Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 23, 2023
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 368
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2023
The House met at 1:03 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Tributes
NORMAN ARMOUR AND DUNCAN LOW
S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today with some sadness. Two great leaders in Vancouver’s arts community have recently passed. I speak of Norman Armour and Duncan Low.
Norman — an incredible guy. I remember meeting him out on a corner one day, and he said: “You’re a young artist.” I said: “Yes, I am.” He was keen to encourage me and keen to follow my growth in the theatre and professional arts world, as he did for so many young artists across B.C. A founder of the PuSh Festival, somebody who’s just made such an incredible difference for our arts community, he will be missed. I know that many in the arts community are struggling right now.
Another whom I worked with was Duncan Low, longtime executive director of the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. He grabbed me when I think I was 19 and said: “Hey, you’re interested in campaigns and things like that. Why don’t we win $1 million from Vancity to create the Vancouver East cultural studio theatre?” I signed up right away, and he and I worked the corners, worked the banks, worked the credit unions — it’s a credit union — to win $1 million for Vancouver East Cultural Centre.
He transformed that place. He came over to the Island, and he transformed the CPA. He worked for government for a time. A creative mind, founder of the Edinburgh Children’s Festival, a great British Columbian as well.
I really want to say to all those who knew Norman and Duncan: we’re with you. We honour the artistic contribution they made to our province. We are all wealthier for their having lived here in British Columbia.
To their friends and family, we will miss them, just as you will miss them.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 1:06 p.m.
The Chair: So everyone knows, I think we’re waiting for the critic to arrive. We will take a brief recess until the critic gets here to ask the questions.
The committee recessed from 1:06 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
On clause 9.
The Chair: All right, Members. Thank you for your patience.
C. Oakes: What new regulation-making authorities are provided for, expanded on or otherwise under this clause?
Hon. A. Mercier: For the member, I know this is breathtaking professional regulation.
There was always general transitional authority under the act for dealing with the transition either of a new regulatory body underneath the act or a new profession. What this does and what this amendment does is make that regulatory authority more precise and transparent for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
C. Oakes: What events demonstrated the requirements for these specifications to be included, as outlined in the new subsection (1.1)?
Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question.
Really, it’s just the process of iterative learning that the OSPG has gone through, going through the two designation assessments that we’ve discussed as well as the process of the architects.
C. Oakes: This is something I’m curious about. Why is it “must do one of the following” as opposed to “more than one”? So in subsection (1.1), “In a regulation…must do one of the following,” why not all of them?
Hon. A. Mercier: Must do one of the following applies to subsections (a), (b) or (c). It has to do with the mutually exclusive nature of those options. You can create a new regulatory body or continue one, for instance.
Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive approved.
On clause 12.
C. Oakes: This clause appears to include some of the more substantive changes. Can the minister outline the purpose of the new 90.1 section and provide a practical example as to how this may be applied?
Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member’s question, this provision deals with creating a new regulatory body under the act, and I can give an example.
What this does is bring clarity and precision to some of the consequences that flow from creating a new regulatory body. The example would be….
If you created a new regulatory body, as opposed to continuing one, you would do it in one of two circumstances. You would either be creating a new regulatory body to regulate a profession out of the ether, so to speak — you’d be creating a fresh, new body — or you’d be creating a regulatory body to replace a previous existing body, in which case what this provision does is bring specificity around the cessation of the previous body.
C. Oakes: When this was being contemplated, was there a new regulatory body that provided, perhaps, the impetus for putting this in? Is there something that has brought this forward?
Hon. A. Mercier: To answer that question, this wasn’t done in mind with any particular profession to come into regulation, but it is to make sure that there’s clarity for regulators and for government, going forward, and that all contemplated options are covered in this provision.
C. Oakes: Under the proposed 90.2, can the minister indicate why it’s necessary to specify this within the broader process?
Hon. A. Mercier: This 90.2 is a provision that deals with the continuation of a professional regulatory body. What it does is clarify the continuation of a corporation, a regulatory body that’s a corporation, through the process so that there’s not any ambiguity about how it’s constituted.
That comes out of just, really, I think, a need for clarity that comes out of the OSPG’s experience, particularly with…. This is what happened with the architects. The body was continued through, as opposed to dissolved and reconstituted. But it’s really just to bring clarity to the act and to this whole process so that everyone out there in the regulatory community knows exactly what the process is and exactly how it’ll be applied.
C. Oakes: Has there been an opportunity from a stakeholder engagement process to help redefine the amendment of this to help with the streamlining, the clarification and all of the items that the minister has brought forward?
Hon. A. Mercier: There was no specific engagement done with professional regulators on this provision. The reason is this is really a provision about bringing clarity on the rule of law around Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council powers and making sure that they’re clear.
That being said, the OSPG as an office, as an entity, does considerable work with the professional governing bodies that are underneath its remit in the act. It’s drawn from its knowledge and experience with the process to make sure that the act is as clear as possible for any future processes that happen underneath it to bring new regulators or professions in.
C. Oakes: I’m going to put three questions into one.
Can the minister walk through the regulation-making authority that is established under 90.3 and what the policy intent is, how it integrates with the act, and how the minister expects this to be utilized, practically speaking?
Hon. A. Mercier: It’s not an expansion of powers so much as it is an expansion of clarification of what the regulatory-making authority is.
The intent of this is to be incredibly clear in the regulatory authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to affect 90.1 and 90.2 to either establish a new regulatory body, continue a new regulatory body or affect the cessation of an existing regulatory body. How it will play out and how it will work, where the rubber hits the road in practicality, is much in the same way that it worked in terms of the continuation with the architects, to go back to that example.
But what this is…. It’s really making sure that it’s clear for everyone involved on what those powers are precisely.
Clause 12 approved.
On clause 13.
C. Oakes: To the minister: can you explain the process and obligations outlined in subsection 90.4(ii) for an existing regulatory body to assume responsibility for carrying out the objects of the act in relation to a designated profession?
Hon. A. Mercier: This provision deals with the situation where you may have an existing profession that you want to bring under the Professional Governance Act. It is a member of a pre-existing regulatory authority, and you don’t want to bring that entire regulatory authority under the act.
What it allows is the designation of a professional regulatory authority for that profession. Then the provisions deal with the cessation of the authority of the previous regulator as to that profession.
The linkage back to the main Professional Governance Act in here is to ensure, then, that the new regulatory authority — I don’t say “new” because it’s new; it could be one that pre-exists under the PGA — has all of the obligations of the act for the sake of that profession.
C. Oakes: In the proposed section 90.4(3), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is granted the authority to make regulations.
Could you provide examples of circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a) through (d) where regulations may be necessary, as specified in this section?
Hon. A. Mercier: The regulatory authority under subsections 90.4(3)(a) to (d) is very similar in kind to the previous section, 90.3, that we discussed in the previous clause.
Namely, it allows for very clear and precise regulatory power to deal with the transition of a profession from one body to another, dealing with regulation to declare the assumption of the one body and the cessation of the other; having regulatory authority over that profession but then also making sure that there’s a provision there for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to create regulation where needed when the rubber hits the road, if there are issues that arise in what is a very technical process between regulator. So it’s not silent on that, and it’s clear for all of the parties going into it as well, and sets forth very clearly what the structure and the rules are.
C. Oakes: In the new subsection 90.4(4), it mentions: “The authority to make or amend a regulation under subsection (3)…ends 3 years after the applicable date under section 89 (1.1)….” What is the significance of this time limitation, and how does it impact the regulatory landscape?
Hon. A. Mercier: Subsection 90.4(4) is a limitation on the regulatory authority of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The reference to 89(1.1)(c)(ii) is the date of the assumption of regulating duties, by the one professional regulator that’s named under the regulation, of an existing profession.
What that means…. Because these powers under this section are transitional in nature, that transition period where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations subsequent to this is limited to that three-year window of the transition, understanding that the transition is not necessarily an event but a process in professional regulation.
It sunsets the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make those regulations without sunsetting the regulations themselves. The regulation under this section will last past that point in time, but the ability to make or amend those regulations doesn’t. This ensures that the regulatory authority is used properly for the transition.
C. Oakes: According to subsection 90.4(5), if a regulation is made under subsection 89(1) for the designation of a profession, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may repeal the pre-existing act. Could you elaborate on the conditions or considerations that might lead to the repeal of the pre-existing act or its provisions?
Hon. A. Mercier: This is a continuation of a provision under the current Professional Governance Act that exists under subsection 90(5)(a). What it allows, as the member has rightly stated, is the repeal of a pre-existing act or statute, which you may think of as that professional regulators home statute, as that profession is brought under the act.
That’s how we avoid some of the situations the member alluded to in an earlier question about conflicts between the statutes. That’s particularly why, as well, we have the regulatory-making authority under 90.4(3)(d) as part of this amendment to deal with issues that may arise through that process to make sure that everything is done in a way so as to cause as little regulatory disruption as possible.
Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.
The Chair: We’re coming up to clause 16, dealing with the Insurance Corporation Act, Public Safety Solicitor General amendments. Is the critic in the room? No.
Okay. We’ll take a short recess to make sure everyone’s appropriately in the right places. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1:42 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee back to order. We are here with Bill 45, looking at clause 16.
On clause 16.
T. Halford: Welcome to the minister and his staff. I appreciate the time.
On part 3, generally dealing with the ICBC section of Bill 45, can the minister detail who was consulted in the preparation of the amendments for this part of the bill?
Hon. D. Coulter: I’d just like to first begin by introducing staff here with me: Toby Louie, who is the executive lead of the Crown agencies secretariat; and Anne Foy, who is the director of the Crown agencies secretariat. I’d like to thank them very much for their assistance.
Because the language and the changes are quite technical, there has been some consultation, but it’s been internal to government because it’s quite technical language.
T. Halford: Can the minister detail who internally was consulted and what the rationale…?
I just heard the minister say because it was complicated, but that doesn’t really…. Does that define why they didn’t go and do any external consultations? That answer doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me on that.
Hon. D. Coulter: Yes. It’s not complicated; it’s technical language. It’s just removing outdated and unnecessary processes and language within the corporation. The consultations were internal to government.
T. Halford: A follow-up question to that: who in government was consulted? Who made the decision not to consult externally on this part of the amendment?
Hon. D. Coulter: Yes. It’s a standard process within government when we change technical language like this. It would include the government’s lawyers, the Ministry of Finance, the Indigenous law group and ICBC itself.
T. Halford: Again, who made the decision not to consult externally on this piece of legislation? There are pieces in here I’m going to explore regarding remuneration, regarding headquarter locations, things like that. It’s not…. Yes, it’s a technical piece, but there are many facets to this.
Again on this piece, who made the decision not to consult anybody outside of government?
Hon. D. Coulter: As I’ve said, it’s a standard process. It’s a common, standard process of internal government decision-making. These are technical amendments, and they do not affect how ICBC operates.
T. Halford: Okay. I hear that answer from the minister, but he says that these do not affect how ICBC operates. There are provisions in this bill that talk about decision-making authority with remuneration, with headquarter locations and other such. So I’ll ask: when did the consultation on this part of the bill begin internally to government?
Hon. D. Coulter: That was during the development of the bill, which was spring through summer 2023. So that’s of this year.
T. Halford: Can the minister confirm if either the chair of ICBC, the CEO of ICBC or any member of the board of ICBC was included in any consultation on this part of the bill whatsoever?
Hon. D. Coulter: The consultations were at the staff level with ICBC, not directly with those positions you just listed, as well as with ICBC’s lawyers.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Can the minister detail what positions those staff members were and to what level they were in terms of ICBC? And I think he mentioned ICBC’s internal legal department. Is that correct in what I heard?
Hon. D. Coulter: Those consultations would have been at the manager-director level and, as well, with corporate counsel.
T. Halford: Later on there’s….
[The bells were rung.]
Did government hire any outside agencies to help give advice on anything to do with this piece of legislation and mainly, specifically, on the remuneration piece of it or when talking about the location of the head office?
Hon. D. Coulter: I mean, the simple answer is no. But the Ministry of Finance was consulted on remuneration.
T. Halford: Was that just specifically in terms of setting the CEOs’ remuneration, or did it have anything to do with the property value of the ICBC head office as well?
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. D. Coulter: Thank you, Chair. Lovely to see you again.
No, the consultation was specifically on changing the word “salary” to “remuneration.” This piece of legislation doesn’t put a valuation on ICBC’s head office or contemplate to do so.
The Chair: Member.
T. Halford: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.
So the minister is saying that there was no consultation done whatsoever by the Ministry of Finance when it came to changing the structure, which we’ll get to, I think, in clause 18, in terms of setting remuneration and who is ultimately responsible for that.
I want to clarify…. Sorry. I just want to clarify what the minister just read in — that there was absolutely no consultation or input from the Ministry of Finance on that.
Hon. D. Coulter: All this clause does is…. The clause essentially said the directors must determine the salary of the president and a general manager. All it does now is it changes that to the chief executive officer’s remuneration. The directors still have the same power, are still doing that. There’s really no change other than changes of “salary” to “remuneration.”
T. Halford: Okay. I think I’ll come back to the minister’s comments that he just made on that on clause 18.
Sticking on clause 16, if this is a routine practice, which it can look like in here, can the minister explain the length of time it has taken to repeal the definitions, specifically when it comes to “president and general manager” and replacing it with “chief executive officer”?
Hon. D. Coulter: There are many acts, in government, that have some outdated language, and when we can, we take the opportunity to update that language. We’re looking at simplifying processes, and that’s why we’re updating this language now.
The general manager position is a holdover from the 1970s, when the minister was appointed board chair and president of ICBC. ICBC does not have a general manager as an executive position. All functions that the general manager would carry out are carried out by the president and chief executive officer. Those are the terms that we’re using now, so we’re just updating the legislation to indicate that.
T. Halford: When was the general manager position eliminated at ICBC?
Hon. D. Coulter: We don’t have a specific time that I can give you right now, but we believe it was the 1980s.
T. Halford: Why would it have taken…? We’re going to talk about remuneration in clause 18.
Why the delay in terms of now, in terms of putting these changes in? I get that the minister said they’re routine, or they’re mechanical or whatever. I don’t want to put words into the minister’s mouth. But why today? Why not when they’ve had previous opportunities to make these changes?
Hon. D. Coulter: This act is amended very, very rarely. But we were looking to simplify processes, and we were like, “Oh hey, we should update this language,” so we did so.
T. Halford: We can probably go to clause 18, if that’s okay.
Clauses 16 and 17 approved.
On clause 18.
T. Halford: Can the minister explain the benefit of removing cabinet approval for the appointment of the CEO and setting the CEO’s remuneration?
Hon. D. Coulter: Cabinet endorsements are not required for other Crown corporations when they make board appointments of their chief executive officers. It’s an outdated process. It creates more work for the public service and more work for ICBC itself. This is just helping to bring it in alignment with all other processes that we use for other Crown corporations.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
We’ve seen changes at ICBC in terms of their CEO, and everything like that. Can the minister go back to that previous change and explain then, in his words, when that CEO was changed and replaced, who made that decision in terms of the remuneration that CEO then incoming had? Was that done in context of what’s before us, or was it done under previous, with what this legislation, out amended, would have allowed it to do?
Hon. D. Coulter: There’s kind of a bit of, I think, clouding of exactly what’s going on here. The board sets remuneration according to PSEC guidelines for all Crown corporations. This is just an outdated process. None of the other Crowns require endorsement from the cabinet. So we’re just bringing it in line with all the other processes that we’re using in government.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.
But the question I asked is…. When you’re looking at clause 18, section 4(a)(1): “The directors must appoint a chief executive officer of the corporation and determine the remuneration of the chief executive officer.”
The minister has stated this is outdated, and I understand that. These are changes to bring it up to speed with other Crown corporations. I understand that.
The question I asked, though, is that when we’ve seen the most recent change of CEO…. In terms of that CEO’s replacement and their remuneration, was that done following this current guideline that the minister has said is bringing this section up to date?
Hon. D. Coulter: Yeah, I think we’re getting a bit confused here. All this section does here is basically replace salary with remuneration. The remuneration guidelines are set through PSEC guidelines that all Crown corporations use.
T. Halford: I don’t really think I’m confused. I’m asking a fairly straightforward question.
When the most recent CEO was appointed…. There is a clause in here that we are talking about, 18 section 4(a)(1): “The directors must appoint a chief executive officer of the corporation….”
We’ll leave the salary part for the next few questions. But when I’m talking about the appointment of the current CEO, I’m asking the minister if that was done under what we’re talking about today or if it was done in terms of another — whether it was a cabinet decision made at the cabinet level or another level. Was that decision…?
The minister is saying it’s just to catch up with the other Crown corps. How was that decision made, and who had that decision-making authority?
Hon. D. Coulter: I mean, it’s similar to what’s going on here. The board puts forward an appointment of the chief executive officer. Cabinet gives it an endorsement, but that’s just for the appointment. The remuneration is still wholly decided by the board using PSEC guidelines that are used for all Crown corporations.
T. Halford: This doesn’t make any sense now. If we’re looking at a clause that says that the directors must appoint a chief executive officer….
We’ll park the salary stuff for later. But what the minister is saying…. Then that has to…. So the board can decide whatever it is they want, but what the minister is saying, then…. Cabinet, which is their prerogative, has the decision to either veto or appoint whoever they want as CEO. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Coulter: So the process that is used now, or the process that would have been used for the situation you’re talking about, is that the board would have chosen someone. Basically, cabinet would have ratified that or given their endorsement.
Part of the reason we think that cabinet endorsement was required in this piece of legislation is because in the 1970s, the minister responsible was appointed to the board of ICBC. So we think that’s where this is sort of hanging over from — that cabinet endorses the board’s pick.
All we’re doing is modernizing the way things are done and bringing it into alignment with every other Crown corporation.
T. Halford: I’m familiar with the case that the minister said about the…. I think it was the minister coming in and sitting on the board in terms of remuneration and things like that.
What we’re seeing here, and I’ll read it again, is: “The directors must appoint a chief executive officer of the corporation….”
Again to the minister, is the minister saying that with this language in here now, that will not endure cabinet approval or anything like that with this being put forward? Or is that…?
In the past, board makes a recommendation. Cabinet yeas or nays. In the language in here, is that saying that you’re eliminating cabinet’s decision in terms of a CEO recommended by the board?
Hon. D. Coulter: Exactly.
T. Halford: Okay. So going forward, then, what this clause here says and what the minister has just communicated is that cabinet will have…. The minister responsible, the Solicitor General, the Premier or anybody on executive council will have no say in terms of who the CEO of ICBC is and their salary. Salary I understand, but the minister is communicating today that cabinet will have no input whatsoever on who that CEO is.
Hon. D. Coulter: We’re eliminating an OIC process here. The legal decision–making here is with the board of directors. They could informally consult with government or people within the government if they so choose, but the legal decision–making is with the board of directors.
T. Halford: Again, what I’ve heard from the minister today, and I appreciate the transparency, is that the minister has communicated that — and I’m going to get to the reverse on this in a second — the CEO of ICBC is going to be completely…. I appreciate the independence, but there will be no cabinet unless it’s informal, which is actually a little bit concerning, to be honest with you. There’s going to be no role by cabinet in terms of determining when that individual is hired, right?
I guess my next question would be that cabinet would not have that role in determining if that individual at some time needed his employment or her employment to be terminated. I would imagine that would be the same context. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Coulter: That’s correct, but that’s exactly the same as for all our other major Crown corporations. Operate the same way. The board of directors chooses who the CEO is. We’re just bringing ICBC in alignment with that.
T. Halford: Okay. We’ve seen a change at B.C. Ferries. We’ve seen a change at ICBC. We’ve actually seen the former ICBC head now go to B.C. Ferries.
Is the minister communicating today…? Based on other Crown corps, government — the Minister of Transportation; Solicitor General; anybody at the executive level, including the Premier himself — would have had no idea that the CEO from ICBC was moving in to become the CEO of B.C. Ferries, and that was not at all a cabinet decision or directive whatsoever. That was completely following the guidelines that we are discussing here in Bill 45, this part, section 18.
Hon. D. Coulter: Cabinet appoints the board, and the board selects the CEO. This clause here is just setting up the path of the legal decision–making of the board to choose a chief executive officer just like other Crown corps.
T. Halford: Maybe I will ask the question in a different way. When it came to the changes that we’ve seen from ICBC, when that individual moved and then became CEO of B.C. Ferries, I understand the process that the minister has laid out, and that process at that time existed. What we’re talking about here existed for B.C. Ferries. I think that’s correct. What the minister is doing is trying to update and modernize, I guess, the process that we are seeing or talking about in this section with ICBC. I understand that.
The question I’ve been asking, though, is: is the minister communicating that? I understand cabinet appoints the board and how that operation happens and materializes. I get that part of it. What I’m asking, though, is: is there a determination set by the executive council when it comes to the appointment of a CEO for the Crown corporation?
Today we’re talking about ICBC, okay? But I’m talking about a CEO from ICBC moving directly to B.C. Ferries, which is their prerogative to do, the board’s prerogative to do, executive council’s prerogative to do.
The question I’m asking to the minister, and I think we’re going around here…. The minister has communicated sometimes that cabinet is taken out of that process, and in another answer, he’s saying, “No, they’re informally consulted,” and they kind of understand a little bit of what it is.
The minister has said two different things here. One is, he said in an answer very definitively, that cabinet is not included in the decision-making of an appointment of a CEO of a Crown corp. The minister said that. Okay.
Now the minister is saying informally they may be consulted. I don’t know what the minister’s definition of informally is, so I don’t know if informally was…. If they’re moving from the CEO to ICBC over to Ferries I imagine cabinet would have been consulted….
[The bells were rung.]
I imagine cabinet would have been consulted at some level on that, but I’m kind of getting two very inconsistent answers from the minister here. In one answer, the minister said no, cabinet is not included in terms of the appointment of a CEO. Very direct on that.
The second question was okay, well, maybe they’re informally included in that selection process. I don’t know what that definition of informal is, so can the minister please outline cabinet’s role in terms of the appointment of a CEO in this case?
We’re dealing with Crown corps with multi-billion-dollar budgets here, and the minister has explained in some cases, they’re not included. In some cases, they are. Can the minister please determine how that is done in this process if cabinet is now eliminated from that decision-making authority?
Hon. D. Coulter: We’re specifically talking about ICBC in this piece of legislation, so I’d like to just bring it back to ICBC. With this clause setting up the legal decision–making, basically cabinet will appoint a board, and the board will select the CEO.
T. Halford: I have been talking about ICBC the entire time. Never once…. I included B.C. Ferries, because we saw a CEO go from ICBC to B.C. Ferries. But the minister is saying ….
Okay, so you appoint the board. I get that part of it. I understand how that part of it happens. You appoint the board, but then the minister is saying that once you do that — once you have your board appointed, whether it’s B.C. Ferries…. I’ll stick to ICBC specifically here. You have that board appointed, and cabinet is done at that point in terms of any sign-off on…. Like I said, we’ll park remuneration, but in terms of their appointment of that CEO, cabinet’s done at that point.
The minister’s answered that, I think. I want to kind of make sure that I’m totally in line with what the minister is saying.
Hon. D. Coulter: You are correct.
T. Halford: Well, that is good. So when we see future changes at any Crown corp — specifically ICBC, B.C. Ferries or anything like that — the minister is communicating that cabinet has no authority in terms of their hiring or their getting let go. That’s a pretty big…. That’s good. That’s transparent, but I’m expecting that that’s….
I would assume that if we see changes at the CEO level going forward of any Crown corps that…. So, there’s no cabinet decision-making whatsoever. That is all done independently by the board without any cabinet influence or direction whatsoever.
With that, I can move on to, well, just one other question. We talked about the appointments, and I appreciate the minister’s patience on that, and I think we’ve got clarity on that going forward, but on the remuneration part of it, what is the recourse if the directors set the remuneration too high or too low?
Hon. D. Coulter: We are specifically talking about this legislation, ICBC. This removes any OIC or cabinet approval process for the board of directors’ choice of CEO. That’s what this piece of legislation does. It gives the decision solely to the board of directors to choose a CEO. Remuneration, which this act doesn’t actually deal with, is set according to PSEC guidelines, just like at any other Crown corporation.
T. Halford: It does deal with remuneration. It’s right there in the clause. That’s in there. That’s why I asked the question. I appreciate the answer. I think I can piece together the answer — that the directors will set the remuneration for the CEO. That will be done independently of government, whether that is, by public interest, set to be too high or too low. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Coulter: I’ll start: (1) the actual piece of legislation doesn’t really have anything to do with remuneration or how that is set; (2) all it does is change the word “salary” to “remuneration,” as far as cleaning up language that fits across other legislation; and (3) the board has already been setting remuneration for the CEOs at ICBC under PSEC guidelines, like at other Crown corporations.
T. Halford: The heading for the section — why has it not been amended from “President, general manager and staff” to “Chief executive officer and staff”?
Hon. D. Coulter: In terms of timing of why we are amending this piece of legislation now, I have already answered that question.
T. Halford: No, sorry. Maybe I’m asking it wrong, but the question is: why is the heading for this section not being amended from “president, general manager and staff” to “chief executive officer and staff”?
Hon. D. Coulter: That language will get updated editorially. That’s just a marginal note, and it doesn’t require a formal amendment to be changed.
T. Halford: If we’re doing all this work right now, why wouldn’t we have done that? If the minister is talking about updating the language in terms of that position being eliminated, why would we not have done that basic work in this piece of legislation?
Hon. D. Coulter: This is common. It’s kind of the way legislation works, in many ways. It doesn’t need to be in the bill. It’ll be done after the bill is passed, because it is a marginal note.
T. Halford: I don’t really…. I guess I’m a little bit daft on that. I don’t understand that, but I’ll take the minister for that.
Clause 18 approved.
On clause 19.
T. Halford: What is the significance for removing the requirement for designating, by regulation, where the head office would be?
Hon. D. Coulter: No other Crown corporation has the location of its head office set in regulation. This is, like the other piece of the legislation that we’ve talked about, just bringing ICBC in line with that.
T. Halford: Through the government’s internal consultation on this part of the bill, have any other locations been determined when we’re talking that it “authorizes the corporation to establish branch offices”? That’s why I asked about external consultation done with this — where those branch offices would be, which locations and when they may be opening up.
Hon. D. Coulter: In this piece of legislation, the powers for ICBC to choose locations of branch offices are already contained elsewhere. So we don’t need that provision here. That’s why we’re striking it.
T. Halford: Through this consultation, was anything done in terms of the government’s plans for the location of the current head office, 151 West Esplanade in North Vancouver?
Hon. D. Coulter: I’m completely, you know…. I’m right now talking about this legislation, specifically this legislation and what this legislation does, what these amendments do to the existing legislation. As far as the head office is concerned, I don’t believe any decisions have been made, but it’s not contained within this bill. It won’t be contained within regulation for this bill. Really, it’s not something that we should be talking about in committee.
T. Halford: I appreciate the minister’s recommendation on that.
We’ve heard the Premier talk about ICBC’s headquarters in the past. We’ve talked and just canvassed on the branch offices in different locations. I think right now, when you look at the staffing levels at ICBC’s headquarters from COVID, internal, external documents have said there are a number of people that still aren’t working in that head office.
When we’re talking about the locations and the branch offices, will the directors have the authority, in terms of planning for the future, where these branch offices could be done from home, over the phone, like other agencies we’re seeing?
Hon. D. Coulter: This piece of legislation just amends this one piece here, because the power of the board to establish branch offices is contained elsewhere in the legislation.
That said, we wouldn’t want to presume, or I wouldn’t want to speculate on, the decisions that the CEO, the board and branch managers would make, the processes they’d make — where these offices would be or anything like that. That isn’t within the legislation or even contemplated within the legislation or regulation. But the authority rests with the board and the CEO.
Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive approved.
The Chair: We’re going to take a recess to change ministers.
The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee back to order.
On clause 22.
L. Doerkson: Thanks for the opportunity to ask a few questions on a number of clauses.
I do want to start, if it pleases the minister, with some general questions. Frankly, there won’t be a whole bunch, but I do have a few questions. I want to start with just saying that I definitely understand the good and the bad of these types of meetings — because of where I live, frankly, in rural B.C. I’m sure the minister would share that same sort of sentiment.
What I want to understand a little bit better is what sort of conversations have been had leading up to this. I can appreciate that we see the same language in other parts of legislation here in British Columbia. What I want to understand is who might have been consulted with respect to First Nations.
Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin for the question. Yes, these are important bodies that we’re talking about here, in what I’d classify as housekeeping amendments that we’re doing today, with respect to the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and the Water Users’ Communities Act, for those following along at home.
As we saw throughout the pandemic, many groups that historically would have met face to face needed to meet virtually. If they were governed by certain acts, we had to change those acts to allow those meetings to still have the same legitimacy as they would normally. These two groups were simply left out of that change. They have been, in fact, meeting that way.
To my friend’s specific question, there was not a consultation done with First Nations rights and title holders, simply because this was allowing these two groups — the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act groups that met that way and the Water Users’ group — to continue to meet online, to be able to make their decisions on behalf of those particular entities and the decisions that they had in front of them.
L. Doerkson: Thanks for that. Often we see that legislation may have certain flaws that are repaired at a later date and those types of things.
Obviously, because we’ve seen some of this language, I guess my question is: have there been any learnings from the other legislation that has been put in place? Was there anything that was contemplated that could have perhaps been better or improved upon? I would just like to understand if there was anything there with respect to this legislation.
Hon. N. Cullen: This is what I’d deem a pretty surgical amendment to the act.
My friend is right that, time to time, changes are made. To the larger groups, this was done in the spring. It has been working, again, to allow groups to meet and vote electronically, make decisions.
So no significant learnings other than, I guess, the learnings that we’ve all had, and some of our colleagues are on the screen today, that we’re able to meet and conduct our business, all sorts of different groups across the province and across the world, electronically.
The learnings have been that it works. The other learning was to make sure that these groups are also included. We’re feeling quite confident that they’ll be able to continue and conduct their business on behalf of British Columbians in a good way.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I guess one of the concerns that I have…. Surely the minister would appreciate the challenges some people face in rural B.C. I wonder if that has been contemplated.
I just suggest that…. This is what I meant by good and bad. It’s great that we can meet. Certainly, that’s a benefit. We’ve seen that, and obviously, we reacted during COVID and other times. We saw all this technology that we could have been potentially making use of.
What I’m a little bit concerned about is the connectivity in different parts of British Columbia and what that might impose on members that are trying to meet. I can appreciate that it might make a minister or a government official more accessible, but I’m worried about their access on the other end. Might we see that people are having to travel long distances to get into a place where they can actually join these meetings?
Now, it could be argued, I suppose, that if you were in the south part of the Chilcotin, you have to drive a long ways to go to Tatla anyhow. But I am concerned because there are many First Nations, certainly throughout the province and definitely in Cariboo-Chilcotin, that do have access issues.
I wonder if the minister could speak to that.
Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a good question. Coming from…. I represent the largest riding in British Columbia. There are enormous distances that people sometimes have to travel to participate.
A couple of things, and we might get into this in later clauses.
This enables, first of all…. If a group or an authority chooses to take meetings electronically, virtually, they are able to do so. It doesn’t insist that they do.
The second point is that I’ve noticed some of our groups have greater participation because people are able to remotely engage — don’t have to make the 200-, 300-, 400-kilometre drive to sit on that board or that committee.
Lastly, and we can get into this in future clauses, it’s not all video. This enables telephone participation and voting and all the rest.
Connectivity is something, of course, our government has worked on a lot, connecting all British Columbians by a certain time, and there’s been progress in that in many parts of our world.
For those that still have connectivity issues, telephone is also imagined and prescribed in this legislation, which we can get into in future clauses.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I totally agree. Cariboo-Chilcotin is huge, and there are areas just simply not served. I guess that’s exactly what I mean. This is the good of what this does create.
Now, maybe to…. I don’t know if “bad” is the right word, but I also worry that with access through these types of meetings, perhaps it gives an opportunity to not meet in person. What I mean by that is that it makes it pretty simple just to simply turn on your computer from Victoria. I think that there’s good reason for us to continue meeting in community.
I wondered if the minister could tell me if there’s been anything contemplated around, potentially, this sort of being…. I don’t know if “backup” is the right word, but I think the preference is for us to meet together. Has there been anything contemplated with respect to those meetings happening first together and then, secondly, this way?
Hon. N. Cullen: First, as a general commentary, I absolutely agree. Virtual and through telephone is a very convenient thing. But oftentimes, especially if you think of these groups that are dealing with dikes and drainages and water use, it can be important and sometimes challenging conversations. Face to face is always ideal.
Again, these amendments are only enabling. For the base requirements of these groups meeting once a year, them coming together in person is, I think, ideal. But also, we want to pay attention to the distance, remoteness and cost that may be incurred by people who want to be involved but live far away — that they are able to come online or join through telephone. This is something that groups have also done and done effectively, I think.
I personally do agree. I think being in person is quite important, particularly just informing those relationships and making decisions. But we don’t dictate that. We allow the groups to meet in the way that they wish. That enables people to avoid particularly costs and hardships and allows more people to participate, which we think is good.
L. Doerkson: I totally agree. It’s better in person. I also understand the flexibility that this provides. We talked a little bit about consultation, and frankly, I forgot to ask one question there. I’d like to go back there just for a moment.
With respect to consultation with First Nations, if I understood correctly from the minister, there really was no consultation, because this work has been done prior. I wondered if any other groups have been consulted directly with.
Hon. N. Cullen: The review was done internally because, again, during COVID, particularly these groups were meeting this way. It was functioning well. Other emergency provisions…. This was done for other groups that the government has some implication for.
These two were simply missed in the last but had shown effectiveness in doing this. There was no desire to go out and do further consultation. We’re not changing what they do. We’re just making sure of that in the statute. We’re indicating that they can vote and meet this way.
There was never any concern brought forward by someone saying: “Well, technically, our votes have to be conducted in person because we’re relying on statutes that existed before we made all of these different changes through all of the groups that meet under the authority of the provincial government.”
We didn’t foresee and didn’t contemplate doing a broader consultation for that reason.
L. Doerkson: I guess, also, I’m curious what the minister referred to…. Perhaps he didn’t say “housekeeping,” but generally speaking, it’s housekeeping and just a cleanup of some legislation. My question is: was there anything that prompted these changes to this legislation?
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Hon. N. Cullen: Because these groups are required to meet — it’s under statute — we wanted to make sure that we moved quickly to give them the flexibility. Again, they can meet in person. They can meet virtually.
There weren’t contemplations beyond that in terms of other amendments. This was just something that, again, was brought into a number of groups in the spring. These groups were not included. We wanted to include them, and this is what the statute, if it passes, will allow them to do.
Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive approved.
On clause 26.
The Chair: We’re now on to clause 26.
Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Chair. You’ve come at an exciting time, Mr. Chair.
On clause 26, the question I have is…. The general reference to notice of delivery comes up several times throughout the bill. In section 76.1(2), it states: “The notice must be given not less than 10 days before the date of the meeting (a) by delivering it to each owner….” How does the notice have to be delivered to the owner?
Hon. N. Cullen: I think it might be in the next section where we describe how we have to let people know about these meetings, because we are quite descriptive on that. I might be wrong, but my friend will correct me, I’m sure, right away.
In section 27(a), in subsection (2), there is a description of “a written notice mailed or delivered to each owner and posted in at least 3 conspicuous places in the district.” We can get into the notification requirements of this.
The allowance for electronic or virtual meetings is also an effort to increase transparency for those people that may be affected by those decisions and to notify them when those meetings will be happening. Oftentimes people are able to participate themselves, even if they don’t sit on the commission.
We’ve seen an improvement on that from town councils and other groups that have hybrid — meeting in person, meeting electronically. Citizens who would normally not be able to attend — cost, mobility — are able to show up virtually and find out what’s going on in the community.
Clause 26 approved.
On clause 27.
L. Doerkson: I guess we’ll go right there, then, Chair. We’ll go to that exact point.
The word “conspicuous” and those notices about meetings that could be held, frankly, only once a year…. That’s really what I’m worried about. The minister touched on it by saying the word “conspicuous.”
I wondered if the minister could, perhaps, just explain what that might mean. My fear is…. I’ve heard, certainly in my riding, about notices for meetings. People simply didn’t see them or weren’t aware, even though the MLA has gone to great efforts to try to make sure that they are aware.
Certainly, advertisements have been placed in the local media and, potentially, on radio. The fact is that rural B.C. can be very rural, and there are challenges getting those notices to individuals.
I’d be curious to know a little bit more about what the meaning of “conspicuous” may indicate.
Hon. N. Cullen: I may have misspoken. I want to make sure I’m clear on the record. I think what I was reading out before, in subsection 27(a), was the striking out piece. I think the new notice comes in on 77.1. It’s a lot more clear.
Again, we’re getting to the principles of…. How do people find out that the meeting is going on? My friend raises a good point. I’ve had more than a few community consultations that are in the newspaper, on every social media platform, painted in the sky. People then argue that we’re not giving them enough notice of meetings.
The way that the act describes that, and we’ll see that in 77.1 — it’s very specific. Anyone sitting on these districts has to give the time, date and place of the meeting, a description and, if the meeting is electronic — I think this is important — really clear advice for people on how to log on to make sure that those maybe a little less familiar with how to get into a virtual meeting or phone-in have instructions for voting, for those that are able to vote.
Notice must also be given not less than 15 days before the date of the meeting by delivering it to each owner. At some point, as my friend articulated, you give people lots of notice. You deliver it to their homes, their residences. You make a public notice.
The three conspicuous public spaces are not defined in the act. The intent is what it is — to post it around the community. Every community is different, and that might be one of the reasons it’s not laid out that it must be in the town square. Maybe you don’t have a town square. It must be in the local newspaper. Unfortunately, a lot of places no longer have a town newspaper.
The conspicuous places are to the best of the district’s ability. When giving the notice 15 days prior to the meeting, make sure you’re putting it in a place where people frequent. If that’s on the poster board at your local supermarket, perfect.
It’s in addition to the other ways that people are being let know that the meeting is happening, and I think it’s offering a lot more clarity than what existed before.
L. Doerkson: Under 77.1, I appreciate what will be in the notice. Frankly, it’s really the…. I suppose, if there was one thing that I wanted to convey today, it is exactly the way that we deliver those messages. I just think it really is a challenge. It’s not a rabbit hole that I want to get into or anything like that, but I think that there are challenges that need to be acknowledged with respect to people getting these notices, not what’s in the notice. That’s not my fear.
When the minister refers to three conspicuous places and then refers to where they might frequent, that’s exactly my concern if you’re going to have a meeting about dikes, ditches, etc., and we’re trying to get ranchers to those meetings that do not have access, potentially, to the Internet. We had conversation with ranchers together, actually, just the other night. We know that the challenges are massive.
I guess, potentially, just one more question. Has there been anything contemplated with respect to direct mail or things like that? We know that people are picking up their mail. I know that if you want to get a message out in Tatla, you go and see Uncle Dave, and he will look after it.
It’s so important that people are aware of these meetings. Again, I can’t stress it enough. I know that we’ve had very serious conversations with respect to, certainly, water, wildlife, other things that people really wish that they had an opportunity to comment on.
Again, I don’t want to belabour the point, and I don’t want to get into a rabbit hole, but I really want to know if the ministry has contemplated other forms of accessing these folks.
Hon. N. Cullen: Understandably, because I have been doing it as well, we’ve been switching between the two different groups that are affected by this: the drainage, ditches and dikes component, as well as the water users component. They’re slightly different, but the contemplation is the same.
To the owners of the dike, the commissioners that we refer to in the act, those are the folks that get the notice. This wouldn’t be a general public meeting about diking in the valley. This is very specific to the ownership.
On the water users side of things, this would be people who have water licences, and they would also be notified. I may have incorrectly left the impression that this is a general public meeting about water in a community and how do we notify everybody and get them on. This is much more specific than I think I may have indicated. So apologies for that.
We are affecting two different groups here, two totally different structures. They look a little different, but the notification, to my friend’s point, is the same. These are very important. We wouldn’t want somebody who is an owner in a dike system to not be notified and not be implicated in the decisions that get made.
Similarly, on the water user side, somebody who has a water drawing license. We would very much want to make sure that the notices are given in a timely way, which I think everything that I’ve seen in the legislation would indicate that.
So apologies for any confusion I may have let on. I’m still catching up three weeks in on some of the authorities that we have within the ministry.
L. Doerkson: I guess I am going to ask one more question.
No, I’m completely aware that this will affect and I think the minister just touched on it. I was giving examples of other public meetings that people have missed. But certainly, with reference to the ranchers that I was referring to and other people that may own water licenses, they will obviously have an opportunity to meet with regard to this.
I’m guessing that, potentially, ratepayer groups and those types of groups are also parts of this. I suppose it’s easy if you’re referring to potentially one stream or one dike or one whatever that you might be able to get to those six or seven people.
I’m just wondering, I guess, and I’ll ask it one last time: how has the minister or the ministry contemplated those rural folks? Is the minister confident that the individuals that should participate in these meetings are getting their notice? I’m very concerned about that, and frankly, it’s the biggest concern I have with respect to just about anything that we do. Is the minister confident that those notices are getting where they need to go?
Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah. The responsibility is to both know who’s within that water user group authority and to notify them, as it is spelled out in 77.1(2), by delivering it to each owner and then the posting in three conspicuous places.
I very much agree with my friend just with respect to making sure that people are notified, that they’re able to participate in the decisions given their implication as being licensees, and that the statutes make crystal clear the responsibilities of those authorities to make sure everybody on that list, which they hold, is notified in a timely manner as is described in the sections that we read out earlier.
Yes, the imperative is high enough that we are changing some of the statutes to make sure nobody is under any illusions as to what the requirements are so that people can participate and have their voices heard, particularly given the sensitivity of water these days in our province.
I thank my friend for his concern. It’s one that’s shared, and I think it’s well addressed in the bill.
L. Doerkson: I have no further questions on part 4, of course, but earlier, there were a couple of clauses that were stood down, so we wouldn’t complete today.
I just wanted to inform the Chair, of course, that I have no further questions.
The Chair: Much appreciated, Member.
Clauses 27 to 41 inclusive approved.
The Chair: I will seek the Speaker to report progress, as the other sections have been stood down.
Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:21 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. M. Dean: I call the Committee of the Whole, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 48; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 3:25 p.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’re here with Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, committee stage.
Would the minister like to introduce his folks or shall we dive right in?
Hon. H. Bains: I just move that we move ahead and have my critic ask any questions that they may have.
G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise and to go through a series of questions with the minister with respect to Bill 48.
First question would be: can the minister lay out before this House what consultation was undertaken with respect to the legislation that is before us today? I do know that there was a committee that was struck and had done some initial work, and the conclusion of which it didn’t seem like there was any real direction, and then further consultation. I heard also from my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky that there’s some ongoing work that’s even being undertaken now with respect to ride services in B.C.
I just wanted to get a better sense of what is it that the minister undertook with respect to consultation that has led us to this piece of legislation before us today.
Hon. H. Bains: I want to clarify for the member. I think, if I heard him correctly, that he’s referring to the all-party committee to deal with the ride-hail company in that sector. What we are trying to do through here is separate and different than what that committee is doing. Their mandate is different.
On my mandate letter is, through the parliamentary secretaries as well, continue to develop a precarious work strategy that reflects modern workplaces, diverse needs and unique situations, propose employment standards and other protections relevant to app-based, ride-hail and food delivery drivers.
Maybe the member has mixed up the mandate of the all-party committee to deal with the ride-hail companies, PTB role and all that. We are not linked with that committee or their work.
What we are trying to do here is the workers who are employed in that industry, the workers who are employed with the ride-hail companies and with the food delivery companies…. How do we provide them the protection to employment standards and through the workers compensation? I think those are the two different things. That committee’s role, in my understanding, is totally different than ours.
G. Kyllo: Although I appreciate the response from the minister, the question was specifically about what consultative work was undertaken.
I do know that the previous parliamentary secretary had undertaken some work and some engagement with the different service providers. The results of that report, from what I recall, didn’t necessarily land on the legislation that is before us today. I appreciate that there’s been some further consultative work. I’m just trying to get a bit of a better understanding of the breadth of the consultation that was undertaken across the different sectors.
Just for clarity, I did give reference to the work of the standing committee that’s undertaking work with ride-hailing services. Certainly, this legislation will have a significant impact on some of that work of the other committee.
I was just raising that for the minister, for his recollection. Hopefully he might be able to weave in his consultative efforts undertaken by his minister and include some reference on how he believes the work that he has undertaken on this consultation, which has led to this particular legislation, is totally disconnected and will not have any impact on the work of the other committee.
Hon. H. Bains: This work started in fall of 2022. The ministry engaged with app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers, platform companies, academics, worker advocates, community organizations, businesses and labour organizations. So there was a variety of consultation. I will perhaps help the member in breaking that down.
There were in-person, round-table discussions. In 2022, the parliamentary secretary held both virtual and in-person round-table discussions in Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Victoria, Nanaimo, Parksville, Abbotsford, Richmond, Vancouver and Surrey. In September, we held three additional in-person sessions with workers in the Lower Mainland and two virtual sessions for workers in other parts of the province.
Overall, direct discussions have occurred with over 200 workers to hear their perspectives and ideas from across the province. That’s in person.
Then online, a public survey was conducted, and a survey which was posted from November 23, 2022, to January 6, 2023. It was available in multiple languages, focused on the benefits and challenges of app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers. A total of 1,470 survey responses were received, including 1,106 from current or former workers in the sector.
Then we had meetings with the stakeholders. Over the past year, ministry staff, my parliamentary secretary…. We have had meetings with union representatives, platform company representatives, academic experts and advocates, then a representative from business associations and Indigenous organizations.
The first engagements include 22 virtual meetings and additional written submissions. Those are the kinds of consultations we held. The idea behind this was to understand from the workers who actually are working in the industry, hear them directly.
I attended at least, I know, one such session in Guildford. To my estimation, there were about at least 50 people in there, and they all had their own stories, their experiences. The result of all of that is what’s before us.
We tried to take what they told us, hear from the stakeholders, listen to the companies and listen to the workers. As a result, we tried to deal with the concerns that were raised during those consultation sessions. We tried to deal with them through this bill.
G. Kyllo: The minister, in his comments, referenced a number of in-person meetings. Of those different municipalities or communities in which the minister or his staff undertook to have these consultation meetings…. Is ride-hail service available in each of those communities where those consultations were undertaken?
Hon. H. Bains: Some of the cities we mentioned had ride-hail service, and others had food delivery. Some had both.
G. Kyllo: Can the minister share with us, of the number of communities where they did undertake the direct consultation, specifically which communities…? There about nine communities in total, I believe, that the minister referenced. What was the total number of communities, and which ones actually have ride-hailing?
Hon. H. Bains: At that time, if the member is asking me about that particular time, in Richmond, Vancouver, Surrey, the Lower Mainland, the ride-hail was operative there. There were also announcements or anticipation that they would be expanding to Victoria and Kelowna, which, since that time, they have announced,
But it wasn’t just about the ride-hail drivers. It was ride-hail and food delivery workers, and food delivery workers were employed in different parts of the province. Ride-hail is expanding. They started in the Lower Mainland, and now they’re expanding to Victoria, Kelowna. Who is next? We don’t know, but we want to hear from both ride-hail and food delivery workers.
G. Kyllo: Look, it’s not a difficult question. I’m just trying to better understand. Ride-hail is a big portion of the drivers that are going to be affected by this particular legislation. Consultation was undertaken in a number of communities where I know, and British Columbians know, that ride-hail services do not exist. I’m just trying to get a bit better understanding with the number of in-person consultation meetings that were held around the province.
I don’t have the exact list in front of me, but hopefully, the minister might be able to share if it was seven communities, nine communities, whatever that number is. Then of that total number, how many communities actually had ride-hail services in effect at the time that the consultations were undertaken?
Hon. H. Bains: Chair, I answered the question.
G. Kyllo: With all due respect, the minister has not answered the question. The minister has not shared with us, specifically, the number of communities where the consultations were undertaken.
I know the minister referenced a number of communities, but I didn’t hear a number as far as the quantity. Was it seven communities, ten communities, 12 communities? Of those 12 communities, how many of those communities had ride-hailing services in effect at the time the consultations were undertaken?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I mentioned every community we went in, and he could just read the Blues.
G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult. This is not complex stuff. Can the minister share, specifically, at the time that the consultations were undertaken, which communities had ride-hail service in effect?
Hon. H. Bains: It’s the second time I’ve answered the question, Mr. Chair.
At that time, Richmond, Vancouver and Surrey.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the clarity. I’ll go back through the Blues. Maybe I wasn’t quick enough to write down all the communities that the minister rattled off.
This consultation piece is incredibly important, especially when we see this legislation being tabled very late in the legislative calendar. It’s certainly my understanding that the House Leader had made a commitment to table all legislation by midpoint of the legislative calendar but certainly no later than November 7. Yet we see a new piece of legislation, this particular piece of legislation, being tabled on Monday of this week, largely just in the dying days of the legislative calendar.
So the consultation that was undertaken by the minister is very important, which has obviously led them to the piece of work that we see in front of us. But in addition, it does put the opposition in an awkward position to try and actually also go out and undertake to contact the different affected user groups to better understand what the implications are of the legislation that’s before us.
Again, I think, with this legislation only being tabled on Monday of this week, it’s important to let folks know, on the record, that we certainly weren’t apprised that this legislation was forthcoming and only found out about it on Monday of this week when the actual legislation was tabled.
Further to the consultation that was undertaken, was there any differentiation with the questions that were asked of the different user groups impacted? The minister has referenced both ride-hailing and then restaurant or delivery services. Those are two separate subsets of the app-based legislation that’s before us.
Was there a focused effort of carving out and accurately recording the information, the lived experience, from those two separate groups? Was that differentiated? Or were their concerns bundled together and formulated into the legislation that’s before us today?
Maybe I’ll just add some context. I think it’s important, because the requirements that would be placed upon somebody driving passengers for ride-hailing services are very, very different and distinct from the equipment and the vehicles that may be employed for those that are delivering restaurant goods across the province. I just want to have a better understanding of the consultation that was undertaken.
Was there work and an effort undertaken to clearly identify the two different groups that have a very different lived experience? Was that information compiled separately, or was it all collated together to inform this piece of legislation that’s before us?
Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s important to understand, for the member and everyone who’s listening, that the workers that we heard from — many of them do both. They provide ride-hail service, and many of them also do the food delivery service. That’s an important part.
When they forwarded their concerns to us, there were certain areas they were the same, like fair compensation, such as pay transparency, such as knowing and understanding the destination and the pay thereof, WCB coverage.
Both workers advised us that those are the concerns that they have. Where there may be some differences that we heard from food delivery versus ride-hail is that ride-hail is all cars or vehicles, and for food delivery, they use both. They have e-bikes, they have regular bikes, or some of them use cars. When it comes to determining how to pay for the work-related expenses, that’s where the difference may come from, but that’s where the consultation will take place.
We will work with the food delivery app-based companies and listen to their side of it, how their workers are doing most of the deliveries or some of the deliveries or different modes of deliveries and what kind of compensation could be worked out. On the other side, ride-hailing, it would be the vehicle cost. Is there a requirement by the company to have a certain type of car? We will understand that part from the ride-hail companies. If none, then we will see what different model of compensation there should be.
Also, pay transparency. Workers told us that they don’t know how much they will be paid for that particular assignment before they accept it. Workers told us they don’t know, in many cases, how much the customer paid and what their portion will be.
I think there are different types of concerns that they raised. In ride-hail, largely, we heard that app deactivation takes place. It’s quite common, but many of them told us that no reason was given, and when they asked, it took a long period of time for them. They didn’t even know what the process was to have that thing addressed. When they did, it took days or weeks sometimes, and the company would realize that actually, it wasn’t the driver’s fault, but they have lost a number of days as a result of that.
I think those are the concerns that were raised by different drivers, and we collected all of those, but again, my mandate letter requires me to look at both food delivery and ride-hail and come up with the employment standards and WCB protections for them.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister, and I do appreciate that there may very well be some that undertake, with the use of their cars or automobiles, to provide a service both to ride-hailing and delivery services, but the minister also indicated that some on the delivery service side might use an e-bike or even a pedal bike. Certainly, they aren’t participating on the ride-share application.
It’s important, I think, to differentiate the distinct concerns and the different lived experience from workers that work in those two different sectors. The minister, to this point anyhow, certainly hasn’t provided any confidence or comfort that the information was kept separate. I do appreciate that there may be some that do both ride-hailing as well as a delivery service.
Did the minister track or tabulate what percentage of those comments that came in were from individuals that worked specifically for one app or the other and then, in addition to that, which individuals actually worked under both scenarios?
I appreciate that some of the concerns with respect to WorkSafeBC and those…. There are some common issues. I think everybody would appreciate that. But what I’m trying to get a bit of an understanding on is: was there a conscious effort…? Did the ministry undertake to specifically identify that there are two distinct user groups that they’re looking to try and provide some protections for? Were those comments captured separately?
I appreciate that as the minister undertakes the work to go to regulation, there may be differences respecting the different lived experience of those two different user groups, but I’m just trying to get a bit of a sense on if that was on the minister’s mind and on staff’s mind when they went to undertake that consultative work. Are there clear lines of data that specifically differentiate between those two groups?
Hon. H. Bains: Yes. The answer to the member’s question would be yes.
In many of the areas that we mentioned, there were food delivery workers. They have their concerns. In other areas, we listened to both. One thing is sure here, what we are trying to deal with is concerns that were raised by both sides. The common concerns, as I mentioned, that are being addressed here came from both sides. That’s the answer I think the member is looking for.
Did we keep them separate? Did we count them separately? Each one of them separate? No, but we listened to the food delivery workers, and we collected the information that was provided. Same thing from ride-hail. Some of them said they were working on both, and some of them told us they were on more than one app.
That’s the information we collected as a first step. This is a new economy. This is a different type of work. It’s unique. It’s not a traditional seven to 3:30, same employer, and you go to work every day, the rest of your life sometimes.
These workers could be employed by three different employers on the same day. We just wanted to hear what their concerns were as employees. They told us. They listed those concerns, and those are the concerns that we are trying to address. One thing was clear. Food delivery, for example. One claim was accepted; another claim wasn’t accepted by WCB. Then we want to make sure that all of those workers are covered by WCB in case they get injured or become ill due to their work-related injury or illness.
They all had concern about pay transparency or lack thereof. Some of them had issues with the act deactivation and not knowing what the process is and not knowing who to talk to even, sometimes. So that’s what we are trying to do and achieve through this bill — what the common concerns were from food delivery workers and from ride-hail companies, ride-hail workers and address them as a first step.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Then we’ll monitor going forward — I’ve said that in public — and see how and whether these changes are making a difference or hitting the target that we are trying to and addressing the concerns of these drivers. At the same time, making sure that the app-based companies also have a comfort level that they want to continue to provide the service that we have and grow these jobs. I think we’re trying to keep that balance: provide protection to the workers; at the same time, preserve the jobs that come with this in this sector.
G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share what percentage of input was provided by those that actually work specifically with ride-hailing or ride-hailing services and what the percentage of respondents were that work with only the delivery services? Then, what’s the combined number that actually work in both ride-hail and delivery services? I’m just trying to get a bit of sense of all of the respondents that participated, what the ratio was.
The minister has referenced that there were only three of the communities that they undertook the direct consultation with that actually even had ride-hailing services. I’m just trying to get a bit of a sense of all of the information that flowed to the minister. The minister indicated he didn’t necessarily track it all, but I’m hoping that at the very least they were able to track those that only work specifically for ride-hailing, those that specifically just work for delivery service apps and then those that might work for both sectors.
I think that’s incredibly important as we look to the contents of this bill and what consultation — not just the consultation that was undertaken. What was the work of the ministry and the minister to really understand the varying issues of those different classifications of workers?
Hon. H. Bains: I tried to explain it to the member before.
What we were interested in was: what were the concerns? The member, if he had read the what-we-heard report that was made public…. All that information is there. Hopefully, the member…. If he hasn’t read it, maybe he could read it. That information is in there.
What we were interested in was: what was the common theme coming from both sides of these two particular services, food delivery and ride-hail?
The member will know, if you have read the what-we-heard report, that there are a lot more food delivery workers than there are ride-hail. Obviously, you will have more of them participating than the ride-hail.
The common theme was these four or five areas that I talked about. That’s what we were interested in. How do we provide them protection under the Employment Standards Act? How do we provide protection under WCB? That’s what the interest was, and that’s the information we collected. We collected those concerns that were common to both.
Regardless of how many came to participate from the food delivery or from the ride-hail, if they all said…. They all fit the common theme: lack of pay transparency, a lack of WCB coverage and also the destination — lack of understanding of the destination and pay thereof. Those are the areas that came from both sides, and those are the areas we are trying to address here.
G. Kyllo: Look, I think it’s incredibly important when government goes out to undertake this consultation that there’s a measure of, I would say, professionalism, and I mean no disrespect to the minister.
When you’re capturing data…. Data drives decisions. We know that if we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it.
I do appreciate, and I think everybody can appreciate, that the cost structure of an individual that has a nice-quality automobile and is participating in the ride-hail service delivery system — their cost construct is going to be much different than somebody that’s running a pedal bike. Also, the concern about impacts of WorkSafeBC coverage is probably very different for somebody driving in an automobile with air bags versus somebody that’s on a bicycle in traffic.
There are definitely very, very different lived experiences by the two different classification workers. I’m really surprised that the minister seems to — at this point, anyhow — have indicated that there was no effort undertaken to differentiate between the two in any way, shape or form. That is incredibly concerning. It should be very concerning, I think, to British Columbians that might be listening at home, although there are probably very few of them. But it is important.
If we’re going to consult with two very different, distinct groups of workers that have very different cost constructs, very different lived experiences, how can we possibly come up with a one-size-fits-all program and then just trust the minister, as he starts to develop the regulation, that it’s all going to be right and it’s going to be just?
This piece of legislation is enabling legislation that really puts the opportunity for the minister, with government cabinet, to make all the rules without the scrutiny of this House. The work that was undertaken to really clearly understand the issues, from what we’re hearing to date, that the minister and staff either chose not to differentiate between the very distinct, between those two classifications of workers…. Either they chose to just ignore it or they’ve chosen not to actually share that information.
I believe it is incredibly important that the work that was undertaken on the consultation, which has led to the piece of legislation before us…. I really do hope that the minister is able to share with us, specifically, the percentage of those two different classifications of workers and, if there’s overlap, to understand what percentage of workers are working on both app systems. Is it 10 percent? Is it 20 percent? Is it 50 percent? I have no idea.
I’ll give the minister an opportunity to hopefully provide some additional clarity that I’ve been looking for almost an hour now.
Hon. H. Bains: I gave the answer. The member doesn’t like the answer, unfortunately. I said that we listened to the food delivery drivers. We listened to the ride-hail drivers.
The common theme, the food delivery drivers, whether there were 1,000 on this side or there were 25 on this side…. It doesn’t matter. The issue is what issues they both raised with us. Those are the concerns that they raised. Are they getting minimum wage? They were not sure. They both told us the lack of pay transparency is concerning to them. They both told us that WCB coverage…. They don’t know whether they are entitled to WCB coverage or not.
Those are the concerns we are trying to address here. Minimum wage. We’re trying to address the WCB coverage. Trying to address process in case their app is deactivated, lost their job. No reason. Those are the concerns both of them raised.
It doesn’t matter to the member whether 80 percent here because they are hiring numbers. Obviously, there will be more of them coming to participate. There are fewer of the ride-hail. Fewer of those come than the food delivery. It just the areas of concern that we heard from both sides.
I advised the member earlier that we listened to both of them. They both gave us those common concerns, and that’s what we are trying to fix here.
G. Kyllo: Well, that’s disappointing. What I would certainly believe to be the most basic level of information and scrutiny of tabulating and tracking the information that was provided through this broad consultation…. There was, it appears, zero level of concern or interest at all in differentiating between the lived experiences of those two very different classifications of workers.
But while we’re on the question of consultation, was there any work undertaken by the ministry or the minister’s staff to understand what some of those common themes or concerns may be for other industry sectors that are similar to ride-hailing?
Although they’re not app-based, we certainly do have individuals that are delivering documents throughout the city. We’ve seen them on bicycles for 30 or 40 years, delivering documents around the city to different businesses.
We’ve also seen, obviously, taxis. The taxi industry has been in this province forever. I’m sure some of the concerns that may be experienced and shared by both ride-sharing drivers as well as delivery service drivers may also be in common with those of the taxi industry.
Was there any work to understand what some of the lived experiences of the taxi industry or some of these other similarly related workers in the province as part of this consultative work with the app-based workers in the province?
Hon. H. Bains: Currently these are the two sectors in this industry that we are dealing with through this bill. The consultation was, again, also concentrated and focused on these two: ride-hail and food delivery workers. Now, taxis — the member had mentioned taxis — are already covered under the Employment Standards Act.
There may be some other workers who get their employment through app-based companies, where they are employed by two or three different app companies. They may be out there, but we’re not there yet. Right now we’re taking — I think the member will know, and many members here will know — the precarious work.
The gig economy is quite vast; it’s growing. We are taking a focused approach as a first step for these workers. Food delivery — because we have become accustomed to the service that we have already received from them — and ride-hail are quite prominent in our lives right now. There are so many workers already employed in this. So those are the areas we are trying to fix or deal with, with this bill.
Going forward, I think we need to look at what else is available out there. What other industries are similar to these and may not have coverage under the employment standards?
I think in this particular case also, the difference is that these employers, the platform companies, took the position that these are not their employees, but that they are their contractors. As a result, they took the position that employment standards don’t apply to them, workers compensation coverage doesn’t apply to them, and other labour laws may not apply to them.
That’s why we’re taking these two sectors, at this particular time, through this bill. We consulted those two groups of workers. These are the common concerns that came from both of them, and those are the ones that we are dealing with.
S. Furstenau: I’m glad to have the opportunity to ask some questions on this bill.
I just want to start at a high level with the minister. In my second reading comments, I talked about the role of government when it comes to really providing conditions for workers and that this is an example of government stepping into that role.
I guess my question to the minister is: could he articulate his view, his philosophy and view on what role government should be playing as we have these emerging industries like the gig economy?
Yes, I’ve heard the back-and-forth about ride-hail and food delivery. There are already other types of this work. There’s TaskRabbit, for example, where people doing handyperson services can be brought up on an app and dispatched to do that kind of work.
I would say that this is expanding, as the minister just indicated; it’s expanding rapidly. Up until now in B.C., it has expanded without a lot of the articulated role of the government.
We see these changes in this legislation, but I would like to hear, from the minister, his overall view on what role government should be playing as a new part of the economy unfolds in this way.
Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member.
A good question, Member.
My view — and, I believe, our government’s view — is that if you’re working in the province of British Columbia, regardless of the sector you work in, regardless of your immigration status, you’re entitled to the minimum basic standards that workers in this province expect to enjoy, such as health and safety protection, WCB coverage, a minimum wage. Those are some minimum standards that all workers, in my view, are entitled to and deserve. That’s what the government’s role is. If they are not, then the government steps in.
In this case, we noticed that these workers who reached out to us, and more so during the consultation, didn’t believe that the current labour laws protect them. As the economy changed, as the workforce changed as a result of a different type of economy — precarious work, gig economy, as we talked about — I think our labour laws need to change, to reflect the new economy, the new way of work. That’s what we are trying to do here.
Of course, there are others. I think the economy is changing, as we said and, as we all know, what else is out there and how deep that is. I have learned in a short little while that different sectors that are digitally controlled, or app-based work, have different challenges. You need to understand the industry side of it and the workers’ side of it. Where are the gaps in the law to provide them the basic minimums that I talked about? Then we would be looking at that, going forward.
Right now this is what my mandate letter is, because this is quite emerging and came quickly. It grew very fast before our eyes. We’re trying to deal with those concerns, which they raised with us, for the food delivery workers and for the ride-hail.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister.
In the conditions we’re looking at with this, with the gig economy, I’ve talked about some of the profits that these companies are posting right now. Uber posted over $1 billion in its third-quarter profits. DoorDash said up to $2.2 billion. Lyft third-quarter revenue reportings were $1.158 billion. SkipTheDishes, $649 million. Also, the estimated revenue per employee, they said, was $200,000.
These companies are gaining a lot of profit out of their platforms, out of their new industries. What role does the minister think that governments generally should be playing in determining how much labour can be used to develop those profits?
We know that the history of workers’ rights has been about levelling that field a bit. It has been about ensuring that there’s a value on the labour of workers and that the exploitation of workers isn’t so unequal and unfair as to generate enormous wealth for employers or owners at the expense of the workers.
Given the conditions of this industry and the profits that are being posted by these companies, and that the Simon Fraser study indicated that the average salary of employees in this sector is $40,000, is this the playing field that the minister thinks is reasonable for workers in this province?
Hon. H. Bains: An interesting discussion, Member.
I wish the government had powers to set wages and benefits for workers based on the company’s profit. Unfortunately, we don’t. I think in this market economy, what we can do, though, is make sure that the workers can exercise their right to association, so that collectively, they can bargain based on employers’ ability to pay and how much they can pay.
We’ve seen that happening in different industries. That’s why unionized wages and benefits are higher than for non-union workers.
Interjection.
Hon. H. Bains: The member would have the opportunity to speak, and he could ask those questions.
Right now these are very intelligent questions coming from a very capable member. I’m trying to answer them as best as I can. I think our role is to set the basic minimum standards as a government. In this particular case, it wasn’t happening. The laws need to keep up with the changing economy. That’s what we’re trying to do here.
Certainly, there are companies out there, international companies, operating all over the world. As the member said, many are making huge profits. Are the workers getting their share? It’s a challenge. As I said, we have moved in that direction, allowing workers to exercise their constitutional right. That’s why it is recognized in our constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the workers’ right to association. It’s so they can collectively bargain for better conditions, better wages, better benefits. That’s the process that workers can use.
Here it’s available to them as well. What we are trying to do here, at least…. The government role is to establish basic and minimum standards.
By the way, these companies also agree there have to be some sort of standards, which means they also can play on a level playing field for all of them and that at the same time, workers get the basic minimum standards.
That’s what we’re trying to do here, but the discussion the member is having is a bigger discussion that we could have somewhere else and maybe at a different time.
S. Furstenau: My colleague and I have now both been invited out by ministers for discussions at different times on things in the last couple of days. We might take you up on that.
In response to my first question, the minister said that regardless of sector, workers should be entitled to minimum basic standards, health and safety, WCB, minimum wage. What about paid sick leave?
Hon. H. Bains: I have said that we brought five paid sick days for all workers in British Columbia and five paid days for workers who experience domestic and sexual violence. In this case, because it’s a very different industry, unique work and a different workforce, many of the workers who came to us told us they use multiple apps. So it was challenging to deal with some of those protections that are provided to traditional, seven-to-3:30 workers, with the same employer every day.
The work will continue during the process of developing regulations in many of those areas, trying to understand the complexities and how to deal with the complex situations that these workers are faced with and that are different than the regular, traditional workers.
As I said before, this is a first step. We are moving in some of these areas that they all brought to our attention. We’ll monitor for the next six months or year, and then we will, again, get back into talking to these workers and to the app-based companies and see what the gaps are.
The members have mentioned sick days. Hours of work could be another area that we will look at. Again, because they’re different…. Right now different sectors have different hours of work protection as well. They’re dealt with differently under employment because of the nature of the work that they do. I think that’s why unique to this particular industry and what the workers’ priorities were, we found through our consultation, are the areas we’re trying to fix here.
S. Furstenau: I think, just to push on that point a little bit, the amendments to the legislation in front of us still do not resolve the fact that people working in this part of the economy, in gig work, are not afforded all of the same minimum benefits that other people who work in B.C. are. The work is…. As the minister indicated, the gaps are still meant to be filled.
I think there needs to be some capacity for creativity. When we were, probably a year ago, talking about paid sick leave — or I don’t know, two years ago; time has no meaning — one of the proposals we put forward to the minister, I’m not sure if he ever thought about it after that, was of approaching paid sick leave more as an insurance policy than putting it on the specific businesses. This addresses the burden it can put on smaller businesses that can be very financially impacted by paid sick leave if they only have a handful of employees and very limited revenues.
It also is a way for larger businesses and businesses making these kinds of profits — which of course, a small business could never even dream of — to be able to contribute in a more fair way to a pool of resources that would be available to workers across B.C., to all workers and to ensure that particularly workers in the gig economy — who are often newcomers, who are often racialized workers — are afforded the same minimum rights we would expect for everybody in the province.
In fact, with an approach to paid sick leave that makes it a collective effort, as opposed to putting it on individual businesses, we are sharing that collective burden of keeping people well more effectively than we are right now.
I think, given the rebound we’ve seen since the height of the COVID pandemic, where people are being pressured to come to work sick again…. People in government, by the way, are being pressured to come to work sick. People in the health care sector are being pressured to come to work sick. We have not accomplished what, I think, I would hope the minister had hoped to accomplish with a paid sick leave program in B.C., which is that people get well when they need to get well, that we aren’t asking people in this province to come to work when they’re sick.
With the lack of those protections in these amendments, we do leave the employees, the workers in this particular sector, without the choice. If they have to get that revenue in order to pay their basic bills, they aren’t afforded the benefit of paid sick leave. I think that is a pretty significant oversight.
Back to the question of online platform workers. We hear specifically, and keep hearing today, about ride-hail and food delivery. Will this definition be able to encompass people who are not ride-hail or food delivery workers but who are working in online platform apps right now?
Hon. H. Bains: Member, I’ll give you the first half of the comments. The other, I’m trying to get the information about.
The sick leave, the member asked. That discussion took place, remember, during COVID. What should we be doing? Workers were forced to go to work, because if they stayed home, they would lose wages.
There were many suggestions about what model there should be. We understood employers were hurting. The businesses were hurting. But they weren’t being helped by workers going to work sick, because they take the illness with them. Other workers get infected, and they go home to their families. It was causing a bigger problem.
There were some suggestions. That’s why, the member may recall, we went to the federal government EI type of program. I think that there was much support to have that kind of a collective pool of benefits — that model. We suggested…. There are EI sick benefits available, but there is a waiting period. That doesn’t help someone who’s sick for three, four, five days. Also, when they do qualify, I believe it was only 50, 55 percent of the wages that they were entitled to.
I agree with you, and I still do believe that type of system, if that system was reformed to allow workers to stay home without loss of pay, would be better for businesses. I think workers would enjoy that benefit. You and I don’t differ on that.
We tried that. I remember then our Premier, John Horgan, went to Ottawa and advocated on our behalf that that’s the model we should be looking at. They made some changes, to give them credit, but they didn’t go far enough to deal with what we are trying to deal with. So we came on our own. Remember? Three days during COVID. Then we added five days permanently, because there was a need.
Those are my comments on that. But I’ll get the answer to the second part, whether this will allow us to add other sectors who may be in a similar….
Again, I think I want to say this. Even if we are able to, they may be different than what we are dealing with here today, because different technology, a different workforce and a different way of doing work may be existing out there right now. We need to understand them.
If we add them, again, I think it’ll take a lot more consultation directly from the workers, their employers and academics to see what type of work relationship they have with the app-based companies and then the workers. I think the idea is to learn in each of those industries and then see where the gaps are and how do we deal with them.
S. Furstenau: I do believe the minister indicated that he was going to get me the answer to the second part of my question. So we’re waiting on that answer now.
Hon. H. Bains: What clause 1 talks about is it defines “online platform worker” as a person who performs prescribed work that the person accepts through an online platform.
Right now these are the two areas that we are looking at, but prescribed work would fit ride-hail and food delivery. Then, if there are others, we can use this definition to add others if they accept work through an online platform.
S. Furstenau: That brings me to the question around regulations. I expect that that could be added in regulations. There’s a lot in this legislation that will be brought in through regulation.
The question for the minister is: is there a clear timeline for when the regulations will be brought in so that workers can know when they will start to see these expected protections and benefits?
Hon. H. Bains: What we are looking at is developing regulations as quickly as possible, soon after royal assent of this bill. I’m hoping the members will support it, and we would pass this, and then the regulations will start to develop. My expectation is early 2024 that we will be completing the regulations.
The second part of that is also that the companies need some time to update their technology to build these changes into implementing and providing the benefits to the workers.
WCB. I don’t think I need to take a long time, because WCB and the employer can work out how they could actually start to register their employees with the WCB. But there is some work that needs to be done for regulations — for example, what model, what formula to use to pay for work-related expenses and what the process should be in case their apps are deactivated.
I think those are some of the areas that we need to work on through regulations. I think WCB is a bit more clear, and I think that part can be done quickly, but we are looking at early 2024. But again, still, the platform companies need to adjust their technology to make changes according to this bill and regulations.
S. Furstenau: They are tech companies. I would hope that they would be able to very quickly adapt their technology. Will the minister be giving them a firm date by which time they have to implement these changes?
Hon. H. Bains: Yes. As soon as we receive royal assent, the regulations will start to get developed. My understanding is that WCB already has met with the platform companies. So some work that can be done is starting to get done.
Then, after the regulations are developed, it goes through the cabinet procedure. Certainly, my expectation would be giving them a date.
I agree, these are tech companies, and my expectation would be that they could implement them as early as they can.
S. Furstenau: Just to kind of close on that, and I don’t need another answer on that, I think it is important for the workers that there is not only an understanding of when they can expect these benefits but some accountability to the companies that they implement them and that they implement them in a timely fashion. I will watch with interest how that unfolds.
Hopefully, should, as the minister indicates, the legislation pass and royal assent happens, there can be some clarity provided to workers as to when they can expect to see these changes implemented in for them.
There’s another area in the consultation that workers brought up, and it sounds like there’s another consultation in the works to look at how to compensate workers for their out-of-pocket expenses. Again, for employees in most fields, if you have out-of-pocket expenses that you incur while you’re doing your job, you can expect to be compensated for those. That does not exist for these workers.
Is there a timeline that we can expect to see that brought in and that level of protection brought in for workers?
Hon. H. Bains: As we canvassed this earlier, it is all part of the regulation development, and they will be part of the regulations. As I said, as soon as there’s royal assent, the regulations will start to get developed. Some will not take much time; others may take a little time.
There are, again, differences and complexities. Even coming up with answers to this particular question…. For example, with food delivery, they use different modes of delivery — pedal bike, e-bike or sometimes cars. So we need to figure that out. At the same time, ride-hail — what is their cost, and then what kind of a formula do we need? All of that will be part of the regulations.
Once they are developed, they go through the cabinet process, and then we will be writing to the app-based companies or platform companies our expectations and what the regulations are for them to implement. My expectation, again, will be, through a letter to them, that they implement those changes as soon as they can so the workers will start to enjoy the basic minimum standards.
S. Furstenau: This will be my last question. I’m going to beg the minister and his staff a little bit of forgiveness, because it’s probably later in a clause, but just to hand things back over to the critic for the official opposition.
For workers who are injured outside of what’s considered to be engaged time — for example, if they’re returning to a pickup location or waiting in between different jobs…. So a bike courier or a bike delivery person waiting in between dispatches suffers an injury or, as has happened in some places, is mugged. Is there going to be coverage for workers for WCB in those in-between times? Can they be assured that in between dispatches, they are going to be covered by WCB?
Hon. H. Bains: Currently there is a Workers Compensation Act that determines when a worker is covered and what is a work-related injury, illness. This is the act that it’s guided by. Under the Workers Compensation Act, an injury is compensable when it arises out of and in the course of a worker’s employment. This is the standard for all workers covered by the act, and it will apply here as well.
WorkSafeBC, as the member will know, is responsible for adjudicating workers compensation claims and determining whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment. As such, it will be, again, up to WorkSafeBC to determine if and when a ride-hail or food delivery worker is considered working during engaged time. So they will make those decisions. I will leave it up to the WCB to determine under this particular act how they determine whether the injury is considered to be work-related.
The member will know that even today there are many challenges whether injuries arise, even in a traditional employer-employee relationship. You’re walking to your job. You are in the gate. You punch the clock, and you’re walking to your job. Slipped. Fell. Is it work-related or not? It’s not clearly specified where, but WCB, using these particular guidelines in the act, determines whether the work was work-related or not.
Even sometimes, I’ve seen cases…. A person who was actually working and filed a complaint that their back became sore. It depends what happened. The claim could be accepted. The claim could not be accepted.
I think there are a number of criteria that WorkSafeBC uses in order to determine whether the injury has risen during or out of the course of employment. I think I’m not saying clearly exactly what, but that’s the language they use. Then there’s an appeal process, and the workers have the way of challenging, if they didn’t like the decision.
S. Furstenau: I promise this is my last one.
As a matter of clarification, given the discussion we’ve had back and forth and the recognition that this is a new arena of work and that it requires these amendments to the legislation to clarify the expectations of government when it comes to what are the minimum standards of protection that workers should have in British Columbia, I think it’s important to understand whether the intention of these amendments and bringing these workers under the protection of workers compensation is to recognize that even if somebody is on a platform in between two dispatches, maybe waiting, they are effectively not employable elsewhere. They are employed doing this task.
Well, we all know about workers compensation claims through all of our constituency offices and how well that goes all the time. I think it’s really important for there to be some clarity of intention with these amendments around whether people employed by these online platform companies are considered employed in between, say, two different dispatches during a workday and that they would have coverage by workers compensation in those circumstances.
Hon. H. Bains: It’s difficult for me to adjudicate different scenarios. For me, I think I will leave that to WorkSafeBC. The intention is that all injuries or illnesses that arise during the course of employment are covered. That’s the intention. Like I said, I gave different scenarios before.
It happens all the time. Sometimes workers strongly feel that it is work-related, but the WCB adjudication determines it’s not. They go through an appeal process. Sometimes the decision gets overturned. Sometimes it goes all the way to WCAT, and it’s adjudicated there.
I will leave that to the WCB. There could be a number of scenarios that we could come up with here, whether they are covered here, there and else places. My intention is that all workplace work-related injuries, illnesses are covered.
G. Kyllo: In the minister’s comments when he was having discussions about the consultative work and some of the common concerns that were raised by different workers, whether they’re working in the ride-share or delivery services sector, he indicated there were concerns about wage rates.
Were there any individuals or correspondence that indicated their pay rate was less than the minimum wage, and if so, what was the percentage of respondents that indicated that they were extremely concerned because their pay rate was less than the minimum wage rate in B.C.?
Hon. H. Bains: During our consultation, we asked the drivers: “Do you have any comments about your experiences with gig work that you would like to share?” In response, calls for a minimum hourly rate and a higher per-job rate were among the top themes.
This aligned with the input received during in-person round-table meetings, in which higher, more predictable pay was consistently raised as a top priority. We heard from many workers that once their tips and expenses were deducted, less than minimum wage was being earned for the hours that they worked. That was a common theme and one of the top priorities from the workers that we heard from.
G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share what percentage of workers expressed that specific concern?
Hon. H. Bains: The majority of the workers that we heard from.
G. Kyllo: Can the minister also share what level of worker investigation was undertaken to follow up, to get examples from those workers in order to verify that those statements were indeed factual, as the minister indicated? The commentary I believe he recited was that workers were indicating — after they took their wages, plus the tips, minus expenses — that for some, or maybe for many, the net resulted in what was claimed to be less than the minimum wage.
I’m just trying to understand if the minister took those comments at face value, or if any work was undertaken by the ministry or staff to get some actual examples. You know, if an individual states that that’s the case, did they provide any information to the minister so that the minister or the minister’s office was enabled, in any way, shape or form, to validate or verify that the claim was accurate?
Hon. H. Bains: In 200 direct meetings — workers who came directly to in-person meetings — and 1,000 emails, clearly, one of the issues that the majority of them raised was that they didn’t believe that after deductions, they were earning minimum wage.
As a government, we want to make sure that the workers are earning at least minimum wage. Right now I have said that…. Companies also recognize that a certain standard on pay transparency and pay should be there.
Then in some of the other areas, we are working with the platform companies and with the workers to make sure that at least the minimum wage is paid. If they are already earning enough…. Some of them may be; others may not be.
Through these changes, it will ensure that all workers are paid at least 120 percent during the engaged times. If, during the pay period, they’re not making 120 percent of the minimum wage of B.C., then the companies will be required to top-up to make the difference.
G. Kyllo: I think this is actually a very important point. Am I hearing the minister correctly that there was no work undertaken by staff or the minister’s office to validate and actually capture detailed information from any of the respondents to validate and verify that, indeed, any of them are getting a pay rate that results in a net wage, as the minister indicated, that is less than the minimum wage?
Maybe I will stop there. I certainly hope that the commentary in their generality was not just utilized and what is basing the minister’s decision to table this legislation. I would certainly hope that there’d be some effort to undertake to validate it. If a claim is made, I would certainly hope there would be some work undertaken. Fantastic.
Certainly, as a minister, as anybody, you’d want to have a look at: what is that information? “Can you share with us an example? Can you share with us a copy of your pay slip? How are you paid? What are the expenses that you’re incurring?”
How do you make the determination? Or is it just a general gut feel from folks that say: “You know what? We should all get paid more? We’re concerned that after expenses, we’re getting less than minimum wages”?
Was that the standard this minister has required that has been utilized to develop this legislation that’s before us? I hope the minister has some more information to share.
Hon. H. Bains: Again, I heard the word “seriously.” A thousand workers, 1,000 who were employed in this industry, told us this is their number one priority. I believe them. I want to make sure that minimum wage is earned by these workers. That’s all we are doing. If they are already making more, then no one needs to worry about it.
There is a need, when 1,000-plus people are telling you they are not making, at times, minimum wage. Do I need to say what day, what hour, when? They may have presented that evidence to the people who were conducting the engagement. Must have.
Again, you take them at their face value, because they are all telling us what I believe to be true — that there are times that they’re not making minimum wage. There may be times they’re making more. Even over a period of time, they may not be making minimum wage.
Then if you start to deduct — they are not allowed to deduct right now — off their expenses to do the business, they are saying that they’re not making minimum wage. So I would say that there’s a need, clearly. They advocated that we need to move in through legislation and then regulation to ensure that they are paid at least minimum wage.
Why 120 percent, the member may ask later? It is to realize that there are waiting times when they’re waiting for the assignment. They complete one assignment, and now they are waiting. But they were only paid during the engagement time. Many people use the argument that if you’re working at McDonald’s, a customer comes, and then you’re waiting for the next customer. Does the clock stop paying you? No, you continue to get paid in a traditional employer-employee relationship.
Here the workers advocated that when they turn their app on until they turn their app off, at the end of the shift, they are saying that they should be paid. We understand that there are complexities in dealing with all their requests completely as they put it to us. That’s why we’re saying we’re using engaged time to compensate some of the waiting time that they have. Some of the companies agree that we need to move in that area.
WCB is another area where we need to make sure that they are covered. I think we heard from them, and that’s why we are moving, and they are telling us what their experience is.
G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide this House one example, just one, of the thousands of individuals that responded, even just one example, that shows clearly…? We don’t need to see names or anything. Can the minister share with us one example where the pay rate provided to a ride-share or a delivery services driver resulted in less than the minimum wage?
I appreciate that there has been work undertaken. The minister has developed this legislation on broad generalities, but I think that facts matter. I’m hoping the minister, at the very least, shares one example where a driver resulted in pay that was less than the minimum wage rate.
Hon. H. Bains: To my total disappointment…. It does not surprise me, coming from this member, questioning every step of the way what the workers’ concerns are, questioning their integrity, questioning their honesty. It’s deplorable, to say the least.
I’ve just said that thousands of them came. They said: “This is our number one priority.” Now we’re dealing with it. We’re going to deal with this through the changes in this bill.
G. Kyllo: Well, it concerns me, the lack of robustness of the work that was undertaken by the minister and staff in order to better understand and fully understand what the reality is on the ground.
Look, it’s unfortunate that out of all of the thousands of individuals that were consulted — I can’t even imagine the number of dollars in staff time and wages that were undertaken with this — the minister is unable to provide even a single example that actually indicates or verifies or validates the minister’s claim.
Now, the minister did indicate that this 120 percent ratio…. The intention is that those individuals that are engaged, these two different classifications of workers…. Whether those are workers that are on the ride-hail or on the service delivery side, they will receive the equivalent of 120 percent of the minimum wage rate. The minister, I believe, referenced “engaged time.”
Can the minister just confirm how…? What is the determination of engaged time? Is engaged time when…? An individual signs on to the app, and maybe it takes ten or 15 minutes before they actually accept their first ride. Is engaged time going to be determined based on when they just open up the app, or is engaged time when they accept a delivery until the point that they conclude the delivery?
Can the minister provide some clarification on what he clearly indicates or his definition of “engaged time”?
Hon. H. Bains: In our news release, it was clearly listed what the engaged time is, Member. I will read it to you from the backgrounder.
“Engaged time begins when a worker accepts an assignment through its completion.” So when you accept it until it’s completed. “Engaged time does not include the time spent waiting between assignments.”
G. Kyllo: Can the minister share or provide some reason or rationale for why that definition and the term “engaged time” are not part of this legislation? Is the minister’s interpretation, which was included in the press release, the definition around “engaged time,” subject to change? Do ride-hail and service delivery workers and the companies have the minister at his word that the definition of “engaged time” will remain constant and not be subject to change?
Hon. H. Bains: This will be in the regulations.
G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated previously that the 120 percent, the additional 20 percent…. My understanding, from what the minister shared with us earlier, is that the extra 20 percent is largely to accommodate what might be time between completing one job and starting another.
Can the minister confirm that the additional 20 percent is largely to address what some of the different workers have indicated is a concern about that unpaid time between different assignments that they may sign on for, or is that 20 percent intended to offset other costs that the minister has also spoken about, like fuel or insurance or, maybe, a flat tire on a bicycle?
Hon. H. Bains: The 20 percent premium is to compensate the time between assignments. That’s in recognition of them waiting and driving. It does not cover other expenses. The member may ask me about car expenses, for example.
G. Kyllo: Can the minister share how 20 percent was arrived at? What work or analysis or data was compiled in order to determine that 20 percent was the correct number?
Hon. H. Bains: Member, during our extensive engagement, as I said before, and looking at other jurisdictions, we believe that the 20 percent was fair. There are others who made argument for higher premiums — I’ve heard the number 167 percent — and others who said no, it should be less. I heard the number 110 percent. But looking at other jurisdictions, through engagement, we believe that this is the right amount, and we believe this is fair at this particular time.
Looking at the time and the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:21 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, November 27.
The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 44; J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 1:08 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, to order.
We are on clause 10.
Clause 10 approved.
On clause 11.
K. Kirkpatrick: I actually have no questions on clause 11.
The Chair: Thank you.
Member for Parksville-Qualicum.
A. Walker: As I go through this new section that’s being added, in drafting this clause, sub (5), it says that the council of a municipality must, within the prescribed period after December 31 in which the council had received, they must adopt an official community plan with housing and all of that stuff.
I’m just wondering. What is it the minister is expecting that will be included in these official committee plans once these housing needs reports have been accepted?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Official community plans are including housing policy regarding six classes of housing needed to be included in the housing needs report. The six classes of housing needs are affordable housing, rental housing, special needs housing, housing for seniors, housing for families and sheltered housing for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
A. Walker: It’s a power that was given to local governments — I’ll say recently, in the last six years or so — with the ability to zone for rental housing. As one of the classes is the ability to have affordable housing and rentals are obviously going to be important, will these changes preclude the ability for a council to zone a property or a region for rental only?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no.
A. Walker: That will make some folks in my community quite happy.
The next question I have here is on subclause (2), that the council must consider the most recent housing needs report received by local government. Can the minister explain what these are going to look like, and are they to be provided by government to councils, or are councils going to generate these based on guidelines?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Around the housing needs reports, the regs will come out in January. With that will come guidance to local governments on how we’re hoping to standardize all the housing needs reports across the province.
A. Walker: So those regs…. Is it the intention of this act that it will provide a guideline for both quantity as well as price metrics? Both a number of units but also a price of units both for sale and for rent?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The guidelines will be…. It will be focused on quantity, but there will be guidance on affordability, tenure and unit size.
A. Walker: One of the things that we’ve seen through other legislation is measuring vacancy rates in communities with vacancy rates. Was it intended, when this clause was put into this bill, to also include vacancy rates?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Housing needs reports always consider that, and that’s data that comes from the federal government.
Clause 11 approved.
On clause 12.
K. Kirkpatrick: I rise to move my first amendment on section 12. I have copies of this amendment to circulate for the committee’s information.
[Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Exemptions related to small-scale multi-family housing
481.4 (0.1) Section 481.3 (4) and (5) does not apply in relation to a local government which has a zoning bylaw in place that
(a) accommodates at least the 20-year total number of housing units required to meet anticipated housing needs as identified in the most recent housing needs report, and
(b) has been approved by the minister responsible for the Act.]
On the amendment.
K. Kirkpatrick: For the committee’s information, this amendment does speak to kind of a differential treatment in certain communities that have really shown that they are meeting the targets that they need to be meeting. I can explain more after.
All of you, I’m sure, in this House received this letter from the mayor of Nanaimo. When we reviewed it, we thought that the proposed amendment that council from Nanaimo was suggesting made sense.
As we know, there are a number of communities in British Columbia that have strong housing plans, strong housing targets. They’re doing the work that the spirit of Bill 44 is suggesting.
So rather than this be blanket and applied to all communities, should there be a few things set out where the community is seen to already be accommodating at least the 20-year total number of housing units required, that there is an ability to have approval from government. This is an exemption for them.
The Chair: We are going to be taking a two-minute recess while we take a look to see if the amendment fits the rules.
The committee recessed from 1:17 p.m. to 1:22 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: I will call the committee back to order. The member has moved an amendment, and you all have a copy of it in front of you. The amendment is in order.
Just for clarity, what I will be doing is going to the member who moved the amendment, and then I will recognize other members to speak. I wish to remind all members that all remarks, including questions and answers, must be strictly relevant to the amendment and what the amendment proposes to do. In other words, this is not where we want to go with a flyover of the bill.
Members may speak more than once, provided that the remarks remain relevant.
Interjection.
The Chair: I hope you heard that, Member.
Members may also choose not to speak to the proposed amendment. I invite any member who wishes to speak to the proposed amendment to have that opportunity at this time.
K. Kirkpatrick: I am going to read some of the letter that was provided, which I’m sure the minister and other members have read, just to remind us what this is about.
Council in Nanaimo is asking government to consider an amendment that will uphold the intention of Bill 44, so the same results, but it will mitigate some unintended consequences. It provides respect to local government autonomy in a community that has progressive city building policies and practices in place.
This is obviously not just with respect to Nanaimo but any community in British Columbia where they have progressive and real policies in place that are going to achieve what the intent of Bill 44 is. There would be an additional exemption in section 481.3 that would allow municipalities to identify parcels that wouldn’t be subject to the small-scale multifamily housing.
It is setting out that if the municipality has a zoning bylaw in place and accommodates at least the 20-year total number of housing units required, and the municipality has a zoning bylaw in place that accommodates the prescribed number of the small-scale family units….
This is really an opportunity for some autonomy and control in those communities that are already doing what Bill 44 is attempting to do. Obviously, they will need to be able to demonstrate that to government, but then an exemption should be provided to them.
A. Walker: I will speak specifically to the motion. I don’t have to read the letter now, which will save all of us a little bit of time, which is great.
I want to first commend the Chair for the clarity, allowing to speak to this more than once. This has been something I’ve discussed with the Speaker.
To the motion we’re discussing right now, I just want to commend the city of Nanaimo. I’ve been going back and forth with members of their council. This is a city that recognizes fully that we are in a housing crisis, that we need to increase supply to address this.
They are showing true leadership in this. The Sandstone development, which has 2,200 new homes proposed in Nanaimo, is a perfect example of a community working together over 20 years to come up with a new vision for what a new community would look like.
The challenge with the city of Nanaimo is that right at fourth reading, these rules are announced, and it changes dramatically. When you’ve got a community with 1,000 single-family units that were proposed in this master plan…. There’s a huge level of uncertainty is what that means. A 2,200-unit community is approved, and 1,000 is single family. So that goes from 2,200 to 5,000 homes very quickly.
What this council is proposing through us is to work with government to figure out how we can define areas in our community that maybe will have a different approach to the density while meeting, overall, the goals of the housing needs reports.
I want to commend the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the city of Nanaimo for bringing this forward. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to this.
A. Olsen: I am not going to repeat anything that’s already said. I will, though, on the other hand, acknowledge the advocacy of the city of Nanaimo. The fact that all three of us — the official opposition, the Third Party and the independent member — all came prepared to move this motion…. We all have a version of this motion here. It’s an indication of the good work that local government is doing on behalf of their community.
I think that it’s an indication to this government that the work is sincere, the effort is sincere. As the member for Parksville-Qualicum said, they’re really trying to make a difference.
I just wanted to raise my hands to the city of Nanaimo for doing good advocacy work. Clearly, they got their message across to the representatives of the opposition, in this instance.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I, too, want to thank the mayor of Nanaimo. I’ve had many opportunities to speak to my old friend. We agree sometimes; we disagree sometimes. But that’s the beauty of having good relationships with folks that are in local government.
This motion…. Although I appreciate the members from across the way bringing this forward, it undermines the principle, I believe, of what we’re trying to do here, which is to get more housing — and not to be isolating housing just to highrises but to have gentle density in communities, for many reasons that we’ve canvassed over the last few days.
There are exemptions within legislation for issues such as if there’s lack of infrastructure, if there are hazards, if there are issues around water and septic. Those provisions are there for those areas or properties, in particular, that have those issues. So we believe that there’s still that flexibility for local government.
Although I appreciate my colleagues across the way bringing this forward, we unfortunately will not be supporting this motion at this time.
The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you also for allowing me to know that I can speak twice to the same thing.
I would just like to draw to the attention of the minister that there’s been a lot of discussion on Bill 44 and how much of it was modelled off of the New Zealand model. I would just like to draw to his attention that this is actually something you will find within the New Zealand model. It does respect the autonomy of those communities who already have got their community plans to a place where they will meet the community housing needs that they have.
I would again just ask for that consideration from the minister before we vote on this amendment.
The Chair: We have passed clause 11 — this is for Hansard — and right now we will be voting on an amendment to clause 12.
Members, I’m calling the committee back to order to see if we have unanimous consent to waive the time. We seem to.
Leave granted.
The Chair: Before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent members of Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.
The question is: shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?
Before you vote, I am going to read the amendment into the record: “481.4 (0.1) Section 481.3(4) and (5) does not apply in relation to a local government which has a zoning bylaw in place that (a) accommodates at least the 20-year total number of housing units required to meet the anticipated housing needs as identified in the most recent housing needs report, and (b) has been approved by the minister responsible for this Act.”
Amendment negatived on the following division.
YEAS — 4 | ||
Kirkpatrick | Olsen | Sturdy |
| Sturko |
|
NAYS — 7 | ||
Begg | D’Eith | Kahlon |
Kang | Lore | Parmar |
| Rice |
|
The Chair: Back to you, member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to cede the floor for a moment to the member.
A. Walker: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
Interjection.
A. Walker: It’s unrelated to the bill.
I just want to express the absurdity that a motion that was brought forward by a local government in my community, that was raised in this House — that the rules of this place preclude me from the ability to do my job and vote on this motion. I was not allowed to do so, and I just wanted to put that on the record.
K. Kirkpatrick: I do support the comments of the member.
I rise to move my second amendment to section 12. I have copies of this amendment to circulate for the committee’s information.
[Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:
481.4 (1) Section 481.3 (4) and (5) does not apply in relation to any of the following land:
(a) land that is protected under section 12.1 (2) of the Heritage Conservation Act;
(b) land that is, on the date this section comes into force, designated as protected under a bylaw made under section 611 [heritage designation protection] of this Act;
(c) land that is not connected to an adequate water or sewer system provided as a service by a municipality or regional district;
(d) land within a zone in respect of which the minimum lot size that may be created by subdivision is 4 050 m2;
(e) a parcel of land that is larger than 4 050 m2.]
On the amendment.
K. Kirkpatrick: For the committee’s information, this speaks to just providing a bit more clarity with respect to land that’s not connected to a water or sewer system provided as a service by a municipality or regional district, to have that as an adequate water connection.
This may seem like a small amendment, but it could be quite significant. As we know, infrastructure, as we spoke about earlier, can mean very different things in terms of whether something is adequate in order to support development. If you’ve got four units as opposed to one unit, you’re going to be drawing more power. You’re going to be drawing more water. Simply having land that’s connected to water is not enough to actually justify the requirements under Bill 44.
The Chair: We will now be taking a short break while we check the admissibility of the amendment.
The committee recessed from 1:43 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee back to order, and I’m going to turn to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: I do not have anything more to contribute to the conversation, other than what I said previously: that I think it may seem like a minor change, a minor amendment, but I do think it could have significant consequences.
The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, the amendment was deemed to be in order.
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s actually not minor; it’s a pretty big shift from the legislation. Essentially, what this, as the member called it, “minor change” does is it says that local governments will never have to allow any types of housing as long as they don’t touch the pipe, the infrastructure.
What we already have in the legislation, in clause 25, is the ability for local governments that don’t have the infrastructure to have a pathway to build that infrastructure, to enable that housing in the future. So we believe we do address that.
There’s a pathway for housing to be built when that infrastructure is built. But this basically says that local governments can say: “We will never upgrade that infrastructure, because we don’t want any more people coming in this neighbourhood or other housing to happen.” That’s contrary to the need to get the housing in communities within urban containment areas.
So although the member says it’s minor, it’s actually a major shift. We disagree with it.
A. Olsen: Is it legal for a municipality that has citizens on a system that they’re contributing to, to deliberately not upgrade the system? I’m not sure that that’s a decision that a council can make.
The Chair: There was no question in that.
Interjection.
The Chair: The amendment is on the floor, so you can speak to the amendment and only to the amendment. Did you want to speak to the amendment?
A. Walker: The minister said that were this to pass, local governments could restrict infrastructure development to preclude the density and the development. The member for Saanich North and the Islands asked: “Is that legal?” It was a question. It’s germane to the response that was brought forward.
I’ll leave those two members to sort that out.
I just want to, again, mention the fact that in my community, there’s an area called French Creek.
I was just chatting with the member for Kelowna-Mission, slowly figuring these out.
This is a community that’s quite dense. It’s an electoral area. They’re within a growth containment boundary. They literally do not have any more water units. It is a private water purveyor. Under this, it is technically connected to a water system provided…. Well, they’ve got sewers, as well, so they would be definitely connected.
They have the right pipes. It’s not about the infrastructure. When the minister mentions further on that there can be restrictions on development based on infrastructure, the pipes are there. There just isn’t the water.
The amendment that’s being proposed by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is: is there adequate water? It’s not about whether the infrastructure is capacious enough to take it. It’s: when somebody goes to turn the tap on, does water come out?
There’s a very big difference between a house and a home. A house is a building that perhaps somebody’s not in yet. You don’t have your occupancy. The power might not be hooked up. There’s no water. If people live in a home, and their water is shut off, it’s not a home anymore.
So this amendment, to ensure that there’s an adequate level of water, seems to be a fundamental right of a local government.
A. Olsen: After listening to the comments that were just made by my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, I think that what’s interesting about the way that the minister chose to respond to this is that apparently, houses could be connected to a water system that doesn’t have an adequate water supply.
Actually, this amendment that’s being proposed by my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano requires there to be an adequate water supply, from the way I read it. The issue is that currently, right now, as I understand this legislation to be proposed, the minister could be forcing a community to upzone an area that doesn’t have adequate water and sewer. That seems to me to be the issue that is creating a potentially huge liability.
I’m not sure. I think the minister’s taken the position that there are no questions that can be asked about this. But I think I do have a legitimate question, and that is: shouldn’t we be looking to see if there’s a liability that’s incurred, requiring a community to upzone an area that has a system but might not have water?
K. Kirkpatrick: Just as a continuation of this, as well, I don’t believe that municipalities will appreciate that they’re being accused of not wanting or not being willing to upgrade infrastructure.
Again, mirroring what my colleagues have just said, there are significant issues that could arise if it is not appropriately addressed within the wording of the legislation.
A. Walker: The clause the minister mentions as far as lack of infrastructure says that local governments can apply to delay. Yet clause 12, that we’re looking at, says that local governments must exercise the power to rezone. So local governments can apply to make that exemption, as mentioned by the minister, if the local government is in the process of upgrading that infrastructure.
In French Creek, there is no upgrading that makes more water appear. It is ground sourced, and the aquifer is depleting both in quantity and quality. We can’t just put more wells in. There are enough straws in there already, and it’s having tremendous impact.
They wouldn’t qualify under this as a local government that’s going through an upgrading infrastructure. The infrastructure service that is in compliance is likely to increase the risk to health, public safety or environment in the area. They could argue that the continuation of the depletion of the aquifer impacts the environment. But I don’t know if the minister would consider that to be adequate.
The risk to health. If you’ve got half the water flow that you expect, if you’re getting 30 psi, that wouldn’t qualify under that or extraordinary circumstance.
Would the lack of quantity, not the infrastructure pipes, not the water treatment facilities…? Would the lack of water itself be qualified under this new exemption that’s being brought in under clause 25?
Would that lack of water be sufficient to allow for that delay, or should we be considering the amendment from West Vancouver–Capilano, that there’s adequate water?
I was asking questions to the minister specifically on this, and if the minister chooses not to respond, that’s fine. But I just want to get on the record that we have tried to get certainty on this issue and the minister is refusing to answer if that’s what’s happening.
The Chair: We are now going to be voting on the amendment to clause 12.
I’m calling the committee back to order. I’m seeking unanimous consent to waive the time. We are now going to proceed.
Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent members of Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.
The question is: shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?
I’m just going to read out what the amendment is. The amendment adds two words to 481.4(1)(c): “land that is not connected to” — the amendment is “an adequate” — “water or sewer system provided as a service by a municipality or regional district.”
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 4 | ||
Kirkpatrick | Olsen | Sturdy |
| Sturko |
|
NAYS — 7 | ||
Begg | D’Eith | Kahlon |
Kang | Lore | Osborne |
| Parmar |
|
A. Walker: My father had a record collection, and when you had a broken record, it was always annoying. I’m that person. Again, I just want to get on the record that I was unable to vote on this important amendment, and the minister was unable to provide answers to the questions that I’d asked.
J. Sturdy: To the minister and staff, I really want to bring forward an issue with regard to Bill 44 and what I think may well be unintended consequences — I hope that the minister will appreciate where this is coming from — specifically to the resort communities and perhaps more than a few other communities in the province that have had ongoing difficulties in providing affordable workforce housing.
I speak specifically in this case about the resort municipality of Whistler, but I know that Sun Peaks and likely Tofino and other resort communities are also sharing this challenge. In the case of Whistler, as I’m sure the minister knows, the community has had in place for decades a comprehensive policy objective of ensuring that at least 70 percent of the workforce of the community live in the community.
This policy came as a result of the negative experiences of resorts in other parts of the world, notably in the United States, where places like Aspen became empty communities the majority of nights of the year as employees left town to drive downvalley.
The communities of Basalt and Carbondale have been bedroom communities for day workers in Aspen, where high property values have increasingly strained the ability of low- and middle-income workers to afford the cost of living and the affluence that marks the upper Roaring Fork Valley and is gradually leaking into the rest of the valley.
This is certainly the situation in the Sea to Sky. Whistler has attempted to mitigate this challenge through the development of the Whistler Housing Authority and the supply of employee-restricted ownership and rental units. The funding for the building of these employee-restricted units has largely been provided through community amenity funds, AACs or CACs.
This effort has largely been successful, but as the resort has grown over the last number of years, the community has fallen behind. It has recognized that there’s a significant shortage of available employees across the resort, largely attributable to the housing shortage and several thousand employees seeking accommodation, either underhoused or, in some cases, severely underhoused. This housing shortage has also leaked into the neighbouring communities of Squamish and Pemberton, contributing to a severe housing shortage in all of these communities.
Unfortunately, the consequence of Bill 44 is likely to be an increase in the number of homes constructed in Whistler in particular, but it’s very unlikely these homes will be available to workers. These homes will instead inevitably become empty second homes, acquired by non-residents, be it Vancouverites or owners from farther afield, as Whistler is very much a global destination and a global resort.
Beyond the construction activity and the workforce needed to build these second homes, ironically, will be the creation of additional workforce demand to maintain these mostly vacant homes and to provide services to second-home owners when they do visit. The RMOW and many residents have been expressing concern about the impacts of this bill on Whistler in particular, but it’s by no means unique to Whistler.
The impact may be exacerbated when combined with other legislation before this House which will potentially exclude employee-restricted housing from benefiting from CACs or AACs, which is how they’ve traditionally been funded, as I said.
I worked with the RMOW to help draft an amendment that could turn this risk into a real opportunity and ensure that half of the new homes built as a result of the densification initiative are available to house Whistler residents, with an additional benefit that the homes would be built by the private sector, whereas the Whistler Housing Authority is often public sector contributions. The amendment allows for the establishment of conditional density rules so that up to 50 percent of the allowable floor area could be designated as resident-restricted housing.
I’m sure the minister appreciates the concern of Whistler and other communities that grapple with employee housing shortages. Dan Wilson, a longtime Whistler resident who is a sustainability expert, sent me a note the other day. I’d like to add it to the record, if I may.
“I’m quite concerned with the cookie-cutter approach being suggested and recognize that this will do very little for affordable housing in Whistler. Instead, this policy may be one of the greatest development giveaways in Whistler’s history and undermines most options to provide affordable housing from infill, with a condition for affordable housing. As proposed, the legislation will only result in significantly more vacation homes and add to peak visitation in Whistler, without fixing the affordable housing situation and the employee shortage.”
With that, I’d like to submit for consideration of the House an amendment that is designed to remedy what could have a serious and detrimental impact on Whistler and communities like Whistler, yet it could create unprecedented opportunity to create housing for Whistler residents and Whistler employees.
With that, I rise to move my amendment on section 12. I have copies here to circulate for the committee’s information.
[Clause 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Density benefits related to small-scale multi-family housing
481.5 (1) In this section, “conditional density rule” means a density rule established under section 482 (1) [density benefits for amenities, affordable housing and special needs housing] to apply for a zone only on applicable conditions being met.
(2) Despite section 482 (1) but subject to subsections (3) and (3.1) of this section, a zoning bylaw must not establish conditional density rules for the purpose of achieving the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 (4) or (5).
(3) A zoning bylaw may, under section 482 (1), establish conditional density rules for only one of the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 (5) but, despite section 482 (1) (b), may establish applicable conditions in relation to that single housing unit only in accordance with section 482 (2) (b) and (c).
(3.1) A zoning bylaw may, under section 482 (1), establish conditional density rules for up to 50% of the allowable floor area to be permitted but, despite section 482 (1) (b), may establish applicable conditions in relation to that floor area only in accordance with section 483 (2). This conditional density acts to ensure that a minimum of floor area is meeting the specific needs of a community to support housing identified in their respective Housing Needs Report.
(4) This section does not prohibit a zoning bylaw from establishing, under section 482, conditional density rules, or applicable conditions, in relation to any number of housing units in excess of the minimum number of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 (4) or (5).]
The Chair: Member, did you want to speak to the amendment?
J. Sturdy: I think I already did. I think the minister understands what we’re trying to accomplish here.
I think if I want to reiterate anything, it would be that in the case of Whistler, this is an opportunity for Whistler to generate employee housing as well as create additional overall housing in the community. I think this could be a real asset to those communities that are in similar situations.
The Chair: We are now going to be taking a short recess to see if the amendment is admissible.
The committee recessed from 2:10 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
On the amendment.
The Chair: I call the committee back to order. The amendment is deemed to be in order.
Did you have any further remarks?
J. Sturdy: I hope the minister understands the intention of this amendment. It really is just to try and solve a problem that may well be an unintended consequence in some unique communities like Whistler.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment, because it goes further than the resort municipality of Whistler. The government has this definition of resort communities that they treat differently, and then they have these definitions around island communities that also get treated differently.
What the member from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky mentioned is very similar to the impact that this has on Salt Spring Island. The reality is that Salt Spring does not have the protection of the speculation and vacancy tax, which the government often refers to as one of the insulating factors. It doesn’t have that insulation. It also has a workforce housing crisis that we’ve been trying to elevate to the point of action by this government, yet the government continues to exclude it.
Recognizing that Salt Spring is only a 35-minute boat ride away from the second-largest urban area in the province, that provides just enough of a buffer for it to be a very desirable place. If it is the only community guaranteed to have single-family homes in the area — I hear that the minister doesn’t think that every neighbourhood is going to do the multifamily stuff — this is only further exacerbating a problem.
I asked the minister a series of questions about what action was going to be taken on behalf of Salt Spring Island. More discussions, more talk, which is what we’ve been doing for the last decade on Salt Spring, not more action. Unfortunately, excluding Salt Spring from some of this legislation — in fact, every piece of legislation, so far, on housing — has created significant issues, around workforce housing specifically, which I heard my colleague raise.
I just want to highlight that islands are being created — literally, Salt Spring is an island — these single-family-home-zone islands, because of what’s going on around them. There’s intense pressure that’s put on those communities, and they’re not given the tools. They don’t have the tools to be able to deal with it.
Even though members bring these issues forward, government is reluctant to do anything to support the communities, other than to just say, “Look to tools that you don’t have access to and ask for those tools,” and then not extend those tools either. It becomes a significant challenge for a community like Salt Spring as well.
Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, thanks to the member for Sea to Sky. I do understand the point he’s made, and I appreciate him advocating for his community and raising these concerns. We have been in touch with Whistler. I do believe there are some unique considerations that Whistler has. I can share with the member that we are in touch with staff over there to understand better their challenges and look to work with them on the uniqueness that they have and the challenges that they’re dealing with.
Although this motion here…. We can’t support the motion as it is now because this would make small-scale multi-units not viable anywhere in the province, because it doesn’t say just Whistler; it’s provincewide. But that being said, I do appreciate what he’s saying. Staff have informed me that they are in contact to talk to Whistler about the resort municipality and the challenges that they’re dealing with.
To my friend, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, he has talked a lot about the need for a speculation and vacancy tax in his community. I know that the Ministry of Finance received the letters from them, from local elected officials. They are exploring…. In the letter it said that they didn’t want SVT. They said they wanted us to explore the viability of it for the community.
I know the Minister of Finance shared that there are different views that have been shared with her on what people would like to see. I do understand, because I think I heard the Minister of Finance say that and I hope I’m saying correctly, that they are looking at Salt Spring Island in relation to the speculation and vacancy tax. I do appreciate his advocacy on it.
A. Olsen: Just for clarification, I believe there are two letters, because there are two local governments on Salt Spring. One of those, I believe, from the capital regional district, was very explicit, making a request to be added, and another was from the Islands Trust — hence the challenge that we have — asking for it to be looked at, what the impact could be.
However, we have had multiple delegations to this government, to this Finance Minister, to previous Finance Ministers, to the original Finance Minister that brought that in. So to frame this as “the current Finance Minister is looking at it….”
This is something for Salt Spring that has been ongoing for years, basically neglect from this government in dealing with the issue and giving us the advice of “make a request for it, send us letters, pass local motions.” So much as told: “The MLA’s advocacy isn’t going to be the thing that does this. It’s going to be the advocacy of the local governments.” So we worked with the local governments in order to have them express themselves.
The frustration is certainly palpable on Salt Spring. Significantly noticing the lack of involvement in any of these housing bills. The exasperation is appearing in my inbox and in my text messages on a nightly basis as we debate these bills.
J. Sturdy: Just for clarity for the minister, this amendment was drafted in consultation with the RMOW mayor and staff, so it is with their cooperation to help me draft that.
This is the direction they’d like to go, but if the minister and government aren’t willing to consider this, would the government be willing to consider an amendment to the amendment to carve out either resort municipalities or the RMOW in particular?
A. Walker: I heard the minister applauding the member for bringing this forward and representing his community and sounding somewhat supportive of the idea, but of course, it would impact the entire province.
So I, too, would like to echo the question that’s being asked here by the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. The minister said he couldn’t support it because it applies to the whole province. Would the minister support this if that amendment to the amendment that was proposed was put forth?
The Chair: I’m going to be calling the question on the amendment to clause 12.
Division has been called.
I am calling the meeting back to order and seeking unanimous agreement to waive the time.
Leave granted.
The Chair: Wonderful. Thank you.
Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent members of Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.
The question is shall the amendment to clause 12 pass, and I’m going to be reading out the amendment — 481.5, and the amendment is to section (3.1): “A zoning bylaw may, under section 482 (1), establish conditional density rules for up to 50 percent of the allowable floor area to be permitted but, despite section 482 (1) (b), may establish applicable conditions in relation to that floor area only in accordance with section 483 (2). This conditional density acts to ensure that a minimum of floor area is meeting the specific needs of a community to support housing identified in their respective housing needs report.”
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 4 | ||
Kirkpatrick | Olsen | Sturdy |
| Sturko |
|
NAYS — 7 | ||
D’Eith | Kahlon | Kang |
Lore | Osborne | Parmar |
| Rankin |
|
A. Olsen: I’m just wanting to know if the minister had received a letter from the Islands Trust local trust committee chair, Timothy Peterson, dated November 21, 2023, requesting that, quote: “The Salt Spring Island local trust committee requests the chair of the Salt Spring local trust committee to send a letter to the Minister of Housing and the Premier’s office requesting that Salt Spring Island local trust area be included in Bill 44 as if it were a municipality with a population greater than 10,000 people, marked with a high importance and urgent, no later than November 21, 2023.”
Hon. R. Kahlon: My staff are looking right now. They haven’t received any correspondence, but it may have gone to a different email, either within my ministry or the Premier’s office. So folks are looking.
But generally, I would say that if communities believe this is a good policy for them, and they fall below that threshold, they could just make that zoning reform in their community to align with the legislation.
A. Olsen: I can provide a copy of the letter. I assumed…. I saw the minister’s…. Maybe this email is actually not correct — now that I’m looking at it. But anyway, it also went to the Premier.
I understand the minister’s response — that they could do this zoning. They’ve requested, specifically from the minister, to be included in this. Now, this is the local government. This is the local elected trust committee that is responsible explicitly for the land use zoning.
The members of those are the same members that I was talking about, feeling that the government hasn’t been responsive to the requests that they’ve made. They’re making an explicit request to add the island. Will the minister consider adding the island and making an amendment to this clause 12?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m smiling, because we spent the last two days critiquing this legislation and how it’s got problems. Yet there are some communities that are not in that are interested in joining or being part of it.
At this point, the legislation is where it is. I do appreciate the member bringing the letter to my attention. We certainly will review it. We certainly will engage with the Islands Trust, because he’s raised this issue today.
They aren’t covered with the legislation as it is, but I think we have to have a better conversation with them to understand what it is that they need from us that they are not able to do.
I commit to following up with them on this after this letter.
A. Olsen: I think it’s important that we’re very clear about the work that I’ve been doing here in the committee stage of this bill. And I know that there’s this inclination in this House to automatically pick sides on legislation. You’re either on this side, or you’re on that side. And if you’re not on that side, then you’re automatically on this side.
That’s not the process for committee. The process for committee is to walk through and make the bill that’s in front of us and ensure that it withstands the test of the questions. So the work that’s been happening…. The minister can assume all sorts of things about my perspective on this. Part of my job as an MLA, as a constituency MLA, is to advance the requests of my community.
You know, I have got opinions about the situation. They have a responsibility for this in their community. In fact, the numbers of times that I have heard from the government, “Don’t bring this yourself, Member. Make sure that the local government is bringing it forward….”
Now, I’d say that they haven’t been any more successful than me bringing it forward. They’ve met the same wall of resistance from the Minister of Housing when…. And not just this Minister of Housing, or the current Minister of Finance. Multiple Ministers of Housing and multiple Ministers of Finance have put up a wall of bureaucratic resistance for the community almost at every turn, with every policy.
I’m going to move an amendment to clause 12.
[CLAUSE 12, in the proposed section 481.3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
Zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing
481.3 (1) In this section:
“local trust area” has the same meaning as in the Islands Trust Act;
“manufactured home zone” means a zone in respect of which the only permitted residential use is for manufactured homes as defined in section 673 [definitions in relation to Part 17];
“restricted zone” means,
(a) for the purposes of subsection (3), a zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to detached single-family dwellings, and
(b) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), a zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to
(i) detached single-family dwellings,
(ii) detached single-family dwellings with one additional housing unit located within the detached single-family dwelling or on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the detached single-family dwelling is located,
(iii) duplexes, or
(iv) duplexes with one additional housing unit located within each dwelling comprising the duplex or no more than 2 additional housing units on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the duplex is located,
but does not include a manufactured home zone.
(2) Subject to an exemption under section 481.4 or set out in the regulations, a zoning bylaw adopted on or after June 30, 2024 must permit the use of land, buildings and other structures, and the density of use, required under this section to be permitted.
(3) A local government must exercise the powers under section 479 to permit the use and density of use necessary to accommodate one or both of the following on land within a restricted zone:
(a) at least one additional housing unit within a detached dwelling that would otherwise be a single-family dwelling;
(b) at least one additional housing unit within another building on the same parcel or parcels of land on which a detached single-family dwelling is located.
(4) A local government must exercise the powers under section 479 to permit the use and density of use necessary to accommodate at least the prescribed number of housing units on the following land within a restricted zone:
(a) each parcel of land wholly or partly within an urban
containment boundary established by a regional growth strategy
applicable to the municipality or, regional
district, or local trust area the population of which is greater
than 5,000, as the case may be;
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, each parcel of land that is
(i) within a municipality the population of which is greater than the prescribed population, and
(ii) wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established by an official community plan of the local government;
(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) applies, each parcel of land within a municipality the population of which is greater than the prescribed population.
(5) Despite subsection (4), the minimum number of housing units that must be permitted by the council of a municipality on a parcel of land referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection is the greater number prescribed for the purposes of this subsection if the parcel of land is
(a) wholly or partly within a prescribed distance from a bus stop in relation to which the prescribed requirements are met, and
(b) at least the prescribed size.
(6) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes regulations respecting the siting, size, dimension, location or type of housing unit required to be permitted under this section, a local government must exercise the powers under section 479 in accordance with those regulations.
(7) In developing or adopting a zoning bylaw to permit the use and density of use required under this section to be permitted, a local government must consider applicable guidelines, if any, under section 582.1 [provincial policy guidelines related to small-scale multi-family housing].]
I want to be very clear. This is the request of the local elected officials, on the island, that are responsible for the business of zoning and land use on Salt Spring Island. These are people that have been elected to this role. They make these decisions.
If you see 481.1(4), I am adding in this, as per their request: municipality, striking “or regional district,” and adding “or local trusts committee with the population which is greater than 5,000.”
I recognize their request was 10,000. We made the decision to align this with the act, as the minister has proposed.
The Chair: I’m calling a short recess so we can make copies and see if the amendment is admissible.
The committee recessed from 2:41 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. I’m going to go back to the House Leader of the Third Party. The amendment is in order, just to be clear.
Member, did you want to make any further comments?
On the amendment.
A. Olsen: Yeah. I mean, I will say that I…. The minister suggested that more conversation with Salt Spring Island is in order. We’ve been pleading for all kinds of conversation, all kinds of dialogue. We’ve had a lot of it. The island has produced some housing ideas that haven’t been moved forward.
The minister stated a couple of days ago the fact that there is more action to be taken. However, we have a situation where a duly elected body that’s responsible for this has made this request. Frankly, even though I’ve been the MLA responsible for representing the community…. These are the most knowledgable people. They work on the ground on the island on a daily basis. They’re my colleagues. I have a great deal of respect for the challenge that they have.
They’ve made this request. I certainly hope, on behalf of…. Despite all the other stuff that I’ve said about this bill… They’ve made this request. I think it’s important that the government take a look at it seriously and, while this legislation is open, reflect the request and the urgency that they’re expressing.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I do appreciate the member bringing it forward. That’s what representatives do when they represent multiple communities. So I appreciate him bringing it forward.
This is a pretty big change. When we consulted on the legislation, when we sent out a notice to many nations…. There were some communities that were precluded. Some responded because they were impacted, and some didn’t respond because they weren’t.
Because of the Islands Trust and the unique preserve-and-protect piece that goes with it…. We do have to go back and do some more consultation on this piece if we are to…. I can’t commit that we would be able to do something in the future or not. We would have to go and do further engagement on it.
I think, just on the broader point the member makes…. I agree that we need to find more housing solutions on Salt Spring Island. I’ll give the member credit. He and I have met multiple times. We have worked closely on some challenging issues on Salt Spring Island and in his community generally. I hope he knows that I’m committed to try to find solutions for him, for his community. The challenges are real in his community.
When there are communities that come forward and say, “We want to be part of it,” that is something that we will consider as we go forward. Given the uniqueness of this area…. Of course, because of the uniqueness, which the member rightfully raises, it becomes even more challenging to move forward on some things.
I appreciate the member bringing this forward. We won’t be able to support it in the structure right now, but my team is committed to reaching out to the folks that sent this letter to us to have a further conversation about how we can support them on this.
A. Olsen: I’m not sure that I’m getting a response from the minister on this, but if what I heard was that we can’t do this because nations need to be consulted on it, then let the record show that there is an incomplete consultation of nations across the province.
We’re proceeding with this legislation on a whole, and there are nations that didn’t participate, chose not to participate, and we are moving forward without their participation.
We have, in essence, as it was described to me yesterday, a notification process, not a consultation process from this ministry, which is par for the course for this government.
We have even entrenched 30-day and 90-day notification processes that we call consultation and engagement, but they’re indeed not. They’re just simply: “We’re going send you a letter, and if you noticed it, then you may respond.”
If we’re not proceeding on this because there hasn’t been active consultation, then I need to challenge the consultation, as the minister has highlighted it, because it’s a notification system. It’s something that I have often critiqued and complained about in other ministries.
Even as we proceed down the reconciliatory journey that we’re on, we have been entrenching notification processes and calling them consultations.
Just because a nation doesn’t respond, it doesn’t mean they don’t care. It could very well…. In fact, in my experience, it’s most likely they hadn’t got to it yet. That’s most likely it.
As I’ve stood at various seats here and talked about the piles and piles and piles of referrals that come in and the numbers of people…. I got emotional in here the other day because of the impact that that has on my own family members who receive those referrals and who are put under the timeline of this government to respond or to be in agreement. It’s soul-destroying.
If that’s the case, then pause the whole bill, because we don’t have a proper consultation process.
Now, another point that the minister made, which needs to be contested, is that the Islands Trust is under a unique preserve-and-protect mandate.
I’d agree with the premise of the minister’s response if this was the CRD that was coming and saying it to us, because the CRD is not the stewards and the guardians of the preserve-and-protect mandate. It is the express responsibility of the Islands’ trustees who wrote this letter, the three members. This government has created the framework for them to do land use. It is explicitly the body who is responsible for the preserve-and-protect mandate who’s making this request.
I think that what this lines up to be is…. As this debate has rolled out, there has been the list of those who support them. They’re often stood up and elevated. They’re the ones that are standing at the announcements with the Premier and with the minister.
This is a situation where there is a community that is desperately looking for solutions to support a workforce housing issue. It’s largely a workforce housing issue that exists on the island.
The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky raised the issue of workers coming and going. We’ve got workers getting on the ferry and coming over to the island and working and then getting back on the ferry, because they live in Chemainus or they live in Sidney.
We’ve got ferries that aren’t running, and the Minister of Transportation can talk about that. That’s largely to do with the tenuous nature of workforce housing. We have people living in their vans and being hassled around the island by the police, who are exasperated because they don’t have the tools in order to be able to support the people that they have to keep moving around the island.
We have a situation where, frankly, the reason that has been laid out here, that we can’t proceed here because there’s not been a consultation…. Frankly, we need to pause this whole thing and do a consultation, which is a proper engagement and response from everybody.
The notion that we can’t proceed here because of the preserve-and protect mandate…. We have the very people writing a letter, with urgency. “Can we please get this to the minister by November 21?” That reflects the urgency that I hear from my local government colleagues.
I appreciate the minister’s responsiveness. This issue of housing on Salt Spring — I have not taken more time of this government than on this issue. It is on this minister’s agenda that we’ve met multiple times. It’s on the former Minister of Housing’s, now the Premier’s, agenda that we’ve met multiple times, interventions by the now Premier, former Minister of Housing. The former, former Minister of Housing has had interventions.
We had to intervene in order to create a year-round shelter on the island. Lots of intervention, not a lot of long-term solutions, not a lot of flexibility for the Islands Trust, and that’s what they’re requesting here. So I hope that the context that I’m providing gives the minister pause for concern and to reconsider, because that’s the level of urgency that my local government colleagues are working at on Salt Spring.
The Chair: Shall the amendment to clause 12 pass?
The amendment is defeated.
A Voice: Division.
The Chair: I’m calling the committee back to order and seeking unanimous consent to waive the time. Is there anyone who objects to waiving the time?
Leave not granted.
The Chair: Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent members of Section A or their authorized substitutes may vote.
The question is shall the amendment to clause 12, which I am going to read out to you, pass.
The amendment is to 481.3(1): “In this section, ‘local trust area’ has the same meaning as in the Islands Trust Act.”
Then (4) in the same section: “A local government must exercise the powers under section 479 to permit the use and density of use necessary to accommodate at least the prescribed number of housing units on the following land within a restricted zone: (a) each parcel of land wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established by a regional growth strategy applicable to the municipality, regional district, or local trust area the population of which is greater than 5,000, as the case may be.”
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 4 | ||
Bond | Kirkpatrick | Olsen |
| Ross |
|
NAYS — 7 | ||
Brar | Chow | Glumac |
Kahlon | Phillip | Rankin |
| Rice |
|
The Chair: We are on clause 12.
K. Kirkpatrick: As we move into clause 12…. As you can tell by the number of amendments that were brought forward for clause 12, this is a fairly significant piece of this overall legislation. This overall legislation is significant, but this is the part where we start to really talk about density and the impact that we’re going have in our communities. If we don’t do this the right way, it will have long-term impacts on communities in British Columbia.
There is an exceptionally high level of responsibility that this government is carrying right now because the impact of what is happening in this legislation and what we’re talking about today could have far-reaching consequences that are not anticipated. So listening to my colleagues, listening to the communities that we’re hearing from, it is concerning that there are a number of issues that are being flagged that are of concern to many communities and people across British Columbia.
We’ll start trying to kind of peel away some of the confusion here with respect to the density piece. There was conversation on clause 1. There was, as we all know, a lot of conversation on clause 1. One of the conversations that came up was with respect to B.C. Assessment, the wealth lift, the impact on property assessments.
Has the ministry consulted with B.C. Assessment regarding the impact of this legislation on the assessment rolls, and what feedback was provided?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry, I thought I had a moment of déjà vu. It was like: “I think I’ve answered this one.” I did answer the question the first day, which is that the consultation happens through the Ministry of Finance, then with B.C. Assessment.
K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate some of these questions may sound familiar. I’m trying to connect them to the clause within the bill.
This consultation was done through the Ministry of Finance. I presume there was a conversation from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Housing as, clearly, that information would be important to inform the drafting of this legislation, as government would need to have an understanding of the impact to values and assessment.
The question, then, that I’ll come back to is: what was the feedback provided via Ministry of Finance or B.C. Assessment directly?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The feedback is that tax increases to property only occur when assessed value of a property rises relative to the other properties. So if all property values go up, taxes may remain the same. Upzoning is applying across entire municipalities, which will likely temper relative changes between individual properties.
Provincial assessment is based on market value, which incorporates both sales of similar properties in the area and unique characteristics of a property. Upzoning will only result in changes to assessments where market activity indicates that the fair market value has changed.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. There is a lot of information there. I would just like to clarify that I believe I heard the minister say that when the values of all properties go up, the assessment will remain the same. I must have misunderstood that part.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I will just speak a little slower because I think I said it pretty fast there. I think I went pretty quickly.
Tax increases to a property only occur when the assessed value of the property rises relative to other properties. If all property values go up, taxes may remain the same. Upzoning is applying across entire municipalities, which will likely temper relative changes between individual properties.
K. Kirkpatrick: The tax is associated with the value of the property. So if the value of the property goes up, understandably then, the tax will go up. Is that not correct?
Hon. R. Kahlon: No. Again, this was a question that was asked Monday. It doesn’t necessarily mean that.
Local governments decide how much revenue they believe they need. They set their tax thresholds accordingly, but it doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand.
K. Kirkpatrick: I have never, in my own tax assessment, seen the value of my property go up but the taxes being charged to me not also increasing.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Talk to that mayor of yours.
K. Kirkpatrick: I have two mayors.
Okay. I’m still on the value issue. I know we talked a lot about the value issue and the land-value lift. Does the minister agree that a fourplex-zoned piece of property has a higher value in the market than a single-family-zoned property?
Hon. R. Kahlon: If the rezoning happens on an individual property or a small group of properties, there is a significant land-value lift. But when it happens broadly across the province, in this case, the land lift is very small. That’s what the value is of doing it in a broader area than doing it isolated in one area.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
I’ve heard the minister refer to the spot zoning and the issue, not deferring but saying that the value is much less likely to lift or may not have any lift, because it’s being done across the province, as opposed to being spot-zoned. Where is the empirical evidence to prove that that is indeed the case?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a lot of studies on this topic. I’ll just give a couple of referrals.
Bryn Davidson, who’s with Lanefab consultants and who’s pretty well known in the field, said: “We have 15-plus years of experience in Vancouver with incremental upzones, showing that they didn’t lead to sudden jumps in land value. What has escalated land value? Exclusionary mansion zoning that has been an incredibly strong magnet for capital.”
I know my friend across the way also knows Bryan Yu, who’s from Central 1 Credit Union, their chief economist, who also said: “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 much more modest.”
There are a lot of economists within B.C. who have come out and said essentially the same thing that I’m saying. We’ve seen that, of course, in other jurisdictions as well.
K. Kirkpatrick: Say there’s a single-family lot that remains a single-family home, and there’s a purchase of the single-family home next door, which is then demolished to become a fourplex.
We’re going back to B.C. Assessment. If we look at that value of that fourplex now, B.C. Assessment looks at sales in community, and if that fourplex sells, it’s going to have a significantly higher value than the single-family home. Are we not, then, significantly increasing the assessed value of that single-family home because it now has neighbouring homes that have taken advantage of the uplift in the zoning?
Hon. R. Kahlon: If, over time, you have properties within a region that are sold higher, that assessment, over time, will reflect that, but the correlation between the taxes doesn’t exactly go the same way. That was my point earlier: local governments assess what revenues they need. The two don’t necessarily correlate together.
K. Kirkpatrick: It was the assessed value, as opposed to what the taxes will be. Will that not significantly increase the assessed value, regardless of what the tax rate is?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Assessed values are based on sales in the marketplace. But as people know…. For example, if a home sells in my neighbourhood for much higher, you’d see the assessed value in the market price, and you sometimes are confused as to why there are separations. Assessed value will reflect that over time, but again, there’s no correlation between the tax pieces. This is my main point here.
K. Kirkpatrick: What I’m hearing, though, is that when we start to look at the assessed values, which may result in an additional tax burden to people, the assessed values of properties will increase because there is that upzoning in communities. The value of all properties that are going to have fourplexes on them is going to increase.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is still the same as the first two times, and it’s similar to what some of these senior economists in British Columbia have said. If, instead of three or four units, you build a mansion, then that also has impacts in communities. The question can be asked in different ways, but the answer is still the same.
K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, because we’re not talking about mansions being built. We’re talking about the fact that all lots are being upzoned to four. Regardless of whether they build a mansion or whatever, there is an uplift in the value of those properties. There is an economic benefit for someone to come in now and develop those properties.
I’m going to come back to the tax piece, but I do have a concern, from an environmental perspective, as to the impact that this legislation is going to have.
Many building materials can cause great harm to the environment. Even those marketed as sustainable require significant energy to create, and significant energy in order to deal with their disposal.
What has government done, hand in hand with this legislation, to ensure there are appropriate diversion programs in communities that will offset what could be a massive increase in development waste?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There are multiple things. One, this doesn’t necessarily mean that homes will be torn down and sent to the landfill. This now enables for accessory dwelling units to be built, so additions to homes. It’s not necessarily that it goes into the landfill.
Similarly, previously, if a home were to come down, before, a single-family home would be built, so you’d still have that. Now, there are programs in government through CleanBC…
Interjection.
Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s terrible. Yeah.
…that do a couple of things. There’s a company in South Vancouver which basically unassembles the home and uses as much of the home as it can for other properties. There are now a bunch of not-for-profits that are starting up, which are fantastic, that are starting to take homes that are still in good condition, use, again, CleanBC grants to upgrade the windows, upgrade doors, heat pumps, etc., and then relocate them to other communities.
We’re seeing a lot of these types of initiatives to ensure that we’re not putting more things into the landfills, and that’s, I think, pretty exciting. Everyone would agree that those are amazing initiatives.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Those are all things I really appreciate. I’ve written articles on the value of moving homes, especially in the Gulf Islands. I think that’s very important. But the purpose of this legislation is to really put the foot on the gas pedal — not the gas pedal; the power pedal, whatever it is in our vehicles — in order to make things happen quickly.
The minister has said there’s going to be construction waste when people take down a single-family home, but that’s not the speed at which we’re talking about right now. And people…. The motivation to take down a home and replace it with a fourplex or a sixplex, or wherever the zoning happens to be, is going to be quite significant. There are many communities that have small single-family homes, 1,250-square-foot homes.
On my block, there are many homes that were the original homes that are 850 square feet. So when somebody purchases that property, they’re not going to be putting dwelling units on it. They’re not going to be stratifying the inside of it. They’re going to be taking that home down. And there are more of those than not.
The original question, if I can come back to it, is does government…? Through this legislation, was there consultation and confirmation that there are enough diversion programs in municipalities to be able to handle an increase in waste related to construction debris?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess I don’t agree with the premise that necessarily more will be. I just want to start with that.
I mentioned some initiatives that are already existing. We know that only homes that are near the end of their life will see themselves be redeveloped or go to landfill. We know with this legislation…. There is a big shift happening in our built environment, and it’s prefabrication.
What we’re seeing is that a lot more of these accessory dwelling units, complete homes, are being fully done in manufacturing facilities — a 90 percent reduction in waste because of the efficiency — and they’re moving them on site. I would say that the trend line to prefabrication and the trend line of us needing more homes are aligned.
If you have other programs that the province is funding, for Unbuilders and other organizations, I think we’ll see a lot more diversion over time.
K. Kirkpatrick: The assertion that the homes coming down are going to be end-of-life homes, I challenge. I know driving in Vancouver along Granville Street out to the airport over the last few years, I’ve seen some really big homes, maybe 15 years old, being taken down and being replaced either with single-family or with multifamily. So I think there’s an economic argument to be made when people are purchasing these homes to take them down, regardless of the age of them.
I hope that we’re going to see more conversions so that you’re going to have multi-unit within existing structures. But I think it’s naive of us to think that we are creating this incentive now.
It’s almost…. The last ten years, I’ve thought, or probably longer than that, that people are almost silly if they don’t knock a single-family home down when they buy the lot and build a new bigger one, because the value of the property is so much, is so expensive. The way to be able to maximize the investment in these fourplex lots now would be to take down the structure and to build new.
I love prefabricated. That’s great. The minister has said that’s something that’s coming. We’re going to be doing more of that, but you have to take down the old structure before you use the prefabricated structure. Either I’m hearing that there are not diversion programs confirmed with communities, or the minister can tell me that there are.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, if you’re looking at it as an investment frame, then that may be the case, but a lot of people are thinking: “This is my home.” Maybe there’s a history associated with it.
I only say that because there are multiple shifts happening in our economy and how homes are being built. The labour shortage is driving a lot of that innovation that’s happening.
The member’s question around this associated directly to the legislation. The answers I gave her are around what government is investing in — supporting Unbuilders, supporting not-for-profits that are starting to move homes that are in good condition.
The member and I know of a company that is doing that, that is doing great work, and there’s another one on the Island. These not-for-profits are popping up everywhere.
We are province-wide funding it. I can’t say it’s directly to this legislation, but there are programs within government supporting local governments to do that.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m having a hard time squaring this with the purpose of the legislation.
I will bring it back to clause 12. The purpose of clause 12 is that…. I’m hearing the minister say we don’t need to worry because there will be a lot of people who like their homes. They’re not going to take their homes down. But doesn’t that run counter to the purpose of the legislation, which is to make sure that we are increasing density and increasing it quickly?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re trying to get more housing options. My point is that more housing options doesn’t necessarily mean tearing a house down and building a new house. It could be accessory dwelling units. It could be additional units within homes. That was the point I was trying to make to the member.
At the same time, I was trying to say that because of the shortage of labour, we’re starting to see more innovation and prefab, etc.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Bear with me for a moment. I was distracted there for a moment.
Can the minister confirm that modelling was done to measure the impacts of this legislation, and will that modelling be made public?
Hon. R. Kahlon: This was canvassed at length, but I’ll do it again. Just to say that the modelling is dependent on the regulations, ensuring that there’s viability. When the regulations are passed, we’ll be making sure that the modelling is made public for the public to see.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll ask maybe a few more unique ones about modelling.
I’m going to come back to something the minister said about construction. This legislation is so connected to so many things outside of housing. We know housing is the basis of everything. It’s how we build our communities.
Some laughed yesterday when I referenced Sim City. Housing people — I know you guys know Sim City.
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: If they all play Sim City, is that how they came up with the housing legislation? No, I’m just kidding.
If you don’t surround things with the right amenities, as you know — and we’ve talked about this before — you’re going to have some challenges.
So to the minister: we’ve talked about this at some point before, or maybe I’ve just spoken about it in a debate. What consultation was done with the Ministry of Education — it’s not municipal, the Ministry of Education — in terms of ensuring that communities that are being upzoned where you’re anticipating there’s going to be …? If the legislation is successful, there could be a quadrupling of populations in certain areas.
How do you know, and what consultation was done to ensure, that there are going to be enough schools for that increased density?
Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things.
Having standardized housing needs reports and having communities update their community plans on a more regular basis helps everyone’s planning. It helps with education. It helps with health care. It helps with B.C. Hydro, around the planning they have to do for power.
For example, in Surrey, I met with the school board. They had modelling projections of how many young people they thought they were going to have. In coming out of the pandemic, that modelling is way off. Hence the surge of needing a lot more spaces than they have even planned for.
Now, if you have certain communities bringing housing options on and you have some not, what you end up getting is those that are bringing housing options on need additional resources. Those that don’t bring housing options have resources that are not needed.
In Vancouver, we’ve got schools that are considered to be shut down because they believe they don’t have young people, that the population doesn’t meet the demand. In Surrey, we have a lot more people going, and we have to increase housing.
With this legislation, what we’re saying is that everyone has a responsibility to build housing so that it’s not being isolated to certain communities. This means that not only do we have options across the province — people don’t have to go to specific communities for housing — but also, the planning allows us to plan in a better way.
To bring it back to the question, yes. This helps the Ministry of Education, helps the Ministry of Health, helps the Ministry of Transportation. It helps EMLI and B.C. Hydro. It allows for better planning all around.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand that. But what this legislation is doing is…. There’s going to be a switch flipped one day, and you’re going to have the potential to quadruple the potential density in a community.
This isn’t something with your housing plans and over time; this is something very, very sudden.
So how is it that that is connected to…? I think Surrey is probably the best example that the minister can give. We’ve got over 400 portables there right now. What impact is that going to have on education in those communities?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that it’s important to acknowledge that the people are already here, and they’re looking for housing. They’re struggling for housing.
I know I said this answer earlier, and there were some chuckles. But I’ve got, in my community, one home that’s got 18 students in it, international students. They came and met with me. I talked to them. They wanted to raise the concerns that they had, didn’t want me to raise it with the local government because they felt like if we did that, there were no housing options for them.
We have, from the federal government, projections of population increase. What we’re trying to do here is to ensure that we have housing, not only to meet those projections but for the people that are already here. They’re already accessing services. They’re already needing to go to schools. They already need to go to hospitals. What they don’t have is adequate housing.
The reason why I say this is that it’s not necessarily that we’re building this housing because we want a lot more people to come. People are already coming. People are already here, and they don’t have enough housing available to them. So it’s a two-parter.
K. Kirkpatrick: The challenge with the answer is that this is zoning which is across British Columbia. So if the minister is saying there’s capacity in schools in Vancouver so it’s good if people move there. But we’re not spot-zoning. We’re not just talking about Vancouver; we’re talking about across the province.
I will shift gears for a moment. Secondary suites or laneway homes. How many ADUs does the minister believe will result from the change in 481.3?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The ADUs are within that estimate I’ve shared. I don’t believe there’s a complete breakdown of what kind of unit will be coming online. There is still a lot of flexibility for local governments around ADU rules. Viability is obviously an important piece, but we don’t have specific numbers on ADUs.
K. Kirkpatrick: With the short-term rental changes, one of the allowable structures for short-term rentals continues to be a residence with a secondary suite or an ADU is still able to run a short-term rental.
Does the minister have a sense, or not a sense, I guess, an idea or number of how many of these new fourplexes, where someone is living as a residence there, will then be able just to convert these two, or at least one of them, on the property to an Airbnb.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member saying “or one,” because the member knows it’s limited to one other within a structure. It’s hard to say. I assume the member is asking about what that number will be in the future, and I can’t give any definitive answer on that.
K. Kirkpatrick: Is it a concern, moving forward with this, that there will be creation of a significant number of new STRs?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not particularly concerned about that. People may decide to do that. But that is within the rules that have been laid out.
K. Kirkpatrick: There was a mention earlier of CleanBC. We were talking about, also, how we’re going to open up what may be the Wild West for construction once all of this upzoning happens. CleanBC says we’re going to lose 14,000 — you know, less construction jobs.
Notwithstanding that — we can debate that; we don’t need to — the fact is there is going to be a much higher demand on construction and trades. We’ve seen in the past when you have a housing crisis, when you’re building, when you need to hire people, the wages will go up, the costs will go up, the timelines for building will go down. What are the minister and the ministry doing in order to address the significant shortage in tradespeople?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member was right earlier when she highlighted that this touches many things. Housing touches many things.
First thing is training. We have seen and we have been increasing training opportunities for people. And of course, immigration streams — finding ways through PNP, etc., to be able to attract that talent. It’s certainly something I’ve been advocating with the federal government to ensure that they have higher points for those particular skill sets that we that we need. So it’s training our people. It’s ensuring that that we can fast-track immigration for those that have it.
Also, what’s really important is that this session we introduced legislation that allows for skill sets to be recognized. That is also a critically important part. We have a lot of people who come to Canada, who’ve got skills, and they’re not able to fully use their skills to further themselves, further their opportunities here in Canada.
Those are important pieces, but we won’t be able to address the housing crisis alone just with that. We need to do things differently. That means prefabrication is going to be a bigger piece of the pie. That’s why we’re starting to invest through the Ministry of Jobs — now it’s the JEDI Ministry — Economic Development and Innovation. They’re starting to invest directly into manufacturing facilities to support them to scale up and grow.
Mass timber. We have a mass timber action plan, which has been getting a lot of traction. We’re starting to see a lot more mass timber buildings coming forward. Why that’s important is that that means assembly off site, manufactured off site, brought onto location, less people needed, done more efficiently, less noise, less pollution. You get all that.
Then another piece we’re doing — part of our Homes for People strategy — is providing digital tools and resources for our construction industry to increase their innovation, because we know productivity in the construction sector is not where it needs to be.
We have partnered with the digital supercluster. They just put a call out a few days ago to support construction companies with pilots, where they’re using digital tools to increase the productivity, to do things more efficiently, more safely, because that will help reduce the pressure that they’re facing when it comes to labour, drone technology, machine learning, AI — all those pieces.
We’re also doing that work with local governments, supporting them with building permits, etc., so that we have digital tools that can help eliminate the need for additional staff all the time.
Anyways, I went on a little bit too long, but we’re looking at a whole host of things that are part of the Homes for People strategy to ensure that this can be a success.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
This legislation will create labour scarcity. This is not something that we’re going to be doing three years, five years into the future. I mean, obviously, it will grow and develop as we do that. But there could be significant pressure in the short term on actually accessing the more traditional trades that we need.
May I clarify that the minister is saying, however, that the expectation and part of the ability to support this increased density is going to be a replacement of those traditional trades jobs with AI and with other types of employment?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The skill sets that many of our trades have are going to be vitally important as we go forward. What we’re saying is that we have to find ways to be more efficient in how we move forward.
We are going to have a shortage of skilled trades for many years. That work is there. I say to young people: “If you want to get into a good skill and you want to have a good job and good opportunities, go into the trades. It’s an amazing career opportunity.”
I know that many families, immigrant families, back in the day would discourage it because they, themselves, worked in trades, and they thought that kids would want something else. I know many people that grew up with families who had trades, went to something else, regretted it later and wished that they had gone.
In fact, one of my best friends went to university, got his bachelor of science and all these things and then went back to trades and now is a machinist. He realized that he wanted to work with his hands. I think that is vitally important.
The other piece I’ll note is right now, if a single-family home is coming down and a single-family home is being built, the skill sets, the trades are still working on that site. Now they’ll be able to work on three-unit, four-unit buildings — the same skills creating more housing opportunities for people. So there’s an efficiency that comes with that as well.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
We’ll move away from that for now. Can the minister explain what consultations were done in choosing the population thresholds?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll try to get ahead and answer first how we got to that number. First off, the communities with a population of 5,000 or greater is 95 percent of B.C.’s population. That’s captured by this new requirement.
From the analysis that was done by the ministry staff, on average, communities with less than 5,000 residents are only seeing growth rates of 1 percent, which is equal to about 50 people or fewer.
When analyzing communities with 5,000 or more residents, the average population growth is about more than 1 percent and climbs as the population increases. So that was the analysis of why.
I believe I shared with the members yesterday a list of communities and organizations that we consulted. That number was part of that.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Did the ministry give any consideration to recent policy changes — we’ve talked about the New Zealand model — promised to the medium-density residential standards by the National Party government of New Zealand? They have made recent policy changes that would impact the size and autonomy of communities.
Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a new government. They had an election, and there’s a new government that’s come in. I believe the policies haven’t been changed yet. It’s just being proposed as something that may change.
K. Kirkpatrick: The national government there is moving to allow for an opt-out provision for local governments if they can prove that they’ve got an adequate 30-year plan for future development within their OCP.
This was part of one of the amendments that we talked about earlier. Did the ministry consider this as an alternative?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the new government has suggested that is something they’re going to do, and it hasn’t happened yet.
K. Kirkpatrick: Regardless of whether they’ve done it and it’s happened yet, it’s on the table. Is it something that the ministry has considered?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, in fact, just about an hour ago, there was an amendment, and we canvassed this topic.
We believe that ensuring that there’s gentle density in communities throughout British Columbia is a better approach.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m just going to ask the minister to explain that last comment.
Why would one exclude the other? If communities are doing good work and they’re addressing things in a 20-year or 30-year plan, what is the comment about gentle density versus not? I’m a bit confused.
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s important to put the suggestion that the new government in New Zealand is bringing forward…. They made these changes in 2016, so they have seven years of seeing the housing increase, where they’re at a point now, perhaps, that is why they want to consider different ways of being. But they’ve had the policy in place for seven years, and they’ve seen significant increases in housing, and the results are pretty impressive.
K. Kirkpatrick: The question was whether the ministry had actually considered that when they were going through the policy to make these changes.
How will the application of this provision change as urban containment boundaries change?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this, again, I think the other day, which is, if a regional urban boundary were to change, it would require the region to have to support that.
Certainly, it’s likely in some communities it’ll expand, but if they were to consider making it smaller, that would put more pressure on all those other communities to do a little more of the lifting in order for them to meet their regional targets. But I can’t predict what will happen in the future.
K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the minister can’t predict what will happen. But we have heard from some councils that they are discussing the possibility of actually shrinking the urban containment boundaries in response to this legislation.
Is the minister prepared for this possibility? What could the implications be of that?
Hon. R. Kahlon: You could see a community consider that. But when they have their housing needs reports provided to them, they’re going to find that they’re going to have to find ways for all that housing to get into a smaller area. They’re going to have to go through a pretty extensive public consultation to make that decision.
Then lastly, there is a reasonability test. It can’t be unreasonable, so there may be a judicial review if it’s deemed unreasonable.
K. Kirkpatrick: Don’t worry. I’m not going to ask about the definition of the reasonability test.
This does set out higher density requirements to be the six units within the prescribed distance of a bus stop if the lots meet the minimum size requirement. I think the obvious question here, then, is: why was this provision not integrated with Bill 47? Why wasn’t Bill 47 part of this? They are addressing the upzoning issue.
Hon. R. Kahlon: They work together. The other legislation, which will soon be discussed, is on transit-oriented areas. It’s just a different type of housing mix when you get into the eight storeys to 20 storeys compared to three, four, six units. That’s why the separation, but the two do work together.
K. Kirkpatrick: In this context, what defines a frequent bus stop?
[S. Chant in the chair.]
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I shared this answer the other day, which is that the exact definition will come in regulation. But generally, we’re looking at frequent transit areas as B.C. Transit and TransLink define them. It’ll be similar, but I can’t say exactly until the regulations are passed.
K. Kirkpatrick: What planning has been done in consultation with TransLink in order to be able to make sure that there is also supporting transportation infrastructure to make this work?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I know we’ll be canvassing TransLink in a bigger way with the other piece of legislation. The premise of this is to ensure that we’re building housing near where we already are making infrastructure investments. That’s why it’s structured the way it is.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll go back to my own community on the North Shore. We’re upzoning. We’re increasing density, which we need to do. This is a substantive increase of density.
What consultation was done? How can Ministry of Housing be confident that these are realistic targets for those communities on the North Shore without knowing that we have got better transportation to and from the North Shore?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, my conversations with the mayor and council and my MLA colleagues around the need for transit….
We were really pleased to hear that there’s a transit route that is identified as the first three that TransLink has identified. I think what’s important, and what the TransLink board has made clear to me, is that they understand transit needs to continue to be expanded. They also understand that we need to have housing being built around that. So that’s where our focus is.
A. Walker: Can the minister clarify if a government, without coming back to this chamber, could define a bus stop, as we see in 481.3(5), to be any bus stop?
The Chair: Member, can you repeat the question, please?
A. Walker: Yeah, 481.3(5) says that the minimum density allowable on a property can be greater if it’s within a prescribed distance of a bus stop. It says that it will prescribe the size of the lot, but also the distance in relation to a bus stop.
So that definition of bus stop, I’m presuming, is to be set in regulation. Could that provide government, in future, the ability to dramatically upzone communities anywhere near any bus stop?
Hon. R. Kahlon: That is defined by cabinet, not one minister. In future, it won’t be a minister making a change when I’m long gone from here. Someone won’t be making it. It’s a cabinet decision.
We are, in regulation, putting a definition around what that frequent transit area is. Under the legislation we’re bringing, if that transit is serviced at that level, then it’s included. If a new area gets that transit service, they will be included. But future governments can always change legislation. They can change regulations as they see fit.
A. Walker: That answers the question, which is basically that that definition could be done unilaterally by cabinet without input from local communities.
We have seen, in the city of Nanaimo, the transit exchange. As the minister described the other day, TransLink is defining these rapid services as at least every 15 minutes, goes into the evening, goes into the weekends. We don’t have that in my community, as the minister has stated.
There is a potential that communities could not make initiatives forward that would see that transit take place, in an effort to restrict density in some areas. Has the minister considered the potential that a local government could intentionally underfund transit services, in an intentional way, to not see density take place in our communities?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, local government could say they don’t want transit of any kind. That wouldn’t be out of the norm of what’s happened in the past.
In my community, in my riding, Sunshine Hills is a part of my community that had a referendum 30 years ago to not allow transit to come in because they didn’t want other people coming. There’s been a lot of movement in our community. Full credit to my mayor and council, who are now re-engaging with residents about the need for it. We have students that are creating a big movement, signing petitions to try to encourage local governments and TransLink to put a bus service there.
So yeah, I guess, in the future, local governments could say, “We don’t want transit,” but I don’t think they’d be serving their residents well by doing that. Because the groundswell for public transportation is just increasing. It’s not going away.
A. Walker: I think it’s important to recognize how the tools and levers that were given to local governments…. They’re being restricted, so the limited tools that they have could be used to try to move their community planning in one direction, with impacts elsewhere. I join the minister and hope local governments wouldn’t do that, but I wanted to raise that here as a point of record.
As we go through this clause 12, 481.3(3), it says that local governments must exercise their powers under section 479 to permit use and density. It provides specific uses. Does that mean that local governments cannot use development permit areas under this clause?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no.
A. Walker: Similarly — this conversation came up before — local governments are…. It’s not uncommon for them to use a section 219 covenant. Different act, but you know, that power is granted to them through the Local Government Act.
If that is to the benefit of local government, would local governments have to give up those covenants in order to allow the mandatory density prescribed under clause 3?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is no, but with our site standards, we will have some policy guidance that will be provided to local governments.
A. Walker: Interesting.
These covenants, the power to issue these covenants, are granted by the Crown through the Local Government Act. We’ve seen the province initiate initiatives on covenants, for example, to remove the restriction on a person of certain ethnicities not being allowed there. If councils are able to apply these covenants to properties to restrict development and density…. I see that as a potential tool that could be used by communities to do this.
Similarly, the section 219 covenant is specific to…. There’s a list of, I think, seven different forms of government. There’s a section 220 covenant, which is to the benefit of property owners. If you sell or sublease two or more properties, you can put covenants on that the new owner will not build above a certain height or things like that.
Do those restrictions that are currently to the benefit of the property owners and don’t involve local government…? Will the powers that exist now under this new clause…? Will that grant local governments the ability to put that density on sites that have a section 220 covenant?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation doesn’t override municipal governments’ covenants.
A. Walker: You can certainly understand that section 219 is…. There’s a power there. There’s section 220, which doesn’t involve local governments at all.
When you subdivide a property, either for sale or for lease, and it’s two or more properties, it’s an agreement between property owners. It doesn’t…. The local government isn’t involved at all.
The question was: if there is a covenant in place that is done under section 220 of the Local Government Act — I think it’s the LGA — would this new power that forces local governments to allow this density…? Would those covenants that don’t involve local government preclude that density?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re aware of some challenges in some communities when it comes to this. This legislation doesn’t address that, but we are looking at that as part of discussions through our site standard document.
A. Walker: I gather there are some other questions about covenants. I just want to clarify. It’s the Land Title Act not Local Government Act, LTA not LGA. Sorry.
A. Olsen: I asked the minister the question around the covenant piece, and then kind of moved on. I’m just wondering — it’s come up here again — why it is that the ministry chose to exclude those covenants rather than dealing with them. The minister suggested yesterday that they’re in the process of dealing with them. What does that look like?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Covenants are very complex. They vary in different forms. So the reason for not doing that is that it’s going to require us a lot more work to go through and grapple with the complexity of different forms of covenants in so many parts of our province.
K. Kirkpatrick: Section 481.5 prohibits conditions for affordable housing from being attached to density zoning for the purpose of meeting the minimum number of units. Can the minister tell us what the rationale was for precluding affordable housing density requirements in this section?
Hon. R. Kahlon: It was for viability reasons. If you have units that are three or four, it makes them less viable to be built. I used, yesterday, the Victoria example. They saw that clearly. There was no action. No one wanted to proceed because it made them unviable.
But we have said, and I said in my second reading speech, that the six units will…. We will be allowing for some form of inclusionary zoning or affordable element to be involved.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. What tools will local government, then, have to promote affordable housing in fourplexes?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the nature of fourplexes makes homes more affordable than a single-family home. So that’s why the policy is brought forward. That’s why we’re bringing this forward, because when a single-family home is built on a single-family lot, it’s often unattainable for many people.
That very nature of it is a key part of what we’re getting at. What we say with this legislation is that as the unit numbers get higher, there is more room for affordability or inclusionary zoning types of policies to be put in place. And I expect, as we go into the other legislation, you’ll see local governments putting a lot more requirements in as the scale increases.
K. Kirkpatrick: I feel like I’m in the twilight zone a little bit here when we’re on the other side. I’m asking: “Why aren’t we doing more in terms of affordable housing?” And the minister is saying to me: “It’s all about supply. That’s going to actually bring down the cost and open more affordable housing.”
What tools…? I’m just repeating the same question. What tools will government have? Will local governments have the ability to set and direct some requirements within the fourplex developments that they need — that they must meet some kind of affordability measure?
Hon. R. Kahlon: It shouldn’t feel like the twilight zone. We should be aligned on this. Although I did hear earlier that people have varying opinions of what we’re doing here in this building, but I won’t go into that.
I’ll say to the member that we’ve always said that, yes, housing supply is a key part of the solution. So that’s why the three- to four-units — we’ve structured in the way we have. In order for them to be viable, for the industry to be able to respond, we needed that there. And as we go higher in density, there’s more room for inclusionary zoning types of policies to be in place.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m curious about the minister’s comment now. I’m going to have to go on Twitter and find out what people are saying we’re doing in this building.
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, okay. Well, I know what was happening there.
We’re looking at enabling regulations that are going to define urban containment boundaries, and they’re going to set the requirements for transit, size, dimension, location, types of units allowed. Can the minister explain how those boundaries will be defined, and will it be consistent with local governments’ definitions?
The Chair: The committee is on a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.
[S. Chant in the chair.]
The Chair: I call this committee back to order on clause 12.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Chair, thank you for allowing us a couple of minutes’ break.
The definition of “urban containment area” in this…. We don’t have the exact definition. We’re respecting local government’s definition of it.
K. Kirkpatrick: Could this act still apply to land outside an urban containment boundary in the event that the boundary changes?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this one was canvassed by another member at length yesterday. Technically an urban containment boundary, a regional one, could be made smaller. It would require, obviously, everyone in the region to support that.
That would come with an understanding that the community, the region, would still need to have a certain amount of housing approved. That shift would go more on the communities outside of that boundary area. They would have a greater, I guess, load of housing they would need. But if that were a decision, then yes, they could do that.
A. Walker: There’s an exemption in here that if a property is not hooked up to sewer or water, these rules do not apply, but only if the service is operated by a municipality or regional district.
We, in my community, have a private water purveyor for land that’s within an urban containment boundary, but this would not cover those areas. Why is it only services offered specifically through a municipality?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We wanted to make sure this would capture areas that we have strong confidence in that they have the water infrastructure that is needed in the community.
A. Walker: In my community, we have thousands of people on a service by a private water purveyor, EPCOR, one of the largest private utilities for this type of service in western Canada. Is the minister saying that he does not have faith in that service?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The areas that are not connected to municipal water or sewer are exempt from the requirements of multi-unit.
A. Olsen: Just following up, I have improvement districts, specifically on Salt Spring Island. It reemerges. It shows up. Salt Spring water, as an example, is a very large improvement district. Recognizing that Salt Spring is falling outside of this, just in the fact that there might be other improvement districts around, would they also be excluded from this?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct to remind me that Salt Spring is not part of this, if that was his intention. But yeah, he’s correct that improvement districts are not included in this.
A. Walker: In portions of my community, we have a private water purveyor, and then we also have the circumstance where, through latecomer agreements, we have municipally operated sewer. It’s not unusual in many parts of my community, within urban containment boundaries, where one house has the service, one does not, one has, one does not.
Has the minister considered at all the impact on communities where this gentle density he’s referring to is very inconsistent in just one street or one house next to each other on the same street?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is still the same. If you’ve got both those, then you’re in. If you don’t, you’re exempt.
A. Walker: As the modelling was done and as the impact on communities was done, I’m just wondering if this has come up and if this was something that was considered as this clause was drafted.
Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two parts.
One, we did consider that in some communities, there will be two types of services.
As far as the modelling goes, that is done on broader targets, and again, that modelling will be released later.
A. Walker: We have canvassed extensively whether this will increase land costs or costs to people or not. That’s not directly my question.
In a community where some homes are connected to a municipal service and some are not, it means that the others that don’t have it are relying on wells or septic fields. If we have a four-unit home beside another home that is relying on a septic field and that four-unit home, for example, has connected water service, whereas the other one doesn’t, it could require that the neighbouring properties have to connect to the service to prevent failures of their own.
We have, in our community, this weird situation where people’s wells are too close to septic fields. When you get a patchwork approach like this, where some homes in the neighbourhood are allowed to rapidly densify and others are not, it could potentially put significant pressure on other homes to have to then force them into a system that is very costly.
I’m wondering if that’s been considered at all through this process and if there’d be any support for people in that circumstance?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There is, in this legislation, the ability for local governments, if they believe the infrastructure does not exist, to have some flexibility to be able to make decisions. I can’t suggest one way or another what an individual homeowner will do with the services that they have.
A. Walker: To clarify, that clause for the infrastructure, hearing from the minister, that infrastructure could be infrastructure of private property owners, not municipal infrastructure. Is that the case?
Interjection.
A. Walker: It’s a very strange circumstance where some homes are connected to a municipal service and some are not. They are on standard-sized lots. Some have wells and septic, and some are connected. So what happens is that if somebody, for example, is connected to water, and this one is not, this one has a well, if this first property densifies immensely, they’re going to put their septic fields in and do all of that.
It’s private infrastructure. We’re not talking about the infrastructure that the local government would require. It’s private infrastructure.
So the question is just basically: what consideration is there for property owners that will be potentially tremendously impacted from this change?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you for the clarity. So if they rely on septic, then they’re not included.
A. Walker: I don’t think the minister is understanding it. The idea is that if a property is connected to water or sewer, they are included. There are communities where not every home on the street is connected. So, often, it’s through a latecomer agreement or some other water service or sewer service.
It creates this weird patchwork where a community has designated an area. It’s appropriate when it’s single-family. But when you put more units on a property, especially if you’re going to put four units on a property that has water hookup and septic, if you have a property next door that has a well, the impacts will be very incredible for them.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the reason why we’re misunderstanding is because we’re saying that you have to have both. You have to have both water and sewer connected.
A. Olsen: I want just to very briefly canvass 481.6 in its entirety — all of (a) through (f). We could go through this entire discussion as communities are organized now. This section here, 481.6, basically gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to change the picture for local governments in any way that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the minister — whatever Minister of Housing is in the seat at the time — choose.
It could completely redefine urban containment boundaries. It could define urban containment boundaries out of existence by just simply negating them. It could completely change the requirements as to…. We talked about bus depots or large bus areas. It could include individual bus stops, as an example.
I’m just wondering. The level of certainty that is apparently being created here. There’s also, at the same time, a level of uncertainty that’s being created here for municipalities. How does the minister reconcile that?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess a future government — sometime down the future, as the member suggested — may consider getting rid of urban containment boundaries. I mean, if they wanted to do that, they could bring legislation and probably do that anyways. But why would anybody do that, given that this is such an effective way of ensuring that that growth is happening in a contained area?
So I suppose if the member wants to think, “Well, a future government could do this and do that….” A future government can do anything in this place if they’ve got the seats, but I don’t think it’s a wise thing to do, given that this has been an effective way to ensure that growth is happening in certain areas.
A. Olsen: I think I’ll just end with this. There have been comments that have been made that even though we’re allowing this to happen, it’s unlikely that it will. I think it’s really important to put the context in again — repeat the context into the record here — that municipal governments do not have the pleasure that the minister takes in saying: “We’re going to create all of this potential with the comfort that it may or may not happen.”
The engineers and local governments have to act like 100 percent of what is allowed is going to happen. They have to be prepared for all of the density to be taken up, because if they don’t, then they’re going back and replacing pipes that were just replaced or a system that is now undersized.
So only in the provincial government can we take the position: “We’re going to allow all of this to happen, but it won’t.” Only in the provincial government can we say that we’re going to give the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do something that could already be done in legislation. We’re actually giving it….
We’re saying: “No, you don’t have to do it in legislation.” We’re saying, “You can just do it by order-in-council three days before the holiday break,” and that’s it. That’s the end of it — no discussion, no public discussion. It doesn’t matter that it’s not a great idea. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work for our communities.
But in creating this, for whatever reason the minister is creating it…. And that’s what I’m trying to get an answer for, not that it was a dumb idea and nobody should do that. I’m just suggesting that, in this clause, we’re giving the power to the government to do that without having to come back for legislation.
I mean, I guess I could respond to the minister’s response and say: “Well, why would a government do that in legislation when they’ve been given the power by the minister to do it by regulation?”
Hon. R. Kahlon: The intention is that…. Let’s say there’s a flood in an area, and it’s within the urban containment boundary area.
The ability to be able to say that in future, we don’t want something to be happening in that area, a development to be happening in the area, it gives us the ability, through order-in-council, to do that. That’s the intention of it.
Clause 12 approved on division.
On clause 13.
K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Moving to clause 13.
This clause, I understand, requires municipalities to zone in a manner that is now going to support their 20-year housing totals from their housing needs report, but it is not able to establish conditional density rules.
Who will make the determination regarding how rezonings satisfy this section?
Hon. R. Kahlon: For SSMU, they report to us. For the 20-year targets and how they’re doing, that’s on the local government. So local governments will have, clearly, their housing needs report. They’ll identify what needs to happen, and then it’s up to them to make sure that they’re getting to the targets, and then when the housing needs reports are updated, it’s a bit of a report card of how they’re doing.
It’s a little bit different than, say, the target communities that have been selected. It’s different for the target communities, because we’re able to work more collaboratively with them. That’s why there’s the targets and then there’s just the general housing needs reports.
It helps us with a couple of things because, as I was canvassed the other day with the members across the way, we have numbers that come from the top, from CMHC. This standardized housing needs report system gives us the uniqueness of communities, and that information helps us assess a different way of getting at how many housing units we need in the province.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer.
The minister mentioned the communities with the housing targets. These are the ones we referred to earlier. They have a higher standard, or there’s more oversight from the province on what they’re doing then, if I understood correctly?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. What is the timeline for having all the rezonings completed?
Hon. R. Kahlon: SSMU is June 30 next year. Overall, it’s two years from now.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister explain why none of these rezonings, or the majority of rezonings, aren’t going to happen until after the next election?
Hon. R. Kahlon: SSMU will be done by June 30.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Will these 20-year targets need to be rezoned for every five years as housing needs assessments are done?
Hon. R. Kahlon: After five years, they may need to adjust and tweak according to where their housing needs reports are.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Just clarifying that re-tweaked means they may have to be rezoned.
Hon. R. Kahlon: After five years, they’ll have to look at their housing needs report to see where they’re at and make adjustments accordingly.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. How will this requirement be funded for smaller municipalities? An example is Ashcroft, which estimates a 9 percent property tax increase related to the costs of just this section.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The $51 million, obviously, is being provided to local governments to do the work initially. Municipalities will not be required to conduct a full review of their official community plan every five years.
A. Olsen: When it comes to the housing needs report, there’s going to be a 20-year total number that needs to be determined. How often does that 20-year number need to be updated, and what’s the process for that? Just in terms of…. How are these housing needs assessments rolling over from one to the next?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Every five years, they’ll update the numbers to see what the 20-year number is, and that will help them adjust where their targets will be.
A. Olsen: We’ve got a five-year review of the housing needs assessments and a requirement to update the official community plans every five years. Can the minister describe how this works in the timeline, how these two pieces, the one piece of information around the housing needs assessment and the one piece around the planning piece — how they work together?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities will do their housing needs assessments on the structure we’re putting in place. Once that’s done, they update their OCP within two years. Once that’s done, in future years, every five years when they go to update it, the expectation is they’ll have to adjust according to what their 20-year number input is.
The expectation is that the numbers won’t be that far off given that a lot of that work has been done in the first cycle.
A. Olsen: So each official community plan update will require…. There’s a two-year lag. You’ll do your housing needs assessment. That gives you two years to update your official community plan. Then three years down the road, you’re then doing your housing needs assessment again. Two years after that, following that, you have to do your official community plan. Is that right?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. The first part is correct. You do the housing needs report. You’ve got two years to do your plan. Then the housing needs report can be done closer to when the next OCP is being updated because the gap now is to give communities time to do that work.
But it’s not stringent. It can be done with a little more flexibility, the next round.
A. Olsen: How long is the ministry expecting communities to take to update their official community plan?
Hon. R. Kahlon: By December 2024, the interim housing needs report should be done. By December 2025, OCP and zoning should be done.
Then the next cycle housing needs report will be 2028. Then the next cycle OCP zoning would be 2030.
A. Olsen: I guess what I’ve witnessed over the last three years now in my community are three municipalities that undertook an official community planning process at the same time. They started it at the same moment. I can tell you they did not all end it at the same moment. In fact, I think there’s one that is still not ended.
We have a situation where these communities have their own pace. In some cases for the citizens, it’s far too quick. In other cases, it’s not quick enough. The point that I’m trying to raise is that…. Well, actually, I’ll add this to it. In addition to that, that process didn’t include the fact that now all the rezonings — that’s the discussion that’s happening at the official community planning process.
So we’ve made it far more efficient. This bill makes it far more efficient for the rezoning to happen, from single-family to multifamily. But it’s front-end loaded that entire debate that would happen in each one of those neighbourhoods as the community is going through and trying to figure out where the density is going to go into the official community planning process — which we’ve seen to be, for some communities, pretty smooth and, for some communities, to be utter chaos.
I’m just wondering how the ministry has evaluated this scenario. What measures in this bill are in place to ensure that those official community planning processes aren’t a fiasco?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I think the answer was kind of in the question: with this legislation, with TOD, a lot of the communities’ housing needs will be met through just this legislation.
Yes, there will be some additional conversations communities will need to have, and I appreciate it’s complex. I know we have these conversations in my community, although in my community it went fairly smoothly, as smooth as these things can go. Yeah, the answer is partly in the way the member framed the question: between these pieces of legislation, it does get us a lot of the way there in most communities.
A. Olsen: I’m not exactly sure how this process changes in any way the process that’s already in place in municipalities. There already is an expectation that the communities have a housing needs assessment. There already is a requirement for that community to have an official community plan. What we’ve seen is that not all communities deliver on the same timeline.
The minister has given a timeline that came from a flow chart that was provided with the briefing materials, that this is what the expectation is. But one of the things I’ve learned about this is that you can’t have an expectation about how a community has this discussion, especially now that there are going to be elevated growth targets.
In some communities, it’s going to be very challenging to determine which neighbourhoods get that growth. There were parents and kids with placards arguing, in one of the communities that I’m aware of, and out campaigning against their neighbourhood being excluded from it. Just because this bill gets rid of the public hearing process, it doesn’t mean that we’re going to be also axing all the debate that happens in the community. In fact, all it does is that it turns it into a more heated microcosm.
I’m just wondering what mechanisms are in place here in order to be able to ensure that communities get through an official community planning process, considering that we’ve now front-end-loaded all of the debate that would happen at a public hearing. We’re front-end-loading that into an official community planning process. The potential is a fiasco.
Hon. R. Kahlon: We believe that there’s sufficient time for communities to update their OCP and zoning. December 2025: we believe there’s sufficient time for that to happen.
A. Olsen: My question is not…. This was the reason why I framed this as: what is the process, going forward, over multiple cycles? That’s what I was trying to understand, in how it fits in. The minister may believe that there’s enough time between now and the first deadline. What I’m trying to understand is how it is that we ensure that everybody sticks to the deadlines that exist, following on.
There are these five years and two years, as the minister described it. It took three years for an official community planning process to be completed in one community that I know, it took two years for the others, and some may take four years. Is there a restriction in that official community planning process?
Municipal councillors are concerned that some of the democracy has been removed from their responsibilities. Some of the democratic process has been removed. The minister repeatedly has assured: “No, no, don’t worry. That is just going to be moved to the official community planning process.”
What we likely will have are community leaders that are saying: “Well, hold on. Don’t hurry us. The provincial government is the one that has focused all this attention on the official community planning process.” This is how long it takes in this community. This is the fiasco that was created by front-end-loading this debate.
I’m just wondering. The minister is confident that the first timeline works. How confident are we, and what measures are in place to ensure that all of the other timelines that follow that also work?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I understand what the member is saying. I’m just saying that I’m confident that we’ll be able to see communities update their OCP zoning by December 2025.
I’m also confident that the next cycle, which is five years from then, communities will have sufficient time. If we feel that we can see communities update their OCPs two years from now, then, of course, we feel comfortable that communities will be able to update their community plans five years from that date.
Interjections.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
All right.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Through the consultation, staff inform me, it was widely understood that five years makes more sense because it allows you to adapt to the needs of the community in a better way.
K. Kirkpatrick: Just listening to the House Leader of the Third Party on the OCP and the OCP process. It just got me thinking, and I’m just curious about the minister’s thoughts on this. Now that communities do not have the opportunity for public hearings on projects, there’s going to be a lot more pressure on that OCP process.
Do you think that with communities alive to the fact that their input is even that much more valuable through the OCP process, some of the blockages that you get through the public hearing process may be shifted in some part to that OCP process?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for that question. Having more people engaged in the OCP process is, I think, a healthy thing for all communities.
I’m not only saying that because I engaged in my OCP in my community, but I do think more people involved in that important conversation will make for better and stronger and vibrant communities.
A. Olsen: I’m just really concerned that the level of confidence that the minister is exhibiting here in the answers has not been what we’ve seen. I mean, communities have been supposed to update their official community plan, every…. What, every ten years, was it was originally supposed to be? And communities haven’t even followed on that timeline.
Is there anything in this to compel municipalities to complete those official community plans every five years? Where does that exist? Where is the confidence coming from that communities…? I’ve already demonstrated that communities are on their own timelines on this. So what measures are in place to compel communities to actually be done their official community plan even before they’re done?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There now is a requirement for this to happen.
I kind of get where the member is going with this. It goes to a question that the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano raised earlier, which is: you have a plan, and what happens, like New Zealand, where they adjusted their plan?
I think it’s fair to assume that, just like New Zealand six years or seven years after their initial plan, they made adjustments. I think it’s fair to assume that if there’s a challenge in year 4 or 5, there would be some room for adjustment.
A. Walker: I’m just seeking some points of clarity here. When we put together a 20-year housing plan, that’s a long runway, and I think it makes a lot of sense to plan our communities with that kind of vision.
When that number comes back for the number of units that are going to be required for a community to meet that place 20 years from now, does this require local governments, through their OCP, to designate areas for that density now or to have a plan over the years, as increasing density, to meet that 20-year plan?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments will have to update their OCPs and zonings to allow that number of housing. Of course, there are variables involved that they can’t control, such as whether things will get built or not. But they have to allow for that type of housing to be built.
With that, Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:17 p.m.