Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[3:20 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

J. Sturdy: I just have a couple of comments here before I hand it over to the critic.

Much of this was developed as the result of government not feeling that it was their responsibility to provide a briefing to the critic and a briefing to the opposition and then give the members on this side of the House the opportunity to have an informed discussion and debate around this legislation.

What we’ve experienced here this afternoon is really just a continuation of the deterioration of the state of decorum and respect in this House, and it’s very unfortunate.

I would like to give kudos to the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I thought he made very poignant and important points and comments earlier on in this debate on the special motion to sit late tonight. I won’t belabour that, other than to say that this bill we’re speaking to here today is just another example of the ongoing deterioration and lack of respect around how we govern, how this province is governed under this government.

When we look at the formulation and the process of this bill, it’s really just another empty piece of legislation. It’s really disappointing we’re dealing with this and how we’re ignoring, in many respects, other pieces, important parts of this Legislature — namely, a committee that I sit on, which was a committee that was appointed last May to look at updating ride-hailing or passenger-directed vehicles, the legislation around it. The committee was formed last May. It didn’t start sitting till this fall. But we have done some really good work that could well inform the minister’s decision or this legislation that we’re debating here today.

So it’s really disappointing that there’s just not respect for the committee work in this House. There’s not respect for the opposition or the critic in this particular piece of legislation. Then with, of course, the idea that there was an agreement that all legislation in this fall sitting was going to be introduced by a certain period of time, which was a couple of weeks ago. This is something that has been standard or been accepted practice in this House for many, many years, and that practice seems to have essentially vanished.

This legislation, Bill 48, is another piece of enabling legislation. It’s a ten-clause bill with little to no detail in it. Really, the regulation is intended to be developed in the coming months, although the government claims to have been working on this legislation for 18 months and it really begs the question: what have they actually been doing? Then not respecting the fact that there’s a committee formed that would very much inform this bill.

It’s more of the same. We’re seeing these haphazard pieces of legislation, numerous pieces all combined together, all making it very difficult for the opposition to do their job and to prosecute this legislation in an effective way when it’s just disjointed. And that seems to be the approach here again — disjointed and not respecting the work done by committees. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs and disappointing, although I’d have to say not unexpected.

I’ll conclude here, recognizing and respecting the time in this House, that there are many opposition members who had an opportunity to speak yesterday. It’s worth noting that while government may not be particularly proud of the legislation as being proposed, this government chose not to, essentially, speak to it, although I will recognize that the minister did give it some time, which is an exception in the introduction of legislation lately.

[3:25 p.m.]

I won’t belabour this, other than to repeat what was said yesterday in one respect, and that is that this is a piece of legislation without details, where the details of the legislation will essentially be developed by cabinet through order-in-council behind the veil of cabinet secrecy. So we won’t really have an opportunity to understand what we’re going to see until we actually see it. There’s no work for this House to do.

I will note, as well, that the…. The minister had made some comments about these types of operators and drivers suffering under the effects of high costs and that this legislation, or the regulation, eventually may well provide some relief to those drivers. Yet the minister and government refuse to accept that they could make a difference today by accepting some of the recommendations of this side of the House in terms of repealing or eliminating the gas tax for those exact drivers that are under those cost pressures.

It’s ironic that we…. There’s a desire to be seen to be doing something, although what that something is we probably won’t know for a year. There’s an opportunity to make a difference today, and that opportunity was rejected.

I thank you for the opportunity to have some time on this, Madam Speaker.

G. Kyllo: It gives me a great deal of pride to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

I want to thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for his commentary.

I think it is important to remind those listening at home that the culture and the traditions of this House have changed drastically under this two-term NDP government, which has an increasing prevalence of arrogance.

There has been a standing tradition in this Legislature that legislation is tabled by the mid-point of a legislative session. As we can all imagine, pieces of legislation have far-sweeping impacts on the lives of many British Columbians. It’s important for the opposition to have the opportunity to understand what legislation government is bringing forward in order to do the appropriate consultation with impacted user groups and to have a better understanding of how the proposed legislation may impact their lives.

Again, we have seen with this particular bill…. Only two weeks remain in the session, and Bill 48 was tabled on Monday. My office reached out, looking for a briefing, email after email after email, only to be ignored, with zero response on Monday, to even get a briefing on what the intention of this legislation that’s before us is.

Two weeks left on the legislative calendar. Yet another labour bill is dropped. I can appreciate the frustration of both our House Leader and the House Leaders of the Third and the Fourth Party for the challenges that this presents. Legislation is brought forward at the last minute, with no forewarning, and then the House Leaders have to try to understand and to determine how much is the appropriate amount of time to debate all of the different bills that are remaining to be concluded.

It’s not just second reading debate, which we’re on today, on this particular bill, but the committee stage. That is the detailed scrutiny, line by line, clause by clause, of the different legislation in order to ask some very important questions and to provide clarity on what government is intending to do with the proposed legislation.

As my colleague also indicated before me, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky…. The notion that as the legislation is brought forward…. We need to have ample time in order to scrutinize those bills.

It is concerning that we see an increased level of arro­gance of this government in not providing appropriate notification, appropriate time for the House Leaders to ade­quately plan the remaining days of the Legislature and the questions that we are going to pose in order to better under­stand the direction of government.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we are seeing, also, with this particular piece of legislation…. Almost all of the details are being put off to regulation.

It certainly used to be part of the tradition of this House that important legislation included the majority, the bulk of the provisions so that there was an opportunity for British Columbians to better understand what the direction and what the will of government is.

But what we have seen with increasing repetitiveness by this government is vague legislation which leaves all of the detail up to regulation. As my colleague before me indicated, it will be left to cabinet and the executive council to make determination on what the actual rules and regulations are surrounding this legislation, without any opportunity to have the bills scrutinized in this chamber.

With respect to Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, there has been some consultation that was undertaken by government, but that consultation did not provide the direction, I don’t think, that government wanted to go in. So rather than conclude with the input that was provided under some of the previous consultative work that was undertaken by the NDP government — because that consultative work did not give the direction that matched government’s direction — they decided to wind up that committee and then start all over again.

As we now understand, there’s other committee work that’s going on to better understand the ride-hailing services and the impacts of some of the precarious work or the gig economy. Before that work is even concluded, government runs forward, in the last days of the legislative calendar, with yet another bill providing direction with respect to ride-hail servicing and delivery services in our province.

Now, the bill provides a definition for online workers and establishes online platform workers. This will be an example of SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers, etc., and it has changed the fundamental description and definition of who is actually an independent contractor. I believe that this sets a very dangerous precedent where government now will make the determination whether you’re deemed to be an employee or a private contractor.

Many of these individuals that work for some of these corporations, they have their own vehicles, they have their own insurance, they set their own hours and they make their own determination on which rides they’re going to accept or which deliveries they’re going to accept.

They, in essence, satisfy the definition of an independent business owner. They have full control over their hours of work, and they have full control over the expenses. Any of the tips that are actually provided, either to Uber drivers or to those that are doing delivery services, they maintain, and they keep 100 percent of those tips. So they actually satisfy and currently meet the description and definition of a private contractor.

For some reason, government has decided that they know better. With this piece of legislation, they’re looking to change the definition and now, somehow, make the determination that for these workers, they’re no longer going to be determined to be independent contractors. They’re going to be treated similar to employees.

It is essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and are working under acceptable standards. Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workforce; it’s also just the right thing to do. I don’t think anybody has any qualms or quarrels with that.

However, while we can support this general goal, our B.C. United caucus has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it’s going to be enacted to benefit British Columbians.

The topic that’s on everybody’s minds right now is affordability. Government has the opportunity to improve affordability in a number of different measures.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Labour Minister yesterday, in his opening comments, talked about these precarious workers and that, jeez, they’ve got rising fuel costs. That’s why we have to change the regulations.

Well, how about government take the bold step, something that our caucus has committed and our leader has committed to doing, by removing the provincial fuel tax from gasoline and diesel, saving drivers 15 cents a litre on gasoline or 14 cents on diesel or on gasoline?

But what does this government do? “Oh, no, we can’t make any initiatives to actually save and help with the affordability crisis. Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to add an additional cost burden on to Uber drivers,” which is going to get passed on further to consumers, only adding to inflation.

Now, despite announcements suggesting these imminent changes, the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to future regulations. As such, the details on how these changes will practically affect workers, businesses and consumers is extremely limited.

These changes will make delivery more expensive for consumers. The bigger concern has to do with who is to determine the hours of work. When a driver decides and signs on to the platform, is that when the clock starts ticking on what’s deemed to be their starting time? Is it when they actually accept their first ride-hail or their first delivery?

What happens at the conclusion of a delivery? They might choose…. An independent contractor has the ability to make their own determination on which ride they may want to take next or which delivery service.

Maybe the next delivery that comes up on the app is for a ride out to Surrey, and maybe the driver chooses: “I don’t want to go to Surrey today. It’s going to take me too long to get there and back. I’m going to wait for the next delivery order.” Do the companies now have to pay for all of that wait time, even when that wait time is the result of the choice of the driver?

If that is the case, we will see a shift, I’m sure — I’m quite certain — where these companies will have no choice but to say: “You know, your opportunity to actually make that choice to maybe not take the next available ride and to take the ride of your choice…. Maybe you’re going to have to take that next available ride because you’re on the clock and we’re going to have to pay you wages for all of that time.”

These are the items that have not been canvassed, have not been discussed directly with all of these different ride-hailing companies or the delivery companies. And these are concerns and the reason why the legislation should have the details in the bill, in the law, so that everybody has a chance to actually question it and provide answers from government to better understand how this bill is going to actually impact not just the companies but also the workers and, in the end, the consumers.

But we don’t have…. We’re denied that opportunity because we have an arrogant government that feels that they know best. “We’re going to hammer this piece of legislation through in the dying days of the Legislature. Just trust us. We’re going to figure it out. We’re going to do whatever we choose, and you guys are denied the opportunity….” And British Columbians are denied the opportunity to raise questions and to ask what the direction is and what the full impact is of legislation in this chamber.

Now, the delay of regulations has impacted a diverse group of workers, including young workers, Indigenous peoples, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women, newcomers, linguistic minorities. Again, it all comes back to the biggest challenge that British Columbians are facing: the rate of inflation, high costs. This piece of legislation will add additional costs onto the backs of everyday individuals, those either using ride-hailing services or those that are undertaking to utilize the delivery services of some of the many companies out there — Uber Eats, DoorDash and others.

[3:40 p.m.]

The decision to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislation limits the abilities of MLAs to both consult and do the appropriate consultation with those impacted and to address the concerns of our constituents. As I’ve said, ultimately, Bill 48 defers everything to regulation, so we really will not know the full impact.

What we do know and what we have heard is that delivery workers on food delivery platforms, for example, are earning, on average, $27 an hour. I think, last time I checked, the minimum wage is $17.25 an hour. These companies have indicated that the average hourly rate earned by some of these drivers is $27 per hour while delivering, which includes 100 percent of the tips.

B.C. drivers overwhelmingly value their flexibility and mostly use platforms for supplemental income. Some 90 percent of drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they work should be protected if laws are going to be changed, and 56 percent of the drivers in B.C. would stop dashing and working for many of these firms if they had less ability to choose the days or times that they worked.

This is about choice. As I mentioned at the outset of my comments, I think this is a dangerous precedent, when government starts to manipulate and determine who is deemed to be an independent contractor and who is an employee.

When we think about what is motivating government, I certainly have not had contact, as the Labour critic, by any individuals or workers that are working in this sector, expressing concern or challenges with respect to the many platforms that they work for. We have to think: what is the motivation of government? Why is this piece of legislation before us today?

We certainly have seen government, where they have the opportunity to address items like inflation and the cost of living, having chosen to ignore it and to not undertake those opportunities that are before them — whether that’s making changes to provincial sales tax, reducing taxation on fuel, potentially keeping the carbon tax in check and not raising the carbon tax in advance or higher than other provinces and other jurisdictions in Canada. These things are just adding to the cost burden that British Columbians face.

I look to other areas where this government has significantly changed legislation to the benefit of the select few and at the discrimination of others. We only have to look to the community ripoff agreements, where this government has chosen to deny 85 percent of workers in British Columbia the ability and the right to work on many of the horizontal construction projects, and now some of the vertical construction projects, in this province — Pattullo Bridge replacement project, Highway 1 construction project, the Cowichan Hospital, BCIT trades training centre.

I thought that in this country we had a choice, that workers had the choice to choose to associate and that workers also had the choice to choose the union to represent them. Not this government. This NDP government has made the determination: “Unless you join the union that is favourable to us, that we like, your choice no longer matters.”

If a worker chooses to be a member of the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Canada West, CCWU, All Nations United. These are all progressive unions that are chosen by their workers. Those aren’t good enough. If you want to work on any taxpayer-funded projects, you have to cancel your membership with your union of choice.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could show the relevance to Bill 48.

[3:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Absolutely. This is speaking to the bigger affordability issue. This particular legislation is only going to add to the inflationary pressures that are affecting hard-working men and women across the province.

I think it is important to note that any one piece of legislation on its own may not be the death knell that kills the economy in this province. It’s the accumulation of many of these pieces of legislation that discriminate against workers’ rights, take away the choice of the worker to choose their union of representation and drives up capital costs.

I’ve shared in this House many times before that the very first community ripoff agreement that was undertaken by this government was in my community of Shuswap, the Salmon Arm west construction project. I was very proud in September of 2016 to announce that project: $163.7 million for a 6.1-kilometre, four-laning project. A project $20 million over budget — another one of these community ripoff schemes, and they only built half the project. Taxpayers were fleeced. Workers were discriminated in my own riding.

As we look to some other areas where this government has failed to represent the workers, this bill, which this minister has indicated they are intending to support through this legislation, is adding to the cost of British Columbians but, at the same time, not necessarily fighting for all workers — picking winners and losers.

I only have to look to the employment standards branch, an organization that is there to provide adjudication for concerns for private sector workers in this province, where we’ve seen wait times go from two months in 2017 to a staggering 16 months under this current government. Their own target is to have 80 percent of claims completed and adjudicated within six months. They’re failing; they’re only achieving 20 percent.

When there’s an opportunity within this government’s control to stand up for workers, to provide the necessary support so that workers are entitled to some form of justice, they have failed miserably. They’ve turned their backs on those workers, and they are left struggling, waiting for the opportunity to have their concerns addressed.

We’ve certainly seen an increasingly bloated public sector. There needs to be maintained an equilibrium, I think, in this province: the number of private sector jobs versus public sector jobs. What we have seen under this administration are 34 percent more public servants, costing $17.4 billion annually in additional wages and benefits. Where is the benefit? Where is the improved service to British Columbians? We’re not seeing it.

One other item that was brought forward just a few years ago was the paid-sick-leave legislation to support workers during the middle of the pandemic. During the pandemic, I would agree. Workers that were ill had a virus. The last thing we’d want to do is to have a worker have to choose between going to work with an illness and maybe passing that virus on to another worker or maybe staying home.

When government had that opportunity to provide that support, they also had the opportunity to provide what would be a balanced approach. They had the opportunity to help shoulder some of that cost burden, which was all put on the backs of businesses. They chose to put the full burden on the backs of businesses, where this government is profiting off paid sick leave in the province of B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could bring it back to Bill 48, please.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, thank you very much, hon. Chair.

Over the last number of years, we have seen challenges with respect to support, not just for workers, but even for skilled trades, where we have seen a real failing in the increase in the support for the apprentices across this province, with only a 1 percent increase in skilled-trades training seats.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think, if we look at all of it together, this is where we see increasing challenges with the direction of this government. This is yet again another example of some of the failings that have negatively impacted workers and failed to actually support workers in British Columbia.

Looking at the clock…. When we have a look at the ride-share and DoorDash drivers specifically, in 2022, the last year that I have data, the average Canadian driver of these services spent fewer than three hours per week on a delivery app — three hours. For the large majority, this is all supplemental income. There are very few that actually drive for either Uber or some of these delivery services as a full-time job.

For the large majority, it’s a supplemental income, yet here we have government meddling with the private sector and with the opportunity of these private sector contractors to engage in their work. We’ve seen a government that seems to always know best and to continue to put pressure not just on the companies but also make efforts that are actually going to further increase the cost of inflation in our province.

Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share as their only line of work, and 76 percent of drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they were unable to get income from ride-share and delivery services. The increasing cost of inflation and the increasing pressure is requiring that even people that have full-time work already are finding the need to provide supplemental opportunities to increase their income with these ride-share programs and delivery services.

Now, the costs that are associated with both delivery and ride-hail are again very, very different. I think it’s important that government should be taking that into consideration. We certainly don’t see any of that in the legislation that has been tabled so far.

Compared to delivery services, ride-hail comes largely with higher capital costs. There’s an expectation for a higher-level quality of car, cleaning costs, maintenance. These workers have to be challenged with looking after their clients. With delivery app operators, there are no such conditions around the quality or level of the vehicle that they necessarily utilize. They have a lower cost construct. They don’t have to carry passengers.

Delivery drivers also spend a lot less time driving. They also have the ability of working on different apps at the same time and actually bundling services. They may have an opportunity to pick up from a number of restaurants that may be going to the same location, as an example. But again, with this particular legislation, there’s no ability for us to make that determination that that is even being considered with respect to the legislation before us.

In closing, the concern that I certainly have and I believe many British Columbians will have is: what is going to be the ultimate impact? What is going to be the increased cost of that ride-share? What is going to be the increasing cost of having that delivery? As costs go up, we very well may see that many of these drivers find that there’s a reduced demand for their services. At that point, where is the net gain?

I appreciate the opportunity to raise some of the concerns in this Legislature, and I certainly look forward to an opportunity to have more scrutiny of the bill during committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, recognizing the Minister of Labour to close debate.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is a pleasure. I would like to thank many members who participated in speaking to this very, very important bill.

[3:55 p.m.]

I want to also thank the parliamentary secretary, who did a lot of work. She was the one who was front and centre in speaking to those workers, talking to the companies, talking to all the other activists and helping us walk through, listening, absorbing, analyzing and finally advising us on how to put together what the workers’ needs were and what the employers’ sides of the issues were and to come up with a balanced approach that we are seeing in this bill. I just want to say thank you very much. Job well done.

I’d just like to touch on a couple of areas. I think the critic talked about: what is the need? What drives for us to do this? Somehow, because his office did not receive any inquiry by anybody about the need to protect these workers…. Somehow they are already making $27 an hour. Somehow, by protecting and giving the basic minimum standards to these most vulnerable workers that provide service to us, it’s going to drive the inflation higher.

I thought, watching them sit on their side of the House for six years, that they would have learned some lessons — that the workers are the backbone of our economy, the very workers that… They trample on their rights every chance that they receive, every opportunity they had when they were sitting on this side of the government — every chance they have. The only time they talked about workers in this House was when they were taking away their rights. They didn’t even spare the injured workers. They took their rights away.

A rehab….

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: The opposition critic says that that’s not true. Go and take a look at the act that was brought in, in 2002-2003. I’ll give him one example. If you are lucky, under that regime, to get a disability pension, instead of being indexed to full CPI, which used to be the index of CPI minus one, the life pension is no longer a life pension. That’s the right that they took away.

He liked to argue that, no, they did not do that. Now, I was hoping that sitting on that side of the House for six years, they would have learned that the workers’ work should be valued. Workers should be respected — that they would’ve learned that. Obviously, they have not learned anything in those six years.

I can tell you that the workers are watching. They have listened to the speeches from that side. They have listened to the speeches from me and this side. They know that as long as they are sitting on that side of the House, their rights will be protected. They cannot harm them anymore. That’s what the workers are going to do. But I’m giving them an opportunity, hopefully, that they will learn, because you cannot grow an economy by trampling on workers’ rights, by taking away their health and safety protections.

That’s what this bill is all about: protecting their health and safety. If they are injured at the workplace, they will be entitled to WCB coverage like all other workers. That’s what this bill talks about. They would be entitled to at least minimum wage, like other workers enjoy in this province, and pay transparency, so that they will know how much they will be paid by agreeing to this assignment. They will know that there is a process in case their app is deactivated, and there is a process for them to give their side of the story.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is all fairness. Somehow BCUP doesn’t agree with those basic minimum standards. Listening to the opposition critic….

We are going ahead because we know this is the right thing to do. We know this is the right thing to do.

And with that, I’d like to say thank you again to many people who put a lot of work behind it. A lot of consultation took place. Hundreds, if not thousands, of workers were consulted directly. That’s why we came up with this.

Madam Speaker, I’d like to say thank you again to many people who participated in this.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the motion. It’s to move second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

Second reading of Bill 48 approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:15 p.m.]

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 4:18 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 44, clause 1.

Recognizing the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to this place.

I got the list, from the minister, of the different agencies and local governments that were consulted. I appreciate his so expeditiously sharing this. I see on this list there’s a group of 31 developers and non-profit sector representatives. Going through that list, about half of them seem to be developers and the others are agencies.

I’m just wondering how it was that the ministry selected which private for-profit corporations to do this engagement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Most of them were brought together by different industry groups. The Homebuilders Association, the UDI, the ULI — they bring their members together for round tables.

A. Walker: Was there a public call for for-profit developers to participate or only those that were brought in through the round tables of the associations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was no public call.

A. Walker: This space sounds amazing when the acoustics are just right, and Hansard is doing a wonderful job. Thank you.

[4:20 p.m.]

Carrying back on the conversation before, if a self-contained dwelling unit — I might not have the language right — has laundry or not, it doesn’t matter. It requires a kitchen to count.

To the minister: is a housing unit a housing unit if it does not contain a washroom?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A dwelling unit means a building or a part of a building that (a) is a self-contained residential accommodation unit, and (b) usually has cooking, eating, living, sleeping and bathroom facilities.

A. Walker: I guess the reason I’m asking these questions in this way is…. We have some short-term rentals that are purpose-built that are buildings with many detached self-contained units that don’t have kitchens.

So the question is: if you have a property that has one self-contained unit and — I’m sorry, I don’t have the language; I’m just still setting up here — then five other units that don’t have kitchens, could that property owner still build three more units on the property?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sorry, to the member. We don’t understand the question. Maybe if he can rephrase it.

A. Walker: Certainly. So in communities like mine, it is not uncommon to have lock-off suites in a dwelling unit that maybe doesn’t have a kitchen. They were previously used as short-term rentals.

Now I’m hearing from people that they may rent them out to students or to other groups that are looking for this space because it’s affordable. It’s the only option the property owner has. It obviously wouldn’t be conforming to new building code, but it’s an existing space.

So the question is: if there’s a building that has multiple units like this in it that don’t contain a kitchen, would they then deduct from the total count of the four maximum allowable units on a single-family lot?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not going to get into kind of hypotheticals. I’ll just say that this is the definition of the dwelling units, and depending on the size of the lot, they can have three or four.

A. Walker: It’s not a hypothetical in my community. We have homes that have two lock-off suites that have no kitchen facilities — they do have bathrooms — that were previously used as short-term rentals and now, based on previous legislation, are being brought in. So this house has three units, but really only one according to the new legislation.

So the question is: would that property owner then be allowed to put three more units on a property if these other units are not meeting the description of a self-contained unit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation talks about minimal allowable zoning. So the local government would have to ensure that it fits within the definitions.

A. Walker: Yeah, I get that. It’s just like we’re talking about “housing unit,” which is the new definition in the act. A housing unit, as defined by our conversation back and forth, requires a kitchen and a bathroom. I’m providing an example. It’s not hypothetical. This exists in my community, homes with lock-off suites.

We also see that with apartments, but it wouldn’t apply obviously. But a home with a lock-off suite…. A council would likely consider that two housing units, but under this act, I’m just trying to clarify that it would be considered one housing unit.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I lived, when I was in university, in a home with five different students. We shared a kitchen, shared some bathrooms, but it was a single-family home. So in that situation, if they were to add units, they could add units that are separate, as long as it’s as the description I’ve provided earlier of what a dwelling unit is.

Of course, if they’re building something new — I mean that’s a whole different piece — they would have to fit within this.

A. Walker: Not to dwell on this, but just as an example, there’s a single-family house. If it has got two lock-off suites that don’t have kitchens, and they go to council to get three more units, it’s my understanding that, under this new act, they would be permitted to do.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they fall within the definition of the legislation, yeah, I suppose so.

A. Olsen: I’m just following up on a question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum earlier around a consul­tant report that looked at the number of units that British Columbia needed.

[4:25 p.m.]

The minister talked about a report. One has not been made public. I’m wondering if the minister will make the report and the terms of reference for the report…. Will he table it with the House here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The report talks about net new units, not what’s needed. It talks about net new units because of this policy, and we will be making it public. I can’t make it public today, but we will be making it public in the very near future.

A. Olsen: I think that it’s important that as we’re trying to analyze the impact that this bill has, we have the information that’s informing the minister so that that can be scrutinized. Secret information could be anything.

Can the minister provide a timeline for when the report will be tabled with the House so we can see the information that’s informing the decision-making?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member. My expectation is that when we release the site standards, we’ll be releasing the report as well.

A. Olsen: Can the minister confirm if that will be before or after this debate on Bill 44 has passed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the legislation speaks for itself on where we’re heading. The information about modelling will be released when we release the site standards in regulations in a few weeks.

A. Olsen: So the information that justifies Bill 44 can be scrutinized once Bill 44 is passed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The information that tells us the potential amount of units that can be built will be released when the site standards document comes forward.

What justifies the legislation and the bill that we brought forward has been a combination of work. We released our Homes for People strategy earlier this year, indicating we were heading in this direction, so the data on what outcomes we can get from it will be released when the site standards document comes, but that document didn’t justify our legislation. Our legislation speaks for itself.

A. Olsen: Okay. I get it. However, the fact of the matter is that we’ve had very little data given by the minister, very few numbers, actually. One of the numbers that we’ve been given with some certainty from the minister was 130,000 or whatever — 150,000, right? That’s the only number that we have that is kind of the foundation, the cornerstone of this.

We’re going to be able to scrutinize the quality of that report. We’re going to be able to scrutinize the methodology. We’re going to be able to maybe look at the terms of reference guiding the development of that.

We know that depending on the question you ask, it largely determines the number that you get back. I have no idea what question the ministry asked their consultants. I don’t even know who the consultant was. The minister didn’t mention it. There’s no way to determine whether the cornerstone is actually a valid cornerstone.

We have to take the minister on his word that the number is 130,000. We have to take the minister on his word that there was a consultant and a report. We have to take the minister on the word that the terms of reference wasn’t funnelling toward a decision that we were looking for. All of this information is going to be coming available to the members of this House who represent the people of British Columbia after the bill is passed.

Will the minister tell us who the consultant was, tell us when the report happened and whether or not he’s prepared to provide to British Columbians the information that the study that he referenced that is informing this this bill — whether it will be made available to the public for scrutiny prior to the end of this bill, before this bill becomes law?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The consultant group was MountainMath. It looked at our policy and gave us some estimates on what we believe the outcomes could be, but we didn’t use that to inform our legislation. We actually looked at other jurisdictions. We put best practices in place to inform our legislation. That information is not something that drove our policy. That information is outcomes that we believe we can get from the policy.

A. Olsen: There are specific numbers in this bill — three, four, six units, specific numbers in this. They could have been two, three, five. They could have been nine, ten, 12.

[4:30 p.m.]

Presumably those numbers were built off of some kind of statistics, some kind of data, some kind of information, not just random numbers picked out of the air. Maybe that’s the case, and if that’s the case, the minister can tell us just random numbers.

But the reality is that the minister, in answering questions to my colleague, gave us a number: 130,000. This is what the outcome is, right? It’s informing this debate. He used this number to inform this debate. I’m wondering how this information is grounded, how it was arrived at.

The minister is unprepared to share this information with the House so that we can scrutinize it, meaning the people of British Columbia are simply to take his word that this is the outcome that we can…. Perhaps it has been modelled. No idea what the quality of that modelling was. No idea what the quality of that outcome is. British Columbians won’t know until after this bill has been completed debate. Correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The three, four, six units is on best practices that we’ve learned from around the world. The modelling did not dictate what number we would choose, so the member is incorrect in stating that. What we did with the modelling was to get an assessment of what we could get outcome-wise given the policy work that was already happening.

The member can look at jurisdictions. If he wants to look at our housing task force…. He can look at Ontario’s housing task force, which also recommended four and six units. Look at Washington state, Portland, California. We looked at many jurisdictions to see what the best practice is for number.

I appreciate he’s trying to make the case, for some reason, that we can’t have a fulsome discussion because he doesn’t know the modelling of the outcome. But the modelling shows us what the potential outcome can be from the legislation. It didn’t inform us in the development of the legislation.

A. Olsen: It’s absurd. That’s absurd. What’s absurd about it is that all the way through this debate, we’ve had an idea of the number of units that has been stated that British Columbia needs. We now have a number of what we can expect to come out of this. We have numbers that are suggesting the amount of density increase that this bill is going to…. None of it is linked? That’s absurd.

If that is the way that this housing bill has been brought, then nobody should be voting for this. If none of these numbers are linked…. All I’m doing is trying to understand how the ministry and how the minister has linked these. Very few solid answers about….

We’ve got reports from Ontario. We’ve got reports from around the world. We’ve got some reports. I can go and look for the reports. That’s the response. It’s the single biggest act of rezoning happening right now in our province, and every British Columbian needs to just go and look at all the reports from all the jurisdictions around the world.

When asked, “Minister, please tie these numbers together,” it’s not possible to tie the numbers together, or he’s unwilling to tie the numbers together. Provide the data. Is the report a public document?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will be making the modelling public when the site standard documents are released.

K. Kirkpatrick: To follow on what my colleague here is saying, this means that the key supporting information that will justify this legislation is not going to be released until after the bill has passed. I would just like to clarify that that is what the minister has just told us.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The information that informed this legislation is based on best practices around the world. It was a key recommendation made by our housing task force. It’s also a recommendation made by Ontario’s housing task force. It’s policies that other jurisdictions on the west coast have put in place.

The modelling helps us identify what we think the outcomes may be, and that information we will be making public. But the fact that we have this legislation, the fact that we chose three units, four units, six units is based on a task force that advised us to do that.

[4:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I think when you talk about best practices, I understand best practices are basically the perpetuation of the status quo, right? The best practices of other jurisdictions are completely unrelatable to the current circumstances that exist in our province. I think that it’s important to recognize that.

I’m going to switch gears here a little bit because my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum asked some questions about environmental impacts on this.

I was a former municipal councillor, and one of the things that I heard about quite often was the tree canopy covering our communities. We know that the extreme weather events that we faced…. Heat domes were one of them in recent times. People remember that vividly. The communities with a lack of tree cover, the neighbourhoods with a lack of tree cover, cooked more than those that didn’t. The temperatures were much higher in those neighbourhoods. The highly densified neighbourhoods that had lost their tree cover were gone.

Has the minister done an extensive analysis of the communities that this legislation will impact and the impact that this may have on the tree canopy in those communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I agree with the member around tree canopies and the importance of them.

I can share that many communities across B.C. have tree protection bylaws to protect urban tree canopies. Many of these bylaws include policies to replace trees if one is needing to be removed for new development.

A. Olsen: I’ve been a part of that process as well, and it’s a pretty tense situation for most municipalities to get those tree-cutting bylaws in place.

There’s a pretty substantive push-back, mostly that people should have the right to be able to modify their property. It’s very individualistic thinking that happens in that, because we don’t think about the overall tree canopy in our community when we’re looking at redeveloping our property.

Perhaps the minister can get the response from the staff on this, but oftentimes those tree-cutting bylaws have limitations in them so that if you have a building area, if you have a buildable area that’s been created, you can actually take trees out of that building footprint outside of the tree-cutting bylaw. The tree-cutting bylaws don’t provide protection for trees when there is a building envelope that has been approved.

Can the minister confirm whether or not there’s been an analysis done of the tree-cutting bylaws to have an understanding as to whether or not the trees of these new building sites that are being created are now vulnerable because of this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member talking about how challenging that can be.

There are two things: one, of course we support urban forests, and second, tree-cutting bylaws will still be available to local governments.

[4:40 p.m.]

There is a balance. What we’ve seen in California, for example…. That became a tool as opposed to protecting trees — to not have any housing being built. It is a balance, but the tree-cutting bylaws will still be available for local governments.

A. Olsen: Has the ministry done an analysis of how many of the 85 communities that are applicable here in this bill have tree-cutting bylaws?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was an important part of dialogue and conversation with local governments, but we don’t have a formal analysis on that.

A. Olsen: Prior to the end of this debate, will the minister be able to provide a number of the municipalities in the province that this bill will be applied to that have tree-cutting bylaws?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. We’ll be unable to go back to every single community in the province to ask them for that. It’s not possible at this stage.

A. Olsen: Using tree-cutting bylaws as the anchor for the minister’s defence that the tree canopy in this province is not threatened by this bill, then, is a specious argument. At least, it’s unfounded. You can’t defend it.

Not only that. How many of those tree-cutting bylaws that exist have exemptions for people who are building in a building envelope that’s been approved?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is something where local governments will have to put policies in place. There are best practices. I appreciate the member’s point that some communities are better than others, but that is still a flexibility that local governments have.

A. Olsen: This member never said some communities are better than others. This member said some communities have tree-cutting bylaws that they fought for, and others don’t.

The minister said that there are tree-cutting bylaws as a way to defend this bill against the potential of losing urban tree canopy. The minister has also said that there’s a balance. The minister has not yet identified where that balance stands in this bill. I don’t know where the fulcrum on this balancing act is that the minister is talking about.

These tree canopies are critical protections for communities in a…. In question period, this government is ready to stand up and try to divide and conquer over here about climate change. Cutting the tree canopy and then talking about how there’s a balance that needs to be made….

There is no balance in that — not demonstrated a willingness to understand how many of those communities actually have tree-cutting bylaws, not prepared to talk about how many of those tree-cutting bylaws have exemptions that allow people to build in an allowable building envelope, which this will be creating, an expanded building envelope.

There is no discussion about what, you know…. We’re going to have setbacks, right? Those setbacks come after this bill is done, and if the setbacks are not generous but tight to the property lines, we have the real threat of the city of Victoria — at least the single-family home part of the city of Victoria — losing its tree canopy and doing it one property at a time. We’ll never, ever be able to get control of that.

The nod of the head here, actually, in this room, until we can get an understanding of it, could potentially doom the tree canopy that communities have fought to create.

And it’s terrible. It is absolutely terrible to have the minister make a comparison to a baby seedling being planted and a fully grown mature tree that has lots of life left in it. Dangerous trees, trees at the end of their lives, ones with arborist reports — I’m good with those. I’ve seen a lot of arborist reports.

Are there arborist reports required for this? You’re not going to plant a 30-year-old tree, but you’re going to cut one down. That tree canopy has to be aggressively protected, and this minister is treating it as if it doesn’t matter.

[4:45 p.m.]

To me, anybody who lives in an urban setting here needs to be pretty concerned about this aspect of this bill. Or maybe not, and that’s what I’m giving the minister the opportunity to identify. Maybe we don’t have to be concerned. But for the first five minutes of this line of questioning, I’d be really concerned.

Will the minister let us know how many municipalities have tree-cutting bylaws, whether or not those tree-cutting bylaws have exemptions for allowable lots, whether or not this will be a consideration in the regulation-making process and…? I’ll leave it there.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In clause 4, when we get there, you’ll see a section that says, and for clarity, the proposed provision does not prohibit local governments from exercising these specific powers to regulate land use decisions, but local governments must exercise these powers reasonably so the prescribed density requirements are attainable for developers.

A. Olsen: That’s really unbelievable. It reflects the way that the minister dealt with the agricultural land reserve as well. Again, I’ll remind the minister. I was a member of Central Saanich council. Central Saanich council is 70 percent ALR, about 30 percent residential, commercial and industrial. The urban containment boundary in Central Saanich….

I don’t know if the minister has just kind of pictured a big square on the map or what the minister has considered, but actually the border of the agricultural land reserve and the urban containment boundary on both sides are many kilometres long. Oftentimes what happens, especially in rurban communities like Central Saa­nich and North Saanich, the community has pushed, especially Central Saanich…. The community has built right up to that line.

The number of conflicts that happen on those borders…. To simply say that it’s not a big deal…. The reality is that we have situations…. And to give the answer that “it’s okay; it’s all right. We just have to do urban containment boundaries, and then all of our problems go away….” I get the feeling in the way that the answers were being given by the minister that he actually thinks that the problems will be given away.

That is the problem with this government. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I left Central Saanich to come here. That’s because the reality was the glib way that the provincial government treats municipal governments — really glib. “Oh, don’t worry about it.” Don’t worry about the tens of hundreds of kilometres of urban containment boundary land in communities all through this province.

We had a situation in Central Saanich where a family was making compost. Highly densified area right next to it — single-family homes but very dense compared to agriculture, and right on the urban containment boundary. There was just basically a cloud of stink over top of the community. So to have the minister just go, “It’ll be fine. We’re good. There are urban containment boundaries….”

The interface between the urban and the rural is a massive challenge for local governments. Has the minister considered the level of conflict that may occur? Not on the agricultural land reserve side, because I don’t want the minister to stand up and say: “We’ll let the ALC deal with it.”

On the municipal side, where the housing developments are going, has the minister considered supporting those local governments with these urban containment boundaries to be able to address the conflict that happens in every community with one of them and agriculture on the other side of it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that this is already a topic that local governments are dealing with, and to suggest that somehow this legislation will solve every problem that local governments are already dealing with is just not factually correct.

A. Olsen: Oh no, this bill doesn’t…. This bill solves one problem, and that’s the problem for the minister to be able to say that he’s created enough supply. This bill creates a whole other…. I’m not suggesting that this bill needs to solve this problem. I’m suggesting that this bill creates an enhanced problem that communities don’t have.

[4:50 p.m.]

Nothing from the minister suggests that he either understands the situation, cares to understand the situation or is providing municipalities that have these urban-rural interfaces the resources that they need.

When you’re adding people to the urban side of the line, what you’re doing is you’re creating an even greater problem for the single one or two or three farmers that are on the other side of the line. It doesn’t matter. This bill is not going to solve that problem.

No, I agree with the minister on that. It won’t solve that problem. It makes it worse by three, four, six times across the entire neighbourhood, potentially. No analysis. No thought. Glib response: “Move on. We’re good.” We’re just trying to get through this.

I’m going to move to a study that came out on November 20, just two days ago, from Stats Canada. It’s called Parents and Children in the Canadian Housing Market: Does Parental Property Ownership Increase the Likelihood of Homeownership for Their Adult Children? The minister may feel like we’re doing a little bit of a redux here, because we’re going to.

The questions that I asked earlier in this week…. We have more data actually, a Stats Canada report, that should cause some moments of pause for members of this House, with the scale and scope of what we may be potentially about to do in this province, especially in terms of the 1.5 million renters in this province — the hill that we’re about to create for them.

I just want, the summary of this, to put it on the record here. This study looks at the likelihood of people born in the 1990s to own a home based on the number of residential properties owned by their parents. Look. Providing an estimate of the magnitude of the advantage that parental housing wealth can play in the home ownership aspirations of young Canadians.

People born in the 1990s are the target population for the study and are referred to in what follows as “adult children,” and they’re tax-linked parental figures are known as “parents.” That’s how I’m going to be referring to them for the next few minutes. “Housing affordability has steadily worsened in Canada in recent years…. This has led to rising concerns about the accessibility of home ownership, especially among younger Canadians. According to a recent public opinion poll highlighting the public sentiment about the attainability of home ownership, most Canadians who do not own a home claim that they’ve given up on the aspiration of home ownership and that it is ‘now only for the rich.’”

Does the minister acknowledge the despair of younger British Columbians?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt younger Canadians are struggling with housing. The world, as we know it, favours those who have single-family homes.

What we’re doing with this legislation is creating or increasing the pool of housing that’s available for young families to purchase to get into the housing market, because we know when a single-family home gets torn down, it’s very expensive, and it limits who can actually get into the housing market.

I would just say to the member that this is not some form of free market economics piece that we’re proposing here. The Green Party of Ontario actually has this in their platform as their policy. So we’ve got parties that are right wing. We’ve got parties that are left wing. All of them believing that this is a path forward to get housing available to us.

This will enable a lot of families who can’t afford that large single-family home to be able to get into the home ownership market.

A. Olsen: Well, I’m glad political parties have platforms. I’m asking a question about the socioeconomic impact of the policies that are in those platforms. And I’m asking it in the context of an act that we’re taking in the B.C. Legislature. I don’t care what they’re doing in Ontario right now. I care about what we’re doing at this moment in British Columbia, and I think the minister should as well.

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, described housing as “the current economic challenge today” and stated that “attainable home ownership for younger Canadians constitutes a generational injustice.”

Does the minister agree with the Canadian Finance Minister that unattainable housing for younger British Columbians is an intergenerational injustice?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do believe there’s an injustice there, but again, what I’m saying is that this legislation is contrary to the point the member is trying to make.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re creating opportunities for housing attainability, for people, that currently does not exist in communities. When a single-family home comes down and a single-family home gets built, it’s just simply unaffordable for people.

If the member and I can agree…. Yes, it’s very difficult for young people right now, given that the prices are high, and many don’t see an opportunity to get into the housing market. Creating this type of an option allows for families to be able to get in. It allows for families to…. It does multiple things. It allows for different types of ownership, where friends can get together and co-live. It creates other opportunities.

We’ve got seniors who, yes, are land rich and who can’t find options for themselves. But they’re still sitting on an expensive parcel of land or a home, because there are no other options. By creating more types of options, perhaps we’ll see people move out and create other opportunities for other people, and we’ll increase the supply, which helps renters as well.

It’s not the one solution that solves all of it. We’ve said that from day one. All the pieces work together. Yes, this is a part of the solution. Yes, non-market housing is a critical part of the solution. We’re investing record numbers in non-market housing. All the pieces that need to happen.

Again, we can go on about this for a while. We believe, on our side of the House, that the private sector has a role to play in this. We believe that the non-market side of the equation has a bigger role to play in housing. Any society that you see that has a healthy housing market has got a strong non-market housing component. So we are doing that. We’re making those investments.

We have more things coming in the new year, but this is another piece of the solution.

A. Olsen: The study highlights the CIBC analysis that found — there’s a quote — “a growing trend towards reliance on parental support in Canada, especially in larger housing markets.”

The study showed that between 2015 and 2021, for example, the share of first-time homebuyers who received a financial gift from the family rose from 20 percent to 28 percent. The average amount received also increased from about $50,000 to $80,000. This has led to a growing concern about intergenerational inequity and the rise of an inheritance culture.

“These concerns echo the findings of Thomas Piketty’s seminal study of wealth inequality, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which argued that a growing gulf between the inheritors of great wealth and others might generate a return to the ‘patrimonial capitalism’ of the 19th century and earlier.”

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I asked the minister a series of questions on Monday about analysis his ministry has done to determine the impact on the personal wealth of those who are fortunate enough to own property and those who do not. Is the minister concerned that the actions he’s taking in this bill and the actions of his government will lead to the return of patrimonial capitalism of the 19th century and earlier?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I believe that the actions our government is taking to not only enable more housing to be built, also investing in affordable housing and non-market housing, are going to address the challenges that we’re facing right now, that many young families are facing right now.

We know we are seeing, because of the strength of our economy, lots of people wanting to come to British Columbia. That’s a fantastic thing. With that, we need to make sure that we have a housing supply keeping up — and not just a housing supply, that we have non-market housing available as well.

Yes, I believe this policy, combined with all the pieces that we’re bringing forward, will help address that challenge.

A. Olsen: I’m quoting the study. “The existing literature on intergenerational wealth transfers and home ownership shows a positive relationship between parental wealth and their children’s homeowning outcomes” — this is key; this is important — “reproducing wealth inequality across generations.” Okay?

[5:00 p.m.]

“Studies have found that the adult children of home­owners experience several advantages in relation to home ownership compared with the adult children of renters. The adult children of homeowners are more likely to receive a down payment as a gift, become homeowners and transition to home ownership sooner. Additionally, recipients of intergenerational wealth, such as those who receive a down payment as a gift, tend to purchase higher-valued homes.”

Is the minister concerned that he is reproducing wealth inequality across generations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Wealth inequality exists. I can’t speak to the specific study the member is talking about, because we’re talking about this bill.

I believe that the actions we’re taking here, as well as the investments in non-market and the investments in co-op, are creating opportunities for many young families throughout this province. In particular, those that don’t have wealthy families, new immigrants who are arriving — it will create opportunities for them as well.

A. Olsen: I can assure the minister that I’m talking about this bill. What I’m talking about is the potential massive wealth inequality that this bill creates, something that we need to take pause on in this province right now, because this is the only moment that we have it. We don’t have this moment later.

Quoting the study: “The effect of intergenerational wealth transfers on housing-based inequality is strong­est in housing markets with less affordability, weaker rent controls and less stringent mortgage lending conditions. Research has found that home ownership rates among young people have declined in many countries, including Canada.”

Does the minister agree that generally, British Columbia is one of the least affordable provinces in Canada for housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Housing is expensive here in British Columbia.

A. Olsen: Taking a look at this study a little deeper, the study looks at the state of home ownership among adult children born in the 1990s. It notes that there is a dramatic difference between a person born in 1991 to ’92 than someone born in 1999.

Quoting the study: “The oldest cohort in the data, those born in 1990, 31 years old in 2021, owned at a rate of 33 percent, which was over twice as high as those born in 1994, 27 years old at the time, and 15 times the rate, 2.1 percent, of those born in 1999.”

Now, there are a couple of reasons for that, the study points out. The study points out that those born in 1999 were quite young, some of them still in high school, unlikely to be in a position to buy a home, in post-secondary education. They need more time in the labour market.

“Another possible factor is that, on average, older cohorts had access to the property market sooner, and this could reflect lower barriers to entry and property ownership based on lower purchase prices.”

Does the minister agree that the statistics highlight how important it is to when you were born?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I trust the member is referring to a study that I haven’t seen. So I can’t comment on the study that he’s referring to.

A. Olsen: Is the minister concerned that there exists in this province a dramatic difference in the capacity of those who were born earlier than those who have been born more recently in being able to own a home in our housing market?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes.

A. Olsen: Quoting the report: “The highest home ownership rate among adult children was in New Brunswick, 20.5 percent, 2.1 points greater than the next-highest province, Manitoba, at 18.4 percent. British Columbia, at 14.4 percent, had the lowest adult child home ownership rate of all provinces in the scope of the study.”

Is the minister concerned that British Columbia rates the lowest of adult child home ownership in the country?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I can’t refer to the study the member is talking about. I don’t have it.

The Chair: We are here on the legislation, Bill 44. So if we can try and help the Chair feel the connection to the legislation more explicitly, I’d appreciate it.

[5:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Okay. This bill is about home ownership. So all of the questions that I’m going to be asking…. This has all been about home ownership, making more units available for people to own. Until it can be demonstrated to me that there’s any mention in here about renting, then this is about home ownership.

If the minister were to find out that the lowest percentage of home ownership among adult Canadians, of any in the country, was in British Columbia, would the minister be concerned about that fact?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I disagree with the member. Yes, this will create home ownership opportunity, but it will also create more rental opportunities. In fact, a recent study out of the U.S. showed that…. They looked at four jurisdictions that allowed for more housing supply and found that in those jurisdictions, the rent grew 1 to 7 percent per year, while the national average grew by 31 percent — 24 percent less than other jurisdictions.

A. Olsen: The minister can…. I mean, completely unrelated, totally unrelated…. That response was completely unrelated to the question that I asked the minister.

I think it needs to be pointed out that this is a Statistics Canada report that’s available on their website. The ministry can have it. I asked the minister earlier for the information that he was working off of. He wasn’t prepared to give it to me. He basically told me to go to the Internet and get it myself. So this report — you’ll find it on Stats Canada — just came out on November 20, 2023. It’s hot. This one’s hot. You can still feel the ink, in the warmth of it.

I’m not pulling data away from decades ago. I’m not conflating issues like the minister just did. I’m bringing forward really legitimate issues about people who don’t own property and the impact that this Bill 44 is going to directly have on their life chances, going forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

That’s what I’m doing here this afternoon.

Next, the study looks at how parents’ home ownership affects their adult children’s likelihood of homeownership.

“The adult children of parents who owned more properties had a greater likelihood of home ownership, and this higher rate increased with the number of properties their parents owned. The adult children of non-homeowners had a home ownership rate of 8.1 percent, while the adult children of homeowners with any number of properties had a home ownership rate of 17.4 percent, representing a difference of 115 percent and making them more than twice as likely to own a home.”

And this is the key point here. Don’t lose this point:

“For the adult children of multiple property owners, the home ownership rate was higher. It was 23.8 percent, nearly triple the rate of the adult children of non-homeowners.”

Let that sink in a little bit. This is about life chances, and we’re about to trash a bunch of them with the passing of this bill, potentially.

My question to the minister is…. The adult children of homeowners were twice as likely to be homeowners — triple for the adult children of people who own multiple homes, parents that do. Does the minister agree that Bill 44 is increasing the potential of a homeowner to become a multiple home owner?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I mean, we’re going around in circles with the member here — lots of circles. We canvassed this at great length on Monday as well.

The core of what I think the member is getting at is that this change will have land lift values, and it’ll create wealth. And what I’m saying to the member is…. He’s referring to a study. There’s…. I’ve got a list of them.

Bryan Yu, who’s with capital, the head of the credit unions. He said: “Pleased to see the upzoning legislation introduced…. The worries about land lift, in my view, reflected spot rezoning. If the city is generally rezoned to allow for more density, the land lift is likely to be much more modest.”

I’ve got lots of economists that have come forward.

If the member’s point is that if your parents are wealthy, that wealth will go to the next generation and create a disadvantage for those that don’t have wealth, then on that premise, I can agree. If you have wealth and your family’s rich, the children are more likely to be better off than those parents who don’t have wealth. So I can agree with the member on that.

But to the…. I think that the premise he’s getting at is that by this legislation, there will be some massive land lift and everybody will be wealthier. That’s where I’m trying to get at with him.

We’ve got Bryn Davidson, who says: “We have 15 years of experience in Vancouver with incremental upzones showing that they didn’t lead to sudden jumps in land value.”

My point is that study after study shows that if you rezone, spot zone properties, yes, there’s a considerable lift in value, but if you do it in a larger area, it’s less.

I’m not trying to…. I see the member is getting a little frustrated. He’s trying to make a point that those that have wealth…. The children are better off. We can agree on that. What I’m saying is legislation that allows for upzoning in this way allows for more housing options, and the land lift is not nearly as high as it would be for spot zoning.

A. Olsen: That wasn’t the question. The question was: does this land have the potential to turn single-property owners into multiple-property owners?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If a person owns a home and they want to put an extra unit in their backyard or, I suppose, build the four units, then they have the ability for it to have four units, yes.

[5:15 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Is the only reason a homeowner will become a multiple home owner under Bill 44 not because of the individual’s capacity to become a multiple home owner but because of the action taken by this minister and Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If a homeowner were to build four units, they’re able to do so. If you’re a young person right now looking to get into homeownership, and you don’t have that institutional wealth, having one single-family home go into four units creates a greater opportunity for you to get into the housing market.

If it was just a single-family home, as we’ve been doing now for a long time, it precludes people who don’t have that opportunity and leaves that wealth in the hands of those who have the greatest wealth.

A. Olsen: The minister has anchored his…. Not to diminish the people he’s used as evidence to back up his point, he’s used some quotes that….

I’m not sure that the people who said those words would say, “Oh, yeah, this is directly related to what the member for Saanich North and the Islands was asking.” But I get it, because there’s a cloud over there. The cloud is: “This is good, and we’re going to push it through” — whatever. “We’re not going to actually listen to the issues that Saanich North and the Islands are raising right now, because we don’t want to actually confront this. We don’t want to confront this.”

That’s not what this study…. This is a Stats Canada study that came out exactly two days ago. It looks at the real data based on tax forms of people that were born in the 1990s and their chances of homeownership based on whether their parents were homeowners or not. It shows that the adult children of the parents that have multiple homes have dramatically — three times — better life chances than those whose parents didn’t own a home. We have a situation in this capitalist society where people are extended capital because they’re eligible for it, because they have capacity for it.

What I’m suggesting here in this line of questioning is that this minister is extending greater ability for those people who are already in, at a greater advantage to them, over the people who are not. The 1.5 million renters and their children are way behind. That’s what the Stats Canada’s report is saying. Not all of the rhetoric, which is that if you build more units, people are going to get more access….

That’s not what Stats Canada is pointing out here. They’re saying that if you start behind, you end behind. If you start ahead, and your parents have got lots of houses, you’re way ahead. Way ahead.

“Additionally, the majority, 52.8 percent, of adult children who owned multiple properties had parents who also owned multiple properties…. Adult children of parents who owned multiple properties were less numerous among all children, comprising 23.4 percent of people born in the 1990s. Small group, more property. These adult children were thus highly overrepresented among adult children who owned multiple properties.

“Of adult children who own multiple properties” — get this; these are the people that the minister was just talking about, what all the people that are going to get in the market equate to — “10 percent,” according to Stats Canada, “had parents who were not homeowners in 2021. Among all adult children studied, 0.9 percent were multiple property owners.

“This is an initial indication of the importance of parents’ wealth in the homeownership outcomes of their adult children…. It doesn’t account for…age, income and province of residence.”

Has the minister done an analysis of the socioeconomic impact of Bill 44 on non-homeowners, a.k.a. the 1.5 million renters in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I’ve been respectfully listening to the member. We’ve been talking about this topic — a couple of days ago for a couple of hours as well. For him to suggest that I’m not is false. I just am disagreeing with him on his analysis. That’s the only difference here.

[5:20 p.m.]

I’ll say a couple of things. Doing nothing certainly doesn’t help anyone. Doing nothing doesn’t help anyone. Spot zoning, as we’ve been doing it now, puts more wealth in the hands of those that have it. Okay?

By limiting housing supply, you are actually making those that have it actually more wealthy, because the rents continue to go up and up and up and up. So to suggest that allowing more people the opportunity to get into the market, creating more supply, is making the wealthy more wealthy, I would disagree. Having limited supply, having a limited amount of housing available for people and spot zoning people individually, who see massive increases in their property value, is also creating wealth for those that have.

At the core, I agree with the premise of what the member is saying, which is that it’s much harder for those that are renting. He’s trying to make a class argument, renting class versus owning class, and saying that there’s a gap. I agree there’s a gap. But what I’m disagreeing with the member on is the path forward.

I believe, by taking this step and investing in non-market and investing in housing — all these other co-ops, all those things together — you’re creating opportunities for people that don’t exist right now. Again, I don’t mean to be disrespectful to the member. I’m just disagreeing with him. But I do respect and appreciate his opinion.

A. Olsen: First of all, a belief is not something to be building a massive housing policy on. We’ve heard that all the way through this — a belief in an ideal world, in a utopian world.

We’ve asked the minister to provide the data. I just asked the minister to provide a socioeconomic analysis of the wealth gap that this is creating. And yes, the minister is correct. We did go about this. Then guess what. Between the last time that we talked on Monday and the time that we’re talking today, Statistics Canada has a report that comes out that shows, by the numbers, by actual data and stats….

I don’t believe this. I can see this. It’s what’s laid out in the numbers, in the bar graphs, in the charts. This isn’t a belief. British Columbians need to be pretty concerned if this housing policy is built on a belief and a hope and a reality that we can’t meet the utopian vision or something.

I just want to say that I’m not standing here saying that we should do nothing. I’ve never once said that we should do nothing. The minister might wish for me to say that so that then he can turn me into some sort of pariah. But I’ve not said that. What I have been questioning is: what is the socioeconomic analysis that this belief is built on? British Columbians deserve that.

And you’re darn right I’m making a class argument here, because that was what the party on the other side of the House should have been doing. That’s the story that they tell themselves about who they are. What am I doing in here, making an argument about what is going to happen to the renters if we all of a sudden turn a person that has the ability to own a single-family home into a person that can own three, four or six family homes?

The Statistics Canada report that just came out proves that those kids have just got a moon shot compared to their peers who are living in rental buildings. By the way, now all the trees have been cut over top of their neighbourhood.

I never once have said to do nothing. What I’m arguing here is for some sanity and for some actual statistical analysis of this. Every time that it’s been asked, there’s been none. It doesn’t exist, or the minister is not prepared to provide it.

I’m going to move into the section of the study looking at homeowner outcomes among the eldest in that demographic, 1990 to 1992, 29 to 31 years old in 2021. “The adult children of non-homeowners owned at a rate of 15.7 percent, while the adult children of homeowners…owned at a rate of 31.7 percent, a difference of 101.9 percent.”

[5:25 p.m.]

For those born in the 1990s, there’s a significant difference between the average income adult children who are homeowners and adult children of non-homeowners make. The average income of non-owners was $36,000, while for homeowners it was $65,000.

That’s a dramatic difference. That’s the reason why I’m irritated here, because that’s a huge difference. That is basically a $30,000 climb. It’s basically the annual salary of the non-owners that they have to make up again in order to be in alignment with the people whose parents were property owners. That’s a big deal, and it would be wrong for us not to talk about the social cost of that — also not linked in this debate.

“There were also important differences in average income based on the number of properties owned by adult children’s parents.” This is where it gets even more concerning. “Average incomes were about $6,000 higher for the adult children of multiple-property owners than those of non-homeowners. Among adult children who were non-homeowners, total income earned was greater when their parents owned a single property or multiple properties, compared to the children of non-homeowners.”

It’s important to be pointing out that what the minister is creating through this act, what we will create through this act should it pass, is a bunch of multiple-home owners who were single-home owners. We’re moving people from the two times to the three times.

“Similar conclusions were found for this older cohort, with elevated income levels and larger differences based on the number of properties their parents owned. It is notable, however, that incomes were significantly higher for the subgroup. This provides important context to the overall income gap between homeowners and non-homeowners.”

Question to the minister. This is a critical picture to understand. This bill has potential dramatic consequences, and the minister has yet to demonstrate that his government has even the faintest clue about the actual numbers. We’ve asked for them. We’ve not received them. No understanding of the potential liability with First Nations, as I asked about on Monday. No clue about the socioeconomic impact on the non-homeowner in our province, the 1.5 million British Columbians who rent and their families.

Is the minister concerned Bill 44 will be a key contributor to increasing the wealth gap between those who can now own one property and who the minister is unilaterally creating three, four or six times more wealthy, in the clear statistical analysis of the socioeconomic reality of the non-homeowners outlined in this Stats Canada report?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I disagree with a lot of assertions made by the member. First off, he’s making an assumption that every single-home owner is going to build four units themselves. If they do, they have the land cost, they have to put a cost associated with constructing it, and then there’s a value that comes with it. So first off, that’s a wrong assumption, that every landowner is going to just tear down and build four and become wealthier.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s what I heard the member say. Maybe if he’s saying he didn’t say that…. But he certainly suggested it. I’m sorry….

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, let’s have one person have the floor at a time, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’m trying to get at…. I hope one day I hear from the member what he believes is a solution, if this is the frame. I believe I will one day, when the platform comes out. But the undertone, the premise, is that supply won’t solve the problem, and he’s using Canadian data to try to prove that point.

Now, if that were the case, then why does CMHC say that we need 610,000 units by 2030 to reach 2005 affordability levels? Why would they say that? Why would CMHC have a housing accelerator fund targeted to communities to upzone three to four units to get to housing targets? Why would they do that?

Again, if the member’s argument is that for those that have, the next generation of their family has a greater opportunity to get wealth, I agree with that. But I disagree with the premise that somehow only those that have will benefit from that. We know this will create opportunities for those that don’t have an opportunity to have homeownership to get into homeownership. It’ll create more rental opportunities. We’ve seen it from other jurisdictions that have gone in this direction, where rents have stabilized and, in some jurisdictions, come down.

[5:30 p.m.]

Again, respectfully, to the member, I kind of get his point. But if it’s saying that supply won’t solve the problem, then perhaps we fundamentally disagree.

A. Olsen: I think if the minister goes back and watches this, maybe the picture will be a little bit clearer, because I’m not making any of those arguments. That’s the astonishing thing about this.

As I have said ample times, the housing market, no matter what we do, creates wealth, because that’s how it’s designed. That’s why CMHC was created. That’s why mortgage protection was put in place. That’s the reason why, in the Great Depression, the Canadian government decided to turn our housing market into a major economic generator to create jobs and to create shelter for people.

If we don’t do anything, the housing market is de­signed to create wealth. We’ve seen that. What I am argu­ing here…. Actually, what I am questioning the minister on here is the socioeconomic impact. I was very clear to point out that yes, this is Canadian data. This is Stats Canada data. However, British Columbia fares at the bottom of the lists in terms of home ownership for those that were born in the 1990s.

In Manitoba, they’re in a better situation than we are here by a number of points, like six or seven points better. B.C. ranks at the bottom of the list. I know that the minister does not want to confront this cold reality. The statistics show that for that 1990s cohort, if your parents are not homeowners, you’re going to fare much worse than your peer if their parents own multiple homes.

I didn’t say everyone’s going to do all the things all the time. I never said that. The minister continues to construct specious arguments that don’t reflect the questions that I’m asking. Actually answering these questions is troubling from a philosophical perspective, from an ideological perspective, from a party that should be concerned about the 1.5 million renters in this province. They’re not.

The glib answers, the non-statistics, the non-data approach of this…. Just to stand up and say that we’re just going to build more supply, and it’s going to solve the problem….

If the minister wants to know what I believe, I believe that the housing affordability crisis is solved by the provincial and federal governments doing exactly what the provincial and federal governments always should have been doing in this province and in this country. That’s building non-market housing much higher than the rate…. We talked about proportionality and all of that, because that’s not what’s happening at the type of proportion that we need it to be. We’ll get into that later.

I think that it is critically important to acknowledge that by unilaterally allowing a single property owner to do it…. Whether they do it or not, that’s not what I’m asking. By unilaterally doing it, we are creating space artificially for them and for their families. We’re creating a gap between those whose parents don’t own land, a much, much bigger gap — three times.

“Higher incomes are associated with higher home ownership rates as well.” Great. Now those people also have an opportunity to make more money.

“At all levels of parental property ownership, reflecting the importance of higher incomes in attaining home ownership, the number of properties owned by parents also played an important role. For instance, for those earning below $40,000, the likelihood of home ownership rose from 8.5 percent for those with parents who were not property owners to 26.7 percent for those whose parents owned three or more properties.”

That’s what we’re talking about in this bill. That’s why I’m raising this. From 8.5 percent to 26.7 percent more likely, a threefold greater likelihood of home ownership.

[5:35 p.m.]

“Notably, the increase in the home ownership rate from parental property ownership was greatest within the middle-income group, but the increase in the home ownership rate from parental property wealth was found even in the highest income group. This indicates the relevance of parents’ housing wealth on the home ownership outcomes of their adult children at all levels.”

Does the minister recognize the correlation of parent home ownership to the outcomes of their adult children and the dramatic impact owning multiple properties has on widening the socioeconomic gap for those people whose parents were non-homeowners?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t know how many times I have to answer this question. I agree with the member. I will scream it from the rooftop. If your family has wealth, yes, you are more likely to be better off than a person whose family doesn’t have wealth. I don’t know how many times I have to say that to the member. I’ve agreed with him, like, seven times on it, and I simply don’t understand the point he’s trying to make.

Fundamentally, I agree that if you have wealth, if your family has wealth, then you’re better off — the next generation is better off — than those that don’t. I’ve said this so many times. I don’t understand what the member wants me to say further on it.

But what I’m saying to him is this. By limiting housing, you are creating wealth. Zoning isn’t the only way to create wealth. Limiting housing is also creating wealth. What happens is that your population is growing, but there’s no housing available for people. It drives up rent. It drives up the value of that land.

The member says that we don’t care about renters. That’s false. Of course we care about renters. But I tell you one thing. Renters also agree with us that having more options is better for them. Renters also agree that having an opportunity to get into home ownership…. When a single-family home comes down, and it’s got four units, it is more attainable for them. For those that do want to have that opportunity, it provides that opportunity for them.

Doing nothing is not an option. The member said that we need to create a greater scale of non-market housing. I agree with that, too. But you can’t just wave that and assume it’s going to happen. We have limited labour pools. We have limited capital. We are scaling it up. Not only are we scaling it up, but we’re also bringing housing that’s in the private sector back into non-market housing through the rental protection fund, and we need to do more.

Respectfully to the member, I can only agree with him on that point so many times. If he wants to ask again, I’ll agree with him again on it.

A. Olsen: Well, on the point that the minister wants to agree with me on, we’re going to agree. But on the point that I’m making, which is how this legislation and how this House is about to create a whole bunch of wealth unilaterally….

The market wouldn’t necessarily extend this capital to people unilaterally. Everybody gets it. If you own a property, everyone gets the capacity and the capital to do four or six. That’s not the way the system works. You might be able to have greater access, yes. But that doesn’t….

We’re granting something here that the market hasn’t necessarily found to be tested or true. They don’t have to carry the burden of it. They just get the benefit of it.

Yeah, okay, you might be supportive of renters, but not through this bill. You’re not. Not if what you’re doing is widening the gap between those who have and those who don’t further by three times. No, you’re not showing that you care about the renter. What you’re doing is showing you care about the homeowner, which is fine. You can do that, too. But you have to be honest about the socioeconomic impact that that has on the people who weren’t born at a time to be able to buy it.

I even demonstrated in this that if you were born in the earliest years of the 1990s, you had a dramatic advantage over your same generation that was born at the end of the 1990s. So even in the ten-year gap that they’re taking here, it already demonstrates that timing matters. I can’t even imagine what it must be like for the people born in the 2000s as the housing affordability crisis has gotten that much more challenged.

[5:40 p.m.]

“The adult children in this age cohort were more likely to earn higher incomes if their parents were multiple property owners. Of such adult children, 21.1 percent earned over $80,000 in 2021, which is a greater share than those parents who owned a single property, 17.3 percent, or those without homeowning parents, 9.5 percent. This highlights the importance of controlling for income and…property ownership.”

The minister is not concerned at all. Am I to read into the responses of the minister that he is not concerned? He might agree with me that this is what’s going to happen, but it doesn’t concern him in any way.

The Chair: Member, the questions are getting fairly repetitive. If the member would consider that and consider other questions, the House would appreciate it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This feels like we’re just saying the same thing over and over again.

I read the opinion piece that the member is basing his arguments on. Nowhere does that person say that you shouldn’t allow for more housing options. In fact, this argument that he’s making is based on a discussion we had two days ago, based on one person’s assessment of the renter class and what happens to the renter class because of housing options being available. That’s the basis of it.

I mean, I hear what the member is saying. He might not be referring to it directly, but it’s essentially the argument that’s made in this piece.

But what that person says in that piece is, yes, you need more non-market housing. So to look at this policy in isolation of all the other things that we’re doing, you could make the argument that this won’t solve all the problems. But we’re doing all the policy pieces together.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay, Members.

Let’s have a respectful discussion. One person.

The minister has the floor currently.

Hon. R. Kahlon: So the $7 billion we’re putting in for investing in non-market housing…. We can certainly bring that to this. The rental protection fund, bringing more housing to non-market housing.

We can go over this over and over and over again. And we are. It feels that way, but fundamentally — I’ll say it again — I agree with the member that those that have wealth…. Their next generation is more likely to have wealth than someone who doesn’t have it. I agree with that.

What I’m saying with this policy here is that it creates greater opportunities for people to get into homeownership who are not. It creates better conditions for renters because, right now, limiting supply is not helping.

I disagree with his premise that by upzoning single-family homes, it is substantially worse for people that want to get into the market compared to not upzoning anything and leaving that wealth to continue to grow because the limited supply of housing puts pressure on people.

We can go over this over and over again. At this point, I’ll continue to say the same thing, but I appreciate the member’s point that he’s trying to make. I just disagree with it.

A. Olsen: The minister hasn’t heard my point then. The minister feels like we’re going around and around, but the minister actually hasn’t heard my point.

The point isn’t that those who have are better off. That is the underlying point. The point is that this bill…. By unilaterally making one, three, four or six, the minister is actually taking adult children of these people out of one category and putting them into another category unilaterally — that’s the point — for no other reason than because the minister has decided to do that.

The problem with that is it isn’t necessarily just that our economic system makes it easier for those with wealth to be wealthier. I’m not making that point. We understand that’s a basic point that anybody who’s been in here any time should be able to understand.

The point that I’m making is that this bill actually moves this cohort from one category into another, making the life chances of those who are on the outside more challenged.

The question that I’ve been asking about this is about the socioeconomic analysis of this. I don’t want this to go off of a hope and a prayer, a belief that it’s going to be okay. It’s all going to be all right. That’s not what this job as an opposition member in this is.

[5:45 p.m.]

I want to know that there has been some socioeconomic analysis. There has not been a socioeconomic analysis done on the number of units that…. There has not been an analysis done on the impact on tree canopy — a total unwillingness to even engage that.

There has not been evidence pointed to the number that the minister is using. It’s founded on nothing. It’s all founded on a hope and a prayer. You just go back through Hansard, and you can see every time the minister has said: “Well, I hope. I’m assuming.” And in an ideal world, in a utopian world, we would have all these things. But we don’t.

I’ll end with this. British Columbia is at the bottom of the statistics in terms of home ownership. So a problem in the rest of Canada…. And I know the minister is kind of uncomfortable with me using Canadian statistics, but they do break it down by location, and we are either third-bottom or we are bottom of that list. The territories beat us. We are ahead of the territories, in some cases.

The minister is not concerned of the potential socioeconomic gap that this bill is creating. I’ll ask just one more time. He doesn’t want to stop and take a look at the potential impact that this is having and the potential impact that this will have on the plethora of other ministries that may or may not have to support people who are in a less-better economic position because of this decision to provide those who have a supercharged opportunity to have way more than those whose parents are not homeowners, locking their socioeconomic opportunities at a much lower rate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I kind of enjoy this debate with the member. I feel like this would be a very long beer if we were to have one together.

You know, he’s critiquing capitalism. We can go back and forth on this for some time, but I can say that if I didn’t believe this legislation would make life better for people, renters or owners, then I wouldn’t have brought this forward. I believe this will help renters. It will help those that are hoping to get into homeownership. I believe confidently in this, and that’s why we brought it forward.

A. Olsen: Just wanting to ask a question here. On Monday, the minister referenced a 7 to 14 percent reduction in housing prices over the next five years. Can the minister provide the analysis and the study that identifies the 7 to 14 percent reduction in housing prices that can be experienced in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member previously, it is part of an economic analysis that we’ve done, and we will be releasing that publicly when the site standards and regulations come out.

A. Olsen: What association does the study of the reduction in housing prices over the next five years, targeted between 7 to 14 percent — the Minister’s own words on Monday — have to do with the regulatory-making process and not to do with the legislative-making process?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The numbers that I use are indicative of other research that we’ve seen from other jurisdictions. Again, our analysis will be released when we release our site standards document.

[5:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: What connection does that data have with the site standards and not the legislative making…? I’m wondering why all of this information has been linked to the site standards piece and the regulatory piece and not made available to the legislators in this place, to be able to feel much more confident in the minister’s hopes and beliefs.

Hon. R. Kahlon: A lot of the policy modelling work is based on the regs, and the regs have not gone to cabinet yet.

A. Olsen: We get into pretty hazardous terrain here, then, don’t we? A scenario where we have a multi-clause bill with a bunch of power, a bunch of wealth being generated. We’re not supposed to worry about it: “Don’t worry about it. It’s all good.” The minister believes it’s going to be fine. Staff, I guess, feel that it’s going to be fine too. No proof.

We have enabling aspects of this legislation. Municipalities are waiting to hear back about how this is going to impact them, about their site densities, about setbacks, about this policy document.

The minister said earlier that I need to take this bill in the context of all of the other housing pieces. That, and that’s really the mind-numbing and eye-watering process that this minister is undertaking right now: that we have multiple pieces of legislation. The minister himself has made it impossible for us to have a conversation about housing.

I’m even getting questions about whether or not…. On a bill that has a massive part about housing and home ownership, I’m being hurried along and told that we can’t ask these questions, that we can’t understand the information that’s back behind it.

The minister said…. And British Columbians are going to latch onto that, right? The media is going to latch onto it and say: “Oh, it’s going to drop housing prices by 14 percent.” Except you can’t see it; it’s secret. Why is the data that backs up the 14 percent…?

I’m going to ask this question. What jurisdictions were used in this analysis that the minister just referred to in his last response? How relatable are they to the situation here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No one’s hurrying you, Member. I’ve been taking your questions. I’m happy to take them.

I would say that there are other jurisdictions that have gone ahead. That’s what’s considered in the modelling: anything from what’s happened in New Zealand, in Auckland — lots of research coming out of there — to research coming out of California, Oregon and now Washington state. There’s a lot of data that the modellers will consider when they look at what the outcomes may be from legislation.

A. Olsen: How applicable are the situations? If the minister is not going to make the information available for us to look at, maybe he can just kind of paint some more detail into the picture for us here, verbally, so that we can at least feel somewhat confident that we can proceed with this bill in a way that is more than just hopeful or more than just a belief in the modelling that informs this bill.

The minister was willing to drop the 14 percent in front of everyone — which, I’m sure, people look at. “Oh, that’s great, 14 percent.” Okay. So where did he get the 14 percent? “We can’t tell you. It’s tied to a regulatory-making process that happens later” — one, by the way, that is not a public part of the process.

[5:55 p.m.]

This is the only public part of the process. For anybody who’s watching, this is the only opportunity that people have to hear this publicly. Everything else will be tightly controlled from the minister, whether or not we can do it.

I’m not sure how anybody can look at this and understand what the impact is going to be. We had a long conversation about the impacts on homeowners and non-homeowners. I think we got to a point where we either were talking past each other or were just in disagreement in some areas, in agreement in others. We’ve got to a situation here now where the minister has said 14 percent, 7 to 14 percent, and is unwilling to provide the documentation.

I’ll just ask the minister one more time. Will the minister table here today, as part of the debate…? He’s used the numbers, 7 to 14 percent, to defend the bill. Can the minister please provide the modelling that demonstrates that so that the members of this House and the public can scrutinize the terms of reference, maybe, and can scrutinize the science behind it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I shared this answer previously. I’ll share it again that the modelling will be based on regs, and the regs haven’t gone to cabinet yet. That’s why the site standards document and the economic study will be released at the same time.

A. Olsen: How does the modelling of the amount that British Columbians are going to save, the 7 to 14 percent, fit with the regulations? Maybe the minister can satisfy this question by explaining how it is that that is inextricably linked to the regulation-making process and not the legislation-making process.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The site standards document is important because it’s about viability. If the site standards are designed in a way that make it prohibitive for housing to be built, the modelling is affected. That’s why the two have to go together. That’s why they’ll be made public at the same time.

A. Olsen: Okay. I’m not going to get it, clearly. The only thing I’ll get is the ire from the Chair if I ask the question again in a different way.

We’ve received concerns from community members around Chinatown and Gastown, just naming two, about the potential impacts that another bill, potentially, is going to have. I’m going to ask the question here, recognizing these are most mostly high-density areas. I think the heritage aspect of this should be answered: how does this bill impact heritage areas, heritage roads, heritage streets, neighbourhoods? What protections are in place, or how does that relate?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll answer the member’s question about the other bill as well, but I hope it doesn’t open up a whole massive conversation about the other bill. But out of respect, because it’s….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Okay. He will. I will answer that question, because I can kind of see how he wants to have the two together.

First, land protected under the Heritage Conservation Act is exempt. To respect, obviously, the heritage designations from local governments that have been made, to date, existing heritage designations will be exempt as well.

The member talked about, say, TOD areas in Chinatown, for example. With that other legislation, what we’re saying is that you can’t deny a project on its density. But local governments still have a say over heritage, around what kind of unit mix they want, what kind of, say, inclusionary policies they may want on there. So local governments still have lots of control on what goes in the building. It’s not a yes or no on the density as a minimum. Of course, some communities are going to want to go much higher.

The Chair: Yes, let’s stick to this bill for clarity’s sake.

A. Olsen: I wish I could have one conversation about housing. That would be awesome. Just one, about all the pieces, in front of B.C., so they can see what’s happening.

One of the challenges with not having it is that all of these regulation-making processes happen at different times, at different paces. There’s no way to really, actually be able to understand the scale and scope of the changes that have been happening here. By having a lot left to regulation-making, again, it takes it out of the hands of the legislators and puts it in the hands of government.

That’s fine for this government, they feel. Be there for a while, maybe. So that’s good. It’s in their hands. But we always have to operate in this place like this bill and these changes will be in somebody else’s hands someday. So the question the government and all the members that are going to vote for this bill have to think about is whether or not these are changes that we want to put in somebody else’s hats. The big, bad boogeyman that we always make in B.C. politics. Do we want them to be able to make the same decisions that we’re making?

In question period, it doesn’t sound like it. It sounds like the last thing we want to do is put these rules in the hands of our political opponents, but that’s what’s happening here. So that’s the reason why making sure that these bills are heavy in legislation and light on regulation is important for the protection of our democracy.

The minister’s response was one that I think local governments and communities are going to be very happy with in terms of democracy and the protection of democracy. But I can tell you that I’ve heard a substantive amount of concern from local government officials that there is a substantive loss of democracy reflected in this bill. Maybe I’ll just give the minister an opportunity to respond to that on the record here about how this bill doesn’t equal taking away a large chunk of the powers of a local government.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I believe this legislation actually creates more opportunity for local governments, for people, to be engaged in the housing conversation, for multiple reasons.

[6:05 p.m.]

What we’re saying with this legislation is: “Yes, local governments, you have to engage people on how your community is going to evolve. Standardized housing needs reports. Go and engage with your community about how you want to see that community grow. When you have your plan, then….”

Let’s have the certainty of a plan, going forward, but it’s also more than that. We have, right now, in some situations with local governments where a lot of these discussions are happening in closed rooms. There is a reason why there are a lot of folks who find themselves trying to give large donations to local government officials, because the system is built in a way where those few officials are the ones who decide yes or no on each project.

What we’re doing with this legislation is saying that community has the voice. They have power. They decide their community plan. What works within that agreed community plan goes through with greater certainty. Projects that are still outside of that community plan still need to go to the public, because the community plan agreed to something, and you’re doing something that’s outside of the community plan.

I believe it just moves the engagement with the community to the front end and creates more certainty for everyone involved. So I think this is a positive step.

A. Olsen: Has the minister been paying attention to the numerous official community plan update processes that have been happening in communities across the province and the substantive challenge that many of them are having in the official community planning process? Has there been an analysis done on what impact the changes that are being made in this bill have on the official community planning processes in communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to some local government officials. I know many chose to hold off until our legislation came forward. We spoke earlier about Nanaimo. They were in the process of one, and now they have to reflect on what this change means.

In many cases, in many communities, it won’t have a major impact on them. But in a few, they may have to look at some of their decisions and consider a path forward.

A. Olsen: Maybe I’ll just give the minister an opportunity to retract a kind of…. I guess it was an overt signal that local government officials are corrupt in the way that they operate. So I just wanted the minister to have the opportunity to clarify that, because he suggested that one or two people making a decision….

That is absolutely not the experience that I had at a local government table. That was the largest amount of exposure that I have ever experienced. In fact, this seat here is far more insulated than that seat that I had at the district of Central Saanich council table.

So I do not agree with the minister’s assertion that there are one or two people making a decision. That decision is full daylight. What is opaque and what I continue to argue about where the opacity is, is in this House. So maybe the minister might want to just clarify his comments.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, certainly that’s not what I was suggesting. But what I am suggesting is that a lot of decisions around rezoning, a lot of negotiation happens in closed doors. It doesn’t happen in the public. What you want, where you want it — yeah, there are conversations that happen. But a lot of that negotiation doesn’t happen in a very public way where the community is involved.

I certainly am not implying that local government officials are corrupt in any way. But I do believe that having a certainty in the front end where everyone knows what that is creates an opportunity for more housing to be built, and it’s just a more transparent process all around.

A. Olsen: I think that if this bill is designed on that frame of local government, then I actually think that the bill needs…. Put another one in the line of why this bill needs to be reconsidered, because that’s not the way that it happens at local governments.

[6:10 p.m.]

The developers, the proponents have to go through what is an extremely public process currently. This is removing some of that public process. That’s the concern that local government officials have expressed to me — that there’s a removal of some of that public process in this, that this bill debate is actually filling in for a lot of it. Some of it’s being shifted to the official community planning process.

I actually think…. And the minister has heard a wall of criticism of this bill, but I will say that the focus on much longer-term official community planning is a positive change. It is in addition to.

But the reality of it is that you go through the Advisory Planning Commission. You go through a technical analysis as to whether or not the municipality can handle the increased load on the infrastructure. We’re assuming that 100 percent of the municipalities can. That’s what we’re assuming right now. We’re saying that if you can’t, then you have to scramble to make up, or you have to get into some of the weirdness that was offered….

Municipalities then start to make decisions that perhaps the minister then has to intervene in. They’re saying: “Look, we have to then go the opposite direction of this bill.” There don’t appear to be any measures here to stop them from doing that. In fact, my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum asked the question a bunch of times that there isn’t, from what I understand.

Has the minister done an analysis of what the unintended consequences could be, the unintended impacts and consequences on local governments, of the top-down approach that’s being taken here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local government still have a say in what their community plan looks like. What we’re saying with this legislation is that when you have a community plan, that should be the plan. We shouldn’t continuously relitigate decisions that have already been made in the plan. We’re trying to create a level of certainty.

The system, as it was, was not working — clearly not working to be able to get us the housing we need. We need to find ways to be more efficient because it’s a real challenge.

I agree 100 percent that communities should have a say in what their communities should look like. I believe that the community plan is a very important part. In fact, it’s going to be more important now. But when you have a community plan, then we should be able move forward. It shouldn’t be….

The public hearing process, I think everybody would agree, has challenges. Often it’s those that are opposed that show up. Those that don’t have housing — the renter class, as the member spoke about earlier — often don’t have time to go and speak about the housing that’s needed in communities. Those voices often don’t get heard.

Now with the housing needs reports, there’ll be an assessment of how much housing is needed for the community, going forward, and the community will be able to engage in the community planning process, which I think is a really important step.

A. Olsen: I think that it’s an interesting response because, currently, the official community plans in these communities…. Many of those single-family-home zones are exactly what the community plan says.

It’s the minister that’s not following the official community plan. It’s the minister that’s changing the official community plan in Bill 44. The official community plan in a lot of these communities where single-family homes are say single-family homes. And they have multi-family-home developed neighborhoods within their municipalities.

I remember, when I got elected in 2008, getting a tutorial from the planning and development department. I ended up being the chair of planning and development in my second term. I remember talking about smart growth, where you have higher density near to where you have the services, and then you have less density where you don’t have it.

That’s exactly the way Central Saanich developed with its official community plan, and that’s the way it planned its infrastructure. It planned its infrastructure to have the higher density on the very similar principles….

[6:15 p.m.]

Except we didn’t expect to have high density everywhere throughout where there was a single-family home. It doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be. Those lots in Central Saanich are wild when it comes to land use — built the house in the wrong orientation on the property, and huge front lawns and back lawns. I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be some densification.

But if the minister is suggesting the municipalities need to build to what their official community plans are, he just needs to drive around the communities and see, to a great extent, what the official community plan says, because that is what has been built.

What’s interesting here is that every senior government wants to kick local governments. They just want to kick them. They’re the problem. They’re the reason why we don’t have the affordable housing. Local governments. Pierre Poilievre says it. This government is essentially saying it. Complete alignment. It’s the local governments. We’re going to punish the local governments.

We even hear kind of this erosion of confidence in local governments the way that these bills are being framed or talked about. In the system that we have, local governments have been building and responsible for market housing, and that is what gets built.

The federal and provincial governments, for decades in this country, have been responsible for the multifamily, non-market, out-of-market, non-profit, co-op housing. You know who’s not been doing their job in this country? Federal and provincial governments, for decades.

As a former local government official, I’m taken aback by the overwhelming finger-pointing and blaming that senior governments do towards local governments who’ve actually been doing what they do. They’ve been building the housing that the market can build, that the market is willing to build — not what it can build but what it’s willing to build.

It’s provincial governments that have not been funding the housing that is actually going to either drive the cost of a home down…. That’s on us. Going through and blaming the local governments to absolve us of the inactivity that we’ve been undertaking…. This ties a whole bunch of the threads of the questions that I’ve been asking over the last couple of days together.

The reality of it is that the market housing builds exactly what the market and what people will buy. We’re going to create more market housing? The market will build exactly what people will be able to buy. The non-market, co-op….

You know, the Premier was just at an event — was kind of astonished, at the non-profit housing event, that people think that the housing market is going to be the solution to it. Yet with Bill 44, that’s the whole approach. That’s the approach. Leave it to the market.

However, kicking the municipal governments and pushing them under the bus and blaming them for doing something that they’re not designed to do, that’s not their job…. It’s the job of the federal and provincial governments to build housing affordability.

Municipal governments have just been in the business of market housing. That’s the reason why, when you take a look at local government affordability measures, it’s 10 percent, if that. So one of the reasons why I’ve spent so much time in this is because it’s astonishing that the provincial government, who should be putting in measures for affordability, decided to table Bill 44 with none.

All that we see in this bill is a passing comment from the minister when he tabled that said: “If you can do six, you can consider one unit of affordable housing.” So what the provincial government has offered in this bill….

[6:20 p.m.]

I apologize for not having the ability to have a conversation about housing overall because we’ve got one bill in front of us, but this bill offers no affordable housing. Yet it’s the provincial answer to say: “Municipalities, you can do what you’re doing, and we’re going to give you the ability to do more of it. But we’re not going to put any requirements in place for there to be any housing affordability. We’re going to assume that by building more units, we’ll get more affordability.” There’s a belief that it will equal more affordability.

Does the minister agree that municipalities have been doing the job that they’re designed to do — zoning and planning and building market housing — and that the federal and provincial governments have not been doing the job that they’re supposed to be doing, which is funding an adequate supply of non-market, supportive, rental, co-op and other forms of tenure that actually are affordable? Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We had many mayors that stood with us when we introduced this legislation.

Dean Murdock, mayor of Saanich, spoke at the event, talking about how important this is for those looking to buy or rent in Saanich. Vickey Brown, mayor of Cumberland, said this new housing legislation is a significant step forward in addressing housing challenges. Mayor Alto talked about the changes, about what that means for the community. Mayor Ken Sim in Vancouver. Mayor Patrick Johnstone. We work with local governments. Local governments are with us.

Now, there are some that, perhaps, don’t agree. I understand. But no one here is blaming them or throwing them under the bus. In fact, I’ve been working closely with many of them throughout. Again, I agree with the member that federal and provincial governments need to invest in non-market housing.

We’ve gone through this quite a bit. The member says he wished we could talk about housing generally. We’ve spent two days…. We’re on clause 1. All we’ve been talking about is housing generally. I think it’s an important conversation, so I have no problem with it.

We are working with local governments. The member says we have to invest in more non-market housing. I agree 100 percent. We have $7 billion we’re investing over three years. Record numbers of dollars.

Of course, we want to see more of that pie. That’s why I mentioned to the member that the rental protection fund is so important, as well, because it’s bringing market housing back into the non-market space. The member and I, I think, agree that it needs to be done in a greater way.

The member talked about, when we said three to four units, why we didn’t put any affordability piece in there. Vancouver is an example where they themselves changed their policy after acknowledging that the projects were just not viable enough to build if there were too many requirements on them. Now, as you go into higher units, yes, you can have different inclusionary policies in place to have more affordability built in. What we’re reflecting, and what we’re doing, is viability, to make sure that we can still get housing built, and, where we can, put the affordability in.

I agree with the member 100 percent that the only way to address this housing crisis is with governments investing in affordable housing, non-market housing. But the private sector plays a role. I’m not sure if we disagree or agree on that, but the private sector plays a role. They must play a role in addressing challenges for a certain population. As a province, we have to address it through non-market housing. Both need to be done.

A. Olsen: I think that it’s important just to note at this juncture….

It’s probably just about time to have a little recess here for some snacks, some goldfish.

I think it’s important that the record show that basically, the minister just made the argument that the market builds what the market can sell at the market rate. There we go — three to four units. Housing affordability plays a backseat in this. I think the minister’s answer just now indicated that actually, this exercise of building three to four units…. The minister doesn’t expect there to be any, or even, maybe, just marginal affordability in it.

[6:25 p.m.]

If you require affordability in it, then it doesn’t get built. Then this is just an empty action. Basically, what we have, especially on those three to four units, is a situation where those are going to be three to four units of market housing. I need not go back through the very long-winded piece around the Statistics Canada, but that’s where that becomes pretty shocking when you start to tie all of these together — the impacts, that is.

Should we adjourn?

The Chair: We’ll take a recess.

Interjection.

The Chair: We can take one more question.

A. Olsen: I don’t know. I’m tired. I need something.

Minister, can I have a salad now, please?

The Chair: I see Parksville-Qualicum has a quick question.

A. Walker: I’ve got just a few points of clarity from the debate that’s taking place.

The 130,000 units that are projected through the modelling — what’s the time frame for those units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Ten years.

A. Walker: The CMHC has suggested that we need 610,000 units, which is 50,000 more than just a year ago, so obviously, we’re going in the wrong direction.

The current new builds for last year were 46,000, so if we project that out to the end of this decade, that’s 280,000, which puts us at a huge shortfall. These 130,000 units won’t fill that gap.

Can the minister fill in, to those seven people on YouTube watching right now, what the plan is to fill that gap and how are we going to get there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, supply matters, and yes, we have a lot more work to do.

A. Walker: Am I to understand that that means…. Like, I fully believe in the idea of more supply as well. Even in Qualicum Beach, we’ve talked about this. Development downtown makes a lot of sense. That’s what people want to see.

Does the minister’s statement mean that even with this and the transit-oriented development and the $7 billion over three years for B.C. Housing — is the minister saying that we’re still not going to meet the housing targets that we’re hoping to get through CMHC?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It certainly is our goal between this legislation, TOD investments we’re making.

We also know that there are real challenges with headwinds from market conditions, interest rates going up, limited labour pool. So there are a lot of variables that are uncontrollable by us. But this initiative and the TOD initiative get us a significant way there.

A. Walker: I find this interesting. This is a sweeping legislation. I’ve gone through….

The minister mentioned the Green Party of Ontario’s policies. A lot of this does align, though. Their policy really does focus on no development in ecologically sensitive areas, working with local governments. There’s nuance, but I’m surprised to hear that even with this, we’re not even looking at meeting the targets that CMHC is saying that we need to be making housing affordable.

I guess, why are we not looking at more than four units? I hate to be quoted on this, but why are we looking at three to four units on these sites if we know it’s not going to get us to where we need to go?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Member, for that question.

That’s why the housing needs reports are so important for communities. When they update their OCPs, they’re going to have to base it off the housing needs reports. So if every community does the housing needs reports in a standardized way, then they’re planning for the growth we need into the future.

A. Walker: I guess, basically, what that means is a community like mine will have their portion of that 610,000, and they will be required to rezone and upzone areas in excess of this to be able to meet that goal.

Is the housing needs report leaning towards that 610,000 that CMHC says we need?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The housing needs report will be different for every community, so I can’t speak specifically to the member’s community. With these changes incorporated, they may need additional housing, but they may not. I’m not entirely sure what the trend line is for the member’s community.

A. Walker: I managed to get a bunch of very short questions in.

So, yeah, the housing needs reports are defined in here in more detail. I love the idea they’re standardized. When I was on council and these came in, I thought: “This is a very strange thing. We’ve got to come up with our own plans.” And there was no accountability there. We can follow back on this briefly when we come back.

The question I have, I guess, is: what will that target be based off? Is it going to be based off what CMHC says that we as a province need to build? Is it going to be based on affordability metrics? What are we going to use to determine how many homes we need to build?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member is okay, we’ll take this question after lunch, because it’s a broader question, and I’m happy to go into it.

The Chair: Of course, if questions can be tied to the specific clauses, it helps the House as well. Thank you.

This committee is in recess until 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re going to call the committee back to order. We are dealing with Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m just going to respond to my friend across the way’s question.

The housing needs reports. Now, I’ll start by saying that this is clause 18. I’m happy to go into more detail with the member at that point, but I’ll give him a high-level understanding of the way it’s going to work. He already has a good sense of how it works. But CMHC…. That’s just a global number.

They say: “Here’s a global number that we believe you need to have.” The housing needs report makes it more real, because it’s community based. There’s opportunity for community to engage on what their housing needs are. They use elements around extreme core housing need and around people experiencing homelessness. The beauty of this system will allow us to have…. Instead of a top-down, it will allow us to have a ground-up number of what we need.

Because we’re standardizing it, we’re going to have the ability to collect all of the housing needs reports and then get a large core number that will help us, I think, better understand what the core needs are, as opposed to just a general number from CMHC.

A. Walker: I appreciate that this is going to be in depth in another clause, but it goes to the higher-level argument that we talked at the very beginning of all of this. It was that this bill is hoping to address affordability and attainability of housing.

As we were discussing just before our brief break here, the minister stated that the 130,000 units that are models to be built through these changes are to come into effect in the next ten years. Does the minister have the number that will be built by 2030, which is a CMHC goal — to have 610,000 units built?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, I do not.

[7:05 p.m.]

A. Walker: I guess that, again, goes to the concern that I have that CMHC has said that we need 610,000 homes built. Units. Homes. That’s 50,000 more than just a year ago.

When I saw this bill come forward and the changes with the housing needs reports, I thought: “We’re going to get there. We’re going to have the affordability that we need, because we’re going to tackle the supply side.” But it sounds like we don’t even know what we’re going to…. And how much more we need to go.

If this bill will bring in 130,000, but well after that 2030 target, if we know, generally, we’ve got about 40,000 units that are being built every year, that leads to a big shortfall.

I’m wondering, to the minister, if he’s aware what that shortfall is and how we’re going to address that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are significant challenges ahead. That’s why we’re taking the actions we’re taking. I think all governments, provincial governments across the country, are struggling with how we’re going to get that given that there are other challenges — interest rates, labour pools, etc.

I can speak, again, to the legislation and how this will help. Of course, there are going to be more efforts that are going to be needed over time.

A. Walker: Certainly. This is one piece of many, and I fully recognize that. My concern, again, is just that it doesn’t feel like we have a plan. We’ve seen Ontario. With that latest report that showed that we had 610,000 we needed to have built here, we’re going backwards, whereas Ontario is going in the right direction. They’ve passed similar legislation, so hopefully we’re going in the right place.

I have just a few other points of clarity that came up earlier. When the member for Saanich North and the Islands was speaking, the minister mentioned that there was a best practices guide out there for tree protection bylaws. I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of what that is.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t recall saying that.

A. Walker: The minister mentioned that he had support for urban forests, and then the member was discussing the importance of canopy cover. Maybe I misheard what was said.

The minister had also mentioned that there were a number of studies that were used as a part of this legislation. I believe you wrote…. New Zealand, Auckland, Portland and Washington state, but then also mentioned some individual people who have commented on this.

Does the minister have a comprehensive list of the studies that were incorporated into the planning process of this act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I refer to studies as evidence that this is the right step. We’ve done jurisdictional scans on what different policies jurisdictions are proposing, and of course, that’s part of our work. I don’t have a list for the member right now, but I referred to many of those communities in my previous answer.

A. Walker: If the minister is able to provide that in writing at some point…. I don’t need it before we continue, but it would just be interesting for me and for my community if we can get a sense of what’s happening in other communities.

The minister mentioned, at various points, this study or the overall modelling of what we can expect for this act. I didn’t get the sense of whether that modelling was complete or if it’s waiting on the regulation to be completed. Could the minister clarify if the modelling is indeed complete?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is a draft, but until cabinet validates or approves regulations, it’s not final.

A. Walker: It is the understanding that the 130,000 that the modelling predicted is based on regulation that has not yet been approved, but it’s likely that that will be approved?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I certainly hope cabinet approves it.

A. Olsen: Earlier on, the minister provided an exhaustive list of all of the organizations that were consulted.

[7:10 p.m.]

It doesn’t appear that there are any organizations or groups, First Nations in particular, that are consulted that have pre-Confederation treaties.

I note that none of the communities on the Saanich Peninsula…. For only a couple within the capital regional district, namely the ones that the minister mentioned, the mayors have come out in support of this bill. None of the municipalities in my community, none of the First Nations in my community were consulted.

Does the minister have an understanding of the impact that this bill will have and the perspective of the municipal councillors and the First Nations within Saanich North and the Islands?

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

All First Nation communities were sent an invite to engage on this topic. The list I provided to the member are the ones who responded to us. We also engaged with treaty nations as well as FNLC through our process that we go through with them on discussing legislation.

A. Olsen: So then it would be fair to characterize this list as consultation with those who participated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, those that replied to us, that wanted to engage on the topic, we did engage with. And then, of course, as I mentioned, FNLC and treaty nations again were notified.

A. Olsen: Can the minister provide details of what was in the invite letter? Was it, kind of, the standard “You have 30 days to respond”? How was the request for information framed to First Nations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t have a copy of the letter, but if the member would like a copy of what we sent, I can commit to getting one for him.

A. Olsen: That would be great. I mean, I’d like to be able to come back and maybe ask some questions about it. That’s great. Thank you to the minister.

Switching gears here a little bit, I’m just wondering what analysis was done by this ministry on the impact on property assessments.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we engaged the Ministry of Finance and B.C. Assessment as part of the work we did for this legislation.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that the contacts were made to B.C. Assessment and the Minister of Finance.

[7:15 p.m.]

What analysis was done on the potential impact of property assessments for people owning single-family homes? And what does their tax bill look like now and in the years to come?

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Assessment, in our engagement, highlighted that they don’t produce market trend analysis. But as is suggested in other places that have undertaken this type of broad upzoning reform, they did not expect assessment change to be significant.

They also made it clear that assessed values drive for market value. So if sales data shows that properties are valued differently because of this legislation, assessment will reflect this as they go forward.

A. Olsen: Can the minister let us know what other jurisdictions were consulted in this, and maybe I’ll just ask the second question now, and whether or not their property tax system is equivalent to the property tax system that we have here in British Columbia?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I know the member knows this, but just for the record, land values and assessments are not necessarily the same. The analysis we’ve done is around land value.

Of course, assessments adjust over time. The assessment structures are different in every jurisdiction, but the land value piece is what we analyze from other jurisdictions.

A. Olsen: What I’m trying to understand is whether or not the ministry knows the impact that this change will have on people’s property taxes that they’re going to pay. None of the answers so far have demonstrated that this government knows that. Or they’re unwilling to share it.

I’m wondering. Is the minister able to articulate clearly for British Columbians how they can expect their property tax regime or their property tax bill to change based on this legislation? If it doesn’t, great. But if it does, then he should explain that to British Columbians.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Because of this legislation, it doesn’t necessarily mean a change.

A. Olsen: It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to change. That leaves a whole bunch of — that it necessarily could change.

What I’m looking for is a much clearer understanding and articulation from the minister that it’s not going to change. Or if it does necessarily change, what are the predictions? What are the models? What does it look like for British Columbians?

All of these questions that I’m asking around trying to understand the analysis that’s done on this…. Right now what we have are good feelings and hopes versus a bunch of non-information. The government wants people to feel good feelings and hopes around this, and I want to feel good feelings and hopes around homes for people. However, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum has highlighted, as I have highlighted, without the basis of that, all they’re selling is good hopes and dreams and a lot of “perhaps” or “maybe” or “not necessarily.”

What I’m looking for in this is some more certainty that the government understands that there will be necessarily a change or there won’t be necessarily a change, not that there won’t necessarily be a change.

People in our communities fight the property assessment every year. There are people that take the property assessment because the value of the property is inflated on their bill. It’s based on a neighbouring property. There are huge problems with our property tax assessment system, and not reflecting that in these answers is cold comfort to British Columbians who have to pay property taxes.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Assessed values are derived from market values. So if sales data show that properties are valued differently because of this legislation, the assessments will reflect that. But I think it’s also important to note that broad changes like this don’t necessarily mean that taxes are going to increase — property taxes — because local governments will assess what revenues they need based on whatever their needs are.

My point in my previous answer was that you can’t draw a direct correlation between local governments having to figure out what their needs are. They’re going to set their tax rate at a certain rate.

A. Olsen: Can the minister explain how the term or the policy of highest and best use is reflected in this?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Assessment does not assess just because the zoning has changed. They do it over time, when there are, perhaps, transactions, etc. That’s why it’s difficult to answer the question the way that the member has proposed it.

A. Olsen: What I’m hoping to understand through this line of questioning is whether or not a member of the public who owns a single-family home on a single-family-home-zoned piece of property that is going to turn two, three, four or six times…. If they choose not to put that level of density, are they going to be charged for what is the highest and best use of that land under the zoning, which will change under this from a single-family to a multi-family environment.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think I’ll try to frame it in a different way. Assessments are based on market activity. It’ll depend on what the market activity is over time. Then the correlation between taxes and the assessment of a home is hard to say, as well, because local governments adjust their taxes for what they need over time. It doesn’t necessarily mean that if your assessment goes up, your taxes go up at the same percentage.

A. Olsen: Look, I understand. What the minister is responding to is not the distinction that I’m looking for. But I get it.

Let me expand on this a little bit further. There’s a whole bunch of technical requirements to actually building these units. All we’re doing here is creating the capacity to build them. There’s a whole pile of work that gets done at the local government level that actually enables that to happen if the property owner decides that that’s what they want to do.

Currently, right now, one of the issues with kind of kicking the local government people under the bus and blaming them for this problem is a very real capacity issue, a funding issue, a fiscal framework that’s been ground to a halt in this province.

The provincial government has been reluctant — I outlined it in my speech — to do a review of the fiscal framework in order to free up the revenue that municipalities need to actually be able to have a robust staff and do the technical work — the number of planners, the number of building people in the planning and development offices, the number of people that are available to do inspections and the number of bylaw enforcement to be able to enforce that.

What provisions exist in this bill to support municipal governments to actually be able to do the technical work, the technical requirements, that are going to be created under this act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s not directly in this bill. We’re pro­viding $51 million to local governments to do some of the necessary changes that they need to align. The site standards document will be fairly detailed, so local governments will be able to more easily do the work in a quicker manner.

[7:30 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate, and I think the municipal governments have all appreciated, the $51 million. But again, I think that it’s important to draw a distinction, because what we’re able to say in here and what is reality on the ground are different things.

There’s the $51 million that’s going to be available to municipal governments to be able to do the bylaw work, to make sure that the bylaws comply with these changes. That is going to be done at the planning and development office and then through the administrator’s office and the clerks. That’s a legal process to make sure the bylaws are in alignment.

I think maybe that $51 million will be enough. Who knows? I’ll ask this question: if we find out that that $51 million is not enough to support municipalities to update their bylaws, is the minister prepared to provide more revenue in order to ensure that municipalities can achieve it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I think the member knows that that’s a treasury process. What I can share with the member is that over the last few years, we’ve provided significant dollars to communities.

I mentioned the $51 million. There’s an additional $10 million for best practices for local governments to come together. We’re going to find ways to continuously support local governments in this work, but given that it’s the Ministry of Finance that will decide the money, I can’t say that yet.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the answer. I think what it does is it indicates to local governments that they can expect, perhaps, a bureaucratic obstacle to them getting the resources that they need to be able to comply with this act.

The minister can’t stand up and say, “Yeah, we’re all in; we’re here to make this happen,” just like the minister answered all the other questions about housing. “We’re just making housing available. Yeah, we’re all in.” Not for this response. “Well, we’ve got to talk to the Minister of Finance, the Treasury Board.” Maybe — right?

So local governments can rest uneasy. Perhaps if that money is not there for them, then that goes to the property taxes. This is the reason why I’m asking this line of questioning. That goes to the property taxes. So yes, there will be a property tax lift, an increase as a result of this, if the $51 million is not made available. Let the record show that.

But let’s separate, for a second, the zoning work on the zoning bylaws and the community plans from the actual technical work that needs to support building science, building safe buildings to the code and following that process, not only from site design, which is another process, but also, once the approval has been in place, there are inspections that need to happen.

If there is a rapid increase in the number of units that are going to be built, or even if there’s a marginal increase over a long period of time, what measures are in place for local governments to be able to get the support that they need so that the property taxes don’t increase as a result of this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve already mentioned that we are providing $51 million. If the time comes and there are additional pressures, then we’ll have a conversation with Treasury Board. We want to support communities to make sure that this is something that works in communities.

A. Olsen: The problem is that the $51 million is a one-time injection. What the minister has said is that we can expect a 7 to 14 percent reduction over five years. He gave us that time frame, the five years. We have to piece all this together. And then he also said that the 130,000 units is over ten years. So that’s another time frame that we’re working in.

Surely there’s going to be a much longer-term impact than when the $51 million will be exhausted. Is the minister suggesting that the impact of all of these operations that are being put on local government to follow the housing science and the technical work that’s needed in order to make sure that those homes are safe for people to live in and comply to the building code and that there’s bylaw enforcement to follow up those that are not — that that will go on to property taxes because that’s currently one of the most robust ways that local governments can recoup lost revenue?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s certainly not what I’m saying. I don’t recall saying any of that. What I said was that there’s $51 million there for local governments.

[7:35 p.m.]

We also know that through this process, there’s a significant time saving that comes with projects, anything from a few months to a year, which will mean a lot of resources being freed up that were previously dedicated to process for local governments. This also will provide efficiencies from local government’s perspective.

Just as we have, over the last few years, provided significant dollars to local governments for various initiatives, we’re going to continue to support local governments as we move forward.

A. Olsen: I think part of the issue is perhaps…. Maybe the minister hasn’t sat at the council table and understood that there are two processes. There are multiple processes that happen, but getting the bylaws up to date to comply with this is one process. However, there is a separate process for rezoning.

Certainly this bill does remove some of the technical work that’s required, some of the advertising and facilitating a public hearing and all of that. But in its very nature, this bill — the desire to build more supply — will put a much greater emphasis on local governments’ building departments to be able to issue the demolition certificates to be able to do the technical work of looking at the arborists, the geotech reports — all of those reports.

Unless the minister has buried somewhere in this bill that none of that’s available, that is ongoing technical work that local governments are having an issue right now being able to maintain at the pace of development that we have, which…. From the philosophy of this bill as it has been presented, there’s not enough supply being built. So in order to build more supply, there needs to be more resources available to local governments, and there needs to be access to revenue streams so that they’re able to do it, or it’s going to go on property taxes.

When I asked the minister what impact this was going to have on assessments for people and what impact this was going to have on their property taxes, this was all part of the question that I was asking, and it doesn’t appear that there has been, other than the $51 million that’s been put on the table and the complete and total lack of completion of a new fiscal framework that’s been debated since I was on local government more than ten years ago…. The provincial government has not.

Local governments are not coming in here and saying: “We’re good. Thank you.” Local governments are coming in here and saying: “We’re not good. We don’t have the revenue streams that we need.” The $1 billion building communities fund could be done for 100 years, and it still won’t deal with the infrastructure deficit that we have in this province.

What is the impact on property taxes from the increased demand on the building departments, on the technical departments and on the bylaw enforcement departments that are going to be required in order to enable the supply that the minister wants to build through Bill. 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve answered this question twice. I’ll answer it again. So $51 million has been provided now. There’s an additional $10 million for DAPR-related matters so that local governments can improve their processes. That will help address some of the challenges they’re facing.

With these reforms comes a better efficiency, which will take pressure off the system, and we also have a digital building permit system that we’re developing with 16 communities — with one First Nation, 15 communities — which will help the building permit process become more efficient.

Often, we hear that there are a lot of resources spent on trying to ensure that applications are complete. That’s a major bottleneck that’s been highlighted. The new digital tool will allow for folks to submit digitally and, at some point in the very near future, have automatic code compliance checks and filter projects to all the proper authorities. That will have significant savings in time, in resources and energy at local government.

A. Olsen: Has there been an analysis done in the 85 communities on the lack of capacity and infrastructure or the current status of capacity of the infrastructure that’s supporting the neighborhoods that will be slated for this densification?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. One is that the ability for local governments to get more revenue for infrastructure is in the next bill. So there’s a new financing tool that’s available to them to work with the changes we’ve made. Local governments that have challenges with infrastructure that make it difficult for them to have the small-scale multi-units — that is clause 25.

A. Olsen: I just was wondering what analysis was done in the development of this bill, of the communities that are going to be impacted by this bill, to inform clause 25, to inform the other bill, to inform the housing policy writ large.

Just wondering what sense the ministry has of the infrastructure deficit, the infrastructure needs in the province and the potential impact that this bill could have on that, maybe to inform some of these other initiatives.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Through consultation, we heard that there may be issues for local governments, some local governments, with infrastructure, so we’ve addressed that in clause 25.

A. Walker: I just was thinking of two quick things here, as far as the modelling goes.

Did the modelling provide any guidance on what kind of homes we’re expecting to see built? So 130,000 total homes, but did the modelling project that those will likely be the accessory dwelling units or triplexes, fourplexes? What did the modelling come back with?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A mix.

A. Walker: Like an equal mix? We don’t have access to the modelling. What was the purpose of doing the modelling?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The modelling gives us an indication of what we can expect. Once the regulations are finalized, the modelling can be finalized. So I can’t give the member the exact numbers, but we will be making that public when the regs are done.

[7:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Well, I’ll be interested to hear what our local government colleagues have to say about these responses. The frustration from local government has been palpable around….

Municipalities up north are frustrated about lack of revenue to be able to keep up with the infrastructure demands of the industrial developments. Now we have a situation where the funding formula of local governments has been sufficiently narrow to ensure that they don’t have the resources that they need in order to be able to maintain all the pipes that feed the water and that take away the wastewater. We have some ancient infrastructure in the city of Victoria here, in Oak Bay and in other communities around that needs to be upgraded.

Again, with all of the questions that we’ve been asking to try to get an understanding of what kind of analysis was done and what the impact of this is, we have an infrastructure deficit that the FCM says is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in communities. The Union of B.C. Municipalities talks about the infrastructure deficit being in the hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars. All of the dikes, dams and culverts that need to be done in order to be able to deal with….

This is part of the challenge with the way that this has been done, and that is there’s an amenity charge to deal with the development. There’s not an amenity charge to deal with the out-of-scope infrastructure that is undersized and not providing communities the resources they need.

Just shifting gears here a minute. Just wanting to know…. The minister has done an analysis on whether the impact that this legislation will have while we’re waiting for the regulations of all of these bills to be done…. I’ve heard developers that have decided to down tools and wait for developments, and that could be 15, 18 months or 12, 15 months — whatever it is, whatever it takes.

We know that there’s a timeline that ends December of 2024. So let’s just say that that’s what it is: 12 months, 13 months from now.

Do we have an understanding as to what kind of impact it will have in the next 13 months’ worth of development in our communities, as to whether or not developers are going to down tools and we’re going to see this gap of a year where nobody did anything while we were waiting for this bill to be done?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are market conditions, such as interest rates, that are certainly challenging. A lot of projects are looking at whether they should shift to purpose-built rentals instead of selling to market.

There are a lot of variables involved, and there may be some folks that are waiting for the details of this to come out for their decision-making. That’s something that happens when new changes happen.

A. Olsen: Has there been an analysis done of the impacts that this bill will have? Noting that it’s in an environment that has a lot of factors in it, was there an analysis done of the impacts that this bill will have on the next 12 to 13 months’ worth of development?

I’ve heard developers who are downing tools for interest rates. I’ve heard of developers that are downing tools — lack of workers and trades to be able to do it. I’ve also heard of developers that are putting down tools because they’re waiting for this technical work to be done from this bill.

I’m wondering if there’s been an analysis done on how much of that is going to be the result of this bill and the timing and the way that this bill and this legislation was brought forward.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Anytime there are major reforms, the market responds. I’ve shared that, over 10 years, what we believe we’ll see, given, of course, the variables around market conditions that we can’t control.

I’m not sure about the builder or the developer the member spoke to. I’ve got many builders and developers in my community that are proceeding with their projects. Some are building single-family homes, and they want to because they know the market demand is still a single-family home.

A. Olsen: Okay. Well, I’m just going to wrap this up with just saying this: anecdotal evidence is not going to…. Anecdotal storytelling narratives are not going to give….

[7:50 p.m.]

I tried to present evidence, tried to present a Stats Canada report. The minister has responded with anecdotes. The minister has responded with a lack of desire or willingness to share the analysis where the analysis is done. The minister has clearly not done analysis on some very, very critical and important pieces.

These are our homes. These are where we land within the socioeconomic fabric of our community. That’s being manipulated here. This is how our municipalities are able to do or not do their job on behalf of all of us — turn on the tap, flush the toilet. We want the right things to happen. Said that in the speech.

I think what I’ve learned throughout these past couple of days is that there is a shocking unwillingness to share the information with British Columbians about the impact that this is going to have on their lives. Just feel the good feelings of the minister. That’s it. There’s no way for us to ground-truth whether or not the good feelings of the minister are founded on just his good feelings or if they’re founded on data or on analysis, on sound data.

We’re going to get the report at the end of the process — the modelling, the numbers — once it’s too late. Again, a contempt for this place. A contempt for the work that we have to do in here and almost disdain for this House being shown by this minister today, by not providing us the ability to analyze the impacts that this is going to have.

Yet what will happen is, politically, it will be: “Oh, they don’t support housing in your community.” It’ll be some kind of really base Twitter argument that they were asking all these questions so they must not support housing in your community or housing for your safety and security. In reality, the tone of this debate has been that we’re looking for information and we’re just not getting it. Wait till after the fact. Wait till it’s too late to do anything about it.

The media are to write stories about what’s happening in here with none of the factual information to be able to say: “Yeah, actually, what the minister is saying is backed up.” We’re using data and information from relatively congruent communities and neighbourhoods and jurisdictions. We have to trust the minister that he hasn’t just pulled out a study over here that works for what he wants to do and a study over there that works for what he wants to do. The numbers and the analysis are secret in this process.

What the minister could do is get this bill to a stage of the debate and then hold it until the regulations and the modelling and everything is public and then pass the bill. Actually, we don’t even have to lose any time on it. We don’t even have to delay the process. We delay the passing of the bill, but we don’t have to delay the process. The timeline could still be December of 2024, because we are in exactly the same information position today as we are later. And then we go.

Is the minister prepared to allow this decision around this and the package of regulations and all of the technical work to be before the public? That’s ultimately what a public hearing is about, the information before the public. You know what’s different about the process that we’re undertaking today and the process that they undertake in every single one of those decisions that are made at the local government level is that all the information is available at that public hearing. The public get it.

Kevin Murdoch, the mayor of Oak Bay, said this in a video that he posted recently. “One of the unique aspects of our local government system is that all the information is available to the public at the same time as it’s made available to the councillors.”

We make decisions in here in a vacuum, the big decisions in a vacuum. The minister won’t even table the modelling, won’t even give us certainty on the numbers, can’t even talk about what type of housing tenures or what type of housing is going to be built.

[7:55 p.m.]

Will the minister put a pause on this until everybody can see all of the information that is informing the decisions that have been made to proceed with this? Bring it forward together with the regulations. Reassure everybody that the information is congruent with what we’re facing here in this province, and then proceed on the timeline as we have it today. We don’t even have to delay the timeline.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve said it eight times. I’ll say it again. The analysis requires regulations to be passed by cabinet. When it has done so, the analysis will be made public — once the cabinet has given the okay on the regulations.

A. Olsen: I appreciate this. What I’m proposing to the minister is — we’ll move on to section 2 here in a second — let’s get this bill to the end of this debate, but let’s put a pause on it. Let’s not give it royal assent. Let’s bring the regulations forward to cabinet. Let them do the cabinet work on it, approve it and put the bill, the regulations, all the information together and let the public see it. Give them a chance….

Before we pass this bill, before we change their properties, before we change their communities, before we do all that, give the public the benefit of the doubt to see the information that this minister has made the decisions on.

That’s what I’m asking him. I’m not suggesting a different process than the one that he has proposed for the regulations. I’m just saying let’s do this, and let’s bring this forward together, and then let’s finish the stage of this debate once the public can see the information.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member raised multiple questions about uncertainty that may be out there, saying that he talked to a developer who told him that he was waiting, etc. If that’s the case, I think we need to get to decisions quicker. So we will be proceeding as we are right now, taking questions from my colleagues. Again, I commit to the member and to members in this place that once cabinet has approved regulations, we’ll be making all the information public.

A. Walker: Just one more question. Has this modelling been presented to anybody other than executive council? I see the list of 52 local governments, and I see some other agencies. Has this modelling been made available to anyone outside of government?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It has not been shared with anyone.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

A. Walker: This is kind of a weird provision in the Local Government Act. It looks like this clause in the Local Government Act came in, in 1996 — I could be wrong — and then it was repealed shortly thereafter. I’m just wondering. How many of these rural land use bylaws continue to exist?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are approximately 20, and the number continues to go down over time.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 4 deals with prohibiting councils from unreasonably circumventing the act through other bylaws. Could the minister explain or elaborate on how you’re determining reasonableness, the reasonableness standard here? And maybe an example of what would trigger it.

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. What is considered unreasonable would be determined by judicial review if a developer or property owner wanted to challenge a local government’s zoning bylaw. Because there are so many variables involved, it’s hard to define it specifically, but it’s there so the court can judge if it needs to be.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll just use Richmond as an example. Richmond has SkyTrain, you’ve got Canada Line, and you have an airport. So close to your transit corridor and your bus stops, you’ve obviously got federal and other restrictions.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

How will those be determined? I presume paramountcy in these other kinds of regulations, but can you anticipate other circumstances in communities where there may be conflicting regulations and other governing bodies?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. I think the member’s on the correct track with that. At airports, there’s a cap on how high you can go, maybe shipping routes, etc. Those are examples where there’d be paramountcy in place.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister state whether he anticipates an increase in heritage designations from councils that have concerns about this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The local government can designate heritage, but they would still have to allow the density associated with it.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the minister can just clarify for me. I understood that there were exemptions because of the heritage designation. If a council wishes to circumvent the requirement for the zoning, and if they determined then that they would increase their heritage designations, would that not be a way to be circumventing this clause?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a difference from the existing heritage to what’s in future. So existing, yes, but for future, they could still designate it, but they couldn’t deny the density.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the minister can just confirm my understanding. Is it the day that this bill comes in that if something does not have heritage designation on that day, they can’t then do the heritage designation? In the interim, there could be a number of municipalities that, listening to this right now, go out tomorrow and start determining where they’re going to have additional heritage designations.

Hon. R. Kahlon: To respect the heritage designation that local governments have made to date, existing heritage designations will be exempt. Going forward, local governments will still be able to designate heritage properties, but they will have to allow a minimum density under small-scale multi-unit requirements on those lots. They cannot unreasonably restrict small-scale multi-unit housing development.

Many of these types of homes already exist that do have the heritage designation. Many of them have multiple dwellings within that one unit already.

K. Kirkpatrick: Has ministry staff consulted with the heritage branch regarding impacts to the heritage registry, and did those consultations inform this clause?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We did not, because land that’s protected by the Heritage Conservation Act is already exempt. Anything that comes from them is already exempt.

K. Kirkpatrick: I guess a concern is that…. I have talked about this here before, I have a real interest in heritage restoration and community. There are a number of historically significant homes that exist across British Columbia that have not, perhaps, applied or gone through the process to have that heritage designation for the ability to protect.

I mean, we’ve got a property in West Vancouver that has got historical significance but doesn’t have that heri­tage designation. So the community is trying to buy it. I do have concerns that we might lose some of that.

I’ll make this into a question. Would a community have the ability, in a large house, to direct or to have some kind of way of ensuring, even though density is increasing, that it’s increasing within the envelope of the existing home, should it be a heritage-type home? Will a municipality have the ability to direct that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It kind of goes to the earlier question. They could designate it as heritage, protect the look and feel of it, but they couldn’t deny the three or four units, depending on the lot size.

That’s why I referred to, in many of these old heritage homes…. I talked earlier about how when I was living in that kind of environment with five other people, it was a heritage home near UBC, and it had multiple units already built in. I don’t know if they were legal at that time. It was a long time ago.

Yes, the local government could say, “We would like this to have a heritage designation. We want to protect the look and feel,” but they couldn’t deny it if they wanted to create multiple units out of it.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I can just ask the minister — I should know this here: with the reasonableness standard, if a local government makes some kind of determination changes, does some zoning or does something to avoid the upzoning on that lot or in that community, what is the process for government to override that decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This goes back to, I think, an answer I gave to my friend across the way earlier.

What is considered unreasonable would be determined by judicial review if a developer or property owner wanted to challenge a local government zoning bylaw.

A. Walker: Carrying on from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano….

[8:10 p.m.]

I might have misinterpreted this, but I believe that there is a clear distinction between properties protected under the Heritage Conservation Act and those protected under provisions of the Local Government Act. I’m just wondering if the minister could explain the difference.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member is asking…. He can clarify if I’m incorrect. If the province were to designate a heritage conservation act, the properties would be automatically exempt. If a local government were to do it, they could not deny the density within the units.

A. Walker: Thank you. That was exactly the clarity I was hoping to have on the record.

I’m going to go through some questions that have come from local governments in my area.

The province has the provincial sensitive ecosystem inventory. It maps, in our area, old forests, basically old-growth forests. Previously under this Local Government Act, through section 488, through the development permit areas, there was an incentive to or, at least, some clarity around protecting coastal Douglas fir ecosystems in my area.

As we go through this new test here, would it be reasonable for a local government to deny the use of density to protect an old-growth forest?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Is the member talking about within urban containment boundary areas?

A. Walker: Yes.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They can still use DPAs. But as I’ve said here, they can’t…. It could go to a judicial review. They’d have to go through that process, but they could.

A. Walker: Certainly. I’m just trying to understand the intention as this was drafted.

In my community, we have remnant forests that are on private land. We know, through the Community Charter, that local governments cannot restrict the felling of trees to allow for the density that’s allowed.

What was used previously was section 488 of the Local Government Act. That allowed for development permit areas. This change restricts the power for local government to unreasonably prohibit density.

What I’m wondering…. Is it the intention, as this is drafted, that housing is more important than old-growth forests, if they happen to find themselves inside an urban containment boundary?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. The intention is to give local governments the ability to be flexible within their own current conditions. As long as it’s being done reasonably, it shouldn’t be an issue.

A. Walker: I’ve got a list of these. I’ll try to go through them reasonably quickly.

It is my understanding, as I go back to my community, that it would be reasonable for a local government to restrict what is currently a single-family lot to a single home if that was done in an effort to protect either old-growth forest or coastal Douglas fir ecosystems.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t give the member legal advice right now. What I’ll say is that they have the ability. The judicial review can look at it to make an assessment of whether they believe it’s reasonable or not.

A. Walker: We, as legislators, come up with laws, and the courts can interpret those laws.

[8:15 p.m.]

What I’m asking for is what the intention was when this was drafted. It restricts, or could be perceived as restricting immensely, local governments in their ability to control development in their community, as it comes down to protecting — and this is just the first of many examples — specific areas listed in the provincial sensitive ecosystem inventory.

Is it the intention of the minister that the use of density in areas like this be allowed to continue to be prohibited?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The intention is to give local governments the flexibility to work within their conditions, as long as they’re not doing it unreasonably. It’s the same answer I gave before.

A. Walker: I will assume from that that it would be reasonable for a local government to say no to more than the single-family unit that is allowed right now if it is in an effort to protect coastal Douglas fir ecosystems and old-growth forests, based on what the minister is saying.

I see the minister is nodding for that.

Interjection.

A. Walker: I retract that. The minister is not nodding.

It’s my understanding from this debate, though…. The minister has said that flexibility is important. The minister has said, in a previous discussion, that the protection of our tree canopy is very important. It’s my interpretation of the response from the minister that it would be reasonable for a local government to restrict the density to allow for the protection of old-growth forests.

The next question that I have here is: would it be reasonable for a local government to restrict the development that this new clause would…? You know, add that test of reasonableness. Would it be reasonable for a local government to restrict development in the effort of protecting the duskywings butterfly and the vesper sparrow?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to clarify. I was not nodding in agreement with what the member said.

My answer is the same as I gave to the one before. As many examples as the member wants to choose, I’ll give the same answer. Local governments will have the ability to make decisions, on the ground, with their local conditions. If it goes to a judicial review, they’ll need to show that it was reasonably done.

A. Walker: Certainly. There are two parts to a judicial review. There’s the process that was undertaken, and then there’s the actual determination.

This debate that we’re having right now will likely be used as part of an example of a local government that is attempting to restrict density in an effort to protect the environment. The Community Charter grants powers to local government to protect the environment. It is en­shrined at the very beginning of the Community Charter as a power that they have. I don’t want to use the word “co-governance,” but it’s a shared sphere of influence. So it has been identified that way.

In my community, one of the areas that is protected is similar to the heritage conservation areas. We have exten­sive terrain in our community that contains the remains of Indigenous sites. There is a significant amount of middens and village sites and burial grounds. We know, from the archaeological impact assessments, that if holes are dug, the provincial representatives are there. But if you’re to build on top of the land, there’s less of a requirement in that regard.

The question to the ministry is: would it be reasonable for a local government, under the powers for heritage conservation, to designate an area that is culturally significant and to restrict development to not only reduce the impact on the archaeological items but to restrict the density in that area so as to not prohibit future be they land claims or partnerships with First Nations to reclaim that land?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The example the member has shared would be something reasonable that they could take to the province to have under the heritage protection.

A. Walker: One of the other designations under clause 488 is environmentally sensitive land but, also, land that’s unsafe to build on.

In our community, we have an extensive floodplain that’s currently developed. It’s within the urban containment boundary. Previously that was limited to a single-family home.

Would it be reasonable for a local government to restrict the increased density in an area of floodplain that poses a potential future risk to future owners as well as increased infrastructure costs to the community as a whole?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments will be able to account for hazard areas through existing authorities.

A. Walker: Recognizing that, but of course, that is a power under 488. You just wanted me to say it again. This new clause will restrict the ability for local governments to have that power with this new test of being reasonable. Yes, they have that power, but there’s a new condition on here that it needs to be reasonable.

The question to the minister is: was it the intention, when the government drafted this legislation, that it would be reasonable in a floodplain area for local government to restrict the increased density?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Local Government Act and the Community Charter have existing authorities like development permits for municipalities to manage growth in and near hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas.

Existing legislation also protects environmentally sensitive areas from development, including Drinking Water Protection Act, the Environment Management Act, Riparian Areas Protection Act and the Agricultural Land Commission.

A. Walker: That didn’t answer my question at all, though. The question was: would it be reasonable for a local government to restrict density in a floodplain?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve given that same answer multiple times, and I shared that I wouldn’t go into specific examples. Local governments will have the ability to work within their local conditions. If a person believes that it’s not reasonable, they will be able to go to a judicial review.

A. Walker: The challenge is just…. I mean, the way this is drafted is we don’t want to see local governments use the powers under 488 of the Local Government Act to restrict density. That is not the intention of that power. But we’ve seen development permit areas used by local governments to try to restrict development.

The line of questioning that I have is based around concerns that local governments have come to me with, where they’ve said: “What is reasonable? What is that threshold? What is that balance?”

As we put this through this Legislature, it will be interpreted. If we rely on the courts to interpret this clause, we could see development restricted for a couple of years, while this moves through the court system.

The question really is: what is reasonable? What’s not? The minister has agreed, as is my understanding, in Indigenous sensitive areas that it would be reasonable to ensure that that’s protected. On the question of old-growth forests, the minister said it’ll be up to the courts to determine that. With these floodplains, as the minister has said, it’ll be up to the courts to determine that.

It puts local government in a really awkward spot where there is no clarity as far as what this new provision, as far as reasonableness, should allow.

I was hoping that through this debate here, through committee stage, that the minister would share what the intentions were behind this, so we could get an understanding for local government.

It’s not just about local governments and their desire or lack of desire to restrict development, but it’s also about developers who are looking to build on properties, what they feel would be reasonable.

In my community, we have a fairly large, for a single-family lot, property that is currently in the middle of a wetland. It is almost entirely marshland. The developer was able to…. I don’t know if they had permission or not. It was sort of contentious. But they brought in a bunch of gravel and displaced some of the water, and then it was no longer a wetland.

The question is: would it be reasonable for that developer then to continue throughout the rest of the property to raise the level of that land to allow for that density? Or does council have reasonable grounds to restrict that density for ecological preservation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member giving examples. There are so many variables involved that I just can’t say definitively, because there are so many variables involved. Again, my answer previously is still the answer here.

A. Walker: In the regional district of Nanaimo, we have a very unique area that is designated in the urban containment boundary. It’s called the Cassidy village. I just want to read into the record the specifics of the development permit area as it exists right now, and then ask a question more broadly as far as water preservation.

[8:25 p.m.]

This development permit area is designed to protect aquifers. Of course, we’ve seen that challenge across the east coast of Vancouver Island, with the lack of rainfall that we get in the summer months and the deluge that we see in the winter months.

This is the current development permit area for the regional district of Nanaimo for area E, and its Cassidy. Again, as the minister mentioned early in these questions, is it within the urban containment boundary? Yes, it is.

The justification that the regional district of Nanaimo had for putting this development permit area in place is, they state:

“Aquifers are sensitive to impact from development and disturbance from human activity and require special treatment in order to protect their ecological value and community value as a drinking water source now and for the future.

“Aquifers and surface water are connected and interact with each other as, typically, surface waters recharge aquifers in months with precipitation and snow melt. The groundwater system contributes to baseflow in rivers, streams, maintaining fish habitat, wildlife and plants and sole domestic water supply for many residents. Maintaining both water quality and quantity requires careful management and long-term sustainability of ecosystems and drinking water values.

“Care must be taken in the construction methods, excavation, surface drainage and storage, handling and manufacture of the use of products on parcels of land within the development permit area to avoid contamination of the underlying aquifer and to protect and promote its sustainable use as a drinking water source.

“In the Cassidy village centre area, a 2010 groundwater vulnerability study was conducted by GW Solutions Inc. in partnership with Vancouver Island University. It indicates that the upper Cassidy aquifer is highly vulnerable to surface contamination, while lower aquifer was found to be protected by a thick layer of blue clay. There is concern in the community based on the fact that the majority of the residents draw their drinking water from the upper aquifer, and there are no community water or sewer services.”

Now, of course, we know that because that water service is not connected, this would not necessarily apply. But this strange area in the urban containment boundary exists in other places in eastern Vancouver Island. This is why this development permit area does exist.

“In South Wellington industrial commercial areas, there are no community water or sewer systems.”

Again, as we’ve said, this will not be into account under this. But when they are hooked up, it certainly could be.

“Residents are concerned about the groundwater resource, their primary source of domestic water and the lack of community water services with the fact that heavy industrial use relies on relatively small lots in close proximity to rural residential uses that rely on domestic wells. Therefore, it is important to ensure that both existing and future commercial industrial uses do not pose a threat to the water supply.”

I don’t need to read the whole thing, but it basically talks about a development permit area that was put in place specifically because of significant concerns about the water systems. Now, we’ve seen, in regional districts like this, that where water systems are put in, they’re often optional. You can have one home that has it and one home that doesn’t, and it can do the sort of hop, skip and a jump all the way through.

In an area where a water system does exist, so this act does apply, and an area where the aquifers are under significant stress, would it be reasonable, or was it the intention of government when this was drafted, that local governments ought to have the power to limit the density in areas where too much density could lead to impacts on the aquifer?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate you reading all that into the record. Again, my answer is the same no matter which circumstance you share with me. Our intention with this is to ensure that local governments have the ability to act locally to circumstances. But I can’t give you advice on it, because it may go to judicial review with whatever details are brought forward. They need to ensure that whatever they’re doing is done reasonably.

A. Walker: Certainly. I guess the challenge, as we’re going to soon vote on this clause, is that that reasonableness test has not really been defined. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked explicitly: what is reasonable?

The answer was that it will be determined by the courts. That may be an okay answer, but that level of uncertainty creates a situation where, in local governments, like the community that I represent, it may actually be a significant barrier to the development that this minister is hoping to see.

[8:30 p.m.]

I don’t know how the modelling reflected these types of conditions, whether the modelling anticipated that clause 488 would not be covered at all. But it’s, to be honest, a little frustrating trying to figure out, even from a developer’s perspective, what they think they would be able to get away with.

I guess, as we go through these different examples, would it be the minister’s advice…? Again, not legal advice. Would it be the understanding, as this act was being drawn up, that a developer ought to try to pursue as much density as these new rules would apply?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The term “reasonable” is common in case law. It’s not like this is the first time we’re using the word in legislation. It exists in many pieces of legislation. It’s common practice. Again, I can’t give specific advice to the member on specific scenarios, if that’s what he’s looking for.

The Chair: Just to caution, we are starting to revolve around in a bit of a circle, so if we’re able to find new questions, that would be great.

A. Walker: I appreciate that, Chair. I mean, these are questions that my community is asking me. So even if the answer is the same answer, it’s my role as a community representative to put these forward to the House. I apologize if we are going in circles. Maybe the structure of the question is the same, but the intention is very different. I mean, first we were talking about old growth. I don’t know if I even got through the riparian setbacks. I don’t think I even mentioned that, but I guess maybe that’s where I’ll land.

We see in our community a desire to increase setback from water. Again, to the water sources, the Englishman River. Council is looking at having a significant setback that would be in place to protect as an environmental corridor but also protect the drinking water of the community. Broadly, not on a specific clause but maybe the broad intention, would it be reasonable for a local government to put in place a development permit area with the intention of protecting aquifers and water sources in general?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My answer is still the same. I do appreciate the member getting questions from his community members and wanting to put them on the record. Perhaps he can put all of them together, and I can give that one answer to all of them, just in the interest of time.

The Chair: There are literally a million ways to ask the same question, but I would give the member another opportunity.

A. Walker: The standing orders are that I am not to be repetitive, and I understand the structure is repetitive. Standing Order 40(3) is that I must be relevant, and this is, of course, relevant to the situation that we have right now.

I guess I won’t go through the rest of the specifics that came in through the regional district of Nanaimo. The minister has said that there is no guidance as far as what reasonableness is, aside from the Indigenous archaeological. I appreciate that that guidance has been given. I appreciate that narrow clause has been elucidated there.

I guess the last strange one, which is narrow again, is: would it be reasonable to restrict…? It’s not even about restricting development. But one of the powers that 488 gives to local government is the ability to put in place things like rain barrels and water preservation mechanisms like that. They don’t use it as a tool, necessarily, to restrict development, but it is a development permit area, and it adds an ability for local government to add additional amenities to a property that would be outside of a regular community-amenity-type arrangement.

Rain barrels are a specific one. In Yellow Point…. Well, actually, let’s not use that as an example because I don’t think they’re in the urban containment boundary. But we’ve seen the regional district of Nanaimo look at a development permit area. The district requires that onsite water infiltration be put in place, both water storage and water infiltration. It’s not intended to restrict development, but it is a development permit that requires an additional cost to a developer. It is generally substantiated with third-party reviews and third-party papers.

I’m just wondering if it would be reasonable for a local government, under the powers that exist currently under 488, to add amenities like rain barrels and water infiltration.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I went to the Supreme Court of B.C. site where they’ve got a definition of “reasonableness.” I thought I’d just read that into the record.

[8:35 p.m.]

“Here, the question is not whether the judge agrees with the decision. Rather, it is whether the decision itself is reasonable (makes logical sense). If the judge can understand how the decision was made, even if they do not agree with the decision, they will not interfere.”

The Chair: And of course, the House Leader would know that 17A does not allow reading out from electronic devices. Just a strong reminder to everyone here in the House. It is late. I get that.

A. Walker: Yeah. Thank you, Chair, and I do appreciate that.

I guess with that definition, as long as a local government can point to a process that’s uniformly administered, that has a rationale, whether a developer agrees with it or not…. But I guess the intention is if it’s uniformly done, if it’s got a rationale that can be at least substantiated in process, maybe not agreed upon…. Is it my interpretation from what the minister may or may not have read from his electronic device that that would be reasonable?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It would be defined as I defined reasonableness when I wasn’t on my phone, reading it out.

The Chair: Thank you. Very reasonable.

A. Olsen: I remember we had a very similar conversation like this in a committee about reasonableness, and the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Andrew Wilkinson, didn’t pull out his device to read off that there is this actual reasonableness. He had it in his….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: He is a doctor and a lawyer. That’s exactly right. As this conversation was going on, I was like, I know the answer. Anyway.

I just wanted to come back with a couple of…. Where the Heritage Conservation Act is protecting a midden or a sacred site, that’s pretty clear in this bill. There are…. I think in Central Saanich, as an example, the mountain ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, which we have now added the name to — it’s a sacred site for the W̱SÁNEĆ people. I’m not sure if this is an actual one, but this is the one that came to my mind. It’s not designated a heritage site, although for the W̱SÁNEĆ people, it is a site of great sacredness.

What mechanism would be in place if there was development that would be undertaken there? Actually, I won’t use that site because there’s no single-family developments there. Maybe on the North Saanich side of it. Just trying to piece this together.

What process does an Indigenous nation undertake? Do they go to the municipality if the municipality doesn’t protect the site? Can they come to the province? What does that process look like?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question on it. The steps for someone to designate to heritage is not something that we have information on here because it doesn’t pertain directly to the legislation, but I can follow up with the member to get information from the ministry on what those steps are. What we’re saying with this legislation is that anything that falls within that is exempt from this piece of work.

A. Walker: Could the minister describe some of the powers in sub (b) here, the power in relation to land use regulation bylaw or a land use permit? What sort of examples could exist that local governments may have used to restrict use or density?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Zoning bylaws, phased development agreements, stormwater floodplain control bylaws, parking bylaws, sign bylaws, landscaping bylaws.

A. Walker: Phased development agreement is an interesting one, but we don’t have to get into that right now.

[8:40 p.m.]

The package that will be provided to local governments once the regulation is completed and, obviously, once the act is done and regulation and all of this comes to local government as a nice, bundled package with a bow on it….

Will that package and guidance…? Will there be information provided to local governments as far as how to appropriately designate these restrictions under 488 so that they are aware of what would be reasonable or not?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Very clever. He found another way to get me to say the same answer, but I’ll say something very different, which is that bylaws already, by the nature of them, are expected to be reasonable.

A. Walker: I guess the challenge is that we saw in 2019, with the development approval process review — great document…. And it really outlined some of the failings of local governments.

I mean, we have the same structure — Community Char­ter, local government — yet you throw that to however many local governments we have in the in the province, and it could be interpreted in as many different ways as that.

I am wondering, as this process moves forward, if similar guidance could be provided to local governments just to ensure that these restrictions that they’re putting on not just density but also use of property, that there’s…. It doesn’t have to be set in regulation — this doesn’t enable that — but some guidance for local governments just so that they’re aware of what the best practices are when it comes to these types of restrictions.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member phrased it differently, and I agree with him that the site standards should have some sort of best practices, and the team lets me know that that’s the intention.

A. Walker: I want to be clear that I’ve appreciated the minister’s time answering the questions. I know there are some restrictions on what can be said just based on things that can be interpreted and the fact that this debate could be used on one side or the other of a local government. So there’s that challenge there.

I want to put on the record that I do have concerns about this, that if there is a priority being placed on housing over top of ecological values, over top of….

And to the Indigenous question, it was separated out separately. I appreciate that. But there’s a lot of power that local governments have through section 488 of the Local Government Act, and I feel that this has the potential of restricting their ability to be able to make those decisions that they are best able to make in their community, to make sure that whether it’s in hazardous areas, ecologically sensitive areas or some of the other restrictions that are put in there….

I’m just really concerned that this could stifle a local government’s ability to work collaboratively to make sure that we leave this world in a better place.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member advocating for folks in his community on this. I disagree. We believe that we’ve put the provision in place for local governments to be able to act on local issues as they arise, again, as long as it’s deemed reasonable.

So I appreciate the member.

Clause 4 approved on division.

On clause 5.

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 5 is the clause that prohibits public hearings now for zoning bylaws as long as they’re consistent with the OCP and the property is at least 50 percent residential. There still are no statutory timelines for development. So was any thought given to adding statutory timelines in this process?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We did look at that. For example, Ontario has done that, but sometimes it’s not the local government’s fault. We felt that it didn’t give enough flexibility for local governments to be able to do the work they need to do. So that’s why we didn’t include it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Is it possible that delays in approving development could just simply move somewhere further down the development process?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We heard clearly that going the way we are going will dramatically increase the speed, because then the decision is being made by professional staff, and it’s being done on the technical pieces of it, as opposed to other measures.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Why and how was the 50 percent chosen?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff advised that they thought that 50 percent was a reasonable place to be.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify. What the minister just said to me is that the staff thought that that would be reasonable. Is that 50 percent based on anything more specific than that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The staff advised me, as I said. I think I may have said something else. Staff advised me that through their consultation, they heard clearly that that was the right number that we should land on.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister clarify what consultation he’s referring to?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Through the engagement with local governments and the development community — that’s where the feedback came from.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Just again for clarification, it is the municipalities that we’ve heard from…. We understand that there wasn’t that consultation, in particular on that mixed-use piece.

Can the minister just clarify? What was that consultation part of? Was it part of a broader consultation? Was there something specifically on the proportion of mixed use, or how was that done?

[8:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The engagement on this wasn’t done specifically on this. It was bundled with a few measures that are included in this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Something that we love talking about on this side of the House is split classifications with unused airspace. What about properties with the split classifications, with the unused airspace? How is this going to affect their property taxes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: With this specific piece, it doesn’t say that it’s automatically allowed. What it says is that it doesn’t have to go to a public hearing. It still has to get approvals, etc., that go forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to come back to that, but I know we’ve got time ticking down here.

Can the minister just talk about some alternatives that could be envisioned that communities could undertake in order to make sure that they have community engagement? I certainly understand the issue with the public hearings, and you always have challenges where people don’t want change in their community, and that can be a big contributor to holding up a project.

But by completely bypassing this and leaving the community out of any kind of decision-making or that feeling that community has some kind of input, is the minister concerned that it may create other challenges in the community? And is the municipality able to undergo some other kind of engagement with community on these projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My community used the provision previously to not have public hearings, but they did create other avenues for people to provide feedback. Folks could call or email the elected officials directly.

It’s important to note that public hearings are still going to be required for anything that is outside of the community plan, where the community hasn’t had an opportunity to weigh in, and for rezonings, of course, that are not consistent with the official plan.

K. Kirkpatrick: In my community and in many communities, there are smaller community plans within community plans. I’ve got the Edgemont community plan within the district of North Vancouver OCP.

If…. Are you only dealing…? Is the minister…? Is the consideration — it’s the end of the day — just dealing with the OCP, or will there be consideration given if something is in line with, like, the Edgemont community plan as opposed to the overall district OCP?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Many communities already have good systems for sharing information and helping residents track projects through the process, and that will remain.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister has said that Vancouver is not affected by the suspension of public hearings. What will the process be in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Changes to the Vancouver Charter are not part of this legislation.

There is engagement happening right now through the Municipal Affairs Ministry with the city of Vancouver on what the changes there could look like. We’re wanting to see something similar to what everyone else is getting an opportunity to see in their communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: What is the progress on the consultations with the city of Vancouver?

[8:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, that’s a different ministry that is doing that engagement. My understanding is that it’s been really good information being shared back and forth.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have a concern, which I’ll express to the minister, that in a number of these things, and as colleagues in the House here have said, there are a lot of things that are kind of disparate. They’re not connected to each other, and they’re really important pieces to be connected.

Why wouldn’t the Ministry of Housing be involved in those consultations with the city of Vancouver?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our folks are engaged as well, but the Vancouver Charter is just completely different than everyone else’s, and that’s why it’s happening in two pieces, but the work is progressing.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I just want to make sure my question is relevant to this clause. Well, we’ll give it a whirl. No, I’m actually…. I apologize. I am going to wait for a future clause.

A. Walker: I thank the minister and the staff for staying up late on this one. It seems to be a very respectful process. I’ll ask the question, and if the minister wants to answer tomorrow, that’s fine.

This change to not require public hearings for projects that align with official community plans has an unintended consequence in my community, where there is a zone that’s designated for 400 single family homes, which now, with this change, is an area that’s designated for 1,600 homes. This, as one can imagine, would have a dramatic difference to neighbours as well as infrastructure and everything else.

I guess the question that I’ll let the minister answer tomorrow is what is a community to do in a circumstance like this, where the official community plan was put together with the community with the intention of 400 dwellings, and now, there’s potential that the development will move forward with no public hearing process with dramatically more homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s clause 6, but I will share with the member that again, this is a rezoning that we’re enabling, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that every single one of those homes will be four units. We’ve heard clearly from many in the development industry that there will be some that will definitely go to four units, but there’s still a desire for single family homes in the marketplace.

K. Kirkpatrick: With the need to update the OCPs, how long will it take before the first real projects manage to bypass the public hearings?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That comes in a royal assent if it fits within the OCP.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:59 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.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:59 p.m.