Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, Housing Supply Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call committee stage on Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Hon. M. Rankin: We are about to begin Committee of the Whole for Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act.

Mr. Chair, if you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to introduce the talented public servants that I have with me to assist: firstly, Teri Collins to my left, who is the acting associate deputy minister; Bonnie Ruscheinski, the acting assistant deputy minister; and Cimarron Corpe, who is the director of housing policy.

On clause 1.

M. Bernier: Welcome to the minister and to the minister’s staff. Thank you for being here. We will be here for a little while, anyway, as we move through this bill. The minister will have to allow me, hopefully, some latitude here because, of course, this bill was just presented 48 hours ago.

There was no initial briefing. I want to thank staff for the briefing I got just yesterday or the day before, after the bill was introduced, though. I do want to acknowledge and thank them for that.

We’ve had very limited time to get into this. If some of my questions get repetitive to the Chair, it’s only due to the lack of time that this government has actually given the opposition to research, digest and look at the bill wholeheartedly.

It’s also important to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that we now have only a day and a half left before this government…. It sounds like they’re going to invoke closure, and we’re leaving this place. It’s yet to be seen. We can only hope that they will see the light and allow more time.

That time could’ve been given during second reading, when we had numerous opposition members who wanted to highlight local stories and what they’ve been hearing from constituents and from local governments that pertains to this bill. That really is not relevant to bring forward in committee stage unless, of course, the minister thinks it’s a good use of his time to welcome in 20 people to speak for half an hour on the importance of this bill for their community. Not only will he not allow, but he doesn’t have the authority to do that.

I’m going to give some real snappers, I guess, just to try to get things rolling here. The first things I want to talk about here are really in section one. We don’t need to dive into, I guess, explanations of a lot of the definitions. But I will jump to the last one.

It talks about specified municipalities. Can the minister give a little bit more information to this House about what he means by a “specified municipality”?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank my colleague for his question and look forward to engaging in this clause-by-clause analysis.

To his first question, the technical answer is…. A municipality is prescribed by regulation. Once that regulation is enacted, that will become a specified municipality. Usually the term used is “prescribed” by regulation. The specific municipalities to which this bill will apply will be done by regulation. The government has indicated that there will be something in the order of eight to ten next year, if this legislation is enacted, that would be specified at the outset.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Is there any chance that tomorrow this legislation won’t be enacted?

The Chair: On clause 1, Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m here to answer questions on the specifics of this bill.

M. Bernier: I’m not trying to be creative in any way, to put the minister in an awkward spot. He just said that this will only happen if it’s enacted. I’m just asking him if this bill will be enacted or not.

L. Doerkson: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to draw your attention to a potential shortage on quorum — point of order.

The Chair: A point of order on quorum. I’m undertaking a quorum call. It’s not a vote, but just so everyone understands, this is for quorum, to make sure we have ten in the chamber.

[The bells were rung.]

Interjection.

The Chair: We ring the bell three times, even though it’s not a vote. It’s just a quorum call, just so everyone understands. I know we don’t do this that often.

All right, quorum has been met. Now we are back into questions.

M. Bernier: My apologies. I’m not sure if I got an answer from the minister. I think I did, and I know where he was going.

We’ll also watch to see if people come running in, because some people will think there’s a vote, and we’ll deal with that accordingly. I’ll leave that up to the Chair.

I guess to the point the minister was trying to make…. He was saying: “If this passes.” We know the intent of government, obviously. So I’m not trying to trip up the minister in any way. But I think it’s important to talk about what this means for local governments.

Obviously, when we talk about…. We said “specified municipalities.” The minister referred to “prescribed municipalities.” I understand the nuance there and the importance of the wording because, of course, he’s a lawyer. I’m not. I know how the legal team looks at a lot of this when they put it forward.

But the minister, under his own admission, has said that it’s estimated that eight to ten communities will be involved — prescribed, if we want to use that word, under the definition. Have the eight or ten been chosen? Have they been contacted yet?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank my friend for the question. The decision has not been made on the specification of the municipalities. This will be done after a review of the housing reports, which are being prepared by the municipalities. We’ll look at demographic information and other economic factors and make a decision based on that. But I can tell the member that there has been no decision to this point.

M. Bernier: Listening to the commentary, then, from the minister, no decision has been made at this point on the eight to ten. Nobody is locking the minister down. I don’t think it says anywhere in the legislation…. The minister will correct me if I’m wrong. Nowhere here does it say eight or ten. That’s been a government announcement, I believe.

The minister’s nodding his head, so I’m not going to ask him to get up and clarify that. But I just wanted to get that on the record, that that was, I guess, an assumption or a target. Government is assuming that they will be looking at eight or ten. Again, the minister is acknowledging that.

I know the intent of government, obviously, that this will be…. Whether we complete it or not, we’ll see closure tomorrow, and this bill will pass. I’m not putting words in the minister’s mouth, but I know how the process works around this place and the intent of government.

[2:55 p.m.]

If the work has not been done yet, and the communication and consultation — I’ll get to that later on in other sections, I’m sure — has not been done yet, what’s the time that we’re looking at before municipalities will be notified, the consultation will take place, and those prescribed municipalities will at least be identified?

Hon. M. Rankin: We hope that the legislation will come into force in the spring, perhaps in April of 2023. All this is subject to vicissitudes, so many things — the first of which is the assumption that the bill will be enacted and the regulations will be in place, etc., in the normal course. But our goal would be to have the legislation come into force in April of next year.

Then, as for the first cohort, the eight to ten municipalities that would be specified: how would we do that? Well, first we would analyze the housing needs reports and statistics up to, let’s say, March of 2023. Then we would begin the consultation process with the municipalities, to which the hon. member referred. That would occur between May and June of 2023. They’d be notified, and of course we’d consult with them during that period.

Then the targets would be set for the first cohort — the housing targets in June of 2023 — and the reporting for that first cohort would start toward the end of the year, in December of 2023. All other things being equal, that’s our general game plan.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. That kind of covered off probably where I would have gone with some further questions. So I appreciate the information that the minister just put forward.

Not that I want to jump…. I’m not asking the Chair to allow me to jump to section 21, which is the commencement, but it does say in section 21 that it comes into force through an OIC. If that’s the case and it’s not coming into force unless it’s through an OIC, and it’s not going to be….

As the minister just said…. I know we’re on section 1, and the minister just talked about how that might not be until sometime next year. Why did it have to come in, as it did just now, with very limited notice — none — and very limited debate allowed in this House when we’re finding out right now that it’s actually not even going to be contemplated, brought into force through OIC sometime next year?

Why was this not put forward as an exposure bill, then, on government’s intent — which they have the full right to do — and actually give the public and the municipalities time to digest this and look at this before the government is ramming it through without that consultation? Why was it not, maybe, brought forward as an exposure bill for consideration in the spring, then, given the information that we just heard from the minister?

Hon. M. Rankin: On the first point that the member raised, the enactment date in section 21, I think the member would agree with me that that sort of approach to bringing a law into force by order-in-council at some future point in time is typical, if not constant. Some bills do come in, of course, on assent, but the majority of them come into force through a date set by the OIC. So I don’t consider that anything unusual.

As to why this bill is being enacted, it has been the subject of enormous consultation with municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, homebuilders and so many other sector-specific groups in the economy. That work has been underway. It also needs to be said that this is an enormous amount of drafting and other work that got us to this point in time so that we could be in a position to enact the bill and then to take the steps that I described in my last answer.

The Chair: Member, of course we are on section 1, and questions around clause 21 would probably be best put at clause 21. But I know the member referenced that, so thank you.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair.

Interesting comments from the minister just now. With what the minister just said…. So much work took place, so much consultation took place, yet this was brought in with two to three days left in the legislative session.

When did this government consider putting a bill like this forward and start the legislative review process? I know how this system works internally within government. It doesn’t happen overnight.

When did this bill start getting drafted? When was the direction given to the legislative bill committee there to start looking at this?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. I just had to confer with my colleagues. Quite frankly, I don’t remember.

To the best of our knowledge, cabinet direction was received in June of 2022. After that, the drafting process began. As the member will know, it’s often an iterative process. There are a lot of changes, back and forth, based on consultation with municipalities and others. And here we are in November.

That’s the time frame, to the best of my knowledge, that was followed.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. The minister has his staff here that were working on this. I do want to acknowledge that the minister was not the minister at the time. So I appreciate that it’s not in his memory bank, per se.

If it started in June, when was it completed?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the member’s indulgence as I try to remember these dates.

The member will know that there’s an elaborate process in all executive councils. I’m sure the one followed by the previous government would be no different.

There’s a committee that studied it. It went to cabinet for approval-in-principle. Then it went to something we call the legislative review committee, and there were some changes made as a consequence of that back-and-forth, which I described. I think the final bill would have been ready early this month, early November.

M. Bernier: Thank you for that acknowledgment of the process. I’m aware of it as well. It’s one of those not only requirements but due diligence by government that it go through that process. Again, politicians come up with ideas, but the smart people actually try to put it on paper and try to enact it. I know how that works.

I’m going to put the minister in a very awkward position here. This won’t require staff consultation, I’m sure, though he might choose to do so. If it was ready three weeks ago, why did it take until this week, the last week of the session, for it to be presented in the House?

Hon. M. Rankin: Sure, I can properly answer that.

There are a number of bills that are in the system at any given time. It’s always the job of the House Leader to determine the best timing for enactment and when bills are ready to proceed. I’m not really, beyond that, as the Minister responsible for Housing, to do much more than acknowledge the role that a House leader plays in any parliament.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Again, I acknowledge the nuances on that and the relationship between a minister and a House leader but, more importantly, the direction and relationship between a House leader and a new Premier.

I think it goes without saying that regardless of this minister’s intentions, obviously, the public, through opposition as well…. Timing is very convenient for government to sit on a bill and then enact it and rush it through closure in the last week of session, conveniently, right after the new Premier is appointed, when he talked about this as being something that he wanted to see enacted.

Again, I think it’s important to get on the record — this wasn’t an avenue that I was going to canvass until the minister allowed me that opportunity through his answers — to again express the disappointment to the democratic process of how this House is being treated, when we could have had those extra couple of weeks to really….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: If members have phones or electronic devices, please ensure that they are turned off.

M. Bernier: Since it wasn’t a member of my caucus, I’ll leave it to members of the NDP to rat out their colleague to the Whip. I’m not sure what the fine is in there. I know what it would be in my caucus, and I probably couldn’t afford that fine, but I’ll leave that to them to determine how that works out. I appreciate the quick interruption.

Again, I think the minister has heard, and frankly, probably acknowledged, our frustration with this. That doesn’t take away from the importance of the bill. I’m not trying to diminish that at all. The intention of increasing housing supply is an important one. It’s one that this side of the House supports, contrary to commentary we heard in the House today that we were opposed to the bill. That is 100 percent not factual.

We’re opposed to the process that this government has enacted in order to rush through a bill, regardless, again, of its importance. Regardless of the fact that if it was done properly, it would have probably seen full support of this House, right from the get-go, because that due diligence would have been afforded. The democratic process would have been respected.

I think it’s just, again, important to acknowledge for the minister. We’ll get through this as we canvass more questions in other sections as well. I’m not finished with section 1 yet, but when we get to those other sections, again, canvass some of those concerns, but also talk about the importance of this. As not only the Housing critic, but as a former mayor, I understand the intent, I would say, of this bill. The fact that we all collectively need to figure out a path forward to increase housing supply in the province of British Columbia….

That doesn’t take away from the role and responsibility of government to…. Historically it was to present bills in a timely way to allow opposition the respect that they should be deserving of to do their job as well. I love the fact that we get 15 minutes before I even have to ask the question, but I think it’s important that that commentary is brought forward. As we go through the day-to-day and other questions, the minister will probably smile and nod as I repeat some of that frustration in different sections, dependent on the kind of answers that I receive.

We were talking about prescribed municipalities. The minister has acknowledged that those municipalities haven’t been contacted or notified yet. I guess it will be, when the minister was talking about the timelines, that that will take place, that they will start looking at reports. I’m not putting words in the minister’s mouth, so he can correct me if I say anything that he did not say.

[3:10 p.m.]

Looking at reports and concept, bringing this into effect some time next April, then going through the process. Then the municipalities that will be — I’ll use the word “chosen” — prescribed, that this bill will basically be enacted upon, where it will affect them.

I’m trying to just look at a timeline here, a realistic timeline between what the minister said on government’s intentions for information-gathering for communities being chosen, for them to do their due diligence and to then come back with a report. Other sections will cover the details of that, so I won’t get into too much detail in this section on it. But once a municipality is prescribed, and we go through the process, as the minister is saying, is it fair to say that it might actually be a year — two years, possibly — before the province actually will be looking at outcomes, I guess?

I say that because I know that the intent is to get shovels in the ground. Nobody’s arguing that. But I also understand, again, as somebody who’s been in this field for a while — as somebody who has built affordable housing, as a former mayor and now the critic too — that this doesn’t happen overnight. But it’s also fair to say that for a municipality, they can’t do things overnight, either, and the public wants to see results.

I guess I’m just looking for what the minister said from a timeline perspective, when the minister will be finally looking at and reviewing outcomes of actual numbers. Is it fair to say — and I’m not intending this as a trick question — that it could be a year or two years, the way this policy is laid out, before that would take place?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question and, I suspect, the commentary. I also want to acknowledge his recognition, his statement that he recognizes the importance of the bill. If I heard him correctly, despite voting against the bill in second reading, he is supportive — if I’m not putting words in his mouth — of that. If so, I acknowledge that personal support.

To the specific question that was asked, the consultation will occur, as I said, with the municipalities after May. But I need to say that there has been an enormous amount of conversation by government with municipalities for months and months. I can’t remember how many municipalities I met at UBCM. I confess it’s a total blur.

To suggest that we didn’t have endless dialogue about this bill, to suggest that it was somehow a surprise to municipalities, is categorically wrong. I’m not putting words in the member’s mouth, but there has been enormous dialogue about this, and the proof is in the pudding. We had many, many municipalities lined up a couple of days ago to say how much they value this, how much they appreciate it and want us to get on with it.

So those are the facts. How long? When will we see outcomes? Well, we will begin with the reports. We expect by the end of next year that…. Well, first of all, I should start by saying that annual targets are what will be set. But by the end of next year, as I outlined in that process earlier, we will be getting into the nitty-gritty of the qualitative commitments that will be required. What are the pre-zoning processes? What about the approval processes? Can we show progress on housing?

I know for a fact, to the member, that many of the municipalities, in the Lower Mainland in particular, that anticipate that they’re going to be engaging with us in this process have rolled up their sleeves long ago and are getting ready. So work is underway now, and we hope we have stuff to roll out very quickly.

M. Bernier: I’ll give the minister a chance when we get to sections 2 and 3 to probably go into greater detail on some of the commentary that he had when it comes to target-setting and requirements of those targets, which are in other sections.

[3:15 p.m.]

But just sticking, then, to the prescribed municipality, staying in section 1 for a few more questions, with the indulgence of the Chair, as I work through this.

It’s important to acknowledge, as well, to the minister’s point, his commentary around UBCM, how it works. I’m not sure how many UBCMs the minister has had the privilege of being at. I’m going to say just a few. I’ve been to almost 20 of them, with different hats. I’ve sat on numerous different sides of the table.

I understand his respectful commentary about how it can be a blur. It truly can be when there is a lot going on — a lot of municipalities that want to meet with ministers on a multitude of issues — and trying to digest all that. They’re all important. As a former mayor, I’ll say they’re all important. I think that is a step that it needs to go through.

I do want to not clarify the minister’s comments…. I appreciate, though, that he acknowledged that the frustration on the vote yesterday was against process. The determination that I’ve said around support is…. As we get through this, we’ll decide, based on how this works, on the support holistically of this bill, depending on some of the answers that the minister puts forward. That determination, I think, is made — but not 100 percent sure — depending on some of the concerns that might be raised.

The definite support that this side of the House has is the fact that we’re in a crisis situation and we need to do better for building housing. That sometimes will be collaboration in this House, collaboration with the private sector, the not-for-profit sector and municipalities. I believe the intention with this bill is to try to make up some lost ground in some ways.

I think it’s also important to highlight, and I’ll ask a few questions around this, the work that municipalities have already been doing. I’m sure the minister has heard the frustration that some of them face as well.

Now, I don’t necessarily need the minister to stand up and answer this unless I can get a visual. The minister acknowledged they’ve been in conversations for quite some time, if I understood the minister — when I say conversations, that’s with municipalities — on a conceptual design of a legislative agenda like we see in front of us today.

I believe the minister said that those eight or ten munici­palities have not been chosen yet. He’s acknowledging that I’m correct with that. If I heard correctly, and I’m sorry if I’m sounding repetitive here, the timeline for those to be chosen will be some time after next April or May, after further consultation. Maybe the minister might want to answer that one.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would just like to thank the member for using the same term I’ve been using frequently in the last while, and that is the word “crisis.” I think the fact that we share that perspective is really encouraging.

Collaboration with everyone, the expertise the member has as a former mayor, working with the opposition, working with municipalities — that is what we hope. The Premier has said very clearly that the last-resort compliance measures that are there, the so-called stick people have referred to…. We hope it never gets to be used. We think we have a pretty good story to tell about working together to do what the people of British Columbia are asking us to. I appreciate the member’s commentary on that.

I’d just reiterate that the objective is to bring the bill in, in April, by order-in-council. I reiterate that I can’t commit to that timeline. Things may happen, but that is clearly our goal. Then, of course, municipalities…. The eight to ten municipalities would be informed, and we’d begin, as I said, to consult immediately thereafter. Sometime between May and June we begin that process.

M. Bernier: Thank you again to the minister for that. I’m just asking again, mostly, because, as we acknowledge, we are in this crisis situation. Nobody is sitting and waiting. Work is still going on, where it’s able to.

[3:20 p.m.]

Later on in…. I can’t remember which section it is; I’ll turn to it afterwards. We’ll talk about the sticks and what the intention is of government — as the minister says, hopefully never having to use it. But we’ll canvass that in a little while.

I’m curious, though. When we’re talking about the prescribed municipalities, with what the minister just said — I’m trying to figure out how to phrase this: what if a municipality doesn’t agree, or what if they aren’t chosen and they want to be? I’m curious how that process is going to play out in the minister’s thought process, because he’s saying eight to ten municipalities.

If I were the mayor of community X — and this government has now walked in and said: “You are one of the municipalities we’ve chosen” — what if I don’t want to be on that list? Will I have a say to opt out? Or is this government…? Through the wording that they have here in the definitions and then later on in the bill, do they have a choice or not? I guess that will be canvassed later on, in the sticks approach — if they don’t have a choice.

Hon. M. Rankin: If a municipality is not chosen and wants to be, we would welcome them with open arms. We would work with them because that would be an acknowledgment, on their part, that they share our concern that there may be process changes that would allow us to build houses in their community more rapidly — the kind of houses that we are expecting. It’s the mix of housing, and so forth, that’s at issue.

We have told municipalities that this is a collaborative process, in how we would specify the first cohort of municipalities. But at the end of the day, if there is an unwillingness to accept the need to address the housing crisis, as the member aptly put it, then we have the authority under the act to bring them into this process.

Again, our entire objective is to avoid having to take those steps, all through the process — up to and including the powers that are vested in the cabinet, at the end of the day, later in the bill.

M. Bernier: Thanks to the minister for that, and thanks to the Chair for the flexibility.

As he might notice through questions and answers, we are jumping around very vaguely in the bill. We’ll canvass some of the commentary in a little bit more detail when we get to those specific sections, but I think it’s also important to acknowledge that the minister’s answers and commentary do reflect the questions that I’m asking on section 1, and those are relevant as well, which I appreciate.

That is interesting because there may be a multitude of reasons for why a municipality may or may not want to be part of this. I’ll get into some of the specific questions that I’ve read, from mayors out there already and through the UBCM, about some of the unintended consequences out of this or some of the information that has not been forthcoming at this point. I don’t use that as a criticism. I use that more because of the way this bill is put forward.

A lot of that detail is not in here — for obvious reasons, I would assume, from government’s intents. The minister has said that the eight or ten have not been chosen yet, and that will be done through a consultation process, as he has acknowledged, later on sometime next year. The minister has said publicly that Victoria, Kamloops, city of North Vancouver and Langley are great examples of communities that are already getting things done.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m curious on the examples, then. If those are the cities that he’s highlighted publicly and that are already doing a good job in getting things done, is the assumption, then, that they won’t be on the list? Maybe he can give some examples of why he has picked those communities as doing a great job, in comparison to other communities.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question, the reference to the municipalities. I think the reason why those were selected by way of illustration, the ones that were mentioned, is because they have made some significant process changes to facilitate creating more housing, different kinds of housing.

For example, the Victoria one. There were a number of pre-zoning measures that they brought in, and they have innovative programs to try to enhance the diversity of their housing stock. These sorts of things are very welcome to meet the needs — because, as the member would acknowledge, it’s not just about building houses; it’s about ensuring that we have the diversity to meet the needs of the workforce in those communities — you know, a different variety of homes. Victoria took some really bold steps to diversify, which we think is consistent with our common goal of finding more housing for people in British Columbia.

I should also say that the legislation is going to apply to those municipalities where the demand is the highest and where there’s a gap between supply and demand. In some places, that’s not the case. The demand has been met in spades by certain municipalities I can think of; in others, that’s simply not the case. That will be a key factor in our determination.

M. Bernier: It will be interesting as this unfolds, I guess, through this process. The minister has highlighted some municipalities that have done some great work, and I want to acknowledge that there are some municipalities out there that are being creative and trying. I say “trying,” because, as we’ve both acknowledged and all acknowledge, we are in a crisis and have been, frustratingly, challenged with keeping up in some areas. I think it’s also fair to acknowledge and give the minister an opportunity to explain, because he actually has said: “Here are some municipalities that are doing a great job.”

On the other side, the minister and this government have publicly gone after some cities. You say they’re doing a bad job. In fact, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, Brad West, has publicly come out quite upset, I would say, because they know that they’re doing what they can. He said that the government and the minister labelling them as a bad city is completely unfair and erroneous.

I’m curious. In acknowledging those statements, as a former mayor, I’d be upset as well if government were saying that we’ve been doing a bad job, especially when we know the good work that Mr. West has been trying to do for his community. Can the minister give examples, then, of what they’ve been doing wrong and why they would say that they’re a bad city?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome, Madam Chair, to the table.

[3:30 p.m.]

This bill is being debated, as I understand it, in the Committee of the Whole stage to deal with the section-by-section analysis. I don’t see any utility, with great respect, in talking about municipalities that may or may not be taking this or that step. I don’t see the benefit to the work that is before this place today.

I can tell you that the issues that we’re dealing with in housing supply don’t just involve quantity, but they involve the diversity of housing stock that people need. To take a trite example, if everybody in a municipality…. Not everyone can afford to live in expensive condominiums or single-family housing on large lots. If that’s what a particular municipality is doing to meet the housing crisis that the member and I seem to agree exists, then that would not be consistent with the goals of this bill or the housing-needs reports, more importantly, set by the municipalities across the province.

M. Bernier: I’m saying this respectfully to the minister. Actually, in committee stage, the way this bill is presented, is exactly the time that I’m entitled to and have the ability to ask these questions. It is up to the minister whether, I guess, he chooses to answer them or not, which we hope he would.

It’s very important to highlight at this point, because we’re talking about prescribed municipalities. The minister and this government have come out and said: “These are good ones.” They have also publicly said: “These are bad ones.” I just acknowledged one of them, Mayor Brad West, who was singled out as a bad municipality, according to this government.

All I’m asking the minister is, then, to acknowledge that if they are a bad municipality…. I’m using his words, not mine, or the government’s words, depending on how the minister wants to correct me on that. All I’m asking for, I guess, is if the government is saying that they’re not doing a good job, is there an expectation? Can I phone Mr. West after this and say: “Government has acknowledged or refused to acknowledge that you are a bad municipality, and they didn’t want to correct that on the record”? Are they now going to be one of the eight or ten?

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The minister can criticize all she wants. She has a chance to answer if she wants, instead of the minister.

Sorry. I thought this was my time, Madam Speaker. Is it still my time to speak?

The Chair: It is your time. Thank you.

M. Bernier: Thank you. Appreciate that. The minister can allow me that time as well, and I’m not referring to the Minister of Housing. I’m referring to the minister of community services who wants to somehow be involved in this debate, even though it’s not hers.

I’m not saying anything that’s not…. These aren’t my words here. I’m just asking for an explanation. I’m not trying to put the minister in an awkward spot here, and I’m sorry if he feels maybe it is. I’m just asking….

From a public perspective, municipalities want to know if this government has already started picking and choosing which are good ones and which are bad ones through public commentary. Mr. West wants to know. Is he on the list of the eight or ten, and if so, why? This government has already publicly said that they’re not doing a good job, and they want to know why they’re not doing a good job.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would say that there is no good or bad. There is simply a question of room for improvement across our province. We wouldn’t have this problem we have faced together without that.

How will we determine it? Once again, as I said earlier, we will look initially at that community’s self-identified housing needs, through their housing needs report. We will do our own demographic and evidence-based analysis of the economy, the growth patterns, who’s coming in. What kind of person is moving in there? Do they need apartments? Do they need large housing? Would towers be appropriate? Would some kind of modular housing be appropriate? Are there shelters to deal with people who are at that end of the housing continuum?

Those are all the things that we’re hoping to do in cooperation and collaboration with municipalities. That is entirely the goal of this bill. We work with whoever will work with us.

M. Bernier: When we’re looking at these prescribed municipalities, then, and to the minister’s acknowledgment of the work that needs to be done, is he expecting all this work to be done?

[3:35 p.m.]

I guess I’m asking more from the carrot’s perspective for these prescribed municipalities. I’ll get into detail in other sections on some of the questions I have, but I’m curious from a…. I’m reusing the carrots-and-sticks analogy in the House here.

Nowhere in this bill, though, when we’re talking about municipalities that need to do a better job…. Nowhere with this bill, in this bill or with the announcement of the bill…. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, because I wasn’t privy to all of the discussion of this, for obvious reasons. Was there any new funding announced by this government to match this bill, any new funding outside of…?

Government is already funding announcements for different housing projects that they want to see through B.C. Housing and others. Was there any new funding an­nounced to go with this bill that will assist municipalities, once they are prescribed, in order to assist them to achieve the goals?

Hon. M. Rankin: The funding that has been made available, I think, is well known, but I will perhaps repeat it. The province provided $5 million that was very welcomed by the municipalities so they could undertake quality housing needs reports. I certainly have spoken with the mayor in my community about that, and they were very grateful, because they could do in-depth analysis just to identify what I talked about in my previous answer — namely, the kind of housing that’s needed in that community, how much, how it can be done, etc. So that work was funded, I think substantially, by the province.

There was also a commitment last year to $15 million to the local government development approvals program to support implementing established best practices, to test innovative approaches, to improve development approvals processes while meeting local government planning and policy objectives. That was $15 million.

We’re going to continue to be partners for municipalities. One of the key things, I think, is the need for the government of British Columbia to step up where infrastructure is required. Does a sewer system have to be made larger? Will schools need to be constructed in new areas of growth? What kind of transit is going to be needed in certain communities, given the growth that will be inevitable, the kind of housing that will take place near transit?

These are the kinds of things that the province will come to the table with as a willing partner with infrastructure, and with any luck, the federal government will join us, to that end.

M. Bernier: What I heard in that answer is nothing new. Yes, there are funding programs. A lot of those have been continual programs. They’ve been on through successive governments as well, I just want to acknowledge, for helping local governments. So if there’s no new money, I can see some of the frustration that local government is going to have. Maybe that’ll come out later when we get to other sections.

We even have the NDP stronghold community of Burnaby. Mayor Mike Hurley has now come out on this bill and said: “We can build….” I’m quoting him here, the mayor. “We could have built 1,200 units in two years, but we continually get turned down for funding from the government,” the present NDP government, “in order to build those 1,200 homes that we know we need.”

So if there’s no new money — I know this is a commen­tary that I’m hearing already from some of the municipalities — is the onus now going to be on every municipality to not only figure out these demands, which they’re already struggling to do in some cases, but also figure out a funding mechanism to achieve them? I say that because — we’ll talk again in later sections — the private sector can only do so much. The government has committed to doing part of that, unless something has changed.

What would he say to the mayor of Burnaby, who has said that he’s got 1,200 units he can’t build because this government has refused to fund them?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I think I’d start by saying that funding commitments are rarely provided explicitly in legislation. We’re here to talk about legislation, not for me to suggest that funding will or won’t be available to certain municipalities, going forward.

We’re going to continue to be there as partners for municipalities, to do what we can to help them to meet the targets that they’ve set and to work closely with the eight to ten municipalities, the initial cohort, during the implementation phase.

M. Bernier: When we’re talking about legislation, especially legislation that’s going to affect municipalities who are asking for money, it does, actually, lend itself to asking those appropriate questions. It’s hard to support a piece of legislation without knowing….

We know the intent of this government. Now they’re saying…. They’re putting forward a piece of legislation that may or may not have dollars attached to it, which means a municipality may or may not be able to achieve the goals that this government, as the minister acknowledged earlier in our debates on this section 1, could impose. Whether they like it or not, this government could impose numbers. Again, I’m trying not to get too far ahead of myself, because we will get into the next section, I believe, which is targets.

The Premier said he was going to be doubling grants in the community housing fund, yet when municipalities are applying right now, they’re being told by this government there’s no money left. So I think it is an important distinction to bring forward when we’re talking about this bill.

Is the minister…? I know he can’t tell this House specifically. But is there an expectation, since this will not come into effect until after the next budget, that government is actually going to be looking at mechanisms, then, in the next budget, which he can publicly talk about, to assist local governments in achieving their targets?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member said: “It’s hard to support a piece of legislation without funding information.”

The member didn’t support the legislation. The member voted, in principle, to oppose the legislation. They are on record as opposing. That’s what second reading debate is. They opposed the legislation. So I don’t know what he means by hypothetically hard to support. They have not supported. They voted against it.

I rarely answer hypothetical questions about what funding may or may not be available, but I am very proud of the fact that our government has spent more money on housing than any government in the history of this province by a significant margin, $7 billion over ten years. The next budget, as the member alluded to, may have other funding commitments. I can’t speak to the future or what another minister might do.

We have got to take a number of bold steps, and you’ve heard the new Premier talk decisively about some of those. This, however, is only a bill…. We’re only focused on the housing supply bill at this moment. We’ll have more to say on further steps on housing and funding in the weeks to come.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister…. It’s unfortunate he digressed back to changing the commentary from what we just respectfully talked about at the very beginning of this debate — that we actually did not vote against the bill. That will come later. Not to get into a wordsmithing debate here, but that’s not how this process works.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’ll remind the member that wants to be speaking in the back, who’s not part of this debate as well, that what a second reading vote is…. We voted against sending it to committee stage because we weren’t finished debating second reading. That’s how….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member can keep beaking off behind me. He, obviously, doesn’t understand the process and how this works.

We voted against moving it to third reading, because we were not finished debating second reading. The minister and I, I thought, had a respectful understanding on that beforehand. That is how the legislative process works, contrary to, I guess, some of the new members who don’t understand and who can go back and read the standing orders later.

We voted against bringing it here today because we weren’t done with our second reading debate. This government chose to ram through closure and not to allow us the opportunity to talk about it in second reading debate. They said: “You don’t have the right to talk as MLAs. You don’t have the right to represent your constituents and talk about this bill at second reading debate, and we’re going to invoke closure.”

[3:45 p.m.]

That’s what we voted against. It was this government….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I can sit down any time, Madam Speaker, if the member, from wherever the heck he is — I can’t remember, because he’s new in this House — wants to speak. I’m more than willing, more than willing to allow my spot.

Interjections.

The Chair: I would remind the members that the member for Peace River South has the floor.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I do find it interesting too. As the member behind me says, practice in this House, for years and years, has been respectful debate between the critic and the minister without heckling from backbenchers. Obviously, once again, they don’t want to follow the process of this House, as we’ve seen this government do.

The Chair: I would also remind the member who has the floor that we are on clause 1.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I still have 12½ minutes on clause 1 here and to get to my question, but I do appreciate the guidance. I have just over 12 minutes, actually.

I think it’s important that I get that on the record. I wasn’t going to go back to that until the minister tried to falsely say that the intentions of what we did on this side of the House…. It will be up to the minister whether he wants to acknowledge that and correct the record with his commentary. I’ll leave that to him.

The minister said that they haven’t decided yet on these municipalities, that there’s going to be consultation, that it’s up in the air. They’re going to continue looking at this. I find that interesting.

I know the minister — I respectfully say this — is new to this specific role. So you can’t really hold him, necessarily, individually accountable for the past minister’s comments. But the past Minister of Housing, who is now the Premier, publicly said that he knows which municipalities. Actually, the words he used: “I have a hit list.”

I’m curious how to square that circle, in a respect. The minister just finished saying…. When I asked about good and bad, he said: “There is no good or bad. We’re going to look at this.” Yet the now Premier says there is good and bad, and he’s got a hit list.

Is it fair to say, then, that the Premier already knows which eight or ten municipalities that he’s targeting? He just hasn’t advised the now Housing Minister. That’s already been determined by the Premier.

Hon. M. Rankin: I can only reiterate what I said earlier. There is no good or bad, but there are those where room for improvement exists. We will make that determination when targets are set for those specified municipalities, looking at the evidence, looking at the municipalities’ own acknowledgments, through their housing needs reports, of what the housing needs are.

We will do initial internal analysis in government and, perhaps, consult more widely with the building community and others to just see how we can work together to improve things in those specified municipalities initially and then, later, the others.

J. Rustad: I don’t want to take long, in terms of entering this debate, particularly on clause 1. A couple of things I think about and I just want to put on record.

I actually support this bill. I do have some concerns that I want to, hopefully, get to when we get through to part 5 of this bill. There are a couple of thoughts. Since we’re kind of touching on this through the definition side…. It’s outside of the definitions. So I apologize for that. There are a couple of thoughts I just wanted to ask the minister about, in particular….

There’s this focus, obviously, on the six or ten. There’s a huge need in the major municipalities, the larger municipalities, in the province.

I of course represent many small municipalities that also have needs that are pretty significant for a small community. They don’t necessarily rank in terms of the list. Some of the larger challenges for these small communities that don’t have housing….

Infrastructure, of course, is a big one, and I know you’ve covered that. That’s something that will have to be dealt with through budget processes down the road.

[3:50 p.m.]

Another big piece of it is land. For many of these small communities, there is land that’s locked up. Communities are locked up because of agricultural land, Crown land. There’s an unwillingness to release any of that because of issues with Indigenous relations and that side of things.

These communities are stuck. They want to be able to attract housing. There are people that want to be able to build housing within those communities, but there are these challenges around this.

Are issues like that going to bubble up to the surface, in terms of a bill like this, or is that going to have to be dealt with separately?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to welcome the member for Nechako Lakes to the debate and thank him not only for participating but for his support of what we’re trying to do. I much appreciate that.

I can tell the member that he’s right. I’ve acknowledged this in many, many municipalities I’ve met in smaller communities that infrastructure is a critical problem. It’s not just the fact that you can’t — it’s often more expensive, given the winter conditions, for example — get people to do the work. The difficulty we’re facing, across the province, in getting qualified people — I’m sure the member would agree with me — is exacerbated in some of the smaller communities. It is a real problem.

The member is absolutely correct. I’ve been told by a number of municipalities, smaller ones…. The duty to consult and accommodate is something that this government takes very, very seriously. Therefore, that has had an implication for the speed with which Crown land can be freed up.

I’ve heard the Premier say that we have to do better, as a province, in freeing up Crown land and the permitting that goes along with it, the water permits, just all of the technical part of getting Crown land into the private sector for development. We can do better, and we will do better. We can hardly ask our partners at the municipal level to step up if we haven’t stepped up. We get that message loud and clear. That’s one part of the answer: Crown land consultation.

The Agricultural Land Commission can also, given the existence of the ALR, be a problem. I can advise the member that last year, on December 31…. The sizing of permitted residences and additional dwellings on the agricultural land reserve has been subject to new rules that allow landowners in the ALR to have a secondary residence on their property without needing to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. I know, in some parts of the Interior, that’s a significant issue as well.

I want to thank the member for those observations. I accept entirely that they’re valid, and we have to do better on them.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the response. I know, particularly, the addition of a secondary home on agricultural land was very welcomed by the agricultural community in my riding.

I agree with the minister. The challenge of getting qualified, or just even getting people available to be able to do these things…. I currently have a trailer park, which is just outside of Fraser Lake, that has been without water now for almost two months. That’s the responsibility of the Minister of Lands, so it’s not, obviously, part of this debate, but it’s a real challenge in terms of that. I know they’re working through trying to get water to that development.

The question around the ALR, though… I’m not quite sure how this fits in, in terms of definition, but it’s an important piece. There are small parcels of land, for these small communities, that are locked up in the ALR and that are not an issue of a second home. It may need to be able to put a neighbourhood in. It may need, whether it is small parcels, whether it’s five acres or whether it’s actually putting in a more dense type of neighbourhood, to allow a community like, for example, Vanderhoof to be able to provide additional housing.

We’ve got a mining project that is going forward just south of Vanderhoof, and there’s going to be a need for additional housing within that community. Apartments aren’t really a viable option. In some cases, they can be a little bit, but really, a lot of people that live in those smaller areas want to be able to have a little bit of land and don’t really want to be living in an apartment setting.

So this is a challenge for a community like Vanderhoof to be able to find that land, particularly the land that’s locked up in the ALR. The priority of the ALR, of course, is agriculture, and removing land for housing may not be welcomed by the Agricultural Land Commission.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering. Where you have that conflict in priorities between the agricultural land and the need for housing, particularly in a small community, is there some way we can find a path that would allow for that kind of a development for a small community? It’s not going to have a major impact in terms of agricultural land.

I understand what that means in terms of the Lower Mainland, where there are huge challenges and huge pressures on the ALR land. But when you’re talking about these small communities, it’s not quite the same issue. My hope was, in terms of the focus on housing and the need of housing and the reason for this bill coming forward, a recognition that there are smaller issues as well that will have the same kind of urgency or priority by government to allow for these communities to be able to provide housing.

Hon. M. Rankin: I can acknowledge the advocacy of the member for the folks living in the trailer park at Fraser Lake. I’m aware of the issue. I’ve heard about it. I know that we’re making efforts to address it. I thank him for his advocacy for his constituents.

Of the housing in Vanderhoof piece, and nearby, I had a chance, at UBCM, to speak to the mayor and speak to the regional district folks as well about that very problem with the new mine, and so on. It’s going to be an issue. We’re trying to get ahead of that. We’re trying to get ahead of it.

On the issue of agricultural land, though, the member will be well aware of the delicate balance over the years that we’ve tried to achieve in preserving agricultural land. I know it’s different in the north than it is in the south. But one uses the Canada soil classification and all the other factors to decide what is agricultural land. With climate change, things that might not have been prime agricultural land in the past may well be agricultural land in the future. The government has, I think, an ethical and a legal obligation to protect that.

However, the member will also be aware that there is a policy. There’s a possibility of seeking an exclusion from ALR. I know that that’s a matter that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is seized with. I think that that balance is what we’re all trying to achieve, difficult though it is.

J. Rustad: Those were all my questions I have on section 1. I just want to thank the minister for the latitude of asking those questions, and I look forward to an opportunity with other sections of this bill if I can get the chance.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the Minister of Jobs trying to rush through such an important piece of legislation. We’ve never seen that happen this week.

Section 2, I guess, will now get into some of the commentary on targets. I know we quickly, I guess, when we were talking to the definitions section of this bill, alluded to some of the targets and the, I guess, objective that we’re trying to achieve not only specifically with the wording within this bill, but obviously on the ground within municipalities. Now the targets are going to be an interesting one — somewhat, a little bit, nuanced.

I’m curious. Maybe I’ll start by asking a question to the minister of when we talk about setting targets. He’s talked about needs assessments. Depending on how that’s going to be used within the portfolio of putting targets together, can the minister just explain to this House, then, in his, I guess, words — his thought process — how they plan on determining the targets for each of the prescribed municipalities once those are chosen?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I would just thank the member for his question and point out that a lot of what I think is the meat of the answer will be found in the next section, section 3, which goes through and talks about the requirements for making the housing target orders. A lot of what I think we can address will be dealt with at that time, but I can say to the first point that he made that the factors will be different for every municipality.

I mean, that’s the issue. Even among the eight to ten, there’ll be different factors depending on the nature of the people who live there and the kind of housing that will be needed. I think I’ll leave it at that and perhaps anticipate further questions on this point.

M. Bernier: It will be a little…. I’ll use the word nuanced, again, as we go through this. This is a new piece of legislation that the government has put forward. Clause 2 is about housing target orders, and then clause 3 is about requirements for housing target orders. So you can hopefully have a little bit of indulgence as we maybe — I know the process — unintentionally blend some of the commentary, answers and questions as we move through this.

Maybe I’ll go to this one, then, for the minister, which I think we can attribute to clause 2. CMHC has come out and said that British Columbia is going to need 570,000 units of housing in British Columbia by 2030. Understanding the minister’s point that each municipality may or may not be chosen and that there are different needs and different requirements, which will also be different numbers, obviously, through that process, is the CMHC report, the CMHC goal and targets, that’s saying British Columbia needs 570,000 units…? Is that number going to be encompassed into the plans for the municipalities?

Hon. M. Rankin: The CMHC projections are indeed sobering. We all have to, as a province, determine how we’re going to address what may be true. That’s one piece of information. As the legislation points out, a number of other things will be taken into account. But certainly, those rather sobering projections will be one factor.

M. Bernier: I’ll give the minister an opportunity. Outside of these agencies, has the government done any of their own studies that they’re going to be bringing forward? I have a binder here full of different ones, but I’ll give the minister an opportunity to talk about what studies have been done by government that have projections of what the requirements will be and the needs will be in the province of British Columbia between, let’s just say, now and the next five years or so.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The answer of course is yes, the prov­ince does have its own analysis. I can give a couple of examples to the member. The population growth forecast that takes into account immigration and in-migration, for example. B.C. Statistics, along with the Ministry of Housing, does quarterly analysis. There may be a lot more. I can’t talk to the independent consultant reports that, from time to time, may have been sought. I can’t say any more than that.

But of course, as the legislation contemplates, there’ll be a number of factors taken in, a number of forecasts of different kinds that we’ll factor in.

M. Bernier: Just to acknowledge the minister’s comments, there are a lot of reports, a lot of different analysis, a lot of I’ll use the word "experts" in the housing field, which it’s probably fair to say, the minister and I are not. We have our political roles that we try to achieve to help the people of British Columbia.

I think one thing that we’ll agree on though, as we’ve said, is the crisis situation. I’ve yet to find a report that says: “Don’t worry; we’re doing great. We have enough housing. Nothing to see here.” Most things show that we’re behind, that we need to do better. The costs have escalated. The frustration continues around municipalities trying to achieve the goals, which in turn, translates to frustration around affordability, frustration for people who are trying to get into the market.

I think it’s fair to say, when we’re talking about this…. We’ll say it’s a variable market in the sense, I believe — and the minister will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not here — that the intention is not specifically high-end market housing. It’s a multitude of rental units to affordable housing units to row housing, to supportive housing. It’s the gamut, the full spectrum of housing that’s needed, as the minister has acknowledged, dependent on the needs in each community, which also vary.

I’m curious, though, with that. The government, under their own announcements, have said that they want to achieve 114,000 housing units in ten years. I’m curious where that fits in to the targets. Maybe I’ll leave it there and let the minister answer. I’m curious. The 114,000 that have already been previously announced, that this government says need to be built — are they calculating that into the 570,000 that CMHC says we need? Is that going to be part of the targets that will now be laid upon the municipalities to achieve as well?

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I find myself in violent agreement with my colleague on the issues he described so well. I couldn’t do better. We need an entire spectrum, depending on the varying needs of communities. That’s exactly correct. That’s exactly what we need.

I would say that we have a ten-year plan to achieve the 114,000 units that was described, in partnership with the private sector, I stress, using the HousingHub, using B.C. Housing, using the $7 billion that’s out there in ten years that we’re on track to spend. Who knows what future budgets will do to address this housing crisis. So yes indeed, it’s all part of the all part of the package that needs to be factored in.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to understand, with that answer, then…. The government has previously come out…. It has changed, I think it’s fair to acknowledge.

Originally, this government said that they were going to be building 114,000 much-needed housing units. The Housing Minister at the time, the now Premier, has said that but, in recent months, has acknowledged publicly, to the media… I don’t want to put words in his mouth saying that he saw the light, but in essence, he saw the light. He has come out and said this year that he realizes that government will not be able to achieve the 114,000 units and will rely on the private sector to be part of the solution.

The minister doesn’t seem to want to necessarily, categorically, agree with the commentary I’m saying. I can definitely dig up the quotes from the now Premier, if he wishes me to do so, afterwards, where he said that.

The point I’m trying to make, though — regardless of the political commentary I’ll get from the minister in a moment, I’m sure — is around those 114,000 units. Is that going to be built into the targets? That is what I’m kind of asking.

I’m going to make up numbers here, if the minister will indulge me. We’ll go to…. I’ll pick a city — I don’t know, Delta. Delta, we’ll say, needs to have 5,000 units built to keep up with the supply that they know they need right now. Is it fair to say, then…? The government could easily walk in and say: “You know what? We promised 114,000 units. Your 5,000…. Don’t worry. We’re going to deduct them off our 114,000 and get the assistance there, and you’re going to build them.”

Where I’m going with this is trying to understand…. Are we talking net new places and a target that’s going to be set? Is the government now going to be encompassing their previously announced 114,000 needed units and building those in addition to the targets that municipalities will have to achieve?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m trying to best understand how to reply to this question.

We accept that CMHC has a projection of 570,000. We don’t know. It’s a projection. It may be true; it may not be true. It’s one of many factors, as I indicated, including B.C. statistics, B.C. housing reports, outside consultant reports, and so on. That’s the first thing. It’s one factor. Frankly, Madam Chair, that’s exactly why we hope we can pass this bill: to help the people of British Columbia to meet their needs in the future.

Ever since I’ve been a minister, 114,000 has been what we said we would deliver. That’s clearly in contemplation of the private sector assisting us — non-profits; housing providers; B.C. Housing, of course, with $7 billion in play. The key point is that the housing needs that are at issue will be identified, first and foremost, in the housing needs reports generated by the municipalities in question.

M. Bernier: With that answer, is it fair…? Am I hearing from the minister that they just don’t know? I guess the work hasn’t been done.

The minister said the CMHC number of 570,000 may or may not be the right number. Do they have an idea, then, from a government perspective, of what the right number actually is?

Hon. M. Rankin: I don’t have a crystal ball. I have no idea what the needs are going to be in ten years’ time. I don’t understand the utility of that line of inquiry.

I can say that we have spent $5 million to ensure that local governments can do the comprehensive housing needs reports that they have undertaken. It’s their identified needs that we’re trying to meet, not ours.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Bernier: With all due respect to what the minister just said, I think it’s actually our collective need. It’s not the municipalities’. It’s all of our need to achieve the housing goals. I believe that’s more in line with what he meant to say. I’m not trying to wordsmith.

It is the minister’s job, as the Housing Minister, to deal with this, to understand the challenges and to have policy in place. I will acknowledge a piece of it: the legislation we have in front of us today.

Where I was going…. I’m sorry if I didn’t articulate it well enough, substantively, for the minister. This government has previously announced, for many, many years now, that 114,000 affordable housing units…. There’s been different terminology that’s been used over the years to describe the 114,000 units that this government says are needed. Whether it’s affordable, low income, supportive, there has been lots of different terminology that’s been used.

What criteria, if any, aside from, let’s say, the housing needs reports, I guess, that identify need…? If we’re going to use that, I guess the point is: what, through the collaboration process, guarantees…? Can we talk to the general public more now, not ourselves or the local governments, to ensure that they have confidence in the process that we’re actually setting realistic and achievable targets but not so low that we’re not achieving the much-needed goals that we want to achieve?

The reason why I say that is…. In five, almost six, years, this government has achieved less than 10 percent of that 114,000 target. That’s not political guessing. That’s, actually, the former minister and now Premier’s number, which he stood in this House and said. They like to say it’s 30,000-some-odd houses that are underway. But when we talk about results, it’s how many actually have people living in them, families living in them. Their doors are open, the beds are in the bedrooms, and people are living in them. The now Premier has acknowledged, in questions in this House, that it is under 10 percent.

The reason why I say that is because the now Minister of Housing has said that they are on track — I believe it was yesterday in this House — to achieve the 114,000 units of affordable housing that this province needs by, I’m going to say, around 2028, 2027, four or five years from now.

In the first five, six years of this government, they were able to do less than 10 percent. The minister wants us to believe that in the next four years, they will open up more than 100,000 units, the other 90 percent. We can debate back and forth the criticism that we have talked about when it comes to the achieving of that goal.

The point of my question is, because the government has failed to do it…. What I see and what I’ve heard from some of the communities that have emailed me on this is: is the government just going to take those 100,000-plus units that aren’t open yet and build them in with the plans for these municipalities, so in two years from now, when they submit their reports of their goals, the government’s 114,000 are now in their targets? And the government will go, “Check, look what we did, how great we are,” when in fact, they didn’t do anything. It was the local governments. The government failed to deliver on their 114,000.

That was a long way of saying that’s why I’m trying to understand, on the order thats going to be put on the targets, where that 114,000 fit in, because a lot of municipalities are saying: “We already know what we need, or we’re trying to guess what we need.” Affordability is part of that, affordable housing, but they’re not necessarily counting that as their responsibility, because they’re saying government already committed to it.

How will that build in — I think the minister maybe knows where I’m going with this now — for when they’re setting targets?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for providing greater clarity on your question.

I don’t like to start by saying, “I reject the premise of the member’s question,” but I think I must do so.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’ve never heard that 10 percent number. I don’t know where he’s getting his numbers. I said, as the member correctly said, that we are on track to achieve the 114,000 in the ten-year plan, in partnership with our providers in the private and public sector, and I stand by that.

I’m not sure that this is getting us closer to understanding the housing targets that section 2 entails. It does give me an opportunity, though, to talk about the various things that the member seems to want to talk about today.

There are 36,071 homes completed or underway as of June 30. They have supportive housing funds. We have the deepening affordability of existing projects. We have the affordable rental housing piece, the rapid response to homelessness piece, but my favourite — since the member wishes to engage in this, apparently — is the student housing. I’m very proud of that work that we’re doing. I suppose it’s because I represent a university community.

I’m so, so proud that, in the years that the former government was in power compared to what we’ve done, it’s a staggering difference — it’s not me saying that; it’s the president of the university; it’s the people in my community who are so grateful — when I go up to the university and see the new student housing there. They’re freeing up supply in the rest of the community. Students no longer need to look there, because thousands of them are now being housed.

In the time that the last government was in power, in 15 or 16 years, they built about eight or nine student housing units a year. Let me say that again: eight or nine a year. The figures were that they built 130 student beds on campus. We have built, just at the University of Victoria recently, 398. We’re building nearly 8,000 across the province. Those are facts.

I’m not sure why I’m engaging in this discussion. I don’t see what it has to do with the point in question, but the member opened the door. I felt I had to answer. I reject the premise of what he’s saying. I can repeat where I thought we were going — which was to talk about how those numbers were set, the housing targets. Sections 2 and 3 of the act will elaborate on exactly those criteria.

M. Bernier: Actually, my questions are very important and relevant to how we set targets. The minister can flip to whatever page he wants, but he is factually dead wrong on his numbers. Whoever’s feeding him his numbers…. Either he’s reading it incorrectly, or somebody is deliberately not giving him the right numbers on that.

I didn’t want to get into that until he opened up the door. Obviously, we’re talking about targets. It’s all types of housing, student housing being part of it. In fact, when we were in government, contrary to what the minister said — he can go back and do his research on this — it’s actually a number closer to about 10,000 units. He can shake his head all he wants. We’ve got the documentation, and you can talk to any university.

In fact, in my riding alone, while the B.C. Liberals were in government, there were over 500 built at Northern Lights College. We have all the supportive housing for students that was built at UNBC in Prince George during the B.C. Liberals’ tenure.

Now, it might be the way this minister and their government want to creatively look at how these houses for students are built and funded. Nevertheless, they were built. Students are living in them. The minister can shake his head all he wants, but those are factual numbers that he can find. I lived through it; I was part of it. So for him to mention numbers that don’t make any sense at all to reality surprises me. But I’ll give him credit in the sense that, respectfully, he’s new to the role and is looking at the numbers that somebody is feeding him but that aren’t accurate.

I do want to go back to the point of my question, which the minister didn’t cover. How are they going to look at the targets of 114,000 units of supportive and affordable housing? The minister said he didn’t know where I got my numbers from. It’s actually right off the government’s and B.C. Housing’s websites. It’s also on record, right in this House, where the former Minister of Housing, who is now the Premier, is on record in Hansard saying that the numbers that I’m saying right now are right and accurate.

[4:25 p.m.]

“Yes,” he liked to say, “but don’t worry. There’s more coming and more underway.” But the now Premier never, ever disputed and actually said “I was right” when we talked about how less than 10 percent of the housing units are open, with people living in them. It’s right on the government’s and B.C. Housing’s website. I’ll let the minister go look at that later, because he’s not accurate again, on that.

My point, if the minister will indulge me, when we’re looking at the targets in clause 2, is around how municipalities are going to be expected to look at how those targets are going to be counted, I guess. What I’m hearing from municipalities already — as I mentioned earlier, and that’s why I’m trying to get a clearer understanding from this minister on target accounting for municipalities — is there is an assumption, from what the government already promised and what the government already announced and what the government said they were already going to fund, that that is separate.

Yes, the minister and I will both agree, I assume. Yes, it’s part of the suite of housing that’s needed within the municipality. Where I’m going is to where municipalities are confused around how it’s going to be allotted within the targets that they’re going to be asked to achieve. Are they now going to be asked to achieve part of the 114,000 that government has failed to get done? Is that now going to be counted in their targets, or is that going to be in addition?

Maybe I’ll just clarify or explain my point again to the minister. On CMHC’s numbers, the minister is right to say nobody has got a crystal ball. We do analysis, best guessing on all of that. I understand what the minister is trying to say.

For argument’s sake, we’ll use that number of over half a million. I’m going to assume, when an organization like CMHC says we need over half a million, that they’re back to looking at that whole suite — which would encompass the 114,000, if we use that number, as part of what’s needed in society. For distinction, what we’re talking about in this bill is the responsibility that this government is trying to impose on local government for achieving targets.

The now Premier has said — a stick-and-carrots approach — that they must put a process together that’s going to be approved. We’ll talk about that in other sections. I’ll get to that in detail around target-setting, reporting and targets that have to be achieved. There is still — I don’t necessarily want to say — some confusion, but there’s an expectation that what government has committed to, although built into the suite of requirements, will not be part of the target expectation that they will now be penalized on, let’s just say.

If a community is told they have to build all of this stuff outside of the government’s requirements, that’s one thing. But if they say, “Now you have to build this, because government didn’t do it. If you don’t build it, then you’re now penalized….”

I hope the minister understands where I’m going, because this is where some of the communities are concerned. When we’re setting the targets, are 114,000 affordable units going to be melded into the requirements that municipalities will now be building into their targets — which, at the end, means they have to report on it? It also means that if they don’t achieve it, the stick comes out, according to this government.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks for the clarification from the member. I think I have a better understanding of where he’s going. We are committed to meeting the needs that a community identifies through their housing needs reports. In setting a target, we will add our own information to it.

Now, if the member is suggesting that there are 114,000…. If the member is suggesting that, for example, the government has committed to build a certain number of houses for Indigenous people under one of the programs or rental housing under another, we want to come and assist the municipality to do so.

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I can assure the member that we’re not divvying up somehow, notionally or in practical terms, the housing work that we’ve committed to do in our ten-year plan. We’re not divvying it up. We’re saying that if there are certain kinds of housing that are part of that and it was earmarked for a particular community, that will certainly be helpful to that community. But in no way, shape or form, if I’m grasping the member’s point, are we using that as some kind of lever, or inappropriately, with the municipality.

The point of this section, the point of this act, is to set housing targets for municipalities starting on what they think they’ve identified as the kind of housing they need. Let’s say a community thought rental housing was important, and we have rental housing as some of the things that are in our plan, then of course we would hope to assist. But I don’t see anything penal in that or somehow inappropriate in that, unless I don’t grasp the question.

The Chair: Member.

M. Bernier: Welcome back, Chair. You can come and go. We’re still here. I have a feeling that rotation might happen one or two more times before we’re done here today.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the minister — the appreciation I have for his ability to, I guess, quickly answer. We might not always get the answer right away that I’m looking for, and that could be sometimes the way I frame the question, but I’ve been in this place long enough to realize that it’s not often that a minister in government is so eager and quick to stand up and answer a question. We’ve seen it play out, over the last couple of weeks, where it’s ten, 15 minutes waiting for sometimes a simplistic answer.

I want to thank, and I mean that sincerely, the minister for that, because I think it’s important when we’re having this dialogue. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree, and sometimes we can get into the political sparring, which, I have to, unfortunately, say I enjoy.

I think as we move through this important bill, I just honestly wanted to acknowledge the minister for that. It doesn’t happen often, and it’s appreciated. The downside to that is it doesn’t always give me ample time to frame up my next thought process. Maybe that’s his intention, and good for him if that’s the case.

To the answer the minister just gave, I believe, understanding the intent….Again, I acknowledged that at the very beginning in section 1 — the intent of this bill to try to acknowledge the crisis we’re in and try to move us to a place where we’re all working together and collectively. The point I was trying to make, which I believe the minister answered for me, was that the government made the announcement of 114,000 based on what they saw as a need.

We’ve acknowledged…. We won’t get into the debate of what is or isn’t open yet. That’s not going to be a productive use of time, going forward. It’s already been acknowledged. Again, the intent was, I guess, to just acknowledge that there’s a multitude of different needs out there — as the minister and I have both, I think, acknowledged — and requirements, depending on the municipality.

The concern was, which I believe I’ve articulated, and the minister has acknowledged…. The intention is, I guess, not to pass the buck by saying that government has failed to do it, so now we’re just going to build it into the targets of municipalities so when they achieve it, government can say they did.

The need is still there. I don’t think anybody is arguing that. The need is there. The requirement for government to try to achieve their outcomes and promises is there. It’s important. Municipalities, as well, know that’s important.

I think it’s important for all of us in this House to acknowledge, from a local government perspective, the last thing they want to be done…. We’ll talk about that, maybe, in section 3 on the requirements on the orders of how that will come out. But nobody wants to be set up for failure either. That’s, hopefully, not the intent of this, which was the questions around the 114,000.

[4:35 p.m.]

We don’t want it to be where this government is passing the buck to local government but then taking credit for when they do the hard work. It all has to get done.

I guess, as we’re going through that process, the minister has acknowledged that this is not going to be easy. I’m using those words. He didn’t exactly use those words. It’s not going to be easy work in a lot of ways, because things change, as we’ve said. Needs change. Demographics change. Populations can be fluid in and out of regions, municipalities, the province, for that matter. I’m curious, as we’re going to be setting the targets — on the flexibility of that. I know we have to have numbers. I know how targets work. I’m curious. As municipalities are going to put these targets forward, when I’m looking at the bill….

This section here is housing target order, and as we’ve acknowledged, they have to then bring those targets back to this minister to approve, or agree to — we’ll use that — and if not, that’s where a further consultation process….

What are the minister’s thoughts on this then? How specific is this government and this minister hoping to see in these target objectives? Is it going to be: “You must give us a plan that’s going to have 1,822 mixed units built”? Is it going to be, in that, divided into five categories or sections of the type of usage? How specific is the minister and government expecting municipalities to be?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to begin by thanking the hon. member for the very kind words he said. I appreciate the respectful engagement on this bill we both agree to be so important. I just want to acknowledge that with gratitude.

The member is absolutely right. No one intends to pass the buck, to use his term. We want to get to the right place together. I think the word he said…. He used: how “specific” would the targets be? You know, they can be very specific and very, very granular. “Yes, we need 1,485 rental units,” in municipality X. That could be in their own housing needs report. As I said earlier, some municipalities have done an extraordinarily good job of getting to that level of detail. Others not so much. They’ve talked in general terms, but they haven’t got into that level of what I’ll call “granularity.”

Those that have, they’re way on their way, and we can probably, in some cases, simply accept their targets. We agree. We’ll do our own due diligence, and we’ll say: “You know, we appreciate they got to the same place we might have got to. Let’s just work with those numbers and figure out how we can achieve them.” It will vary.

As the member has himself indicated, every municipality will be very, very different, because the needs will differ.

M. Bernier: I know, when we get to part 3, that we talk about the target progress reporting and review of the reporting. When we get to those sections, we can have maybe a little bit more in-depth discussion on that. Again, just to acknowledge in this bill, that’s where it gets a little interesting — when we’re trying to have questions specific to one section, because so many of them are all crossing over each other when you’re doing new legislation like this.

I just want to go back for a second. Not to reiterate and get into the whole dialogue on the 114,000 again, but it’s more around the questions that have been coming to me from local government.

[4:40 p.m.]

They’re wanting to know where this government, the provincial government specifically, fits in when it comes to…. We’ll use the word “partnering.” Where the confusion comes in….

Where the confusion comes in…. The past Housing Minister, the now Premier, for instance, at the beginning of June of this year, is quoted as saying: “We need to leverage the private sector to build the housing that we need for people to afford to buy in the province of British Columbia.” Then just a few weeks after that, he came out and said: “We can’t rely on the private sector alone to build the housing.”

I have a feeling we’re going to stop for a break in a moment, so the minister will have time to come back, maybe, and answer that afterwards — obviously with the guidance of the Chair, not myself.

I put that out there because I want the minister just to acknowledge and, maybe, come back with his answer of where the provincial government is going to fit in with this, especially after the two quotes that I just read back to him: the Premier first of all saying it’s the private sector, and then coming in and saying that actually, it’s going to be government as part of that.

I’m just trying to understand, on behalf of municipalities, how they’ll marry that up.

Hon. M. Rankin: Where does the government fit in? We hope to be a partner. There’ll be some places where we are going to be relying considerably on the private sector, but there are other places — I’m thinking complex care housing — where the government may have expertise from B.C. Housing on how to do that kind of housing. So we’ll be there as a partner. I’ve indicated our partnership on infrastructure — I won’t need to repeat that — but there are various ways in which we’ll be able to step up.

This is going to be all hands on deck, this future. It’s going to require robust engagement, as the member has indicated, with the private sector. Yes, B.C. Housing and local governments themselves are sometimes housing providers. They’re going to be needed as well.

Now, Mr. Chair, if I may, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued debate on Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act, in the Committee of the Whole here, and on Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, in Committee of the Whole, Section C, in the Birch Room.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:44 p.m.

The Chair: Members, with agreement, we’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:44 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 2 (continued).

M. Bernier: Right before we had a bit of a break there, we were talking about the targets.

[4:55 p.m.]

I appreciate the minister’s answer to my question around the setting of targets and how the numbers will be, I guess, determined and reported.

A thought I just had, though, as the minister was giving…. When a municipality submits their targets…. We were talking about the commitments government has made around affordable housing units, etc. We talked about the specifics of how the targets are going to be set and how they’ll be labelled. Is there going to be a “this will be your responsibility” line and “this will be government’s responsibility” line? We’ve talked about what government is already committed to, which might be built into the suite of requirements within that municipality.

I mentioned the quote from the now Premier, where he originally said the private sector. We acknowledge…. I think it’s fair to say…. We all know that the government can’t be expected to do all of this, but the Premier has acknowledged that government will be doing part of it, part being we don’t know.

So back to my question, I guess. When those targets are put forward…. It’s still within the municipality. Regardless of whose responsibility it is, it will still be a requirement, in that municipality, to meet the needs of the community’s citizens. So will there be a “you have to build this many, and government commits to this many” in the same target?

Hon. M. Rankin: When the targets are set initially with the local government, with its housing needs reports, and then the province steps in…. It’s not a function, as the member suggested, of: “This is your responsibility. This is the government’s responsibility.”

We are, of course, going to partner. For example, it may be that funding would be available through the community housing fund for a particular suite of housing that is identified in the community’s needs report for…. I don’t know. Supportive housing comes to mind, as an example. However, the government of British Columbia, through B.C. Housing, isn’t the sole provider of that kind of housing. It may be a local government. It may be that the private sector can step up, as they’ve done in Victoria, by the way, on community housing, to great effect.

We don’t see it the way, I think, the member is suggesting. We see it as…. The primary housing need is identified by the community. The target is set, with the benefit of additional information the province and others might provide. Then how can we best achieve those targets together?

That’s how we see it. It’s distinct from, I think, what the member was alluding to, where you divide responsibilities from the outset. We think it’s more, if you like, iterative and a dialogue between the various players in that community to best meet the needs identified for that community.

M. Bernier: I guess the thought here, to acknowledge the minister’s comments, is…. It will need to be a partnership in a lot of areas. I don’t think anybody thinks any differently.

Where I’m thinking, though, is around the target expec­tations and requirements. But then, as we talked about even in section 1, very quickly…. It’s around the funding mechanism, maybe, to achieve those targets.

[5:00 p.m.]

The minister just acknowledged CMHC and B.C. Housing. We know the turmoil that B.C. Housing is in right now. We’ve canvassed that in the House a fair bit lately, about the billions of dollars and, I would say, requirement that B.C. Housing get this money…. The point is to get achievements, to actually see places opened up for the needs of the people.

Where my question is gravitating to, though, is around not only the reporting but, again, the responsibility and then the funding portion that comes with that. As the minister has rightfully acknowledged, it’s going to be a partnership between provincial and municipal governments and then, of course, with the private sector. But there is a role within government.

I’m just trying to understand here. Through the process of determining housing targets, regardless of, I guess, building in the quantum of style that’ll be needed for those communities, there is a component…. It will be the requirement or responsibility, in some way, for the provincial government to step in.

I’ll give an example, one that I am somewhat acutely aware of, for instance, a supportive housing project that was just fairly recently opened in Dawson Creek. The provincial government stepped in and said: “This is what we think your community needs. We’re going to bring in some modular housing to support your community.” That, I will say, in many areas, is needed, and more is needed. The municipality had to supply the land.

It’s back to that partnership we talked about. If we’re going to build it into the targets…. To use the example of Dawson Creek, 30 units of supportive housing are brought in. But that was government funding it, not the municipality. If it was the municipality expected to fund it, it would’ve been a different situation maybe.

It’s back to the targets, the target-setting and the responsibility. When we do the needs assessment reporting for housing…. The supportive wraparound services that would be required in some housing units or affordable housing units will, in my assumption, be built into the targets and requirements for that community to try to achieve.

That’s why I was saying to the minister…. The description of responsibility, of ours and theirs, ours being government’s…. There will still be…. If I were still a mayor, I’d be saying: “I agree with you. We need it. When are you building it, and how are you funding it?” So I can check it off the list as a requirement for my community.

That’s where I was going. I’m trying to figure out where a municipality can, then, push back to this government and say: “We agree. When are you going to build it?”

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s thoughtful question. I’m trying to ensure I answer it properly. The Dawson Creek example was a good one, where the municipality had land and the province, as I understand the example, came in with supportive housing.

[5:05 p.m.]

In some cases, that’s not going to be the case. In some cases, it will. There will be times when the local government will be looking to other partners to address some components of the housing needs that the community identifies. I know that in this community where I live, there have been some very innovative private sector partners, even in supportive housing, low-cost rental, which is something new and exciting, because that hasn’t been the case in recent years.

The community identifies the needs. We agree upon targets or set the targets if there is dissonance between what they think is needed and what we, through our analysis, think is needed. Then we work together, as best we can, to figure out how we can achieve them.

The point, I think, where we differ is…. I don’t want it to be seen that local government can somehow say, well, because we set the target together of X…. “You identified the need for X number of units.” Somehow, therefore, it’s on us, as a province, in every case, to meet those targets. Without going through the processes that B.C. Housing has, or whatever, to somehow think…. All of a sudden, it’s on us. Sometimes it will be.

They’ll have programs…. In the case of Dawson Creek, I assume the community applied for and received approval for supportive housing funding. I don’t know, in that particular case. It doesn’t matter. It will differ in each and every case.

The key part of this section of this bill is…. We need to have targets that are set. It’s not like we divvy up responsibility between the province and the municipality, certainly, explicitly and not explicitly, within this section. Sometimes the province will step up, of course. Other times innovative requirements are going to need to be met in order to achieve our collective goal.

The Chair: Minister. Oh, Member.

M. Bernier: I used to be and hope to be again.

The Chair: You used to be. Yes, I remember. Good to see you.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s response.

I guess it depends on the situation, as the minister said too. There is always that interesting debate that takes place differentiating responsibilities between the local government, municipalities, the provincial government and even the federal government. I don’t think the intent, by anybody, is for everybody to start doing this and pointing fingers.

We need to achieve the goals. But there is going to be, throughout this…. That’s why I’m asking, around the target-setting, what the goals, responsibilities and targets of the provincial government will be, from their thought process and responsibility separately.

The reason why I say that is…. Depending on the situation…. Again, right or wrong, the commentary that we hear out there, a lot of times, from local government is: “I’d love to see this. It’s the provincial government’s responsibility. If they ask us to do this, it’s downloading. We don’t have the mechanisms or the resources or the capacity to do it.” I guess that’s where my head was going, as a former mayor.

When we’re putting these targets together, is there…? It sounds like that’s not going to be the case — that we’re going to set targets and, as the minister said…. I assume we’ll get to it in other sections of the bill. Again, I reference that. When we talk about the review, the reporting and the expectations on that…. There will be some, maybe, flexibility, to put words in the minister’s mouth, around the responsibility for achieving those goals and, then, whether they were met.

There’s still going to be the thought from local government that this provincial government needs to step up and be part of the solution — that they’ve made commitments and that they have a responsibility to not only the communities…. We’re not talking about the responsibility to local government. We’re talking about a responsibility to the men and women and the families in the province of British Columbia. We’re in a housing crisis, and the minister, rightfully, has said that it’s all hands on deck. Really, we need to work together.

What I’m trying to quantify, though, is where the provincial government will fit in, in their responsibility, from a reporting perspective. I think that needs to be done.

Maybe a question wrapped into that commentary. There are, obviously, some questions that I put through to that.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m curious, then, as part of the minister’s answer…. They’ve already identified and said we need 114,000 units. Is that the province’s target? Is that the minister’s target? Has the province done their own research that says that they know there’s more that needs to be done, that they’re going to — I don’t want to say impose, because that’s not fair — collaborate with local governments to achieve the targets, or is that 114,000 just going to be built into it?

There must be some kind of analysis that has been done already by government on targets that they would like to see achieved. I’m just curious if the minister can speak to that.

Hon. M. Rankin: Again, back to the housing needs report, which is sort of the origin story of all of this: how are we doing, what do we need, and how are we going to get there?

I guess my hesitation in responding to the member’s question directly is that I don’t want to create the impression that every time a municipality identifies X number of supportive housing units, it is always going to be the province that comes in and provides that. We expect municipalities to do what they’ve done, in many cases, so well: find partnerships with willing developers and use the development approval process to achieve mutually beneficial agreements.

Sometimes the province and B.C. Housing will be there, but I wouldn’t want to create the impression, through an answer to the member’s question, that somehow that’s always going to be the case. Affordable housing has been, and will continue to be, developed and delivered by, in some cases, the municipalities themselves, sometimes in partnership with non-profits and sometimes, of course, with the development community in the private sector.

That’s my only hesitation. I don’t want to inadvertently mislead the member in addressing that. This is about setting targets that will be viable for the municipality. In certain circumstances, as we’ll discuss when we get to the sections coming, it won’t be possible to meet those targets. We accept that. Circumstances change, the ability to raise funds will change, or the developer goes bankrupt. The world is full of uncertainties, and we’re not going to be jumping ahead to compliance by being unreasonable here. That would be ridiculous, but we do want to suggest that we will work together.

Yes, the province will be there. I’ve indicated that provincial land is going to be a key component in many of the communities. We have to do better, as the Premier has said, to make sure that our permitting processes are robust and timely so that we can deliver. And there’ll be infrastructure that we need to provide. Those are ways in which the province will definitely be coming to the table.

M. Bernier: When we’re setting these different targets…. My intention was not to have the minister stand up and say that for community X it will be this number that the province will be responsible for, with an actual specific number. It’s more the acknowledgment that the province has a role to play. I think we can agree to that. Again, whether it’s B.C. Housing, through their components….

I know the minister and I were just speaking. We both spoke at the amazing conference that’s taking place right now in Vancouver. The Premier spoke there yesterday as well, for the Non-Profit Housing Association and all the great work that those different agencies do. We have to say that they’re part of the solution as well.

[5:15 p.m.]

In order to be part of the solution, they have to be at the table. They have to be part of the discussion in some way, or at least understand where the province will fit in with some kind of guarantees through B.C. Housing and other groups to make sure that there’s some accountability there, that the money is going out the door and that we’re actually getting projects completed.

I know it’ll probably…. Again, I ask latitude from the Chair when we’re bouncing around a little bit, because it’s hard to determine sometimes, in these new bills, where to actually put the questions. We talk about this target-setting, and as the minister just acknowledged, things change all the time. Can the minister explain for myself, which will help people listening…? When we’re setting these targets, because things are fluid, we want to review the targets.

I understand the intent of what government’s trying to put forward here. I read, in here, some of the reviews of reporting out every year, but are we going to have the targets? Are these going to be specifically annual targets? Or is there going to be a one-, three-, five- or ten-year plan, and then we’ll look at them, on an annual basis, to be achieving certain goals? Is it going to be very prescriptive on just annual targets and then to write another annual report and a target goal after that one is done?

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to say thank you to the member for the little shout-out to the non-profit agencies that he, I think accurately, says are such important partners across the province, and for acknowledging the incredibly important role that they play.

On the specifics of the targets, it could be a five-year target that we would review regularly. We’re working with local governments, as we set the regulation, to figure out what makes sense for them. There could be a five-year target, and then we’d break it down incrementally, maybe. for one year or three years, depending on the nature of the community that we’re dealing with. The issue is: what target should be set, and then what progress, each year, can we agree we have or haven’t made? What are the obstacles to achieving those targets?

That we’ll do on a regular, iterative basis with the province and the municipality in question.

M. Bernier: My apologies if I didn’t understand completely. Obviously, we’ll look at long-term goals, because we know that things take time, but I’m curious as to how that annual review will look. Again, we have to be just making up numbers right now for the conversation. Really, if you go to a municipality and say, “You need to, by 2030” — we’ll use that number — “have 1,000 units built,” well, it might take the first five years of just changes in planning before we can even get the first one of that suite built.

I’m just curious on how that flexibility will work when it comes to not only putting the targets together, but on the reporting, the scrutiny on it and the flexibility on it as well — how that will build out.

[5:20 p.m.]

Before I let the minister up to answer that, if the House will indulge me, since I already have the floor, I just want to do a shout-out back home. My lovely wife…. You know, it’s funny we say that people back home don’t necessarily watch this.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I know. I know. Riveting, to put that out there. I know there actually are some people watching right now. I know there are a lot of local government people that have told me they’re going to pay attention.

More importantly, I want to give a shout-out back home. My lovely wife, Valerie, just sent me a picture of my grandson, who is one month away from turning…. I hope I get this right. I believe he’s seven. He’s my oldest grandson. But the picture she just sent me was him sitting on a chair in my living room back home in front of the TV, looking up, watching us in debates right now. So maybe a future MLA from my region.

I just want to give a shout-out to my grandson, Crozzley — hey, kiddo — who’s back home watching right now.

The Chair: Hello to Crozzley.

Hon. M. Rankin: It will be hard to answer that question entirely, but I will try.

The nature of the targets, I think, means that a longer time period would, typically, be required. I said five years. I point out to the member that we’re still working on the regulations where a lot of this will become clearer, and we’re doing that in consultation with UBCM and other partners.

But yes, the targets might be longer-term, for the reasons the member suggested. Sometimes things take longer to do, and we acknowledge that through target setting, but the reporting could be annual, should be annual, so we know what progress has been made and what obstacles have been encountered. That’s sort of the scheme that we have in mind. I want to know every year what went well and what didn’t go well and how can we work to get you back on track? That would be sort of the process — I used the word “iterative,” this back-and-forth with our municipal partners — to see how we all can work together towards the same end.

M. Bernier: Not to wordsmith the minister, but it’s not “should be;” it’s “will be,” because it’s actually prescriptive in the legislation requirements, if/when this bill passes, on how that reporting will go. But I was trying to just understand the nuance of that.

I’m curious, as we’re putting these targets together, though, on not necessarily what assumptions will be put in place but really the information that will be gathered to help put these targets together. By that, what I mean is that we are hearing from, I’ll say, a lot of people in the private sector who want to step up in many communities and build housing projects. Differentiating on need — it doesn’t really matter.

What work is going to be done or has the work already been done by this government to know what’s in the queue? By that, I mean: how many projects do we have right now that have already applied in our communities that are waiting approval that could have actually already been started? As we’ve acknowledged, we’re in a housing crisis.

Maybe I’ll let the minister acknowledge and answer that one first because, you know, it is curious. People aren’t sitting around and all of a sudden this bill will pass and then people will flock to city halls to start building housing projects. People have been trying for years. Do we have any idea how many are awaiting approval right now?

Hon. M. Rankin: The first part of the member’s question — what information is to be gathered…. I would draw the member’s attention to section 3, where it is laid out as clearly as we can.

[5:25 p.m.]

On the second, do we know what’s in the queue, as the member puts it, or awaiting approval, etc.? Local government, of course, holds that information; we don’t. But, as part of the target setting, we will probably be in a better position to understand that and have that information together and understand what their development process is. How long does it take for an approval? What about their building permit process, those sorts of things? In that process, we’ll gain more information so that we can collaborate more effectively.

M. Bernier: I think that’s going to be an important part of the discussion, the collaboration and then the information-gathering, because, I think the minister could acknowledge, it’s also part of the frustration by many out there who are trying to actually fill the gap by building — which, we all acknowledge, are much-needed — housing complexes around the province. And I understand.

I do take the minister’s and the Premier’s words at face value on this, where they’re using this bill as a mechanism, in some ways, to almost bring attention to the issue that we need to do better — whether that’s getting rid of red tape and trying to look internally, in local government, of what the hindrances might be.

There will be, undoubtedly, a long list, though — I don’t want to use, necessarily, the word “excuses” — of reasons that we may or may not agree upon, which will be interesting when we’re putting together the targets. I’ll touch on it, maybe, a little bit later, but the minister has acknowledged — as has the Premier, to his credit — that the province has a responsibility here to fix some of their blockages and timelines when it comes to moving things along at a quicker pace.

I think it’s also important to remember, though, that just because you apply, it doesn’t always mean you get a yes. I know, as a former mayor, again, that there are reasons why there could be a no. So when we’re putting these targets together, we have to, I know, build that into the discussion.

I’ll tell you: we all have these. I’ll bet you that every member in this House could stand up and talk about the frustrations that they’ve been hearing from developers or from even the not-for-profit groups that are trying to build, who knock on the government’s door, whether it’s provincial or municipal, and are told to wait. There are no timelines, and there’s uncertainty. Meanwhile, costs escalate. Now, all of a sudden, the business case isn’t there for the project that they put forward, and things change, or things get cancelled.

I met with a company — if the minister will indulge me, I think it’s important just to explain this, the frustration of this company in Vancouver — just a couple of weeks ago, that owns the property. It is their property already. They’re being taxed for best usage. Right now it’s just a two-storey, mostly commercial complex, but they’re being taxed as if it were a 25-storey high-rise.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

They want to build this high-rise, with about 300 units in it. My question to them was: “Well, why aren’t you? When did you apply?” They came back to me through their business department, with all the documentation, to say: “Actually, we applied seven years ago” — seven years ago — “to build this high-rise.”

It would have brought in a multitude of units. Their plan was: bottom few floors, affordable rental; moved up, in mixed usage; to market purchase, on the top floors. It was going to meet and check a lot of boxes, what we’re talking of that we need. The problem they have now is that after waiting seven years, the business case isn’t there, because now costs have escalated, and land values have changed since that time.

[5:30 p.m.]

Now they have to look at it as a business and say: “Do we even bother building? The land is worth a lot of money. Do we sell it to somebody else? Who knows what we’ll get?” This is a family-owned company which has built thousands and thousands of units of housing, who are now telling me that in the present environment, it’s hard to do that.

When we talk about setting targets, that all has to be taken into consideration, because without knowing all the details…. As the minister said, municipalities will have that. But it’s fair to say that there are probably thousands and thousands of units that are awaiting approval right now, as we sit here in this chamber and debate that.

As we’re looking at formulating targets for municipalities — the minister has acknowledged that he doesn’t know how many local governments have that — is that going to be publicly disclosed? Is that going to be part of this legislation? Forgive me if it’s in there somewhere else and I missed it, in a different section.

As a taxpayer, as a person who is acknowledging we need this housing built, I’m curious, as we look at the targets, if that will be publicly disclosed. Community X needs to build 10,000 units, and they have, sitting in the books already, 8,000 that haven’t been given permits. I think the minister can acknowledge that is one of the challenges and problems.

So will we know what’s slowing things down at the local level or on books? Will that be publicly disclosed? I think that’s important information as we’re trying to address this issue.

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to say a few things about the member’s early comments, with which I agree entirely. I think he put it very, very well. We all need to do better, as he put it. That’s one key thing he said. The second thing is that we need to cut red tape, and I would accept both of those. To the extent they apply to the province and not local government, we’ve accepted responsibility and we’ve resolved that we need to do better.

Obviously, I can’t…. I can confirm that I’ve had the same conversations that the member has with frustrated developers, many places and many times. I can’t comment on his characterization of the specific case in Vancouver, obviously, but I think the example he gives, about the business case suddenly evaporating because of the passage of time, is a very, very real and honest problem that we’ve got to grapple with.

One of the things we’ve done, as the member will know, is we’ve tried to help with the development approval process review, the so-called DAPR process, which, I think, has made a difference in some communities. I know it has in Victoria, where, for example, there’s no need for a public hearing on rezoning if you’re compliant with the official community plan. That’s huge. It can be huge. That’s a year or two that we’ve suddenly got rid of.

The ability to do variance reviews by officials, not requiring the whole council to be involved in what could be a minor variance review — that can be something else that’s already agreed upon elsewhere in amendments to the Local Government Act.

In terms of disclosing the backlog, I would remind the member that if that’s useful…. I’m not sure how it particularly applies to target-setting. It’s one of the things we’re trying to get our hands around — to avoid those backlogs, obviously. By annual reviews of progress, we’ll find out whether things are blocked. Definitely, that’s what we’re trying to do.

Of course, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to every local government in the province, and if people felt that information should be publicly disclosed, they have the ability to achieve it in that way.

M. Bernier: I guess the point, though, is…. Although some might want it, it’s not that we’re looking for the personal information of company X that’s applied to build this complex who’s been waiting eight years. But I think it is relevant, when we’re talking about setting targets, that there could have been a lot of houses built over the last five, six years, and even longer, to be fair. As I mentioned, this one’s been waiting seven, almost eight years.

I guess the point is that when we’re putting these targets together, we have to acknowledge, and I think that’s part of what this bill is trying to do, the fact that there’s a backlog of an approval process.

[5:35 p.m.]

Every one is probably a little nuanced or different on why it’s taking time. But because of that, what we are hearing from local government, again, which is going to be part of, I assume….

I’ll throw a softball question in a little while to the minister, I think, on this, around consultation. It’s going to be important to really acknowledge that not all local governments have capacity, internal expertise to deal with the pressures that they’re under. We hear that already, but that’s going to have to be built into the expectation around meeting targets and what some of the challenges are.

I also want to acknowledge one of the minister’s…. He didn’t use the words, and I will. It was talking about the Victoria…. Once it’s compliant with an OCP, it doesn’t go to public hearing. There are pros and cons to that, but I think one of the major pros is that it can definitely alleviate the NIMBYism which we’re seeing right now around the province in so many areas. I know that can be a touchy one. But where people have a chance to be at the table and talk about how they want to see their communities grow is in a couple of different ways.

One, and the most obvious, is at election time, when they elect a mayor and a council based on their vision and their communication with communities on what and how they want to see their community grow, change, in some cases stay the same. That’s a big part of how a community has expectations. It’s at election time.

The other, which the minister has alluded to, is the official community plan, the OCP, that sets targets, outcomes, goals in a different way of how they want to see a certain municipality grow, where it’s going to grow, diversification of housing in certain areas, depending on transportation corridors, schools, etc. We don’t have to get into those details.

I’m curious, as we’re looking at targets — the expectations of encompassing that OCP within the targets. That’ll be important, especially to the commentary around what the minister just said of compliance with zoning.

Will there be an expectation? I know there already is, in some ways, around the communities for updating their official community plan as part of the targets, then, because there are some communities that do. They were a little bit more proactive, let’s say, on updating and working on their official community plans, and there are some that are a little outdated based on today’s growth and needs. It’s going to be hard to set targets when you have an outdated OCP.

There could be an expectation…. I’m not sure, again, if it’s in this bill or a requirement when we’re setting targets that the communities update their official community plans to match the targets that everybody wants to achieve. So is that going to be built into part of this?

Hon. M. Rankin: Just to a couple of points that the member made in his comments. The lack of capacity and expertise is a key point, and he’s rightly saying sometimes smaller municipalities, in particular, may not have the capacity or the expertise. We, obviously, would help those municipalities — municipal affairs, our ministry — if they seek it. Some, of course, have really extraordinary expertise and competence.

I think the member’s point about NIMBYism is a really excellent one. The OCP might help address that a little bit. But I want to make clear that this bill preserves municipal government autonomy in determining the what and the where and the touch and the feel of development — what kinds of houses, where you want them — but not the weather too. We’ve got to work together to ensure that we can in fact address the housing crisis that the member and I agree exists across the province.

[5:40 p.m.]

It would be great if we could get to section 3, because the very point the member raised is there. It’s very explicit in section 3. Reference is made. I’m not allowed to talk about it, but the OCP, just to give you a sneak peek, is explicitly referenced in that section.

The member’s right. Some of them are outdated, and that’s the kind of feedback this process that we’re hoping to work together on with municipalities would address. We would work to get them up to speed. They may be completely outdated. So there’s not going to be a requirement, to specifically answer the member’s question, to update OCPs. But you can be sure that’s going to be part and parcel of the dialogue for setting the targets.

M. Bernier: To my earlier commentary, I appreciate the minister referencing section 3. That’s where it’s always interesting, as I was saying, with these. Sometimes commentary in answers leads into an area that may or may not be covered in later sections, but it’s important to canvass them nevertheless.

I want to acknowledge, as well, the importance, and I know there won’t be an argument with this, of the autonomy of local governments, which the minister just referenced. Nobody knows a municipality better than the people who live in that municipality. We all acknowledge that there are different needs in different places.

The last thing we want to get to…. I know that later on in this bill, we talk about the sticks. But it’s important to remember that our mayors and our councillors are duly elected by the citizens that live in those communities. In no way, especially under the charter and the Vancouver Charter and others, should we interfere or indirectly interfere with the roles and responsibilities, I would say, when it comes to determining how municipalities want that municipality to look. As the minister rightfully said, the touch and the feel of that municipality. But it will be a partnership because there are going to be responsibilities at all levels.

I know I touched on this a little bit earlier, but the minister just referenced the Minister of Municipal Affairs and supports, and he’s right. Some communities deal with this all the time, have great expertise and capacity, which still will lend us to the question I’m sure we’ll get to, as this is talked about over the months and months to come. Why is it taking so long in some areas when they have the expertise? There’s got to be more to it.

But for those that don’t, it’s interesting to hear the commentary that Municipal Affairs…. I know some of the small, rural communities. This housing crisis isn’t just one or two communities. This is the entire province — different levels, obviously. One hundred units in one community can make or break the difference of: are we achieving our goals? It could be tens of thousands in another area. We acknowledge that. But 100 in a small community can sometimes, even in that, be a challenge.

The minister referenced another ministry. Aside from that and aside from…. I know I’d asked earlier if there were new dollars, but I think it’s an opportunity to ask again, maybe at a smaller level. Has the Ministry of Housing or any other ministry…? Is there going to be some kind of capacity funding, as the minister has referenced Minister of Municipal Affairs, that municipalities can apply for, then, to help through the process of achieving targets?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member giving me an opportunity to agree — again, violent agreement with him on the fact that we have local governments, and no one knows those communities better than the people who are elected to serve and to meet the needs of those people that live there.

It’s certainly our objective to work with them but to acknowledge that some are in need of a bit more nudging than others. I’ve mentioned some that are doing extra­ordinary work and hardly need any help.

[5:45 p.m.]

In terms of capacity funding, of course it would be not typical in a statute to indicate that. I’ve already indicated to the member that the province has supplied a significant amount of funding for municipalities, almost all of which have stepped up to do housing needs reports. The development approval process review that has made such a difference has been funded as well.

We don’t know what will be in the future budget to address funding issues. Of course, as this legislation is rolled out, it would be wrong for me to speculate on that. But the target-setting process gives us a great deal of opportunity to figure out what’s necessary in one community versus another, because there’s no one-size-fits-all. I think the member and I would agree on that, but there is a universal problem that has to be addressed in each community in its own way. We want to be there to partner with them to meet the needs that they identify in their communities.

M. Bernier: I’m curious what kind of, if any, analysis was done. The minister…. I’ll give him an opportunity to talk about the work, the consultation that was already done with local governments and maybe what he heard.

I’m curious. With this bill coming forward…. This bill is putting on another level of bureaucracy, to be fair, in a way. We can debate the level of that afterwards. But I’m curious what kind of work was done or estimates were done, then, to talk about that cost burden.

To a municipality, whether they have the expertise in-house or not, this is added work to a community. I’ll even use the city of Vancouver, which is trying to deal with the backlog of permits that they have already. Now they’re going to be tasked to identify staff members to work with this minister and ministry to work on putting together targets and relooking at all this.

The intentions and the merits of it, nobody’s arguing, are good to try to move things along to achieve a goal that we need to achieve. But there are still going to be implications and pressures that are going to be put on local government by this bill. Has the minister heard from local governments on this? Has he heard that there are going to be cost pressures that are put on local government? There will be staff time, which means staff cost, which means taxpayer cost in order to do this work that government is now asking them to do.

Hon. M. Rankin: To the first point, again another sneak peek at section 3. It explicitly talks about the need for consultation. I’m hoping that we’ll have a chance to engage more on that topic.

The whole point is not to create another level of bureaucracy. I’ve heard some people say that. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Were trying to get rid of the bureaucracy that many local governments are as frustrated with as the development community is and as the province is. I’m sure the member has, through his questions, acknowledged that. We have got to find those processes that are necessary and those that are simply there because, maybe, they’re outdated. They no longer serve a purpose, they’re inflexible, and they’re so time-consuming, as the member’s questions earlier alluded to.

It’s not about bureaucracy. It’s about breaking down bureaucracy so we can get results for people quicker.

M. Bernier: The minister and I will have to chuckle back and forth on the differences of what we think is bureaucracy, because we’re actually putting in a bill that creates bureaucracy to try to eliminate the problem, which is bureaucracy. I say that not as a slight to the bill, but more of just…. I do find it, probably, a necessary evil, in some ways.

When we’re asking local government to do something they’re not doing and work with the provincial government and do reporting and then have to have scrutiny around that and then further reporting and then further discussion and further debate, it does create a level of red tape and bureaucracy. I’m not asking the minister to challenge that or comment on that. All I’m saying is that it is creating something that’s not there right now. The intent, I will acknowledge, is to try to fix a problem, which is to get more housing.

[5:50 p.m.]

Through this process, I have heard from some municipalities and some mayors who actually, and — I acknowledge the minister said this too — are welcoming something like this, because it’ll force them to look at their own internal practices through a different lens, maybe, rather than: “This is what we’ve done for years and years, so why fix it?” It’s a way of looking at it and saying: “Is there a better way to do what we’re doing?”

So I do acknowledge, and that’s why I said…. The reason why we want to get into this discussion and the reason why we wanted to have more discussion at second reading was really to talk about some of those nuances and those differences and some of the benefits as well.

Maybe I’ll just end with a commentary and leave it with the minister whether he wants to answer or not before we move to the next section, because it is…. We are starting to muddy the waters here on some of the sections, and I apologize. But as I said, that was going to happen when we’re talking about a new bill that’s changing things and so many sections reference the next section, which is why.

As I was talking about, when you look at how many approvals are waiting right now in the queue and how things are changing in the province, with the affordability crisis on top of the housing crisis, with the challenges right now with inflationary pressures that we’re seeing on everybody, that also comes and hits home for investors and developers. So I think it’s important to just put on the record that one of the challenges through this will be incentivizing and working with and understanding the challenges that the private sector has.

We can have all the right intentions in the world. We can pass any bill we want, and we can set any targets we want, but we can’t force people to spend money. We can’t force investors to build. We can’t force developers to develop. They do that on their own, based on need. Developers come in when they see an opportunity to fill a demand that is needed.

Now, yes, there is demand in so many areas right now, but it doesn’t matter how much we talk about or do here. We can’t force a developer to develop. So it’s going to be very important, when we talk about setting these targets, that it’s not just about the targets. It’s about setting criteria, setting expectations and bringing in confidence so these people who want to build will actually do what we want them to do. And right now many of them are frustrated because they want to, and they’re unable to. Up to the minister whether he wants to comment on that.

I’ll finish off on the housing target order, section 2, by just saying again that part of setting the targets will also be about not just municipalities talking with the provincial government. It’ll be about all levels talking to our investment and development community, because as we’ve acknowledged in here, government is not going to do this on their own. They’re not building it all.

The Premier has said that we’re going to need the private sector to do this. But they’re not going to do it unless they feel confident their investment here in British Columbia is safe and that they will actually be able to apply and move forward with projects and not have to wait seven, eight years for approval, like we see so many backlogs around the province right now.

Hon. M. Rankin: Noting that the member is wishing to move to section 2, I would be really foolish to say very much, except to say that I tend to agree with what he’s been saying. You know, I have the same conversations with the developers who are frustrated so often by processes that no longer work.

We’ve had enormous support for this bill from the development community, which will not surprise the member. They want to build houses. They want to make money. They want to be part of the solution. Great. The non-profit sector — the member spoke to their conference today — are thrilled with what we’re doing, as the member will know. They’re going to be very important partners.

[5:55 p.m.]

It’s up to the municipalities to create the conditions to get the job done. They know the data. They have a relationship with the development community. Often, they have long-standing relationships. They know what the issues are, which processes need to be updated that are no longer working. That’s what we want to leverage to get the job done for British Columbians.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Bernier: Well, I would have agreed to clause 3 passing if I got a doughnut this morning from the member. But I didn’t, because I was already busy working.

On section 3. Interestingly, some of the commentary will probably reference back to section 2 that we just passed. But, I mean, again, they’re all part of the same thing. When we’re putting the targets together and then the requirements for those housing targets, a lot of the housing needs reports that we have right now are out of date or staggered or they’re not necessarily accurate for today. I’m curious what work is going to be done to ensure that when we’re putting the orders together, it’ll be based on the most current information — how we plan on doing that.

Hon. M. Rankin: An opportunity to elaborate on the question. The section is explicit. There are two key things that need to be said. First of all, it’s mandatory. The minister must, in making a housing target order, consider the specified information. There’s a long, detailed list there, including one at the end, “any other prescribed information,” which is code for other things that we can put in a regulation that would elaborate on the list that’s already there.

Current and previous housing needs reports. The OCP current and previous regional district regional growth strategies. Information on supply and demand. Information about current investments in transportation and investments anticipated in transportation and other material that might come up later in this progressive stage where an adviser may be involved or the like. That’s the first thing. It’s very explicit, and there are other things that might be properly prescribed. We’re going to talk to municipalities in figuring out what might well be useful in target-setting.

But the other part of this section that I think is equally important is the requirement — another “must” in subsection (3) — that “the minister must (a) provide a description of the proposed housing target order to the specified municipality,” and an opportunity for them to provide comments to the minister, and so forth. To me, that’s transparency. To me, that iterative process shows, I hope, a good-faith effort on the part of the province to work with municipalities to do the job.

M. Bernier: When we’re looking, in clause 3 here, in subsection 1(a)…. And we’re talking about the housing targets again, the requirements to put that together. It says the “current and previous housing needs reports.” I’m curious, as we’re going through this, the expectation around updating the housing needs reports.

The reason why I say that is that if we’re going to be reviewing annually and looking at targets on a one, three, five, ten…. We won’t get into that discussion again. But if a housing needs report is a year or two old, what’s the process, then? Under this clause, it says that in order to do it, it will be current and previous housing reports. Obviously we can look at previous ones. What’s the expectation to stay current, though?

Things are fluid. Things change, as we’ve talked about a few times today. There must be an expectation from local government to — whether it’s annually, I’m not sure — stay on top of it, through not only assessments but through community need and fluctuation and changes. I’m curious on how that will build into the requirement.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the really excellent question. Yeah, exactly. There is a requirement elsewhere in B.C. legislation, I’m advised. There are regulations under the Local Government Act for the housing needs reports. It requires them to be set every five years.

M. Bernier: When we look at subsection (2), “Before making a housing target order for a specified municipality, the minister must consult with the specified municipality,” I think that’s just putting in print the obvious, but I think it’s important to put in there.

How does that look? This is a bit of a softball question for the minister, because it’s important: how does that consultation look? How often will it take place? Are there going to be terms of reference that are going to be created now, that this government is going to follow when they’re working with local governments, or is it just going to be a minister phoning up and saying: “How the heck are you doing? How’s it going?” It has got to be, obviously, a lot more prescriptive than that, but what does the process look like?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. The word “consult” is a coat of many colours, and in the consultation world of Indigenous people, the member will know, it’s a significant requirement. The courts have poured meaning into it. Of course, this is a different kind of consultation here, but what it must be, to answer the member’s question explicitly, is set out in subsection (3). You’ve got to consult. To do so, you must provide a description of the target proposed; provide, in accordance with regulations, an opportunity to provide comments; and comply with anything else set out in the regulations.

I cannot answer the question in terms of all the components of what consultation would require. The regulations are going to be worked out with local government, UBCM in particular, to make sure that we make it realistic and meaningful. That’s exactly how it will work. They’re going to have an opportunity to provide comments, for sure. That’s required. But how many days of notice they must have, and how many meetings — all of that will be elaborated on in the regulations.

M. Bernier: That, I assume, is why the minister says it’s going to be another four, five or six months before this actually gets passed. There’s detailed collaboration, I assume, that needs to take place as they go through that.

I’m reading through some of the stuff that the UBCM put out, and I think it’s important to get it on the record to alleviate those concerns. I’m curious.

For the minister, if there are terms of reference…. Again, I referenced how that’s going to work through consultation. Consultations can be important. We need to move through this. We need to get through this, but obviously there’s going to be some time. There are going to be communities that have to be identified. There’s respectful consultation that will take place with the municipalities. There will be the reports that have to be done, the targets…. I mean, this is not an overnight thing; I get that. But that means we’re looking down the road while work needs to be taking place.

My apologies if the minister has already said this. I know we talked about next year and the timelines. He ran us through that in section 1. But how long does he feel the consultations will take? How long do we expect before we’ll start getting some kinds of targets announced, and how will that consultation look? I just want to give the minister another opportunity. You know, I look at one of the bullets, for instance, that the UBCM put out. It says that under this bill, because there are things that still remain undefined, it will significantly impact how the legislation will be implemented.

UBCM is concerned, and they want to ensure that they’ll have meaningful discussion, between the government and the UBCM, to safeguard the effectiveness of this legislation. I’m adding in the last part: but it’s also to ensure the autonomy and the respectfulness of the local governments and the role that they’re going to play within this. Again, I’m hoping just to help them, not so much myself. As a former mayor, I’d love to know this: how does this minister see the consultation process working, the kinds of timelines, and then the expectations around that?

This isn’t by any means an “I gotcha.” I’m not following this up with anything. I just want to make sure that we have it on the record, because it’s important that our local governments know where they fit in this. If they’re going to be part of the solution, they need to be respected as part of that.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. I’ll just remind — as I try to remember what I said earlier today; it feels like a long time ago: we’re going to analyze the housing needs reports and statistics up until March, and then we’re going to consult, May through June, with the specified municipalities.

How it’s going to work: a commitment we made to the UBCM is that we would work on those regulations together. As you might expect, preliminary work is already underway. That’s when we’ll find out what works for municipalities. How long? What’s the most effective way? Do we do it electronically? Do we do it in face-to-face meetings? All of that.

Municipalities have, obviously, a right to know that and want to make it meaningful. The best way to do that is to sit down with them, through their organizations, to figure it out, and that’s what we’ll do during the regulation-making process.

M. Bernier: Again, I apologize in advance to the minister if it is in here and somewhere else. We’re working on clause 3 right now. I didn’t see it in here. If it is, I apologize.

Is there going to be a requirement from local government then? As we said, it’s not just going to…. Let me just backtrack. It’s not going to be just a phone call from the minister saying: “Hey, let’s just do some consultation here.” It’s going to be a little bit more formalized. There’s going to be a process.

I appreciate the minister saying he doesn’t necessarily have that right now. There will be regulation and discussion that will take place at a later date.

My assumption would be that there would be some kind of a formal process. This is a piece of legislation that’s requiring local governments to enact and do something. So there would be a formal agenda of consultation, I guess, that will take place, with some checks and balances in that. That has to be part of it, you would assume. I guess, through that, though….

I’m just wondering. Will councils, then, be required to hold formal meetings? Are these going to be behind door discussions with the minister?

Reading through the clause, I don’t see the requirements, but from a public expectation…. There are now going to be targets set on a municipality. Yes, mutually agreed upon, in some ways, between the municipality and the minister.

What’s the responsibility now for the local government to then go out and hold a formal meeting regarding those consultations and report back to their constituents? Is there some kind of expectation, or is that going to be left up to the local governments to decide?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s fair to say…. The regulation-making process is so early days. I wouldn’t want to speculate on it.

I do expect that there would be significant staff engagement first, as you might expect. Then maybe, thereafter, there could be an open council determination. It’s hard for me to envisage how this could be an in-camera matter under the local government requirements. I can’t think why that would be the case. I think, initially, the key engagement will be at the staff level, the planning department, the CAO, that sort of thing, until we get to the local government level.

I can’t help the member anymore because, as he’s noted, it’s the regulations that will put that down in black and white.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Delta South.

I. Paton: Madam Chair, a point of order. I don’t believe we’ve achieved quorum at this time.

The Chair: Quorum is present. We have two members online.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. What we just determined, through this, is that there are two members that are on Zoom right now.

Buckle down. You’re there for a while to make sure we have quorum in the House.

[6:10 p.m.]

I appreciate the minister’s answer that he just gave. I’m curious, then. Is this going to be left up to the local governments as well?

We talked about the OCP. We’re talking about that communication that’s going to happen between the ministry and the local government. Where do the community and the public come in on this? If there is only going to be a May or June, I believe the minister said…. The determination will come next April for the communities. In May or June, we’ll do all this, and we start reporting. Where is the obligation for the communication?

As a community citizen…. There are a lot of people, who have a vested interest in this, that might want to be part of that discussion, whether it’s expertise or even as a member of the community, and to know what the government will or will not be imposing on a municipality. That will require time.

Is there going to be the allowability for community input?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. There needs to be robust involvement of the public. To that end — again, another sneak peek — the next section contemplates that not only would the housing….

First of all, I should say that the targets must be online. The housing needs reports are already on municipal websites across the province. People will have seen them. In addition, section 4 requires that they be posted on not only that municipality’s website but on a government website as well. So that will be a way for them to be aware.

Of course, a local government has an obligation to be as transparent as it can to the members and residents in that community. One would assume they would take that responsibility in this area the same as they do in other areas.

M. Bernier: In section 4, which we’re not on…. We’re on section 3, but I do appreciate the reference to what’s coming. When we get to section 4, though, that’s talking about, I believe, once the targets are already set and then the reporting-out process and making sure it’s publicized within a certain time frame, etc. We’ll talk about that when we get to clause 4.

I appreciate…. Maybe my question wasn’t articulated to the point that the minister understood. It’s not so much communicating with the public after the targets have been set. It’s: does the public have any input in setting the targets beforehand?

The reason why I said that is again, we only have a two-month window. There might be a lot of mayors or councillors that will want to go out and say: “We feel that this is the housing we need, and this is the housing mix we need.”

I put this right after a recent municipal election. The last thing that some municipal leaders are going to want to do is come out of the gate, newly elected, and feel that they’re offside with the wants and needs and desires of their community.

Maybe this has already been determined in a lot of areas. But if they feel uncomfortable and it hasn’t, and they want the opportunity now to consult…. Maybe it’s a public hearing. Maybe they want to go out…. I’m just thinking on my feet here. Maybe they’re going to be told: “We’re working with the provincial government, which says we have to have 5,000 housing units built, and this is what kind of housing. This is where it’s probably going to go, but we want to make sure the community supports it.”

Right now is the decision…? Right now it’s the mayor and council through collaboration, consultation with the minister. If the minister appreciates where I’m going with this. There will be some pressure put on local government to ensure they’re supported by their constituents before they agree with the targets.

I’m just curious what the thought process or allowability will be for them to do that.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The public, as I mentioned earlier, would be able to see the housing needs reports, which are publicly posted.

Some municipalities have engaged their communities quite dramatically in that process. I’ve certainly done so as a local MLA, in my community, and plugged into that process. I can’t say that that’s required everywhere, but it’s certainly been an opportunity that was made available to me in mine.

The member will be well aware that when it comes to the actual development approval processes and any amendments to the OCP, the public are fully engaged in that. There’s nothing explicit requiring the public to be engaged in the setting of the targets — that’s in the statute. We’re leveraging reports that have already been done through the housing needs reports. We’re actually taking that input and plugging it in. So I think that would account for it.

The member is right. Moving into the target-setting will be something where a local government doesn’t want to get too far ahead of its community. I would take that to be the normal accountability loops that exist in every local government.

M. Bernier: When we’re looking at the targets…. I mentioned it earlier. The last thing anybody wants to do is be set up for failure. I’ll put words in the minister’s mouth. The last thing this government, I assume, wants to do is go out there and say: “Nobody was able to hit their targets.” The last thing any municipality is going to want to do is have to be out there saying: “We agreed to this process, and we were unable to hit our targets.”

I use those comments…. The goal here is to build the housing stock that we need. But what’s stopping us from setting artificially low targets? I know that’s not the intention, but it’s pretty easy for governments to set low targets so they can check a box and say they hit them, for political benefit rather than community benefit.

What criteria, if any, aside from, let’s say, the housing needs reports, I guess, that identify need…? If we’re going to use that, I guess the point is what, through the collaboration process, guarantees…? Can we talk to the general public more now, not ourselves or the local governments, to ensure that they have confidence in the process and that we’re actually setting realistic and achievable targets but not so low that we’re not achieving the much-needed goals that we want to achieve?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. No one wants this process to fail. He gave a great example of municipalities that might be setting targets so low that they don’t do the job. That’s why we specifically say, in section 3, that the minister must, in setting the target, examine “current and previous housing needs reports.” Say a previous report was higher than the one that’s current. That would be a pretty good indication that they’re not on side to tackle together the crisis in housing.

That’s a pretty good indicator, just as one example, of the kinds of problems that we could run into if we didn’t have past information. We’ll have all the other data that’s listed there as well, because in some communities the growth has been exponential, as we well know, and more people are coming all the time. We’ll have all that at our fingertips, but the past housing needs report should be a pretty good indication to see whether we’re on the right trajectory.

M. Bernier: The housing needs report obviously sets a discussion process around need, but how do we build in flexibility of what’s doable? Those are two different discussions. To reiterate, I understand the point of this bill, the fact that we need to do better, that we’re moving things forward and that we don’t want to set anybody up for failure, but there will be, maybe, times where a municipality talks about what they think is needed. As the minister just identified, the minister has to review that and approve it, and may set other targets.

It’s kind of like I said earlier: nobody knows the communities better than the communities themselves. I know it’s in here a little bit, but it will give the minister an opportunity to talk about it. What if there’s not agreement? A municipality says: “We think we need X.” The minister, looking at the needs reports and other information he has, says: “We need Y.” Is there an appeal process if there’s a significant disagreement between the housing targets that the municipality suggests they need and that the minister now thinks they should achieve?

I know there’s some stuff laid out here. It gives the minister an opportunity to talk about that appeal process.

Hon. M. Rankin: When we get to section 4, we’ll be discussing the progress reports that must be prepared “…for each reporting period specified in the order.” In there will be the kind of information about actions that have to be taken, etc., to achieve it. We can hold that until we get there. We are relying on collaboration. We are not providing, in the bill, any appeal mechanism or the sort, because we know that local governments are under enormous pressure, as the province is and as the federal government is, to get our hands around this problem. We are expecting collaboration.

Ultimately, the minister gets to set the target. One hopes, as has been said so often, that the compliance mechanisms built into this bill never get used. We don’t want to use them, but there may be a time, as the member rightly says, where we simply disagree, if a community, a local government says, “We need X,” and we say, “You need, as a province, 2X.” We’re going to take responsibility for making that order, and we’ll be held to account in the usual political fashion.

M. Bernier: I appreciate what the minister is saying. The challenge with it — the way it has been explained to me, and the concern from some local governments — is that the minister just said that if the province wants 2X, now the province is held accountable for the criteria and the targets that are being set. But at the end of the day, the fear is that the provincial government will be blaming and pointing at the municipality for not achieving those targets.

That’s the concern that I’m hearing from some of the mayors. That’s why I mentioned: is there an appeal process if there’s a disagreement? I know that in a perfect world, the minister, the municipality, the mayor and council will agree wholeheartedly on the targets — no dispute: “Let’s everybody roll up our sleeves and try to achieve it.”

[6:25 p.m.]

I’m asking on the maybes or ifs, if that doesn’t take place. That’s what I’m concerned about. We don’t want to go to a judicial review. The minister referenced the next section, which is talking about when the targets are already set, on whether they achieve them or not. I’m talking about when we get to the consultation process for setting the targets to begin with.

Before we even start talking about reporting out on achievements, what if a municipality doesn’t agree? I’m reading a lot of this as the minister having full autonomy to come in and say: “I don’t agree, and this is your number.” It sounds like what the minister is saying, if I heard him, is that there’s not an appeal process. We’re hoping that we’ll just roll up our sleeves and all agree with the minister.

I’m just curious as to whether there’s a different process. I see the minister shaking his head, so maybe I’m not quite getting it right. I hope he understands what I’m talking about. When we’re in the initial stages of setting the targets, if there’s disagreement, what’s the process?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member is right in contemplating that there may well be disagreements along the line. We may agree to disagree, but we really are trying, through the regulations and through the work that has already been underway with so many municipalities and UBCM, to build in and to create the conditions for success — to consult and try to achieve that.

We may, in certain circumstances, disagree. That’s to be expected, but we’re hoping to do all we can to avoid that, through a robust consultative process. The act makes clear that the minister gets to set the target after that consultation process, taking into account all of those things, and that the minister will be held, through the government, to account.

Again, while I completely accept the member’s recognition that conflict may occur and disagreement may occur, what we’re trying for, through this robust process of consultation that’s mandated — not a nice-to-have but a must-have — is that we can get to common ground. We have a crisis. The member said that. We’ve got to take some responsibility, but I’m comforted by the fact that local governments feel the same pressure we do and are going to be trying to get to the same place, in most cases, although I accept that agreement isn’t always possible.

M. Bernier: I asked this question as I was reading, again, the UBCM paper that they put out, talking about unintended consequences that we need to be alive to; I know the minister is. I’m going to assume that those consequences are unintended but will, hopefully, never happen, which will possibly be worked through, through that consultation process that we talked about earlier.

I’m not requiring an answer, as it’s not specifically a question, but reading one of the bullets here, a concern that the UBCM has put forward is that incenting the overriding of due diligence to avoid the appointment of an adviser or other corrective actions if targets aren’t met could thereby infuse improper motivation on local governments, on their land use decisions and increase pressure on local governments to cut corners.

First of all, I’ll say that I’m interested by that comment — that UBCM would actually put that in there. I know they’re not trying to say, in any way, that they’re promoting local government to cut corners. They wanted to flag that, I assume, by them putting it out there to the minister as an unintended consequence: that if there’s so much pressure to meet these demands to avoid the stick, they will cut corners — which doesn’t help anybody at the end of the day.

That’s why I brought it up: is there that appeal process? No local government wants to fail; they want to achieve the goals. I know they do, because they’re feeling — as we’ve both said in this House — the pressures from their constituents to meet the demands and the pressures that they’re feeling.

[6:30 p.m.]

The last thing we want to see is unintended consequences, where local governments feel pressured into rushing. Although we’re putting a bill in place to try to tell them that it’s time to rush, we need them to do it appropriately as well. Maybe the minister might want to comment to that.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think there are unintended consequences on every process ever devised by human beings, so we are not going to get it all right. That’s why we can amend and we can move and adjust and adapt, as we always do. I can’t speculate about unintended consequences, but I can say that local governments aren’t to cut corners.

They’re to do the job more…. They’re to address those processes that are slowing everybody down, frustrating the development community, frustrating young families who can’t find a place to live. And those processes need to be addressed head-on. And we expect that the local governments are feeling the exact same pressure we are to do it.

But as the member earlier said, nobody knows the community better than the local government who represents that community. So we expect them to work with us to say: “You know, that development approval process is taking way too long. It’s not necessary.”

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Those steps might have been important in the 1960s when they were set, but they’re no longer relevant now. And we expect people of good faith to come together and sort that out. We’re confident that this process, which is far from heavy-handed — that has, at the end of the day, as the member will no doubt come to, the possibility of an order….

We hope, as the Premier has said very eloquently, to never have to go there. But yes, the member is correct. There may be disagreements, but we’re all in this together. We all know we have to do this for our communities, and I’m confident that we can get there.

The Chair: Member.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome. I guess it’s time to say the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Chair: Clause 3, though — it’s exciting.

M. Bernier: I’ll let the House know that when we’re done clause 3, I believe we’re going to move on to clause 4, so we will eventually get there.

And to the…. I digress a little bit, I think. You know, when the minister talked about from 1960 or things change and all that, it reminds me when I first became mayor in the city of Dawson Creek and I was reviewing the official community plan and some of our bylaws, that it actually still stated where in the downtown core the horses were allowed to be hitched and how many horses were allowed to be hitched to each post. So we quickly updated that, although the Minister of Agriculture might think that that’s an important clause that should stay in there so we can have our horses hitched in downtown.

When we talk about the approval processes, though, and setting the targets…. And we talked about the frustrations and then the reporting. You know, I’m kind of wrapping up a few different sections that we’ve already talked about and into this one. But nowhere in here did I see it — for good reason. I’ll let the minister explain. But the minister identified, though, that government, the provincial government, needs to do a better job as well.

I wrote it down so I can try to remember some of them, some of the provincial jurisdictions that can create a backlog or extended timelines — Water Sustainability Act permits, infrastructure, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Forests and Lands with archaeological work that needs to be done. There is a huge amount of provincial authority and jurisdiction when it comes to assisting in moving this along. I’m not criticizing the minister, because the minister has acknowledged that the government needs to identify where their blockages are in some ways and how they need to do better.

I don’t see anything, though, in this act that commits this government to the same criteria that they’re asking on local government around setting targets and timelines. Rightfully so, I would argue. And if it is in there, I didn’t see it, as, you know, again, I’ve only had this for a day or two to start reviewing it and do the best I can. I’m not using that as a defense mechanism. I’m just stating the obvious.

But I’m curious if the minister can maybe give this House an idea of what we can expect, which will help local government and the development community, on what they plan on doing to hold themselves accountable for setting timelines.

[6:35 p.m.]

Are there going to be timelines, targets and expectations that the Ministry of Housing — I’m assuming from the Premier’s office — is now going to give to those ministries so that they will now be subject to scrutiny themselves? Since, right now, they are collectively, we have acknowledged, part of the problem.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member gives me this opportunity to reiterate that we acknowledge that we have to do better, just as we’re asking our local governments to do.

We’ve got a backlog of provincial permitting issues, and we need to address it. We’ve said that we’re going to, and in fact, we’ve established a cross-sector solutions team focused on natural resource and other permitting and statutory decision–making to work with ministries, including the Ministries of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Forests, and Transportation, to lead the necessary improvements to provincial permitting, authorizations and statutory decision–making so we can get quicker decisions.

I note that the examples that the member gave were exactly about those…. He mentioned the water authorization act. I think he mentioned Transportation. These are exactly right. Crown land disposition and Land Act permits. These are all things that are often taking a great deal of time.

There are more streamlined processes that can be achieved. We get that. It doesn’t just require hiring more people to address a backlog. It often requires different processes, better use of computer technology. There are many things that can be done. That wouldn’t be in a bill called the Housing Supply Act, but I’m here to acknowledge and agree with the member that we have work to do, and we’re taking that on.

M. Bernier: I do acknowledge, as I did in my monologue and question into it, that it’s not necessarily the place for the bill, but I do appreciate that the minister is acknowledging that government needs to do better on this, right? There’s nothing more frustrating than asking developers to develop and then telling them that now they have to wait. We see that time and time again. It has been going on for a multitude of years. This is not something new, but it’s something, now that we’re in this crisis situation, that we collectively say that we need to address.

I didn’t hear in the minister’s answer, though — not a criticism to the answer — the commitment around timelines. Now, is there going to be…? Even though it’s not part of this bill, it is in this essence of target-setting and accountability. Is there going to be further discussion or directive from the new Premier, let’s say, around setting timelines? Or is that something to be discussed at a later date? Again, that’s going to be important as we work through this target-setting and the goals that we hope for people to achieve.

It’s just an opportunity for the minister to not just say there’s a problem but, hopefully, say that this is what we’ve decided we’re going to do to fix it.

Hon. M. Rankin: I mentioned that we have established this cross-sector solutions team to deal with this. I want to acknowledge a sense of urgency that exists, but in some cases, the shifts are going to take time. Others can be handled much more quickly.

We’ve created a new ministry, as the member will know, called Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. They’ve been tasked with particular…. They’re leading the task force that I described, the cross-sector solutions team, and they’re seized with this, leading the charge, as it were, to try to address this.

I cannot say, because of the wide diversity of permits the member will acknowledge, that there’s one timeline that we would achieve. Now, our goal is to have it within 60 days or 90 days. There are just too many permits out there and too many different statutes that come to play. The member gave some great examples of them a moment ago. It would be impossible to do that.

I want to communicate a sense of urgency. I want to communicate that we understand that we need to do better, and from the Premier on down, we’re doing that. The officials that are leading this are very much committed to finding modern solutions to these problems that sometimes are endemic and have been with us for decades.

[6:40 p.m.]

M. Bernier: We talk about the frustration on the backlog of permits. That’s part of it. One of the things we talk about from the development community that municipalities are probably going to be challenged with, because we’re hearing it from the developers, is the lack of trained, skilled labour.

I’d throw that one out there quickly just to say and to acknowledge that the new Premier said that on December 7, or whatever date he said, he’ll be announcing a new Ministry of Housing to put focus on the crisis. Not that I’m going to say I agree or disagree with that decision, but I will say that I think I’m going to win the pool on the new ministry being created because of the crisis that we’re in, because I thought that that was something that might happen as well. So it’s going to be interesting.

But what’s interesting is going to be the dynamics of the collaboration of cross-ministries, because government has a tendency of working in silos. To achieve this, as we’re talking about all the other ministries that are part of fixing the criteria and the backlog, it’s going to take a multitude of ministries and a lot of collaboration on behalf of government to achieve this.

Now we’re going to, it sounds like, to take the new Premier’s word for it, have a new ministry announced in the coming weeks. But one of the ministries, to my first comment, will be around skilled labour. I assume that…. I don’t know how that really blends into the discussion around targets, but that is going to be a piece that municipalities are already hearing. There are a lot of developers who want to develop who are telling me, which I assume that means they are also telling the minister, that there are huge backlogs because they also can’t build because they can’t find enough people, which is creating cost pressures, which is creating time pressures.

I don’t want to say it’s a perfect storm. But in a lot of ways, there are a lot of things that are happening right now, inflationary pressures that are creating this problem that need to be addressed.

I’m curious, before we move on, if the minister wants to acknowledge and maybe comment on what government’s intentions are to help the sector when it comes to skilled labour to fill that gap.

Hon. M. Rankin: I will do that and appreciate the opportunity to talk about the stand-alone ministry, since the member pointed out that was something that would be happening as of December 7.

I can only tell you how many people have reached out to say what a terrific idea, long overdue. Jill Atkey of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the CEO of an organization that the member spoke to earlier, is quoted as saying that this stand-alone ministry will make an absolute difference — to have a dedicated ministry.The housing expert at the Sauder Business School, Tsur Somerville, said: “It just feels to me like it allows for clarity of mission and statement and operation that has the potential to be valuable.”

Finally, Sylvia Ceacero, of the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, said: “It was exhilarating to be in that room when the Premier made that announcement because having a ministry dedicated to housing means the government is taking the issue very, very seriously.”

I agree with the member that having this clarity of purpose, having a single ministry, is a concrete recognition of the need for one agency to take this on as primary leadership. And in that end, it goes to the second point made by the member, which is the need to address shortages in the construction sector.

I don’t disagree with the characterization, by the way, that the member just made of a perfect storm. I think the inflationary pressures, the lack of skilled labour that’s needed…. I mentioned to a northern colleague, the member for Nechako Lakes, earlier today that it’s particularly acute in remote communities — finding skilled labour to do the work. It’s hard enough in Vancouver and Victoria.

But they are having a huge impact across the whole country, and our government is trying to deal with this in a number of ways. We’re bringing back the skilled trades certification. You know, there’s a stigma around trades jobs that has to be broken, to the extent it still exists. I know when I was in Germany that being a skilled tradesperson garners enormous respect in the community. We have to ensure people feel the same way in our community and get more people to join the trades.

[6:45 p.m.]

We are building a new trades and technology complex at BCIT, where over 12,000 students a year will benefit. The construction is beginning in a few months, as the member knows.

In my community, I can’t be prouder of Camosun’s trade program, which is taking women and minorities into non-traditional trades at just an enormous rate. People are getting red seals, and the apprenticeship program is kicking on all cylinders because people are needed in these areas.

I could go on and talk about the new B.C. access grant of up to $4,000 a year. I can talk about tuition-free, unionized trade training for people who were previously youth in care. We have an enormous amount to do in this area, and the member is totally right. We need to take this on as a component. It makes no sense, I’ll go so far to say, to set a target which can’t be met because there are no people to do the work.

We acknowledge that — that process of consultation that I talked about, where we’re going to be reasonable about the realities that British Columbia faces and what the member and I agree is a perfect storm.

The Chair: Still on clause 3, Member.

M. Bernier: Still clause 3 for another second or two.

As a tradesman myself, I obviously understand the importance of the trades and good, family-supporting jobs. I think the minister and I both encourage anybody who wants a good, family-supporting job to consider going into the trades. Of course, for too many years, for whatever different reasons, there was a bit of a stigma around that. Now it’s gotten to the point where, hopefully, we’re past that and people understand the benefits of that. I just want to throw that plug in there while I have the floor and that opportunity.

I also want to acknowledge that just because there’s a new Ministry of Housing, it doesn’t mean the problem is fixed. There are going to be huge expectations that this government is going to be accountable and held accountable to….

I’ll somewhat digress by saying that this government, in another crisis, put forward a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions because they recognized the crisis we were in, and that’s done pretty well nothing to solve the problem. In fact, our opioid deaths are higher than ever. Our homelessness is worse than ever. Our people’s suffering from mental health challenges is worse than ever. So just because we create a ministry, it doesn’t fix the problem. It’s on how you work within that ministry that will hopefully create solutions and outcomes that will be something that will benefit.

I say this in all honesty. As I said, we’re in this housing crisis. I’m not hoping that this minister and the new minister, whoever it may be for housing, fails. Politically, I guess, that would be advantageous, but that’s at the detriment of the people in British Columbia that are suffering right now and need the housing built. So however that plays out, I wish success, because we need it, because it hasn’t worked to date.

One of the things that’s brought forward here is the housing target orders. Interestingly, with the minister who is, right now, Minister of Housing, Attorney General and his previous role, I guess, or still, with Indigenous Relations, this bill and target orders do not apply to Indigenous lands. I understand the difference between federal jurisdiction on reserve lands and provincial authority where there is that, but I’m curious, though. What is that discussion?

The minister, I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, talked about consultation that took place on this bill with Indigenous communities, but the bill doesn’t apply to Indigenous lands. I’m curious if the minister can….

Maybe we can start there, and he can just give a bit of an understanding of if he did that consultation — understanding, obviously, what this government’s intents were to consult on all legislation, I understand, with Indigenous partners. Can he explain, though, if it doesn’t apply to Indigenous lands, how that consultation took place?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will know that there is a legal requirement now to consult under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act when new legislation is brought forward. We take that responsibility seriously. For that reason and that reason alone, we would normally do that kind of consultation, and we did.

I would draw the member’s attention to the definition of Indigenous land in section 1. He rightly says it talks about reserves under the Indian Act. But it also…. I will spare him from reading it. A number of other areas are connoted by that expression as well.

M. Bernier: Can the minister, through these consultation processes with First Nations…. Right now, we’re saying it doesn’t apply to First Nations land, but through consultations we might have future land that’s now going to become possibly within First Nations jurisdiction. Does that mean that that future property that may or may not happen will now be excluded from any target setting as well?

Sorry. I see that maybe I’m not phrasing this properly for the minister. There’s an ability to prescribe — I’m trying to figure out how to word this. There’s an ability to prescribe Indigenous land. If that’s the case, and this bill doesn’t apply to Indigenous land…. I’m just talking.

Where my thought process was going is we might prescribe Indigenous land, and then they’re not subject to this bill. So what happens later down the road if the community is setting targets? Then all of a sudden something changes and now Indigenous land has been prescribed and that changes the targets? I’m just trying to figure out that balance and that nuance and that. If the minister can help me with that?

Hon. M. Rankin: You know, I’m tempted to say one crosses the bridge when we come to it, but that’s not a good enough answer for the member.

That category of prescribed land that one of the clauses that describes what Indigenous land is, is to deal with things that might come along later in negotiations of different arrangements. The member will know we have modern treaties, we have old treaties, we have reconciliation agreements that might have a land component. One doesn’t want to tie one’s hands. A statute like this, as the world of land relations with Indigenous peoples, evolves over time. That’s why we have left it somewhat loose, admittedly.

But when I say we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, I mean that how that will affect a community that already…. Let’s say a municipality that has a housing target in place yet some of that land is withdrawn and is no longer applicable, I think we’d have to just say that that’s something we would address when we get there. It’s hard to anticipate what it looks like until we see exactly what that would be in a particular case.

M. Bernier: Fair comments from the minister. I’m just trying to make sure I put that…. Just something about when we talk about in our Indigenous partners when it comes to this process.

I beg forgiveness, because the minister is way more in touch with this in his present and past roles when it comes to this discussion than I am. But what if…? Let’s go back to the target setting. Because we have some very progressive, very sophisticated First Nations — I’ll use the Musqueam as an example — who have some very ambitious but probably doable partnerships they’re working on for housing.

Is that being a little bit naive in this? It’s not in my in my riding. I’m just thinking of this off the cuff. When we talk about target setting…. The city of Vancouver is going to have targets. Are they going to be able to now count the housing developments, even though they are on First Nations land? That’s why I’m just thinking about that one now, I think. Or is it going to be separate?

Before the minister answers, I think it’s important to say that it still is helping meet the objective of bringing housing online that we all need. I’m just trying to wrap that into the target objectives though, of the municipality, of what they’ll be able to use and not use.

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: That question’s a very fair question. We will be consulting with First Nations in the target setting, a categorical commitment to do that.

You mentioned the Musqueam as one example. Of course, the member will also be aware of the Sen̓áḵw development under the Burrard Bridge, with the Squamish Nation. That’s an enormous potential, anyway, of housing development. So I think it’s a great illustration of the member’s point.

If we’re setting a target with the city of Vancouver, for example, the implication of that development has to be taken into account, absolutely. That is what we would do in partnership with the city of Vancouver and, of course, with the Squamish Nation.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: Actually, with the indulgence of the House, could we have a five-minute or so recess?

The Chair: We will have that five-minute recess and return to clause 4. This committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 6:56 p.m. to 7:06 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: I understand that in a little while, there’s been a request for a bit of a longer break so people can actually get some nutrition and not get hangry and all the like. I think that’s a good suggestion, so probably around 7:30, I believe.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would be much appreciated by our team.

The Chair: If that’s okay with all? Yeah, okay, good.

M. Bernier: Maybe with what the chair just said, I’ll echo again what I said earlier and thank the staff. I know it’s long days. We sign up for this, but I appreciate the work that the minister’s staff is doing to help us through this bill.

We have finally made it to section 4. We do have 21 sections, but I will let the minister know that a lot of these sections will move along a little bit faster.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I will have some questions — in those certain sections anyway. It sounds like some of the members of the NDP actually want to get up and ask questions. I’m not sure what that applause was for.

We’re in section 4 here. We alluded to it a little bit earlier, when we had questions on section 3, but it’s now around the target progress reporting. I do appreciate the indulgence that we’ve had. When we look at this new bill, section 2 is on target orders, section 3 was on making target orders, and section 4 now is on target progress reporting. I know some of this stuff is identified a little bit in the bill, but I think it warrants getting it on the record in Hansard as well. It’s an opportunity for the minister to talk about it.

How often will the reports be required? When do we expect to see the first report? We’ve talked about how they have to be publicly disclosed. The minister might want to talk about that again, because he did reference it a little earlier.

I think it’s important, again, when we start talking about this. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I shouldn’t be saying that while I’m hearing that some people are hungry, but I think it’s important.

Again, how often are the reports going to be required? I’ll leave that for the minister to discuss.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for letting me again put some of those timelines on the record. The first cohort would be reporting, we think, sometime in December of 2023, all things being equal. That’s the timeline we envisage.

[7:10 p.m.]

The requirement in section 4, as the member alluded to earlier, is that these progress reports are prepared for each reporting period. The section specifies the information that must be included in those reports.

Again, as in the past, accountability and transparency on the specified municipalities progress to meeting the housing targets by requiring them to receive the report at a public meeting and to publish the report on their website. It also requires the specified municipality to submit housing target reports to the minister, and the minister must publish those reports on a government website.

Finally, this allows the government and the public to monitor progress to see how we’re doing to achieve those housing targets. I think the theme is progress reports and accountability and transparency.

M. Bernier: In the clause, it’s referencing the reporting and back to the minister. It always…. I’ve seen it…. I know it’s a terminology used in a lot of bills, and this one is no exception, when we talk about “as soon as practicable.”

Can the minister be a little bit more specific? What does he envision as…? What does that mean? That could mean something different to him, to me, to the public. So I know the intention would be to do it as soon as possible. What does he see as a realistic timeline to get that and then publicly disclose it?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m not sure why the drafters have used the expression. I’ve seen it, like the member said, many times, “as soon as practicable.” I would say, from my way of thinking, it’s as soon as possible, as soon as we have it and can put it up. That sort of thing.

M. Bernier: So we’re pulling out a thesaurus and just changing “practicable” to “possible” — “as soon as possible.” But I think it’s important, through the dialogue…. I guess, from what I’m getting from the minister is the expectation and the internal discussion will be to get it out right away, because the whole point is public disclosure, as the minister just talked about, which is going to be important.

But if it’s public disclosure, what is going to be the criteria in this reporting? When we talk about how the municipality will put this report together, the minister will be reviewing it, and it’s going to be out publicly. In a couple of different areas, it’ll be out publicly, it sounds like. Will there be…?

Not knowing how this report is going to look yet, because I don’t know if the minister knows how the report is going to look…. If he does, he can share that with the House. By that, I mean the detail, the scripts of how it’s going to look. I assume it will come — some kind of template, maybe, that’ll help all municipalities so we have something similar. I don’t know if that will be the intention. Where I’m going with this is: obviously, we have to ensure there’s no personal or private information in this reporting. We’re talking about targets — target setting, target achievement.

Does the minister plan on putting some kind of template together to avoid — I say this seeing how things work within government — redactions? That doesn’t help the public. If they go online and see a bunch of pages with black lines through certain sections of it, that will give more questions than answers. So do we plan on putting something forward that will allow that not to happen?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think that’s an excellent point to make, and that is, indeed, what we intend to do — to create a template, in partnership with our colleagues at UBCM, to make sure that we can have as much best practices reflected and consistency so it’s easier for everyone to get their hands around it.

I also agree with the member’s point about trying to avoid redactions. That’s something we should strive to do. Again, we can do that.

It’s hard for me to believe that there would be much personal information in here, but there may be business information and other things that normally must be redacted under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy rules.

M. Bernier: I guess the only advice I can give, for what it’s worth, since I’m not on that side of the House, though, is that government actually looks at putting some kind of template together that’ll assist municipalities so we don’t get into that situation. As we’ve discussed earlier, this will be a little bit of work for somebody. The easier we can make it for them….

[7:15 p.m.]

I think it’s also important to have a set criteria and template for not only when we set these targets…. The targets are going to be different everywhere, but the reporting-out expectations should be the same, I would think, on face value, for everybody. Obviously, different numbers, different levels and all that. There’s no requirement to know a company’s name when we’re reporting out.

What we’re talking about is: are targets set, and are targets met? That takes me to, then, what happens if they’re not met. Again, I think it’s in section 5. It kind of gets a little muddied. Section 4 is about the housing target progress, and then section 5 is the review of the progress report. If a city misses their targets and then they’re required to detail actions for, let’s say, the next two-year reporting period, what level of detail is going to be asked for by the minister?

I think, in a perfect world, we set achievable targets. Municipalities will be reporting out and saying: “Yes, we’re on track to hit our targets.” Obviously, there’s going to have to be some mechanism built in…. If they’re not hitting the targets, again, the government is going to want to know why. What level of detail is this minister and government looking for, then, that they will have to report? Where I’m going with that is….

We’re also talking about how that’s going to be reported publicly. That could create different criteria or mechanisms around how the communities will want to disclose information if they failed. Then they will want to talk about why.

Hon. M. Rankin: Once again, I think I’ll repeat…. We are hoping we can work this out with UBCM.

The member’s notion of a template, I think, is exactly what we would like to achieve. And how much detail? Well, enough to find out what’s making progress enabled and what may be impeding progress. That’s what we need to get from each municipality.

We don’t want to make it overly prescriptive. We don’t want to make it overly onerous. We want to get to the meat of the problem so we can solve the problem together or figure out what’s working well so we can leverage that.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. Bernier: Look how fast we’re moving along now, Minister.

On section 5. Again, this is around the review of the housing target progress report. It’s a small section, just a couple of lines, really. It talks about whether the housing target has been met and, if the housing target has not been met, whether the specified municipality has made satisfactory progress toward meeting the target.

Reading that, it says the minister will be allowed to — we’ll use the words “pass” or “fail,” I guess, if that’s fair or not — pass a municipality based on the grounds that sufficient progress has been made. How do we determine…? What’s the minister’s thought process on…? What does it mean by significant progress?

I say this because to me, when I talked about setting some kind of template…. Every municipality is different, again. I understand that. If it’s sufficient progress, without actually listing specific criteria…. Without that specific criteria, it can be very subjective.

I’m not talking about just this minister, because this minister, in his present role, might have an idea of what sufficient progress is. But now we have a new minister, a new government, new interpretations.

[7:20 p.m.]

I’m curious. It’s not really prescribed here in this section or, really, in the definitions, for that matter, a definitive determination of what sufficient would mean. It sounds like it’s subjective and up to different interpretations.

I’m curious what the government minister’s thought process is on how they will be fair between municipalities in determining sufficient progress.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think that’s a very fair question the member asks. I would be the first to agree that it is the duty of the minister to review these reports and to decide, as the member said, whether satisfactory progress has been made. Therefore, that is a judgment call that contemplates that the minister will have to make.

It will be informed by a number of things. Have they done all they can? Have they made continuous improvement? Is progress actually happening, or has nothing happened?

Over time, you can compare things quite readily. If there are reasons why the progress hasn’t been made because of forces beyond the control of the municipality, that’s one thing. If, however, they haven’t amended that particular process that would have made progress happen, that’s something the minister will take into account and, in that latter case, probably conclude that satisfactory progress has not been achieved.

M. Bernier: In all fairness, I think, to the minister, myself and everybody, we’re in new territory, in a way. I know we’re trying to figure this out, in some ways, as we go. There are a lot of things that will be ironed out through the consultation process, etc. I acknowledge and appreciate that.

When we’re talking about setting the targets, reporting back on it and then looking at what communities have achieved or not achieved…. Is the level of sufficient progress going to be looked at on just past progress, or will it also be considered on planned progress?

To our commentary we had earlier, with all the great intentions, sometimes things take time. Just because we have the intentions to build doesn’t mean it will get built.

Again, to the minister, then, how will they judge significant progress? Hopefully, I’m thinking, some municipalities will say: “We’ve determined this is what we plan to do over the next five years. Don’t penalize us, because we’re not going to get there right away.”

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s correct to say that both past progress and planned progress would be taken into account.

Back in section 4, the member will note that the municipality…. Under 4(2), a housing target progress report must include a number of things, including, in clause (c), “if the housing target has not been met, information about any actions that the specified municipality intends to take toward meeting the housing target within the 2-year period following the report.”

I think it’s both forward and backward.

M. Bernier: We’re kind of venturing a little bit into the part of the bill, in some ways, where it talks about sticks. We didn’t talk about a lot of carrots, per se. We did a little bit, but we talked about the process of getting to where we need to get to.

Earlier tonight I brought to the floor some of the comments that have been made about good and bad municipalities that some members of government have put forward. Some communities are doing a great job already, and to government’s own commentary, some are not. We’ll leave the names of municipalities out of it. It’s also fair to say…. I agree. We need to be doing better in some areas.

This might not be something that we will see, but I think it’s fair to acknowledge, though. If somebody has already been acknowledged by this government as a bad player, will there be more scrutiny on that group than there would be on one that this government thinks is already doing a good job? The reason why I say that is because the political interference that could take place with the absence of specific criteria that are agreed upon….

[7:25 p.m.]

With that, maybe I’ll ask the minister…. What’s the process — I know it’s talked about in here a little bit — for challenging the minister?

There could be situations…. I almost guarantee there will be the time that government, not necessarily this minister but somebody, might say: “I don’t feel that you’ve made sufficient progress, and this is why.” The municipality thinks they have. The last thing we want this to be is now a media war between the provincial government and the municipality of who’s right and who’s wrong.

I’m trying to figure out and understand the process that the minister wants to establish and the availability for respectful, hopefully, challenges, and how the government sees that taking place, if the government and the municipality do not agree that they’ve reached sufficient targets.

Hon. M. Rankin: One of the things that the bill does, which, I think, distinguishes this kind of legislation from many others — which are sort of what we call skeletal legislation, with all the details to follow — is provide a lot of criteria in the sections. We’ve talked about them, things that must be done.

The discretion of the minister is curbed to some great degree. I think that’s the first thing I’d say. The second practical thing is that the program here is not intended to be political. It’s a program that we would expect the public service would be engaged in more than ministers of the day. They come and go, but the public service is here forever.

The other practical perspective is…. If there’s a disagreement, there must be a consultation before actions under section 6 are taken. I know we’re coming to that. The member calls it the sticks part. Not only are all of the criteria carefully articulated in a statute, which is not always the case in modern legislation, but the regulations that will follow will provide a lot more detail. In addition, it’s going to be the case that consultation must occur, by statute, before any actions under section 6 are taken.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sure, happy to. We will take a…. I believe a 15-minute recess was the agreement. Does that work for the minister? Okay.

We’ll be back, approximately, around 7:45. Thank you, everyone.

The committee recessed from 7:27 p.m. to 7:49 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

On clause 6.

M. Bernier: On clause 6, we’re talking about… It’s entitled “Application.” This section here is….

[7:50 p.m.]

I guess I’m calling…. My history in the building is that it used to always be “sections.” Now it’s “clauses,” I guess. In clause 6, we’re talking about the appointment, I guess, of advisers and how that’s going to play out. How discretionary is this?

We talked in section 5 about reviews and maybe how some stuff is subjective on determining whether sufficient progress is made. But now we’re getting into a little bit of, as some of us, as well as the new Premier, have talked about — the sticks and carrots — a stick approach. It’s actually bringing in an adviser. I’m not sure how this is going to look. Maybe the minister can…. We can start, before I maybe ask a few questions around this section, with, really, what his thought process is around an actual adviser.

When you look at the definitions, “advisor means an advisor appointed under section 8 (1)….” It really doesn’t have any criteria of what an adviser is. What kind of person would the minister envision? I’m going to put words in his mouth again. In the worst-case scenario that we need somebody in there to help a municipality, to advise them, as we’re talking about, how does he determine who that adviser is, the criteria to appoint an adviser, what kind of expertise they would have that he’d be looking for?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. This application section, section 6, does specify the circumstances where the minister can take compliance action against a specified municipality and indicates the kinds of actions that can occur. The member is right. It’s a discretionary decision. So the minister would be subject to judicial review. It’s a statutory power that’s specified — and, therefore, a decision, a determination. Accountability is possible through the Judicial Review Procedure Act, but I stress again that we hope never to do these things. We hope that that’s not necessary.

The discretion is constrained by two things. The minister has to decide whether a housing target has not been met. That involves fact and law, but you can’t just make a decision without that particular criterion being met — and “has not made satisfactory progress towards meeting the housing target.” The member and I have had a conversation about what satisfactory means on the last thing. The same wording is used here, of course. So it’s a discretionary decision. Like any statutory power, it can be judicially reviewed and the minister held to account for it. The criteria are listed as to when that decision can be made.

Finally, the powers that the member referred to, when the minister makes that determination, are that he can do either or both of the following: appoint one or more advisers or issue a directive to the specified municipality. The member asks who that adviser would be. Well, a further section that’s coming up is the section that articulates who an adviser is, in section 8.

We anticipate that person to be either a senior public servant, perhaps someone who has worked in local government — there are a lot of people in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that come to mind who would be eligible or worthy appointments in that regard — or it could be somebody from outside the government who might, for example, have been a local government official or a CAO of a municipality, someone of that sort who has stature and credibility and can help the minister decide what next steps to be taken.

The other power that can be used is the power of a directive, which I’m sure we’ll refer to later.

M. Bernier: I think we’re going to be in a similar situation like we were earlier in other parts, because in part 4, under “Compliance,” we’re in the same situation, under a new piece of legislation. We’ve got the application. We have, in clause 7, which we’ll get to, requirements for appointing advisers, directives, and clause 8 is advisers. Some of these will cross over a little bit, as we talk about them — not ad nauseam, but we will canvass it a little bit.

[7:55 p.m.]

I guess to the commentary that we just heard, the minister did acknowledge that you could do one or the other. But is the intention to do one and then the other, or is it…?

The reason why I say that is…. What is the first step? If there’s non compliance, if somebody hasn’t met the sufficient progress, is the first action of the minister…? After everything else has been determined, the minister decides that part 4 is now going to come into play. If part 4 is coming into play, is the first step to put in an adviser, or is it now being left up to the minister to decide? I’m trying to understand whether it would be the first or the second.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the answer to the member’s question is that it depends. I think if it’s a very clear problem that there would be no benefit in appointing somebody to try to work on, then it would just be a directive. If it were a complex situation where further examination would be required, I think in that circumstance, you’d expect an adviser to be appointed.

M. Bernier: Can the minister…? I think we can cover it off in this section. What is a directive? I know what bringing an adviser is. Is a directive — I’ll use my terminology — an order? Not necessarily an order-in-council but an order from the minister or ministry that thou shalt do something?

It’s not really very prescriptive in here what a directive really would mean for a municipality when they’re talking about this. Can the minister maybe just give an example of what a directive might be for a municipality?

Hon. M. Rankin: The directive is not defined specifically in the act, so it’s very fair to ask the question. Just what is it? I would say it’s a halfway house between the kind of order that can be made where the governor-in-council can issue an order that’s binding — that a bylaw be changed or thus. This is some…. I don’t want to mislead and say it’s a voluntary compliance. It’s not quite that, because it’s a power that’s conferred under a statute, for the minister to do it. But it’s not….

It’s for another order of government, if you think about it. It’s a local government and the provincial government, and it’s a direction. I say a direction because the word “directive” is followed by the word “requiring,” so I can see the ambiguity there. But it’s not the subject that would normally be a subject of judicial review, like an order could be. I’m thinking that’s more internal to government. There are a fair number of cases that deal with directives where…. It’s normally financial administration, those sorts of things, where it’s one government agency against another — at the federal level, I’m thinking.

I confess it’s a little murky, the nature of a directive, at the current time. But I would say it’s more akin to a voluntary compliance measure than the kind of thing we’ll talk about later, which is the order. The minister would be saying to the local government, “You’ve got to do thus and so,” and that, we hope, will achieve the compliance without taking any additional steps.

[8:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate that, and I’ll reiterate the comments we had earlier and agree with the minister that, obviously, the intention is that we never get to this point. I guess, in a perfect world, that’s what that would be.

Similar to some of the questions I had earlier, it sounds subjective in some ways. By that I mean that because the criteria is not specifically laid out in the legislation, it sounds — and the minister will correct me — like it’s now up to the minister of the day to decide whether he or she is going to do an order or is going to do a directive. It sounds like it’s discretionary.

The minister might stand up and say: “Well, it depends on the circumstances.” I get that, but from a ministry perspective, is there going to be some kind of criteria that municipalities will see, possibly through the consultation process, when we get into picking targets and all that? Then when we talk about this compliance piece, I think it’s fair even raising some of the concerns that we’ve heard from UBCM and others of: when does an adviser come in, in comparison to just a directive? Is that going to be up to the minister to decide, or is there strict criteria that will trigger one over the other?

Hon. M. Rankin: The situation will be very different. If the minister is clear that there has been failure to comply in some circumstances, that won’t require an adviser to go and explain why. It’ll be transparently obvious that the progress report has not been made or they haven’t done what one would have expected after all of the steps we’ve taken to this point in time, the consultation, and so on.

Others — there may be good reason why the municipality disagrees with the government. It’s not obvious why that happened. So having, I want to say, a trusted third party or somebody who is knowledgeable about local government who would be able to go in and take a good look and then provide advice to the minister — that will be warranted in different circumstances, a situation where the failure to achieve the target is self-evident, in which case a directive saying, “Please, let’s take the steps needed to rectify this,” would occur.

I don’t think I can do any better than that. There is nothing in here that would specify those circumstances, except I think common sense would apply.

M. Bernier: Common sense aside, obviously a lot of times prescriptive situations can help the situation.

Obviously, there’s a huge difference between the minister issuing a directive rather than appointing an adviser, and if I hear the minister correctly, the directives aren’t subject to judicial review. It sounds more like an “I hope you will do something.”

Is it fair to say, based on that, then, that directives could be considered voluntary? Then, if they don’t comply, there will be further action? I’m just trying to understand that.

Hon. M. Rankin: This is happening so often in our debate. Once again, the answer to some of the questions might be in the next section, which has happened perhaps a dozen times already — I don’t know, several times. Section 7 articulates the requirements for appointing an adviser or issuing a directive that, I think, will shed some light on the question that the member has asked.

[8:05 p.m.]

In some circumstances, you would start with an adviser, get the understanding, just help the minister better understand what the problems are. The minister might conclude, well, it’s out of the control of the municipality. In other cases, it would be clear, after the adviser, that we’ve really got to step it up here and direct them to take the steps necessary to achieve that. But the requirements are better articulated in the next section. I think we should probably talk about those when we get to section 7.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. Bernier: Welcome to some of the new people who have joined in the House. I know I’m not allowed to mention who’s here and who’s not.

We’re into section 7 here. We’re talking about the requirements again, as we’ve talked about with the advisers and issuing directives. I’m curious. Let me start on a timeline path that we talked about earlier today. If we don’t start till next year and then we start doing the reporting out, after which, it will be basically the year after that, we could be looking into 2024 or 2025 before we get to the point where we’re actually reviewing the outcomes and looking at the issuance and requirement for an adviser or directive. Is that true?

I’m just trying to make sure I have the timeline correct. Now that we’re in this section of an adviser, I guess the earliest the municipality might see an adviser if they’re non-compliant with the goals would be probably into 2024 or 2025?

Hon. M. Rankin: As I indicated earlier, the first cohort reporting would start in December 2023, so if there were a need to take these steps, which we all hope won’t be required, yes, indeed, we’d be in 2024. But I stress that the adviser could do his or her job in a week. I mean, given the sense of urgency that we as a ministry, at least at that point, would feel is warranted because the compliance has not been achieved — and we all agree it’s critically important to get housing underway — we would take steps commensurate with that and do so in a very timely way.

I don’t want the member to take the view that somehow this could be very, very late. Once that decision has been made to appoint an adviser, that report could be on the minister’s desk in very short order and a directive could be issued immediately.

M. Bernier: Not to deflate the minister’s aspirations on timeliness…. In a previous life, I know what it’s like to have to bring in an adviser and, unfortunately, it doesn’t usually work on a weekly basis because there’s a lot of work. It’s even laid out here in the act of what the adviser can or cannot do. That doesn’t happen quickly, unfortunately — all good intentions aside.

In fact, I’ve seen numerous times in government, when advisers have to be brought in, it can take six months to a year sometimes for an adviser. That’s not to take away from the issue at hand that we hope that never happens. I understand the intention of government to have this in there as a fallback. I too hope that it never happens, but I also want to make sure we set it up with the expectations that people understand what will happen if it does.

In section 7(2), when we’re talking about the appointing of the advisers and issuing directives to…. There’s going to be consultation, right? That is obviously going to take place. So what kind of consultation does the minister…? How does he envision this? How does he figure it’s going to look when we’re talking about the consultation process? I know there are things laid out here within the bill, but I think it’s important so municipalities understand how that all rolls out and plays.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think in this case it’s fairly clear what the consultation would require because subsection (3) articulates the three things that are needed to be done.

[8:10 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to, for the record, get some of this put out there. When we go through this and we look at the requirements through the consultation, through the collaboration that will be required, I guess, if I can use that word, what’s the intention?

I know we have in other areas, on reporting, public disclosure — when we talk about the actual data that’s collected and, basically, in previous sections, when we talked about reporting out on progress reports. What’s the requirement for reporting out if an adviser has been brought in or a directive has needed to be brought in? Again, I say this because the last thing we want to do is get into a media war of who’s right and who’s wrong. We’re trying to fix a problem here. What kind of public disclosure around the consultation is required to take place?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think that section 16 may answer the member’s question. That is that there’s a requirement every year for the minister to publish a report with a description of all the actions that the minister takes under part 4 and any orders that might have been made.

I’m not sure if that answers the member’s question. That’s the objective, anyway, of transparency.

M. Bernier: Yeah. I do remember, in the short time I’ve had this bill, reading that section. I guess I’m trying to understand, though, through this part, if that quantifies and answers for section 16, because section 16 is about an annual report requirement from the ministry.

What I’m curious about is that when…. We’ll jump to that clause later, I guess, unless we can answer it now. It’s more of: is that the first opportunity that the public will see that there was a non-compliance order issued or an adviser brought in to a municipality? That could be six months, 12 months later before the public knows about it. That’s why I’m just curious.

From a timely perspective, there’s no requirement, then, for a municipality or the ministry to let anybody know that an adviser is in-house? That will be publicly disclosed, possibly a year later, in the annual report? I’m just curious on how that process works.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s difficult, as the member has acknowledged, to jump back and forth. But section 15 requires the publication of such an order or directive or order-in-council, if it ever got to that stage. The requirements are set forth there to publish the order or directive on a website and other circumstances the member can read in this section. So I think that’s the other transparency mechanism contemplated.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. Bernier: Of course, in clause 8, we’re still talking about advisers. I do find it interesting from a legal perspective, when we’re drafting up legislation, how it would be so much nicer if we just had one clause and put everything in it. But we do have to break things down, even though they all sometimes reference each other, as the minister acknowledged when we went to 15 and 16 there. I appreciate the latitude there as we do that, as we just try to get this information talked about.

The minister talked about it a little bit earlier, but again, when we’re talking about advisers…. Is the minister thinking that they will have a known person that’s probably the best person, and that person will be the adviser, earmarked, identified within the ministry as a just-in-case, and that adviser would do all municipalities in case of an issue? Or will it be case by case, dependent on what the issues are? You might look at a different skill set requirement for an adviser, dependent on the issue in that municipality.

I’m just curious on the thought process, on how the minister will determine the best adviser for the situation that they’re trying to rectify.

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member is absolutely right. You could think about creating a roster of these advisers. But we don’t want to use them, so why would we create a roster of people who we hope are like the Maytag repair person, who never gets called? That would not be worthwhile.

I think it would be a case-by-case exercise, as the member contemplates. I think that’s more likely to be the case. But there may be somebody who really knows the circumstances of a particular size of government or the particular issue at play, so we would choose on the basis of that subject-matter expertise.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the analogy. I’m just sitting there thinking that there are a lot of people on the Abbotsford Canucks farm team that the Canucks would hope, if they were playing better, they’d never have to go to their roster of people that are on the list. But the way they’re playing, unfortunately, they have to. So sometimes having that backup or that roster to call on actually is important, in some cases.

That aside, how will we determine compensation? I think that’s an important discussion to have. If an adviser is chosen, how are they compensated? Has a dollar mark been determined if that’s in-house? Will it be their regular pay? If it’s out of house, how do they determine? And then at the end of the day, who pays for that? Is the local government going to be billed for the adviser having to come in, or will it be the provincial government?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, if the person is an in-house public servant, there’d be no additional compensation. If it was someone from the private sector, sub-subsection 20(3)(d) allows for a regulation to set compensation.

M. Bernier: My apologies if I’m jumping ahead here too. I don’t remember seeing it there.

Who pays for that person? Will the municipality who has asked, who an adviser has been brought in for…? Will they be billed?

Hon. M. Rankin: The province would pay.

M. Bernier: Can a neutral third party be selected as well? Or we could use someone like Ernst and Young? I’m just trying to…. I’m putting this out there because obviously, every situation, again, is different. I’m just trying to understand the selection process. Could it be a competitive process? Could people apply for the job? How is that going to work?

Hon. M. Rankin: A ministerial appointment, so the minister would have to have confidence in that person. Could he or she be from an accounting firm or the like? Of course.

M. Bernier: It talks about, in clause 8, the adviser — what they’re allowed to do, I guess, right? When we talk about going in and getting records and other things that they will have the authority to do, what type of documents would the adviser be looking for, I guess, in order to do their job?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think, to answer the member’s question, it would be the sorts of documents that weren’t already available. Most bylaws would no doubt be publicly available. They wouldn’t need to go in and ask for them. They would be easily accessible orders, OCPs, that sort of thing.

But there may be some specific policies that are not in the public domain which would constitute the kinds of obstacles that an adviser could look at and identify as things that maybe the municipality hasn’t taken account of, that might well be the blockage that’s occurring.

The ability to see policies that pertain to a particular decision-making process — that is what I think that’s directed at.

M. Bernier: With that answer, it sounds like they’re not really an adviser. They’re an investigator in some ways. I guess we can use different terminology. It sounds like they have a lot of authority and power. But to the minister’s point, sometimes this won’t happen very quickly.

[8:20 p.m.]

I know the act is basically telling a municipality what they can and cannot do. So what kind of sticks — maybe it’s in here; my apologies again if it is — are there for the municipality if they refuse to comply?

An adviser is appointed. If we’ve gotten to the point, let’s say, where there’s an adviser, we might have bigger problems. But what if they don’t comply or they’re not very flexible for allowing the adviser to do their job to get the information that they need?

Hon. M. Rankin: Once again, the answer may lie in this next section, because there’s a statutory duty on municipal employees to assist without delay, to allow the adviser to get the information requested and provide access to records that may be in a computer format or the like.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

M. Bernier: Just quickly, since we’ve kind of referenced clause 9, what kind of punishments are there for municipal employees, then, who refuse to comply with the clause? Are they committing some form of offence, and then what would the punishment be?

Hon. M. Rankin: There’s a statutory duty on the part of municipal employees to assist. If it gets to that level where they’re not complying, I think we’ve got a real problem, and it may well be that that would lead to the subsequent successive step of an order-making power, if we’re that far apart.

There would be disciplinary provisions available to the municipality if their employee just simply didn’t do what the municipality asked for. But if a municipal employee was directed to not follow a statutory requirement, then one would assume that would lead to other measures available later in the act.

I hope we’re in the world of conjecture here. I can’t imagine this would be needed.

J. Rustad: I’ve been listening intently to much of this debate. Just on this section, we’re under (b) where it says: “give the adviser every reasonable assistance for the purpose of the review.”

Obviously, if the municipal employee were to be working to fulfil the requirements for the adviser, that individual may not be doing their own job that they’ve been paid to do it. Would the municipality be compensated for the hours associated with the person doing work for the adviser?

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome back to the debate. I think the answer is that the municipal employee would be the person who has best access to those records we’re talking about, either on a computer or in a drawer, and one would expect them to be able to quite readily identify them.

It’s hard for me to envisage a situation where hours would be required. This would be, presumably, within the normal work of that employee at that municipality. I can’t imagine it would be time consuming in the way the member may be contemplating.

J. Rustad: I suspect that would be the case, but sometimes when you get to the place where you’re having to produce reports, that might be a week or two weeks or a month, as you’re powering through data, as you’re getting this information compiled together, and they may have other duties outside of that.

Obviously, the duties to help the adviser would be along the lines of what we’re hoping the municipality would want to do. But there is potential for a gap there, which is why I’m asking that question.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think this may be a situation where we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Should it be necessary, we’ll have to address that on a case-specific basis.

Clauses 9 and 10 approved.

On clause 11.

[8:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I know it’s late. Imagine the advantage if we’d had four extra sitting days last week and we didn’t have to be sitting until ten o’clock at night. We wouldn’t have to be doing it like this. But I appreciate the fact that we’re here, and we have a job to do.

In section 11, it enables directives to be issued requiring bylaws to be changed or to require the approval or rejection of a permit. Directives are limited to being a last resort, as we talked about. It talks about being in the public interest. I will acknowledge, I know, so the minister doesn’t have to say it, but he can again, if he wants: obviously, we’re always talking about this as a last resort. We hope we never have to do this. I appreciate that and understand that.

In this section, though, on a directive about possibly requiring bylaws to be changed, can the minister give an example? I’m assuming by putting this clause in, they’ve thought about this — of where a municipality might not comply and the stick comes in, and there could be a directive to require them to change a bylaw. Can the minister give an example of what that might be?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, I want to just give the member comfort. Clause 11(2) indicates, I think, an intent to circumscribe the discretion the member’s concerned about in issuing these directives. It says that the minister may issue it only if satisfied on the specifics that are there. That is obviously a legislative intent to ensure that it isn’t used very frequently. It’s very circumscribed to the criteria that are there.

On the specific question of an example of a bylaw that might be changed, it might be a zoning bylaw. A zoning bylaw that might deal with transit corridors is an example. A bylaw that might deal with density — those sorts of things.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that question. Because what we’re talking about now, then, is that it sounds like if we talked earlier tonight about the OCP and the autonomy of local governments on setting what is right for them…. I know we still acknowledge trying to meet targets and stuff.

But with the minister’s answer, there, that if they’re not happy with and not achieving the goals and an adviser comes in, then a compliance order is written up that a zoning order might change, it sounds like, by that answer, it could be that the government, the minister, is not…. Because the local government, I guess, is not achieving the outcomes, the minister could impose, it sounds like, as a last resort…. It says “may” not “must.” But they may impose zoning changes.

If that’s the case, with that answer, is it fair to say, then, that the minister could come in and say: “We don’t think you’ve upzoned your communities enough. We think now that triplexes are going to be allowed on every property in the municipality to try to achieve the densification, even though the community maybe didn’t have it in their OCP.” I’m just kind of curious if the minister is saying that they could override zoning that’s been approved through an OCP. I’m trying to just understand if that’s what he said and how that would work.

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The final subsection of clause 11 makes clear that nothing in the directive-making power affects any procedural or other requirement, including a requirement for public hearing, etc., before any of those things can be done. I think the protection is in that clause. How granular the directive would be, how granular the bylaw requirement would be, it’s hard to say.

The premise of all of this, as the member and I agree, is to try to get more housing for British Columbians. That’s what the housing needs reports that the municipality itself came up with would suggest. It’s only when there are obstacles — which, maybe, the municipality is simply unaware of — stopping our common goal to be achieved, that we would be taking these steps.

Again, the member and I agree that this is the last resort, but there have to be some consequences if a municipality cannot see what, often, another third party, an adviser, would see clearly: that there were problems that they haven’t really acknowledged. That’s when this would occur.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to, again, compute that answer to the one I just heard, though, prior to that, where the minister said that he may have the authority to go in and override a zoning bylaw and give a directive to the municipality to change a zoning bylaw.

For instance, the city of Vancouver has zoning bylaw No. 0122, which says that, in this part of the community, nothing is allowed other than single-family dwellings. The minister might not agree, and figures that we have to increase densification. I think I heard earlier that the minister could order a directive that mandates them to change zoning. Now, when we look at the wordings that are in here, I know there are specifics that say that a municipality must report back to the minister, within a timely period, that they’ve actually done the directive that was ordered upon them.

I’m trying to make sure that I understand, so that municipalities understand the authority that the minister will actually have in this section, especially under directives, especially when it comes to bylaws.

We hope it doesn’t happen, but could there be a very specific directive from this minister, based on advice from an adviser, after an inspection, that a specific bylaw around zoning…? The minister referenced zoning as an option for them to change. If the minister doesn’t agree with the municipality’s interpretation of what they want for zoning, can he override that through a directive and force them to change their zoning?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, I want to be clear. There is the possibility for the order-in-council to come from the cabinet, if it’s a real order from the cabinet. Just to try to be as clear as we can, the objective would require the municipality to do any of these things. It’s not the minister requiring them to do that.

Yes, it could, in subclause (11)(1)(a), enact or amend a bylaw or issue or refuse to issue a permit. That would only occur under the constraints set out in the next clause, namely that you can do that only if satisfied that the benefit of issuing a directive is greater than the benefit of not doing so, that no less onerous alternative would result in the specified municipality making progress or hitting its target, and that the directive would be considered in the public interest. It’s constrained considerably.

I just want to say that the minister would not be ordering that something be done by a bylaw change. It would be ordering the municipality to do it. Now, that may be seen by the member as a distinction without a difference, but how that’s achieved, of course, is up to local government.

[8:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: The section, though, the way I’m reading it, gives authority to the minister to issue a directive. The minister is trying to say that he can tell them what they have to do, but then it’s up to them to do it and then report back that they’ve done it, it sounds like.

It’s a little bit to-may-toes, to-ma-toes in some respects, though. If I tell my kid to make his bed, I’ve given him a directive, and then he has to tell me whether he’s made his bed. I guess I didn’t really go in there and make his bed for him, but I still told him he had to do it, and he didn’t have a choice.

In this case here…. The way I read this section, though, there is still a lot of authority and power that goes to government and the minister. Again, acknowledging we hope we never have to do it — I always say that, to match up with the minister’s commentary — the municipality is still being told they have to do it, by the minister.

To my original question on this, though, since the minister used the zoning as an example, if the minister is not happy with the zoning that’s taking place to meet the upzoning that’s required, he gives the directive to the city: “Mayor and council, you must change your zoning. You must allow higher densification.” What if they say no? Now it’s a directive, with consequences, saying that they have to do it, and they have to report back that they’ve done it.

I know we’re saying that it’s still up to them to do it, and of course, the minister, through the adviser, is not going in, holding a public hearing, and changing the zoning bylaw, but they are giving a specific directive to the municipality that they must do it and then tell the government that they have. Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, that’s still the government telling a municipality what to do.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member would agree that ultimately, there have to be some compliance measures when all of the steps that we’ve talked about for so many hours have not succeeded in making the change that both the municipality and the government believe is required to get more housing of the right type at the right place. At some point, there needs to be some action that would be taken.

I think this significantly gentler approach is better. It’s going to be for the municipality to decide to amend its bylaw, after the directive is given to do so, but only after the criteria that are set out in sub (2) are satisfied: that it’s going to make a difference and is going to be better and that there’s no less onerous alternative that can help achieve the result. Yes, it’s got to be in the public interest, and no, we’re not overriding the requirement for public hearings and the like.

At some point, I think the member would agree, if we’re in agreement with the objective of creating more housing supply, there must be some time when this can be done and the direction given. I just assume we’re on the same wavelength on that, given the housing crisis that the member and I agree exists.

M. Bernier: No, I appreciate that. We’re not disagreeing on the fact that we’re in a crisis and what we need to do. I’m just trying to establish role responsibilities, because we don’t want to end up in a situation…. Hopefully, it’s never used, but from a jurisdictional standpoint, the assumption is now that this government, in overriding the Vancouver Charter or the Community Charter, is coming in with a stick and basically taking away that autonomy of decision-making of local government around zoning and how they want to see their community — which we touched on earlier on tonight.

The minister, I hope, will acknowledge that changing zoning is not an easy process. It can be, but usually through the process, as we talked about earlier, if you have an OCP and the process has been approved by a community….

I’m just going to throw examples out here — an idea. I’m a mayor of a municipality. The minister comes to me, doesn’t appreciate that we haven’t hit our targets, has put in a directive: “We think this is how you’ll hit your targets.” The adviser has advised us — I guess it would be, maybe, a process that we’d go to — that, “If you did A, B and C, you would be better off. It would be easier to hit your targets. This zoning should change. This policy should change,” whatever it might be.

[8:40 p.m.]

There is still an obligation, requirement and expectation that the public is now involved, because now there’s a change. We’re not overriding, if I just heard the minister, the ability for communities to have public consultation. I’m only flagging that because now it brings the NIMBYism comment back in. How does that play into all this? You have an area of town that everybody might agree needs to be densified to meet target goals. It wasn’t in the original zoning. The municipality because of, let’s say, NIMBYism, never changed in their OCP.

The adviser gave advice through a directive that it should be done. There is still going to be the requirement or maybe the obligation to go back to that part of the community and say: “This is what we’ve been told to do by the government. We need to do it and report back that we’ve done it. What say you?” Could it play out that way? If it could play out that way, I just see some issues.

Hon. M. Rankin: I just acknowledged that a municipality may be directed to amend its zoning bylaw in certain circumstances. I reiterate that the protections the public has through the public hearing processes have not been changed and would still have to be consistent with the OCP. That’s sometimes problematic, as the member himself has acknowledged, where OCPs are hugely out of date. Nevertheless, those are the tools that have been provided.

M. Bernier: Can directives be legally challenged? Just curious on that. I know there are sections in here where we talk about a court challenge, but can directives be legally challenged if a municipality doesn’t agree?

Hon. M. Rankin: As the member knows, British Columbia has a very unique statute called the Administrative Tribunals Act. It sets out certain standards of review, and we could be here all night talking about it.

I can say that section 17 talks about the ability to, yes, judicially review a directive, but on the standard of “patently unreasonable” — only if that directive is, to a court’s thinking, patently unreasonable. It’s a standard, by the way, that doesn’t exist on any other part of the planet anymore, but we entrenched in the Administrative Tribunals Act when my friend Geoff Plant was the Attorney General. In any event, that is the fact. It can be judicially reviewed, but at a very strict threshold.

J. Rustad: I’ve just got one question. Listening to the debate as we go through, and I’m looking at the directives. Back in, I think, 2017 — maybe a year or two earlier than that, but around that range — there was a tally, I remember hearing at that time, of about 120,000 potential residences on the books to be built in municipalities. They weren’t getting approved, and there was huge frustration at the process and at that backlog. I’d be curious as to if you have a number for today. That’s obviously not in that bill, so it might have to be in estimates next spring — which would be fine.

I remember talking about a development on the other side of the precinct here, where it’s a four-storey building. They were originally going to have a five-storey building, but because of NIMBYism, they had to take a floor off. So they lost all that housing and all the social housing that was supposed to go in as part of it.

[8:45 p.m.]

It strikes me, as we talk about this, that there’s a process that we’re putting in place here. It’s going to be a year to get a report, and then it’s going to be more time. The length of time…. I think everybody agrees that we have a significant shortage of housing and that something needs to be done. I guess the first question I’ve got around the directive is: is there any way to look at this and accelerate this process?

I get that there are the sensitivities, there’s the engagement with the public, and there are all these things that need to be done. But the bottom line is that municipalities have been dragging through this process for years and not getting the job done. So I look at this bill as being a bill that’s really meant to encourage municipalities to go faster, and if they’re not going as fast as they need to be in being able to provide that housing, there are some sticks that could be brought in. It’s still a very lengthy process.

You’re talking about the time it takes once you get an approval of a process, where you’re still looking at three or four years to build the project, to get the thing done. We’re talking about a bill here that, hopefully, will have an impact right away in the engagement and the willingness, but it has the potential, in some cases, to be five, six years out before it’s really going to have an impact. That’s one election away, if not more, for us as politicians here, and certainly for people that need it, the amount of immigration that’s coming in and the growing demand.

Is there a way to look at this and actually accelerate this process through the engagement, whether it’s through incentives, other types of process or directives, so that we’re in a situation where we’re not going to be losing these opportunities that are in front of us? As market conditions change, people may walk away from projects, whatever the case may be.

I just have this sense of urgency. I had to understand why this bill was brought in as quickly as it was, why it’s being pushed through the Legislature as quickly as we can. I just see that the time frame associated with getting this done doesn’t seem to match the intent of what we’re talking about. I’m just curious about that.

Hon. M. Rankin: I just want to say to the member how much I appreciate his shared sense of frustration and our desire to get the job done sooner than later. I think municipalities that have been paying attention for the last several months or year know where we’re going and are governing themselves accordingly. One hopes that they can read the writing on the wall. The stick, as the member for Peace River South refers to it, the ultimate power of an order, has to be there. If anything is ever going to be done, we need compliance measures.

I think they understand the intent. They are feeling the same pressure that everyone else is, in the system, to get the job done. There are no timelines specified, but I think the fact that the possibility of a directive — or, indeed, an order — is there in the statute should make them really think hard before they intentionally delay.

I want to say — and I think everyone has acknowledged — that local governments really want this to work as well. They’ve been extraordinary partners. We just think, sometimes, that there are things that are on their books, constraints that they don’t even acknowledge or recognize. Somebody can come from outside and point that out, and maybe we can break a few logjams along the way.

I really appreciate the member’s sense of frustration. I feel it as well. I think British Columbians feel it as well. That’s why we have to pass a housing supply act.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I think it was Gordon Campbell that said, around the Woodwards site in Vancouver, that it took more time to do that than it did to fight and win the Second World War.

Unfortunately, the reality, for many projects that are on the books in municipalities — large municipalities in particular, but really, municipalities in many areas — is the delay. They’ve been on the books for years. The engagement process, the need to make sure there’s water and sewer, the development charges — all of these components lead to this this process that has been built up over many, many decades of engagement.

There needs to be a way…. I know municipalities want to see this happen, because they feel the pressure as well within the communities. They know they’ve got challenges and issues, just like we recognize it.

[8:50 p.m.]

I also know that with bureaucracy — no offence to the staff here, because I really appreciate the work that the bureaucracy does — these things add up over time. These regulations and rules add up over time and create these delays in a process. It gets kind of locked in because of its nature. People get to the place where we can’t do it differently, because this is the way we’ve done it.

Like I say, I support the act in terms of the intent of what we’re trying to do here, because it is needed, but I’m just concerned that there’s still a little…. I guess I could say that, in some cases, I would think it might even need to be a little heavier-handed. Maybe that’s a no-no to say, because it is the jurisdiction of municipalities, but we’ve been talking with municipalities for years about doing this.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: The Premier is encouraging me to get more….

Like I say, it is a shared frustration. It is a shared frustration in terms of it. I’m just wondering if there isn’t some process they could go through to kind of do like a three-month review of that process and be able to come forward with some recommendations, as opposed to setting targets and having this thing kind of stumble along and take years to be able to do, whether or not something like that would be contemplated or whether something like that could be set out as a directive earlier in the process, if it comes to that, to be able to accelerate what we’re trying to achieve here.

Hon. M. Rankin: I truly appreciate the member’s sense of urgency because we share that on this side of the House entirely.

He’s absolutely right. Sometimes a few months here, and then it becomes another few months for the next step, and finally, we’re into years. We’ve seen that all over the province, and it’s that which we’re trying to break down. Why do we need to have three timelines that are taking place one after the other? Maybe they could be made concurrent. “Oh, I never thought of that,” a municipality might say, but the best practices in some other municipality, maybe they’re already doing that, and we can learn from that. That’s just an example.

Some regulations under statutes have specified timelines. You must do certain things by certain times. The member will be familiar with the Environmental Assessment Act and the regulations under that, where there are stringent timelines that must be met.

Our goal is to create balance here. We want to respect the autonomy of local government. We want to make sure that they still have the ability to control what happens, where it happens, the touch and feel and the how, all for the municipalities. We’re reluctant to disagree or intervene in that, given the fact that they’re closer to the people, and they know their communities best. It’s really a question of striking a balance.

I think, over time, we’ll know how this works better. We’re creating a brand-new statute and we’ll be able to review our progress and make changes and adjust and adapt accordingly, all with the goal of speeding things up.

M. Bernier: Also in this clause it talks about, (1)(b) here, “issue or refuse to issue a permit.” I want to talk about that one a little bit with the minister, because the minister can both issue and refuse permits under this act.

We talked about, earlier tonight, that one of the strug­gles that we’re seeing right now is the backlog. I mentioned an example of an organization that’s been waiting almost eight years to get approval. As they told me, they would far rather have had somebody say no to them eight years ago so they could have moved on if that was what it was going to be and maybe saved a lot of money and put their capital somewhere else and built a housing project that people wanted, rather than sitting there and sitting there.

We talked about, collectively, the frustration in this House about the backlog of permits. We were unable to say how many there are. Maybe through the determination, through the process of data collection, we will determine a little bit better how much of a backlog there is. I think a lot of people would like to know that. As the minister said, not that it necessarily fixes the problem, but it also will help shed light on the fact that there are problems.

[8:55 p.m.]

In this specific section, when the minister can…. Again, I’m not the lawyer, but if I’m reading it correctly, the minister may force the municipality, I guess, to issue a permit.

Can the minister give an example of when he might do that? That’s not as easy as just saying: “Hey, these guys applied for a permit. Let’s give it to them.” There’s a lot of work that would have to go in before that directive would be issued. I’m just looking at it as an example of when that might happen.

Hon. M. Rankin: A good question from the member. There may be examples that I’ve been given, for example, where a municipality might be consistently refusing to issue permits for high density and only issue very-low-density permits. That’s stopping the kind of projects that we talked about. The member for Nechako Lakes gave a great example of a building that would have been five storeys but had to be only four, for example. That could have been a function of a permit process that got in the way.

These are examples of where the only kind of permits they’re issuing are for low density and there seems to be a recognition that higher density would be needed to achieve our collective goal.

M. Bernier: Once again, it will sound a little repetitive here. I just want to say, on behalf of the minister, I assume, that this is, again, a last resort, because it would be taking the autonomy away from the decision-makers locally, which we hope we never see.

Maybe the minister can help me understand this a little further, because in the same section here that talks about the issuing, it also says the minister can refuse to issue a permit. What would that look like? I’m trying to understand the difference between giving a directive to issue a permit, but can the minister actually issue a directive to tell a municipality now not to issue the permit? And why would he do that?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the example would be the converse of what I just said: we may ask them to refuse to issue a low-density permit but rather to issue a high-density permit. That would be a refusal of that permit, in order to issue a higher-density permit.

M. Bernier: Just walk me through the process, if the minister could, though. Knowing a little bit about how this works, if a municipality were…. Where my head’s going is on a timeline. If a company has come in and the municipality has done what they think is their due diligence, and now they’re getting ready to issue a permit that has lower densification — to the minister’s example — they’re issuing a permit now for a three-storey, when government feels it should be a four-storey. So they will want to refuse the permits for the three and tell them to upzone it to a four.

If the permit has already been issued, how does that happen? Again, I’m trying to…. I hope the minister can follow my late train of thought here, because really, if the permit is already out the door, is it too late? Can the minister pull back the permit and actually tell them: “No, I’m cancelling that permit you’ve already put out, and I want it to be something different”? If it’s at that point, I’m curious how that would work. If it’s before, that’s a totally different situation, but if it’s before, how would the minister know what’s happening on the permits?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is right. If it’s already issued, it’s issued. There’d be legal problems with the pulling of a permit that’s already, to use his expression, out the door. What we’re contemplating, however, is a situation where it’s not out the door, and we would suggest, in this circumstance, that you not issue the low-density permit but issue the higher-density permit instead. We would do that because the adviser, for example, would have been able to find out what other things might be in the queue. They’d know the circumstance of particular buildings requested in different parts of the city.

[9:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: To be fair, in this section, then…. Going with what the minister just said, the only time that the minister would be able to invoke a directive, as we’re talking about here in clause 11, is if the community themselves have…. After they’ve already done all the data collection of requirements, submitted that….

We’ve already debated or talked about all that. We could be a year or two down the road, we’ll say. Now they’re not meeting the requirements based on the targets that they were asked to hit. Now there’s an adviser in there, which could be whatever time down the road. That’s when we’d be looking at permits that are still sitting there that haven’t been sent out.

The reason why I’m saying that is…. The adviser doesn’t come in until the very, very end, and hopefully, they never will. So really, the odds of us ever issuing a permit or refusing a permit…. It’s way down the road, if I understand this correctly, after an adviser has been in there because of non-compliance for meeting the targets.

The reason why I’m saying that is…. You could actually have a situation where you have numerous permits being issued for lower densification than what the government is wanting to meet local objectives, but by then, it’s too late. It could be up to legal challenges. You can’t do anything about it.

I’m just trying to walk myself through this. These are last resorts, but by the time these last resorts come in, it might be too late. The minister would only be able to look at things that are still on the book, if I understand what he’s saying correctly. Am I understanding that?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The first reports, as I said, for the first cohort of the eight to ten specified municipalities will be available in December, we anticipate. If there are things in the queue at that point — permits that have not been issued that are for low density, in the example we’ve been using — then they would not be issued. We would suggest, through a directive, that they not be issued and that a higher density permit in the queue be issued. I’m trying to work with the example that we’ve been using.

Yeah. I don’t think I can say any more than that.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

J. Rustad: Just remember what this must have been like in the ’80s when people were bringing scotch in and doing this, the good old days.

As I mentioned, I support this, but I do have some concerns. Here’s where I have some of the concerns. I just want to ask the minister a little bit about this.

It’s a process of, from my understanding and reading of this, an order-in-council. If there’s a complete breakdown, upon a recommendation from the minister, the cabinet could make a decision, and an order could come down.

The challenge I see here is the potential for oversight. How is there any checks-and-balances reporting done on this? In particular, advice to cabinet is not FOIable. It’s not information that’s going to necessarily be out in the public in terms of that background and stuff.

[9:05 p.m.]

I’m just curious. I’m not worried, certainly, about the intent of the bill. This government or a future government could, potentially, utilize a section like this for other purposes. You claim it in the public interest. It’s very easy to be able to make up a spin that says: “This is why it’s in the public interest.”

I’m just curious in terms of how that oversight would be handled and how you can reassure the public that there will be oversight of the decisions that are made when they have to come to a point that they’re in to cabinet.

Hon. M. Rankin: There are two things that I would point out, in terms of oversight, transparency. The first is section 15, which requires all of these orders-in-council, under this section 12, to be published. As soon as practicable, they must be published on a municipal website. The public and the community will know whether they’ve been done. It can’t be done in the still of the night. It would be very transparent.

Then lastly, section 16 requires an annual report, as well, to describe the orders that were made under that section, any orders-in-council. So the public would know. Is the government of the day abusing this in some fashion? Well, no. There were only three orders that were issued that year, for example, in all of the province, or there were many more. That report would let the public know, and political accountability would occur as a result.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer.

I realize, in terms of reports…. Reports are often just summaries of actions taken. Really, it’s the advice and the information that lead to those actions — why that’s being done, the rationale behind it — that are the critical pieces for the public to be able to understand why a particular order may be brought in for a municipality.

As soon as an order-in-council is made, it’s posted provincially. It’ll be posted in the municipality, and that’s fine. But really, it’s the why and the rationale that led to it that are important. I realize some of that is advice to cabinet, but because this is a special circumstance in the fact that this is overriding a municipality’s jurisdiction, in terms of these orders, I think there needs to be a higher level of scrutiny, a higher level of accountability in terms of that information coming forward.

I’m wondering if there’s any way to be able to have the kind of provision or assurance that, through the implementation of this act, there will be that level of reporting.

Hon. M. Rankin: I take the member’s point. It being an executive council order, the usual access-to-information provisions would be severely constrained, as would be expected.

I want to say that section 16 requires not just the fact of the order-in-council, but it goes on to say a description of the order-in-council. So the context would be made available. That’s the first point.

Secondly, this is the culmination, as the member knows, of a number of steps along the way. By the time it got to this stage, I dare say, there’d be a certain amount of public notoriety about it. I think that would be, also, something that any cabinet would have to take into account.

Finally, the member will notice it’s not just a minister’s order. We’ve talked about a directive, to this point, but an order-in-council requires the entire cabinet to pass on the merits of such a thing. That’s a very bold step.

J. Rustad: Having been at the cabinet table and done orders-in-council myself, I understand the process associated with doing that and the approval.

Section 16. Like I say, it’s good to have…. That description is part of it. And I agree. There is the process that leads up to it. There is potential, in this section, for a government to utilize it for whatever purposes they may decide to use.

[9:10 p.m.]

I’m just trying to understand what kinds of safeguards might be able to be put in place so that a current or future government isn’t in a situation where they decide they want to get something done and are going to push it through, regardless of where the process goes. That’s the reason for asking about that.

The second piece, as well, around this is…. Obviously, when there is a permit issued, when there’s an order that’s put in place, if something goes wrong, there’s a potential liability associated with it. Right now if the municipality does something, if they issue a permit and something happens, they could be potentially liable for any damages or issues. So if an order comes from council to force a municipality to go in that direction or to override, does that liability now lie with government if there happens to be something that goes terribly wrong? God forbid, hopefully nothing does, but I’m just curious about how that would happen.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. The normal liability that a government would have for transgressions of responsibility — I’m talking gross negligence, bad faith, those sorts of things — would come into play if an order-in-council were issued for improper purposes or the like. That general remedy from administrative law would be available in the circumstances. But I would agree with the member that it would be in pretty circumscribed cases. You would have to show something for liability to occur. If the Crown was simply governing in the public interest, there would have to be some indication of malfeasance for that to happen.

Again, the constraints that have been built in through the sections I’ve referenced I think are what is intended. If those are not robust enough, perhaps later we can review it if it’s not seen to work. But I reiterate what the member said: this will be in the last resort and, hopefully, used very sparingly.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. I thought that would be the case. This is one of those “on the odd chance that something were to go wrong” in terms of where that is. I wouldn’t want to see a municipality on the hook for an order that they would make. That’s the only reason for asking that type of question.

The last question I’ve got associated with this, and then I’ll turn it back over to my colleague from Peace River South…. Obviously, in any kind of development in a municipality, there are services. There are other expenses associated with it, with providing to that site. If an order comes down from the province, where does that responsibility lie, that expense lie, for a municipality to be able to service the building in terms of it? How will that be handled?

You could be in a situation where a municipality can’t move forward or refuses to move forward, or it gets into financial hot water. An order comes down, and they can’t effectively service the building without jeopardizing the services that they’re providing for other members of the community. So I’m just curious how that works, then, in terms of an expense.

[9:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks very much for the excellent question. In the scheme of section 12, the member will note subsection (3). The basic intent of that is to say that for purposes of liability, the action of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in enacting the order-in-council is essentially deemed the action of the municipality. So the government of the day, provincial government, would not assume that liability. It would be deemed to be that of the municipality.

I reiterate what I said earlier. I’m not sure the member was here, but he’ll be well aware of the province’s commitment to work with municipalities on infrastructure, to do some of the things that will be needed. We recognize it’s on us to build the schools, the transit corridors, the roads and the sewage expansion as new development occurs. We accept that responsibility, and that’s part of where our contribution would occur.

J. Rustad: I have no other questions. I just want to thank the minister for those answers on that. I hope it will be able to work better than what the minister has laid out here to help meet some of these challenges that we have in community. So thank you for that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate my colleague’s questions on this. They covered off a little bit of where I want to go. I also want to reiterate…. I apologize if, when I got distracted, I missed an answer to a question that was already asked. But knowing how orders-in-council work….

We’ve heard the minister talk about the disclosure requirements, how orders-in-council work, how they’re reported on; municipalities will report on too. I don’t see it in the bill, but is there any mechanism at all for the Legislature to be involved? By that, I mean right now it appears that if there’s a directive issued or something’s happening where an order-in-council has been established, there’s no reporting mechanism or debate or disclosure to the House. It’ll be…. You may or may not see it if you pay attention on a website at a later date.

Is there anything that the minister is contemplating or thinking about that will actually report back to this House on what is taking place within a municipality?

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, thank you for the question. There’s nothing explicit that is in the bill to that effect. But I would point out that the existence of the order-in-council, the circumstances of the order-in-council would be public record, as the annual report would be in the public domain. And that would, of course, give rise, where warranted, to questions in the House and accountability through the ordinary processes of this place.

M. Bernier: A lot of what we’re talking about, too, is around transparency and ensuring that the public, the municipality, government, the House have that level of transparency. We’ve seen situations where that’s not necessarily taking place.

In this bill here, like many that we’ve seen recently, orders-in-council are one thing, and that makes me think about regulation. The minister has acknowledged that there are quite a few pieces of regulation that may come in afterwards.

This section here, when we’re talking about OICs, might afford me that opportunity to ask that question of what kinds of regulations the government may or may not be considering, considering the fact that they have publicly said that this is going to be three, four, five months down the road before this bill comes into effect, because government wants to consider regulation to add to this legislation. It’s not actually descriptive or prescriptive within the legislation.

Can the minister give an example of some of the things that they need to have the timeline to consider for regulation change that’s not actually listed within the legislation?

Hon. M. Rankin: I may ask the member to clarify his question. But I would urge him to review clause 20 of the bill, which talks about the regulation-making power in quite some detail, including regulations with respect to the orders-in-council that we’ve been discussing. There are a number of criteria there that the member can review. I’m not sure if that answers the question that the member asked. The regulations are as established here. That will put meat on the bones, if you will, as those regulations are brought into force.

M. Bernier: I guess my only commentary on that would be…. We established earlier today that this piece of legislation, I guess, was not rushed, that they’ve been working on it for quite a few months.

[9:20 p.m.]

Through that, I have to put on the record the commentary I’ve said in many situations through this session and the last that when government is contemplating legislation and putting it forward, the more information that’s in the legislation and subject to scrutiny of this House is obviously far better than the established practice that we seem to have in the government of leaving everything to regulation to be decided by cabinet behind closed doors at a later date which then just doesn’t have the fair opportunity for scrutiny and public disclosure and questions of this House, which is why….

Yes, we referenced section 20. But it’s more, in general, the issue, on something we’re saying is a signature piece of legislation and something that is a crisis situation we want to collectively work on to fix, that there could have been an opportunity here to be a little bit more descriptive on certain aspects and to have this pass through the House in an easier way.

I hope the minister can appreciate and acknowledge that every time a piece of legislation comes to this House that says regulation will be done at a later date, what the minister and government are actually, in essence, saying is: “Trust us. We all know it’s an important issue, but trust us, behind closed doors, to make the right decisions as we formulate the rest of the descriptive measures that are going to come into place in order to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve through this legislation.”

I think that’s just a point that needs to be made on behalf of the opposition but, then, on the public as well. It’s a practice that we would rather not see being used all the time, as we see happening right now, again for the obvious reasons that I stated. It doesn’t afford us that accountability and scrutiny aspect.

What it really also does is put everybody, not just the official opposition…. It puts the public and everybody in a position where they have to be questioning and looking at things after a decision is already made, rather than being able to ask the questions up front to ensure the piece of legislation we have is the best piece of legislation that we could have.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m generally in violent agreement, once again, with my colleague on the principle of open-ended legislation, where everything is left to the regulations and very little is in the statute. Where I would disagree is about this bill.

I think the regulations are…. I think the bill contains many constraints on the discretion of the minister. We’ve given several examples, all set out. The regulations here, I think, would be seen as a fair effort to fill in the blanks. But a great number of those blanks are already articulated in the statute.

I can think of many statutes where, essentially, the government may regulate. There’s a regulation-making section, and that’s it. That’s where the member and I agree entirely. That’s not appropriate. The public buys a pig in a poke, to use that expression.

This is not that kind of a bill. I would say the regulations here are completely consistent with good government. There are a certain number of specifications to tailor it that are contemplated in the regulation.

It is a question of degree. I, for one, believe that we have created the right balance between specificity and generality in this enactment. We can agree to disagree on that. It is not the kind of statute, in my judgment, that the member has suggested.

Clause 12 approved

On clause 13.

M. Bernier: Look how quickly we’re moving through this bill. I appreciate everybody’s time here.

We’re now moving into part 6, actually, which is around information requirements. Clause 13 here, in part 6, which we’re at now, is — I’m looking at the legislation here — requiring cities to collect and provide information to the province on population, income, economic sectors, housing units and other info, as required.

I’m curious, though. Is there…? I’m trying to remember my local government days. There’s a lot of information, I think, that’s being asked for here that might not be information that local governments readily have. In fact, some of it might actually be provincial or federal jurisdiction.

I look at household incomes, for instance. I don’t ever remember…. Maybe they do that in municipalities, but I don’t ever remember doing statistical data collection, from the constituents that lived in my riding, of their family income. I thought it was Stats Canada and others that gathered that information.

[9:25 p.m.]

In this section, if I’m reading it…. The province is asking municipalities to disclose that information. How does that work?

Hon. M. Rankin: A couple of preliminary comments on section 13. It says the municipality “must, on the request of the minister, collect and provide….” So there has to be a request that this be done. It may not be, as the member says, that they always would have this information. This isn’t a requirement that they might, for example, in a particular region of the province, get regional data — statistics on population growth; what’s going on in the nearby region; regional district, if it’s a municipality; and so on.

It could also be about the performance of the munici­pality itself: how many building permits are being issued per year, for example, things of that sort which the municipality would have or could readily provide by collecting.

M. Bernier: With the answer that the minister just gave, why would they need this information? What situation would we be in then? This is not having to be given all the time. It said that, subject to regulation, the “municipality must, on the request of the minister….” Why would the minister request it? Under what circumstances would he need that information? Then I’ll get back to the challenges with some of that information, maybe, in a minute.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s fair to say that a lot of this information would already be in hand, because they would have collected it for their housing needs report. Most of it, a lot of it would be there.

Obviously, the minister will need to have access to current and timely information for supply and demand of housing. That’s what we’re working on together as we try to develop housing targets and see whether progress has been made to achieve those targets. This is the kind of information that you would expect a local government to have if they’re going to set targets in a credible and coherent way.

M. Bernier: A fair comment. It’s just that I’m trying to figure out the time that this would actually be used. Like, we’re talking about the housing needs assessments. A lot of that stuff is being done. There is, to the minister’s point, some of this information that would be required. Obviously, you want to look at the population. Age categories give you a possible determination of housing needs and outcomes within the municipality, obviously.

Even though, again…. The minister, in his federal time, might know better than I on this. A municipality gets their information from other levels of government on what the incomes and demographics might be regarding the people, ethnicity, age. A lot of that stuff is collected by other levels of government. I guess, when I’m asking it…. The minister has said that this isn’t always needed, but it will be asked for by the minister if needed.

Now I’ll go back to my commentary. Yes, when we’re looking at housing needs assessments, some of this information is used. I’m curious, though, on the purpose of why it needs to be in the legislation then. If the minister is saying that the communities already have this for their housing needs assessment, why do we have this clause in the legislation that says that the minister may require that information to be given to the provincial government upon his request?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think some of this information may well be available elsewhere, but if it’s in the municipal hands, it would obviously be valuable.

[9:30 p.m.]

I’m looking at sub 13(d): “information about currently available housing units and housing units that are anticipated to be available, including information about types of housing units.” That information would have been used, I suspect, for creating housing needs reports in the past.

If we were to go to the next section, when we get there, there’ll be other requirements where we actually, for the first time, require these housing needs reports, which have been prepared voluntarily by municipalities, to be given to the minister for purposes of this Housing Supply Act.

M. Bernier: Is it fair to say, then, that not only the placement of where it is in the bill…? I know how legislation is written. It’s conveniently placed shortly after the section where advisers and directives may come in. When we talk about data collection, and we talk about putting the targets together, that’s separate, and the information is there. I’m just curious as to when the minister could request it. Is it fair to say that that might be when we’re determining whether it’s an adviser, and that, having to come in, the minister might want that information?

Again, I’m just trying to wrap my head around why it needs…. If it’s already out there, if municipalities already have it, and if they’re already using it for their housing needs, why do we need clause 13 that says that the minister can ask for it?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s a very valid point about the placement of these provisions. I had the same question: why is it here and not earlier on in the sequencing of this? The answer is that it’s a simple drafting convention. I think our team would have agreed with you.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I know it’s, again, smarter minds, and we draft up the legislation after we have…. Politicians have crazy ideas of things we want to see come to fruition. I know there will be some challenges with some of this.

If the minister is asking for this information, for whatever reason, whatever time is required, is that public? We’ve already talked about all these other things that need to be reported on — targets, directives, if there are advisers, all these different reporting mechanisms. Is there an avenue where this will also be public, or is it already public somewhere? If it is, then I’m not sure why it’s in the legislation. If it’s asked for, is there a requirement for reporting it out?

Hon. M. Rankin: In answer, some of the information may well be public. This would be a collating exercise of information that’s already in the public domain. Others might not.

The example I gave under clause 13(d) might be an example of where it’s not readily available to the public. If the question was about the request that the minister makes — would that be public? — the request itself could be available under freedom-of-information legislation, subject to whatever exemptions might apply. There’s an accountability loop, as the member knows, for access to information at the municipal level as well.

M. Bernier: I’ll have to start finding my $10 bills to apply for more FOIs, then, if there’s information I want from the government.

The issue, though, is when we’re looking at just trying to get information, for whatever reason, trying to gather information, from the municipality or the mechanism that the government determines, when they’re trying to put forward determinations on housing needs. The minister referenced “(d) information about currently available housing units and housing units that are anticipated to be available, including information about types of housing units.”

When he read that one out, it sparked a thought from a discussion we had earlier. Does that specific clause give the minister the opportunity to go to a municipality, then, and say: “I want to see all of your permits that are backlogged. I want to see the types of permits you haven’t approved and how many you have on record”? We talked about the backlog that we have right now. Does that clause allow the minister to ask for that information?

Hon. M. Rankin: In general, I think the answer is yes.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

[9:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Chair, some of those I let go through because they seemed pretty self-explanatory. I don’t want to waste the minister’s or the House’s time on some of those.

When we are on section 16, though…. The minister referenced it earlier in the discussion we had earlier today when we were canvassing in other sections. He referenced the annual reporting. Where did the time delay come from? I guess I looked at that. Where did September come from?

I know we always have to pick something, but I’m just curious. When the minister was talking about his different timelines of data collection and reporting out, why is it only required by September of the following year for reporting out on the annual reports? What’s the reason for that delay?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s admittedly a fairly arbitrary time. The fiscal year-end is March 31, and the officials will take the time needed to pull it together, but not any time after September 30. It must be done. An arbitrary deadline had to be set.

M. Bernier: Can the minister walk me through, then, how I could see this playing out? It says the minister must do this and publish a report. The report must be published on an authorized Internet site. Not that I want to bog it down, but does that mean that’s the only place that this will be found, or will it actually be presented in the House, like other reports?

I know it’s independent bodies, sometimes, and statutory groups or standing committees, that have reports in the House. Does the minister’s annual report get disclosed in the Legislature or just on a website?

Hon. M. Rankin: This is not a report to the Legislature such as when a minister stands and tables a report on a Crown corporation for which he or she is responsible, or the like. It is a report, all the same, and in the 21st century, the most efficient and speedy way to get the report out is to put it on a website. That’s what we think will be the most efficient way to see the information.

M. Bernier: Can the minister walk me through, then, what I would expect to see in a report like this? Of course, we talked about the eight or ten municipalities. We talked about different data collection that we’ve done. We’ll talk about the targets that everybody is asked to meet.

Obviously, I don’t assume this will be a one-page report. Is it going to be a report on each municipality? Will it be quite extensive? How much substance, I guess, will be in these reports that will be disclosed?

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, as it says, the actions taken by the minister on part 4 must be indicated. That would involve, for example, how many times an adviser was appointed, how many directives were issued and, finally, how many orders-in-council were issued under section 12. In other words, it’s limited to the compliance measures.

The Chair: Just to be clear, Members, we’ve got about ten minutes. Just so you know, so you can plan.

M. Bernier: I’ll let the Chair know that we won’t be finishing tonight, then. The minister can plan accordingly as well, with his answers. We only have ten minutes left, so I’ve got enough time for a few more questions because the minister has….

Again, I want to acknowledge and thank him. He has been not only very receptive to the questions but has been very forthcoming with his answers and has….

Interjection.

[9:40 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’ll applaud too, if you want. Well, it’s good if you have a fan, at least. It’s nice to know at least know that somebody has one, once in a while.

I said earlier, to the Minister of Energy and Mines: if only every minister could stand up as quickly as this minister does and respond so eloquently and quicky when questions are asked.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, you can go home very soon, but you know, we’ll still be here. Again, I thank the staff, and I apologize that we didn’t quite get through it today, but I’ll ask a few more questions while we have a few moments.

When we’re talking…. I just want to make sure I understand. I know the minister referenced it a little earlier and just did now — on the annual report. It could be the way I interpreted it and read it, and I just want to make sure, for the record, that others understand as well, because people are going to be flocking to that Internet site to read the annual reports when they’re put out.

Did I hear the minister correctly? The annual report only talks about some of the directors or advisers or when those positions, maybe OICs…? That’s part of the annual report? It’s been a very long day, and maybe I missed it earlier. But when do we find out about the other stuff? I thought that that would also be encompassed into the annual report. By that, I mean the reporting out.

I know the minister has other areas where he reports out. The municipalities have to disclose. Why would that not all be wrapped up and a nice, tidy little bow wrapped around it, with an annual report? Specifically and especially since now that the Premier has said that we’re going to have a new Minister of Housing, whoever he or she may be, you would think it would be a great opportunity to really highlight the work that was done in every calendar year around progress that we’re seeing in the housing sector.

If it’s not there, where will it be? You would think that if we’re all trying to achieve the goal of more housing, and we all want to celebrate the success of more housing, then it needs to be in a place where we can actually pull out an annual report and do that. In a very self-serving way, I can say it saves me time in estimates to also come back and ask the Minister of Housing to disclose all the information, if it will be already publicly disclosed in an annual report.

So maybe the minister can explain to me, if I’m reading it wrong, why those are the only things disclosed in an annual report — I can tell the minister is really eager and wants to answer some questions here — and put it all in one place, rather than maybe in a whole bunch of different areas that people would have to search for that information.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is right. This section is to deal with the compliance provisions in the annual report, but during our conversation earlier today, we’ve discussed other things that must be put in an annual report. So the objective is to ensure that there is one-stop shopping for the entire bill and all of the actions taken under it. For example, the targets, the orders, the progress reports in each. There are requirements that we’ve canvassed already that talked about the need to put those matters on an annual report. All together, there should be a high level of transparency available.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: I can tell people are eager to get out of here. I appreciate that. I could call on the vote, but I’m not the Chair, so I’ll leave that one up to the Chair.

On section 17 though. I think this requires at least a little bit of attention and some explanation. When we’re talking about targets, orders, directives, we’re getting into judicial review commentary now.

[9:45 p.m.]

This is obviously outside the expertise of many people and, I would argue, even from a local government perspective, because I’ve had commentary come back to me from some local government people who don’t quite understand the conceptual idea of a judicial review proceeding — when that would be needed, the standards and requirements around that, what triggers it, who asks for it. I mean, the minister, I think, knows where I’m going with this.

I would love it if the minister could spend a bit of time and just walk us through the purpose of this section and the reason for and the opportunities for when judicial reviews are required and why they would be called for.

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, it’s a very good question, and it’s one that’s hard to answer in a few minutes at the end of the night. But the member is right. This is about the judicial review, the way in which a government can be held to account.

In recent years, for the process of holding government to account in a court, there’s either ability to appeal if a statute contains an appeal right, or there’s no appeal statute section, but nevertheless, accountability is required. In recent years, the courts have indicated two essential standards of review. You’ve got to get it right, correctness, or we’ll interfere or intervene if it’s patently unreasonable, which means it has to be a very high standard.

The idea is not to have every discretionary decision in this bill held to the same standards. What this does…. It’s very consistent with the Administrative Tribunals Act passed by the former government that sort of entrenched some of these standards. In the rest of Canada, patently unreasonable is not a standard of review anymore, just for curiosity. It is in British Columbia.

It says in section 17(1)…. What is that standard of review? Well, for those matters relating to a housing target order or a directive or an order-in-council, a finding of fact or law or the exercise of the discretion or the cabinet, in the context of the order-in-council, can only be interfered with if it is patently unreasonable, so not very often.

Questions about fairness must be decided having regard to whether the minister or the cabinet acted fairly, and for all other matters, the standard will be correctness. The court can interfere, to use the language of the act, whenever it wishes if it says they got it wrong.

There’s a need to do this in modern statutes because the courts have taken us to this place where standards of review…. The very first thing a lawyer does in a judicial review, the very first thing in every judicial review case, is talk about the standard of review. It’s a very Canadian thing. Again, the standard of patently unreasonable only exists any longer in British Columbia. That’s the best I can do.

M. Bernier: I’m just trying to understand. I appreciate the minister trying to explain that, as best he could, in layman’s terms. Is it fair to say, then, the judicial review already has to be filed, or whatever the terminology would be — that we get through that process before somebody actually determines whether it’s patently reasonable? At what point…? Who makes that determination and when is that determination made?

Hon. M. Rankin: The question is that the court makes the determination but the council will argue what the standard would be. Here it’s very helpful, because the legislation makes clear what the standard is for each of the decisions at issue. But the court will have to decide whether the threshold is met. Is it really patently unreasonable or just doesn’t reach that standard? Is it incorrect, where the courts have a much greater ability to substitute their decision for what had been done below?

Just to complete this story, I should have said that a discretionary decision is patently unreasonable if it’s bad faith, improper purpose, taking into account mainly irrelevant factors or fails to take into account the statutory requirements that we’ve gone through tonight. That’s a discretionary decision of the minister in many cases. But the courts will interfere with that decision if it’s patently unreasonable.

I would ask the House to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:50 p.m.