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

Morning 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; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On clause 5 (continued).

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

(Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

We are on clause 5. However, the minister would like to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much Chair.

I missed the introductions in the chamber earlier, but there is a delegation of folks

here. I want to recognize Philip MacKellar and Rob Berry and a whole group of folks

that are in the back that are with the organization advocacy group called Homes for

Living. They advocate for housing options for British Columbians.

They were here today, watching question period, and I think they're staying for a

little while to watch this as well, so I want to welcome them here today.

Debate Continued

A. Walker: Yesterday I asked a question regarding the holding of public hearings, and the answer

I received was that we would talk about that in clause 6. Clause 6 is: "A local government

must not hold a public hearing on a zoning bylaw proposed for the sole purpose of

complying with

section 481.3."

Which, I guess, is related to that. Yeah, I've answered my own question. This is a

wonderful start to things.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

A. Walker: Certainly. Now I understand the discrepancy. Both clauses restricted the ability for

local governments to hold public hearings.

Originally, when the Community Charter…. Not originally, but when I was on council,

councils had to hold a public hearing, and I believe there were some changes made

that they had the option to or not to, depending on whether it was conforming with

official community plans. Now the rule is that it cannot be held at all.

One of the concerns that I raised yesterday — which was, admittedly, on the wrong

clause, now that I give this consideration, and I appreciate staff's advice on that

— is we have a project in our community that is zoned and is in the OCP as allowing

400 homes.

The challenge is now with these new changes — these new powers under 481.3 — where

single-family homes are rezoned de facto to allow for four units, that particular

project would not have an opportunity for a community to provide input. The impact

on the land base between 400 homes and 1,600 homes is dramatically different.

The question to the minister is, what are local governments supposed to do in a circumstance

like this, where their official community plan has designated a community plan that

is now dramatically different? It's a greenfield site. So, unlike before, where the

minister was talking about not casual infill — it was a modest infill. There was a

word he used where it would be sort of slow to happen. This is greenfield, so it's

brand new, and all of a sudden there are 1,600 homes that could be built here instead

of 400.

What is the local government supposed to do to ensure that the community has an opportunity

to provide input?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

I think it's important, because we're just starting the session today again, just

to take a step back and again talk about why we're doing this.

We know that when a community already has an official community plan that in order

to get more certainty, so that we can get homes built for people, we want to make

sure that we're finding the most efficient way forward. The member is correct to say

many communities have already adopted this.

A couple of things I would say. One is that local residents still have an opportunity

to connect with their elected officials if they want to. They have an opportunity

to express their views.

Second, I think it's not fair to assume that every single one of those lots that was

approved as a single-family home will be anything more than that, because we know

that there's still a market in some communities for single-family homes. They may

very well be built. But now they have the opportunity to have, depending on the size

of lot, three or four units to be built on it.

Now, the community, because of this legislation, will have to go back and use a standardized

housing needs report and update their official community plan.

There is an opportunity for the community to revisit what the community plan looks

like overall going forward. I think it's vitally important that we find ways to get

housing built, and what we know is that when a single-family home is being built,

there are options of creating different ways of housing for folks within that unit.

A. Walker: This clause is specific about the holding of public hearings.

We all agree, everybody in this House, that we need more supply. We've canvassed this

before that CMHC has said that we need 610,000 units of supply. The minister admitted

yesterday that this act and the other plans that are in place have a huge gap, and

it will not get us to where CMHC is saying that we need to go.

Yesterday the minister mentioned the B.C. Green Party as having a plan, and their

plan showed that it was meeting the CMHC targets.

But what I really want to focus on is the inability to hold a public hearing for projects

that are taking place.

I guess the question is if the OCP designates this area, as it does in our community,

for 400 units, they're going through that process. If there have already been agreements

made for DCCs, if there have already been agreements made as far as parkland dedication

that are now dramatically inadequate….

I mean, the minister states that single-families still have a market. I agree. But

the highest and best use for greenfield land is going to be determined by the economics,

and four units is going to make a lot more sense on a greenfield site than one unit

will.

So the question to the minister is, again, what opportunity will a community have

for input on a project like this that is now dramatically larger than originally proposed,

and how will their voices be heard in a public way?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's also important to note, for those that are watching at home, that projects

that are outside of the OCP will still have public hearings.

[11:20 a.m.]

If the concern from the local government is issues around infrastructure, etc. There

are provisions in the legislation for them to look at whether the infrastructure is

adequate for the housing that's going to be built there. Then they have to have a

plan to be able to get that infrastructure there.

So we do find ways to address that challenge. But what I see in my community — the

member can speak to his community — is that we have single-family homes that have

ten people living in them. In fact, I know of single-family homes that have 18 people

living in them. If you have that infrastructure built….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says he's got one that's got 25. That's great. Multigenerational families

living together are a good thing.

Now, that being said, that infrastructure need is already there with those housing

units. It is my opinion that the demand on the infrastructure is not much higher than

it is for single-family homes. So local governments will have to navigate that if

they feel there are infrastructure challenges that come with that. They have the ability,

within the legislation, to act accordingly.

A. Walker: I feel like it's a race to the bottom about who knows who has the most number of people

living in a home.

We want to make sure that we've got suitable housing for people in our communities.

People deserve to have a safe place to live. I applaud government for making bold

moves to try to advance these goals. So I'm not challenging this at all. I'm just

trying to use specific examples.

This clause is specific about public hearings — a project that's going through a zoning

process…. Yes, DCCs can be brought in. It's a bit complicated, because generally,

early on is when that conversation takes place. Sometimes these are midway.

I guess the concern is that for a project like this, when an OCP has designated 400

units, and we are now seeing an application come forward for four times that many

units, there is no additional parkland dedication. The 5 percent is 5 percent. That

is, in statute, what is set aside. The nearby community is going to see dramatic impact

from what was previously agreed to as a community — 400 units in a nodal space to

now 1,600 units. That creates pressure.

Traffic can be accommodated. Form and character — this gets rid of that. I'm less

worried about that. I'm more concerned about the impacts around things like our natural

environment, park space and the amenities that people expect. This clause takes away

the public's opportunity to provide input on projects that could have dramatic impacts

on the community.

The minister has said that there are other ways that members of the community can

interact with members of council to make sure that their voices are heard. Local governments

also have the power, through committee of the whole and other public forums, to do

this.

I just want to get on the record. I don't need an answer from the minister. I just

want to get on the record the concern I have for my community, where I can see an

immediate response of this, which is an area that is currently in the OCP for 400

homes that will now see 1,600 homes. It will have a tremendous impact on the community,

and members of the community will no longer have a public place to share those views.

With that, I can let the minister move on to the next clause.

A. Olsen: I think it's important to raise a note here. The minister just said that in his opinion,

the infrastructure — and you'll have to pardon me if I don't get this quote exactly

right — is not much different for a single-family home than it would be for a multifamily

development. This, of course, is far from the truth.

The reality of it is that the infrastructure isn't just what plugs into the house.

The infrastructure is a long network of often very complicated services that are delivered

by multiple different governments. High-pressure pipes supply community distribution

for water. Community collection feed high-pressure pipes to remove wastewater. Roads

have a capacity.

All of this has a capacity, so an analysis should have been done — it was not done,

or if it was done, it's not being made available to us — on the impact of infrastructure.

I asked this question a long time, and I want to note how concerning it is to hear

the minister say it's not much different. It has dramatic differences.

In fact, the water supply, for an example…. The wastewater removal availability for

the community of Tsartlip is…. There's a cap. There's only so much that we can take

or put into the system.

[11:25 a.m.]

If there is a dramatic increase, or even a less-than-dramatic increase, as the minister

suggests…. He suggested that this is going to be a big increase, and then says, "No,

it's not going to be a big increase," in the same breath. The impact is huge. All

those pipes, all that road that's on….

This is exactly the reason why I asked the minister to demonstrate that there was

some basic analysis done on the impact so that day 3, he doesn't stand up in here

and say there's little difference between what's needed for a single-family home and

what's needed for a multi-family home.

Of course, when all those multi-family homes plug into the same system, then you get

brownouts when it comes to hydro. You get backups when it comes to sewer. You get

water systems that are not scoped to be enough because they didn't build a high enough

wall at the Sooke River reservoir.

Unless there is an actual planning process behind that, then really what we're talking

about from this minister is more of what I've been criticizing — that this bill is

based on magical thinking. Magically, we're going to get the infrastructure that's

needed in order to be able to support the housing. If we don't, then what this amounts

to is a victory lap for a minister and not more housing in our communities. And that

is really unfortunate.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member has made his opposition noted, and I appreciate that. What I would say….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I respectfully listened to the member. I expect that he would do the same for other

members of this place.

Now, we have said that of course we need to continue to invest in infrastructure.

Of course we need to continue to invest in amenities. I've highlighted the $1 billion

that we provided local governments this year. The federal government is coming in

with their housing accelerator funding. We need to do more. No one is saying that

we don't invest further in amenities and infrastructure. Of course we need that.

What I did refer to earlier…. The comment I made is from a Metro Vancouver report.

The study confirmed that more compact development forms tend to reduce infrastructure

costs on a per-capita basis, support a more efficient use of resources, and encourage

more cost-effective forms of transportation. That's what I was referring to.

Again, within the legislation, if there are serious water concerns or serious issues

around the infrastructure, there are provisions for local governments to be able to

adapt to that as well. That's what I was referring to when I made those comments.

A. Olsen: As someone who sat around those tables, there is absolutely no doubt that the infrastructure

that we have under our communities at the current level of single-family development

in many of these sprawl communities is underutilized. I agree with that statement

100 percent. We've got far more infrastructure with less people putting into it. I

agree.

However, the reality is that when you build more density on top of the community-level

infrastructure that I'm talking about, it requires the capacity all the way through

the network, which is not being considered in the comment that was made.

That's a basic planning principle. You learn that in year 1 or year 2 of being a councillor

that we have certain capacity in our infrastructure and that at some point, you are

over capacity. Without an analysis of that and without a plan, that's more than like

Honestly, like I said yesterday, there are hundreds of millions, billions of dollars

in an infrastructure deficit that this and previous governments haven't resolved.

They haven't provided the funding. The amenity package that's coming for us to debate,

likely next week, isn't enough either.

The minister is right that we should be putting density on top of infrastructure that's

already there. It makes no sense to put new infrastructure in the ground. However,

it's not correct to just assume that we can make up numbers here — three, four and

six — and multiply that over a neighbourhood. The reality is that the engineers can't

plan for the lowest number that might come. The engineers must always plan for the

highest number that this minister is creating in this bill.

There's a reality here that is not matching the reality on the ground. We can make

up whatever numbers we want in here, but on the ground, they need to find a way to

be able to deliver it. That's the point that I'm making with this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Okay, I appreciate the member's points. I'll add to my earlier comments that the same

study found that higher-density forms of development are more cost-effective in urban,

developed areas where public infrastructure investments can be best utilized.

[11:30 a.m.]

It also found that achieving compact complete communities does not necessarily require

extremely high-density development forms. For example, moving from low density to

medium density in urban centres and along transit corridors can provide significant

improvements in infrastructure services and cost outcomes.

I appreciate what the member is saying, but I'm just saying I disagree with some of

the statements that he's made.

A. Walker: Two other quick questions on this clause. Were local governments consulted on this

change to remove public hearings specifically for this new 481.3 zoning bylaw?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was extensive consultation when it comes to DAPR, which is a part of this, around

public hearings. There was extensive consultation done around making it allowable

for local governments to opt in when they need to opt in. What we've seen from that

movement informed our decision here.

A. Walker: That wasn't the question. The question was: were local governments consulted on the

strict forbiddance of a local government to not have a public hearing to comply with

this new small-scale, multi-family housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. We consulted local governments through UBCM.

A. Walker: Did UBCM, as a body, recommend that for these small-scale, multi-family housing developments,

public hearings be prohibited?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff inform me that the views were mixed from UBCM members.

A. Walker: Government consulted with UBCM specifically on public hearings, the prohibition of

holding public hearings to comply with

section 481.3, and UBCM was mixed on whether

that was to be a good policy or not. Have developers recommended that public hearings

be prohibited for this type of housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I did not speak to any developers regarding this. UBCM was engaged on the legislation.

The position of UBCM was that their members had concerns, but we spoke to many local

governments as well who thought it was a positive decision. That's why I made my comment

that the views certainly were mixed.

A. Walker: I've got the list of local governments that were consulted and represented, and I've

got a list of developers and non-profit-sector representatives. The minister has stated

that this lack of public hearing was consulted with UBCM and that some members of,

I'm assuming, the executive of UBCM agreed, and some disagreed. Not sure what that

ratio is. I'm not sure. I don't want to get into this person's name or that person's

name. But obviously a mixed response.

Just for clarity. This list of developer and non-profit-sector representatives that

the minister provided earlier, as far as consultation on this legislation, were not

consulted on the change to public hearings, just to confirm?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That is correct.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

A. Walker: This clause prohibits…. I'm just trying to remember from reading this, from last week.

I guess, what is the purpose of publicly disclosing, in a newspaper for a two-week

period, about a zoning change if there is no opportunity for the public to provide

input on that change?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. It's an opportunity to still remain informed

of what's happening. We know that many communities….

For example, in my community, they were one of the early adopters of this. They still

set up a website. They still put up information. They allowed people to send online

comments so that the staff could take that feedback when they have conversations with

the development. So that's why that's there.

A. Walker: I'm just considering the impact on local government. Councils, essentially, cannot

vote down. They must, as we'll discuss later in this bill, accept these rezoning applications.

There is no public hearing.

We're expecting to see, hopefully in communities across this province, some infill

development. It just seems an onerous ordeal for local governments every time somebody

comes in to put an ADU or add a suite to their space, if they have to go through that

rezoning process.

If we are accepting that in British Columbia there is no such thing as single-family-homes

zoning…. I'm not saying no single-family homes. I don't want anyone to have that misconception.

But if we're saying that the base zoning in British Columbia is, essentially, four

units, when local governments go through this process again and again to rezone to

allow for, as I said, accessory dwelling units or these other triplexes, is it not

redundant to force local governments to disclose twice in the newspaper for every

one of these projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think maybe I'll clarify for the member that this was already in the act before.

So what we're saying is that, with this section, if something does not fit within

the OCP, which still requires a public hearing, they should continue to do it. This

is not a major change. When there is something that is not within the OCP, they can

continue to publicly share that information with the public.

A. Walker: I'm all for transparency. I'm just wondering what the intention was, though. If we

are, essentially, saying that every lot can allow for four units, I'm just wondering

why it is that government is still requiring local governments to disclose if they

are rezoning. You know, if governments do not allow for accessory dwelling units in

their communities, every time somebody wants to do one, they have to do a rezoning.

There's no opportunity for public input.

I'm just wondering: if government is saying that the base in B.C. is four homes per

lot, why are we requiring councils to go through the process of publicly disclosing

this in this way?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I'll take a step back. This piece is not only for SSMU. This piece is for entire

official community plans. So what we're saying here is they're only required if it's

outside of the OCP. That's what we're saying.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the member. It's a consequential amendment. It's not a

major change or reform to the bill at all.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

On clause 9.

A. Walker: I won't tell the members here how many questions I have because I haven't been consistent

with keeping to that number.

This clause — would it not make irrelevant the land use bylaws referenced in clause

2 and clause 3?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, it doesn't.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

K. Kirkpatrick: We're moving from at least five years to 20 years now for OCPs. Can the minister explain

why that number was chosen?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

It aligns with planning best practices, but it also aligns with regional growth strategies,

and they use the same structure for that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I've heard from a number of communities who have actually just finished OCPs — a particularly

small community who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on doing this, and

now everything has changed, and they've got to go back into a new process.

What would the minister say to those communities? And is there any way that they can

be supported with the financial burden that this is going to bring upon them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the point the member is making. That's why we've got the $51 million.

But that's also why we've put a two-year window in for local governments, because

we understand that they'll be in different stages.

K. Kirkpatrick: I know there was discussion about that $51 million yesterday. Is what I just described,

the scenario of needing support for paying for OCPs, something that they would be

able to draw upon the $51 million for?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister.

Now, this might blend into clause 11, but I think there's been a lot of leeway in

terms of asking questions related to the clause that we're on.

Recently, within the last 30 to 60 days in some communities, there have been negotiations

with the communities that have been deemed to be on the naughty list, the ten communities

that were initially identified as not appropriately maintaining their housing stock.

The minister has met with those communities and has negotiated, I guess, agreements

with them individually.

That is my understanding. I stand to be corrected if that is not the case. There has

been little if any information publicly in terms of how the numbers were determined

for each one of these communities. I don't believe government has released that information

or has committed to release that information.

Can the minister explain to us how those housing targets that have been imposed upon

these communities then relate to Bill 44 and the density that is being directed through

this? It feels, at this point, that there's a lot of different things going on. How

do those targets marry into what we're talking about in Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Both the housing needs reports and the targets use the same methodology when they're

calculating the housing needs. All of the legislation that we've brought forward will

help those communities, but also all communities, be able to address their housing

needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

If I might ask the minister, then, what was the purpose of going through that exercise

of meeting with those communities, very publicly shaming them, providing these housing

targets to them and then saying: "Well, it's the same thing as what we're doing in

the housing planning now"?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As my friends across the way canvassed in the last two days, from Parksville, the

reforms that we've made here itself won't just solve the challenges of housing across

the board. It's an important piece. It will help us get along the way, but communities

will need to do more.

[11:45 a.m.]

I wouldn't say public shaming. I know that members have…. I've never referred to it

the way that the member across the way referred to it. I've always said that these

are communities that we want to work with. That's why, when we actually came out with

the list and we announced the communities, we had many of the mayors standing with

us.

They know I've never referred to anyone with terms other than these are communities

where there are opportunities for more housing to be provided.

K. Kirkpatrick: I presume, then, that the naughty list was something that was derived by media, as

opposed to the minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Jas Johal. You can say his name.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is that on the record?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I might just then confirm with the minister that those targets that were imposed

upon those communities do not conflict in any way with Bill 44 and what's happening

now.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'll put on the record that it was Jas Johal that said it. Hansard will capture that forever.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, it's going to be on his show later today.

The member is correct that this enables and supports them to be able to reach their

targets.

A. Walker: This is kind of pedantic. It's repealing section (2.1) under clause 10. It's then

added under 473.1. I can ask this question now or in the next clause. I'm just wondering

which municipalities are currently excluded under that clause.

The Chair: Member, if you can repeat the question, please, that would be great.

A. Walker: Certainly. Clause 10(

b) says it's repealing subsection (2.1). That subsection allows

for an exemption, I believe it's 585.11, that exempts a community from being within

this clause. It's just being re-added in clause 11. I'm just wondering which communities

were captured by that exclusion.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Lytton is the only municipality that's captured in that.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much, Chair.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.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