Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

28, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 44; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On clause 16 (continued) .

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

(Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

A. Walker: Just before we broke for lunch here, the minister had mentioned that British Columbia

is growing at a rate of, I believe the minister said, 3 percent or around that. As

we talked about having a 20-year plan, there was also the reference to B.C. Stats.

When I look at B.C. Stats' projections for 2040 or 2041 — they don't go to 2043 —

they're projecting the province will grow at an annualized rate of 1.1 percent.

Would it be reasonable for a local government, looking at those data points for the

province as a whole, in their housing needs report, to use the growth rate projected

by B.C. Stats of 1.1 percent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm not going to presume what each community should do. I can say that there's a standardized

housing needs report. They have to plan for 20 years. It will vary from community

to community.

A. Walker: I certainly don't want the minister to speak for municipalities in this regard. I'm

just looking for some clarity.

As the legislation was drafted, was it the intention that referent numbers like that

would be referenced?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, if B.C. Stats provides local governments with that type of information,

they should consider that with their housing needs reports.

A. Walker: On Vancouver Island, we have communities that have, historically, actually reduced

in population, especially in the north Island. Port Hardy has dramatically reduced

population since the '80s, pretty much every single year. Would it be reasonable for

a community…? I guess reasonable is not the right question.

As this was drafted, the idea of putting together a 20-year plan, was it the expectation

of the minister that communities that have historically seen populations remain either

stagnant or decline to use that as a baseline for future projections?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I'm not going to presume what each community will do. I will say that every

community in this province has housing needs. That's understood. Some communities

have not enabled housing, and perhaps that may be a reason why their population is

not growing. It varies from community to community, so I can't get into specifics.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Walker: Yeah, that makes sense.

B.C. Stats. I haven't looked through the methodology, but I know that was referenced

just before we went for lunch — B.C. Stats as a reference point. Provincially they're

showing a growth rate of 1.1 percent. On the Island, we're seeing a much smaller growth

rate of 0.8 percent, which is in line with what most of our communities are already

doing as far as growth and development.

The challenge with using B.C. Stats is they will use, potentially, the growth patterns

that we've already seen. So as the minister says, if growth has been restricted unnaturally,

that projection, moving forward, could be artificially low. I guess I just wanted

to respond to the minister with that.

As it stands, I have no further questions on this clause.

A. Olsen: I'm trying to do some reconciliation here. The minister used 3 percent and then referenced

B.C. Stats as one of the places that local governments are going to be getting their

information from. B.C. Stats, as my colleague said, says 1.1 percent.

The district of Central Saanich, for an example, basically meets that with their current

official community plan, yet the minister is proposing to unilaterally upzone on top

of that. The official community plan shows how the community could get to its target

of 1 percent. The B.C. Stats number…. The minister uses a different number.

I guess for me it's hard to understand whether or not we are going to use the numbers

that are in B.C. Stats or we're going to use the numbers that the minister throws

out, at 3 percent. Where did the minister get 3 percent from, rather than what B.C.

Stats says, which is 1.1 percent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The number I shared is something that's on their site. It'll vary from community to

community, from region to region.

A. Olsen: This is why it's so hard to understand why the minister feels that this intervention

that he's taking is the one that should be taken. The reality of it is that if Central

Saanich has…. Admittedly it's a five-year plan instead of a ten-year plan. So maybe

that's a slightly larger number. But even still, within that, Central Saanich has

said we can meet the B.C. Stats number that is referenced here.

I'm going to take these numbers for what they are, because it's just a number that

was referenced on the website from the minister. I'm just going to reference a number

that was on a website from my colleague, to make a point.

The point is that the district of Central Saanich says that it can meet 1 percent

with the current plan that it already is, without the unilateral upzone. What they

need is the minister to intervene in other ways that the Minister of Housing actually

should be intervening in, providing an adequate amount of funding for all of the other

things that we were talking about yesterday when we talked about what was actually

in the housing needs assessment, not a unilateral intervention of all of the single-family

zones in a given district.

That is not a planning approach to it. That is a broad-sweeping, broad-brush approach

to it. The silliness is actually identified when the minister can say it's 3 percent;

another member can say…. There's no real substance to this situation that the minister

is creating with this bill. He references 3 percent. On the website, it's 1.1 percent.

What do we do with districts that are actually already able to meet that target that

they've already set in order for growth?

All they need is a willing partner from the provincial government, and the partner

that they're looking to comes in and says: "We're going to do something completely

other than what you've considered in your planning. We're just going to do a different

thing. Not what you need, not what you've identified, not what you want, not what

the community wants, after a very recent consultation — we're going to do what the

minister determines is good.

Clearly, in certain communities, this is going to be a useful tool. But as the minister

has already said, the communities are going to determine what it is that is good for

them. The restriction on the development hasn't been that there hasn't been an identified

need for growth. It's been the inability to get the market to produce a product that

the market doesn't produce.

That's what's so concerning to me about this bill, and it has just been identified

again in the discussion around clause 16.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

[1:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: With respect to 17, this is specifying the date which the housing needs reports have

to be received.

Can I just clarify with the minister: how is this date chosen, considering we're in

a crisis?

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

The interim housing needs report is due by the end of 2024, and then this sets the

future housing needs report from there.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What are the consequences or what is the consequence to a municipality if they miss

this deadline?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. One is that if they miss the deadline, it'll be difficult for

them to get their official community plan done, which is, of course, required of them.

What we've heard from local government partners is that they believe this timeline

is very doable. Also, the federal government is now looking to tie a lot of infrastructure

dollars to communities that have housing needs reports. So this streamlined approach

not only helps, obviously, to get their updated community plans but also positions

B.C. as a leader for attracting federal investments.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

When we talk about consequences, just in a larger picture, the consequences for municipalities

not kind of playing ball…. In terms of what Bill 44 is intending to do, is it a carrot?

Is it a stick? What consequences will there be if these things just aren't ongoing,

and they aren't meeting these requirements. What will happen, ultimately?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If communities don't meet the timelines, they could be challenged in court.

P. Milobar: Clause 17 deals with

section 585.31.

Can the minister let us know: when did 585.31 get put into the Local Government Act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: W hen the legislation was updated, 2018.

P. Milobar: Thank you. When did that

section come into force then? Was it 2018 as well?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was 2019.

P. Milobar: Thank you. We're removing 3(a), and that says that: "the first housing needs report,

no later than three years after the date of this section, comes into force." That

would have been 2022, when the first housing reports would have needed to come into

effect, and then every five years after that. So 2027 would have, in fact, been the

next housing report that is mandatory under the current legislation.

Why — if we're in the midst of a housing crisis, which I think everyone agrees — is

the minister changing this now to be December 31 of 2028 instead of in 2027 when that

update would have had to have happened anyways with the existing legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A similar question was asked earlier, which is the interim report is due 2024. There

will be an interim report done by all local governments. Then the next fulsome report

will be December 31, 2028.

A. Olsen: Can the minister provide a rationale…? Based on the questions here, why change the

timeline anyway?

It seems like most of the municipalities — well, all municipalities — will have one

already, and many of them are in process already to create new ones in 2027. It's

going take a year, so we're in process.

Was the main reason to do that just to get a new date of 2024?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. We expect the 2021 data to be significantly different than many

communities have been considering. Second, starting all communities at one point in

a kind of a standardized way allows us to compare apples to apples for communities.

A. Olsen: Has the minister had any conversations with the Union of B.C. Municipalities or the

advisory group as to the availability of people to be able to do the work and to do

all of the updates?

What is the expectation? What does the minister expect will happen over the next couple

of years in order for us to achieve this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we did consult. The standardized format we're using makes it a lot easier for

the housing needs reports to be done. That's why we're providing $51 million to local

governments to be able to do this work, or in some cases, update their housing needs

reports.

A. Olsen: Has the minister considered…? Well, how much of these reports will come from general

information that could be put together on behalf of local governments, and how much

of them will be local content?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's a mix: B.C. Stats, Stats Canada. Qualitative information from the ground will

be involved in the housing needs reports.

A. Olsen: There's a standardization of the reports. There's a standardization of the information

that the minister expects to have come back from local governments. How much of that

work can be done in advance to be part of the standard that could be done by the provincial

government maybe on a regional or subregional basis? What kind of consideration has

been made with the efficiencies that can be found there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Just like we did in 2018, we'll provide standardized data for communities, provide

guidance for them to be able to do this very efficiently.

A. Olsen: We have a number of 130,000, I think it was. There have been some numbers that have

been thrown around, some ideas of how many households we're trying to create. Has

the minister and ministry set their mind to targets for the regions, even just some

high-level buckets? "We're looking to have X number built here, X number built there."

Has there been any thought put to that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This clause speaks to the need for local governments to update their housing needs

reports based on the standardized housing needs pieces that we've put together in

the legislation. This will help provide information of what the needs are in all communities

around the province.

A. Olsen: It's just interesting. I think we're coming at this situation from the different ends.

The minister is saying that there's this ethereal, high-level number, which we haven't

agreed on what it is, and the municipalities are all supposed to, at the same time,

come up with the solution for that without any level of coordination at a provincial

level.

This goes back to this similar set of questions that I had before, which was: how

are disparate communities across the province supposed to arrive at the magic number

that the minister has in his head?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member, Urban Matters, for example, is a consultant that we've

hired — works on the housing needs report for Central Saanich, worked with Sidney

for their housing needs report. They're giving us advice on how to make this standardized

in a way that's easier to be done.

A. Olsen: So Urban Matters is going to decide how much of that growth is going to go into the

Lower Mainland, for an example — different parts of the Lower Mainland. We're just

going to turn it to this individual who runs this company to model for us, and then

that's the number that we're going to be using, or is there some coherence with what's

going on in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for example, which is responsible for

all of these communities overall?

There seems to need to be some sort of an idea that this is the housing plan, this

is where the people are going to live, this is where our workers are going to be housed.

There has to be more involvement in an understanding of how we're planning our province

than the local governments are going to arrive at the number that the minister has.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this clause sets out a date for when housing needs reports will be done. We've

canvassed these issues many times over the last five days, last week and this week.

Local governments have the ability because we provide them a set package of data for

each community, guidance on how to move forward. The standardized approach makes it

easier for them to go forward.

Communities have already done this three years ago, when the legislation passed —

or four years ago; and they understand what needs to be done.

So I can keep repeating this as many times as the member likes, but this clause talks

about the date I've shared, that the interim report is due 2024, and this clause talks

about that the next one after that is December 31, 2028.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, with a question.

A. Olsen: If we were to separate these two processes — the process to mass upzone the province,

separate it from the planning process — then what the minister is suggesting makes

a ton of sense. Communities figure out what they need, just like they've always done,

and then they tell us what they need, and then the provincial government is there

to support.

Instead, what's happened is that these two ideas have been put together. We're going

to have a new, robust planning process. We're going to identify and name some communities.

We're going to have a second list that we haven't quite named yet, but it's all kind

of floating around out there that those are going to be the next named communities.

Then, after that, we're going to do all of the work to understand how those communities

are going to be planning.

It's incoherent to how a province needs to be planning is what I'm raising, and this

is the core of our communities across the province. These are the democratic processes

that happen in our local governments. Rather than a provincial government coming in

and unilaterally saying over top of those democratically elected bodies: "Do all of

the planning, do all of the organizing, do all of the official, get all the stats,

get all the numbers, align them all, and then we're going to do this."

Does the minister not agree that this appears to be incoherent planning? We've got

a request for communities to go and do all of this work to get all its numbers, and

then the provincial government unilaterally saying: "No public hearings. We're doing

this."

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, respectfully, this member has talked about the same issue for four days in

a row. I appreciate that he doesn't support the bill. I appreciate that he doesn't

think this is the path forward. That's great. We have different opinions in this place,

and that's healthy.

I think to respect the time, we should speak about the issues that we're discussing

at the time. This clause talks about the date of housing needs reports. I've already

shared with the member that we're standardizing them so we can see from community

to community that the same template is going forward. That allows us to plan better

provincially. It means better decision-making in local government and across the province.

That's what we're trying to get at here.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is another place where we're getting back to a lot of the information that's

important for us to know, for communities to know, is being pushed out into regulation.

We're going at this a bit blind in terms of what the expectations are going to be

— in this section, specifically with respect to the formula that's going to be used

or the methodology that's going to be used in calculating the housing needs.

First question to the minister is: what will be the new rules regarding the methodology

for calculating housing units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this at great lengths in the House last week. For each community, it's

based on the understanding of five components: extreme core housing need, permanently

housing people experiencing homelessness, suppressed household formation, anticipated

supply needed over the next five and 20 years, and adjustments to restore rental supply

to a health vacancy rate of 3 percent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and I appreciate many of these topics have been discussed.

I'm trying to do them specific to the clauses that we're on so we've got that information

compiled together in Hansard .

The ten municipalities…. In terms of what is going to be expected in the formula and

methodology, was this the same methodology that was applied to them? When I talk about

the ten municipalities, I'm talking about the so-called naughty list that was worked

on with those municipalities prior to Bill 44.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member is asking questions on the clause for the specific Hansard , so no problem.

The methodology is similar between the two. The only difference, I would say, or the

big difference, is that the target communities are focused on a five-year number as

opposed to a 20-year number, because we wanted to see what result can be done in five

years. But they all, regardless of whether they're a target community or not, will

have to plan for 20 years with this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Section 18, in (j), says: "requiring a local government or a class of local governments

to use a method established under paragraph (i)."

So will only some local governments be required to follow certain calculation methods

under this paragraph? And why not all?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our expectation is that everyone will use the standardized format. We may come into

a situation where, say, a rural community needs to do something slightly different,

so we wanted to ensure that we have the flexibility to be able to support that.

K. Kirkpatrick: The province is setting the rules. Will the province also be providing the resources

to make the calculations on these reports? We don't know how complex and how much

time it's going to take for municipalities and regional districts to be able to do

this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we'll be providing a set package of data for local governments to be able to

do this work.

[The bells were rung.]

The bells are ringing over here, Member. We have to go and vote so we don't get fined.

The Chair: The committee is now in recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 2:08 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development)

Amendment Act, 2023. We're on clause 18.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify that the minister did actually finish answering that last question.

I thought he was kind of halfway through when the bells rang. I'll have to go back

and check Hansard . I will, then, continue on.

[2:30 p.m.]

Government is setting the methodology in regulation. Can we presume, then, that government

can also change that methodology at any point? Will government be adjusting that methodology,

as time goes on, to ensure that whatever formula they've set out is actually working

appropriately?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, to the member. I thought I did answer the question. Just the only thing I would

add to that previous answer is, of course, the $51 million, as well, to local governments

to support them.

The member is correct that the standardized format of it could change. People who

do this work and the housing needs reports will admit that this changes over time,

the needs in communities change. This gives us the ability, in future times, to make

adjustments accordingly.

K. Kirkpatrick: I will ask this, because the minister just mentioned the $51 million. That's been

an answer to a number of the questions that have been asked of the minister in these

last few days. The answer has been: there's access to this $51 million for capacity,

for implementing what is required for Bill 44.

Does the minister have an idea of how that $51 million is going to be distributed?

What kinds of things do they anticipate municipalities and regional districts coming

to the ministry with requests for that funding?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We expect in the next couple of weeks to notify local governments on how much they

are getting. Then in the new year, early in the new year, they'll receive the money.

They can use it for the zoning reforms, the work that they need to do to update their

bylaws, to support them with their housing needs reports.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify that, then. They don't have to get approval for what capacity-building

they're going to be using those funds for?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct. They'll have flexibility with those dollars.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. This methodology for making these calculations — was there

consultation also with municipal councils and regional districts on how these formulas

should work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. Through the consultations, it was well understood that we needed to standardize

how housing needs reports are done from community to community. In fact, talking to

my counterparts across the country, they are hearing the same thing from their local

governments as well.

P. Milobar: Just wondering, because there's obviously carrots and sticks when you're talking about

methodology and mandated reporting and things of that nature and coming up with the

needs report. So there's coming up with a report of what's needed, and then there's

actually delivering. The two are very different.

If a municipality has met all the timelines — they come up with the needs reports;

they've put in all the inputs that the minister has deemed they need to take into

account for what they need to identify for housing needs; they were able to demonstrate

that they have an efficient permitting process in place, that they have streamlined

things of that nature; they don't have onerous cost structures in terms of development

cost charges and all of that — but despite all of that, they're not hitting their

targets for housing because for whatever reason — either the development community

doesn't want to be building; builders might have a labour shortage…. As we well know,

there's a looming labour shortage.

Essentially, if they're not able to hit their targets, but no fault of their own whatsoever,

are they still going to see some of the more punitive sides as a result, or will that

be taken into account with these calculations?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this, but the member wasn't here. The question is a good one, which is:

with the target communities, then the targets are targets, which are five years away,

so it's different. But with this legislation, we are asking communities to zone and

update their OCPs and change their zoning to reflect the needs of their community

for 20 years. It's different than the target communities. This is different. The two

things are different.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

K. Kirkpatrick: Looking at clause 19 now. This deals with heritage designation bylaws, which I think,

again, are a big concern for a number of people. Now, when we're looking at heritage,

we need to look at how we increase residential density in historic areas — so not

just, kind of, a home, but in a historic area — and policy and design really has to

be guided by the context of the history of the community.

There are many communities that have historical and architectural character, as well,

that is really important. It's representative of who we are and what our history here

has been. In Vancouver, for example…. I know we're going to get to the Vancouver Charter.

This is related to Clause 41, but it's really the same, and I think that this makes

its point.

Vancouver has created regulations, and they've got companion design guidelines that

preserve and really protect the fabric of the history of various communities. Again,

for example, Vancouver has recognized Chinatown, Gastown, Shaughnessy and Yaletown

to be within these historic areas. The regulations ensure that new development in

these areas is protected and is compatible with the character of those neighbourhoods.

Would the minister please confirm if Bill 44 is going to have a negative impact on

the historic fabric of these communities, whether they're the communities I referenced

in Vancouver or those communities across British Columbia that have history and architectural

significance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know the member and I talked about this, and I know the member is very passionate

about heritage buildings and heritage sites.

I can confirm that any heritage designations that exist prior to this legislation

will, obviously, remain. Any new heritage designation that local governments want

to put in cannot deny, cannot be used to block small-scale multi-unit housing requirements

but the facade can be protected, etc., for new buildings as they come forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There are areas where there may not be heritage zoning, but there is a historical

significance to the nature of the community. If there isn't something that is actually

set in a bylaw for a community…. Again, I have lived most of my time here in Vancouver,

so I think of Strathcona, and I think of those areas off Kingsway and Clark. There

isn't a zoning designation of heritage there, but there is certainly a unique feel

and fabric of the homes that are in that community.

There are many ways to…. You know, you can certainly put multiple units into an existing

home. You can stratify existing homes. There are just beautiful ways that that can

be done which are very respectful of the community as a whole. These are the areas

that I'm concerned about, that the ability to override the public hearing process,

the input from councils, in terms of this one-size-fits-all….

[2:40 p.m.]

If these kinds of things are not taken into account…. They can be very nuanced, If

they're not taken into account, we're going to lose a lot of that charm and character

in our communities. What does the minister say to that? We did talk about heritage

zoning. This is different than that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments do have the ability, if they believe that there's a heritage site,

to still proceed, as I answered previously. Local governments will have a say. If

there's a kind of look and feel in a community that they want, they'll still have

a say in that, but it has to be reasonable. That's the difference. But as I answered

previously, anything that's already got the designation is separate. For anything

going forward, local governments, as long as it's reasonable, can proceed with that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. This is what I'm saying. There are places that aren't designated

as such, as a heritage site. You say that municipalities will still be able to have

a say in this. Can you tell me what that looks like? What kind of say can they have

in this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments would still be able to designate heritage properties by bylaw and

require that a heritage alteration permit be required before development can occur.

This provision ensures that permitted use or density cannot be denied solely because

it has been designated a heritage property by a local government.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Again, that's a bit different than what I'm asking about.

But it is a concern in terms of just protecting…. I don't want to use the word "protecting"

because that can be inferred as not supporting density. I completely support density,

but I don't support it without having some design parameters and some other things

around it in certain of these communities.

If a community makes a determination that there is a particular part of that community

within certain blocks, whatever it is, that has historical significance to it, so

they want to then deem this as a heritage area, the minister says they'll have a say

in that. Who is to determine the legitimacy of that, if that is really a heritage

area? How will the ministry make that determination? Are you looking at historians

to come and talk about the community, or how are you validating that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, if it's reasonable, then local governments can require a heritage alteration

permit and ensure that's acquired before the development can occur.

K. Kirkpatrick: A heritage alteration permit. Is that the same as what we talked about in clause 20,

which is the heritage revitalization agreements?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two different land authorities, so they're different.

K. Kirkpatrick: Could a situation arise where heritage buildings are torn down because local governments

won't allow modifications or renovations to heritage buildings even though the property

has the ability to become four suites? What tools are in place to prevent this?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can the member maybe put the question in a different way? We're just kind of coming

together, trying to figure out where the question was.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I appreciate that.

An example might be…. I was talking to a group in Vancouver about this. This may be

provincial building codes, not just municipal. But requirements for step codes and

some other things…. For example, if there's a renovation that is going to happen to

a heritage property that, because of existing building codes, may not be able to be

turned into a fourplex or a sixplex, and the only way to actually make that happen

would be to take that building down and to build a new building.

Will the province work with municipalities, or with the provincial building code,

to make sure that there are some accommodations for renovating heritage homes, and

perhaps look at changing some of the requirements for that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're just struggling a little bit on this, but anything that's designated heritage

has to respect the local government's bylaws around it. We're not entirely sure, in

the scenario the member is talking about…. If it's got a heritage designation, then

the local government rules must be followed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I think we're talking about two different things. The minister

is talking about things that have a heritage designation. I'm talking about things

that have kind of have an architectural or heritage significance within a community,

and it doesn't necessarily have to have that designation.

The concern is where you've got some craftsman bungalow in Strathcona or somewhere

that doesn't have a heritage designation. But because building codes require renovations

to meet current-day step codes and various other things in order to bring it up to

the current building codes, that might actually encourage those buildings to be taken

down and have new construction there.

I'm not talking about those simply that have heritage zoning, because we know that

there are, as I understand from the minister, mechanisms in order to be able to work

with that designation.

For those that are not designated, where you've got a beautiful craftsman home and

because of stringent requirements for upgrading, could there be flexibility with this?

What can we do to make sure that is not the outcome of this upzoning so that these

beautiful heritage homes — which I'll call heritage, historical, architecturally significant

— are not coming down because it's too difficult to modify them to meet this upzoning?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member's question. If there is this type of home in a community,

the local government can designate it as heritage. They still have the ability with

this legislation. We're not taking away that ability. Local governments will have

some flexibility to ensure that there's a look and feel in a community. That might

be the other mechanism.

Those are the two ways, and the building code is not part of the bill here.

K. Kirkpatrick: I keep thinking it's my last question. The heritage designation would have to be done

on a property-by-property basis, I guess. That's a concern. The minister says that

the communities will have a say in the look and feel of the community.

How will that marry with what we don't know yet about the setbacks, building heights

and all those other requirements? We don't know what those are yet, because they're

going to be in regulation. Is the minister saying that within a community, they could

be unique and different in certain areas of the same municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. What I'm saying is that local governments could have some unique characteristics

for some neighbourhoods and perhaps not for others in their community.

A. Olsen: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano was talking about specific buildings. Is it

the same for entire neighbourhoods? I'm thinking of Moodyville, in Brentwood Bay,

for example, which is a densely compact neighbourhood already. It has some heritage

significance — it is what it is; it's called Moodyville — and it's identified. Can

municipalities deal with it at a neighbourhood level as well, then?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it's similar to the answer given to the previous member: they can designate

specific homes as heritage. If the local government wants to have a look and feel

in one neighbourhood, there's some ability for them to do that. In any community,

a home that has that designation is obviously not part of this. For anything new,

it would have to be home by home, and they can have some flexibility to ensure the

community has that kind of a look and feel.

A. Olsen: Could the communities…? The minister has used several times the word "reasonable,"

and I recognize that in a judicial review or in a court process, "reasonable" actually

means something. While it might sound like the minister is just saying, "Be reasonable,"

and everyone's saying, "Well, what does he mean by that?" there is actually a definition

for that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Using reasonableness, then, wouldn't it be reasonable for a municipality to say: "This

neighbourhood is identified for its heritage, the way it is. We are meeting the minister's

growth goals for the province over our community. We've demonstrated it year over

year. However, we're going to preserve this neighbourhood to have a much lighter density."

Is there a reasonable way for a municipality to be able to do that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've spent multiple hours…. I got in trouble, in fact, for explaining how "reasonable"

works, using my phone. The member will recall, for those hours where we talked about

this, that I said I wasn't going to weigh in, because there are obviously legal matters

in at play.

I did describe what "reasonable" means, and local governments will need to consider

that as they move forward, which they do on a lot of other matters.

A. Olsen: Is there another use or zone that is available to local governments in the Local Government

Act that has…? It seems like we are in this process throughout this bill, of isolating

this singular use. It is the single most powerful use, I think, with all of the insulation

that's happened around it. You can't use heritage designations. We are stacking up

a list of things that local governments are not allowed to do with this specific use.

Can the minister describe why it is that this specific use is more or less destructive

than any of the other ones? It seems to me that we have basically isolated these single-family

properties and are making them pretty rigidly untouchable.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the reason why we're leaving the ability for local governments to have that

heritage designation, I think, is well understood. There are some heritage homes that

are important for history, for the fabric of our communities. We believe that the

local government should have that ability for those that have already been designated.

A. Olsen: I go back to my local government days and I remember the heritage designation process.

I think I got to probably about three or four years into my time at the council table.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

We had continued the process of designating farming cabins. They were unique buildings,

built at a certain time. In order for the owners to be able to build another unit

on that property, they had to designate it and basically decommission it. They weren't

allowed to use it. This was largely in rural properties in the community.

I got to a point where I recognized that we were preserving a certain part of our

heritage pretty consistently. What we weren't doing was extending heritage designation

to the long history of our communities. We were exclusively, in our community, preserving

the pioneer heritage.

When the First Nations, the W̱SÁNEĆ people, came forward and wanted their aspects

of it preserved as heritage, we would run into a situation where it hadn't been done

yet. An interesting thing when the minister said that basically, there's no new heritage

that's going to be recognized here without infringing on the form and character of

the minister's chosen description of what it will be.

From a First Nations perspective, that significantly limits what new heritage we might

recognize. I think the minister has to recognize that or has to acknowledge that historically,

we've not been recognizing the broad heritage of our communities. We've only recently

started to do that.

[3:00 p.m.]

Now what has happened is that the minister has put a limit into this of adding new

heritage. Any of the new heritage that we'd be adding is most likely to be the Indigenous

heritage of those communities. Has the minister considered this, and if so, what's

the minister's consideration?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this question. This came up earlier in our debate. We spoke about what

would be protected under this.

Also, if Indigenous communities came forward and said there are archaeological sites,

etc., that need to be protected…. There's a completely separate legislation that this

cannot touch. So archaeological sites, etc. All those things preclude for this legislation

to have the development on it.

There's a completely separate stream that is available, especially for Indigenous

communities. I would agree with the member that there's a lot of history that still

needs to be recognized. So there is a separate stream for that.

A. Olsen: I understand that there's an…. I can tell you. That's a whole other two-week-long

debate when that bill, the heritage act, finally comes forward for us to discuss how

the provincial government does Indigenous heritage generally in that other stream.

I recognize that's not what we're debating here at all. We are debating a clause that

basically outlines a limitation on a local government being able to respond to a request

that might come from a First Nation about….

There's quite a bit of comfort taken when we're only talking about preserving buildings.

When we're only talking about that cabin, the farmer's cabin, we can…. Mostly, the

frustration there was what this minister is trying to solve. Maybe you can live in

the cabin and build a house on the property.

What we were ultimately trying to get was that the cabin could be used and lived in

still. It could be updated and used and lived in and maintain the heritage of it.

And it wasn't allowed at that time.

I think we have to remove our mind from the limitation, which we have, that this is

only about buildings. Indigenous people don't see heritage necessarily just as a building.

It's a place. They don't see protecting a building as being the most important thing.

In fact, in some cases, it might be the complete absence of everything that's man-made.

It's just nature, and it just gets deemed to be a sacred site.

That's the reason why I'm asking this. Basically, if a First Nation goes to a municipal

government and says: "That site there…." Or they own it; they own it fee simple. A

First Nation does a land assembly. They're now, basically, locked into the minister's

new zone, and it can't be designated to have heritage protections. It can't be added

because it has been removed.

That's why I'm wondering if the minister has considered this. If so, how does that

get navigated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If a local First Nation comes forward and says, "This is a heritage site for us. This

is an important archaeological site…."

There is a different piece of legislation that supersedes this. That's the point I

was making. It's what I've mentioned before and what I've said here a few times.

A. Olsen: Yeah. I appreciate that. However, that other piece of legislation doesn't deal with

the land use aspect of it. This piece of legislation deals with the land use of it,

the actual use.

If a First Nation buys a piece of land, fee simple, and it's within single-family….

They assemble a handful of pieces of fee simple land, and they want to simply have

it as a designated heritage site. They remove the buildings. They sell them. They

get trucked off, and it becomes a site. They still own a piece of land that, then,

is going to be taxed at what the minister has determined it's going to be taxed at.

Is there any remedy for First Nations who may want to make this decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're going to go about this for a long time.

This doesn't override the Heritage Conservation Act.

Interjection.

[3:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: We didn't talk about this for hours. I didn't talk about this for hours. I'm not that

member.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

A. Olsen: Look, there is a reality where, actually, that land will be having to continue to

be viewed as this designation in this zone. The municipality won't be allowed to,

necessarily…. There's not the flexibility. There's the reasonableness piece that the

minister has mentioned.

This is a real potential. As First Nations have more and more economic capacity, they

might choose to purchase land and use it the way they choose to use it. Essentially,

what has happened here is that this bill, not the Heritage Conservation Act….

There's an example of this where Pioneer Park in Brentwood Bay was just renamed to

HEL,HILEȻ. Admittedly, not exactly the same scenario. But this is a space and place-making

exercise that's happening in our communities. This could actually…. We could have

a scenario where a place-making exercise like this runs afoul not with the Heritage

Conservation Act, a different act — I agree with the minister on that — but with this

act.

Is that a case in which…? Essentially, the minister said….. Well, basically, they're

going to have to test that out. The First Nation and the local government are going

to go to court. I'm assuming it will be with the province. There will be a judicial

review as to whether or not that's a reasonable thing.

Can the minister agree that it's not reasonable to be sending a First Nation and a

municipality to court to determine whether or not it's reasonable for them to be able

to take care of the land in the way that they would like to see the land taken care

of?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation does not override the Heritage Conservation Act. The member is raising

some legit concerns, I think, around the Heritage Conservation Act, and that's fine.

That conversation, I think, is important to have. What I'm saying is that this legislation

we're discussing here does not override that act.

A. Olsen: If they take it and clear the houses off of it, designate it as a heritage space,

a land assembly…. It's not like an arch site. It's a space that has not been identified

or recognized up till now. It is a new site that's going to be recognized for something

that maybe has previously not been celebrated or acknowledged or been given space

to exist.

Is the remedy to sort that out…? The First Nation may decide: "Okay. Well, we shouldn't

be paying mid to high property taxes for this residential property that's not producing

as a residential property." Is there a remedy, other than court, for the First Nation

and the local government with this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation doesn't override the Heritage Conservation Act. So if a local First

Nation were to come forward under the Heritage Conservation Act….

This does not override that act. All the hypothetical questions that may come forward

would be under that act and not part of this legislation.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

The Chair: On clause 20, recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The Local Government Act doesn't provide a concise definition of a heritage revitalization

agreement, but it does allow local governments to supersede local zoning regulations

when negotiating that with the property owner. In clause 20, this "limits what may

be done by a heritage revitalization agreement."

Can the minister give me an example of a limit to a heritage preservation agreement?

[3:10 p.m.]

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

So local governments would still be able to enter into a heritage revitalization agreement

and vary other provisions of zoning bylaw. The provision ensures that the density

or use cannot be varied in that contravention of small-scale, multi-unit housing requirements.

They can go into an agreement still, so no issues there, but part of that cannot be

local government saying to someone who wants to build a home: "You can be part of

this, but you can't have three or four units." They're still allowed to have three

to four units, depending on the size of the lot, but they can still go into an agreement

on the other matters.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Just to clarify, if there's a heritage designation on the home, the municipality in

that heritage preservation agreement can't say to that homeowner that taking it from

a single-family home to a four-unit home would be outside of that heritage zoning

or the heritage requirements that they've got?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Existing heritage homes are exempt from this. I think we've canvassed that at great

length. I'm not sure if the member is referring to something different or if that

was just what you were looking for clarification on.

K. Kirkpatrick: I've got clarification on that, so I'm done on clause 20.

Clauses 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

On clause 25.

K. Kirkpatrick: On 25, under added sections 785 and 786, municipalities are going to be able to apply

for an extension on or before the June 1, 2024 deadline to comply with the upzoning

requirements.

What are the circumstances that would actually merit an extension on that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It could be to complete upgrading infrastructure required for small-scale, multi-unit

housing, if compliance by June 30, 2024 is likely to increase the risk to public health,

safety or the environment, or if there are other extraordinary circumstances, such

as natural disaster.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister give me an example of why an extension might be refused or what they

anticipate municipalities or regional districts might ask for an extension that would

be refused?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The question is a little hypothetical.

I can't presume what will happen, but I can reiterate the answer that I just provided

about the three types of reasons why it would be considered.

[3:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: When we talk about a notice of compliance, requiring the local governments to give

the ministry notice of compliance, what does that look like? Who checks to determine

its accuracy or correctness?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There's a two-parter there. First is that they'll have to notify in writing to us,

in the Ministry of Housing. Our staff, as those notifications come forward, will be

checking regularly to see how communities are doing. Of course, a site standard guide

will make it clear for local governments about how they should adopt and change their

policies according to different situations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Have local governments been notified of this process yet?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we've been engaging with local governments on this legislation.

Local governments will say: "Well, what if this situation happens, or what if this

situation happens?" There are different types of examples that come forward, and that's

how we based the three criteria. The site standards document will come out, and this

will be made public to local governments so that they know, if there's one of these

issues that come forward, that they can seek an extension.

K. Kirkpatrick: Are there any concerns about the capacity in these municipalities in getting this

work done? I mean, I guess this question could be for just about everything we're

looking at in this legislation. I know the minister will say, well, they can access

the $50 million capacity-building fund. But there may be real, true issues, particularly

in smaller communities, with really being able to have the manpower and the capacity

inside whether they can access funding or not.

Is this a concern? Have municipalities expressed this to the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, certainly some smaller local governments we appreciate would have challenges.

That's why a lot of the provisions are not covering the small, small communities,

below 5,000, and regional districts, because we knew they would have particular challenges

coming with that.

Some of the work will be laid out in the site standards document, very detailed work.

Our expectation is that a lot of that, local governments will be able to adopt very

easily.

Now, what we're also starting to hear is a lot of local governments starting to come

together and saying: "Let's work together." I met with Metro Vancouver and asked them

if they could, from a Metro Vancouver perspective, bring all the communities together

and work together to ensure that there's kind of a streamlined approach. There's an

efficiency that comes with that.

There was interest there. I know the CRD is having similar conversations. So we will

see some of those communities come together and take a streamlined approach to the

work. But the site standard document will be designed in a way that local governments

will be able to adopt a lot of things if they choose to do so.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, as the minister knows, assessment rules are generated based on the July 1 valuation

date. If the upzoning…. We're kind of off-schedule there. Is that going to cause an

issue with respect to the assessment rules and B.C. Assessment?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: That wasn't part of the consideration for the dates as they're set out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. It wasn't a part of the consideration, but should it not

be part of the consideration? Is this going to cause some confusion for B.C. Assessment,

not having those dates aligned?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No concerns have been raised to us about that at all.

K. Kirkpatrick: They haven't raised concerns. Have you been in conversation with them? Do they know

there should be a concern?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared in a previous answer, we worked through the Ministry of Finance, who works

with B.C. Assessment, and there were no concerns raised about the timeline. They work

on a year cycle. They don't work on a specific date cycle. So it shouldn't have a

big impact on the work they do.

A. Walker: This clause interests me for many different reasons. When you look at the ability

for local government to delay this new small-scale multifamily units rezoning, which

all governments are going to have to do on all what we call restricted zones, there

are many carve-outs here that a local government could apply for an extension on.

They have the broad category in this bill as being specifically identified as being

a risk to health, public safety and the environment.

I'm thinking of my community first, and then I'll ask more broadly. In my community,

we have, in some parts of the community, not the whole area, a significant shortage

of water. I know we've canvassed this to a certain extent, but as we're on this clause

now, would it be reasonable for a local government to request an extension under sub

(3) here, knowing that rezoning a large area and allowing that density to take place

could exacerbate the existing availability of water?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Out of respect, I'm not going to go into every single circumstance that may come forward.

But I will say that we'll lay out the criteria, and if a local government falls within

that criteria, then obviously that extension will be considered.

A. Walker: I'm under the impression that the idea of committee stage is that we can discuss the

bills that are before us and the impacts on our community. While the minister may

look at this as a minute detail, I have thousands of people in my community that are

on a water system that is literally one hookup away from not having sufficient water

to meet the needs of everyone that's existing and hooked up onto that service.

So I'll ask the minister again, specifically to water. If there is a limit of capacity

in the region, would this provision allow for a local government to make an application

for an extension until the water supply has been addressed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We spent hours talking about this issue with the member. If they're not connected

to water or sewer, then they're not part of this. If they have infrastructure issues

that they can't have the housing come online, then there are provisions within the

legislation for the local government to have a plan to get that infrastructure upgraded

before the provisions come in. We talked about this at great lengths.

A. Walker: That is exactly what this clause is. It's the ability for a local government to make

that application. I'm not talking about communities or the individual homes themselves

that have wells. I'm talking about people who are connected to a municipal source

that has a limited capacity.

[3:25 p.m.]

We have rules in this province that are under the Water Sustainability Act that are

great. We have regular reporting. We have drinking water and watershed protection

groups. There's a lot of really good work that's taking place in our communities right

now. They have defined limits based on the capacity that we have.

I'll ask the minister again. It's a specific question. If there is insufficient water

capacity to be able to quadruple the amount of people that live in large swaths of

our community, would that be eligible, under the this clause that we're on specifically

right now, as a risk to health and public safety and the environment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we'll be putting out the clear criteria. If a community applies, then there'll

be an assessment done on that, based on the criteria that's been put out.

A. Walker: It's difficult to debate legislation when this is again going to be…. I don't know

if this is through regulation. I mean, it seems like the act provides an opportunity

for local government to describe this.

One of the concerns I have is that there's a limitation that the minister, in providing

this delay that local governments…. This extension of the rezoning process — there's

a limit that that extension cannot pass beyond December 31, 2030. As could be imagined,

as we're talking about water, building water capacity on the eastern side of Vancouver

Island requires reservoirs. We do not have the types of rivers that flow from one

community to the next.

These reservoir developments take many, many years. The idea of, even if we started

today, building enough reservoir capacity to quadruple the population in our region….

We're looking at far more than seven years between the time that we have the initial

conceptual plans, the engineering plans, figuring out the regulatory framework.

We still haven't even addressed the Indigenous component of this water resource. Then

we have to actually build the thing and then hook it up into the capacity. I'm not

talking about the size of pipes in our communities. I'm talking about building the

capacity to actually have water to flow through these pipes.

So the question I have is…. There's a timeline for the maximum length of extension

under clause (4) here. What happens if a project is not feasible to be done under

that timeline?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's important to clarify for those watching at home. When this legislation

passes, it's not going to quadruple the population in any community. We expect this

to be gradual, but I think it's important for people at home to know that. We've already

canvassed at great lengths that, in fact, if there are infrastructure gaps and the

community has a plan to upgrade that infrastructure, then the provisions won't come

in until that infrastructure is upgraded.

We've talked about that many times, so I'm not quite sure how many times we're going

to be able to continue to go over the same topic.

The Chair: Hearing some repetition, I hope you have a slightly different line of questioning

on this.

A. Walker: I certainly will enjoy going through Hansard afterwards. The question that I just asked I have never asked before, and I don't

think anyone has ever asked. On sub(4)(b): "in the case of an extension, the date,

which may not be later than December 31, 2030, by which compliance with

section 481.3

is required in relation to the area…."

This is the first time this has come up. The idea that the minister and the Chair

are claiming that we're repeating things…. This is a hugely impactful bill, and people

in our community are asking questions. We understand that we are going to be here

late tonight, but this is not a reason not to allow for the conversations that should

take place.

If we are rezoning an entire area to allow four times the density, it is naive to

not plan for what that could look like as far as infrastructure capacity. If we are

going to rezone a whole area to allow four times as many people living on it, and

we don't…. We? Local governments. This is being passed directly on to local governments.

If they don't plan for the infrastructure need for that density, we're going to have

some serious problems.

The question that I asked, and I will repeat this question because it wasn't answered,

is: what happens when we have an infrastructure project that's not able to be completed

by the deadline that's prescribed in this bill?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The three reasons for extension remain the same. I've put it on the record, and I'll

say it again. If there are reasonable challenges with infrastructure, then we've already

canvassed, in other parts of the bill, where there are abilities for local government

not to have this type of housing until that infrastructure is built.

With this specific piece, there are three frames of what people can ask for in an

exception. I can continue to repeat it, if the member likes.

A. Walker: Well, I have a proposed amendment then. If the minister…. I've asked the question

twice, and not getting an answer, I would like to see….

I'm not getting clarity as far as what happens when an infrastructure requirement

exceeds the timeline that's provided in this bill. I have an amendment proposed here

that will strike that timeline, and I move such an amendment.

[CLAUSE 25, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

25 The following Division is added to

Part 20:

Division 2 – Small-Scale Multi-Family Housing

Transition – extended compliance period for small-scale multi-family housing

(1) Despite

section 481.3 (2) [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] , if a local government applies under

section 786 for an extension of time in relation

to an area, the local government must adopt a zoning bylaw that complies with

section

481.3, in relation to the area, as follows:

(

a) if the extension is granted, on or before the date set out in the notice of extension;

(

b) if the extension is refused, within 90 days after the date set out in the notice

of refusal.

(2) A local government must give to the minister written notice as soon as practicable

after the local government has adopted the last zoning bylaw necessary to comply with

section 481.3, other than a zoning bylaw necessary to comply with

section 481.3 in

relation to an area for which an extension of time is granted under

section 786 to

the local government.

(3) If an extension of time is granted under

section 786 to a local government in

relation to an area, the local government must give to the minister written notice

as soon as practicable after the local government has adopted a zoning bylaw that

complies with

section 481.3 in relation to the area.

Transition – extension process for small-scale multi-family housing

(1) A local government may apply for an extension of time for the purposes of complying

with

section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] in relation to an area that is subject to that section.

(2) An application under subsection (1) must contain the information required by the

minister and must be submitted to the minister as follows:

(

a) unless paragraph (

b) applies, on or before June 1, 2024;

(

b) in the case of extraordinary circumstances, on or before June 30, 2024.

(3) The minister may grant one or more extensions of time to the local government

in relation to an area if the minister is satisfied that the local government is unable,

by June 30, 2024, to comply with

section 481.3 in relation to the area for any of

the following reasons:

(

a) the local government is in the process of upgrading infrastructure that services

the area;

(

b) the infrastructure that services the area is such that compliance by June 30,

2024 is likely to increase a risk to health, public safety or the environment in the

area;

(

c) there exist extraordinary circumstances that otherwise prevent compliance in relation

to the area.

(4) The minister must give to the local government written notice of a refusal or

an extension that includes,

(

a) in the case of a refusal, the date of the refusal, and

(

b) in the case of an extension, the date , which may not be later than December 31, 2030, by which compliance with

section 481.3 is required in relation to the area.

Transition – ministerial order related to small-scale multi-family housing

(1) This

section applies in relation to a local government if the minister is satisfied

that the local government has failed, within the time required under this Act, to

adopt a zoning bylaw that complies with

section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] .

(2) The minister may give to the local government a notice that

(

a) sets out the minister's objections to the local government's zoning bylaw, and

(

b) states that the local government must, within 30 days after receipt of the notice,

alter the zoning bylaw accordingly.

(3) If the local government does not alter the zoning bylaw in accordance with the

notice under subsection (2), the minister may, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends a bylaw referred to in

section

479 [zoning bylaws] to

(

a) permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density of use required to

be permitted under

section 481.3 and

(

b) establish the siting, size, dimension, location or type of housing units required

to be permitted under

section 481.3 in the area.

(4) In making an order under subsection (3), the minister may

(

a) establish different classes of persons, property, circumstances, things and other

matters,

(

b) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different classes referred

to in paragraph (a), and

(

c) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different areas or different

parts of areas of municipalities or regional districts or different persons, property,

circumstances, things and other matters.

(5) On the date specified in an order made under subsection (3), the bylaw enacted

or amended under the order is conclusively deemed to be enacted or amended by the

local government in accordance with the order.

(6) An order may not be made under subsection (3) after December 31, 2031.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government

under

section 479 (1) (c).

Transition – effect of official community plan

Section 478 (2) [effect of official community plan] does not apply, before the prescribed date, in relation to a zoning bylaw adopted

by a local government for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required

to be permitted under

section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] .

Transition – heritage revitalization agreements

Section 610 (2.1) [heritage revitalization agreements] does not apply to a heritage revitalization agreement, as defined in

section 586

[definitions in relation to

Part 15] , entered into before the date this

section comes into force.]

The Chair: If the member would like to make some comments on the amendment at this time, then

we'll take a brief recess to distribute the written amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Walker: The amendment is quite straightforward. I have asked the minister twice now, not for

hours, specifically what happens if a local government is unable to actually meet

the timeline that's being legislated in here. I have twice now not received an answer.

As a result, I'm hoping that this committee will find it prudent to remove the timeline.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess to distribute the materials.

The committee recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

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

Any questions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we can't support this. Legally, when you put in language that you're going to

have an extension, you need to have a date in the legislation. By removing this, it

does not make the ability for extensions to be legal, so we can't support this.

M. Bernier: I'm always troubled by the exchange that we're seeing here. I want to thank my colleague

from Parksville-Qualicum for his diligence on this and bringing this amendment forward.

I think the purpose and the idea of the amendment are recognizing the flaws that we're

seeing in this legislation of not enough information to actually make good decisions

— not only as critics on this side of the House scrutinizing the legislation but the

confusion and the angst that we're hearing from local governments — because of the

lack of answers that we're getting from this minister.

I think there've been some very good examples that have been brought forward on this,

and I'll maybe add one of my own.

I know of communities in rural parts of British Columbia that have, through their

official community plans, actually restricted development in big parts of their communities

because of the lack of capacity for water. The infrastructure is just not there.

This isn't as easy as just saying: "Oh, we're going to snap our fingers and invest

tens of millions of dollars and upgrade some pipes." We've actually got parts of and

in some cases communities as a whole that have said: "We cannot accept more development.

We cannot accept more infrastructure because of the capacity that's built right now."

Case in point is we were saying the majority of us on this side of the House come

from local government. We have that experience. We've been at that table with our

planners. With all due respect, I don't believe the minister has that experience.

But we do. We've lived it, and we understand the tough decisions when you have to

sit around a council chamber listening to your planning staff say: "We can no longer

change zoning or upzone or do anything in a quadrant of our community because the

infrastructure capacity is just not there."

I have been unable to get a straight answer, listening to this exchange, from the

minister on what a community would do for an extension, or what they would do even

in a situation like that, because we're not getting enough information. And it's not

in the legislation to a level that we would expect to be able to support it because

of that.

I think the concepts of what the member has put forward here are really just highlighting

the fact that if the minister had put the information in the legislation to begin

with, to give certainty to not only UBCM but to the communities that we have around

the province, this amendment wouldn't even have to come forward because it would have

been explained in a way that we could have supported.

I'm still very concerned not only, again, by the lack of support for the concept that

the member has put forward through this amendment but by the lack of answers that

we're getting from this minister.

I know how this works. I know how the minister is going to vote. I do want to also,

respectfully, remind the minister of the arrogance of saying: "When this legislation

passes." What he's highlighting, then, is it really doesn't matter what he expects

from this side of the House. It's almost like he doesn't want us to ask questions

anymore, or highlight some of the flaws or issues, because he's already predetermined

that he knows that it's going to be a whipped vote and this piece of legislation is

going to pass.

I would expect different language from the minister, respectfully understanding the

process of the House, of "if the legislation passes" — although we know what he and

his colleagues are going to do.

With that, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum for

his diligence on this and highlighting yet another flaw in this piece of legislation.

[3:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I also would like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I think that this is

a big concern, as the past speaker has just said. This is back when we were trying

to propose the amendment from Nanaimo, making sure that we had adequate water attached

to property, and the minister at that point…. That was not acceptable — that we wanted

to make sure that our infrastructure was adequate.

With all the concerns that we've had, with the information that we don't have in order

to make good decisions here, I think this is appropriate. I think, perhaps, it's an

oversight on the ministry's part that, as we've said over and over, we've got to do

these things hand in hand. Infrastructure with the upzoning — they're all connected

and related.

You can't do one without the other. So I do support what my colleague has put forward

here.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak in favour of this amendment.

You know, this debate has taken some time. It's really been the only time that this

bill has had, frankly, even though these policy ideas were in the mind of the Premier

way back on July 8 of 2021, when he was on an Urban Development Institute panel getting

interviewed by Bob Rennie. The Premier was talking about these principles.

Now, interestingly enough, he wasn't talking about these principles applied to vast

swaths of single-family zones. This policy that the current minister…. And this was

when the Premier was formerly the Attorney General and formerly the Minister of Housing.

But as it was articulated…. I went back and watched the video — great television.

Nonetheless, I went back to watch to see what the Premier had to say and to see what

the development industry was advocating for.

It's quite interesting that there was no talk about doing vast swaths of residential

neighborhoods to apply this to. It was very targeted — the transit-oriented corridors,

as we're going to debate eventually in this place, hopefully. There were other areas.

We've talked about it.

Municipalities have dutifully identified those areas within their communities because

they've done the preplanning process that this minister and this ministry can't do

on their behalf, frankly, nor have they even really, I think, identified that they've

gone through the process to understand what the bigger infrastructure needs might

be for the province. There's maybe a general understanding, but….

Certainly, when we take a look at the number of neighbourhoods that are involved in

this bill, there's not the technical look at the issue that my colleague from Peace

River South, the issue that has been raised by the member from Parksville-Qualicum

and, indeed, the issues that have been raised by local government and former local

government — people who, at every break as we've been debating, have been calling

and going: "How are we going to be able to deliver this?"

I know that the capital region does not want me to walk us back to this, but I'm going

to, because those members that have been around the Legislature here and those that

are from the capital region will remember the wastewater disposal fiasco that happened

under the watch of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Over that decade, the politics that happened, the challenge that happened, I believe,

was outside the window that we have here, from what it took. And that included with

the intervention of the provincial government. Credit to that former government —

they actually….

[3:50 p.m.]

It went on for a long time in the capital region before that, because functioning

at a regional district level is not the simplest thing, when there are all sorts of

weighted votes around the table and all sorts of community needs around the table

at a regional district. So the provincial government did get involved. It was after

that involvement that it proceeded, but it was still quite a bit of time that was

needed.

Our colleagues have been talking about water. Water is often the reason you would

deny that, or you would say: "This is not an area that we're going to grow anymore,

because we can't supply water." It requires a plan now to end this deadline of 2030

— set, as the minister said, because it's required. When you set a deadline, you have

to put a date.

I think what's important to acknowledge in all of this is that if the issue is water,

as an example, then there's also, at this density, a wastewater issue. I know that

the minister will respond to this by suggesting, if he chooses to respond, that there's

going to be another debate coming about how this is financed.

However, it's nearly impossible to determine, until we have an understanding of what

that is, by going through the debate, whether what is being proposed for later debate

is sufficient at this stage to solve this problem that we're creating with this bill.

This is yet another reason that we should probably be having housing policy brought

forward in a coherent plan, linked together. That's exactly the world we live in:

an interconnected and linked world of services, social services and infrastructure.

What's interesting about this debate that we're having now on this amendment that

has been moved is that it is entirely unnecessary for us to be having it. The member

for Parksville-Qualicum gave the minister an opportunity to identify what happens

if the scenario of delivering those services, or even planning for those services,

can't be met before this arbitrary date.

It's in the act only because the minister needed to put a date. There was no other

justification for this specific date that has been put in: December 31 of 2030, which

is less than seven years away now — six full years.

There is uncertainty. As we go to agree to this date, there's uncertainty for our

local government colleagues to say: "Okay, what happens at the end of it?" It's not

even on the record here. The minister wouldn't identify whether it's another judicial

review, whether the province will take them to court or fine them.

The province is demonstrating that they're prepared to get involved in local government

heavily, in detail. The number one challenge that I've heard from my former elected

colleagues — I say that in a broader sense; there are people from all over the province

calling me — is that this bill, and the way that this bill is being brought forward,

is really challenging because of a loss of local democracy, a loss of people's autonomy

and community.

There is a reality in which the Minister of Housing can say: "We've got a housing

problem in our province. We're going to work with you" — as the minister started —

"and we're going to work with targeted communities where we want to see that development

happen. We're going to achieve the goals that we need to achieve. We're going to work

with other communities to achieve the goals that are already identified in their official

community plans, if they're not there."

I think that's a reasonable approach for the minister. I think we could achieve a

lot of the density and volume of supply that we need. Ironically, we could even achieve

the kind of supply that we need and not just pretend that we live in this world where

all supply is created equal. It's not.

We know that people are forced into the supply that the market is creating, well above

their core area need. We've gone over this a lot. The minister doesn't want to engage

with that, because there's no linkage between what the market will bear and what people

can afford. He doesn't want to talk, doesn't want to have any conversation about that.

The reason this is irresponsible for us to pass is that we've had to put a number

in and a date in — the minister has picked a date; it's 2030 — and there's no understanding

of what the repercussions are at the end of that if they're not able to meet it.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think about some communities that come through here. Their responsibility is not

only to deliver that service but to deliver that service to a First Nation community.

It might actually be their responsibility to deliver that service in partnership with

a First Nations community.

Being around the Union of B.C. Municipalities for a while, I know that this journey

of reconciliation is a journey that local elected officials are on as well, a different

journey. They are on 200 different journeys, and each community is in a different

spot.

When I was in Central Saanich, Powell River had already met with our Tla'amin relatives.

They were well down the road. They had agreements in place. They had done waterfront

work. The district of Central Saanich, at the time, was still at the very nascent

stages of taking that UBCM funding and doing community-to-community forums, in that

development stage.

Potentially, by having this date and not having the remedy available to us when a

member asks for it, the minister is making assumptions that these services are going

to be dealt with and that nobody is going to be interested in understanding what the

penalty might be if the date has been passed.

The minister was given, on two separate occasions, the opportunity to identify it.

I think it's irresponsible and maybe even offensive for the minister to say: "We're

going to impose this date on you. It's just going to be hanging over your head." At

the time of the debate, we're not even going to identify what further measures we're

going to take to impose the will of the provincial government onto the local governments

and the communities that elect them.

There is further erosion of local democracy. It is being shifted to an official community

planning process that is sufficiently broad that people don't necessarily even have

a chance to talk about the specific things that happen in their neighbourhoods. Most

community members don't participate too much in that process, as they do in the local

neighbourhood processes, and that's not being reconciled in this bill.

I think it's irresponsible for us to be passing this bill, with this date in it, and

not providing some indication to our colleagues at local government of what penalties

they face or what kinds of powers this minister or — should the NDP ever not form

government again, which might happen — some other minister in the future is granted.

It's important for us to understand that this decision we make continues into the

future. Other people are also given this power, so that they're able to make the decisions

that this minister is making. I certainly hope that either the minister stands up

now and provides what the potential outcome could be — making this whole exercise

moot — or that we just set this date aside and not have it hanging over the communities'

heads.

A. Walker: This amendment is to eliminate the date, for which we have no sense of clarity of

what happens if it's not met. That's the date by which a local government has to have

a plan to address the infrastructure shortfalls in their communities. Listening to

the minister's first response, about how it would be unenforceable, is really an interesting

lens to look at this entire bill.

There are two ways of considering that comment of being unenforceable. One is that

there's no clarity for local government about what the consequences or the timelines

are. That's in force; the date is there. The clause right now provides the minister

the ability to set a date to get something done. The other side of "unenforceable"

is that government would then not have the power to take local governments to court

or step in and take over. Those are two very different levels of force,

We started from the initial question: what are we trying to accomplish? It's about

creating more supply and lowering costs for regular British Columbians. As we've gone

through this debate over the last several days — weeks, really — in this place, all

that we've done is divided our communities, creating less clarity and more angst.

[4:00 p.m.]

The development community, builders in my community — they've been saying for a while

now that things are getting difficult to build homes, whether it's the step code increases,

which I support; whether it's local governments restricting development; whether it's

interest rates going up. We have builders in our community, as we do all over the

province, that are just cashing in, selling and leaving.

Listening to the minister's response to this and the continual reference to judicial

review, originally I was thinking of a developer or a homeowner that says: "I want

to seek clarity, and I'll get a judicial review on the decision that was being made."

But the more I reflect on this, the more I see this as an opportunity for government

to use the independent judiciary to take local government to task.

If the goal is to create so much power, whether it's in the Premier's office, in the

minister's office or in executive council, that they can supersede local governments

to just do what they need to do, that's not how you get things done. We need to work

together with our communities.

I said yesterday the local government officials that are elected to represent our

towns and our cities have the same goals that the government does at the outset of

this, which is to make homes more affordable for people.

The discussion that we continue to have in here is a lack of answers, being told:

"Well, the question has already been asked." Well, it's very clear we've not got to

this clause before, and this specific issue has not come up. So answers are not being

provided.

We're being put in a situation where the remedy that's being recommended is that government

sue local government, which is not a good outcome for anybody. And it just seems like

there are a lot of unnecessary challenges that are being foreseen now, that are going

to play out in our communities and that I think are going to lead to less homes being

built and adding to the costs that people will see in our communities.

This amendment is quite straightforward. I was hoping that the minister would answer

the questions and the amendment wasn't required, but here we have it before us. I

look forward to hearing from the minister in response to these discussions.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Excuse me. Would members like to waive the remainder of the time and vote now?

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

members of

Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is on the amendment to clause 25 relative to

section 786(4)(b), which

removes the words "which may not be later than December 31, 2030."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

yeas — 6

Banman

Bernier

Clovechok

Merrifield

Olsen

Walker

nays — 8

Begg

Conroy

Dykeman

Glumac

Kahlon

Ralston

Sims

R. Singh

The Chair: Back to clause 25.

A. Walker: This consideration about the lack of infrastructure in a community implies that local

government has absolute control over that infrastructure. We're aware of certain arrangements

where there are business arrangements with private individuals. Sometimes there are

relations that require another level of government or another agency to make these

approvals.

As we evaluate this clause, the ability for local governments to apply for an extension

for a lack of infrastructure, if that infrastructure is health infrastructure…. For

example, in my community, my hospital is literally bursting at the seams. It's 30

percent over capacity.

What will happen when local government applies for an exemption under this clause

due to infrastructure — for example, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, which

is in woeful condition — to ensure that the members of their community have access

to public health and safety?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, investments in health care are vitally important. We are making considerable

investments in the region.

Part of the need for the housing is also because we have health care workers that

need housing. So that wouldn't be a provision that would be considered for this, because

we need the housing for the people that are going to make sure that our community

stays healthy.

A. Walker: The example I gave wasn't about a lack of health care staff. The staff are doing a

great job. The problem is that they're serving patients in hallways and sometimes

even in the parking lot. There is a huge concern in my community. If we allow four

times as much population…. I know the minister says that this bill will not, tomorrow,

bring four times as many people. I'm agreeing with him. I'm not saying it will. But

we have to plan for the potential for that expansion of population.

The hospital in Nanaimo is 30 percent over capacity pretty much every single day,

and that's on a good day. It's not over capacity due to lack of staff. It's over capacity

because of physical plant. The regional district pays for 40 percent of those improvements.

The regional district has been fighting for government to match their contributions

of 60 percent to increase that capacity, and this government is saying no to increasing

capacity to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital.

It is a lack of infrastructure that has been noted by local government in my community.

Local government has even offered to pay the entirety of the business case planning

process to move things along faster. But the province has said no to the business

case, even though they're not paying anything, and they have said no to the expansion

of a patient tower at the hospital.

[4:15 p.m.]

This clause specifically says that there can be an extension if there is an infrastructural

deficit that puts people's health at risk. I cannot think of something that would

be as serious as not being able to receive health care when you need it, in a timely

way.

The minister has not answered the question. If it is the provincial government that

is limiting the health care capacity in our area, will the province allow for an extension

for themselves to get back to the table?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The provisions we will consider are for upgrading infrastructure required for small-scale,

multi-unit housing development: compliance by June 30, 2024, is likely to increase

risk to public health, safety or the environment for the extraordinary circumstances

preventing compliance, like natural disaster.

Health care workers need housing as well, so it's important we get housing built across

the province.

A. Walker: That's a good answer, but it didn't answer this question.

The question is…. The infrastructure that services the area is such that compliance

by June 30, 2024, is likely to increase the risk to health. I've identified, in our

community, that the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is at capacity. If we allow

for four times as many people in our community…. I'm not saying it's going to happen

tomorrow, but we have to plan for what we zone for. That's what local government is

good at — planning.

The question to the minister is: would that be a reasonable request, to have a local

government request that this zoning not take place until that much-needed health infrastructure

is at least planned for, or, potentially, built?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, respectfully, already answered that question.

A. Walker: Yeah, this is going to be interesting to rewatch.

I'm asking questions about a hospital, and I'm being told that health care workers

need housing. I agree, but when you have a senior in your community that is stuck

at hospital for two weeks, and they're not in a shared room — that would be a luxury….

Sometimes they're not even in a hall; they're in a closet somewhere. They don't have

access to a bathroom, and they are not getting the care that they deserve. This is

something I hear all the time in my office.

If a local government makes an application for an extension because they recognize

that risk, it's an issue. I've asked the question regarding hospital care.

The same issues take place at a local level with primary care. Again, this is a similar

question but a very different avenue because, again, the delivery of health care in

a community is actually privately delivered, as we see, through family doctors. We

have a lack of clinic space in our community. It is not something that local government

has traditionally led on. The province…. There have been many requests for funding

for health centres in our community, and they've all been declined.

Is it reasonable for a local government, looking at the local health care situation

with primary care, to apply for an extension to ensure that the people who currently

live in the community have access to the primary care that they deserve?

Hon. R. Kahlon: All communities deserve adequate health care. We are making historic-level investments

in health care throughout the province, actively recruiting health care workers to

be able to ensure that people are healthy and safe. We'll continue to do that work.

We also need housing in our communities. I've already given the member an answer to

his previous questions, and the answer on what will be considered for an extension

is still the same.

A. Walker: A month ago, I had 11,000 people in my community without a doctor. This month, it's

over 14,000, and I've heard that other doctors are potentially looking at leaving.

It's a huge challenge. Local government has raised that with me regularly, and we're

working together to try to find a solution.

The minister has not answered any of my questions related to this or water that would

satisfy people in my community as far as the questions that I'm asking, so I'll move

along to a different question here.

[4:20 p.m.]

When we talk about proper planning, we talk about natural assets. It's a natural infrastructure.

This bill will allow for the application of an extension if there's a lack of infrastructure.

Does this include the natural assets that our communities rely on, whether it's water

to permeate back into the soil or other types of natural amenities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they can get an engineer or someone who has got designation to help make the case

that there are some serious environmental issues within the community, then that might

be something that comes forward.

A. Walker: And what happens in that particular case where the conflict is the fact that we have

dramatically densified an area that poses that health circumstance or environmental

circumstance? So it's the rezoning that's itself creating the reason for the lack

of infrastructure in an area.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can speak to the clause, and the clause states the provisions for an extension.

The member asked a question around the environment, and I've already shared that answer.

I could speak to the clause, if there's a question on the clause.

A. Walker: The question is very specific to the clause. The clause is the ability for a local

government to apply for an extension.

An example of an area that would pose environmental challenges is, as we see…. And

it's not just about tree canopy, but the parcel coverages increase and the ability

for water to be re-entered into our environment…. That has significant impacts both

environmentally, as far as providing water within our streams and our rivers, and

also potentially to future generations as the aquifer fails to replenish itself.

The question was: if council makes a request for an extension because there's uncertainty

around the increased density in an area and the impact it would have on the environment,

what would the minister say to that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the answer is the same because the question is pretty similar. If they've got

a qualified professional that says that there is a concern to the environment, then

that is something that they can consider in this provision.

A. Walker: That, I think, provides some clarity. As long as councils are relying on the expertise

of a third party, then that application will go through — not necessarily approved,

but at least it'll come through to the minister. That provides some guidance there.

On sub 787(6), there is a requirement that orders may not be made under sub (3) after

2031. Could the minister explain why that is?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This goes with the extension — the December 31, 2030. What the date that the member

referred to essentially says is that I, as the minister, or whoever the minister may

be at the time, can't override for non-compliance after that date.

A. Olsen: Is the minister concerned that it might be a step too far to consolidate essentially

all of the powers that all of the local governments have in this province to him?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That's certainly not what's happening with the legislation.

We're setting a minimum. We know communities have many more needs. They have needs

to ensure that there are parks. They have many more needs to ensure that there are

different types of housing within the community. With their community planning, this

will set a floor to allow for small-scale, multi-unit housing to be built. But it

doesn't say that it's necessarily what will get built.

I've said this many times, and I suspect we're going back to the conversation we had

all last week, which is: this allows for different types of housing to be built, but

many people will still choose to build single-family homes because that's what they

want to live in. And they have the ability to do so.

Local governments still have the powers to decide anything higher, if they choose

to do so. They have the ability to make a lot of important decisions within their

community. This just creates a new floor.

A. Olsen: Again, I think one of the key disconnects that is happening here is that by extending

this, but then not also providing the measures to be able to plan for it properly….

This could be built out like this over a long period of time, putting an incredible

amount of strain on the systems that already exist.

Like has been said by the members who've been making these decisions, who've been

sitting at these rezonings, who've been through the subdivision process, local governments

have to go and be able to accommodate 100 percent of what's available. And what's

available is what this minister is just unilaterally creating through this bill, this

process, this….

Then there's 787. Maybe if the minister, then, could explain what the purpose of 787

is for.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As we've canvassed in this House, if local governments are not able to or don't want

to change their bylaws to enable small-scale, multi-unit by the date that we've set

out, this gives us the ability to put our site standards as the standard until such

time the local government has made its changes.

[4:30 p.m.]

A. Olsen: As the minister just described it, essentially, this new clause that's going to be

added to the Local Government Act, in relation to this piece, is going to take the

powers of all the local governments across the province, it's going to consolidate

it and it's going to hand it to the minister. Is that correct, that the minister could

end up being the sole decision-maker on this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is the same as I provided previously. The member can make it into whatever

he likes to make it into. This is specific to small-scale multi-units, and the site

standards would be the de facto policy for local government if they're not able to

do so — to make the changes in the required time. I suspect most governments will.

A. Olsen: Who has this decision-making and policy-making power that currently exists?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Small-scale, multi-unit legislation is new. The power related to this specific provision

is now with the Ministry of Housing, because it's a new piece of legislation.

A. Olsen: This

section applies in relation to a local government if the minister is satisfied

that the local government has failed within the time required under the act to adopt

a zoning bylaw that complies with the section. And it goes through how the minister

may give the local government notice that sets out the minister's objections to the

local government zoning bylaw and states that the local government must, within 30

days after receipt of the notice, alter the zoning bylaw accordingly.

The minister is here…. This zone, this small-scale residential use, is now under the

control of the minister. And I think that it's important to point out. It's like this

is just one zone of many zones. However, this zone might be across those 85 communities.

This is a lot of neighbourhoods. These are vast swaths of neighbourhoods within the

urban containment boundary.

Sub (3) says: "If the local government does not alter the zoning bylaw in accordance

with the notice under subsection (2), the minister may, with the prior approval of

the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends a bylaw referred

to in

section 479… to (

a) permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density

of use…."

So now the minister is going to be able to make the minimum density use there, establish

the siting, the size, the dimension, the location. This is all if the local government,

under the powers granted to them on behalf of the citizens of their community, decides

not to comply with the minister, which is…. You know, we still live in a democratic

society. If the local government is fairly certain that their community does not want

to see what this minister has chosen to impose upon them, they could choose not to

participate in this process.

The minister has outlined all of the requirements that he expects of the local government

to meet his needs. In making an order under subsection (3), the minister may (

a) establish

different classes of persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters; may

establish different things and other matters; may make different provisions, excluding

exceptions…. Including exceptions — sorry; it'd be interesting if that said excluding

exceptions, but it says including exceptions, whatever that might be — for different

classes referred to in paragraph (

a) and make different provisions, including exceptions

for different areas or different parts of areas of municipalities or regional districts

or different….

Does the minister agree that he is giving himself quite a bit of power over a community

that may decide that this is not the way that they are choosing to achieve the housing

needs assessment that they've done? They've done the planning. All of the infrastructure

requirements point to developing here and not where the minister has unilaterally

decided that they're going to develop. They're needing different tenures, so they're

not going to build those small-scale multi-residential units that the minister has

decided every community wants.

They're going to achieve that target that the minister agrees they can determine.

It comes from the ground up, as we learned earlier today. They're going to achieve

that through other means. The minister is now taking this power within this

section

787 and saying: "No, you're not. In fact, what you're doing is what I say you're doing."

Is that not a fair assessment of what's happening?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've canvassed this at the great lengths, and I'll just say this. What we're saying

with this is that in areas where communities already have housing — they have already

understood that they want to have housing being developed — there be an ability for

different types of housing to be built on that.

I'm not saying eliminate single-family homes. Single-family homes can still be built

but ensuring that there are different types of housing being available for people,

because many people can't afford when a single-family home gets taken down or when

a single-family gets put back. Many people can't afford that. We need to have housing

options available that are more attainable.

What we're saying with this legislation, which we've been saying from the beginning,

and I've been saying it to the member across the way many times, is that we're giving

local governments the ability to take our site standard document, which will be made

public, to be able to put it into their bylaws. Many communities, the majority of

communities, will and want to do this.

In fact, the member himself brought an amendment forward yesterday asking for his

community of Salt Spring to be included in this.

Many communities know that this is an important opportunity to get the housing they

need for young families, for people that are struggling in our communities. What we're

saying with this provision is that local governments have the ability to make the

changes off the site standard document next year. If they're not able to, or not interested,

or if they're fine with our site standard document, this gives us the provision to

be able to put our site standard document as their bylaws until such time as they've

made the change.

I appreciate the member doesn't like this legislation, and that's fine. We have canvassed

this topic multiple times, and clearly we just disagree on the importance of this

to address the housing crisis.

A. Olsen: I think one of the challenges here is that, as I mentioned earlier, as this bill has

been given some air, finally — even though, as I mentioned earlier, our Premier had

been talking about the basic tenets of this bill back in 2021 — the minister, who's

also the Government House Leader, decided to put these multiple bills on at the end

of a fall session at the end of a legislative calendar year after, basically, the

Premier had already identified that these ideas were in mind, at least a version of

it. Actually, not as it has been pointed out; it was much, much more targeted.

Even Bob Rennie's version of this was far more restrained, which is interesting, in

that video that I watched. Even the vision and the picture that Bob Rennie paints

in that is far more restrained than this. Because Bob's done a lot of development,

I think that it recognized the real restraints that local governments have when it

comes to actually trying to do their planning well and being able to do it in a coherent

way.

Anyway, I think what is identified by the people that are calling me as this bill

gets air…. As we finally get an opportunity to see the specifics, we then find out

that many of the specifics are going to be delivered to us much after this bill is

passed.

In fact, the design has been to jam it at the end of a calendar year, jam it at the

end of the session of the calendar year and bring it forward without any of these

guidelines, any of these specifications. "Just trust us. We're going to be fine."

The discomfort that's being expressed to me consistently is, frankly, with the amount

of power that this minister, and this government, is trying to suck up and take from

local governments. That's a very key primary concern, and it's from people across

the political spectrum. It's from people that have got a lot of experience in these

matters.

Actually, if it was just an isolated piece, if it was just in this bill, that would

be one thing. But we're seeing that behaviour in this House across….

[4:40 p.m.]

When we take a look at 787 here, we recognize that it's actually part of a broader

culture of this minister taking the power away from local government if they don't

comply the way the minister wants them to comply. See, that's what makes so much of

this eye-watering. Even if a municipality wanted to comply, in a coherent way, to

their planning and meet the goals that the minister has suggested they need to meet

through the new housing needs report, the minister still….

They say: "You know what? Look, we're not going to participate in this. We're out.

We appreciate that you're trying to help us out. We're achieving the goals. We'd love

for you to come to the table with affordable housing." That's very difficult to get

the provincial government to do. "We're doing hundreds of units here. We're doing

four, five, a dozen units, 30 units over there for the actual affordable rental and

the core housing needs housing."

We get to sub (5), "On the date specified in an order made under subsection (3), the

bylaw enacted or amended under the order is conclusively deemed to be enacted or amended

by the local government in accordance with the order," and (6): "An order may not

be made under subsection (3) after December 31" — a colleague asked about that — "2031."

The minister, at least, has provided an outside timeline in which the powers that

he is consolidating within himself right now will evaporate and he will no longer

have.

Then sub (7) is concerning: "For the purposes of this section, the minister has the

powers of a local government under

section 479 (1) (c)."

Essentially, this sub (7) is taking the powers that a local community will elect in

their mayor and council…. The minister is assuming the role of that locally elected

council when it comes to this specific zone. Is that a fair characterization of what's

happening here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A few things. I think it's important to note, for the viewers at home, that the member

doesn't speak for every local government. In fact, even half of his community wants

in on this, given the amendment that he brought last week. So to suggest that this

is all local governments is not factually correct.

Now, I get it. In this place…. This is politics. If we had brought this in the spring,

there would have been different complaints. In fact, in the spring, a critique was:

"Why isn't this legislation here yet? Where is all this stuff they said they were

going to do about housing?" When it's fall, they say: "Well, why is it now? Why is

it in the fall? Why isn't it next year in the spring? Why don't we have more time?

Why don't we do it earlier?"

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Then if it was next spring, they would say: "Oh my god. Look at this. It's before

an election. Now they're bringing this in."

I appreciate that there are a billion different ways for the opposition to come at

this. Fundamentally, we're talking about the same clause that we were talking about

for the last five days. The principle is the same.

The site standards document will be in public. Local governments will have the ability

to adopt that in their bylaws. If they're unable to do so, then this provision allows

us to have the site standards be the de facto bylaws for small-scale multi-units.

I can say that multiple times. The member can ask about it multiple times. But we're

saying that clearly. This is the provision, and this is what the intention of it is.

A. Olsen: I think the minister doesn't want to answer the question and decided to, basically,

make a bunch of statements that are not even characteristic of what I'm doing here.

I've never once said that I represent all municipalities. In fact, what I've said

is that the minister is trying to take the power of all the municipalities. That's

what the minister is trying to do, to consolidate those powers by saying that under

this piece, under the small scale….

Ultimately, it will flow to him or flow to the minister, whoever it is. It could be

a different Minister of Housing when we come back in the spring, and we'll be asking

the next Minister of Housing what it is that they're going to be doing for the people

that are in the core housing need that communities identify.

I've never even claimed to represent Central Saanich. I've stated that I've sat at

the Central Saanich council table, though. That's true. I do have that experience.

I have been at every Union of B.C. Municipalities convention since 2008. I've been

at the AVICC. I've been around the conversation. I've never claimed to represent the

current council in Central Saanich, the current council in North Saanich, the current

council in Sidney. I have no business. That's their business.

[4:45 p.m.]

There is a responsibility that we have here, as legislators, to be able to ask the

questions that local governments might be wanting answers to at this stage of the

debate. If the minister finds that so offensive, then that's a problem. That's a problem.

Let the record show. I've never once claimed to be anything other than the person

that I am, as a member for Saanich North and the Islands, as a resident from Central

Saanich, as someone who has been sitting at both of these tables.

I have identified that I have experience at both of these tables. That's true. I've

done that. I've identified with my colleagues who also have sat at these tables. There

is, actually, something that's important about that. I know that there are other members

in this House that have sat at these tables as well.

I think it's also important to put on the record, if this is what we're doing in this

debate, that we've not been talking about this same clause. As was pointed out in

one of the minister's own responses just a few minutes ago, this is a new clause.

We've not been talking about the same clause. We've just been talking about the new

clause that the minister wants to add. It has sub (7) in it, which says: "For the

purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government…."

Is it not correct to suggest that the minister, with respect to this

section and with

respect to these powers, has given themself the power to be able to act as an elected

mayor and council, effectively replacing the mayor and council? If a community decides

that they're choosing to achieve the growth requirements that this minister or B.C.

Stats or CMHC or whoever it is that is going to be required to follow the numbers….

They decide to achieve that through a way that's coherent to their planning.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Nowhere in this legislation do we talk about replacing local government.

What's important here is…. What this provision does is say that the site standards

document, which we'll make public…. If a local government can't adopt it by the date

that's set out, we have the ability to make sure that the site standards document

is the small-scale multi-unit policy for local government. That's the power.

Now, the member has inferred that I'm giving myself some powers. I think he had a

fair point, which is that I might not be the Housing Minister in three months, four

months. In a year, he may be the Housing Minister. The member for Peace River South

may be the Housing Minister.

The provisions in the legislation are, we believe, the right things to do to get the

housing supply that we desperately need in our communities and to make the best use

of the infrastructure that we've already invested in. Regardless if it's me or my

friend across the way or my friend from Peace River South, the policy is still the

right thing, given that we're in a housing crisis.

The member has asked this question multiple times. I'm saying to him: "Yes, this is

what the provision does." The provision….

I should say that it may be the member for Parksville-Qualicum, as well, that could

be the Minister of Housing. It could be any of us.

In the end, this legislation, we believe, is the right path forward. It's about using

our infrastructure to get the best use of that infrastructure to get housing. It's

not about me getting power. It's not about anybody in particular. It's about doing

what we believe is the right thing to address the housing crisis.

A. Olsen: Does sub (7) replace the power that a local government has to make a decision with

the power of the minister or give that power to the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It gives me the power to be able to ensure that the small-scale multi-unit policy

is there, if they can't, but it doesn't take away their powers.

That's what I meant when I said earlier that it doesn't replace local government.

What it does is say that if the small-scale multi-unit policy is not able to be adopted

by a local government…. The document that we have will be the site standards document

for that community until such time as they've had the ability to change theirs.

[4:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does it remove the power of a local government to make a decision to not adopt the

site standards but to choose to achieve their growth targets, which have been established

through their housing needs assessment, through their updated official community plans?

Local government was following all the rules but decided: "We're not doing it through

this method. We are going to achieve everything." Does it replace their power to make

that decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation and this provision ensures that if a local government cannot meet

the timeline that we've set out for adopting the bylaws, it gives the Minister of

Housing the power to be able to make our site standards the standard document for

that community.

A. Olsen: So it removes the ability for the community to choose to not meet it. I recognize

that both the minister and I are dealing in semantics here a little bit, but the minister

says "cannot meet it." It does remove the ability for a local council to listen to

their community, who come out and say: "This is not what we want to do. The community

plan achieves what the minister is wanting to achieve. We'd prefer for you to stick

that way. We've been engaged in these processes."

This removes the ability of a local council to actually listen to their public, if

that's what the public wanted to do, and say: "We're going to achieve this through

other ways." And it allows the minister to come in and say: "Too bad. We're going

to do it this way."

Hon. R. Kahlon: Same answer as I gave previously.

A. Olsen: In that case, I'm going to move an amendment to remove sub (7) from this section,

because I think that it's unnecessary to give the minister the powers of a local government

under this section. I think it's very clear that what the minister wants to achieve

from this is to be able to get the local government to follow the directive that they

take.

I think by removing sub (7), it still provides that impetus but requires the minister

actually to negotiate this and consult and work with the local government, rather

than just take their power to make the decision on this clause.

The Chair: We'll take a recess to distribute the proposed amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

Member, if you would like to speak to your amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment.

I think there's an opportunity here for the minister to assert what the minister is

choosing to assert, which is setting a timeline, a timeline that ends in 2031, making

a very strong s