Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

30, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

LARRY JMAIFF, MICHAEL HANLON

AND MANFRED BAUER

R. Russell: I just want to take an opportunity to pay tribute. There's been a lot of death in

my world in the last few weeks.

First off, I would like to acknowledge the passing of Larry Jmaiff, who died a few

weeks ago.

I got to know Larry working on agricultural projects in the community and the work

he did for the Doukhobors and his passion for making fresh bread in a brick oven.

He will certainly be somebody that is sorely missed in the community. The last conversation

I had with him was not that long ago, talking about his passion for regenerative agriculture,

which is something that that community that he was part of has been doing for a very,

very long time. I look forward to continuing that work on his behalf.

Last week I had the opportunity to get home in time for a funeral for Mick Hanlon.

One of my first memories from life is when my parents…. When I was about one year

old, my parents were building the house, and they had tied me onto the roof of our

house so that I didn't fall off and, I guess, I could be with them. I have a very

fond recollection of Mick as one of the people who, in a photo, is hoisting the main

beam of this house, which is 20 feet off the ground. Pretty remarkable to see how

it was done at that point. Certainly not a lot of WorkSafe oversight in terms of that

venture.

Mick was a community leader in terms of being a coach, impacting many, many people's

lives that way. He was active in the Legion and would show up for Remembrance Day

wearing his kilt. He was a member of the Black Watch for Canada, which I discovered

after his death was also referred to as the "Ladies from Hell," based on how they

engaged in their activities.

I want to honour and respect the work that Mick did.

[1:05 p.m.]

My wife's uncle died this past weekend. I thought I would just read out a statement

from them.

"I promised Mark I would share his story so that we could help other people suffering

in silence from addiction and feeling too ashamed to seek help because of the stigma

associated with it that should not exist. Addiction and mental health disorders are

diseases, just like diabetes, multiple sclerosis or heart disease, and failure to

treat them can lead to debilitating health conditions or death.

"We need to make research for treatments a priority because addiction can happen to

anyone, and we're losing far too many good people like Mark to this insidious disease.

If you're concerned about yours or someone else's drinking, please don't stay silent

like we did, because secrets can lead to devastating loss."

Finally, an acknowledgment that when I first got elected here, one of the local mayors

that I had the opportunity to get to know, and was definitely an advocate for his

community, was Manfred Bauer, the mayor of Keremeos at the time. Manfred didn't run

in this last election, and he just passed away recently.

I want to thank him for the work that he did for communities as well.

Questions of Privilege

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we proceed any further, the Chair is prepared to rule on the questions

of privilege raised earlier today by the official opposition House Leader and the

Third Party House Leader, both of which were taken under advisement. While unusual,

the crux of the matter outlined in both members' grievances in raising their questions

of privilege is the same, so the Chair will deliver one ruling.

The Chair thanks the members for following the proper procedure for raising a question

of privilege and is grateful to the official opposition House Leader and the Third

Party House Leader for their thoughtful submissions and to the Government House Leader

for his responses. In the interests of time and in an attempt to return to the House

with all possible expediency, the Chair's ruling will be brief.

The official opposition House Leader and the Third Party House Leader outlined in

their submissions their view that the Government House Leader misled the House in

his remarks prior to moving a time allocation motion under Standing Order 81.1 on

November 29, 2023.

An imputation with respect to a member misleading this House is a very serious matter

that the Chair must approach with utmost care. In deciding on such a matter, the Chair

must examine any evidence that (1) proves that the statement was misleading; (2) establishes

that the member — in this case, the Government House Leader — making the statement

knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and (3) proves the member intended

to mislead the House in making the statement.

In reviewing the submissions made to the Chair, the dispute at hand appears to be

a matter of disagreement about

interpretation about the words spoken by the Government

House Leader when he informed the House that a consensus could not be reached amongst

the parties. As the Chair noted in a ruling only yesterday, a disagreement or debate

between two members is not a matter for the Chair to weigh into or adjudicate.

As such, it's the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has not

occurred.

Prior to concluding, the Chair will note an awareness of the frustrations that exist

around the management of House business — a frustration that is rooted in a genuine

desire that all members have to undertake their parliamentary duties and to fulfil

the democratic process.

The Chair acknowledges that the House Leaders have a key role in ensuring the smooth

operation of the House. In the coming weeks, the Chair will take it upon himself to

work with the House Leaders to find a better and more collaborative way forward prior

to the resumption of House sittings in 2024.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented

Areas) Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

[1:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES

(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 47; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On the amendment (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let's get this committee underway. We're here with Bill 47, 2023,

Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.

P. Milobar: I'll be very brief with my comments to the proposed amendment to clause 1. Under the

definition of "transit-oriented area," which, as it currently reads, "means an area

within a prescribed distance from a transit station," it would actually add in "except

for an area that is part of a heritage conservation area."

We have this amendment, as I indicated, at the very front end. We also have a similar,

exact-same-worded amendment except to deal with the Vancouver Charter in clause 12.

However, due to the closure provisions that the government has brought forward, restricting

debate and what time this bill will have to be dealt with, we're not 100 percent sure

we'll get to that clause. But we wanted to make sure that it was known.

That's why you would have heard previous speakers interchanging what may or may not

be happening with Vancouver and heritage areas, as well as other areas of the province.

Just to make the minister aware, we are aware that this would not impact Vancouver

directly, but certainly clause 12 would.

That's why those comments were made, in that light, if there was some confusion, potentially.

We are well aware, as an opposition, of the differences there. We probably have very

light commentary on clause 12 as a result, though, and just thought we would try to

bundle those together.

That pretty much sums up my comments, and we do hope the government will see fit to

support this amendment that many, many community leaders have been asking for, over

the last few days, as this bill has moved forward and getting closer to committee

stage.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for bringing this amendment forward.

Although I support the principle of the amendment, we won't be supporting this amendment.

The reason why is that heritage properties are, with this legislation, already exempt.

So if it's a national, provincial or local government–identified heritage site or

area, it is already exempt from this legislation.

Chinatown is something that certainly my colleagues from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

and Vancouver-Fraserview also spoke to me about and is not part of this legislation.

The Heritage Conservation Act and the national heritage acts and the Local Government

Act supersede this legislation.

[1:15 p.m.]

I do appreciate the members raising it, because I, too, share that passion to protect

that vitally important heritage. I know all members of this House do, so that's why

that important provision is there.

Chinatown has a national heritage designation, the entire area, so all of that is

exempt from this this important legislation.

The Chair: Shall the proposed amendment moved by the member for Richmond North Centre pass?

Division has been called.

[1:20 p.m. - 1:25 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 24

Ashton

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Walker

Wat

nays — 45

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Banman

Beare

Begg

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Paddon

Parmar

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Rustad

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

A. Singh

R. Singh

Whiteside

[1:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Members are reminded that photos in the chamber are not permitted.

Member for Kootenay East, photos are not permitted in the chamber.

All right, Members. Let's resume here with the committee stage of Bill 47. We are

on clause 1.

M. Lee: I want to take this opportunity to join in the review of Bill 47 with the time that

we have in this chamber.

I must say that I didn't have the opportunity to address the points I wanted to raise

in relation to the Vancouver Charter. We were just into clause 27 of Bill 44 when

closure was brought down.

As we know, in terms of the tremendous build of transit infrastructure in the city

of Vancouver, including the Canada Line, which runs right through the middle of Vancouver-Langara

and the ridings for Vancouver-Fairview, Vancouver–False Creek and out to Richmond….

We know how important that transit infrastructure is.

As we consider Bill 47, in terms of transit-oriented areas…. There were a number of

items that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, as the shadow minister responsible

for housing, and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson were addressing with the minister

around off-street parking and what that means. The minister, in response, was talking

about some measure of frequent transit areas, including what is contemplated by TransLink.

This is the linkage between, for example, what this government has brought forward,

in a rapid fashion, in a piecemeal fashion, without due consideration and an opportunity

for discussion and understanding, at least for residents in Vancouver, as to the impact

of Bill 47….

I wanted to ask the minister, as we consider Bill 47 and transit-oriented areas and

the density that will be sought around transit-oriented areas…. Is the test around

frequent transit areas the test that will be applied, in terms of understanding, when

we're talking about transit, in terms of wait times being the 15-minute test? Is that

the test that is going to be brought to bear in terms of determining transit-oriented

areas?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member. It's the first time the member and I have had a chance to

have an exchange in this place.

There are two types of provincially designated transit-oriented areas, transit hubs

— within 800 metres of a rapid transit station, like SkyTrain, and within 400 metres

of a bus exchange where passengers transfer from one route to another.

And the three TOD area types would be type 1A, which is rapid transit hubs in Metro

Vancouver. Type 1B is bus exchanges in Metro Vancouver. Type 2 is bus exchanges in

the capital region, Kelowna and other medium-sized municipalities, and then type 3

is bus exchanges in small-sized municipalities.

M. Lee: I can't resist to respond to the minister responsible for housing, because I was standing

in this chamber, of course, only…. I think it was two days ago when we were debating

Bill 45. I did make a comment that I was disappointed that the minister responsible

for housing wasn't in the chamber addressing the important provisions around shelters

in clause 1 and clause 2 of the bill. Of course, my colleague the member for Abbotsford

West is now doing that with the Attorney General, and I did get called out for that…

The Chair: Of course….

M. Lee: …as you are about to call me out on that as well, and I appreciate that.

The Chair: I am, because we don't comment on legislation happening in another place.

M. Lee: At which point, Mr. Chair, I did say: "Well, I'm not getting any answers from the

Minister of Housing." But in any event, I just had to say it that way.

I appreciate the opportunity here to get clarity from the minister responsible for

housing. I know, when the minister says that…. And I observed in the Douglas Fir Committee

Room previously, on Bill 44, that the minister certainly recognizes the build around

infrastructure, including the Metro Vancouver 2050 transport plan.

Again, just focusing on Vancouver, because that's the time that I have here, when

we talk about 800 metres from a SkyTrain or a Canada Line, 400 metres from a bus exchange

or the first category of transit-oriented development — 1A, as the minister referred

to — for rapid transit bus exchange and, presumably, rapid transit….

We know that in that plan, in terms of the 2050 plan, there has been a focus on the

important need to support and expand rapid transit bus service across Vancouver, South

Vancouver, 49th and 41st Avenue.

The minister may well know that, for example, at Langara College, 85 percent of the

students there, before the pandemic, arrived to go to school at Langara College, at

49th and Cambie, by transit. It's just an example of the importance of transit along

49th. And 41st, of course, we have the build of a second town centre for Vancouver

around Oakridge.

Of course, Mr. Chair, as you may well know, as a local Vancouver MLA as well, Marine

Gateway has expanded tremendously because of the vision of the Leader of the Official

Opposition when he was the Transportation Minister under the former government, building

the Canada Line, which of course has now enabled the kind of density, transit-oriented

development, that this government is now recognizing the importance of.

Having said that, the concerns around frequent transit areas and 15-minute wait times

are very present for the residents of South Vancouver, because when they get…. They're

trying to get to work in the morning or return to work.

[1:40 p.m.]

Let's just say they go to work in the morning, and they're standing at the foot of

Marine Drive and Fraser or Main Street. For those who are above 49th or 57th, the

buses go by. The wait times are more than 15 minutes, and the buses are often full.

I've been told by riders who are getting on at the Marine station of Canada Line at

the foot of Marine Drive and Cambie, Marine Gateway, that bus 100, when it leaves

that station and goes to its next stop and the stop after that, is already full. This

is a place in South Vancouver which…. Unlike so many areas in Vancouver, 32 percent

of the residents travel on transit to work every day, yet its transit infrastructure

is at a deficit compared to all the other parts of Vancouver.

This is something that the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and SFU have done a

study on and have released. Marpole Neighbourhood House is doing a similar asset-deficit

review.

As we look at frequent transit areas and the build around what is permissible under

Bill 44 as it was passed and this transit-oriented development bill, Bill 47, has

the government done an assessment as to the transit needs that are going to be necessary

in order to support the potential lift in density in South Vancouver?

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

TransLink has just completed their 2050 strategy, and it includes growth patterns

expected with the expansion of transit. This is very much aligned with that. The member,

I think, raises the point around South Vancouver, in particular — his community, his

region — and all of that was considered by TransLink in that strategy.

The member also asked about investments. We provided $1.9 billion to TransLink in

the 2018 investment plan, $2.4 billion for the TransLink 2022 investment plan. We

just provided $479 million with the year-end to support TransLink so they can continue

to maintain the service levels. I know that goes a long way, as the member highlighted,

supporting the students in Langara.

I think we could agree that those investments are important, and they need to continue

to happen to support people in the member's community but also those that commute

from outside of the community to come to the member's riding.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response and, of course, the continued need to build transit infrastructure

in Vancouver.

We've seen recognition by the city council in Vancouver. Recently, they focused on

the need to support and give input to Metro Vancouver's board around the further need

to support transit build-out on Hastings Street on the premise that it would then

link up in a better way with the North Shore.

Of course, we know, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has called upon, in terms

of building additional infrastructure out to the North Shore, how critical that's

going to be. This just demonstrates the need for understanding around investment in

rapid transit and build-out of transit infrastructure.

[1:45 p.m.]

As we do that and as we encourage, under this Bill 47, what is clearly recognized

as important, both by myself and members of our caucus and our leader, in terms of

recognizing the importance of what we're building around transit infrastructure, the

planning around the impact on communities — as I was just giving a few examples of

— is very important.

Right now, even with the current plants of density around the Canada Line, South Vancouver

still is at a deficit. We don't have enough supports. By that, I also mean further

consideration of a bus line going along 57th Avenue, east to west, and additional

Canada Line stations at 33rd and 57th avenues. These additional stations for the Canada

Line were contemplated as part of the original plan back in 2010 and 2011, when the

Canada Line opened.

Now as we continue to see silence from TransLink around those sites, we know it's

important — as we build further development at Langara Gardens, on 57th and Cambie;

at MST lands on the Heather Lands, on the site of the old RCMP headquarters, the Cambie

corridor — that those additional Canada Line stations will be very important to ensure

that we have the continued support of and access to the Canada Line.

Right now, as it stands, we go from King Ed at 25th to 41st, with nothing in between

— 16 blocks. We go from 41st Avenue down to Marine Drive, with nothing in between.

This is the reason why we need to have those additional stations built at 33rd and

57th.

When we're talking about this Bill 47 coming forward and creating greater density

allowable around this transit-oriented infrastructure, including the Canada Line,

we need to ensure that the province is working with the local governments to build

that additional transit infrastructure to support the growing population.

I know, from my past discussions with the city of Vancouver over the last number of

years, that there is a business case to be made for a $100 million station to be built.

We've seen the city of Richmond do an infill station. We know it can be done technically.

We know, if we are working with builders of housing, including those who are doing

the sites at 57th and Cambie and 33rd and Cambie, that there are great possibilities,

but I know, in talking to those builders of housing, that they're not getting much

response from TransLink.

What is the expectation of the minister responsible for housing around building further

transit infrastructure as we continue to look at building further housing around the

infrastructure itself?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that I share the member's desire to see the transit-related infrastructure

expand. I think we all can agree in this House that, as more and more people are using

transit, we want to continue to meet that test for everyone.

There's a huge generational shift that's happening with transit. You know, when I

was younger, you'd catch a bus very rarely. Now my 13-year-old and his friends are

on the bus everywhere, all the time. Because of their student passes, they just get

on a bus and call me from some random place. I'm like, "How did you get there?" and

they're: "Well, we just took the bus." As a parent, I worry a little bit about that,

but it also is a reminder that that shift is happening in a big way.

I share with the member his belief that we need to continue to expand this. I know

the Mayors' Council is having deliberations on what that expansion looks like. I've

had an opportunity to talk to Mayor Brad West multiple times about the need for us

to work together to expand the services in communities in Vancouver but also across

Metro Vancouver. I think he shares that passion.

I'm confident the member knows that they announced their first three, I guess, routes

that they're going to prioritize for bus rapid transit. The North Shore is part of

it — Surrey, King George, much needed, and of course into the North Shore. I think

that is going to make a significant difference in those communities. I know Richmond

is having conversations. I know my mayor, with councillors, is advocating strongly

that Scott Road be part of that.

I think that we need to ensure that transit continues to expand, and we need to ensure,

when we invest billions of dollars in transit, that we have housing that comes with

it. So I think the member and I agree. Certainly, I've been advocating for that increase

to happen.

M. Lee: Just to respond to the minister, I know that in global cities like Vancouver and Surrey,

and elsewhere in our province, we recognize the shift as we see the greater reliance

on public transit, if we have the systems in place. That's why that forward-looking

vision by the Leader of the Official Opposition, to see the needs of where the province

needed to go, was years in the making, prior to 2010.

Metro in their 2050 plan have projected that there's going to be a need for an additional

500,000 homes built in the Metro Vancouver area in the next 30 years. As the minister

talks about what that might look like transit-wise, through that plan, we know that

with this housing bill, Bill 47, the changes that this government has brought forward

overnight have changed the view, even on those existing projects on the Cambie corridor.

I was speaking to a recent homebuilder who has a project at 49th and Cambie. Originally,

they had contemplated it to be townhomes, low-rise condo-type arrangements, as we

see along the Cambie corridor. I always had advocated, for years, even before I was

elected, that we needed to build the right mix of housing — more rental, more family,

not what was viewed to be so-called luxury projects along the Cambie corridor. It

was all the same.

I think that with the city of Vancouver, after different attempts with the developer

responsible for Oakridge, we've seen a different mix. It's a better mix, and we've

seen the cascading down of six-storey units and the like around Oakridge.

[1:55 p.m.]

That's an example of the importance of working with municipalities and understanding,

of course, as did former Premier Mike Harcourt and former MLA Darlene Marzari, MLA

for Point Grey…. I remember meeting with MLA Darlene Marzari and Dr. Tom Perry when

they were MLAs for Point Grey and I was student body president of UBC, talking about

the importance of housing and student housing around the university campus.

I know that in their history, as this minister and this government well recognize

— as the Premier did recognize today, as well — they know a lot about urban planning

and about housing in our city, including the city of Vancouver. Their concern, as

they've communicated — the words they've been using — is that there has been a blizzard

of arbitrary measures, that this is a one-size-fits-all approach and that it's a blunt

policy framework that the government is moving forward with.

Really, there are suggestions that they have, which do speak to the importance of

understanding, of working with municipalities. For example, even in the Marpole community….

The minister did hit on some of this in his debate, in committee review on Bill 44,

clause 15, which I wanted to get to, and clause 27, on the Vancouver Charter, which

we did not get a chance to do because of closure.

I know that for my constituents in Marpole, they were committed to, by successive

city governments in Vancouver, that there would be a 10-acre park built in Marpole,

in South Vancouver, in exchange for greater density that was being built in Marpole

as part of the Marpole plan, dating back to 2008.

Here we have an example of a neighbourhood, a community, in Vancouver. I know Grandview-Woodland,

Sunset. There are many other communities — Yaletown, West End, False Creek, who are

still waiting for a Vancouver Olympic elementary school.

The importance of coordination and investment by the province of British Columbia

in education, health care and transportation…. That coordination is necessary. That's

what I'm asking for the minister to clarify, as to bringing forward these housing

bills, with what continue to be big disconnects with municipalities.

The city of Vancouver has not honoured that Marpole commitment. They have gone forward

with TransLink to build a second bus exchange. This is for green, electric-powered

buses at the foot of Cambie Street. That's important, certainly, but it's a second

bus exchange in South Vancouver.

The density continues to be built by virtue of this Bill 47, yet in the debate on

Bill 44, there was mention and recognition of green space. There is an acknowledgment

of the importance of healthy, sustainable communities. Marpole has been overrun.

When we bring forward bills like this, without the necessary discussion of measures

around it, I'm very concerned about what former premier Mike Harcourt and Darlene

Marzari talk about and refer to, as we see, to try and understand the measures that

this government is bringing forward and to try and put it together.

I've been advocating through my elected life for the communities of South Vancouver

to build that right level of community infrastructure to support the housing that

we need for the growing population that we see.

To the minister, I would give him one last opportunity to at least respond to myself,

for the residents of South Vancouver, as to the recognition of how, with this Bill

47 — and the other bills, if he chose to comment — this government is going to ensure

that we're building the right level of community infrastructure on health, transit

and education to support the growing population that these bills are arbitrarily putting

on top of municipalities to build without much interaction and coordination with the

local community plans.

[2:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for sharing the concern that residents in Marpole have raised

with him.

I haven't spoken to the mayor of Vancouver around Marpole specifically. I think the

member does touch on a really important point, which is that we need to ensure that

we continue to invest in our infrastructure and have housing. We need to do them together.

When we look at hospital expansions, we see St. Paul's is being built. We've got expansion

happening in New West. Surrey hospital is coming. All these things have to be integrated.

Look at schools. I mean, it varies for schools. We have some communities — in Surrey,

in Langley — where the population has surpassed the modelling that the local governments

had. I had an opportunity to meet with the mayor of Surrey, the school board trustees

and the Minister of Education. They shared with us their modelling of what they expected

over the three or four years, and then where the trend line actually went. Their modelling

was completely off.

Some communities have seen additional populations. Then I met with the chair of the

Vancouver school board, who shared that there are schools that just don't have the

same population numbers as they used to. Obviously, there's been lots of discussion

about the school board and the deliberations about whether they should sell the land

or if they should keep it, etc. So it does vary from community to community.

What we're trying to do here is…. First, there's a certain level of predictability

with the infrastructure that there will be housing around it. But also, a move to

a process where we're planning more often: set five-year planning so that everyone

understands — and pre-zoning is done so people understand — where the growth can potentially

come so you can plan.

It also helps, I think, the Mayors' Council. Their work that they've done on the 2050,

in the modelling, combines population growth and transit needs in their report, so

it gives them the ability, also, to plan. And it gives B.C. Hydro the ability to plan,

because now they know this is coming, and they've got to do the work.

I would agree with the member that all of these things need to work together, and

it's not one or the other. We need to do all of it at the same time.

[2:05 p.m.]

Of course, we canvassed that the Mayors' Council is looking at what the future expansion

could be. We're talking Vancouver right now, but I think the member would agree with

me that going out to Maple Ridge and making sure there are transit opportunities out

there…. All of it is important, but we want to make sure that housing is connected

to it.

P. Milobar: I've just got a few questions for clarification. As I said at the onset and as we've

said through second reading, we generally support both the concept of Bill 47 and

what it's hoping to do. There might be some areas we don't totally agree with. We

might not agree with some of the regulation to come, but we'll cross that bridge when

we get to it.

Similar to our amendment to clause 1, which we dealt with earlier…. Really, our goal

here today, I think, is to get some answers and provide, maybe, some extra clarity

to the public. That's really what that amendment was about. I'm not going to speak

to that amendment. We'll have another one on 12 that we'll still pursue.

If I can get the minister…. There was some confusion, when we've been talking with

groups out there about this bill, on whether or not the 20 storeys on certain corridors

is a minimum or a maximum. The ten story…. Or is it six storey? We've heard both in

terms of some of the smaller centres that strictly have the bus service and not the

high-speed-rail-type of SkyTrain service.

Could the minister just give a very clear overview of…? What are the minimums, both

in that much more highly densified, high-speed SkyTrain-type of corridor versus the

more bus-and-transit-hub scenarios of the six or the ten storeys?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To make this conversation the most efficient…. I've got a spreadsheet here that's

got all the breakdowns. If the member wants a copy of that, I can just pass it along.

P. Milobar: Just because we are under a closure time frame where the government…. If the minister

is fine, I'll read the chart but ask what would have been my follow-up question regardless.

The Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation, just on the 16th, passed some new

high-speed corridors. Again, we fully support that. This is not about if they should

or shouldn't be doing that. Obviously, we need to see transit continue to expand,

especially in fast-growing urban areas.

One of the routes was Surrey to White Rock down King George Boulevard. That makes

sense, just off the top of my head. Knowing some of the transportation corridors,

as little as I do, within that area, that makes sense.

Obviously, some questions arise. White Rock, over the years, has not exactly had skyscrapers

grow quickly. Would these provisions in Bill 47, on that new rapid route, come into

effect, and if so, what would be the height minimums within the White Rock area?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's question around BRT.

There's still work that needs to happen with TransLink. TransLink doesn't have clear

definitions of how they define BRT yet because it doesn't exist. The work is happening

right now with TransLink on how they want to define it, how we can come to an agreement

on

definitions. Then that'll be something that gets considered with regs sometime

in the future.

The BRT doesn't exist right now, so it was a challenge to put it in legislation until

that work is done.

P. Milobar: Reading the minister's chart, I think I can see where, maybe, some of the confusion

I've been hearing from other municipalities, people that I know from a past life,

may have come from.

Just to clarify, there's the minimum allowable height of storeys, be it 20 or up to

ten, up to six; minimum allowable floor area ratios or densities; and the prescribed

distance to the various types of bus exchanges. Cities — I understand how they're

broken out. Kamloops would be a type 2 city, Kelowna, things of that nature.

The way it's written for the bill, then, the minimum allowable height, unless a city

has zoning or an OCP requirement that would say — for the 20-storey, we'll say — that

everything built has to be more than 20 storeys, it would actually be up to…. The

city couldn't say no to someone that wanted to build ten, even though they're in an

area that says "minimum allowable height of 20."

Is that correct? In other words, it would still be up to the developer to figure out

what would make sense for their business case, unless there's a higher standard by

that municipality.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct.

P. Milobar: Okay.

Is there any expectation…? Obviously, as soon as rules are changing in real estate,

things can either be put on hold, things can be accelerated based on clarity of what

the rules will or won't be. We've already heard that several of the other bills have

a lot left to regulation, which creates uncertainty, a chance to slow things down.

When does the minister expect those conversations with the mayors' regional transportation

around BRTs and other transportation

definitions to be solidified so that the broader

community knows what the real state of play is with Bill 47 as it actually interacts

with the actual physical land?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's hard to say exactly. TransLink, in their press release, has stated that they're

just starting the concept design work on what this will potentially look like, what

stations can possibly look like, what the service times will be. And then on top of

that, there's obviously a big ask to the federal government for dollars to make it

a reality.

It's hard to give an exact timeline given that (

a) it doesn't exist yet and (b)TransLink

hasn't defined what kind of service it's going to be, how frequent it's going to be.

I can't give the member an exact date until TransLink has done that work.

[2:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I'll use a couple of other examples, then, not TransLink but more B.C. Transit–related.

Kamloops has a downtown bus exchange. I'm assuming that would be considered a type

2 bus exchange. To qualify as a bus exchange, what would be the minimum number of

buses that would be queuing and coming and going? And would, say, the queuing that

happens just outside of this building, on Government Street, be considered a bus exchange?

Hon. R. Kahlon: For bus exchanges, it must have two or more bus connections added.

Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On clause 12.

P. Milobar: I rise to make an amendment.

It's essentially the same amendment as the member from Richmond presented back in

clause 1. This is on clause 12, which is the Vancouver Charter.

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

Section 2 of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, is amended by adding the following

definitions:

"transit-oriented area" means an area within a prescribed distance from a transit station , except for an area that is part of a heritage conservation area ;]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I'll be very, very brief, because our members did speak around both Vancouver as well

as other parts of the province — and fundamentally, I guess what we didn't make clear

the first time to the minister. Hopefully, this one could come into effect because

it does impact Vancouver, which is where the vast majority of the concern around this

has arisen.

We understand about the provisions overriding one another and how heritage acts can

take precedence. That's why we say heritage conservation area, because we knew it

would have a certain meaning. But the reality is that there is confusion out in the

general public.

[2:20 p.m.]

This doesn't fundamentally change the bill at all. It doesn't restrict anything. It

doesn't change anything. It provides clarity. It provides clarity, especially to communities

of ethnic origins that have concerns around this — Chinatown, the Punjabi Market and

things of that nature — so that as they read the legislation and go looking to see

how it might impact them, they have certainty and clarity.

They're not hunting around to check other forums to see if it does or doesn't take

effect. They're not trying to figure out what actually takes precedence over another.

Does the federal government take precedence over, or does the municipal government

act take precedence over?

It's really about providing that clarity to people. More importantly than providing

clarity to the people while the debate around this bill is happening, and there's

a hyper-awareness of what's going on, once this bill is passed, this is about providing

clarity three years from now for somebody when there are totally different players

involved. There are different staff. There are different ministers. There's different

everything. Because there's always perpetual change.

That's really what the intention of this is, as was with the first one. I apologize

we didn't make that abundantly clear in our comments, but we're trying to correct

that error that seems to have been missed in the drafting of this. That's why we are

trying to amend a definition area just to provide clarity to people, a very clear

and easy, concise way for people to look at it and say they can or can't do something

within that heritage area.

That's why, based on the minister's comments on the amendment last time, saying that

he supports the concept but just can't support the amendment, I would suggest this

is not a reach too far for the government to say, you know what? It's really not that

bad of an amendment to add in to make sure that the public can go to one source and

get clarity as they're reading through a piece of legislation to see how it impacts

transit-oriented development than having to try to sort through the hierarchy of different

levels of government and superseding pieces of legislation or not.

R. Glumac: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce a class from Anmore Elementary that is in the House today.

They made the long journey, got up really early this morning to be here and to see

this debate.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: We will take a short recess to get copies and distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 2:22 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call the committee back to order.

The amendment is in order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for bringing this forward. The drafters have notified

us that the legislation is pretty clear on this matter. In fact, I just did a quick

search on historic places online, historic places in B.C., and a full map shows up

of all the places and regions that have this type of designation. So it is fairly

easy for folks to go on there.

I would agree with the member that perhaps there was some commentary made public that

created some confusion. So this is a good opportunity to clarify that any historic

site that is designated by the federal government, by the province or by local government

is not covered by this. I share my colleague across the way's passion for wanting

to protect Chinatown, etc., to ensure that we have those historic sites protected

— at the same time, able to get housing built.

We can't support the motion, because the legislation already makes that clear.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, all those in favour of the amendment.

Division has been called.

[2:30 p.m. - 2:35 p.m.]

Members. Members, it would be helpful to the Clerks if people could be in their seats

so that we could take the attendance, as there's a number of people absent.

Members, we're voting on the proposed amendment to clause 12 in Bill 47.

[2:40 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 22

Ashton

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Walker

Wat

nays — 42

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Banman

Beare

Begg

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Kahlon

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Paddon

Parmar

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

A. Singh

R. Singh

Whiteside

Clauses 12 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES

(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented

Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

Members, is there an agreement to waive the time? Thank you.

Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023, read a third

time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings . ]

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes

Act.

[3:00 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee resumed at 3:01 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let's call this committee to order. We are on clause 1.

M. de Jong: What I'm going to do, out of deference to my colleague the Leader of the Third Party,

is to encapsulate a whole series of questions into one glorious statement to be followed

by an amendment proposal, because the leader of the Green Party has some questions,

and time is of the essence.

I only make that point because it's the kind of collaborative approach to discussions

in this chamber that in the past have served the chamber very well. It is, again,

regrettable that a committee room in this assembly sat empty for eight hours yesterday,

when we could have reviewed this material more fulsomely than we are presently having

the chance. However, we have registered that disappointment and concern. I won't spend

any more precious time now doing so.

We've learned, as is always the case — I'm obliged to the Attorney for the information

that she has provided with respect to the clauses that we have considered — the government's

intention insofar as we have been able to discern them thus far.

The key point, a part of the discussion earlier relating to the commencement clause

42, is that the government recognizes, in introducing clause 1 and 2 — we are on clause

1 now — that there are serious concerns. We've had those concerns articulated here.

They have come from the leadership council. They have come from municipalities across

British Columbia and their representative body, UBCM, from advocacy groups for communities

and the homeless — most specifically and pointedly, the homeless themselves.

The government's response to that was to acknowledge that there are these grave concerns

that apparently they did not anticipate and did not foresee, and secondly, to suggest

that those concerns were sufficiently serious to warrant distinguishing these sections.

I think, in an attempt to provide some comfort, it announced publicly: "Well, we won't

be moving forward with these sections."

Forgive me, but in the past, what that has meant is that the government would sever

those provisions, engage in the discussions and then come back and try again following

the outcome of those discussions.

That's not, pointedly, what is happening with respect to clauses 1 and 2. The government

has said: "We still want to pass them. Now, rather than having them take effect upon

royal assent" — which would take place, I guess, in an hour or two, today — "we, the

government, at some point in the future," through a far less transparent process,

a decision in the cabinet room, "will decide how, when and where for the sections

to take effect."

[3:05 p.m.]

We're not really clear on what the nature of the discussions will be. We really don't

have any sense of what the outcome is that the government is looking for or what will

trigger, in the government's mind, a belief that the prerequisite has been met for

enacting the section. We don't know any of that.

We only know this, that the language in the act won't change. Whatever discussions

take place between the government and the First Nations Leadership Council, between

the government and the UBCM, between the government and other advocacy groups, nothing

will impact the letter of the law before us. That, I would suggest, is highly presumptuous

and does a disservice to the notion of true consultation. The outcome is preordained

because the only option is a question of when the same provision will take effect.

The government has made it clear. The spokesperson for the government on this is the

Attorney, and she has said that that is the approach the government wishes to take.

Of course, the government majority has determined that that is so.

I'm going to table an amendment, and I'll offer it to the Chair for distribution.

I've made copies. The amendment tries to place, within the confines of what the government

has determined it is intent on doing…. It at least tries to further define and add

some statutory protection around this question of consultation. The amendment amends

section 274.1, or clause 1 of this bill, to add a subsection (2).

The amendment says to amend

section 274.1, or clause 1 of this bill, to add subsection

(2).

[ CLAUSE 1 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and by inserting the underlined text as

shown:

1 The Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, is amended by adding the following

section

to Division 4 of

Part 8:

Availability of shelter

274.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), for For the purposes of enforcing, under

section 274, a bylaw against a person who is sheltering

at an encampment while homeless, alternative shelter is reasonably available to the

person and meets the basic needs of the person for shelter if

(

a) the person may stay overnight at the shelter,

(

b) the person has access to a bathroom and shower at or near the shelter,

(

c) the person is offered without charge one meal a day at or near the shelter, and

(

d) the shelter is staffed when persons are sheltering at the shelter.

(2) For the purposes of enforcing, under

section 274, a bylaw against a person who

is sheltering at an encampment while homeless, subsection (1) does not apply until

after both of the following criteria have been fulfilled:

(

a) On or before June 30, 2024 the minister must conduct a consultation with all local

governments and the First Nations Leadership Council about the following:

(

i) the impact and effectiveness of

section 274.1 of this act on enforcing, under

section 274, a bylaw against a person who is sheltering at an encampment while homeless,

and

(ii) the availability of shelter that meets the criteria set out in

section 274.1.

(

b) The minister must, in respect of each consultation conducted under subsection

(1), lay a report before the Legislative Assembly. ]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: The government says: "Take us at our word." We say, at a bare minimum, these groups

deserve to have statutory protection that their views will be considered, notwithstanding

the fact that the government has made clear it has no intention of altering the language

of the provision before us.

That is the amendment I propose and offer to the committee, and I move that amendment.

The Chair: If the Chair might ask the member a question? I heard the member say in the speech

that the consultation was with local governments and the First Nations Leadership

Council. In the proposed amendment, I don't see "and the First Nations Leadership

Council." Is it meant to be in the text? Is it possible for the member to amend his

amendment to include that?

[3:10 p.m.]

We're just going to make some copies, for process reasons, to make sure that everyone

has the complete text, as moved by the member for Abbotsford West.

S. Furstenau: Given that I think we all understand the spirit and the intention, I'm wondering if

I could just say a few words in support of the amendment.

The Chair: Yes, please. I think we now have the copies anyway. Please go ahead.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the amendment being introduced by the member for Abbotsford West in that

it provides some clarity around the process that would be undertaken, as has been

suggested by the Attorney General. But it also shows some respect and acknowledgment

for the role of the Legislative Assembly in that we would be provided with the report

on that consultation that we've been told is going to happen, so I support this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, does the Attorney wish to address this?

I would just say for clarity's sake, the amendment appears to be in order.

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to refer the House to the public comment that the Premier made, I believe,

yesterday. He said he was open to changes to the consultation process and that if

we did not get this in the right place, we would not put it into force. We've been

very transparent and open with our partners.

[3:15 p.m.]

In fact, I'm informed by the Minister of Housing and the Premier that they already

had meetings with the federal housing advocate, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner,

UBCM and FNLC to share the intent, hear the feedback and discuss next steps for consultation.

In fact, the list of the people they have met with is broader than what's contemplated

in this amendment as it stands. So in my view, it's not necessary.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the proposed amendment as moved by the member for

Abbotsford West pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

S. Furstenau: It's 3:15, and I won't repeat what the member for Abbotsford West said, but we've

had extremely limited time to debate these very serious clauses. I'm hoping that the

Attorney can provide answers as rapidly as possible, because I have a lot of questions

to ask about these amendments.

The first question is: what problems related to encampments is this bill trying to

address?

Hon. N. Sharma: I will endeavour to answer as quickly. I think we talked about it in detail with the

other member, about the problem that it's hoping to address. One is lack of clarity

in the law when courts are contemplating these issues of de-encampment. De-encampments

are growing in communities. Municipalities are taking steps to act.

I gave an example, a few times, of Prince George. The best practice that we try to

employ when it comes to de-encamping and providing alternative shelter on the spectrum,

all the way to housing for individuals, involves partnerships with municipalities.

It's necessary for us to have that partnership together.

This particular amendment was with respect to a municipality seeking an injunction.

And in that scenario, we felt like there should be a common understanding of what's

necessary to prevent issues like what happened in Prince George, where, despite the

MOU, the municipality moved forward with a de-encampment without there being alternative

shelter available. We think that it provides that common ground and a good intervention

into the law related to this.

S. Furstenau: Was there other wording considered for these amendments? And if so, what was it?

Hon. N. Sharma: Under the normal rules of this Legislature and legislative process, drafts or previous

drafts of legislation are under privilege for cabinet and legislative reasons.

S. Furstenau: The Attorney indicated that the problem related to encampments…. The example she used

was Prince George, where there was an MOU, but the city moved to decamp people.

How does this particular legislation prevent decampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: There's bigger work with the Ministry of Housing and local partners to, I think was

the question, prevent encampments or prevent de-encampment.

[3:20 p.m.]

The purpose of this amendment is to, in an instance where there is action to de-encamp,

set criteria before the court and the local government as to what they should consider

with respect to alternative shelter or meeting the basic needs of people.

S. Furstenau: Did the government consider alternatives to putting this legislation forward? For

example, increasing services to outdoor sheltering spaces, such as washrooms, storage,

electricity and fire safety training?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to the question is yes.

It's important that this provision be put in the context that it is and not be used

to say it's our full answer to encampments. We provided $4 million over three years

for an encampment support fund to invest in things like the member suggests, like

better washrooms, better things for an encampment.

We've also invested $1.5 billion through Budget 2023 for new initiatives aimed at

helping people to prevent and reduce homelessness in the province. That's including

$44 million for temporary modular housing to support people sheltering in encampments

to move inside.

I could go on, but we've done a lot with respect to that.

S. Furstenau: Does the Attorney have the number of temporary modular housing units that have been

provided?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Because there have been so many investments in supportive housing, and I think the

member's question was about modular housing, I'm going to give a broader…. Because

some is modular; some isn't.

Since 2017, there have been 4,800 people who were moved from homelessness, who have

moved into new supportive housing units. That's in 30 communities across the province.

I also had a stat for the specific program, which I can endeavour to get to you at

another question.

S. Furstenau: I think I heard the number 4,800 since 2017, of people that have been provided with

some form of housing.

If the number is readily available, does the Attorney General know how many people

in B.C. are currently homeless?

[3:30 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: If I may, we're discussing encampments. We're discussing the housing crisis and homelessness.

I've asked a question of how many people in B.C. are currently homeless. I don't think

it should take five minutes to get that answer.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, thanks for asking me. I was endeavoring to get you a more complete number of

the number of units available than we had, but I will move on. Then we can try to

get that to you at some point.

From the preventing and reducing homelessness project, the stat from 2020, which is….

I think the one that we have here is that an estimated 23,400 people have experienced

homelessness at some point between January and December 2020. That's the one stat

that relates to that.

S. Furstenau: So 23,000 plus in 2020. We know that the crisis of poverty has deepened. We know that

in regions that have reported out on homelessness, numbers have typically increased

pretty significantly. We're probably nearer to, let's estimate, between 30,000 and

40,000 at this point. I could be wrong. I would say well over 23,000 if that was three

years ago, given what we have seen in all of our communities as the growing crisis

of homelessness.

The onus in these amendments really isn't on, as was established by the member for

Abbotsford West in the conversation around the responsibility for providing shelter

and social housing, which is on the province…. The onus is providing what the Attorney

General says is a clarity of definition around reasonable shelter so that municipalities

have the capacity to seek injunctions.

Did the government consider issuing a moratorium on encampment and evictions until

housing was made available to people who need housing? This could be a whole range

of the types of housing — tiny home villages like we have in Duncan, mobile homes,

other measures that encampment residents have asked for.

Why was the onus not put on the province to provide the social housing and the housing

that they should be required to provide?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think it's really important to put this provision in context. I think the member

said that the onus is shifted onto a municipality, and I just want to correct that.

That's not the purpose of this.

We know that the provincial government has responsibility for housing, and we're actively

investing in a range of not only initiatives for support of people but also a range

of types of housing in communities to prevent homelessness and to move people into

housing that they need to stay housed.

The purpose of this is when a municipality is seeking an injunction to enforce an

order to de-encamp. In that particular situation, we felt it necessary for clarity

on the law. I went over, in detail, why the reasons were for that: because of scenarios

that have come up in this province and in courts that I think didn't meet the dignity

of the people that were being de-encamped in the scenarios. I just wanted to say that.

These are very complicated issues in scenarios we know. And we probably have all heard

of safety issues that can exist in encampments, particularly for women. So the reason

that this particular provision is before the House right now is to answer the question

of what is meeting the basic needs of people to move them along from an encampment.

S. Furstenau: Courts have repeatedly recognized — and I think it's really important, in the context

of this conversation, that there have been a lot of court cases — that evicting encampments

where actual long-term housing is not available simply leads to a cyclical movement

of people from one place to another, from one park to another, without changing any

of the negative effects of an encampment. In Adamson, Stewart and Bamberger, this

was part of why the courts refused injunctions to evict encampments.

How does this bill do anything but continue to perpetuate that cycle?

Hon. N. Sharma: I would agree with the member, with the statement that said that displacing people

from an encampment without alternative shelter is not solving the issue, is not leading

to dignity of that individual that's de-encamped, nor is it helping municipalities,

because encampments may start in different places.

Exactly for those reasons, we felt the need to come to a common understanding for

municipalities and the courts that when de-encampments happen, there is alternative

shelter that meets the basic needs of an individual and to provide that dignity and

consider that when a de-encampment process is happening from a municipality.

S. Furstenau: How can this legislation address any of the negative effects of people who are living

outdoors when it doesn’t require that there be long-term housing available to put

in when prohibiting outdoor sheltering?

I'm going to add to this. I brought this up in my second reading comments. There are

people for whom shelters are not a feasible option. How does this legislation impact

those people?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I think it's important to put this provision in the context that it is.

The provincial policy and how we have shown our commitment to de-encampments starts

when the people are in the encampment, and, on a voluntary basis, an individualized

assessment of the needs of that individual and then the moving along to an alternative

shelter space.

Like in the example that I raised in Prince George, there was an MOU. There were shelter

spaces set to come on board from that assessment in the encampment of what the needs

were for that population of people.

This is very specific, this provision. It's when a municipality is seeking an injunction

to enforce a de-encampment. In that scenario, we think it's right that the municipality

will have considered the criteria of shelter that meets the basic needs of that individual

in the process of that de-encampment.

S. Furstenau: I think it's important to note that if the shelters were available, and they met

the basic needs of people, then people wouldn't have to be forced into those spaces.

Has this been taken into account?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think it's important to say — to acknowledge the member and the question asked —

that people have individualized needs with respect to housing, and this, our bigger

housing plan, has seen record investments in a diverse level of shelters across the

province.

Since 2017, overall shelter space has increased by 45 percent across this province,

and permanent shelter spaces have doubled. We have record investments in setting up

shelter spaces across the province. We have some municipalities that are willing partners

in establishing the shelters in their communities, and some that are not. So I think

to answer that question, we acknowledge that there are diverse needs.

We're making those investments in shelter spaces, and we're willing to work with municipalities

across this province to get more shelter spaces in their communities.

[3:45 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I think it's also very important to recognize the difference between the aspiration

of having more and more shelter spaces versus the aspiration of having homes for people

to live in. Those are two very different things.

I think that the point I was raising was that for a lot of people, shelters aren't

a viable option for a variety of reasons, including, for example, being a residential

school survivor, or having suffered abuse in the hands of a provincial institution,

like a health care system.

The aspiration of more and more shelter spaces is like the aspiration of more and

more food banks. We're not solving the problem. We're just responding to the symptoms

of the problems.

In this case, creating the conditions where municipalities can seek injunctions against

encampments, and saying, "You know, we can forcibly evict people because there are

X number of shelter spaces nearby," does not solve the problem for a lot of people.

It continues to perpetuate exactly the kind of harms that actually make it harder

for those people to thrive.

What is an encampment, for the purpose of this bill? How many people and structures

need to be present in a place for it to be an encampment? Does one person living in

one tent constitute an encampment? What about one person sleeping under a tarp in

an alley or a park? Is that an encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the member raised an important point of shelter and home. We have built and

are underway on 77,000 units of homes for people in this province. You can't isolate

one part of our plan that's very comprehensive. I could probably stand up and talk

a lot about all the investments we're making — record investments — on homes for people

in this province. But I know we won't have the time to do that.

I also want to correct what the member said about what these provisions do. It's not

a green light for municipalities to move towards de-encampment. It's not a checklist.

The point is that when they're going towards an injunction, and they're seeking an

injunction to enforce their rights for bylaw enforcement for de-encampment, there's

a common understanding of what the criteria is to assess if alternative shelter is

available that meets the basic needs.

[3:50 p.m.]

That's what was missing in the way the law was developing and the way municipalities

and courts have been communicating to each other through court hearings. That's why

we did it.

There is, as I mentioned earlier, no need for a definition of "encampment" in this

legislation. It doesn't require a definition of encampment. It's in an instance where

a municipality has sought to enforce their bylaw with respect to removing what they

have already determined is an encampment through the courts. In that scenario, what

we're asking is…. We're putting in this criteria that sets out the factors for what's

meeting the basic needs.

We don't have a definition of encampment here. It's not needed.

S. Furstenau: What is overnight? How many nights must a person be able to stay overnight for? For

example, could a municipality evict everyone from a tent city into a shelter if that

shelter is scheduled to be closed a few days or, even, a few weeks later?

Hon. N. Sharma: Putting this in the context of a court determination…. That's when this would come

up.

The member was talking about subsection (

a) and the overnight. Maybe she could nod

if that's what she was talking about, or was it a broader thing? Okay.

[3:55 p.m.]

Overnight shelter. It would be up to the court to determine, but it's in the context

of the larger provision. The larger provision says reasonably available to the person

and meets their basic needs and is alternative shelter. The goal and the drive would

be for a municipality to show that the overnight space was not there to displace the

person and not provide the rest of it.

You have to put it in the context. It's reasonably available to the person and meets

their basic needs. That would be for the court to determine.

S. Furstenau: Would there need to be enough reasonably available shelter for everyone who is currently

homeless in the community or the municipality or just for the people who are in the

encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: That would depend on the scope of the injunction that's before the court in that scenario.

It would apply to that scope.

S. Furstenau: I'm not sure what "apply to that scope" would mean.

I'm going to put a scenario in front of the Attorney. Maybe she can answer this. What

would prevent a municipality, for example, from evicting everyone currently staying

in a shelter and then being able to say they have enough shelter spaces to address

all of the members of this encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: I mean, I assume that it wasn't meant this way. I would say…. The way that the shelters

operate is with non-profit partners and B.C. Housing and partners in the community.

It's not in direct municipality control.

The scenario that was brought up by the member…. It wouldn't be the non-profit or

B.C. Housing displacing people that were in the shelter. I guess the scenario wouldn't

happen. It's disparaging to the people and the partners that we would work with in

the community to run those shelters.

S. Furstenau: No intention of being disparaging. Just wanting to really understand the circumstances

that could be created to make injunctions successful.

Considering what we've seen and what the Attorney has raised about Prince George and

what we saw with the decampment that happened in Vancouver earlier this year…. I would

say that there's not a lot of ground for a huge amount of good faith at all times

when it comes to how people who are homeless are treated in this province.

I think it's important to recognize that people are not having their basic needs met.

In 2020, there were 23,000 people without homes in this province. I think there are

more now. This is a significant number of British Columbians.

What does the term "may stay" mean? Does it mean that the person is permitted to stay?

Does it mean only that the person is permitted to stay by the space provider, or does

it mean that the space is practically accessible to the person in question, considering

their individual circumstances?

[4:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you. Welcome to the chair.

I'm informed that the purpose of the "may" is to distinguish between daytime and overnight

shelter. There are shelters that are only daytime, and there's no overnight. So the

"may" is in there to set the shelters, that a person may stay overnight at that shelter.

The Chair: Member.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The second part of the question. Does it take into account that the space is accessible

to the person in question considering their individual circumstances, for example,

in a wheelchair?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I talked about it before, but I'll mention it because it's important in this

context. Generally speaking, the way our provincial policy approach aligns with the

bigger work we're doing is the assessment of the needs of the individual as they move

through the spectrum of housing or what's available to them.

In a best-practice scenario, in which we work with our municipal partners, we go to

the encampments. We speak to people who are voluntarily offered alternative shelter

that is based on what their needs are.

This provision — I want to set it apart a little bit because this is when municipalities

seek an injunction. It's not meant for the individualized assessment criteria here.

It's to put guidance in and criteria for the courts and municipalities in determining

whether or not the alternative shelter is reasonably available to the person when

they're enforcing the encampment for that population.

S. Furstenau: I'm asking for these kind of details because I think it isn't entirely clear what

the intentions are. For example, how near do bathrooms, shower facilities and free-meal

providers need to be to meet the bill's requirements? Within a certain distance? What

is that distance? Is it a walking distance? Is it a transit distance? Again, is a

person's mobility taken into account with that?

Hon. N. Sharma: At the very top, in the language that couches it, it talks about "reasonably available

to the person." We would expect that a court, on a fact-specific basis, would assess

the application and whether or not, with that reasonableness, that particular fact

scenario meets that the person has access to a bathroom or shower near a shelter.

The point of these provisions is to work towards common ground and understanding the

alternative shelter that meets the person's basic needs. I'm sure the engagements

that the Premier and the Minister of Housing are having now are getting at some of

those details.

S. Furstenau: Would it, for example, be considered reasonable if there was a 24-hour Tim Hortons

and that there is nearby access to shower and a free meal in a community warming centre

down the street?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The direct answer is no, we wouldn't consider the scenario laid out by the member

to fit the criteria that are laid out in this provision.

S. Furstenau: Does the access to bathroom and shower have to be free? Would a nearby community centre

with these facilities count, even if you have to pay for entry into that facility?

Hon. N. Sharma: The provider that would be running that shelter and providing that shelter space may

pay for the service of a washroom, but we wouldn't expect that the individuals would

have to pay for that use.

S. Furstenau: Questions pertaining to human rights. There have been a significant number of groups

and organizations that have raised very serious considerations about this legislation,

including the federal housing advocate and First Nations Leadership Council.

The letter that I mentioned two days ago now has 161 signatures of people from 34

community service and advocacy organizations, 11 universities and colleges, nine law

firms, two churches or ministries and several individuals with lived experience of

homelessness.

What are the considerations that the province is putting in place in response to these

human rights concerns that have been raised?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we talked about it at length two days ago, and I have an update, also, that

I added to it. The Premier has very openly…. I think, also, I've described in detail,

with the good questions that are being asked, the intent and the purpose and the area

of law that we want to make sure has more clarity to it.

The Premier has said that we're open to changes through the consultation process,

and if we don't get it in the right place, we wouldn't put it into force. I know that

since we met a few days ago, he and the Minister of Housing have met with the federal

housing advocate, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner, UBCM and FNLC to share the intent

of the legislation, hear the feedback and discuss next steps for consultation. It's

something that we're going to take very seriously.

I was also informed that the federal housing advocate asked B.C. to contribute best

practices for a federal report based on our overall housing strategy and the work

that we're doing to move people to housing in the province.

S. Furstenau: What specific considerations were taken of human rights and constitutional requirements

in the drafting of these provisions?

Hon. N. Sharma: All the appropriate and usual processes were followed in terms of the internal legal

advice sought, but I can't speak about that, because I would infringe upon solicitor-client

privilege.

S. Furstenau: Back to the minimum shelter standards. In the definition of "reasonably available

shelter," would the shelter space be required to provide an actual bed for every person

to sleep on?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: This criteria sets out that every shelter has a place to sleep. My understanding is

that what that is varies, based on the shelter.

S. Furstenau: Would there be a requirement to provide secure space for storage of belongings? Is

it reasonably available if it limits the person to one or two small bags of belongings,

forcing them to abandon survival items and precious personal belongings?

Hon. N. Sharma: The way the decampment policy plays out in the province is that before the person

is offered alternative shelter, there's discussion of storage, or storage necessary.

Some shelter spaces may have storage; some may not. But before the alternative shelter

space decision, there is a discussion with them about what the storage needs might

be for that individual.

S. Furstenau: Just to be clear, there's no clear expectation of what sufficient storage would be?

Hon. N. Sharma: Not for the purposes of this provision.

S. Furstenau: Would space need to be available to the person during the day, either at the same

shelter or at some other space?

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision specifically refers to overnight, so it's not contemplated in this

provision.

S. Furstenau: If one considers a real-life scenario where people are decamped and there isn't sufficient

space for storage of their survival items, such as a tent and a sleeping bag…. But

the reasonableness of this indicates that it only has to be overnight.

It is now in the winter months. In many places in B.C., it's well below zero. People

are now outside, often for most of the day. How are they supposed to meet their basic

needs to stay warm enough and survive in those conditions?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We would expect municipalities to…. It's their jurisdiction about warming weather

responses for cold weather in their area, so people have a place to go to warm up

during the day. The best practice for the province and in the de-encampment response

would be that — and this happened, I think, I'm told, when the province stepped in

on Hastings — people would have storage but also access to their storage during the

day.

S. Furstenau: Why are these two clauses being added now?

Hon. N. Sharma: We had a chance to talk about this in detail today, but I'll repeat it.

Encampments are becoming an increasing issue for municipalities in this province,

but across the country, the municipalities are grappling with dealing with it. The

province is focused on making sure people have access to alternative shelters and

permanent housing through the spectrum of housing. We all want to make sure people

are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve in all scenarios.

What we saw was a gap in the law with respect to the criteria to assess what alternative

shelter meets the basic needs of people in that de-encampment process.

Specifically, this provision is related to when a municipality seeks an injunction

related to enforcing a bylaw for a de-encampment and sets out criteria for the court

and the municipality to consider what that alternative shelter that meets the basic

needs would be. These criteria are meant to guide that decision-making. We felt like

there was a need for that clarity in the law, on the basis that we want municipalities

and courts to consider the needs of the person when they're moving through a de-encampment

process.

S. Furstenau: From what I understand from the Attorney, the provisions were as a result of the government's

sense that these were needed.

What we've seen since the amendments came out is that UBCM, First Nations Leadership

Council, 161 signatories, the federal housing advocate all expressed a range of concerns

about this legislation. Did government consult specifically with UBCM, with First

Nations Leadership Council, with the federal housing advocate in the preparation of

this legislation?

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, it being 4:25, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the

House yesterday, the committee will now proceed to finalize clause-by-clause consideration

of Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.4), 2023. In accordance with

the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of

the bill.

Members, a division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called. But in

accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage

on division. With that, we will proceed.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, reported complete with

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, read a third time and

passed on division.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have been advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the

precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to

the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023

Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act

Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023

Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023

Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

In His Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

As always, it's wonderful to see all of you. I think you'll be relieved to hear that

now is not the time for my 40-minute Speech from the Throne.

It is a pleasure to be here, to release you from the session, to say I wish for all

of you every possible happiness over the season ahead, for the new year and always,

and also to express my appreciation to all of you for your loyal service to the province,

for all that you do for your constituents and all the care that you provide to them.

I look very much forward to seeing you next year, to the throne speech and to welcoming

all of you to Government House.

Take good care. Enjoy the time you have with your families and friends, and all the

best for the season and the new year.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM . See you soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[4:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 62 — AMENDMENT TO

STANDING ORDERS FOR

THURSDAY SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 62 on the order paper:

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended

1. at Standing Order 2 (1) to provide for the Thursday afternoon sitting to be from

1 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. instead of 1.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and,

2. at Standing Order 3 by striking the words “6:00 p.m. on Thursday” and replacing

them with “5:30 p.m. on Thursday”.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Kahlon: It gives me great pleasure to table the 2024 parliamentary calendar. A copy has been

sent to the opposition House Leaders' offices as well.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction

of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires

that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that

it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 42nd parliament of the province

of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to members that he is so satisfied

or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such

notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned

to that time and date.

By agreement of the Speaker of the House and the leaders of each recognized caucus,

the location of sittings and the means of conducting sittings of the House may be

altered, if required, due to an emergency situation or a public health measure. Such

agreement constitutes the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed

to. The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement and shall table

it for it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

In the event of the Speaker being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause,

the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event

of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act on his own due to illness or other cause,

the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose

of this order. In the event of the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being

unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively

by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in her stead for the purpose

of this order.

Mr. Speaker: Before we take a vote on this motion, I just want to say thank you, everyone, for

your cooperation. We had wonderful times. Yeah. That's part of our teamwork. That's

okay.

I wish each and every one of you the best of the best of the season. Have a wonderful

holiday. Be safe. Enjoy time with your families.

Before you leave, if you can clean your desks, that will be wonderful.

Now the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On behalf of everybody in this building, all of the MLAs, I want to thank the amazing

staff who make sure that this place continues to run.

Of course, the dining staff, the cleaning staff, the legislative protective services,

the Sergeant-at-Arms, the ushers, the Clerks, the Hansard staff, the tour guides,

the librarians, the Chairs of committees, the Deputy Chairs of committees…. I want

to thank all of them for the amazing work they do to enable us to be able to do this

important work.

I want to wish everybody a safe and healthy holiday with your families and your loved

ones. If you're lucky enough to have so many grandchildren, I hope you get a chance

to enjoy that.

Thank you, all.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada