, other than to just say, "Look to tools that you don't

have access to and ask for those tools," and then not extend those tools either. It

becomes a significant challenge for a community like Salt Spring as well.

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, thanks to the member for Sea to Sky. I do understand the point he's made,

and I appreciate him advocating for his community and raising these concerns. We have

been in touch with Whistler. I do believe there are some unique considerations that

Whistler has. I can share with the member that we are in touch with staff over there

to understand better their challenges and look to work with them on the uniqueness

that they have and the challenges that they're dealing with.

Although this motion here…. We can't support the motion as it is now because this

would make small-scale multi-units not viable anywhere in the province, because it

doesn't say just Whistler; it's provincewide. But that being said, I do appreciate

what he's saying. Staff have informed me that they are in contact to talk to Whistler

about the resort municipality and the challenges that they're dealing with.

To my friend, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, he has talked a lot about

the need for a speculation and vacancy tax in his community. I know that the Ministry

of Finance received the letters from them, from local elected officials. They are

exploring…. In the letter it said that they didn't want SVT. They said they wanted

us to explore the viability of it for the community.

I know the Minister of Finance shared that there are different views that have been

shared with her on what people would like to see. I do understand, because I think

I heard the Minister of Finance say that and I hope I'm saying correctly, that they

are looking at Salt Spring Island in relation to the speculation and vacancy tax.

I do appreciate his advocacy on it.

A. Olsen: Just for clarification, I believe there are two letters, because there are two local

governments on Salt Spring. One of those, I believe, from the capital regional district,

was very explicit, making a request to be added, and another was from the Islands

Trust –– hence the challenge that we have –– asking for it to be looked at, what the

impact could be.

However, we have had multiple delegations to this government, to this Finance Minister,

to previous Finance Ministers, to the original Finance Minister that brought that

in. So to frame this as "the current Finance Minister is looking at it…."

This is something for Salt Spring that has been ongoing for years, basically neglect

from this government in dealing with the issue and giving us the advice of "make a

request for it, send us letters, pass local motions." So much as told: "The MLA's

advocacy isn't going to be the thing that does this. It's going to be the advocacy

of the local governments." So we worked with the local governments in order to have

them express themselves.

The frustration is certainly palpable on Salt Spring. Significantly noticing the lack

of involvement in any of these housing bills. The exasperation is appearing in my

inbox and in my text messages on a nightly basis as we debate these bills.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity for the minister, this amendment was drafted in consultation with

the RMOW mayor and staff, so it is with their cooperation to help me draft that.

This is the direction they'd like to go, but if the minister and government aren't

willing to consider this, would the government be willing to consider an amendment

to the amendment to carve out either resort municipalities or the RMOW in particular?

[2:25 p.m.]

A. Walker: I heard the minister applauding the member for bringing this forward and representing

his community and sounding somewhat supportive of the idea, but of course, it would

impact the entire province.

So I, too, would like to echo the question that's being asked here by the member for

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. The minister said he couldn't support it because it applies

to the whole province. Would the minister support this if that amendment to the amendment

that was proposed was put forth?

The Chair: I'm going to be calling the question on the amendment to clause 12.

Division has been called.

[2:30 p.m.]

I am calling the meeting back to order and seeking a unanimous agreement to waive

the time.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Wonderful. Thank you.

Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent

members of

section A or their authorized substitutes may vote. The question is: shall

the amendment to clause 12 pass?

I'm going to be reading out the amendment, 481.5. The amendment is to subsection (3.1).

"A zoning bylaw may, under

section 482(1), establish conditional density rules for

up to 50 percent of the allowable floor area to be permitted but, despite

section

482(1)(b), may establish applicable conditions in relation to that floor area only

in accordance with

section 483(2). This conditional density acts to ensure that a

minimum of floor area is meeting the specific needs of a community to support housing

identified in their respective housing needs report."

Amendment negatived.

On clause 12.

[2:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I'm just wanting to know if the minister had received a letter from the Islands Trust

local trust committee chair, Timothy Peterson, dated November 21, 2023, requesting….

"The Salt Spring Island Local Trust committee requests the chair of the Salt Spring

Local Trust committee to send a letter to the Minister of Housing and the Premier's

office requesting that Salt Spring Island Local Trust area be included in Bill 44

as if it were a municipality with a population greater than 10,000 people, marked

with a high importance and urgent, no later than November 21, 2023."

Hon. R. Kahlon: My staff are looking right now. They haven't received any correspondence, but it may

have gone to a different email, either within my ministry or the Premier's office.

So folks are looking.

But generally, I would say that if communities believe this is a good policy for them,

and they fall below that threshold, they could just make that zoning reform in their

community to align with the legislation.

A. Olsen: I can provide a copy of the letter. I assumed…. I saw the minister's…. Maybe this

email is actually not correct — now that I'm looking at it. But anyway, it also went

to the Premier.

I understand the minister's response — that they could do this zoning. They've requested,

specifically from the minister, to be included in this. Now, this is the local government.

This is the local elected trust committee that is responsible explicitly for the land

use zoning.

The members of those are the same members that I was talking about, feeling that the

government hasn't been responsive to the requests that they've made. They're making

an explicit request to add the island. Will the minister consider adding the island

and making an amendment to this clause 12?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm smiling, because we spent the last two days critiquing this legislation and how

it's got problems. Yet there are some communities that are not in that are interested

in joining or being part of it.

At this point, the legislation is where it is. I do appreciate the member bringing

the letter to my attention. We certainly will review it. We certainly will engage

with the Islands Trust, because he's raised this issue today.

They aren't covered with the legislation as it is, but I think we have to have a better

conversation with them to understand what it is that they need from us that they are

not able to do.

I commit to following up with them on this after this letter.

A. Olsen: I think it's important that we're very clear about the work that I've been doing here

in the committee stage of this bill. And I know that there's this inclination in this

House to automatically pick sides on legislation. You're either on this side, or you're

on that side. And if you're not on that side, then you're automatically on this side.

That's not the process for committee. The process for committee is to walk through

and make the bill that's in front of us and ensure that it withstands the test of

the questions. So the work that's been happening…. The minister can assume all sorts

of things about my perspective on this. Part of my job as an MLA, as a constituency

MLA, is to advance the requests of my community.

You know, I have got opinions about the situation. They have a responsibility for

this in their community. In fact, the numbers of times that I have heard from the

government, "Don't bring this yourself, Member. Make sure that the local government

is bringing it forward…."

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I'd say that they haven't been any more successful than me bringing it forward.

They've met the same wall of resistance from the Minister of Housing when…. And not

just this Minister of Housing, or the current Minister of Finance. Multiple Ministers

of Housing and multiple Ministers of Finance have put up a wall of bureaucratic resistance

for the community almost at every turn, with every policy.

I'm going to move an amendment to clause 12.

[ CLAUSE 12, in the proposed

section 481.3, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as shown:

Zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing

481.3

(1) In this section:

"local trust area" has the same meaning as in the Islands Trust Act ;

"manufactured home zone" means a zone in respect of which the only permitted residential use is for manufactured

homes as defined in

section 673 [

definitions in relation to

Part 17 ];

"restricted zone" means,

(

a) for the purposes of subsection (3), a zone in respect of which the permitted residential

use would, but for this section, be restricted to detached single-family dwellings,

and

(

b) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), a zone in respect of which the permitted

residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to

(

i) detached single-family dwellings,

(ii) detached single-family dwellings with one additional housing unit located within

the detached single-family dwelling or on the same parcel or parcels of land on which

the detached single-family dwelling is located,

(iii) duplexes, or

(iv) duplexes with one additional housing unit located within each dwelling comprising

the duplex or no more than 2 additional housing units on the same parcel or parcels

of land on which the duplex is located,

but does not include a manufactured home zone.

(2) Subject to an exemption under

section 481.4 or set out in the regulations, a zoning

bylaw adopted on or after June 30, 2024 must permit the use of land, buildings and

other structures, and the density of use, required under this

section to be permitted.

(3) A local government must exercise the powers under

section 479 to permit the use

and density of use necessary to accommodate one or both of the following on land within

a restricted zone:

(

a) at least one additional housing unit within a detached dwelling that would otherwise

be a single-family dwelling;

(

b) at least one additional housing unit within another building on the same parcel

or parcels of land on which a detached single-family dwelling is located.

(4) A local government must exercise the powers under

section 479 to permit the use

and density of use necessary to accommodate at least the prescribed number of housing

units on the following land within a restricted zone:

(

a) each parcel of land wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established

by a regional growth strategy applicable to the municipality or , regional district, or local trust area the population of which is greater than 5,000, as the case may be;

(

b) if paragraph (

a) does not apply, each parcel of land that is

(

i) within a municipality the population of which is greater than the prescribed population,

and

(ii) wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established by an official

community plan of the local government;

(

c) if neither paragraph (

a) nor paragraph (

b) applies, each parcel of land within

a municipality the population of which is greater than the prescribed population.

(5) Despite subsection (4), the minimum number of housing units that must be permitted

by the council of a municipality on a parcel of land referred to in paragraph (a),

(

b) or (

c) of that subsection is the greater number prescribed for the purposes of

this subsection if the parcel of land is

(

a) wholly or partly within a prescribed distance from a bus stop in relation to which

the prescribed requirements are met, and

(

b) at least the prescribed size.

(6) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes regulations respecting the siting,

size, dimension, location or type of housing unit required to be permitted under this

section, a local government must exercise the powers under

section 479 in accordance

with those regulations.

(7) In developing or adopting a zoning bylaw to permit the use and density of use

required under this

section to be permitted, a local government must consider applicable

guidelines, if any, under

section 582.1 [ provincial policy guidelines related to small-scale multi-family housing ].]

I want to be very clear. This is the request of the local elected officials, on the

island, that are responsible for the business of zoning and land use on Salt Spring

Island. These are people that have been elected to this role. They make these decisions.

If you see 481.1(4), I am adding in this, as per their request: municipality, striking

"or regional district," and adding "or local trusts committee with the population

which is greater than 5,000."

I recognize their request was 10,000. We made the decision to align this with the

act, as the minister has proposed.

The Chair: I'm calling a short recess so we can make copies and see if the amendment is admissible.

The committee recessed from 2:41 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. I'm going to go back to the House Leader of the

Third Party. The amendment is in order, just to be clear.

Member, did you want to make any further comments?

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Yeah. I mean, I'll just say that I…. The minister suggested that more conversation

with Salt Spring Island is in order. We've been pleading for all kinds of conversation,

all kinds of dialogue. We've had a lot of it. The island has produced some housing

ideas that haven't been moved forward.

The minister stated a couple of days ago the fact that there is more action to be

taken. However, we have a situation where a duly elected body that's responsible for

this has made this request. Frankly, even though I've been the MLA responsible for

representing the community…. These are the most knowledgable people. They work on

the ground on the island on a daily basis. They're my colleagues. I have a great deal

of respect for the challenge that they have.

They've made this request. I certainly hope, on behalf of…. Despite all the other

stuff that I've said about this bill… They've made this request. I think it's important

that the government take a look at it seriously and, while this legislation is open,

reflect the request and the urgency that they're expressing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do appreciate the member bringing it forward. That's what representatives do when

they represent multiple communities. So I appreciate him bringing it forward.

This is a pretty big change. When we consulted on the legislation, when we sent out

a notice to many nations…. There were some communities that were precluded. Some responded

because they were impacted, and some didn't respond because they weren't.

Because of the Islands Trust and the unique preserve-and-protect piece that goes with

it…. We do have to go back and do some more consultation on this piece if we are to….

I can't commit that we would be able to do something in the future or not. We would

have to go and do further engagement on it.

I think, just on the broader point the member makes…. I agree that we need to find

more housing solutions on Salt Spring Island. I'll give the member credit. He and

I have met multiple times. We have worked closely on some challenging issues on Salt

Spring Island and in his community generally. I hope he knows that I'm committed to

try to find solutions for him, for his community. The challenges are real in his community.

When there are communities that come forward and say, "We want to be part of it,"

that is something that we will consider as we go forward. Given the uniqueness of

this area…. Of course, because of the uniqueness, which the member rightfully raises,

it becomes even more challenging to move forward on some things.

[2:50 p.m.]

I appreciate the member bringing this forward. We won't be able to support it in the

structure right now, but my team is committed to reaching out to the folks that sent

this letter to us to have a further conversation about how we can support them on

this.

A. Olsen: I'm not sure that I'm getting a response from the minister on this, but if what I

heard was that we can't do this because nations need to be consulted on it, then let

the record show that there is an incomplete consultation of nations across the province.

We're proceeding with this legislation on a whole, and there are nations that didn't

participate, chose not to participate, and we are moving forward without their participation.

We have, in essence, as it was described to me yesterday, a notification process,

not a consultation process from this ministry, which is par for the course for this

government.

We have even entrenched 30-day and 90-day notification processes that we call consultation

and engagement, but they're indeed not. They're just simply: "We're going send you

a letter, and if you noticed it, then you may respond."

If we're not proceeding on this because there hasn't been active consultation, then

I need to challenge the consultation, as the minister has highlighted it, because

it's a notification system. It's something that I have often critiqued and complained

about in other ministries.

Even as we proceed down the reconciliatory journey that we're on, we have been entrenching

notification processes and calling them consultations.

Just because a nation doesn't respond, it doesn't mean they don't care. It could very

well…. In fact, in my experience, it's most likely that they hadn't got to it yet.

That's most likely it.

As I've stood at various seats here and talked about the piles and piles and piles

of referrals that come in and the numbers of people…. I got emotional in here the

other day because of the impact that that has on my own family members who receive

those referrals and who are put under the timeline of this government to respond or

to be in agreement. It's soul-destroying.

If that's the case, then pause the whole bill, because we don't have a proper consultation

process.

Now, another point that the minister made, which needs to be contested, is that the

Islands Trust is under a unique preserve-and-protect mandate.

I'd agree with the premise of the minister's response if this was the CRD that was

coming and saying it to us, because the CRD is not the stewards and the guardians

of the preserve-and-protect mandate. It is the express responsibility of the Islands'

trustees who wrote this letter, the three members. This government has created the

framework for them to do land use. It is explicitly the body who is responsible for

the preserve-and-protect mandate who's making this request.

I think that what this lines up to be is…. As this debate has rolled out, there has

been the list of those who support them. They're often stood up and elevated. They're

the ones that are standing at the announcements with the Premier and with the minister.

This is a situation where there is a community that is desperately looking for solutions

to support a workforce housing issue. It's largely a workforce housing issue that

exists on the island.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky raised the issue of workers coming and going.

We've got workers getting on the ferry and coming over to the island and working and

then getting back on the ferry, because they live in Chemainus or they live in Sidney.

We've got ferries that aren't running, and the Minister of Transportation can talk

about that. That's largely to do with the tenuous nature of workforce housing. We

have people living in their vans and being hassled around the island by the police,

who are exasperated because they don't have the tools in order to be able to support

the people that they have to keep moving around the island.

[2:55 p.m.]

We have a situation where, frankly, the reason that has been laid out here, that we

can't proceed here because there's not been a consultation…. Frankly, we need to pause

this whole thing and do a consultation, which is a proper engagement and response

from everybody.

The notion that we can't proceed here because of the preserve-and protect-mandate….

We have the very people writing a letter, with urgency. "Can we please get this to

the minister by November 21?" That reflects the urgency that I hear from my local

government colleagues.

I appreciate the minister's responsiveness. This issue of housing on Salt Spring —

I have not taken more time of this government than on this issue. It is on this minister's

agenda that we've met multiple times. It's on the former Minister of Housing's, now

the Premier's, agenda that we've met multiple times, interventions by the now Premier,

former Minister of Housing. The former, former Minister of Housing has had interventions.

We had to intervene in order to create a year-round shelter on the island. Lots of

intervention, not a lot of long-term solutions, not a lot of flexibility for the Islands

Trust, and that's what they're requesting here. So I hope that the context that I'm

providing gives the minister pause for concern and to reconsider, because that's the

level of urgency that my local government colleagues are working at on Salt Spring.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?

[3:00 p.m.]

[The bells were rung.]

I'm calling the committee back to order and seeking unanimous consent to waive the

time. Is there anyone who objects to waiving the time?

Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent

members of

Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 12, which I am going to read out to

you, pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 4

Bond

Kirkpatrick

Olsen

Ross

nays — 7

Brar

Chow

Glumac

Kahlon

Phillip

Rankin

Rice

The Chair: We are on clause 12.

[3:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: As we move into clause 12…. As you can tell by the number of amendments that were

brought forward for clause 12, this is a fairly significant piece of this overall

legislation. This overall legislation is significant, but this is the part where we

start to really talk about density and the impact that we're going have in our communities.

If we don't do this the right way, it will have long-term impacts on communities in

British Columbia.

There is an exceptionally high level of responsibility that this government is carrying

right now because the impact of what is happening in this legislation and what we're

talking about today could have far-reaching consequences that are not anticipated.

So listening to my colleagues, listening to the communities that we're hearing from,

it is concerning that there are a number of issues that are being flagged that are

of concern to many communities and people across British Columbia.

We'll start trying to kind of peel away some of the confusion here with respect to

the density piece. There was conversation on clause 1. There was, as we all know,

a lot of conversation on clause 1. One of the conversations that came up was with

respect to B.C. Assessment, the wealth lift, the impact on property assessments.

Has the ministry consulted with B.C. Assessment regarding the impact of this legislation

on the assessment rolls, and what feedback was provided?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry, I thought I had a moment of déjà vu. It was like: "I think I've answered this

one." I did answer the question the first day, which is that the consultation happens

through the Ministry of Finance, then with B.C. Assessment.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate some of these questions may sound familiar. I'm trying to connect them

to the clause within the bill.

This consultation was done through the Ministry of Finance. I presume there was a

conversation from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Housing as, clearly,

that information would be important to inform the drafting of this legislation, as

government would need to have an understanding of the impact to values and assessment.

The question, then, that I'll come back to is: what was the feedback provided via

Ministry of Finance or B.C. Assessment directly?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The feedback is that tax increases to property only occur when assessed value of a

property rises relative to the other properties. So if all property values go up,

taxes may remain the same. Upzoning is applying across entire municipalities, which

will likely temper relative changes between individual properties.

Provincial assessment is based on market value, which incorporates both sales of similar

properties in the area and unique characteristics of a property. Upzoning will only

result in changes to assessments where market activity indicates that the fair market

value has changed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. There is a lot of information there. I would just like

to clarify that I believe I heard the minister say that when the values of all properties

go up, the assessment will remain the same. I must have misunderstood that part.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'll just speak a little slower because I think I said it pretty fast there. I think

I went pretty quickly.

Tax increases to a property only occur when the assessed value of the property rises

relative to other properties. If all property values go up, taxes may remain the same.

Upzoning is applying across entire municipalities, which will likely temper relative

changes between individual properties.

K. Kirkpatrick: The tax is associated with the value of the property. So if the value of the property

goes up, understandably then, the tax will go up. Is that not correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. Again, this was a question that was asked Monday. It doesn't necessarily mean

that.

Local governments decide how much revenue they believe they need. They set their tax

thresholds accordingly, but it doesn't necessarily go hand in hand.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have never, in my own tax assessment, seen the value of my property go up but the

taxes being charged to me not also increasing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Talk to that mayor of yours.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have two mayors.

Okay. I'm still on the value issue. I know we talked a lot about the value issue and

the land-value lift. Does the minister agree that a fourplex-zoned piece of property

has a higher value in the market than a single-family-zoned property?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the rezoning happens on an individual property or a small group of properties,

there is a significant land-value lift. But when it happens broadly across the province,

in this case, the land lift is very small. That's what the value is of doing it in

a broader area than doing it isolated in one area.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I've heard the minister refer to the spot zoning and the issue, not deferring but

saying that the value is much less likely to lift or may not have any lift, because

it's being done across the province, as opposed to being spot-zoned. Where is the

empirical evidence to prove that that is indeed the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a lot of studies on this topic. I'll just give a couple of referrals.

Bryn Davidson, who's with Lanefab consultants and who's pretty well known in the field,

said: "We have 15-plus years of experience in Vancouver with incremental upzones,

showing that they didn't lead to sudden jumps in land value. What has escalated land

value? Exclusionary mansion zoning that has been an incredibly strong magnet for capital."

[3:15 p.m.]

I know my friend across the way also knows Bryan Yu, who's from Central 1 Credit Union,

their chief economist, who also said: "The worries about land lift, in my view, reflected

spot rezoning. If the city is generally rezoned to allow for more density, the land

lift is likely much more modest."

There are a lot of economists within B.C. who have come out and said essentially the

same thing that I'm saying. We've seen that, of course, in other jurisdictions as

well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Say there's a single-family lot that remains a single-family home, and there's a purchase

of the single-family home next door, which is then demolished to become a fourplex.

We're going back to B.C. Assessment. If we look at that value of that fourplex now,

B.C. Assessment looks at sales in community, and if that fourplex sells, it's going

to have a significantly higher value than the single-family home. Are we not, then,

significantly increasing the assessed value of that single-family home because it

now has neighbouring homes that have taken advantage of the uplift in the zoning?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If, over time, you have properties within a region that are sold higher, that assessment,

over time, will reflect that, but the correlation between the taxes doesn't exactly

go the same way. That was my point earlier: local governments assess what revenues

they need. The two don't necessarily correlate together.

K. Kirkpatrick: It was the assessed value, as opposed to what the taxes will be. Will that not significantly

increase the assessed value, regardless of what the tax rate is?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Assessed values are based on sales in the marketplace. But as people know…. For example,

if a home sells in my neighbourhood for much higher, you'd see the assessed value

in the market price, and you sometimes are confused as to why there are separations.

Assessed value will reflect that over time, but again, there's no correlation between

the tax pieces. This is my main point here.

K. Kirkpatrick: What I'm hearing, though, is that when we start to look at the assessed values, which

may result in an additional tax burden to people, the assessed values of properties

will increase because there is that upzoning in communities. The value of all properties

that are going to have fourplexes on them is going to increase.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is still the same as the first two times, and it's similar to what some

of these senior economists in British Columbia have said. If, instead of three or

four units, you build a mansion, then that also has impacts in communities. The question

can be asked in different ways, but the answer is still the same.

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, I don't think that's a fair comparison, because we're not talking

about mansions being built. We're talking about the fact that all lots are being upzoned

to four. Regardless of whether they build a mansion or whatever, there is an uplift

in the value of those properties. There is an economic benefit for someone to come

in now and develop those properties.

I'm going to come back to the tax piece, but I do have a concern, from an environmental

perspective, as to the impact that this legislation is going to have.

[3:20 p.m.]

Many building materials can cause great harm to the environment. Even those marketed

as sustainable require significant energy to create, and significant energy in order

to deal with their disposal.

What has government done, hand in hand with this legislation, to ensure there are

appropriate diversion programs in communities that will offset what could be a massive

increase in development waste?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are multiple things. One, this doesn't necessarily mean that homes will be torn

down and sent to the landfill. This now enables for accessory dwelling units to be

built –– additions to homes. So it's not necessarily that it goes into the landfill.

Similarly, previously, if a home were to come down, before, a single-family home would

be built, so you'd still have that. Now, there are programs in government through

CleanBC…

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That's terrible. Yeah.

…that do a couple of things. There's a company in South Vancouver which, basically,

unassembles the home and uses as much of the home as it can for other properties.

There are now a bunch of not-for-profits that are starting up, which are fantastic,

that are starting to take homes that are still in good condition, use, again, CleanBC

grants to upgrade the windows, upgrade doors, heat pumps, etc., and then relocate

them to other communities.

So we're seeing a lot of these types of initiatives to ensure that we're not putting

more things into the landfills, and that's, I think, pretty exciting. Everyone would

agree that those are amazing initiatives.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Those are all things I really appreciate. I've written

articles on the value of moving homes, especially in the Gulf Islands. I think that's

very important. But the purpose of this legislation is to really put the foot on the

gas pedal –– not the gas pedal; the power pedal, whatever it is in our vehicles ––

in order to make things happen quickly.

The minister has said there's going to be construction waste when people take down

a single-family home, but that's not the speed at which we're talking about right

now. And people…. The motivation to take down a home and replace it with a fourplex

or a six-plex, or wherever the zoning happens to be, is going to be quite significant.

There are many communities that have small single-family homes, 1,250-square-foot

homes.

On my block, there are many homes that were the original homes that are 850 square

feet. So when somebody purchases that property, they're not going to be putting dwelling

units on it. They're not going to be stratifying the inside of it. They're going to

be taking that home down. And there are more of those than not.

The original question, if I can come back to it, is does government…? Through this

legislation, was there consultation and confirmation that there are enough diversion

programs in municipalities to be able to handle an increase in waste related to construction

debris?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess I don't agree with the premise that necessarily more will be. I just want

to start with that.

I mentioned some initiatives that are already existing. We know that only homes that

are near the end of their life will see themselves be redeveloped or go to landfill.

We know with this legislation…. There is a big shift happening in our built environment,

and it's prefabrication.

What we're seeing is that a lot more of these accessory dwelling units, complete homes,

are being fully done in manufacturing facilities — a 90 percent reduction in waste

because of the efficiency — and they're moving them on site. I would say that the

trend line to prefabrication and the trend line of us needing more homes are aligned.

If you have other programs that the province is funding, for Unbuilders and other

organizations, I think we'll see a lot more diversion over time.

K. Kirkpatrick: The assertion that the homes coming down are going to be end-of-life homes, I challenge.

I know driving in Vancouver along Granville Street out to the airport over the last

few years, I've seen some really big homes, maybe 15 years old, being taken down and

being replaced either with single-family or with multifamily. So I think there's an

economic argument to be made when people are purchasing these homes to take them down,

regardless of the age of them.

I hope that we're going to see more conversions so that you're going to have multi-unit

within existing structures. But I think it's naive of us to think that we are creating

this incentive now.

It's almost…. The last ten years, I've thought, or probably longer than that, that

people are almost silly if they don't knock a single-family home down when they buy

the lot and build a new bigger one, because the value of the property is so much,

is so expensive. The way to be able to maximize the investment in these fourplex lots

now would be to take down the structure and to build new.

I love prefabricated. That's great. The minister has said that's something that's

coming. We're going to be doing more of that, but you have to take down the old structure

before you use the prefabricated structure. Either I'm hearing that there are not

diversion programs confirmed with communities, or the minister can tell me that there

are.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, if you're looking at it as an investment frame, then that may be the case, but

a lot of people are thinking: "This is my home." Maybe there's a history associated

with it.

I only say that because there are multiple shifts happening in our economy and how

homes are being built. The labour shortage is driving a lot of that innovation that's

happening.

The member's question around this associated directly to the legislation. The answers

I gave her are around what government is investing in — supporting Unbuilders, supporting

not-for-profits that are starting to move homes that are in good condition.

The member and I know of a company that is doing that, that is doing great work, and

there's another one on the Island. These not-for-profits are popping up everywhere.

We are province-wide funding it. I can't say it's directly to this legislation, but

there are programs within government supporting local governments to do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm having a hard time squaring this with the purpose of the legislation.

I will bring it back to clause 12. The purpose of clause 12 is that…. I'm hearing

the minister say we don't need to worry because there will be a lot of people who

like their homes. They're not going to take their homes down. But doesn't that run

counter to the purpose of the legislation, which is to make sure that we are increasing

density and increasing it quickly?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're trying to get more housing options. My point is that more housing options doesn't

necessarily mean tearing a house down and building a new house. It could be accessory

dwelling units. It could be additional units within homes. That was the point I was

trying to make to the member.

At the same time, I was trying to say that because of the shortage of labour, we're

starting to see more innovation and prefab, etc.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Bear with me for a moment. I was distracted there for a moment.

Can the minister confirm that modelling was done to measure the impacts of this legislation,

and will that modelling be made public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This was canvassed at length, but I'll do it again. Just to say that the modelling

is dependent on the regulations, ensuring that there's viability. When the regulations

are passed, we'll be making sure that the modelling is made public for the public

to see.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'll ask maybe a few more unique ones about modelling.

I'm going to come back to something the minister said about construction. This legislation

is so connected to so many things outside of housing. We know housing is the basis

of everything. It's how we build our communities.

Some laughed yesterday when I referenced Sim City . Housing people — I know you guys know Sim City .

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: If they all play Sim City , is that how they came up with the housing legislation? No, I'm just kidding.

If you don't surround things with the right amenities, as you know — and we've talked

about this before — you're going to have some challenges.

So to the minister: we've talked about this at some point before, or maybe I've just

spoken about it in a debate. What consultation was done with the Ministry of Education

— it's not municipal, the Ministry of Education — in terms of ensuring that communities

that are being upzoned where you're anticipating there's going to be …? If the legislation

is successful, there could be a quadrupling of populations in certain areas.

How do you know, and what consultation was done to ensure, that there are going to

be enough schools for that increased density?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things.

Having standardized housing needs reports and having communities update their community

plans on a more regular basis helps everyone's planning. It helps with education.

It helps with health care. It helps with B.C. Hydro, around the planning they have

to do for power.

For example, in Surrey, I met with the school board. They had modelling projections

of how many young people they thought they were going to have. In coming out of the

pandemic, that modelling is way off. Hence the surge of needing a lot more spaces

than they have even planned for.

Now, if you have certain communities bringing housing options on and you have some

not, what you end up getting is those that are bringing housing options on need additional

resources. Those that don't bring housing options have resources that are not needed.

In Vancouver, we've got schools that are considered to be shut down because they believe

they don't have young people, that the population doesn't meet the demand. In Surrey,

we have a lot more people going, and we have to increase housing.

With this legislation, what we're saying is that everyone has a responsibility to

build housing so that it's not being isolated to certain communities. This means that

not only do we have options across the province — people don't have to go to specific

communities for housing — but also, the planning allows us to plan in a better way.

To bring it back to the question, yes. This helps the Ministry of Education, helps

the Ministry of Health, helps the Ministry of Transportation. It helps EMLI and B.C.

Hydro. It allows for better planning all around.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand that. But what this legislation is doing is….

There's going to be a switch flipped one day, and you're going to have the potential

to quadruple the potential density in a community.

[3:35 p.m.]

This isn't something with your housing plans and over time; this is something very,

very sudden.

So how is it that that is connected to…? I think Surrey is probably the best example

that the minister can give. We've got over 400 portables there right now. What impact

is that going to have on education in those communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that it's important to acknowledge that the people are already here, and they're

looking for housing. They're struggling for housing.

I know I said this answer earlier, and there were some chuckles. But I've got, in

my community, one home that's got 18 students in it, international students. They

came and met with me. I talked to them. They wanted to raise the concerns that they

had, didn't want me to raise it with the local government because they felt like if

we did that, there were no housing options for them.

We have, from the federal government, projections of population increase. What we're

trying to do here is to ensure that we have housing, not only to meet those projections

but for the people that are already here. They're already accessing services. They're

already needing to go to schools. They already need to go to hospitals. What they

don't have is adequate housing.

The reason why I say this is that it's not necessarily that we're building this housing

because we want a lot more people to come. People are already coming. People are already

here, and they don't have enough housing available to them. So it's a two-parter.

K. Kirkpatrick: The challenge with the answer is that this is zoning which is across British Columbia.

So if the minister is saying there's capacity in schools in Vancouver so it's good

if people move there. But we're not spot-zoning. We're not just talking about Vancouver;

we're talking about across the province.

I will shift gears for a moment. Secondary suites or laneway homes. How many ADUs

does the minister believe will result from the change in 481.3?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The ADUs are within that estimate that I've shared. I don't believe there's a complete

breakdown of what kind of unit will be coming online. There is still a lot of flexibility

for local governments around ADU rules. Viability is obviously an important piece,

but we don't have specific numbers on ADUs.

K. Kirkpatrick: With the short-term rental changes, one of the allowable structures for short-term

rentals continues to be a residence with a secondary suite or an ADU is still able

to run a short-term rental.

Does the minister have a sense, or not a sense, I guess, an idea or number of how

many of these new fourplexes, where someone is living as a residence there, will then

be able just to convert these two, or at least one of them, on the property to an

Airbnb.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member saying "or one," because the member knows it's limited to

one other within a structure. It's hard to say. I assume the member is asking about

what that number will be in the future, and I can't give any definitive answer on

that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is it a concern, moving forward with this, that there will be creation of a significant

number of new STRs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm not particularly concerned about that. People may decide to do that. But that

is within the rules that have been laid out.

[3:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: There was a mention earlier of CleanBC. We were talking about, also, how we're going

to open up what may be the Wild West for construction once all of this upzoning happens.

CleanBC says we're going to lose 14,000 — you know, less — construction jobs.

Notwithstanding that — we can debate that; we don't need to — the fact is there is

going to be a much higher demand on construction and trades. We've seen in the past

when you have a housing crisis, when you're building, when you need to hire people,

the wages will go up, the costs will go up, the timelines for building will go down.

What are the minister and the ministry doing in order to address the significant shortage

in tradespeople?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member was right earlier when she highlighted that this touches many things. Housing

touches many things. So first thing is training. We have seen and we have been increasing

training opportunities for people. And of course, immigration streams — finding ways

through PNP, etc., to be able to attract that talent. It's certainly something I've

been advocating with the federal government to ensure that they have higher points

for those particular skill sets that we that we need.

So it's training our people. It's ensuring that that we can fast-track immigration

for those that have it. But also, what's really important is that this session we

introduced legislation that allows for skill sets to be recognized. That is also a

critically important part. We have a lot of people who come to Canada, who've got

skills, and they're not able to fully use their skills to further themselves, further

their opportunities here in Canada.

Those are important pieces, but we won't be able to address the housing crisis alone

just with that. We need to do things differently. That means prefabrication is going

to be a bigger piece of the pie. That's why we're starting to invest through the Ministry

of Jobs — now it's the JEDI Ministry — Economic Development and Innovation. They're

starting to invest directly into manufacturing facilities to support them to scale

up and grow.

Mass timber. We have a mass timber action plan, which has been getting a lot of traction.

We're starting to see a lot more mass timber buildings coming forward. Why that's

important is that that means assembly off site, manufactured off site, brought onto

location, less people needed, done more efficiently, less noise, less pollution. You

get all that.

Then another piece we're doing — part of our Homes for People strategy — is providing

digital tools and resources for our construction industry to increase their innovation,

because we know that productivity in the construction sector is not where it needs

to be.

We have partnered with the digital supercluster. They just put a call out a few days

ago to support construction companies with pilots, where they're using digital tools

to increase the productivity, to do things more efficiently, more safely, because

that will help reduce the pressure that they're facing when it comes to labour, drone

technology, machine learning, AI — all those pieces.

We're also doing that work with local governments, supporting them with building permits,

etc., so that we have digital tools that can help eliminate the need for additional

staff all the time.

Anyways, I went on a little bit too long, but we're looking at a whole host of things

that are part of the Homes for People strategy to ensure that this can be a success.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. This legislation will create labour scarcity. This is not

something that we're going to be doing three years, five years into the future. I

mean, obviously, it will grow and develop as we do that. But there could be significant

pressure in the short term on actually accessing the more traditional trades that

we need.

May I clarify that the minister is saying, however, that the expectation and part

of the ability to support this increased density is going to be a replacement of those

traditional trades jobs with AI and with other types of employment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The skill sets that many of our trades have are going to be vitally important as we

go forward. What we're saying is that we have to find ways to be more efficient in

how we move forward.

[3:45 p.m.]

We are going to have a shortage of skilled trades for many years. That work is there.

I say to young people: "If you want to get into a good skill and you want to have

a good job and good opportunities, go into the trades. It's an amazing career opportunity."

I know that many families, immigrant families, back in the day would discourage it

because they, themselves, worked in trades, and they thought that kids would want

something else. I know many people that grew up with families who had trades, went

to something else, regretted it later and wished that they had gone.

In fact, one of my best friends went to university, got his bachelor of science and

all these things and then went back to trades and now is a machinist. He realized

that he wanted to work with his hands. I think that is vitally important.

The other piece I'll note is right now, if a single-family home is coming down and

a single-family home is being built, the skill sets, the trades are still working

on that site. Now they'll be able to work on three-unit, four-unit buildings — the

same skills creating more housing opportunities for people. So there's an efficiency

that comes with that as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

We'll move away from that for now. Can the minister explain what consultations were

done in choosing the population thresholds?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'll try to get ahead and answer first how we got to that number. First off, the communities

with a population of 5,000 or greater is 95 percent of B.C.'s population. That's captured

by this new requirement.

From the analysis that was done by the ministry staff, on average, communities with

less than 5,000 residents are only seeing growth rates of 1 percent, which is equal

to about 50 people or fewer.

When analyzing communities with 5,000 or more residents, the average population growth

is about more than 1 percent and climbs as the population increases. So that was the

analysis of why.

I believe I shared with the members yesterday a list of communities and organizations

that we consulted. That number was part of that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Did the ministry give any consideration to recent policy changes — we've talked about

the New Zealand model — promised to the medium-density residential standards by the

National Party government of New Zealand? They have made recent policy changes that

would impact the size and autonomy of communities.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There's a new government. They had an election, and there's a new government that's

come in. I believe the policies haven't been changed yet. It's just being proposed

as something that may change.

[3:50 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: The national government there is moving to allow for an opt-out provision for local

governments if they can prove that they've got an adequate 30-year plan for future

development within their OCP.

This was part of one of the amendments that we talked about earlier. Did the ministry

consider this as an alternative?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the new government has suggested that is something they're going to do, and

it hasn't happened yet.

K. Kirkpatrick: Regardless of whether they've done it and it's happened yet, it's on the table. Is

it something that the ministry has considered?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, in fact, just about an hour ago, there was an amendment, and we canvassed this

topic. We believe that ensuring that there's gentle density in communities throughout

British Columbia is a better approach.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm just going to ask the minister to explain that last comment. Why would one exclude

the other? If communities are doing good work and they're addressing things in a 20-year

or 30-year plan, what is the comment about gentle density versus not? I'm a bit confused.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's important to put the suggestion that the new government in New Zealand is bringing

forward…. They made these changes in 2016, so they have seven years of seeing the

housing increase, where they're at a point now, perhaps, that is why they want to

consider different ways of being. But they've had the policy in place for seven years,

and they've seen significant increases in housing, and the results are pretty impressive.

K. Kirkpatrick: The question was whether the ministry had actually considered that when they were

going through the policy to make these changes.

How will the application of this provision change as urban containment boundaries

change?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this, again, I think the other day, which is, if a regional urban boundary

were to change, it would require the region to have to support that.

Certainly, it's likely in some communities that it'll expand, but if they were to

consider making it smaller, that would put more pressure on all those other communities

to do a little more of the lifting in order for them to meet their regional targets.

But I can't predict what will happen in the future.

[3:55 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the minister can't predict what will happen. But we have heard from some

councils that they are discussing the possibility of actually shrinking the urban

containment boundaries in response to this legislation.

Is the minister prepared for this possibility? What could the implications be of that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: You could see a community consider that. But when they have their housing needs reports

provided to them, they're going to find that they're going to have to find ways for

all that housing to get into a smaller area. They're going to have to go through a

pretty extensive public consultation to make that decision.

Then lastly, there is a reasonability test. It can't be unreasonable, so there may

be a judicial review if it's deemed unreasonable.

K. Kirkpatrick: Don't worry. I'm not going to ask about the definition of the reasonability test.

This does set out higher density requirements to be the six units within the prescribed

distance of a bus stop if the lots meet the minimum size requirement. I think the

obvious question here, then, is: why was this provision not integrated with Bill 47?

Why wasn't Bill 47 part of this? They are addressing the upzoning issue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They work together. The other legislation, which will soon be discussed, is on transit-oriented

areas. It's just a different type of housing mix when you get into the eight storeys

to 20 storeys compared to three, four, six units. That's why the separation, but the

two do work together.

K. Kirkpatrick: In this context, what defines a frequent bus stop?

[S. Chant in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I shared this answer the other day, which is that the exact definition will

come in regulation. But generally, we're looking at frequent transit areas as B.C.

Transit and TransLink define them. It'll be similar, but I can't say exactly until

the regulations are passed.

K. Kirkpatrick: What planning has been done in consultation with TransLink in order to be able to

make sure that there is also supporting transportation infrastructure to make this

work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know that we'll be canvassing TransLink in a bigger way with the other piece of

legislation. The premise of this is to ensure that we're building housing near where

we already are making infrastructure investments. That's why it's structured the way

it is.

[4:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I'll go back to my own community on the North Shore. We're upzoning. We're increasing

density, which we need to do. This is a substantive increase of density.

What consultation was done? How can Ministry of Housing be confident that these are

realistic targets for those communities on the North Shore without knowing that we

have got better transportation to and from the North Shore?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, my conversations with the mayor and council and my MLA colleagues around

the need for transit….

We were really pleased to hear that there's a transit route that is identified as

the first three that TransLink has identified. I think what's important, and what

the TransLink board has made clear to me, is that they understand that transit needs

to continue to be expanded. But they also understand that we need to have housing

being built around that. So that's where our focus is.

A. Walker: Can the minister clarify if a government, without coming back to this chamber, could

define a bus stop, as we see in 481.3(5), to be any bus stop?

The Chair: Member, can you repeat the question, please?

A. Walker: Yeah, 481.3(5) says that the minimum density allowable on a property can be greater

if it's within a prescribed distance of a bus stop. It says that it will prescribe

the size of the lot, but also the distance in relation to a bus stop.

So that definition of bus stop, I'm presuming, is to be set in regulation. Could that

provide government, in future, the ability to dramatically upzone communities anywhere

near any bus stop?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That is defined by cabinet, not one minister. In future, it won't be a minister making

a change when I'm long gone from here. Someone won't be making it. It's a cabinet

decision.

We are, in regulation, putting a definition around what that frequent transit area

is. Under the legislation that we're bringing, if that transit is serviced at that

level, then it's included. If a new area gets that transit service, they will be included.

But future governments can always change legislation. They can change regulations

as they see fit.

A. Walker: That answers the question, which is basically that that definition could be done unilaterally

by cabinet without input from local communities.

We have seen, in the city of Nanaimo, the transit exchange. As the minister described

the other day, TransLink is defining these rapid services as at least every 15 minutes,

goes into the evening, goes into the weekends. We don't have that in my community,

as the minister has stated.

There is a potential that communities could not make initiatives forward that would

see that transit take place, in an effort to restrict density in some areas. Has the

minister considered the potential that a local government could intentionally underfund

transit services, in an intentional way, to not see density take place in our communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, local government could say they don't want transit of any kind. That wouldn't

be out of the norm of what's happened in the past.

[4:05 p.m.]

In my community, in my riding, Sunshine Hills is a part of my community that had a

referendum 30 years ago to not allow transit to come in because they didn't want other

people coming. There's been a lot of movement in our community. Full credit to my

mayor and council, who are now re-engaging with residents about the need for it. We

have students that are creating a big movement, signing petitions to try to encourage

local governments and TransLink to put a bus service there.

So yeah, I guess, in the future, local governments could say, "We don't want transit,"

but I don't think they'd be serving their residents well by doing that. Because the

groundswell for public transportation is just increasing. It's not going away.

A. Walker: I think it's important to recognize how the tools and levers that were given to local

governments…. They're being restricted, so the limited tools that they have could

be used to try to move their community planning in one direction, with impacts elsewhere.

I join the minister and hope local governments wouldn't do that, but I wanted to raise

that here as a point of record.

As we go through this clause 12, 483.3 sub (3)…. It says that local governments must

exercise their powers under

section 479 to permit use and density. It provides specific

uses. Does that mean that local governments cannot use development permit areas under

this clause?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no.

A. Walker: Similarly — this conversation came up before — local governments are…. It's not uncommon

for them to use a

section 219 covenant. Different act, but you know, that power is

granted to them through the Local Government Act.

If that is to the benefit of local government, would local governments have to give

up those covenants in order to allow the mandatory density prescribed under clause

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no, but with our site standards, we will have some policy guidance that

will be provided to local governments.

A. Walker: Interesting.

These covenants, the power to issue these covenants, are granted by the Crown through

the Local Government Act. We've seen the province initiate initiatives on covenants,

for example, to remove the restriction on a person of certain ethnicities not being

allowed there. If councils are able to apply these covenants to properties to restrict

development and density…. I see that as a potential tool that could be used by communities

to do this.

Similarly, the

section 219 covenant is specific to…. There's a list of, I think, seven

different forms of government. There's a

section 220 covenant, which is to the benefit

of property owners. If you sell or sublease two or more properties, you can put covenants

on that the new owner will not build above a certain height or things like that.

Do those restrictions that are currently to the benefit of the property owners and

don't involve local government…? Will the powers that exist now under this new clause…?

Will that grant local governments the ability to put that density on sites that have

section 220 covenant?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation doesn't override municipal governments' covenants.

A. Walker: You can certainly understand that

section 219 is…. There's a power there. There's

section 220, which doesn't involve local governments at all.

[4:10 p.m.]

When you subdivide a property, either for sale or for lease, and it's two or more

properties, it's an agreement between property owners. It doesn't…. The local government

isn't involved at all.

The question was: if there is a covenant in place that is done under

section 220 of

the Local Government Act — I think it's the LGA — would this new power that forces

local governments to allow this density…? Would those covenants that don't involve

local government preclude that density?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're aware of some challenges in some communities when it comes to this. This legislation

doesn't address that, but we are looking at that as part of discussions through our

site standard document.

A. Walker: I gather there are some other questions about covenants. I just want to clarify. It's

the Land Title Act not Local Government Act — LTA not LGA. Sorry.

A. Olsen: I asked the minister the question around the covenant piece, and then kind of moved

on. I'm just wondering — it's come up here again — why it is that the ministry chose

to exclude those covenants rather than dealing with them. The minister suggested yesterday

that they're in the process of dealing with them. What does that look like?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Covenants are very complex. They vary in different

forms. So the reason for not doing that is that it's going to require us a lot more

work to go through and grapple with the complexity of different forms of covenants

in so many parts of our province.

K. Kirkpatrick:

Section 481.5 prohibits conditions for affordable housing from being attached to density

zoning for the purpose of meeting the minimum number of units. Can the minister tell

us what the rationale was for precluding affordable housing density requirements in

this section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was for viability reasons. If you have units that are three or four, it makes them

less viable to be built. I used, yesterday, the Victoria example. They saw that clearly.

There was no action. No one wanted to proceed because it made them unviable.

But we have said, and I said in my second reading speech, that the six units will….

We will be allowing for some form of inclusionary zoning or affordable element to

be involved.

[4:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. What tools will local government, then, have to promote

affordable housing in fourplexes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the nature of fourplexes makes homes more affordable than a single-family home.

So that's why the policy is brought forward. That's why we're bringing this forward,

because when a single-family home is built on a single-family lot, it's often unattainable

for many people.

That very nature of it is a key part of what we're getting at. What we say with this

legislation is that as the unit numbers get higher, there is more room for affordability

or inclusionary zoning types of policies to be put in place. And I expect, as we go

into the other legislation, you'll see local governments putting a lot more requirements

in as the scale increases.

K. Kirkpatrick: I feel like I'm in the twilight zone a little bit here when we're on the other side.

I'm asking: "Why aren't we doing more in terms of affordable housing?" And the minister

is saying to me: "It's all about supply. That's going to actually bring down the cost

and open more affordable housing."

What tools…? I'm just repeating the same question. What tools will government have?

Will local governments have the ability to set and direct some requirements within

the fourplex developments that they need — that they must meet some kind of affordability

measure?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It shouldn't feel like the twilight zone. We should be aligned on this. Although I

did hear earlier that people have varying opinions of what we're doing here in this

building, but I won't go into that.

I'll say to the member that we've always said that, yes, housing supply is a key part

of the solution. So that's why the three- to four-units — we've structured in the

way we have. In order for them to be viable, for the industry to be able to respond,

we needed that there. And as we go higher in density, there's more room for inclusionary

zoning types of policies to be in place.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm curious about the minister's comment now. I'm going to have to go on Twitter and

find out what people are saying we're doing in this building.

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, okay. Well, I know what was happening there.

We're looking at enabling regulations that are going to define urban containment boundaries,

and they're going to set the requirements for transit, size, dimension, location,

types of units allowed. Can the minister explain how those boundaries will be defined,

and will it be consistent with local governments'

definitions?

The Chair: The committee is on a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call this committee back to order on clause 12.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Chair, thank you for allowing us a couple of minutes' break.

The definition of "urban containment area" in this…. We don't have the exact definition.

We're respecting local government's definition of it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Could this act still apply to land outside an urban containment boundary in the event

that the boundary changes?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this one was canvassed by another member at length yesterday. Technically an

urban containment boundary, a regional one, could be made smaller. It would require,

obviously, everyone in the region to support that.

That would come with an understanding that the community, the region, would still

need to have a certain amount of housing approved. That shift would go more on the

communities outside of that boundary area. They would have a greater, I guess, load

of housing that they would need. But if that were a decision, then yes, they could

do that.

A. Walker: There's an exemption in here that if a property is not hooked up to sewer or water,

these rules do not apply, but only if the service is operated by a municipality or

regional district.

We, in my community, have a private water purveyor for land that's within an urban

containment boundary, but this would not cover those areas. Why is it only services

offered specifically through a municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We wanted to make sure this would capture areas that we have strong confidence in

that they have the water infrastructure that is needed in the community.

A. Walker: In my community, we have thousands of people on a service by a private water purveyor,

EPCOR, one of the largest private utilities for this type of service in western Canada.

Is the minister saying that he does not have faith in that service?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The areas that are not connected to municipal water or sewer are exempt from the requirements

of multi-unit.

A. Olsen: Just following up, I have improvement districts, specifically on Salt Spring Island.

It reemerges. It shows up. Salt Spring water, as an example, is a very large improvement

district. Recognizing that Salt Spring is falling outside of this, just in the fact

that there might be other improvement districts around, would they also be excluded

from this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct to remind me that Salt Spring is not part of this, if that was

his intention. But yeah, he's correct that improvement districts are not included

in this.

A. Walker: In portions of my community, we have a private water purveyor, and then we also have

the circumstance where, through latecomer agreements, we have municipally operated

sewer. It's not unusual in many parts of my community, within urban containment boundaries,

where one house has the service, one does not, one has, one does not.

Has the minister considered at all the impact on communities where this gentle density

he's referring to is very inconsistent in just one street or one house next to each

other on the same street?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is still the same. If you've got both those, then you're in. If you don't,

you're exempt.

A. Walker: As the modelling was done and as the impact on communities was done, I'm just wondering

if this has come up and if this was something that was considered as this clause was

drafted.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two parts. One, we did consider that in some communities, there will be

two types of services. As far as the modelling goes, that is done on broader targets,

and again, that modelling will be released later.

A. Walker: We have canvassed extensively whether this will increase land costs or costs to people

or not. That's not directly my question.

In a community where some homes are connected to a municipal service and some are

not, it means that the others that don't have it are relying on wells or septic fields.

If we have a four-unit home beside another home that is relying on a septic field

and that four-unit home, for example, has connected water service,

whereas the other

one doesn't, it could require that the neighbouring properties have to connect to

the service to prevent failures of their own.

[4:40 p.m.]

We have, in our community, this weird situation where people's wells are too close

to septic fields. When you get a patchwork approach like this, where some homes in

the neighbourhood are allowed to rapidly densify and others are not, it could potentially

put significant pressure on other homes to have to then force them into a system that

is very costly.

I'm just wondering if that's been considered at all through this process and if there'd

be any support for people in that circumstance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is, in this legislation, the ability for local governments, if they believe

the infrastructure does not exist, to have some flexibility to be able to make decisions.

I can't suggest one way or another what an individual homeowner will do with the services

that they have.

A. Walker: To clarify, that clause for the infrastructure — hearing from the minister — that

infrastructure could be infrastructure of private property owners, not municipal infrastructure?

Is that the case?

Interjection.

A. Walker: It's a very strange circumstance where some homes are connected to a municipal service

and some are not. They are on standard-sized lots. Some have wells and septic, and

some are connected. So what happens is that if somebody, for example, is connected

to water, and this one is not, this one has a well, if this first property densifies

immensely, they're going to put their septic fields in and do all of that.

It's private infrastructure. We're not talking about the infrastructure that the local

government would require. It's private infrastructure.

So the question is just basically: what consideration is there for property owners

that will be potentially tremendously impacted from this change?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you for the clarity. So if they rely on septic, then they're not included.

A. Walker: I don't think the minister is understanding it. The idea is that if a property is

connected to water or sewer, they are included. There are communities where not every

home on the street is connected. So, often, it's through a latecomer agreement or

some other water service or sewer service.

It creates this weird patchwork where a community has designated an area. It's appropriate

when it's single-family. But when you put more units on a property, especially if

you're going to put four units on a property that has water hookup and septic, if

you have a property next door that has a well, the impacts will be very incredible

for them.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the reason why we're misunderstanding is because we're saying that you have

to have both. You have to have both water and sewer connected.

A. Olsen: I want just to very briefly canvass 481.6 in its entirety — all of (

a) through (f).

We could go through this entire discussion as communities are organized now. This

section here, 481.6, basically gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability

to change the picture for local governments in any way that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

or the minister — whatever Minister of Housing is in the seat at the time — choose.

It could completely redefine urban containment boundaries. It could define urban containment

boundaries out of existence by just simply negating them. It could completely change

the requirements as to…. We talked about bus depots or large bus areas. It could include

individual bus stops, as an example.

I'm just wondering. The level of certainty that is apparently being created here.

There's also, at the same time, a level of uncertainty that's being created here for

municipalities.

How does the minister reconcile that?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess a future government — sometime down the future, as the member suggested —

may consider getting rid of urban containment boundaries. I mean, if they wanted to

do that, they could bring legislation and probably do that anyways. But why would

anybody do that, given that this is such an effective way of ensuring that that growth

is happening in a contained area?

So I suppose if the member wants to think, "Well, a future government could do this

and do that…." A future government can do anything in this place if they've got the

seats, but I don't think it's a wise thing to do, given that this has been an effective

way to ensure that growth is happening in certain areas.

A. Olsen: I think I'll just end with this. There have been comments that have been made that

even though we're allowing this to happen, it's unlikely that it will. I think it's

really important to put the context in again — repeat the context into the record

here — that municipal governments do not have the pleasure that the minister takes

in saying: "We're going to create all of this potential with the comfort that it may

or may not happen."

The engineers and local governments have to act like 100 percent of what is allowed

is going to happen. They have to be prepared for all of the density to be taken up,

because if they don't, then they're going back and replacing pipes that were just

replaced or a system that is now undersized.

So only in the provincial government can we take the position: "We're going to allow

all of this to happen, but it won't." Only in the provincial government can we say

that we're going to give the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do something

that could already be done in legislation. We're actually giving it….

We're saying: "No, you don't have to do it in legislation." We're saying, "You can

just do it by order-in-council three days before the holiday break," and that's it.

That's the end of it — no discussion, no public discussion. It doesn't matter that

it's not a great idea. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work for our communities.

But in creating this, for whatever reason the minister is creating it…. And that's

what I'm trying to get an answer for, not that it was a dumb idea and nobody should

do that. I'm just suggesting that, in this clause, we're giving the power to the government

to do that without having to come back for legislation.

I mean, I guess I could respond to the minister's response and say: "Well, why would

a government do that in legislation when they've been given the power by the minister

to do it by regulation?"

Hon. R. Kahlon: The intention is that…. Let's say there's a flood in an area, and it's within the

urban containment boundary area.

[4:50 p.m.]

The ability to be able to say that in future, we don't want something to be happening

in that area, a development to be happening in the area, it gives us the ability,

through order-in-council, to do that. That's the intention of it.

Clause 12 approved on division.

On clause 13.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Moving to clause 13.

This clause, I understand, requires municipalities to zone in a manner that is now

going to support their 20-year housing totals from their housing needs report, but

it is not able to establish conditional density rules.

Who will make the determination regarding how rezonings satisfy this section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: For SSMU, they report to us. For the 20-year targets and how they're doing, that's

on the local government. So local governments will have, clearly, their housing needs

report. They'll identify what needs to happen, and then it's up to them to make sure

that they're getting to the targets, and then when the housing needs reports are updated,

it's a bit of a report card of how they're doing.

It's a little bit different than, say, the target communities that have been selected.

It's different for the target communities, because we're able to work more collaboratively

with them. That's why there's the targets and then there's just the general housing

needs reports.

It helps us with a couple of things because, as I was canvassed the other day with

the members across the way, we have numbers that come from the top, from CMHC. This

standardized housing needs report system gives us the uniqueness of communities, and

that information helps us assess a different way of getting at how many housing units

we need in the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The minister mentioned the communities with the housing targets. These are the ones

we referred to earlier. They have a higher standard, or there's more oversight from

the province on what they're doing then, if I understood correctly?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. What is the timeline for having all the rezonings completed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: SSMU is June 30 next year. Overall, it's two years from now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister explain why none of these rezonings, or

the majority of rezonings, aren't going to happen until after the next election?

Hon. R. Kahlon: SSMU will be done by June 30.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Will these 20-year targets need to be rezoned for every

five years as housing needs assessments are done?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: After five years, they may need to adjust and tweak according to where their housing

needs reports are.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Just clarifying that re-tweaked means that they may have

to be rezoned.

Hon. R. Kahlon: After five years, they'll have to look at their housing needs report to see where

they're at and make adjustments accordingly.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. How will this requirement be funded for smaller municipalities?

An example is Ashcroft, which estimates a 9 percent property tax increase related

to the costs of just this section.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The $51 million, obviously, is being provided to local governments to do the work

initially. Municipalities will not be required to conduct a full review of their official

community plan every five years.

A. Olsen: When it comes to the housing needs report, there's going to be a 20-year total number

that needs to be determined. How often does that 20-year number need to be updated,

and what's the process for that? Just in terms of…. How are these housing needs assessments

rolling over from one to the next?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Every five years, they'll update the numbers to see what the 20-year number is, and

that will help them adjust where their targets will be.

A. Olsen: We've got a five-year review of the housing needs assessments and a requirement to

update the official community plans every five years. Can the minister describe how

this works in the timeline, how these two pieces, the one piece of information around

the housing needs assessment and the one piece around the planning piece — how they

work together?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities will do their housing needs assessments on the structure that we're putting

in place. Once that's done, they update their OCP within two years. Once that's done,

in future years, every five years when they go to update it, the expectation is they'll

have to adjust according to what their 20-year number input is.

The expectation is that the numbers won't be that far off given that a lot of that

work has been done in the first cycle.

A. Olsen: So each official community plan update will require…. There's a two-year lag. You'll

do your housing needs assessment. That gives you two years to update your official

community plan. Then three years down the road, you're then doing your housing needs

assessment again. Two years after that, following that, you have to do your official

community plan. Is that right?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. The first

part is correct. You do the housing needs report. You've got two years

to do your plan. Then the housing needs report can be done closer to when the next

OCP is being updated because the gap now is to give communities time to do that work.

But it's not stringent. It can be done with a little more flexibility, the next round.

A. Olsen: How long is the ministry expecting communities to take to update their official community

plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: By December 2024, the interim housing needs report should be done. By December 2025,

OCP and zoning should be done.

Then the next cycle housing needs report will be 2028. Then the next cycle OCP zoning

would be 2030.

A. Olsen: I guess what I've witnessed over the last three years now in my community are three

municipalities that undertook an official community planning process at the same time.

They started it at the same mome