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 this. He would like the government of Canada to help coordinate 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, 2022

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, 2022

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 specific, this part of the electronic meetings provision is for advisory bodies. These are not the council or committee hearings. They’re quite diverse in their nature. A council can strike an advisory body to do all sorts, a number of things.

It’s challenging for us to have a standardized form of what that should look like in all instances, so we instead developed the best practices for councils. They do have electronic meetings procedures for council and for committee — notification to the public and all of those sorts of things — to make sure that the e-meetings work out correctly, much like our legislative body does, as well, for members who are participating electronically. How do they vote? Procedures are well known and notified to the public so the public understands that as well.

This section is dealing with these special advisory bodies. Councils can strike those kinds of bodies for all numbers of reasons. Rather than be prescriptive, we instead offer those best practices to council. We think they have been, broadly speaking, quite successful, given the pandemic.

Also, it’ll be very curious in the months and years to come to see how councils continue to adapt to allow citizens to engage, to allow the council to engage in issues electronically, not always face to face. But that’s very specific to this piece of legislation on those advisory bodies and the best practices that we seek.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister. Advisory bodies, though, are quite often, if I remember correctly, held in a public venue. They’re there, and they speak. So I’m just curious. With the world of electronics these days, it’s very easy for us that are able to get it. But when I look at my hometown, where people are of a little bit older ages and are quite active in community, the ability for them to get on “electronically” to watch what advisory boards and municipalities are up to….

The minister had mentioned best practices. Is there a scope that allows best practices to ensure public input?

Hon. N. Cullen: The guiding principles in this around electronic meetings, as with all meetings, are public accessibility and transparency of council business. We’ve seen that folks don’t require the Internet. They can phone in to these types of special advisory bodies to be able to participate.

It might not, in all cases, be ideal. I’ve had that experience of phoning in to a Zoom call and not quite having the same access. But we know that for council meetings and those committee meetings, many councils make available a room or a place where the technology is available so people can participate virtually even if they don’t have a cell phone or don’t have Wi-Fi at home or can’t get to the library or other public access places.

The principles of transparency and public access remain for these advisory bodies. My friend is right. We have some very, very active people who might not be very, very connected electronically, although that is diminishing. Government is making some pretty significant investments into connecting the entire province.

That being said, equity is very important, and owning a cell phone, owning a laptop and having Wi-Fi are not exactly cheap these days, so councils are required to consider all of these things.

[5:20 p.m.]

Be it the whole council meeting, which is very stipulated, or some of these advisory bodies in which members of the community might want to participate, council has to consider ways to make sure that that transparency and public accountability are maintained, regardless of the forum, be it in person or be it electronic.

D. Ashton: Many thanks to the minister and staff. I am fine until clause 15.

Clauses 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

D. Ashton: Before we do the pass on it, please, if I could just…. This applies, under my notes, the same mandatory leave rules for councils as those regulated by the Islands Trust Act. I don’t want to put the minister in a spot, but if he could just broach it quickly as an explanation of the differences between municipal and what we’ve been doing with the municipal and underneath the Islands Trust Act — just Coles Notes version, the differences.

Hon. N. Cullen: The short answer is it adopts exactly over the provisions in the Islands Trust. In terms of the differences between the Islands Trust and the other local governments, I don’t know if we have enough time in the day to explore that particular topic, so we’ll keep it to the provisions here on disqualification. It just mirrors over to make sure that it’s consistent to the Islands Trust as much as it is to any other municipality.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. I didn’t want to put you on the spot. But I just wanted to ensure it did roll over the hill and just make sure that it was covered properly, in the same way, under the Islands Trust. I’m fine with 15; 16, questions, please.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

D. Ashton: So 16 declares that an office vacant may trigger a by-election, depending on the act, if an individual is convicted of an indictable offence underneath the Local Government Act. I just had a quick question. It is just a piece that has been added in, again, for more clarification under the disqualification of an indictable act? That is a question to the minister.

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah. This is a technical piece to make absolutely clear what it is that we intend, which is that upon conviction, being found guilty of an indictable offence, the person is disqualified and that it triggers a by-election — of course, with the caveat, which we talked about earlier, that if this whole process were to fall within that period leading up to a general election, the council may choose to just hold off, for understandable reasons, to fill that seat in the general election rather than have a special by-election.

D. Ashton: I’m fine with 16. Just a question on 17.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

D. Ashton: I have “a person who is disqualified from holding office” if they have an indictable offence against them. But, again, that is only upon conviction. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: As is often the case, my friend is correct in his reading of section 17.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

D. Ashton: “A person who is convicted of an indictable offence is disqualified from being nominated for, being elected or holding office” between the conviction and the sentencing. These are some of the things that we have talked about before that are now coming forward.

[5:25 p.m.]

I just want to reconfirm that it’s the date of conviction. So if a person is elected or appointed and they have a key to the office, it’s the date of conviction…. But it’s not. It goes to the charge. Is that correct? No, sorry. I apologize. It’s the other way. The date of conviction is the cutoff, not the charge, but where they are left able to collect their remuneration up to the point of conviction.

Hon. N. Cullen: The two aspects are correct. They are able to receive remuneration until they are found guilty and convicted. This section clarifies and strengthens the piece about someone being convicted and not waiting until sentencing in order to be disqualified from council. That is the current reality.

What we are recommending to the Legislature is that from the point of conviction, they are disqualified, not waiting, because it can be some period of time until the court finds their way to sentencing. But it is from the point of being found guilty that the person is then disqualified.

D. Ashton: Under 18 also, it says: “For certainty, a person whose office becomes vacant under subsection (2) and whose conviction is overturned on appeal is not entitled, if the term of office for which the person was elected has not ended, to take office for the unexpired part of the term.”

What I’m reading in here is that if there is an overturn of the conviction and it happened at the start of a term, that individual cannot come back until the term expires.

Hon. N. Cullen: So again, this is a scenario in which somebody has been found guilty, they have been removed from council, they then appeal, and they’re acquitted. I almost sound like a lawyer — almost. But then they seek to get their seat back.

If acquitted, they can run again in the next general election, if that’s the timing. But they have been removed from council. Their seat is not waiting for them. In most scenarios that I can imagine, there would have been a by-election by then, and there will be a new person in that seat, ideally, hopefully. So there’s no seat to have, essentially. They’ll have to wait for the next general election, and the voters will then have to decide the scenarios and the events as to whether they return back to office.

D. Ashton: I appreciate it. Just, again, I probably jumped ahead a little bit earlier in my questions. I just wanted to make sure that this is cast. I probably should have read this into the record at the time. That would have answered some of those other questions.

I am fine with 18.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

D. Ashton: Disqualification under the subsections does not apply to those listed in (a), (b) or (c), which is a leave of absence with injury and a leave of absence of the board. So there are no other issues attributable to that, other than what is listed?

Hon. N. Cullen: In this section, we didn’t want to create a scenario in which somebody is on a mandatory leave because they are under charges and they were, obviously, absent from meetings. Normally, if somebody is absent from a certain number of meetings, they could be removed from a regional district.

We didn’t want to create the scenario in which someone would lose their seat because they were on a mandatory leave because of charges for which they were later found not guilty. This is to make sure that it is perfectly clear that the person is not subject to the rule under normal circumstances of somebody just not attending regional district council. Then they would, obviously, forgo their seat under normal circumstances. This is something different.

D. Ashton: So 19 and 20 are fine. My next question is on 21.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

[5:30 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Clause 21 suggests that it enables other bodies to hold electronic meetings. If the minister could maybe give just a brief scenario of which other bodies we’re speaking of in there.

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah, this is something we’ve just recently discussed. This just is applying to regional districts the same rules and guidance that we had applied under the Community Charter. So it just allows regional districts to follow those same rules.

D. Ashton: I’m fine, Madam Chair, with 20 and 21.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

D. Ashton: If the minister and staff could just qualify the difference: “By June 30 in each year” and substituting it into “On or before June 30 in each year,” and just why that would come forward — a date that was fixed in stone, it appeared, and now we’re altering that backwards.

Hon. N. Cullen: This is, again, similar efforts to mirror over language from the Community Charter to the regional district act and how regional districts operate…. The Local Government Act. Excuse me. I know there’s not a regional district act.

There was confusion about this June 30 deadline. So as my colleague has pointed out, “On or before June 30 in the year” is language that was sought by those regional districts in the Local Government Act, and it makes sense and mirrors what has been under the Community Charter.

D. Ashton: Chair, 22 is fine, a question on 23.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

D. Ashton: It has amended the definition of “farming area,” and that is now “agricultural land.” If I could just ask the differences and what the ministry sees in difference in the two.

Hon. N. Cullen: This is a circumstance in which section 23, section 24, all leading up to the grand section 25, when we actually get into the reasons behind…. This is language cleaning again, I suppose, and consistency that we needed to go through.

I’m more than happy to explain as to what the redundancy in the language with respect to agricultural land is. The meat of that discussion, so to speak, is in section 25. I’m happy to get into that debate. I know it’s a bit of a…. It’s the nature of legislation. Sometimes you have to clean language, and then you get to the piece which you’re cleaning it for. That will be section 25. I’m happy to discuss that.

[5:35 p.m.]

D. Ashton: It’s nice to see the cart is in front of the horse sometimes. But what we’ll do is 23, 24 and up to 25, with questions on 25.

Clauses 23 and 24 approved.

On clause 25.

D. Ashton: If the minister and his staff could just differentiate for myself the difference between agricultural land and farmland and the ALC, which is also mentioned in this part.

Hon. N. Cullen: This is my first bill, bringing it through the Legislature. This also the first time I get to use the term “uninterpretable provision,” which was what was inadvertently created some time ago — in 2018, actually — with some changes. I’m going to read into the record some of these things, because they’re very important and prescriptive when it comes to the term “agricultural land.” Forgive me for being quite to the text, but I think the text on this one is incredibly important.

Inserting the ALCA’s use of the term “agricultural land” into the Local Government Act created redundancy in language as well as an inadvertent policy change with respect to an approving officer’s statutory discretion to permit subdivision of land not within the agricultural land reserve. Section 514(8) sets conditions for subdivision to provide residence for a relative “For a parcel of agricultural land that is not within the agricultural land reserve….” Follow that sentence, if you can: “For a parcel of agricultural land that is not within the agricultural land reserve.”

Secondly, because the statutory definition of agricultural land is described as land that is included within the ALR, the resulting read of that section, 514(8), is illogical in that it refers to agricultural land in the ALR that is not in the ALR.

It was completely unintended. Operationally it created uncertainty for approving officers. Application of the provision…. Should the provision not be applied in order to avoid risk, its intended public policy objectives will not be achieved. Proposed amendments consider the overall context of the Local Government Act and will eliminate the redundancy in other sections created by the 2018 consequential amendments.

Those changes that happened in 2018 created the situation that allowed for confusing language for an approving officer trying to apply it. This cleans the language up quite a bit, hopefully, so that agricultural land is well understood and so that the approving officer has the authorities that they require to make those kinds of discretionary decisions.

D. Ashton: So simplifying it. So is unintentionable provision looked after in what was just stated? Between agricultural land, the ALC, there are all these questions that local municipalities and regional districts run up against. I’m not sure if that was a statement or a comment by the minister — if that’s something written in stone here, that unintentionable provision. Am I correct in that?

Hon. N. Cullen: The uninterpretable provision, yes.

D. Ashton: The uninterpretable provision, to me, even makes it a little bit worse — unintentionable and uninterpretable. Is uninterpretable provision applicable to parts of 25? No.

Hon. N. Cullen: This section removes the uninterpretable intention of the act to clarify for those that are making decisions regarding agricultural land. This was just a knock-on effect from a 2018 amendment, and we’re fixing it.

D. Ashton: Thank you for doing that.

Madam Chair, I’m fine, and 26 is the next one.

[5:40 p.m.]

Clause 25 approved.

On clause 26.

D. Ashton: Section 26: “Despite a zoning bylaw, intensive agriculture is permitted as a use on agricultural land that is not subject to section 23…[exception for small farms established before 1973] of the Agricultural Land Commission Act,” which was the date, if I remember correctly, of the Agricultural Land Commission. Just a clarification: except for small farms established before 1973.

Well, I have to use myself as an example. The ground that our family now has farmed since 1974 was a farm for decades before that, so does it qualify on that? Is 1973 a strike point because of the ALR, agricultural land reserve, or is it inclusive of those carried on from before?

Hon. N. Cullen: This is a language clarification and consistency piece, not changing anything about the way that the act is applied. It’s changing it from “farming area,” which was under the old, and into “agricultural land,” which is consistent language that we use throughout other pieces that affect agricultural land reserve and agriculture in general. So no, no policy change at all, just simply clarifying the language so that it is consistently applied and people understand what it is that they’re permitting.

Clauses 26 and 27 approved.

On clause 28.

D. Ashton: Under the Municipalities Enabling and Validation Act, clause 28 replaces the word “part” with the word “division.” Could that be explained to me, if you don’t mind?

Hon. N. Cullen: My understanding of this is that this analogy was made helpfully — that this is reordering the table of contents, given that we needed to create another division within the act to allow this to exist somewhere, which it now does if this were to pass. But it doesn’t change any of the scope for Lytton or any other communities.

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s the same thing, we just had to reorder in cleaning up the legislation to create that extra chapter in the table of contents — that division — to allow this to take place.

D. Ashton: Chair, I’m fine until clause 31, and questions on that.

Clauses 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

D. Ashton: So the prospect of this bill applies itself to another scenario, where the Cultus Lake Park Act is separate and above the acts of regional districts and municipalities. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: Very similarly to what we had to do with the Islands Trust, it’s to make sure the mandatory leave applied equally to them, as well, now, in this section, to Cultus Lake, because they exist under a different act in terms of electing their representation but will of course apply to the mandatory leave the same way as every other municipality and regional district in the province.

D. Ashton: Madam Chair, I’m fine with 31. Just a question coming up on the Vancouver Charter.

Clause 31 approved.

On clause 32.

D. Ashton: Everything that we’ve discussed today is cast in stone for the Vancouver Charter as we know it? So all we’re doing is replacing anything of similarity between the previous bill and the new bill and is also fully applicable, 100 percent, to all the actions taken under the Vancouver Charter and the actions of those involved in the Vancouver Charter?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes, all of our conversations around leaves and mandatory absences — the term that we’re getting comfortable using…. Yes, it applies to the Vancouver Charter. This section, 32, is about applying gender-neutral language to the Vancouver Charter. This is, of course, at the request of Vancouver, and our government has been doing this consistently across language, across statutes and bills, so that’s what this applies to.

But to my friend’s first part of his question, yes, leaves and absences apply to Vancouver equally. This is about language and bringing it to a more gender-neutral status for Vancouver.

D. Ashton: I’m fine until clause 44.

The Chair: Sorry, Member. I didn’t hear….

D. Ashton: Sorry, Madam Chair. I was saying I’m fine with that until clause 44. I have questions on clause 44.

Clauses 32 to 43 inclusive approved.

On clause 44.

D. Ashton: Again, I’m assuming that this is gender-related language for section 44, where the word “chairman” is struck out and now substituted as “chair”?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah, exactly right. This brings the language to gender neutrality, which we have sought through­out the Vancouver Charter.

Clauses 44 and 45 approved.

On clause 46.

D. Ashton: I notice that clause 46 repeals a section — 165.2(2)(e) — and it says it removes the ability that a council meeting may be made in camera if it’s about the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land improvements. I just want to confirm that that is not…. The way I’m reading it, it takes that away, so it removes the ability that a council meeting may be held for those specific things in camera. So it’s taking that action away.

Hon. N. Cullen: I may ask for a point of clarification. I’m reading that section 46 is around the Auditor General for Local Governments. I think the member for Penticton was referring to another subject. I’m wondering if he might just be able to clarify for us, because we want to get the answers right back to him.

[5:50 p.m.]

D. Ashton: In my notes, I maybe have to jump ahead to 165.9; I have 165.2 on mine. The question was about disposition of land, so I will jump ahead to 47. I apologize, Madam Chair, to yourself, the minister and staff.

Clause 46 approved.

On clause 47.

D. Ashton: Again, I would just ask the minister that in 47 — I’m reading it quickly here — does it remove the ability that a council meeting may be made in camera if it’s about the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements — i.e., an in-camera meeting?

Hon. N. Cullen: This part, around section 47, is applying to the Vancouver Charter, very similarly to the conversation we had around electronic meetings, as to guiding the city and giving greater certainty, so that they have the flexibility to determine whether their bodies can meet electronically or allow members to participate electronically. It’s not the subject matter that, in other questions, I think, my friend was raising about in camera and those considerations.

This is purely about electronic meetings. Very similarly, we applied it to the Community Charter. This is now ap­plying to the Vancouver Charter, and it’s something that we wanted to make consistent across all municipalities — of course, including Vancouver.

D. Ashton: I’m fine with that.

Clauses 47 and 48 approved.

On clause 49.

D. Ashton: I have, at 49, that it strikes the reference to “Freeman of the City of Vancouver.” What I have is: “Section 205 is amended by striking out everything after ‘any person considered to merit such distinction’.” I’m assuming that is the word: “Freeman of the City of Vancouver.” Could the minister just confirm what the Freeman of Vancouver is, for my information?

Hon. N. Cullen: My most important question was: I was wondering if anyone of them get a key. Oftentimes on these, we don’t know, but we will find out. Perhaps colleagues from Vancouver will know.

This is again about gender-neutral language. Previously when getting this honour, which has unanimous support of council, one would be designated Freeman of the City — not a great application to people who aren’t men. The city of Vancouver has decided on language, because it is based on the Freedom of the City of Vancouver award, to simply call it that. They require, of course, because of the Vancouver Charter, the Legislature to pass amendments to allow that to take place, which is what section 49 deals with.

Clauses 49 to 66 inclusive approved.

On clause 67.

D. Ashton: I’m not going to go back, but I’m assuming that the ministry and other ministries are using whatever means possible in the time frame to readjust many of these bills regarding gender-neutral language.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m assuming that that’s what is taking place, not only in this bill but in other bills. So it’s just a question: is there an adjustment in government to gender-neutralize all the legislation, where possible?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes, that is broadly true. I think we’re on section 67, I believe, which deals with park board disqualifications in the Vancouver Charter. But yes, the previous sections, 66 and 65 — a lot of those, again, were applying to the Vancouver Charter consistent, gender-neutral language.

I’m happy to talk about the disqualification — well, not happy; it’s not a great scenario — of park board members. It’s a very similar application as it would be to other elected officials. This is just making sure that it applies to the people who sit on the park board for Vancouver.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you. I was just trying to catch up. I just wanted to ensure that we’re going through these bills, wherever possible, and gender-neutral language was going to be taking place.

I think the minister read my mind, so in regards to the change of mandatory leave for absences in 67 and also 68, where the minister, I’m assuming, can make an appointment also, as was done before under the same rules and conditions.

Clauses 67 to 76 inclusive approved.

On clause 77.

D. Ashton: On 77. Again this shows to me…. I’m looking at the clause where it’s striking out “his or her” and substituting the text in column 2 for 77. So again, it is part of the gender-neutrality? Is that correct, on 77?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes. And we were supportive of Vancouver using the procedure of a schedule rather than actually affecting each “his” and “her” that exist within the Vancouver Charter, which would have made this bill very, very large, because there are many references.

Of course, in 2022, it’s a bit silly to be talking about “his and her” over and over again. There are lots of other better choices that Vancouver has taken, so schedule 5 allows them to do that and clean the Vancouver Charter as they go.

Clauses 77 and 78 approved.

On clause 79.

D. Ashton: Again, this is under mandatory leave of absence in the case of a charge. Am I correct? It’s just applicable to the Vancouver Charter….

Hon. N. Cullen: This is a question that my friend from Penticton brought earlier in this conversation. This applies to the Community Charter. It’s just to be very, very clear that the mandatory leave of absence will apply, prospectively, from the date of royal assent, right?

If this bill is to receive that royal assent in passage, a local elected official who is charged with an offence prior to the amendments coming into force will not be required to take a leave of absence because of that charge on royal assent. We just want to be very clear as to when this applies and when it doesn’t. Upon royal assent, it’s the perspective from that date.

Clause 79 approved.

On clause 80.

D. Ashton: Again, as what the minister’s explanation was on 79, that is applicable to the Islands Trust transition part that section 80 describes. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: Exactly the same, and applying to the Islands Trust as well.

Clause 80 approved.

On clause 81.

[6:00 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Again, I don’t want to bear on to this, but I just want to reconfirm — and for the record. Under 81: “Section 82.1 of the Local Government Act, as added by this Act, does not apply in relation to a conviction entered before the date this section comes into force.” The minister has said this takes place once royal assent takes place.

Hon. N. Cullen: That is correct.

Clauses 81 to 84 inclusive approved.

On clause 85.

D. Ashton: Again, 85, underneath “Vancouver Charter transition — mandatory leave of absence.” Again, this is once more…. It’s more paperwork, but it says that until the date of the royal assent, that that’s…. The new bill…. The new actions come in after the date of royal assent.

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes, that is correct, and this applies now to the Vancouver Charter.

Clause 85 approved.

On clause 86.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move the amendment to clause 86 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[CLAUSE 86, by adding the underlined text as shown:

86 Section 3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165, is amended

(a) by repealing subjection (3) (g) and substituting the following:

(g) a record that was created by or for the auditor general under the Auditor General for Local Government Act and that relates to the exercise of functions under that Act; , and

(b) by repealing subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) This Act, other than sections 30, 30.3, 30.5 (2), 33 and 65.3 to 65.6, does not apply to an officer of the Legislature, including all employees of the officer of the Legislature and, in the case of an employee that is a service provider, all employees and associates of the service provider.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Any speakers to the amendment?

D. Ashton: I do have questions, so is this a point in time that I can use it? Or I’ll wait until when it is put in — the amendment that’s coming forward. I’m just not sure of the protocol.

The Chair: Do you wish to speak to the amendment?

D. Ashton: Just questions, Madam Chair, to the minister, and I apologize for putting you on the spot.

Could the minister just speak in generality of why this amendment was brought in? He has explained it to me. I would just like it on the record for those who are watching tonight or those into the future.

Hon. N. Cullen: The way this took place is that the AGLG was removed some time ago, a year ago. When the AGLG was first created by a previous government and they were there to do performance audits of municipalities, those records under that act were never meant to be exposed to freedom of information — never meant to be exposed to that. That was the condition at which the AGLG did those audits of the municipalities, and those were the conditions and the agreement that they had between the municipalities and the AGLG’s office.

The AGLG’s office no longer exists, as of about a year ago, give or take. We didn’t want to inadvertently break, essentially, that promise to the municipalities in which those performance audits were conducted by suddenly having their records exposed to FOI access. It’s the consistent promise that the province, which we now represent, made when the AGLG was created under a previous government. We didn’t want to have any inadvertent exposure of those records — and then, therefore, breaking the conditions.

[6:05 p.m.]

That’s what this amendment does. It was suggested by legislative counsel. We thought it was a good one to make sure that the conditions were maintained under which the records were originally gathered by the AGLG’s office. I hope that clarifies a bit, as we walk through a bit of memory lane.

T. Shypitka: I just kind of dropped in. I’m on House duty right now. But this piqued my interest a little bit.

On this amendment, just a question to the minister. There is actually a committee struck right now, sitting currently on freedom of information. I’m just wondering if this amendment was passed by or asked for any kind of consultation to that committee?

Hon. N. Cullen: To my friend from Kootenay East, this falls very much into the housekeeping category. Again, the conditions upon which the AGLG was created, by a previous government some ten years ago, I want to say, 11 years ago…. One of the conditions of the audits was that those records would be collected, but the records would never be FOIable. Once the AGLG’s office was shut down, we didn’t want to create a circumstance in which later, now, someone could do an FOI request of records which were collected by the AGLG’s office on condition of that those records would not be FOIable.

That is the current state of things. Essentially, this amendment maintains the status quo. If we were to not move this amendment, it could change the status quo in what I would argue is a wrong way, based on the commitment that we, as a province, again, under previous governments…. It doesn’t really matter. But this was a commitment we made to municipalities when the AGLG’s office was created and when it was performing its duties to do those performance audits but under a condition that those audits would never be FOIable.

We don’t want to inadvertently change that promise. I personally think that would be a bad-faith act towards those municipalities, because we collected those records under that condition, through the AGLG’s office. We simply want to maintain the status quo. This was more of a housekeeping amendment.

To his specific question about the FOI committee, this was not in connection or recommendation one way or the other. This was simply a housekeeping piece and maintaining the status quo.

T. Shypitka: I understand the intent. No problem with that. But there was one thing that was fairly clear in the freedom-of-information committee that we’re on right now, that I’m on. It was that even the Privacy Commissioner himself was a little perturbed that legislation was passed before the committee did its work. So that’s why I ask the next question. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted on this?

Hon. N. Cullen: To be clear, the change proposed in this amendment doesn’t affect FOIPPA at all. This is simply the maintaining of status quo, which is that under the AGLG act, when the AGLG was performing their duties and doing the audits, they were not FOIable.

Again, this is a promise that we, as a province, made — a commitment, in setting up the act, under a previous administration, which is neither here nor there. When the AGLG’s office was shut down, we didn’t want to inadvertently change the commitment that we had to municipalities which had gone through performance audits under these conditions. We’re maintaining those conditions.

So this is very much in the housekeeping realm. It doesn’t affect FOIPPA in any way. It just simply affects the cleanup of non-substantive changes with regards to the AGLG. But I appreciate the question. It’s an important one.

[6:10 p.m.]

D. Ashton: What happens to these records now, then?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, it’s status quo. The records that were collected by the AGLG’s office, under law, were never meant to be FOIable. They’ll simply maintain that status, which is not subject to FOI.

Again, this doesn’t affect the FOI law. This is simply with regards to the AGLG Act. There is no change with regard to those records. They don’t go anywhere. They exist where they exist. Whatever box they’re in right now is the box that they will stay in, as, again, was our commitment.

The reports were public. The reports were, then, to the municipality and to the public. The records were always meant to be shielded from FOI, as was set up by the previous government, four governments ago. We’re simply maintaining status quo.

We just wanted to clarify the language in law to make sure that nothing was changed inadvertently, essentially, to the municipalities that went through those performance audits.

D. Ashton: I was glad the minister defined it. They were public, if I remember correctly — to the municipality. Am I correct?

Then my question is…. The AGLG is gone. The records are there. Coming from private life, records can be destroyed after seven years with permission of the government. May I ask: at some point in time, will these records be destroyed, since that entity does not exist anymore? If and when, when would that take place?

Hon. N. Cullen: A couple of things. We are the primary holder, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We’ll follow the core policy explicitly, as all ministries do. We’re guided very explicitly by the Document Disposal Act just with regards to the timing and nature of any disposals. These follow exactly the same as any other records were.

Again, it’s the maintaining of them not being FOIable, which is how they were collected in the first place. It was the agreement and understanding of both parties, the AGLG and the municipalities. We are maintaining the status quo.

If no changes had ever been made to the AGLG, the Document Disposal Act would apply exactly the same way as it’s going to apply to this. As the primary agency holding those records, we will follow those policies to the letter of the law.

D. Ashton: Many thanks to the minister and staff. A question. You know, councils come and go. Staff comes and goes from municipalities. Up until that point….

I know it’s not FOIable. Does a municipality have the opportunity to request those records from the AGLG? Do they have access to the records of their own investigation by the AGLG?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: In the scenario in which a municipality went through a performance audit with the AGLG and they have the report, that municipality should have it on hand. That being said, if they don’t, we maintain those reports as well, and they would have access to the performance audits that were conducted by the AGLG.

In the scenario in which a new council comes in and wants to understand what a performance audit looked like in 2016 — pertaining to their municipality, of course, not someone else’s — they would have access to those reports. We’ll hold those. We’re not going to do anything with them.

D. Ashton: Are there any questions…? My peer from the Kootenays has just asked me, and I’m not on FOIPPA. There are some questions around government records. Are there any concerns by the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner about the changes that are proposed in this amendment to the bill? I’m just asking a question that may come up in the future.

Hon. N. Cullen: Once again, this is not a change. This is maintaining the status quo. The commissioner never had access to these records. They were shielded in the design of the AGLG’s office. It’s maintaining that shielding.

Again, to the reports that the communities may have received if they went through a performance audit…. Those are maintained within the municipality, one would hope. In the case that somehow they’re not, we maintain those reports and would grant access.

There’s no change to FOIPPA. There’s no change to the commissioner’s powers. The commissioner never had the power to look at these acts.

Again, to members…. I think this is pretty clear. These were the conditions in which we did the performance audits. We’re maintaining those conditions. We didn’t want to inadvertently change that. If we didn’t move this amendment, we would be, actually, making a change. By putting the amendment, we’re maintaining the status quo, which is that the commissioner…. These were never FOIable, for the reasons that were designed.

I wasn’t here. I don’t know if my friend was. When the AGLG’s office was designed, this is the way it was designed. I don’t know what engagements the previous government had with the commissioner. That’s beyond my scope and purview to comment on.

D. Ashton: Madam Chair, no further questions on the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Clause 86 as amended approved.

Clauses 87 to 89 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[6:20 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Before we complete this, I would just like to say to the minister and to staff that I sincerely thank you, and not only for the opportunity on this bill. Before everybody leaves, I would just like to say, as a former member of a municipal council and a regional district: the office of the minister and the incredible staff that were there when I was at the municipal level, at the regional level and now also at the provincial level — I cannot say enough, as a community representative, how valuable that staff is.

The access to the staff — granted not only through access of the minister but also the opportunity presented through the staff at a municipality and the staff at a regional district — is a godsend when you come in and you have a very diverse background, being a councillor or a board member. To have that infinite knowledge and wisdom at your disposal — and also how it is purveyed, projected and given to you — makes all the difference in the world.

Thank you directly to the minister, not only for today, but for the ministerial office and the ministerial staff that you have at your disposal, and for the disposal that municipalities and regional districts have. Thank you again, for today, to the minister.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. N. Cullen: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

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

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.