Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 196

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Lee

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

T. Shypitka

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. G. Heyman

T. Shypitka

J. Sturdy

I. Paton

B. Stewart

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care

Hon. J. Whiteside

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of honour and privilege to introduce a number

of seniors from Surrey-Newton. They belong to the Indo-Canadian Seniors

Association. There are 54 of them.

These are the people who built the country where they come from; now

they are helping build our country. Many of them worked here and helped

build the province of British Columbia.

There is a wealth of wisdom. Every time I go to the centre at the

temple, I come back with my head full of all the wisdom that we need to do

whatever work we need to do.

[Punjabi was spoken.]

Please join with me and give them a very, very warm

welcome.

Mr. Speaker:

Jee ayan noo.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 16, Transportation Amendment

Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, continued Committee of Supply, estimates

debate of Ministry of Environment. After they are finished, we will then proceed

to Ministry of Education and Child Care estimates.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: We’re here with the Transportation Amendment Act committee

stage, and we were finished up on clause 1.

B. Stewart: Further on to the discussion we were having this morning. We were

talking about terms of how these legislative changes will bring about

more, I guess…. Affordable housing is one of the key things, although

it’s more than just that.

I wondered if the minister…. In his remarks in second reading, he

had talked about how the price of housing had gone up by about $600,000

in the last five years. I’m just wondering what impact he sees this

legislation will have directly on the price of housing.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much, Chair. With your indulgence, I might make an

introduction, because it is very exciting to be joined in the gallery by

our guests from the Surrey seniors organizations who are here with us

today. Welcome to the exciting — some would call it plodding — aspect of

law-making this afternoon. We’re pleased to have you here with

us.

I also see a good friend and an amazing community member in the

gallery with us today. Jean McRae, who is the CEO of the Inter-Cultural

Association of Greater Victoria, has really made a difference in our

community and for many people who have settled in greater Victoria and

built their lives in this community. So it’s wonderful to see her here

in the gallery this afternoon.

To the member’s question in terms of how this legislation will

help us address very expensive housing prices that have developed,

really, since about 2001…. They were very flat in the decade preceding

and accelerated drama­tically in that decade, and indeed, that has

carried on in the last five years.

I would say this. There are certainly housing experts and

affordability advocates and economists who have looked at the difficulty

in supply. There are often too few homes for sale of all types. There is

also a discussion that I think is rightly focused on the speed of

approvals. Most recently, we even heard the Prime Minister weigh in on

provinces, territories and local governments to meet a much more

ambitious target for housing starts across the country, to grow from

200,000 to 400,000.

I know that for our part, in terms of British Columbia’s strategy,

we’ll continue to work with mayors and local government leaders and

regional districts. What will help us in some parts — and certainly in a

number of fast-growing, dynamic cities that we’ve discussed already in

this debate — is to have the passage of Bill 16. This will allow the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to buy land and work with the

development community, work with the local government and come up with

supportive policy agreements. We’ve discussed those, again.

Again, supply and the speed at which housing starts can be

completed are all things that I believe Bill 16 will help government

with as a significant new tool in our toolbox to promote housing

affordability.

B. Stewart: I think that the question I’m really asking to the minister is:

with Bill 16, I understand that it gives the B.C. Transportation

Financing Authority the ability to invest in transit-oriented hubs, as

it’s described in the bill in clause 1.

[1:40 p.m.]

What I’m asking about is: how is this going to impact and directly

affect the price of housing? If we look at the supply issues, we know

how many houses were built in British Columbia last year, the limited

number of trades that we have. The influx of people moving to the

province, whether they’re from within Canada or whatever, is far

exceeding that.

What I’m really drilling down to is: what type of housing? How

many units is hoped to be provided or materialized with this

legislation? Is there a plan as to what this will do over the next one,

two, five years in terms of bringing on that supply that he just

referred to?

Hon. R. Fleming: A lot of communities are updating their official community plans,

their neighbourhood plans. I’ll try not to be too controversial here,

but let’s just say there are a number of long-established, built-out

neighbourhoods where the argument around density is a little more

difficult. I think the argument is really around gentle density and new

forms of housing — laneway housing, suites in houses and those sorts of

things.

But where we have undeveloped land or area that can be redeveloped

that is anchored in a major public transit investment like a SkyTrain or

like a bus rapid transit system, again, this is a tool that in each

transit-oriented development site, gives us the ability to create

agreements with the local government to redevelop more dense, mixed-use

developments that support the goals of advancing affordable child care,

that accrue to the public the upzoning and the value enhancement to the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority that would, in essence, be

invested in housing affordability.

We’ve talked about, in this debate so far, opportunities that were

not pursued that are no longer available — for example on the Canada

Line, where there weren’t targets around affordable housing and there

weren’t housing units or deeply affordable housing units as part of that

massive transportation investment. We see opportunity in the

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, for example, and other projects forthcoming to

be able to have a much stronger role in leading redevelopment of

properties.

We discussed this before we adjourned from the morning sitting. We

see the opportunity to look at underutilized stations that, in part or

in whole, the Crown already owns — for example, park-and-ride facilities

and such — that can become compact, mixed communities with significant

redevelopment.

It brings more land into play. It brings the ability to shape

growth. It complements and aligns with our investments, in the billions

of dollars, in rapid bus or SkyTrain technology and other public transit

systems that we are investing in — and to make sure that we get things

like child care, new schools, affordable housing and the sorts of public

goods that we would expect to accompany a significant investment such as

we’re making.

B. Stewart: First of all, I think that the minister talks about laudable goals

about expanding the housing supply, child care spaces and all of those

things. Those are all important. However, with this type of

legislation….

We talked earlier this morning about whether expropriation is a

tool that would be used. That’s more in clause 3, you said, in talking

about that. What I guess I’m really trying to figure out is: has there

been an assessment that’s been done to develop how much housing might be

created by this and over what time frame?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: What I would say to the member is that would be impossible to

quantify at this point in time.

What I can say is that if British Columbia typically has 35,000 to

45,000 housing starts — and I believe last year we even exceeded that;

we had the highest number of housing starts on record — what Bill 16

brings to the game, if you will, in terms of creating denser

high-quality developments and more housing units, is significant. We’ll

find out when we do more transit-oriented developments.

What I do know is that right now the province cannot pursue and

play a lead role in doing that. This will give us a much greater ability

to afford deep partnerships with municipal governments, with the

development community, the non-profit housing community and others,

employers that wish to invest in creating better integrated communities

that are walkable, that are safe, that are serviced by excellent

world-class transit systems. It’s a different way of developing, and it

will, certainly per square kilometre, create many more housing units

than doing nothing or in our current steady-state

environment.

This is going to add a lot to the ability to accelerate both the

approval and the construction of housing and also the numbers of housing

units. But it will be determined by individuals, supportive policy

agreements that we have with cities and different plans that we have for

different stations or transit exchanges in different communities. Those

will be, I expect, pursued by local governments that are very interested

in talking to the province once we have a tool like this at our disposal

to be able to lead redevelopments that are part of a transit-oriented

development idea.

B. Stewart: I guess I’m trying to get a framework as to how much land is

identified currently that might fit this criteria. Of the 40-some

thousand that were built last year…. I know the government’s goal is for

114,000 units of housing. That’s their housing goal, their ten-year

plan. We see the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says that about

10 percent of that has been either developed or in the works to be

developed. So, what’s the percentage? Can you hazard a guess as to the

order of magnitude that you’re hoping for, let’s say, over the next two

years — what you see that this could bring to the table?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question, maybe just to give him an idea about

some of the quantifying that is being done as neighbourhood plans and

official community plans are being updated, it would be to go back to

the example we talked about earlier, in Surrey-Fleetwood.

There are three stations involved in that neighbourhood area.

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain will be in service in 2028. Basing the new,

updated plan on the SkyTrain technology and the transportation

investments that the province is making with our partners — the federal

government, TransLink and the city of Surrey….

The current population in this area, around these three future

stations, is about 38,000 residents. This transportation investment is

projected to support new forms of housing and residences that will

increase that population to about 142,000 by 2050, just on those three

stations, in those neighbourhoods surrounding those stations.

That is a very significant amount of density. The member can

imagine how it will go — each two, five, ten years, as development

proceeds — because of the potential that is unlocked by the

transportation investments that are part of that project.

B. Stewart: Just to repeat and make certain I’m clear on what the minister

just said, the Surrey-Langley extension, with three stations, with a

population that’s currently at about 38,000, which will grow up to

132,000 over ten years…. Sorry. By 2028 is when it’s expected to open.

Then that would come…. So the timeline really is, probably, over the

next ten years, then, not necessarily in the next two to three years. I

realize that that’s only three stations of this.

I guess what I’m trying to better understand from the fact…. We

don’t necessarily…. We’re not in disagreement. We want to know how we’re

going to execute on this as a province. During that line…. I’m assuming

that there are going to be impacts on ALR land. So there are going to

have to be exclusions. I mean, transportation is the single largest

applicant to the ALC in the province, for lands being removed. I’m

assuming that the line will be no different. It’ll impact agricultural

land.

How will this lens that the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority is going to look at around these stations — if it is in

agricultural land…?

Hon. R. Fleming: I believe we are still talking about the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain

in this question he’s posed around ALR exclusions that would be

necessary for that project, if I’ve heard him correctly. None of the

stations are contemplated to be on ALR land. So the impact of the

project on the existing ALR land is expected to be quite small, quite

minimal.

B. Stewart: That’s good to hear. I do think…. One of the things that I’m

trying to get to in understanding this is how the B.C. Transportation

Financing Authority, which acquires the land while it’s doing this

development, executes on this. Does it work with…? I mean the building

of this, the development, the zoning, etc.

[1:55 p.m.]

The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority isn’t typically, I

don’t think, involved in that type of detailed zoning. Is there a plan

as to how the Ministry of Transportation would transfer the land to

somebody, work with somebody or work with another ministry, such as the

Ministry for Housing? How is it going to turn into the increased housing

that you have alluded to?

Hon. R. Fleming: The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is already one of the

largest landowners in the province of B.C. It routinely does rezoning of

properties. There is experience in business units in that organization,

and there is a logic as to why they will take the lead here as the

agency of government that already acquires land necessary for

transportation improvements — to also expand that role, as this bill

allows for, and to take the lead on transit-oriented

developments.

We expect the typical arrangement for transit-oriented

developments will be long-term leases with the development community,

with the non-profit housing commun­ity, preserving land for public

use 70, 80, 90, 100 years from now. There may be other ways that that

will proceed, and there may be other partners that have public lands —

school boards, local governments and others — that will be a partner and

a landowner and a development partner in a given individual

transit-oriented development that is being pursued.

B. Stewart: Okay. I shouldn’t have underestimated the magnitude of the

Transportation Financing Authority in terms of the lands that they own.

It brings to mind lands that I know in my own riding that are sitting,

and have sat for some time, and that are for future development — the

interchange of Boucherie Road, for instance. That’s probably not

something on the top of your mind.

I guess the question is…. From what you are saying, though, as

they acquire these lands…. They take them in, and they have a plan to

develop these transit-orientated hubs. Is the government saying that the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will be the developer in most

cases? Then as they have their vision, they may sublet to a developer,

which is further in the bill, talking about, with the Minister of

Finance’s agreement, at less than market rates or whatever the return

is. Will they become the lead in terms of the development in this

process?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The member asked, I think, about what role the BCTFA will play as

a developer, and I would put to him that there are many components to

what a developer is or what their role is in a development. Certainly,

when it comes to being a lead in the land acquisition, yes, we see the

BCTFA as playing a significant role in transit-oriented developments in

that regard.

We currently are a developer of transit infrastructure — so-called

horizontal infrastructure, if you will. It’s not contemplated that the

BCTFA would become a developer, i.e. constructing vertical construction

— housing, commercial buildings and those sorts of things — but rather

would be a partner. That’s pretty common in development partnerships

that you see around this province and around the world, where you can

have a land-owning partner with a lease agreement working with a private

firm or working with the non-profit housing provider.

That’s how we see transit-oriented development around the stations

that we’ve talked about and in other regions that might unfold with Bill

16 becoming law. That will be the role the BCTFA will play.

B. Stewart: I think I understand that the Transportation Financing Authority

will then become the facilitator in acquiring this land to help create

the opportunity, but it doesn’t want to do the development itself. So we

go back to the municipalities that are where these land acquisitions

will take place. I know that there have been statements made by both the

Minister of Housing — and, I believe, by yourself, Minister — about the

fact that in some cases where local government….

You cited it earlier in your remarks: the fact that there are

people that are completely comfortable with the way the status quo is

and don’t want to see any changes in the future. That requires the use

of either paramountcy or overriding. I guess what I’m trying to say is:

is that what the government may have to use in getting these

developments to fruition?

Hon. R. Fleming: Each local government has done a job in their official community

plans and through other documents and neighbourhood plans to identify

what their housing needs are. We’ve talked already about the Broadway

corridor plan. We’ve talked a little bit about the Surrey-Langley

SkyTrain and how plans are being updated, literally as we speak, in

anticipation of the transformative power of that transportation

investment. I think the member’s question was essentially: is government

intending to use paramountcy — I think you mean expropriation of

unwilling sellers — in a situation to do transit-oriented development,

if I’m interpreting correctly?

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m not interpreting correctly. Okay, then let me get back to

maybe where the heart of the question lies. What transit-oriented

development offers a municipality is the ability to concentrate and be

intentional about where livable density goes, where compact communities

are, where land reuse is anchored by a pedestrianized area that is

serviced by a rapid transit system, be it bus rapid transit, in certain

regions of this province, or the SkyTrain examples that we’ve used

about, that are being constructed or are in pre-construction right

now.

That’s really what Bill 16 is going to give the province the

ability to do: to create the partnerships that I think we’ve outlined a

number of times already and that are defined in clause 1, that is still

under discussion here, even at this hour, going forward.

I hope that answers the member’s question, but nobody has a

crystal ball about what community reaction will be to a proposal around

different types of density. There are all kinds of levels of government

and community associations. Democracy mediates what communities think

and feel about what change looks like in their area, but I can say this:

the difference is that the province will be able to respond to some of

the things that I certainly have noticed are at the top of communities’

priority lists right now.

That is they’re not interested, per se, in density for density’s

sake, but they are very deeply interested in having families be able to

afford good housing and live in very livable communities. The provincial

government really hasn’t had the leverage or the tools to be able to

ensure that that happens, certainly not in adequate quantity.

Under this bill, we propose that the BCTFA, our municipal

partners, our development partners, our non-profit housing sector

partners and our job creators that wish to invest in new commercial

spaces become a part of this. I think the member, hopefully by now, can

see the potential in what that may mean and what the significance of

this new tool will be for the provincial government.

G. Lore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Lore: I’m just thrilled to welcome students from Royal Roads, joining us to

listen to the debate in this stage of the process.

Welcome. Nice to have you here.

The Chair: Welcome to our guests.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: The word “paramountcy” has been used extensively in terms of

municipalities not willing to deal with the situation where there are

people in parks and other places here in Victoria, Penticton, Kamloops,

Vancouver. I only say that meaning that I think that for the most part,

the municipalities have come to the table in trying to find a

solution.

I don’t have any illusions about how easy or difficult it will be

to get transit-orientated. It sounds wonderful. I do think that

consultation with the groups of people the minister just mentioned —

community groups, neighbourhoods, all of those type of people — to get

them onside….

I’m just trying to understand. We’re moving towards where some

portion of this may become state-owned housing. B.C. Housing currently

is buying property. It can do exactly what B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority…. Maybe not on the scale and the magnitude; however, it is a

tool that they can use where they can buy land and do it. They do it now

with the hub system.

I guess what I’m really trying to ascertain is, with the

government’s plans and with overriding municipalities, are there changes

contemplated? I know the Community Charter is being discussed. We had

legislation recently. There is more being debated after this bill. I

guess what I’m just kind of wondering…. I think there is a point, the

Minister of Housing certainly has said, where if communities are not

willing to play ball, then the government is going to step in and impose

certain constraints on the land use or getting things done.

[2:10 p.m.]

I realize that we have an acute problem. Don’t misunderstand that

I’m not understanding the challenge that your government faces, but I

want to understand with some clarity: is the use of paramountcy or

overriding municipalities likely going to have to be part of the

solution?

Hon. R. Fleming: What I would say, in answer to the member’s question, is that Bill

16 has nothing to do with amendments to the Community Charter or

existing pow­ers in the Community Charter or the Local Government

Act. That’s a different, rarely invoked tool that’s located in other

statutes. It is not part of Bill 16.

B. Stewart: I wonder, depending on how this happens, is the government

considering that it might use something like a CBA, in terms of

developing a transit-oriented station as described under clause 1 of

this act?

J. Sims: I’m seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Sims: Today has been a very busy day in the Legislature, as we know, and in

the precinct. But I have four very special guests here this afternoon, and

they will be here this evening as well.

The first one is Simrit. She’s a 16-year-old student who works at one

of the high schools in my riding. She volunteers not only at my office but

at the local law firm. She’s involved with the Surrey Women’s Centre, has a

full course load and is taking extra courses online. She is also learning

how to play the piano and helps to care for her younger brother. I can tell

you that her incessant thirst for knowledge and wanting to learn is

absolutely admirable.

The second guest here is Sidney. She also volunteers in my office and

is involved with a youth group through her church and school, as well as

choir. She plays soccer and helps her mom with her autistic

brother.

My third guest has just finished her co-op placement at my office.

Japkirat approached every outreach situation with the confidence of a

seasoned politician, introducing herself to all in attendance, asking

poignant questions. She volunteers at a law firm as well — track and field

participant — and has her own home business.

Accompanying them today is someone who makes my life so easy. It’s my

constituency assistant, Jennifer Campbell. As we know, we come to meetings

and, as my great-granddaughter always tells me, it’s our constituency

assistants who do the hard work. She is an amazing advocate, an amazing

person for casework and does a huge amount of outreach in the

community.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, his question is around Bill 16 and whether it

impacts, one way or the other, the use of community benefit agreements

in transit-oriented development. I can say that none of that is in the

legislation before us. I’m not aware of any policy discussions about

that procurement technique and what transit-oriented development is

going to look like in terms of our partnerships with all sorts of

organizations, private sector developers, local governments, school

boards, employers creating new employment centres.

[2:15 p.m.]

B. Stewart: The reason I ask that is that under that piece of labour

legislation, using CBAs, it includes transportation. It includes

schools, which the minister cited as being part of these

transportation-oriented developments. That’s the reason I asked that

question.

If they’re going to include those things, does it mean that there

will or will never be CBAs used in those developments?

Hon. R. Fleming: I don’t think I’m in a position to ans­wer what may happen

in the future, ten, 20 years from now. Those are decisions that are not

made by me here this afternoon and have nothing to do with this bill. I

suppose those decisions will flow from, again, the kinds of partners

that will be involved in developing transit-oriented development: the

private sector, local government, the BCTFA.

I would correct the member. I’m not aware of a CBA being used on

any school project in the province of B.C., but he may know

differently.

That is really out of scope in terms of the legislation that we’re

discussing, and it’s a very difficult question to answer because it

involves a crystal ball that I don’t have.

B. Stewart: When we talk about crystal-balling, we’re talking about how much

land and where it’s going to be and all of these. There is a lot of

crystal-balling that is in this Bill 16, in the sense that there are no

real parameters. It’s not about a specific transit line. It’s about

transit that criss-crosses the Lower Mainland and the rest of the

province.

I will move on from the CBAs, but I believe, if I’m not mistaken,

that hospitals, schools and transportation were all part of that

framework that was going to be, if over a certain value,

CBAs.

I guess the question I have is: what about industrial land in

terms of…? There’s a need for that, too, right? People have to live,

work and play in kind of an area. There is a finite amount of industrial

land. Is that something that…? It may be existing inventory, but I just

wondered if you could tell us if there is anything for industrial

development lands.

Hon. R. Fleming: The member is probably looking at the TOD definition in this

clause, where it does reference industrial alongside commercial,

institutional, recreational and residential development.

What I can say is that industrial land…. There is considerable

pressure in Metro Vancouver. That’s a separate issue that a number of

agencies and ministries of government are working with, including the

port authority and others. It’s a little out of scope in terms of this

bill. But I think maybe one of the things that the bill will bring to

the effort to preserve, maintain and expand industrial lands to support

manufacturing and other types of activities is by essentially preventing

sprawl that is not sustainable and eats up a lot of greenfield land in

the region.

[2:20 p.m.]

Concentrating it on livable, compact communities around

significant transit infrastructure investments, like the ones we’ve been

discussing this afternoon, helps alleviate the pressure, the

profiteering and the speculation on flipping industrial land into an

alternate use.

I would also say that transit-oriented development — and you can

see examples of this around the world — sometimes has kind of like an

urban industrial component to it — that it preserves space in developing

a complete compact community, has industrial service areas and

activities as part of the overall development.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

B. Stewart: I guess in terms of clause 3, we want to talk about…. I wonder if

the minister or ministry could tell us about — and I don’t know if he

can answer this — how many BCTFA properties are currently owned and

could be developed with this legislation in front of us

today.

Hon. R. Fleming: Difficult question to answer exactly or precisely, but B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority has land all over the province in

different parcels, most of which — if not all of which, most of which —

were not purchased with transit-oriented development in mind in the

past. They were purchased for projects or other acquisitions that were

perceived as necessary for rights-of-way and things like

that.

With this legislation, a lot of those holdings, those parcels, can

be re-imagined as parts of potential transit-oriented development

projects. They’re in places that are strategic, that are serviced by

significant transit infrastructure — Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby,

Surrey, places like that.

I would be remiss, though, not to say that we’d be in even better

shape had government not, under the previous government, been ordered to

sell off hundreds of parcels.

[2:25 p.m.]

There was significant divestment of BCTFA holdings a decade ago in

order to meet other fiscal objectives, which were momentary or part of

the fiscal year, that could have been useful in a post–Bill 16

scenario.

But I will say to the member that we do have some good,

significant, strategic holdings that are already owned by the BCTFA that

could indeed be part of future transit-oriented development

projects.

B. Stewart: I guess the question I am trying to ascertain is…. I’m assuming

that the ministry must have done some sort of assessment on what

properties it currently has that would be feasible for

transit-orientated development. I’m not asking about the total amount,

but what, maybe…? Have they done identification at this point or

not?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, there has been a lot of early identification work done by

BCTFA, our ministry, as well as municipal governments, their staff. I

mentioned in my previous answer that this includes municipalities like

Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby, Surrey. Some of the locations the member

would be familiar with: Lougheed station, Sperling station, Scott

Road.

We talked earlier in this debate about Uptown here in greater

Victoria, which is a key part of a transit exchange that is to be built

that will be, likely, part of a more comprehensive transit-oriented

development. So yes, we have done some work, worked with municipal

staff, and we do have some strategic properties that are going to be

useful for transit-oriented developments.

B. Stewart: I remember last year in estimates talking to the Minister

Responsible for Housing about Crown lands. I think his response was that

it’s one of the things that the Crown has. It has a tremendous amount of

Crown land, which we know, but within communities. I know that, speaking

from experience. There’s Crown land within municipalities that could

perhaps be developed. Whether they’re transit-orientated is another

matter.

I guess I’m looking at…. I don’t think there are many communities

around the province where we don’t hear about an affordability crisis

and the fact that there is a lack of housing. Since you have identified

some of these existing transit-orientated pieces of property that B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority has, maybe, is there…?

Have they identified other areas besides the Surrey-Langley

corridor that you referred to — the three stations out there? Have you

identified other areas where you’re going to be perhaps looking to

acquire lands? Has there been a plan developed as to the acquisitions

and how much investment is going to go on to try to acquire these

lands?

[2:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Fleming: This is enabling legislation that will unlock a number of

potential acquisitions and also really animate the transportation

planning programs that the ministry and government have. Close to his

constituency, for example, the Central Okanagan planning study, which is

currently underway, will definitely take into account Bill 16, when it’s

passed, and look at what kinds of strategic acquisitions would be good

to pursue where transit-oriented development is deemed appropriate and a

good idea to move forward.

That, I imagine, will happen in a number of regions and

communities around the province. I’ve mentioned the capital region on a

number of occasions. There will be other parts of the province where

those transportation planning exercises will be able to utilize the

expanded role of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to create

partnerships and allow the province to work more closely with

municipalities who have affordable housing targets and goals and be able

to use investments that are happening through this ministry to also

accomplish a number of other public goods, including the housing, the

child care, the employment centres and the redevelopment potential in

those communities.

B. Stewart: I realize there are a lot of communities — I think it’s like 161 —

and 27 regional districts in the province. I guess what I’m asking is:

before this enabling legislation was developed, was there…? I’m assuming

that there’s a plan as to where the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority is going to focus its attention. What are the priorities that

they have? Obviously, they have plans for transit under construction.

But where are they going to look first? Do they have a plan?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I would say to the member that what we are going to do,

moving forward, should this become law, is start aligning all of our

transportation investments with a lens of being able to use the BCTFA

with their new powers and transit-oriented development. We’ll certainly

renew and continue discussions with some of the fastest-growing

communities under the greatest pressure about their OCPs and, certainly,

those that are involved in our own transportation planning

programs.

I think we talked earlier in the debate about TransLink 2050.

Certainly, there are hundreds of kilometres of identified rapid transit

corridor over the next three decades there that are high priority areas

in that region. We’ve talked about Kelowna and their aspirations to

develop the bus rapid transit system they have to include

transit-oriented development. I look forward to that. We talked about

Uptown, which is already acquired, and B.C. Transit is already working

with the municipality of Saanich on that project.

But really, the clause we passed moments ago, clause 1, gives a

pretty good definition of where we can pursue TOD — at bus exchanges, at

passenger rail stations, at prescribed transit facilities. So there will

be, I expect, a number of communities that will want to look at the

infrastructure they have, the infrastructure they’re expecting to have

under, say, our transit expansion program, and how that might align with

their own community interest in housing or other redevelopment in that

community.

B. Stewart: I’m thinking if…. When Bill 16 becomes law, what are going to be

the next steps for B.C. Transportation Financing Authority? I guess I’m

thinking about…. Knowing that this bill is in front of the House, where

are they at in terms of their acquisition of lands or development of

TOD, as you just referred to it, in terms of the Broadway subway, the

Surrey-Langley line? Have they contemplated acquisitions — they have a

plan, or are they just planning to do that after this becomes

law?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think we’ve covered this a little bit, but the B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority has an existing portfolio, so we’re

evaluating that and its potential and value as part of

transportation-oriented development. We’re evaluating acquisitions on

transportation corridors. We’re making investments, and we’re planning

acquisitions.

I hope the member doesn’t have too many follow-up questions on

that, because we don’t necessarily want to disclose and tip our hand in

Hansard as to exactly where those are. But the member can

probably guess, because we’ve talked about some of those

projects.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have an existing portfolio, planning acquisitions. That’s how

we’re proceeding. Those will all be in the spirit of the legislation, in

support of transit-oriented developments, under the new

definitions that

the amended act provides us.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Of course, I don’t want to

be tipping the government’s hand in having that. But it sounds like

they’re actively expanding or looking at the scope of what they’re doing

in terms of where they see transit going.

In terms of the Broadway subway line, when that was brought out,

there were conceptual plans. It didn’t quite identify the intensity of

development that I think…. You mentioned the 39-storey tower being

approved. I guess what I’m wondering is…. You went ahead, and you’re

spending — I forget how many — billions of dollars on that line. But I

guess the question is: is B.C. Transportation Financing Authority

looking at transit-oriented development in the remaining corridor while

it’s under construction, at this point in time?

Hon. R. Fleming: The member asks about the Broadway line and the province’s $2.8

billion investment in that SkyTrain expansion. Let me first say that

that project, in and of itself, irrespective of the transit-oriented

development discussion that we’re having today, is an incredible project

that could well become the busiest, or among the busiest, transportation

corridors in all of North America. It’s being built in an area that,

pre-pandemic — 2019 numbers, I think, are last that I have available —

had about 110,000 boardings per day on public transit. That’s using the

surface express bus.

The estimates in the business case were so strong because it’s

estimated that that could be tripled by putting it underground in a

subway environment and making it part of the SkyTrain network. So

330,000, or something like that, boardings per day are likely, and that

project is making good progress. It will be completed in 2025, in

service, as part of the SkyTrain network.

If things could have been better aligned — if I can put it that

way — it would have been having the Broadway plan approved prior to

construction. Now, we got into the pandemic. We got into all sorts of

things. I’m not casting blame on the city of Vancouver, which is doing a

really good job, in my view, updating that Broadway plan in a very, very

significant way that will support transit-oriented development. They did

acquire land as part of that project — I think $100 million worth of

property — before it began.

I think the province would have played a more significant role if

the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority were allowed to acquire

properties in support of the transit-oriented development. That’s why we

want to do that on future projects of this kind.

So the Broadway plan’s a little bit behind. Ideally, it would have

been approved before construction started. We’re a year into

construction now. We’ve got seven construction sites. All the stations

are being built. We’re about to bore tunnels, and there’s still

engagement going on, on the Broadway plan, by the city of Vancouver.

Ideally, that would have happened before.

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s why it’s very exciting to see, on the Surrey-Langley

SkyTrain, the Fleetwood planning. Six years before we’re expected to

have the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain in service, we’ve got a community that

represents three of those stations, planning, as we’ve discussed, to

grow from 38,000 to 142,000 people and have significant transit-oriented

development. So they’re years ahead of the investment that we intend to

make and are getting ready for it. The BCTFA, post–Bill 16, will be an

active participant in the redevelopment potential that’s going to be

unlocked by that project.

B. Stewart: Well, I guess, with the minister’s answer to that, there are

obviously some missed opportunities. Was there any negotiation with the

city to look at an uplift in zoning — coming back to the province or

B.C. Transit financial authority, the people that are developing the

Broadway corridor — at the station so that something comes back to the

province to help pay the costs down on the $2.8 billion, or the

Surrey-Fleetwood-Langley line you just referred to?

Hon. R. Fleming: As it relates to the Broadway Sky­Train line, the city of

Vancouver has a supportive policy agreement with us. They have assessed,

and will be assessing, development cost charges. Community amenity funds

will be contributed to by development activity. It will fund

infrastructure upgrades to make sure that sewer and stormwater and all

of those things are able to account for growth and much more dense

living and working on that corridor.

They’ll invest those funds into affordable housing. The 39-storey

building near Granville station, I believe, had 250 units of affordable

housing that the developer agreed to build. So they traded the density

for that amenity, being particularly important. They will likely do that

with other stations as they redevelop around them.

[2:50 p.m.]

They are investing some of the funds they’re collecting from

developers, through DCCs and amenity charges, to make sure that there

are public green spaces and plazas as part of the transit-oriented

development that’s going to be on the Broadway line.

BCTFA will, of course, be in a much better position, when it

becomes a landowner on transit-oriented developments, to directly

capture that value that will come from the upzoning and activity that

would be related to a transportation project, some of which we’ve

discussed at length in this debate. I look forward to that.

B. Stewart: I guess, in answer to my question, there is no uplift benefit to

the province, transportation, with the development of the Broadway line.

There are investments that the city is making, but it’s not coming to

the province.

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, the member is correct. It’s not currently allowed under law.

However, there could be opportunities for BCTFA to….

You know, 800 metres is a fairly large area around different parts

of the station infrastructure that’s going to be built. So there

potentially are some opportunities. That’s why it’s so important to pass

Bill 16. It’s so that we are able to be poised to play a lead

development role that aligns with the investments that we’re making in

our transportation networks.

B. Stewart: Okay, in terms of that corridor, just to specifically talk about

the Broadway subway extension. The minister mentioned, I think, 250

units in the recent Granville station.

Is there a target, on that corridor, for affordable housing for

the entire line, long term, with the 800 metres he refers to? What would

they like to see?

Hon. R. Fleming: I would like to think — to my critic — that I have extended

incredible latitude in this debate at committee stage and would like to

have an answer for him very dearly. He will have an opportunity at

estimates debates. We haven’t begun that. That’s going to take some

communication, on our end, to be able to answer that question right

now.

It’s really quite outside of clause 3, under discussion. It’s not

an attempt to not disclose something. It’s just that it will take some

work to get that knowledge and to convey it to him.

B. Stewart: I appreciate the minister’s attempt to try to respond. I’m sure….

I raise these questions only because I think that this is fairly

broad-sweeping legislation.

The Broadway line is an important investment. It is important. We

are talking about increasing low-cost, affordable housing in different

sectors. That is something that we do want to know.

In a situation…. We talked a little bit earlier, in clause 1,

about expropriation. If a transit project such as the Surrey, Fleetwood,

Langley SkyTrain extension…. If there’s an inability, the property can’t

be acquired along the transit corridor where the province feels that a

transit-oriented development should be going…. Is there a thought as to

how you might incentivize the owners of lands that maybe are in that

area, where it is around a transit station, how to incentivize them to

do exactly what it is that your desire is: to increase affordable

housing?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, it’s a difficult question to ans­wer because it deals

with hypothetical scenarios.

If we were looking to acquire property and assemble an acquisition

strategy to pursue transit-oriented development around one of our

transportation investments, we would likely be very flexible about it.

There would be a number of properties that we would seek to acquire and

assemble.

You do get into situations where there may be a very reluctant or

completely unwilling seller that has, and wants to continue to hold,

land that may be desirable but may not be critically important. You move

on and acquire and assemble other land. Or you may have a property owner

who holds something that is so strategically important — to the station

infrastructure, the guiderails or the heart of the transit-oriented

development — that you seek to do….

I suppose there is a scenario, although I know it’s so rarely

invoked…. It’s very difficult to count how many times this has happened.

There is a process, which is already in the Transportation Act, that

allows for acquisition through expropriation. That’s done through a

whole bunch of principles around fair market value and all those sorts

of things.

I think, as I’ve said in other stages of this debate, we’d seek to

avoid that in every instance and seek to use the enhanced scope of

abilities and responsibilities for the BCTFA to acquire and assemble, in

a smart way, properties that are critical and strategic to

transit-oriented development. That may mean having lots of different

options in a given scenario.

Again, we’re talking about a hypothetical place, time and set of

property owners, and how parcels are subdivided. It’s hard for me to

answer with any more detail than what I’ve tried to do.

B. Stewart: Well, the heart of what…. This is, although it seems like a small

thing…. It’s a bold piece of legislation that puts a trajectory on where

the province is going. There are bold pieces of legislation, which still

are in place today, that impact the way that communities are developed —

the ALR, from 1972. We have other pieces.

There are other places, jurisdictions, that have targets. I guess

the question…. I’ll give you a couple of examples here.

The Los Angeles metro agency requires at least 35 percent of all

housing units developed on its properties to be set aside for households

making less than 60 percent of the area median income. Seattle’s Sound

Transit has a policy that it would offer at least 80 percent of its

surplus property to affordable housing developers at a below-market rate

or at no cost. In return, the agency requires that at least 80 percent

of the new homes be affordable, in perpetuity, to the households making

below the area median income.

With this type of bold legislation, the impact, etc.… Are there

some guardrails that are going to be established in terms of what the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is going to expect in terms of

that development? I realize that you haven’t lived it yet, but once you

start living it, we don’t want to undershoot what it is. That’s why I’m

asking that.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, a difficult question to answer, because what we need first

is the legislation. What will flow from that are specific

transit-oriented development projects. That will be borne out of

partnership with local government and others. We’ve described who all

might be at the table, where a specific transit-oriented development is.

There will be needs that arise in planning that. Is a school important?

How much child care is needed? Are there major investors that are

seeking job centres that could be part of a mixed-use

development?

What I would say, in general, is that this legislation is going to

give government a whole other level of ability that will align very well

with the Minister of Housing’s targets, B.C. Housing’s

activities.

What has been a little bit off-putting in some instances where

governments, in jurisdictions around the world, have invested

significantly in expensive but strong rail-based transit systems, for

example, is that the housing that comes with it is not affordable at

all. We know that low- and middle-income families are much more likely

to use transit systems. So the residential development you get is

concentrated amongst the people least likely to use the infrastructure

that you’re building.

That’s why we need this legislation. We want to build affordable

housing, family-oriented housing, work with communities about their

needs, look at and influence the development of their official community

plans and neighbourhood plans and be able to have development activity

around our transportation investments that is supportive and promotes

other public goods but also promotes ridership levels of the

transportation infrastructure that we’re building.

B. Stewart: I understand the difficulty in the minister answering this

question, but at the present time, the government doesn’t have any

specific targets about affordable or low-income housing on these

transportation-orientated developments?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ll stick with the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain example, because I

think we’ve canvassed that quite a bit. We’ve put some information into

the debate that the member has been able to ask further questions about,

and I’ll go back into that a little bit.

For that line, which comes in service in 2028, I mentioned the

Surrey-Fleetwood neighbourhood planning that’s going on right now. That

is already looking at the types of targets that the member has referred

to around affordable housing and has contemplated growth from, I think,

38,000 to 142,000 over the next 20-odd years. Further down the line,

there’s work that has been undertaken by the city of Langley and the

township of Langley.

All these components are coming together. The work has to be done

with the communities, but what has influenced them is the certainty of

the investment in the public transit infrastructure, which radically

changes the trajectory of how those communities are going to grow. I

can’t speak specifically to Langley, but I would imagine that instead of

building higher and higher up the slope, with more and more expensive

areas to service, they’re going to start looking at growth being

concentrated along the stations and the infrastructure possibilities

that the SkyTrain investment is presenting. That’s what we expect, and

that’s what we’re working with.

Our staff, city staff, municipal staff and their community members

are all looking at reimagining the communities that are positively

impacted by the investment that we’re making on the SkyTrain

system.

B. Stewart: I guess, in answer to my question, currently there are no targets

because they are still being worked on and evolving. What about other

lines, besides the ones that you’re currently working on? Is the

minister proposing, or willing, to tie provincial funding of transit

projects to affordable housing and/or density targets?

Hon. R. Fleming: That is difficult to answer because it’s not my question to

answer. It is a question of government writ large. Certainly, I know

that the member would argue that it’s related to Bill 16, but it really

is straying quite far from the amendments that are before us.

We have brought in some examples of what we’re trying to do here,

for sure. I have stressed, I think, in all stages of debate that this is

a powerful tool for the provincial government to use collaboratively,

not confrontationally, with local governments and the development

community and all of those that will be positively impacted by the

investments we’re making. I think that’s probably about the extent of

what I would wish to comment on that particular question.

B. Stewart: Moving on to clause (c), just in terms of

section 3, what

situations would the sub-market rental leases be used for, for land that

is being bought by BCTFA?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: What this

section means and what it outlines is that with the

approval of the Minister of Finance, the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority can, for example, lease land on a long-term basis to B.C.

Housing, which may be working with another development partner to build

rental housing at rates that are affordable.

In other words, it allows us to do something different than I

think market developers do, which is to maximize the possible return

that they can get for what the market will bear. It allows us to do

something at significantly below the market logic or what the market

calls for, and that means partnerships with housing providers,

non-profit housing providers to provide housing stock that is affordable

for those communities.

B. Stewart: To be clear, the minister I think just mentioned that these rental

leases or submarket leases would be for B.C. Housing. I think you cited

that. Other not-for-profits would also be in there, so it would be a

broader category than just B.C. Housing.

Hon. R. Fleming: The answer to that is yes.

B. Stewart: I guess, in the sense of disposing of it, it’s really…. Just to

clarify that for the term “dispose of land by lease for less than the

market rent,” the Crown is still intending on holding this land, and it

will lease it at below whatever the market conditions might be at

present to a level to afford B.C. Housing or a hub-type organization to

build something and put that on there.

If there’s a third party…. If any of the land is disposed of under

that clause, under these amendments, would they be subject to the land

value capture tax, or is one being developed?

Hon. R. Fleming: If I could just ask for clarification. Is the member referring to

whether these properties would be subject to the property transfer

tax?

B. Stewart: Yes, that’s what I was referring to because of the fact that…. Is

it seen as a disposition and that these people would do that, or would

it be tax-free?

Hon. R. Fleming: In answer to the member’s question, if we were to transfer title,

then the transfer tax would apply. If we were to provide a long-term

lease, it would not apply.

M. Lee: Thank you to the member for Kelowna West for inviting me to join

this part of the proceedings here on committee stage. Just on this

particular clause, in my critic role for Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, if I may.

On this particular clause, just as confirmed by the member with

the minister, is it not the case that under the clause the way it’s

written — I appreciate the minister’s response — this disposal of land

by lease for less than market rate could actually, potentially, go in

arrangements of a long-term nature to a third party outside of the

Crown? Or is the minister suggesting that those words are somehow in

this act, the amendment itself, that it only be with long-term lease

arrangements with entities that are within the Crown?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve covered this a little bit previously in debate, but I

appreciate his presence and the question that he asked. We can, under

this clause, dispose of land by lease for less than market rent to a

private sector partner, to B.C. Housing — we’ve talked about that

scenario — a non-profit housing society, a health authority, an

Indigenous health authority. So it’s really quite broad in terms of who

we might partner with in pursuit of affordable housing or affordable

care that is part of the transit-oriented development.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for his response. I just wanted to

reconfirm that one component of his response, which is that the

arrangements for disposition by land lease could be to a private third

party.

I appreciate, certainly, the intent of the act in terms of

partnership, the expanded scope for transit-oriented developments and,

presumably, under this subclause (c)(d.1), that it is an expansion of

what the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority can be doing. Currently

disposition is one of the provisions in sub (d), which is: “Dispose of

land acquired or expropriated under paragraph (b).” That currently,

under the act, does provide the power of the authority, as an agent of

government, to acquire land under that provision.

So first of all, perhaps, would the minister agree that this

addition, by way of this amendment, is expanding the capacity of the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, subject to the approval of the

Minister of Finance?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much to the member for the question. The change

here in this amendment is that currently the B.C. Transportation

Financing Authority is not permitted to dispose of land via long-term

lease for below-market rents. They can only do it at market rates. So

this change is important for the promotion of affordable housing and

other affordable community institutions, such as child care — we’ve

talked about education — and health care. Currently the TFA is

restricted on that, and this will allow it to enter into those

agreements.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Certainly, I appreciate and understand the intention of this

amendment and the purpose of it for transit-oriented developments in the

way the minister has described, both at second reading and in his

responses at committee stage here.

What I’m getting at, though, is the expansion of the authority and

capacity of the Transportation Financing Authority. I know that my

colleague, the member for Kelowna West, asked previously of the nature

of the properties, the lands that are currently under the control of the

Transportation Financing Authority, and the response was in terms of

what would be available for these sorts of potential

developments.

Presumably, with the inclusion of the ability of the

Transportation Financing Authority to dispose of land by lease for less

than market rent, there will be a greater number of properties that the

Transportation Financing Authority will be able to offer up, let’s say,

for these sorts of long-term lease arrangements. Is that

correct?

Hon. R. Fleming: The answer to the question is yes. We would expect the BCTFA to

mostly be using this amendment to promote TOD and affordable housing, as

we have described quite extensively.

But there could be some other areas where we would use BCTFA-owned

properties. For example, you could have something that is suitable to

have administered by a park foundation. The property needs to be held

long term by the BCTFA strategically, but it is not being used in the

here and now and could be. We could enter into an agreement with the

park foundation that, certainly, could not afford to buy the property at

market rates. But we could have a heavily discounted, below-market

agreement for them to use and to enjoy the property and create some

public benefits with it.

M. Lee: I appreciate the example the minister pro­vided. Certainly,

it expands the possibilities, let’s say, in terms of the kinds of

entities for whom the BCTFA may enter into a long-term lease

arrangement, particularly because it can make available land for

less-than-market-rent-type development.

Keeping that in mind, in terms of First Nations and Indigenous

communities who might have certain claims to the underlying land for

which TFA currently has land in its portfolio, has there been an

assessment done by the ministry as to the impact on consultation

requirements that will be necessary for First Nations for this expanded

scope of the TFA’s authority and capacity?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The ministry follows all guidelines and requirements, in both

acquiring and disposing of property, to consult with Indigenous peoples.

When it came to drafting this legislation and engaging Indigenous

communities, we did that with the treaty nations, as required under

DRIPA, and appreciated the engagement that we had.

I would say to the member this is enabling legislation. MOTI will

continue to engage with Indigenous communities, as we do on all of our

projects, including transit-oriented development. I will also say that I

know of a number of Indigenous leaders and nations that see

transit-oriented development as a very significant economic opportunity

for their socioeconomic goals and the economic stability of their

nations and the well-being of their members, of their bands.

I would expect there will be some very good partnerships that

involve Indigenous housing societies, Indigenous nations, Indigenous

seniors organizations and those sorts of things on some of the

transit-oriented development projects that will emerge with the

potential that is unlocked by this legislation.

M. Lee: The minister mentioned DRIPA. As the government continues to now

implement, in its five-year action plan — the action plan that was

recently tabled on the floor of this assembly, what, about 4½ weeks ago

— we know that there’s much work to be done. But DRIPA, as it was passed

2½ years ago in this assembly, certainly has stated the importance in

the articles to UNDRIP about the kinds of rights alongside of the

section 35 jurisprudence.

The elevation of and understanding of title rights and claims,

certainly, by this government, as it looks to amend legislation that has

been on the books for some time and looks at expanding authority…. What

I’m trying to get to is the impacts that this will cause in terms of

this kind of arrangement that is being proposed under this bill and

whether it will look to add further challenge in the way that we can do

this kind of partnership work. Currently, without this provision, the

province already is under a consultation requirement for disposing of

Crown lands under this authority, as an agent of the Crown.

Perhaps, when we look at non–treaty 8 lands…. We’re talking now,

whether it’s the Broadway subway, some of the extensions between Surrey

and Langley the minister mentioned earlier, Surrey-Fleetwood, Fleetwood

station…. When we’re talking about lands in these areas, has there been

any recent example of a consultation process that the government has

followed in respect of any disposition of lands by the Transportation

Financing Authority?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure follows the

surplus property policies of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services on all

dispositions, including long-term leases currently. The bill that is

under discussion here today in no way changes our duty to consult with

First Nations on land that is for sale or part of a long-term-lease-type

of disposal.

M. Lee: Just coming back to TOD, or transit-oriented development, as the

minister has referred to as the acronym.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I wanted to ask: in terms of the nature and the inclusion of this

particular provision, is this going to be the primary mechanism through

which the Transportation Financing Authority will be trying to create

more affordable housing — through these long-term lease

arrangements?

Hon. R. Fleming: Transit-oriented developments are quite large and done in phases

of development activity, done by many partners, done on private land,

done on city-owned land, done on, if this bill passes, BCTFA-owned land

that may be under a long-term lease arrangement with a third-party

operator developer.

This will give us an additional tool for the province to be able

to control soaring land costs and preserve affordability in acquiring

land that is in an area that is going to be densified because it is

close to a transit station, a transit infrastructure project, to make

sure that that value is captured for things like affordable housing. One

of the mechanisms is the one that is under discussion here: to enter

into a long-term lease to maintain public ownership of that land and

lease it at significantly below-market rates.

But it also means that transit-oriented development will work with

density exchanges with private owners, as we’ve recently seen in the

Granville station. It will mean other government agencies and levels of

government that own land being a partner in that sort of thing,

including school districts. We talked about them.

I hope that’s helpful to the member, but that’s really the best I

can do — that, yes, we will deliver affordable housing through the

utilization of this clause, but we also do it using a variety of other

methods and ownership models.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate that there has been some back-and-forth in terms of

examples to work through as to how this particular expanded capacity

would be utilized, and I appreciate the minister’s response, coming back

into TOD, transit-oriented development.

In the area of the city, we’ve talked about the Broadway subway.

There are two…. Well, there are three, but two that I would speak to

here. We can name all three. The areas relating to the existing Vanier

Park area, off of the Burrard Street Bridge — there is one significant

development there with First Nations. There is the Jericho lands

property further west, out closer to UBC. And then there is, in my

riding of Vancouver-Langara, the Heather Lands, the old RCMP site with

MST as well.

There are, I’m sure, other properties and lands that are being

considered by First Nations. But those are three that come to mind as

three of the higher-profile sites that there has been discussion on, at

least, because they are connected to major transportation-corridor-type

planning.

In the last case on Heather Lands, that is, of course, next to the

Canada Line, which the minister has talked about here. Jericho lands, in

terms of the ability to expand the Broadway subway line to connect up —

I’m sure the minister would note — is part of the city planning, as

well, and that’s a topic of discussion.

In terms of how this particular provision will continue to work,

as we look at the interests of First Nations to want to be partners in

the development and the funding of future infrastructure needs, to get

transit links to these developments that they’re involved with, how does

the minister see the operation and the impact of this particular

provision, the expanded scope that it is, in terms of any greater level

of consultation requirements with those First Nations, when government

is looking at, through the Transportation Financing Authority, entering

into long-term lease arrangements at below-market rents?

Hon. R. Fleming: I don’t particularly understand the question. But maybe by way of

example, as it relates to Jericho lands….

The member will know that the province of B.C., the government of

Canada, UBC, MST Development Corp., the city of Vancouver and TransLink

are currently committed to funding and creating a business case to look

at whether Arbutus to UBC is a good investment, if there’s a strong

business case for that. It will include an analysis of MST holdings —

the Jericho lands and housing potential and all of those

things.

In terms of the rest of what he’s asking about, it’s really well

out of scope of the bill that’s under discussion today.

M. Lee: If we take that example in terms of Jericho lands, to the extent

that there are other claims underlying that land and that property, what

level of consultation requirement will the province look to by way of

disposition of any land that might occur in that context, certainly on a

longer-term lease?

Hon. R. Fleming: In the example…. I mean, the Jericho lands are under MST control,

and if they were to become our partner years down the road, if there was

an approved business case and an investment decision made on the UBCx,

that would be the basis of the partnership.

[3:40 p.m.]

They would be the landowners. We would be a partner developing the

infrastructure and looking at what transit-oriented development would

look like as it relates to Jericho lands.

B. Stewart: In terms of

section 3, I just want to ask a couple more questions

of the minister. I want to know if the government would use this

legislation to acquire or perhaps demovict lower-density apartments on a

transit-orientated corridor.

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, it’s quite out of scope of the bill, and it’s

extraordinarily hypothetical. But one can imagine that there would be

situations — and there have been situations, I believe — where low-rise

buildings are needed to build station infrastructure. They’re part of

the footprint, and they have to come down. This is outside of this

bill.

What I would say is a responsible government, working with local

government, working with tenants organizations and neighbourhood

associations, would come up with plans to make sure, if an

affordable-rental, low-density building is to be replaced by something

else, that it be done on an orderly basis, that there be fair

compensation, that there be a plan to stage it so that people are

offered opportunities to get equivalent or better housing in another

location.

Again, it’s nothing to do with Bill 16, per se, but different

governments make different choices, for sure, about how they respect

renters, or not. I know that the approach we would take — and are

taking, in what this bill is about — is the opportunity for us to have

significant tools in our toolkit to be able to promote affordable

housing, in a way that we haven’t been able to do on previous transit

investments. We want to have that on a go-forward basis.

This enables us to make sure that our number one priority as a

government, which is affordable housing, is now aligned with the

significant — $6 billion over the next three years — public

transportation network investments that we’re making.

B. Stewart: I’m trying to not be outside of the scope, but the broadness of

Bill 16, in the powers it changes for the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority, is broad and unknown, and some things are going to be done by

regulation.

The question really is…. We’re just trying to anticipate what

other governments might be impacted and what citizens are going to be

faced with. That’s the reason I ask about the choices that are going to

be made. They’re obviously going to be individual choices, based on the

route and what obstacles lie in the way, etc.

[3:45 p.m.]

In the case where expropriation…. I guess what I’m wondering is

what the current process of expropriation is for transportation

projects, and how would that change with this

section allowing for

transportation-oriented development?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I would remind the member that the amendments before the

House do not in any way add additional expropriation powers. Those are

pow­ers that are already there in the Transportation Act. I don’t

expect them to be applied any differently after Bill 16 is

passed.

They’re used extremely rarely. They have been used, at times, when

there is a public interest to acquire something that is strategically

important to a transportation project, whether that’s a highway or a

bridge or a SkyTrain. I’m sure we could dig up loads of historic

examples of that, but again, it’s used rarely.

In terms of the BCTFA acquiring land for the purposes of

transit-oriented development, I would expect it would be used similarly,

which is rarely invoked.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

B. Stewart: In this particular clause, it allows for transit facilities to be

prescribed by regulation. I guess I would like to ask the minister if

the minister has decided on what regulations will be promulgated under

this section.

Hon. R. Fleming: I hope I’m able to satisfy the member’s question. In terms of the

regulation 87(l), the area that is dealing with, by OIC, the need to

prescribe a certain distance from a transit station or class of transit

stations — for the purpose of definition, that has to come into effect

before commencement of the bill. In clause 6, the member will know that

that has to be by order-in-council.

I mentioned in second reading, and I think a couple times since

then, that I intend to prescribe that distance as being 800 metres,

which is international best practice for what walking distance typically

looks like in relation to the boundaries, if you will, of

transit-oriented development. We don’t want legislation that could be

abused by saying, “This is transit-oriented,” even though it’s 15 or 20

kilometres away. It needs to be close to the area for which the transit

station or transit exchange — in other words, the transportation

infrastructure — is located.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think the member knows, especially after this extended debate,

that these are going to be determined, strategized, developed with an

array of partners, collaboratively: local government, development

community, non-profit housing sector, employers that are interested in

investing in a community to create job centres. That is what will have

to be done by OIC in order for Bill 16 to come into effect.

B. Stewart: Just under

section 5, under those clauses there…. Minister, could

you share with us what additional infrastructure could be designated

under this section? What’s the scope of it?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I’ll indulge the member by perhaps giving him some examples

that may be likely or may be speculative. The flexibility that is given

here to create, by regulation, a definition of “transit facility or

class of transit facilities” might include things like the recent

TransLink investment plan reference to a gondola from the city of

Burnaby to the Simon Fraser University campus.

It might involve transit-oriented development around the gondola

station or further development of the UniverCity development area at

Simon Fraser, or it might involve an additional SeaBus terminal or those

sorts of things that we don’t recognize as transit facilities under the

current definition, but we would certainly recognize it when we see it

as a new transportation investment and service that could enable

transit-oriented development.

B. Stewart: I had to smirk for a second when you mentioned the gondola,

because I can’t help but think about Andrew Petter in talking about

that, thinking of a ski resort in downtown Vancouver, but I know that

that’s not what it’s intended to be.

Will any consultation in terms of this

section be undertaken with

local governments on defining the infrastructure?

Hon. R. Fleming: We consulted UBCM staff on the existing

definitions — transit

exchanges, transit stations, those sorts of things. We didn’t consult on

future gondola-type projects at Simon Fraser University linking to the

city of Burnaby, but we have every opportunity to do that going

forward.

[3:55 p.m.]

Certainly there may be some local governments that want to

approach us on something that they think meets the spirit of

transit-oriented development that is a different type of transit

exchange than what is strictly defined in the act now. That’s why we

want to put in the flexibility that is contained under this

section — so

that we can amend, by regulation, evolving

definitions as we go forward

in future years.

B. Stewart: Minister, you mentioned UBCM. I think you mentioned TransLink, if

I’m not mistaken, in an earlier question. I know how collaborative

TransLink and communities can be in the GVRD and stuff like that. This

is an unknown kind of territory, and I don’t know how you approach that

broad a group of communities, municipalities and regional districts, in

terms of the things that are being contemplated.

I think we probably want to just ensure that local government is

brought in, with the understanding about how this is going to impact

their communities. From my experience, I’ve seen them kind of do U-turns

on one another because they don’t like what the other is getting, etc.

You mentioned UBCM. Is it going to be any broader than that? Can we

expect that there’ll be a more fulsome individual consultation with

communities?

Hon. R. Fleming: The commitment we made to the UBCM senior leadership was around

willingness from the ministry to come and provide information, present

to UBCM, meet with individual municipalities about questions they may

have regarding the opportunities that Bill 16 provides them. I would

also add if a municipality is not interested in transit-oriented

development at all, there’s no threat here. There is only opportunity

for those that are interested in pursuing it, examining it, getting more

information.

There may be some uninterested municipalities, and they can remain

so, but I think what we’ll see is a number of municipalities seeking

information on what the bill does, looking at their own community and

their OCPs, and starting to align more closely. As we’ve gone through

this debate, we’ve seen the evidence of that already happening in lots

of different places. That’s a good thing. We’ll expect further

engagement — deeper dialogue, one-on-one meetings, if requested, with

UBCM and member municipalities — after we pass this bill.

B. Stewart: Minister, you mentioned the transit-orientated development would

be, likely, around 800 metres from the centre of that. Do you see any

variance in that by other types of unforeseen changes? Do you see it

greater than 800 metres? Is that a possibility?

The Chair: Through the Chair, of course.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: We have looked at jurisdictions that have done transit-oriented

development very well and looked at experts who’ve published studies on

TOD around the world and here in North America, and 800 metres is a good

number.

We’ve talked about why it’s important to pedestrians,

approximately a ten minutes’ walk from a transit exchange or transit

station, and all of those things. It diminishes the further out you go,

so we think 800 metres is going to be all the distance we need to pursue

transit-oriented development with BCTFA acquiring properties, but there

may be a situation where there is a significant parcel that could be

included as transit-oriented development that happens to be 820 metres

from the station, I suppose.

That will be the product of discussions with the community about

why they are interested in that and why their partnership may be outside

of the boundaries that I intend to prescribe, but I don’t see that

happening. I don’t see that happening on the basis of everything they’ve

written about transit-oriented development in other jurisdictions. In

actual fact, after you get out 400 metres, you start to diminish a

little bit. The core 400 metres is the most important for people who

want to live and be frequent transit users; i.e., never have a car and

just travel by foot and transit.

There are some instances where we’re going to want to have green

space and public amenities and other things that are still a comfortable

ten-minute walk from a transit station that is approximately 800 metres

away.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete

without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. L. Popham: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

The Chair: The Chair proposes a short recess to let the appropriate

parties be in place.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re here for committee stage of Bill 20, Municipal Affairs

Statutes Amendment Act, 2022. Would the minister like to start us

off?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to members that are here. I

look forward to the debate we’re having.

I’d like to first just introduce staff that are gathered, some in

the chamber, others in the bullpen, waiting to come in if we have

questions that we would like to address. Tara Faganello, assistant

deputy minister, local government division. Rachel Holmes, assistant

deputy minister at immigration services and strategic planning division.

For the AGLG Act repeal, we have Lynne Tang, director of legislation.

For disqualification of local elected officials and correction of

consequential amendments to the ALCA, 2018, we have Kara Woodward,

executive director, policy research and legislation branch. Derek

Brennan. I don’t know if I saw Derek earlier….

Interjection.

Hon. N. Cullen: He’s out in the other bullpen? Okay, great. Senior policy analyst.

For electronic meetings for local government bodies, Michelle Dann,

executive director for governance and structure branch. For

gender-neutral language amendments and energy benchmarking, which

affects Vancouver, we have Miriam Starkl-Moser, manager of policy and

legislation.

As I said just in the very brief opening, I look forward to my

colleague from Penticton and others who may join the debate and look

forward to what I hope is a very productive discussion about all things

municipal affairs.

D. Ashton: Nice to see you again, and especially nice to see the staff in the

room, that everybody is healthy and doing a lot better. Also, to those

that I don’t see, in the bullpens, thank you very much for being here

today.

Minister, I guess we’ll start right off. Clause 1 repeals the

Auditor General for Local Government Act. Maybe just a real quick

purview for the public on why this is taking place.

The Chair: Of course, the questions are through the Chair,

Member.

D. Ashton: Oh, I apologize for that.

The Chair: Not a problem. Thank you, Member.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: This is essentially the housekeeping business. Of course, the

Auditor General for Local Government was closed, I believe, in March

2021. These are the consequential pieces of cleaning up the legislation

to reflect the decision that the Legislature has previously

made.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. The Community Charter is amended to

reflect the Auditor General Act. Is that correct — the repeal of

it?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend is correct. Also, not just the Community Charter, but

the Vancouver Charter is also impacted by this. There will be other

amendments that he’ll see further on.

D. Ashton: I suppose that was my mistake. I should have added that on to

it.

That’s all I have on clause 2.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: Just on the wording of clause 3. In the subclauses, I read that it

doesn’t affect any of the change of their effect, but it’s bringing

modern language in, I’m assuming.

Hon. N. Cullen: These are some recommendations from legislative counsel. As we go

through the act, it’s always good to try to modernize the language,

moving from terms like “municipalities” to “local government” to capture

the full range of forms of government that exist at that order of

government. You will see through the course of the act that there are

several changes to language to modernize, to make sure that we capture

the right definition, so that everybody is properly included.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

D. Ashton: Could the minister just quickly explain how it adjusts the

reporting for the annual municipal reports? Just briefly would be

fine.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Apparently there was some confusion with some of the language

about public inspection and when the notice had to be made. This

language, this change to the act, clarifies all that — 14 days prior —

so that it’s absolutely clear for municipal councils when they do their

reporting for public inspection.

The Chair: Member.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, I’m fine with clause 4. For clause 5, I have a

question, though.

The Chair: If you don’t want to stand after, just…. I will understand

you’re done that question, and then we can move on.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

D. Ashton: I would assume that what the minister just stated also is

applicable to clause 5. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes, that’s exactly the same clarifying language to make sure

public inspections are understood and when the timing would

be.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

D. Ashton: Why does the legislation include the Controlled Drugs and

Substances Act as required under the disclosure of charge?

Hon. N. Cullen: This is the

section around disqualifi­cation of elected

officials, including the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to capture

those indictable offences that exist under that act that would then

trigger the disqualification process, similar to the entirety of the

Criminal Code, which we’ll talk about, I’m sure.

D. Ashton: If this legislation receives royal assent, will it apply to

elected officials that are already charged with a Criminal Code or a

CDSA indictable offence?

Hon. N. Cullen: This legislation is not retroactive. It becomes effective from the

moment of royal assent forward.

D. Ashton: Will this legislation be applicable to individuals that are

charged between its introduction in the House and its possible royal

assent? I think the minister has already answered that.

Hon. N. Cullen: I think I follow my friend’s line of questioning. It’s in the

hypothetical scenario of someone being charged with an indictable

offence who’s sitting on a local government right now.

If this does not receive royal assent, this effect would not take

place. It is once this bill has passed, received royal assent. From that

moment onwards, if a locally elected official is then charged with an

indictable offence, the procedures that are outlined in our legislation

would then take effect. I hope that clarifies it.

D. Ashton: So charged under the current rules and regulations would be placed

underneath the existing bill. Somebody that is charged before assent is

existing. Then if a charge comes through after assent, it proceeds with

the new bill?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I may have gotten a little bit ahead of myself. This is on the

sections around suspension. If somebody is charged under a series of

acts, they are suspended. That procedure does not take place until and

if this act were to pass through the House and receive royal assent.

Somebody charged under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and

Substances Act then would be in the provisions of this act, which

require them to step down from their duties with pay, because we assume

innocence until proven guilty. But this does not affect anybody who is

currently under charges.

D. Ashton: Just another question. If an individual is charged before the bill

meets royal assent and convicted after it receives royal assent, will

they be removed from office with the power of this bill?

Hon. N. Cullen: As I was a little eager earlier on, I’m wondering if, on the

subjects and the parts of the bill that deal with someone being removed

from council if they receive an indictable offence, we can take care of

those questions in that section. The reason is because I confuse them,

and I don’t want us to continue to.

This

section clearly deals with the forced leave of absence if

somebody is charged. Again, to clarify, there’s no scenario — not that I

can imagine, at least — where right now this is not the law of the land.

If this were to pass, receive royal assent and then somebody serving

local government is charged, they then go on that leave of absence after

the date, at the moment that this receives royal assent.

I’m very happy to talk about the piece of the legislation that

deals with somebody being removed from office, but for clarity of our

discussion and debate today, it might be helpful to deal with this piece

first. Then when we get to those sections…. I think there are more than

a few, so I think there will be many opportunities to talk about the

removal of somebody from office if they receive an indictable offence

charge.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister for that, although some of my questions

might broach that. I look for the advice of the minister and staff to

fit them into the right slot.

Some legal proceedings can take years before a trial is conducted

and completed. If an individual is charged, then placed on leave and is

subsequently re-elected but then found guilty, because an individual

just charged…. It doesn’t say that — my understanding — a person can’t

run again. Does the legislation remove them from office, or did the

subsequent re-election supersede that? It’s just the process.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the patience of the Legislature. This is an

interesting scenario, and I want to make sure that I have the scenario

right that my friend is asking about. Somebody is sitting on council.

This would all take place just on the eve of an election, in order to

make sense, because some things would happen to interrupt this. They are

charged; they are on mandatory leave from council.

My friend, I think, is suggesting a scenario that in that time, an

election happens, the person seeks re-election and is re-elected. Would

they, in the new term of office, be able to take their seat on council,

even though charges are still pending, they have not gone to trial, have

not been acquitted or sentenced? I’m seeing my friend, I think, nod.

Yes, it was a nod. That’s the scenario. It’s possible, I suppose, but

incredibly rare — never mind the voters having some opinion about

somebody who is facing serious charges regardless.

We’ll come back, because there’s perhaps some legal thinking on

this. My understanding is that that removal, the mandatory leave of

absence, would maintain and that in a new election while that mandatory

leave was taking place — even if that person were then re-elected to

town council, a regional district or city council — it would also apply

to that person, so that they could not take their seat. They’re still on

a mandatory leave until the trial has been conducted and they’ve been

acquitted or sentenced.

Then following measures take place depending on that. If they’re

acquitted, of course, they take their seat again. If not, if they’re

sentenced and it’s an indictable offence, we’ll get into those sections

a little bit later.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. It was because of a time frame leading

up to an election where somebody’s name is on the ballot, where it’s out

in the public. That window enlarges itself, and unfortunately, sometimes

things happen. My curiosity was just on whether or not that could

happen.

[4:35 p.m.]

Under clause 6, 109.2(2),the new bill also establishes a

requirement that, once charged, the individual must notify council,

regional district, board, school board, etc., “as soon as practicable.”

Can I get a clarification on “as soon as practicable”? What would that

be? Is it the day of the charge, the day after the charge? If it

happened on a Friday, does it take it over to a Monday? I’m just curious

about it and, again, the time frames.

The reason I’m asking this is, again, that window, possibly,

around an election. Unfortunately, there have been

circumstances.

Hon. N. Cullen: I appreciate the question, because this is all trying to sort out

what this looks like in the real world, once it leaves the page and

becomes reality.

“As soon as practicable” means just that. So one could imagine

someone receiving a charge at two or three in the morning. As soon as

practicable would be some early time, later in the morning. It would not

be an offence if they don’t notify council at 2:15 in the morning. If

they wait a day or if they take any length of time beyond that, then

that is an offence under the act. So “practicable” means just that — as

soon as humanly possible. That would be the expectation in the

law.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you. I wasn’t being nitpicky. I was just

trying to figure out what “as soon as practicable” was.

If an individual is found guilty, will they be required to pay

back their remuneration during that period of time?

The Chair: If I might remind all members in the House and virtually, of

course, we’re not eating while we’re in the House, whether it be

here or virtually. Thank you.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you. I was just peckish, Chair. I just needed to sneak

something in.

No. The short answer is no. From the period where somebody is on

that mandatory leave, they are suspended, essentially, with pay. If they

are later found guilty of those charges and removed, we don’t expect

them to pay back the remuneration.

This is consistent with other types of employment and suspensions

that we see in other areas of public service, so we wanted to maintain

that consistency. Again, the broader principle is innocent until proven

guilty. We don’t make any suppositions on that. That’s a good foundation

in law and one we plan to maintain.

[4:40 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Thank you for that. But my curiosity is in 109.3(2). It says that

while on a leave they do not retain the power of their position.

Understandable. They still receive their benefits and pay. I can

understand that. This is done so that those not convicted are not

financially harmed and “innocent until proven guilty.” But if they are

found guilty of that, there is no onus…. I just want to re-establish

that there is no onus on the individual to pay back the money during the

time that they are on leave until a conviction has been brought

forward.

So the municipality, the school board, the regional district…. And

the minister had mentioned public office. But, unfortunately, public

perception is on this, and I’m just curious…. And a reconfirmation is

that the remuneration stays in the hand of the person that is

convicted.

Hon. N. Cullen: A small correction. This does not apply to school boards. They

exist under a different act. So I’ll try to be consistent in that as

well.

This

section of the act is not meant to be punitive, and its

administration is not. Typically, the types of crimes that we’re talking

about — the courts will impose a punishment. That is where the

punishment will happen.

Again, our principle for this piece, when somebody is charged yet

remains innocent until proven guilty…. We did not seek in this part of

the act to exert some sort of punishment on the person, because it’s a

charge. It’s significant, but until proven and verified within a court

by a judge, then they are innocent. So we treat them as such.

The mandatory removal — or leave of absence, I think, is the

proper term — is entirely to allow the councils, the regional districts,

to continue to do their business, because the feedback that we had heard

from the public and from elected officials in local government was that

somebody under the cloud of a charge continuing to come to council was

very disruptive, in some cases, and in some extreme cases, the council

was unable to do the basic work that they have to do on behalf of their

citizens — so trying to find that balance between allowing the councils

to continue to work while the presumption of innocence

remains.

The person is able to then seek trial and, I assume, seek their

acquittal without any punitive aspect of what we’re doing on this

legislation and, on the other hand, allow the council to continue to do

the work that they need to do on behalf of the citizens that elected

them.

D. Ashton: I concur wholeheartedly with the minister. It’s that shadow of

doubt that gets cast over the whole council. But my questions are along

that line, because not only is that individual affected, but also the

council and the municipalities are affected.

Could a municipality or a regional district seek re­course?

Does this bill stop them from seeking recourse of remuneration/expenses

of an individual charged and convicted and paid during the period of

time?

Hon. N. Cullen: Interesting scenarios my friend is bringing today. The bill

itself, of course, very clearly says suspended, mandatory absence, leave

of absence, with pay, because it’s not meant to be a punitive

section of

the bill — innocent until proven guilty and all of that.

[4:45 p.m.]

The bill…. If a council…. If a person is then later sentenced, and

a local government sought some sort of clawback or sought to seek back

the remuneration that that person had received, that would be an

entirely separate case. It wouldn’t, I don’t believe, implicate Bill 20

in that case.

There is, of course, no provision or prohibition from a duly

elected body seeking a case in front of the courts. We would not

implicate ourselves in that. That would be between that council and that

now former member of council.

It’s an interesting scenario, but the bill is very clear as it

stands. Remuneration while the charges are pending prior to court is

clear, because this is not meant to be a punitive aspect. Sentencing

becomes a very different scenario if someone is found guilty and

sentenced. But this piece, no.

D. Ashton: My question was…. It is the people’s money. If the bill doesn’t

say it, then that does allow a municipality or a regional district….

That would be up to them and up to the council/board.

If an individual is found guilty, removed from office, and then

acquitted on appeal, because sometimes these things take the next step,

would they be entitled to the pay that they had received if they had

still been in their seat during that period of time? So reciprocity —

going backwards.

I’ll say it again. If they are acquitted upon appeal, would they

be entitled to the pay that they would have received if they had been in

their seat during the period of time? The original charge, for which

they are removed, being paid, and then found guilty. Remuneration stops.

Then the appeal goes through, and then the conviction is dropped. They

retain their seat again. They’ve come back to their seat. Are they able

to collect their remuneration for that period of time, and

benefits?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, this is a good question, dealing with some other sections

of the bill that are coming. But it’s fine, because it’s all in

context.

The scenario that my friend has raised is that somebody has been

charged. They have gone on a mandatory leave of absence, where they were

still being paid. But they then have gone to court and are found guilty.

They are then immediately removed, which is a difference in this bill to

what the current standards are of a serious offence. These are

indictable offences. They then appeal and are acquitted.

His question, I believe, is: for the length of the period — say it

was 12 months for that process to take place — would they get their pay

back as a locally elected person? The short answer is no. The reason

being is that as soon as they are sentenced, they are removed from local

office. They are no longer a councillor, mayor, or regional district.

They are not being paid.

In order for them to reacquire their seat, they would have to

stand for office again. This is why this part of the legislation is very

carefully crafted, which is coming. It was done in consultation with the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, because the removal of somebody from

office is a very serious thing, as we can all understand. There is a

relationship between voters and those that we elect to represent us.

This is a different order of government, in which the province is now

having some affect on that relationship.

So we wanted to be very careful, incredibly respectful of the

democratic process, while respecting the confidence that voters need to

have in those they send to office. In a case that my friend describes,

somebody has been sentenced. They have been found guilty. They are

removed from office. They are not receiving pay, obviously. They are not

sitting on council.

If they choose to appeal, and then are acquitted of that same

crime, in order to have their seat, they would have to run again. But in

that inter period, that period from which they were sentenced to the

period in which they were acquitted, if they are, there is no pay. There

is no remuneration that they would have access to. I hope that

clarifies.

D. Ashton: I was just looking at equity on both sides. I had brought up the

scenario with the municipality and the regional district, trying to

regain wages paid — i.e., the individual having that same opportunity.

That’s why I asked the question.

If an individual is found guilty, and a municipality or a regional

district holds a by-election, would the individual be allowed to run in

that by-election?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: The scenario…. I want to keep this very clear. Not perhaps in my

friend’s mind — he might have it entirely clear — but at least in my

own. Somebody is found guilty and is sentenced to an indictable offence.

Again, these are very serious crimes. This is not jaywalking. This is

something of a much more serious nature. The question is: if a

by-election were held, could that person who had been found guilty run

for office again?

From the period from when they are found guilty, they are removed

from office. Until they are sentenced and have fulfilled that sentence,

they cannot run. Whatever the sentence may be…. Again, these are

indictable offences. These sentences tend to be pretty significant.

During that period, until they’ve completed their sentence, made right

by society through the justice system, they would not be able to seek

office.

The scenario which my friend described of somebody on council….

They are charged. They are mandatorily stepped down from council. They

are then found guilty and sentenced. They are then removed from council

immediately upon the guilty findings. The community would then hold a

by-election within a certain number of months. That person would almost

certainly be under some punishment, from the court, of an indictable

offence. If they are under that punishment, they could not seek

office.

If they have fulfilled their sentence, if they have done all that

the courts have asked, then they could stand for office again. But I

think the scenario we’re now talking about, in terms of a by-election

specifically…. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to pretend to be one.

But it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in which a sentence would be

handed down — which, as he knows, is not immediate — and completed, and

then a by-election is still coming, and that person then seeks

re-election again.

Notwithstanding the politic at the local level of somebody having

been sentenced and found guilty of an indictable offence and then

saying, “Trust me again. Please put me back on local government….”

That’s a separate issue between voters and those they seek to represent

them. In terms of the scenario that he describes, infinitesimally small

would be the possibility of that timing working out — that somebody

found guilty and sentenced to an indictable offence would still have the

range to stand again for re-election in a by-election, having fulfilled

their sentencing requirements.

D. Ashton: Thank you. I guess maybe I should have said “found/pled guilty,”

because lots of times that can expedite it. Then, if there are

extenuating circumstances where there is not some recourse in time for

wrongdoings, the person could…. I do apologize. I probably should have

said “found or pled guilty.”

If their indictable offence is one done in the role as an elected

official, would their suspension under this act affect their ability to

have legal counsel, any legal counsel, covered by the municipality? They

are a ward of a municipality, right? They are working for the people in

the municipality. Would the charges stop them from asking the

municipality to cover their legal expenses?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks for the question. Every council is required to have a

bylaw, an indemnification bylaw that covers locally elected people in

the performance of their duties. That bylaw is case by case, community

by community. If they are charged while performing that duty, then the

local council would consider whether to indemnify that locally elected

person for things like legal fees.

Again, it would be case by case. The municipalities and regional

districts have to have some consideration of this. The scenario in

which…. The person being charged would have to make a claim, I suppose,

that they were doing municipal duties and, while that happened, they

were charged with this serious offence. They then would seek some

indemnification, and they would have to appeal back to that local

council or regional district in order to get things, I suppose, like

lawyer fees potentially covered. But it’s not handled by us. That’s

between the locally elected person and the council upon which they

sit.

D. Ashton: You may have answered this question. But if they still had some

form of legal counsel covered by the city but were put on leave, would

they be required to pay back the legal costs if they were found guilty?

Again, I’m just trying to look at the scenario. I don’t want to be redundant with the

minister, but these are questions that have come up in discussions, and

I would just like the opportunity to bring them forward at the

time.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a very similar answer to the one I just gave. It would be an

extension of whatever bylaw and decision the council had made as to the

scenario and how recompense, or not, would be handled. So it’s far

outside of the scope of this particular act. We don’t consider that.

That is town by town and then, in this case, circumstance by

circumstance.

If the town had chosen to cover some sort of aspect of legal fees

and then there was some change and the person was found guilty, etc.,

that would be between council and that individual and council’s lawyers.

It’s not something that the province deals with under this act

certainly.

D. Ashton: Maybe would that be something in the future? We have different

communities and different regional districts. Is there something that

could maybe be standardized? If an individual has to go through this in

one community and points the finger at another community and says,

“Well, Joe or Susan was covered there. Why am I not covered here…?” I’m

just trying to think out loud. Is there something that, if not now then

in the future, we could look at as some form of

standardization?

Hon. N. Cullen: I didn’t mention this before. I think I did in the second reading

of this bill. Thankfully, we’re talking about exceedingly rare cases —

right? — in which somebody sitting on council is charged this way.

Thankfully, most of the people who run for office and are elected are

upstanding individuals and tend not to break the law.

The question my friend is asking about some sort of approach of

standardization…. We’ll very closely monitor the cases coming forward to

see the complexities that arise. I’m happy to take suggestions just in

terms of future legislation, but again, I think that relationship over

the matter that he’s discussing is set by community bylaw.

Perhaps communities will look at what it is that we’re proposing

here and will consider the same scenario as my friend is suggesting and

wonder about their own processes. But again, we’re not looking to direct

municipalities in terms of indemnifying their own members when charged

while potentially performing council duties.

[5:00 p.m.]

I think it’s best left to them in that scenario, but we’ll watch

it as this goes through. Hopefully, we won’t have a lot of scenarios to

talk about, especially because now, clear-eyed, when sitting on council,

people know what happens if they’re facing charges, and particularly if

they are found guilty of significant charges — again, indictable

offences. In their immediate removal, there will be no cover of

time.

Thank you for the question.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

D. Ashton: Thank you to Mr. Chair that is just leaving. Appreciate his

direction on a few things.

I would just like to thank the minister, but again, I just come

back to that unfortunate net of darkness and shadow that gets thrown

over to councils. So I was just trying to look at it the other way. That

was the question for it — if there could be some form of standardization

and maybe just planting a seed into the future. That is all on 6 for

me.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

D. Ashton: Clause 8 replaces the word “rule” with “requirement.” Is there a

difference in those words? I’m just not sure.

Hon. N. Cullen: Sometimes the smallest questions are the most insightful. This is,

again, as we saw earlier, some cleaning of the language to make it

consistent across the act. We use “requirements.” In some parts of the

act, it would have been called “rules.” Our legislative counsel

suggested we have consistent language, which I think is helpful for

everybody. So not a distinction but just a consistency factor, so we

cleaned up the language.

D. Ashton: So this is taking place throughout the whole bill, where you’re

just trying to be consistent. Where it was “rule” or “requirement,” now

it is all going to be “requirement.” Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: That’s correct. Wherever there were “rules” there are now

“requirements,” simply because that’s language used throughout, and

legislative counsel very help­fully went through with a

fine-toothed comb and made sure that we’re all “requiring,” not

“ruling,” and that’s how it will look forthwith.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

D. Ashton: On clause 9, could the minister confirm that this

section allows

the minister to appoint members so that council would have a

quorum?

Hon. N. Cullen: This power exists right now within the minister’s purview and in

other acts — that if we fall below, the minister has the power to

appoint. This is keeping that very consistent, but this is a break glass

kind of notion, if required. It’s not something that…. I’d have to go

through the history books to find out how often this happens.

We want to anticipate, just in case there is a scenario in which a

councillor is removed, or perhaps more than one, that we have the

ability to allow councils to continue to conduct their work and achieve

quorum to make decisions on behalf of the people they

represent.

D. Ashton: So would a minister consider not to appoint something where a

quorum may not exist at the time? Does the minister have to appoint

someone to fulfil a quorum, or can the minister make the choice not to

fulfil a quorum?

Hon. N. Cullen: I should have mentioned this earlier. There are two choices here

for the minister. One is to deem what is now on council, a reduced

number, as quorum. Or if there’s a better option to appoint, that can be

achieved that way.

[5:05 p.m.]

We can look at a council. They have had somebody removed. They are

no longer achieving quorum. The minister can deem the remaining members

as sufficing. Again, all of this is in the effort of allowing good

governance to take place and maintaining public confidence in the

unfortunate circumstance in which somebody has been removed from

council, which, of course, is a very serious matter.

D. Ashton: I know something has existed in the recent past on that. Just a

question, please. It’s not loaded. But would these appointees be to the

responsibility of the minister, or would they be making decisions on

their own, since they’re a ministerial appointment?

Hon. N. Cullen: If in the scenario in which door No. 1 is in terms of deeming

quorum where it had not previously existed and scenario No. 2 is we

appoint, they have full rights and responsibilities of those that were

duly elected — independent from the minister, of course — to make any

choices and decisions that they need to make.

D. Ashton: If the member on leave is removed due to being found guilty, would

the appointees remain, or would a municipality/regional district be

required to hold a by-election?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, clearly, in this scenario where somebody has been found

guilty — they have been removed from council — there would be a

by-election. We wouldn’t maintain any other scenario. The council would

be required to hold a by-election if somebody has been permanently

removed from council because of a sentencing at court for an indictable

offence.

D. Ashton: I saw that part of it, but now we have an appointee. So my

question was based…. Does the appointee fulfil the needs of the council

until an annual general election, or would it be a by-election that

would be required?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, if somebody is found guilty and removed, we require a

by-election — the exception, of course, being that if we’re within a

year of a general election, a council may choose not to hold a

by-election, because there is expense incurred. In the scenario my

friend is talking about, either the quorum that has been decided would

maintain until the general election, or if there were appointees to make

up the decision-making body on behalf of those citizens, they would

maintain until the general election. The council, although, may choose

to go to by-election, even if it’s within that year window.

It’s so circumstantial, of course. Community to community, it

depends on the nature of what’s happened. But we wanted to empower

communities and let them exist under normal rules outside of this one

unfortunate event of someone being sentenced.

D. Ashton: I really appreciate the minister and staff’s questions, but these

are the things you have to try and think through, because we are in

uncertain times. When a charge is placed and unfortunately somebody on a

council or a regional district is charged/convicted, all of these things

come up. I’d rather have it set in stone now, without anything having

come from council, where there are some questions sometimes about

things.

The minister mentioned about the individual. Is the appointee

required to relinquish their position in a by-election? I’m probably

answering my own question. I would assume…. Can they run in the

by-election, being a ministerial appointment?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, in the scenario where we’ve been required to appoint

somebody, if they are able to legally run in an election…. If the

by-election were called, obviously, the appointment term would end. If

that person then chose to run in the by-election, they would be free to

do so if they are entitled under the law to do so — which is just about

everybody.

D. Ashton: The minister mentioned the one-year period of time. Was there any

consideration…? We have gone from three-year terms to four-year terms in

municipalities. This is just a provision that is not here in the current

bylaw. Has there been any thought to moving that back? For one year, it

was covered under three years. Has there been any thought to giving it

two years and giving the opportunity to municipal councils? Just a

question.

Hon. N. Cullen: The short answer is, no, we haven’t given any thought to changing

— having gone from three- to four-year terms — that window to a

by-election. Of course, I always welcome thoughts or insights from my

friend, who sat on council and knows a lot of councillors. But no, we

think it’s pretty consistent and fair.

D. Ashton: My last question, at this point in time, on clause 9: does this

act, in its requirements to remove individuals if they are charged with

an indictable offence, apply to the appointees from the

ministry?

Hon. N. Cullen: Under this scenario, someone has been removed from local council,

having been found guilty of an indictable offence. The Municipal Affairs

Minister has either chosen — if quorum is an issue — to seek quorum as

it is, with the new council as constructed, or has appointed somebody.

If, in that second scenario, the appointee then also falls afoul of the

law and is charged and then sentenced for an indictable offence, they

would be subject to the exact same stipulations under this bill — which

is that they then would be removed, effective immediately, upon being

found guilty.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

D. Ashton: The procedural guides for running electronic meetings. We’ve got,

and we are here today, seeing some electronically. Could the minister

just give a quick overview of the procedures for a municipality running

electronic meetings on a continual basis, especially where we are

working with a reduced situation — i.e., lack of members because of,

unfortunately, a charge being in place?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: To be quite