Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

22, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 3:23 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

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

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

A. Walker: I want to begin, with the Chair's leniency, by apologizing to any member that was

in committee yesterday who was paying attention, as I know there were many that were.

So I apologize if I used too broad of a brush.

My first question, if I could, on clause 1, is: in the opening remarks from the minister,

or introductory questions, there was some discussion about some modelling that was

done. I'm not sure if that modelling was done here in B.C. or in other jurisdictions.

Could the minister describe any modelling that was done that could relate to what

we could expect to see in our communities when this act comes into force?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, there was modelling done. We will be making that modelling public. It was provincewide

impacts, so it's not community-by-community impacts. Of course, by community, it will

vary, given lots of factors — market conditions, location, size and geography. So

it's more provincewide, not city by city.

A. Walker: Could the minister describe what that modelling produced and how it informed this

legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The modelling showed us that we can expect 130,000 net new units of housing in B.C.

over the next ten years.

A. Walker: The minister mentioned the other day that in Portland, with similar legislation, they

only saw 200 or so units of new housing. Maybe it was 600; I don't remember the number

exactly.

What is different with what's being proposed here than what was done in Portland,

a population of about 700,000 people?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Generally, it was fairly similar, except for –– a different country, some different

market conditions, etc.

A. Walker: I find that challenging. If the modelling that our provincial government is using

with similar legislation is projecting 130,000 new homes, and that same legislation

or similar legislation in the United States, in a state there, only saw a few hundred,

could the minister explain how the modelling was able to find such a wide disparity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The professionals that we've hired provided the data. They're not here to go through

that. I can't share that detail with him, other than say that that's the projection

that they shared with us.

A. Walker: I look forward to seeing that modelling. It certainly would have been nice to have

seen that prior to the debate on this legislation so that if we had questions, that

helped…. That's a document that would have helped inform government to bring this

legislation forward. It certainly would have been helpful in the questions that we

have here.

This modelling. Did it take into account some of the limitations that could exist

with this new zoning? For example, in my community, our construction industry is maxed

out. They don't have the labour to be able to fully increase production. I'm just

wondering what limitations might have existed in the modelling that was presented

to government.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, market conditions were considered in this.

A. Walker: Through this modelling, were other ministries informed about the increase in density

and increase in homes that will be projected in regions — for example, the Ministry

of Environment, with the requirement for new schools; Ministry of Health, with the

requirement of new health facilities?

Has there been any communication from the Minister of Housing to these other ministries

to prepare them for the impacts that this could have, with 130,000 new homes across

the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we are making significant investments in all those fields. When the housing needs

reports are done and official community plans are updated, that will allow us not

only to better predict the level of schools and other health care facilities we need

but also help inform B.C. Hydro on some of the work that they need to do.

A. Walker: That was another one of my questions — the Crown agency different from other ministries.

B.C. Hydro, in my community, when we wanted to see a 16-unit rental building built

downtown, which naturally has higher amenities as far as capacity for B.C. Hydro,

we're looking at like a one-year wait to be able to get approval from B.C. Hydro.

As we see this come into force in areas like that, where the hydro capacity isn't

there, what is being done to ensure that the modelling that was projected is able

to be achieved with the limited infrastructure that exists with B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Hydro just finished a public engagement with communities, with the home-building

community. They reviewed both their cost structures but also the capacity needs they

need for supporting the growth of housing opportunities. I expect that they'll make

that public when it's complete.

A. Walker: Sounds great. I want to thank the minister for these quick, rapid-fire answers. I'm

getting through my list real quick, so this is great.

[3:30 p.m.]

One of the challenges that we see in communities where we see a single-family home

come down and others rebuilt is that these homes tend to be at the end of their life.

Does that modelling project any loss of affordable housing or rental housing that

will exist in our communities as new homes are created on those sites?

Interjection.

A. Walker: Certainly. What is projected, through the modelling that I don't have access to, is

135,000 or 130,000 new homes across B.C. I'm just wondering (1) if those are net new

homes and (2) if, through that modelling process….

We see that this act will take existing single-family homes and rebuild them with

four homes. So the question is: did that modelling take into account the loss of those

single-family homes and, especially, the loss of rental homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. Correct. It is net new, and they did take into consideration new housing starts

as part of their calculations.

A. Walker: As these new homes are built, likely, in communities like mine, they will be smaller

than the homes that they have replaced. Are there any protections that are being proposed

or that will be brought in around the same time to protect both rental stock and family

homes in communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Most of these types of homes are not rentals, so we expect that the new units that

will be created will be family-friendly.

A. Walker: That's wonderful.

Could the minister explain the process…? I know a lot of this is going to be brought

into force through regulation. If the minister could explain that process of how that

regulation is going to be generated and what consultation will take place for that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Population thresholds, frequent transit

definitions and unit level density will come

through regulation. Lots of consultation has been happening on that, and it's happening

now.

The site standard document will come out fairly soon as well.

A. Walker: I appreciate listing the different components that will be set through regulation.

I'm just wondering: what is the process of that consultation? What will it look like?

Who will be engaged? When will that take place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's been ongoing. We've got not only local government participation; we've also got

professionals, whether it's in the development and the homebuilding community, planners,

etc.

A. Walker: Communities like mine are raising significant concerns about this. Are there opportunities

for all local governments to participate in that consultation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we consulted broadly. I mean, you can't go to 180 communities, but we did a sample,

and Nanaimo and Nanaimo regional district were some of the communities that we engaged

with.

A. Walker: So from that, am I to understand that consultation is then completed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is still some work to be done, but as I highlighted, we have been engaging.

We did a sample size, so some smaller communities and some larger communities. Again,

I named the two in his region.

A. Walker: Could the minister expand on the timelines, then? If some of the consultation is done

and some is yet to do, what is done? What is yet to do? Who is going to be consulted

in the next phase?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Most of the engagement is already done. Now the focus is on education and, I guess,

public awareness more so.

A. Walker: That changes it a little bit from what we were saying before. I appreciate the sort

of rapid fire. As we can adjust, that's fine.

Is the minister able to provide a list of those who have been consulted through this

process up until now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's easier if I just provide my colleagues with copies of this instead of

reading through it. It's a very extensive list.

Does that work?

A. Walker: I'm thrilled that that's extensive. I look forward to seeing that written copy, and

I appreciate the minister for the opportunity to share that with me.

As the modelling was rolled through — understanding that the goal is on housing but

that in communities like mine, it will have significant impact on ecological areas

— I'm just wondering if there had been any modelling on the impacts on the natural

environment and natural assets.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The modelling considered urban containment areas and where there is already development

happening.

A. Walker: Recognizing that — and that's a good answer — I'm just wondering, though: was there

any modelling done or any discussion internally about the impacts that this new land

use change will have on the natural environment and natural assets?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We know that green space is, obviously, incredibly important for community health

and climate resiliency. As local governments implement these density initiatives,

they should plan for parks, green space and other amenities in their communities,

which they will be able to review regularly through the newly mandated regular official

community plan updates.

At the same time, we know that focusing on increasing housing supply, within existing

developed urban areas, is critical to preserving green space overall. It makes the

most efficient use of land and preserves the intact natural ecosystems surrounding

our communities.

A. Walker: That's good. Local governments set urban containment boundaries. They've been, in

many communities, a little overzealous on where those go, to try to align it with

other community policies.

[3:40 p.m.]

But it doesn't really come to the core of the question before, which was: has the

Ministry of Housing made any consideration for the impact of this?

If the answer is, "Local government can deal with that," that's fine, but I'm just

wondering if the Ministry of Housing has done any evaluation. Or have they relied

on other ministries, like the Ministry of Environment, to measure the impact of the

natural environment change and the loss of natural assets?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Local Government Act, Community Charter…. Local governments have existing authority,

like development permits, for municipalities to manage growth near hazardous, environmentally

sensitive areas.

Existing legislation also protects environmentally sensitive areas from development:

Drinking Water Protection Act, Environmental Management Act, Riparian Areas Protection

Act and the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

A. Walker: We'll get into the powers that are being removed through clause 4 shortly here.

The development permit areas to protect ecological areas and hazardous areas — some

of those are being removed. The question to the minister was whether the ministry

had done any consideration of impacts on the natural environment, especially in the

lens of natural assets.

I'm not going to keep asking the question. If it's up to local governments to do that

work through their official community plans, that's fine. The minister is nodding,

so we can move along.

The Water Sustainability Act introduced by the previous government was groundbreaking,

and it sets some key responsibilities on local governments to really look long-term

in the future. As the work has been done on this act, have there been any communications

with the Ministry of Environment to ensure that this act doesn't conflict with the

goals set out in the Water Sustainability Act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that has happened.

A. Walker: Would the minister be able to elaborate on those discussions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, staff engage with multiple ministries to ensure that the legislation that we're

bringing forward doesn't conflict.

A. Walker: We'll get into this when we get into clause 4, with some of the challenges in the

regional district of Nanaimo, specifically.

The Cowichan Valley is, to my understanding, the only community that has really moved

along in a good way on this Water Sustainability Act with their plan. Our regional

district and others have drinking water and watershed protection plans, which is great,

but the act affords additional powers. One of those powers is the ability to restrict

development.

Does this act supersede those protections that are in place under the Water Sustainability

Act?

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

A. Walker: We were talking about parkland dedications earlier. Normally, as local government

sees a subdivision, there is a requirement that land — I think it's 5 percent — be

set aside for parkland. What we are seeing through this is a rapid densification of

areas that local governments have determined, in their official community plan, to

be within the urban containment boundary.

The question is: are there additional powers that will be afforded to local governments

who are funding to ensure that a certain portion of parkland dedication can be had

as we see more growth and development in these areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It is something that we're considering in the very near future.

A. Walker: Could the minister elaborate on what that could look like for communities that are

currently looking at shrinking their urban containment boundary expressly for the

purpose of creating more parkland dedications?

[3:45 p.m.]

Are there any hypothetical situations that the minister could provide that might prevent

local governments from changing the urban containment boundaries specifically to try

to prevent these measures?

Hon. R. Kahlon: At this point, unfortunately, I'm unable to share that.

A. Walker: One of the comments, raised through the debate between the member for West Vancouver–Capilano

and the minister, was the pointing out that in West Vancouver, I think, 70 percent

of people who work in the community don't live in the community.

Is it projected, through this act, that we will see that number reduced? If so, but

maybe not specific to that circumstance, what could be expected as far as affordability

and people being able to work in the communities that they live in?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It is our hope that with more housing options, more families are able to be in the

communities closer to their employment.

A. Walker: Is that being measured, as this act comes in, to ensure that it is effectively doing

that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments are monitoring that right now as part of their workforce strategy.

I suspect we'll be able to get updated information from many of them as we go forward.

A. Walker: As this act was introduced, and as we've seen it move along, it has created some uncertainty

and some anxiety in communities. We have a project that is being led in the city of

Nanaimo, the Sandstone development, which is a $1 billion project. A component of

that project is a large portion of single-family homes.

That project, to my understanding, has gone through fourth reading, with the caveat

of trying to get clarity from government on what this could mean for that type of

development. Has the minister seen these types of developments across the province,

whether this large or smaller, being put on hold? If so, is that a concern for the

minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I met with Nanaimo council and CAO regarding this. I can't speak to the specific project,

but I assume it's the same one that they were coming forward with. They asked some

questions, and staff provided them some answers.

A. Walker: Wonderful. I'm happy to hear that. Does it concern the minister that as this was brought

in, that type of project would be delayed, potentially longer, depending on the communication?

These are new housing projects. Does that concern the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: These are greenfield projects. Of course, councils have a decision to make around

that. The legislation prioritizes infill areas, where there is already development.

Of course, local governments will need the information that we're providing to them,

and they'll be able to make appropriate decisions.

A. Walker: As a greenfield development, if a new development is approved that has single-family

lots…? It's not my understanding that they would now be allowed for up to four units

per lot.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Under this legislation, local governments would have to consider this legislation

for any planning that they do, going forward.

A. Walker: I'm assuming the answer is yes, then. If a council, between now and June 30 of next

year, approves a development application or a subdivision within a community plan

and those have single-family homes, it's my understanding that those will now be allowed

for four units.

So on the disparity that the minister mentioned comparing and contrasting greenfield

development to infill development, it's really the same. Is that my understanding?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It depends on the size of the lot. It may be three. It may be four, depending on the

size of a lot.

A. Walker: One of the challenges that we see in a community like ours that is surrounded by agricultural

lands is that influence and that conflict between agricultural properties and residential

development. What has the ministry considered, as far as mechanisms to minimize that

impact between active farming operations and what will now be medium-density homes?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation doesn't cover agricultural land. I think the member knows that. We've

excluded larger lots from this legislation, because often they are the ones that buttress

against agricultural land.

A. Walker: No, I fully recognize that the ALR is excluded from this, and we're not having that

conversation.

One of the things that was done when the ALR came in was to create contiguous swaths

to try to minimize that impact between other forms of land use. When you're an active

farming operation, if you've got a residential development right nearby that is medium

density…. I'm not going to purport that four units allows high density. But when you've

got that many people living adjacent to a farm, it can create conflict between property

owners and farming operations.

So the question to the minister is: what consideration was done to minimize that impact

on farming operations as we see more density in these confluence areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this is why we focused on urban containment boundaries where local governments

have decided that they want development to happen. That's one of the reasons why we've

focused on that space.

A. Walker: Yeah, I think one of the challenges is when a local government allows a single-family

home beside a farming operation. That is a very different dynamic than having a fourplex

beside a farming operation.

I can speak from personal experience and from the conversations I've had with constituents

who are farmers. I'm very small in the farming world. But even something as subtle

as running equipment late at night and dust and noise can create significant dynamics

between property owners.

I'm hearing the minister saying that maybe the best solution to mitigate these impacts

of farming operations and density is to restrict and retract the urban containment

boundary. If that does not happen, there will likely be an increase in bylaw enforcement

calls and costs associated with that.

So with these sorts of odd dynamics that will exist, whether it's between farming

operations and residential or other conflicts, is there any consideration for additional

funding or supports for local governments as they navigate this process to prevent

them from using the blunt instrument of retracting the urban containment boundary?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Ministry of Housing doesn't have any programs, but the Ministry of Agriculture

may.

A. Walker: Certainly, I'm trying to get through this. I've only got three or four more questions,

which is great. I'm being pulled between Hansard, who's telling me to slow down….

They're not. They're fine. They're all good. She can remove that from the Hansard record altogether. It never happened.

As we go through this process…. There's a lot of uncertainty and upset in my community

and, I know, in other communities. If the minister had a crystal ball, would he go

through the same process that we've done before, which is, in many ways, no different

than other legislation, or were there learning processes, learning opportunities through

this that the minister could share with us that we could, hopefully, see in future

as these large changes come forward for local governments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I believe we started this process in 2019 with the DAPR review, where local governments

were engaged on all the reforms that they believe we need to put in place. If you

read the DAPR review in 2019, you'll see the pathway of where we're at now. So I feel

pretty comfortable with the path that we're taking and where we're at now.

A. Walker: Yeah, the development approvals process review is a wonderful document, and huge kudos

to any staff that were involved, or elected officials, in that process. I often point

back to it as a guiding principle.

The challenge is that that review talks about things like not holding public hearings

when it's in line with the official community plan, which is already a power that

local governments have, and, for whatever masochistic reason, councils still continue

to hold these public hearings. So I appreciate that. I appreciate that the minister

is saying that nothing would have changed in the process as we go through this.

[3:55 p.m.]

As I look through other communities that have already pre-zoned areas for density….

I'm thinking of Vancouver. Of course, Vancouver's got their own charter, but let's

just pretend I didn't say that. They have pre-zoned areas that have four units allowable,

similar to what this would be, but they have restricted that to include a certain

ratio of rentals and other mechanisms.

Will this new rule remove that rental restriction on those properties?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When the site standards come out, that will be, my expectation is, the minimum. If

local governments want to do more, then they certainly can.

A. Walker: This act will apply to single-family homes, duplexes, duplexes that allow an accessory

unit or…. I think it's defined in there.

Is there any consideration about local governments that might potentially upzone to

make sure that this act doesn't apply but then add other restrictions on those properties

that would actually preclude the density that it's zoned for?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the site standards will be the new minimum. I presume some local governments

could zone for six stories in every single lot and put a lot of restrictions in place.

That's a lot of work to avoid housing when you're in a housing shortage.

I guess we're just thinking outside the box. If a local government wanted to zone

for six stories and make it rentals only in single-family homes, yeah, I suppose they

could do that.

A. Walker: I'm not trying to be too hypothetical here. Local governments could, now that everything

is going to be four units…. If something is already zoned for four units, my understanding

is this act doesn't apply.

So a local government could, within the urban containment boundary, designate lots

to allow for four units and then put very restrictive development permits in those

areas and other restrictions that could dramatically increase the cost of development

and make it economically unfeasible to see this development take place.

My question to the minister is: has this been considered? Are there going to be mechanisms

in place to prevent that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would refer the member to clause 4, where it lays this out in detail.

A. Walker: Yeah, we can re-canvass that on clause 4. Happy to do that.

On clause 1. Actual questions on clause 1. I know — amazing, isn't it? So this is

actually referring to what is a "housing unit" and the definition. Just because we're

on clause 1, I'm assuming other members can jump back to more broad questions.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is the definition of a self-contained dwelling unit. The first question I have

on that…. I know the answer, but a self-contained dwelling unit…. If it does not have

laundry facilities, would it be considered a self-contained dwelling unit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Laundry is not included.

A. Walker: I had assumed as such. I'll progress through this, and it will make a bit more sense.

Would a unit be considered a self…? What do we have here? A "'housing unit' means

a self-contained dwelling unit." Would that be considered a housing unit if it does

not have a kitchen?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It must have a kitchen.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called.

I'd like to recognize the minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:01 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada