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 1:37 p.m.

On clause 16 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

A. Walker: Just before we broke for lunch here, the minister had mentioned that British Columbia is growing at a rate of, I believe the minister said, 3 percent or around that. As we talked about having a 20-year plan, there was also the reference to B.C. Stats. When I look at B.C. Stats’ projections for 2040 or 2041 — they don’t go to 2043 — they’re projecting the province will grow at an annualized rate of 1.1 percent.

Would it be reasonable for a local government, looking at those data points for the province as a whole, in their housing needs report, to use the growth rate projected by B.C. Stats of 1.1 percent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not going to presume what each community should do. I can say that there’s a standardized housing needs report. They have to plan for 20 years. It will vary from community to community.

A. Walker: I certainly don’t want the minister to speak for municipalities in this regard. I’m just looking for some clarity.

As the legislation was drafted, was it the intention that referent numbers like that would be referenced?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, if B.C. Stats provides local governments with that type of information, they should consider that with their housing needs reports.

A. Walker: On Vancouver Island, we have communities that have, historically, actually reduced in population, especially in the north Island. Port Hardy has dramatically reduced population since the ‘80s, pretty much every single year. Would it be reasonable for a community…? I guess reasonable is not the right question.

As this was drafted, the idea of putting together a 20-year plan, was it the expectation of the minister that communities that have historically seen populations remain either stagnant or decline to use that as a baseline for future projections?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’m not going to presume what each community will do. I will say that every community in this province has housing needs. That’s understood. Some communities have not enabled housing, and perhaps that may be a reason why their population is not growing. It varies from community to community, so I can’t get into specifics.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Walker: Yeah, that makes sense.

B.C. Stats. I haven’t looked through the methodology, but I know that was referenced just before we went for lunch — B.C. Stats as a reference point. Provincially they’re showing a growth rate of 1.1 percent. On the Island, we’re seeing a much smaller growth rate of 0.8 percent, which is in line with what most of our communities are already doing as far as growth and development.

The challenge with using B.C. Stats is they will use, potentially, the growth patterns that we’ve already seen. So as the minister says, if growth has been restricted unnaturally, that projection, moving forward, could be artificially low. I guess I just wanted to respond to the minister with that.

As it stands, I have no further questions on this clause.

A. Olsen: I’m trying to do some reconciliation here. The minister used 3 percent and then referenced B.C. Stats as one of the places that local governments are going to be getting their information from. B.C. Stats, as my colleague said, says 1.1 percent.

The district of Central Saanich, for an example, basically meets that with their current official community plan, yet the minister is proposing to unilaterally upzone on top of that. The official community plan shows how the community could get to its target of 1 percent. The B.C. Stats number…. The minister uses a different number.

I guess for me it’s hard to understand whether or not we are going to use the numbers that are in B.C. Stats or we’re going to use the numbers that the minister throws out, at 3 percent. Where did the minister get 3 percent from, rather than what B.C. Stats says, which is 1.1 percent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The number I shared is something that’s on their site. It’ll vary from community to community, from region to region.

A. Olsen: This is why it’s so hard to understand why the minister feels that this intervention that he’s taking is the one that should be taken. The reality of it is that if Central Saanich has…. Admittedly it’s a five-year plan instead of a ten-year plan. So maybe that’s a slightly larger number. But even still, within that, Central Saanich has said we can meet the B.C. Stats number that is referenced here.

I’m going to take these numbers for what they are, because it’s just a number that was referenced on the website from the minister. I’m just going to reference a number that was on a website from my colleague, to make a point.

The point is that the district of Central Saanich says that it can meet 1 percent with the current plan that it already is, without the unilateral upzone. What they need is the minister to intervene in other ways that the Minister of Housing actually should be intervening in, providing an adequate amount of funding for all of the other things that we were talking about yesterday when we talked about what was actually in the housing needs assessment, not a unilateral intervention of all of the single-family zones in a given district.

That is not a planning approach to it. That is a broad-sweeping, broad-brush approach to it. The silliness is actually identified when the minister can say it’s 3 percent; another member can say…. There’s no real substance to this situation that the minister is creating with this bill. He references 3 percent. On the website, it’s 1.1 percent. What do we do with districts that are actually already able to meet that target that they’ve already set in order for growth?

All they need is a willing partner from the provincial government, and the partner that they’re looking to comes in and says: “We’re going to do something completely other than what you’ve considered in your planning. We’re just going to do a different thing. Not what you need, not what you’ve identified, not what you want, not what the community wants, after a very recent consultation — we’re going to do what the minister determines is good.”

Clearly, in certain communities, this is going to be a useful tool. But as the minister has already said, the communities are going to determine what it is that is good for them. The restriction on the development hasn’t been that there hasn’t been an identified need for growth. It’s been the inability to get the market to produce a product that the market doesn’t produce.

That’s what’s so concerning to me about this bill, and it has just been identified again in the discussion around clause 16.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

[1:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: With respect to 17, this is specifying the date which the housing needs reports have to be received. Can I just clarify with the minister: how is this date chosen, considering we’re in a crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. The interim housing needs report is due by the end of 2024, and then this sets the future housing needs report from there.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What are the consequences or what is the consequence to a municipality if they miss this deadline?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. One is that if they miss the deadline, it’ll be difficult for them to get their official community plan done, which is, of course, required of them.

What we’ve heard from local government partners is that they believe this timeline is very doable. Also, the federal government is now looking to tie a lot of infrastructure dollars to communities that have housing needs reports. So this streamlined approach not only helps, obviously, to get their updated community plans but also positions B.C. as a leader for attracting federal investments.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

When we talk about consequences, just in a larger picture, the consequences for municipalities not kind of playing ball…. In terms of what Bill 44 is intending to do, is it a carrot? Is it a stick? What consequences will there be if these things just aren’t ongoing, and they aren’t meeting these requirements. What will happen, ultimately?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If communities don’t meet the timelines, they could be challenged in court.

P. Milobar: Clause 17 deals with section 585.31.

Can the minister let us know: when did 585.31 get put into the Local Government Act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When the legislation was updated, 2018.

P. Milobar: Thank you. When did that section come into force then? Was it 2018 as well?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was 2019.

P. Milobar: Thank you. We’re removing 3(a), and that says: “the first housing needs report, no later than three years after the date of this section, comes into force.” That would have been 2022, when the first housing reports would have needed to come into effect, and then every five years after that. So 2027 would have, in fact, been the next housing report that is mandatory under the current legislation.

Why — if we’re in the midst of a housing crisis, which I think everyone agrees — is the minister changing this now to be December 31 of 2028 instead of in 2027 when that update would have had to have happened anyways with the existing legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A similar question was asked earlier, which is the interim report is due 2024. There will be an interim report done by all local governments. Then the next fulsome report will be December 31, 2028.

A. Olsen: Can the minister provide a rationale…? Based on the questions here, why change the timeline anyway?

It seems like most of the municipalities — well, all municipalities — will have one already, and many of them are in process already to create new ones in 2027. It’s going take a year, so we’re in process.

Was the main reason to do that just to get a new date of 2024?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. We expect the 2021 data to be significantly different than many communities have been considering. Second, starting all communities at one point in a kind of a standardized way allows us to compare apples to apples for communities.

A. Olsen: Has the minister had any conversations with the Union of B.C. Municipalities or the advisory group as to the availability of people to be able to do the work and to do all of the updates?

What is the expectation? What does the minister expect will happen over the next couple of years in order for us to achieve this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we did consult. The standardized format we’re using makes it a lot easier for the housing needs reports to be done. That’s why we’re providing $51 million to local governments to be able to do this work, or in some cases, update their housing needs reports.

A. Olsen: Has the minister considered…? Well, how much of these reports will come from general information that could be put together on behalf of local governments, and how much of them will be local content?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a mix: B.C. Stats, Stats Canada. Qualitative information from the ground will be involved in the housing needs reports.

A. Olsen: There’s a standardization of the reports. There’s a standardization of the information that the minister expects to have come back from local governments. How much of that work can be done in advance to be part of the standard that could be done by the provincial government maybe on a regional or subregional basis? What kind of consideration has been made with the efficiencies that can be found there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Just like we did in 2018, we’ll provide standardized data for communities, provide guidance for them to be able to do this very efficiently.

A. Olsen: We have a number of 130,000, I think it was. There have been some numbers that have been thrown around, some ideas of how many households we’re trying to create. Has the minister and ministry set their mind to targets for the regions, even just some high-level buckets? “We’re looking to have X number built here, X number built there.” Has there been any thought put to that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This clause speaks to the need for local governments to update their housing needs reports based on the standardized housing needs pieces that we’ve put together in the legislation. This will help provide information of what the needs are in all communities around the province.

A. Olsen: It’s just interesting. I think we’re coming at this situation from the different ends. The minister is saying that there’s this ethereal, high-level number, which we haven’t agreed on what it is, and the municipalities are all supposed to, at the same time, come up with the solution for that without any level of coordination at a provincial level.

This goes back to this similar set of questions that I had before, which was: how are disparate communities across the province supposed to arrive at the magic number that the minister has in his head?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member, Urban Matters, for example, is a consultant that we’ve hired — works on the housing needs report for Central Saanich, worked with Sidney for their housing needs report. They’re giving us advice on how to make this standardized in a way that’s easier to be done.

A. Olsen: So Urban Matters is going to decide how much of that growth is going to go into the Lower Mainland, for an example — different parts of the Lower Mainland. We’re just going to turn it to this individual who runs this company to model for us, and then that’s the number that we’re going to be using, or is there some coherence with what’s going on in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for example, which is responsible for all of these communities overall?

There seems to need to be some sort of an idea that this is the housing plan, this is where the people are going to live, this is where our workers are going to be housed. There has to be more involvement in an understanding of how we’re planning our province than the local governments are going to arrive at the number that the minister has.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this clause sets out a date for when housing needs reports will be done. We’ve canvassed these issues many times over the last five days, last week and this week. Local governments have the ability because we provide them a set package of data for each community, guidance on how to move forward. The standardized approach makes it easier for them to go forward.

Communities have already done this three years ago, when the legislation passed — or four years ago; and they understand what needs to be done.

So I can keep repeating this as many times as the member likes, but this clause talks about the date I’ve shared, that the interim report is due 2024, and this clause talks about that the next one after that is December 31, 2028.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, with a question.

A. Olsen: If we were to separate these two processes — the process to mass upzone the province, separate it from the planning process — then what the minister is suggesting makes a ton of sense. Communities figure out what they need, just like they’ve always done, and then they tell us what they need, and then the provincial government is there to support.

Instead, what’s happened is that these two ideas have been put together. We’re going to have a new, robust planning process. We’re going to identify and name some communities. We’re going to have a second list that we haven’t quite named yet, but it’s all kind of floating around out there that those are going to be the next named communities. Then, after that, we’re going to do all of the work to understand how those communities are going to be planning.

It’s incoherent to how a province needs to be planning is what I’m raising, and this is the core of our communities across the province. These are the democratic processes that happen in our local governments. Rather than a provincial government coming in and unilaterally saying over top of those democratically elected bodies: “Do all of the planning, do all of the organizing, do all of the official, get all the stats, get all the numbers, align them all, and then we’re going to do this.”

Does the minister not agree that this appears to be incoherent planning? We’ve got a request for communities to go and do all of this work to get all its numbers, and then the provincial government unilaterally saying: “No public hearings. We’re doing this.”

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, respectfully, this member has talked about the same issue for four days in a row. I appreciate that he doesn’t support the bill. I appreciate that he doesn’t think this is the path forward. That’s great. We have different opinions in this place, and that’s healthy.

I think to respect the time, we should speak about the issues that we’re discussing at the time. This clause talks about the date of housing needs reports. I’ve already shared with the member that we’re standardizing them so we can see from community to community that the same template is going forward. That allows us to plan better provincially. It means better decision-making in local government and across the province. That’s what we’re trying to get at here.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is another place where we’re getting back to a lot of the information that’s important for us to know, for communities to know, is being pushed out into regulation. We’re going at this a bit blind in terms of what the expectations are going to be — in this section, specifically with respect to the formula that’s going to be used or the methodology that’s going to be used in calculating the housing needs.

First question to the minister is: what will be the new rules regarding the methodology for calculating housing units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this at great lengths in the House last week. For each community, it’s based on the understanding of five components: extreme core housing need, permanently housing people experiencing homelessness, suppressed household formation, anticipated supply needed over the next five and 20 years, and adjustments to restore rental supply to a health vacancy rate of 3 percent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and I appreciate many of these topics have been discussed. I’m trying to do them specific to the clauses that we’re on so we’ve got that information compiled together in Hansard.

The ten municipalities…. In terms of what is going to be expected in the formula and methodology, was this the same methodology that was applied to them? When I talk about the ten municipalities, I’m talking about the so-called naughty list that was worked on with those municipalities prior to Bill 44.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member is asking questions on the clause for the specific Hansard, so no problem.

The methodology is similar between the two. The only difference, I would say, or the big difference, is that the target communities are focused on a five-year number as opposed to a 20-year number, because we wanted to see what result can be done in five years. But they all, regardless of whether they’re a target community or not, will have to plan for 20 years with this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Section 18, in (j), says: “requiring a local government or a class of local governments to use a method established under paragraph (i).” So will only some local governments be required to follow certain calculation methods under this paragraph, and why not all?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our expectation is that everyone will use the standardized format. We may come into a situation where, say, a rural community needs to do something slightly different, so we wanted to ensure that we have the flexibility to be able to support that.

K. Kirkpatrick: The province is setting the rules. Will the province also be providing the resources to make the calculations on these reports? We don’t know how complex and how much time it’s going to take for municipalities and regional districts to be able to do this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we’ll be providing a set package of data for local governments to be able to do this work.

[The bells were rung.]

The bells are ringing over here, Member. We have to go and vote so we don’t get fined.

The Chair: The committee is now in recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 2:08 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023. We’re on clause 18.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify that the minister did actually finish answering that last question. I thought he was kind of halfway through when the bells rang. I’ll have to go back and check Hansard. I will, then, continue on.

[2:30 p.m.]

Government is setting the methodology in regulation. Can we presume, then, that government can also change that methodology at any point? Will government be adjusting that methodology, as time goes on, to ensure that whatever formula they’ve set out is actually working appropriately?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, to the member. I thought I did answer the question. Just the only thing I would add to that previous answer is, of course, the $51 million, as well, to local governments to support them.

The member is correct that the standardized format of it could change. People who do this work and the housing needs reports will admit that this changes over time, the needs in communities change. This gives us the ability, in future times, to make adjustments accordingly.

K. Kirkpatrick: I will ask this, because the minister just mentioned the $51 million. That’s been an answer to a number of the questions that have been asked of the minister in these last few days. The answer has been: there’s access to this $51 million for capacity, for implementing what is required for Bill 44.

Does the minister have an idea of how that $51 million is going to be distributed? What kinds of things do they anticipate municipalities and regional districts coming to the ministry with requests for that funding?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We expect in the next couple of weeks to notify local governments on how much they are getting. Then in the new year, early in the new year, they’ll receive the money. They can use it for the zoning reforms, the work that they need to do to update their bylaws, to support them with their housing needs reports.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify that, then. They don’t have to get approval for what capacity-building they’re going to be using those funds for?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct. They’ll have flexibility with those dollars.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

This methodology for making these calculations — was there consultation also with municipal councils and regional districts on how these formulas should work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. Through the consultations, it was well understood that we needed to standardize how housing needs reports are done from community to community. In fact, talking to my counterparts across the country, they are hearing the same thing from their local governments as well.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering, because there’s obviously carrots and sticks when you’re talking about methodology and mandated reporting and things of that nature and coming up with the needs report. So there’s coming up with a report of what’s needed, and then there’s actually delivering. The two are very different.

If a municipality has met all the timelines — they come up with the needs reports; they’ve put in all the inputs that the minister has deemed they need to take into account for what they need to identify for housing needs; they were able to demonstrate that they have an efficient permitting process in place, that they have streamlined things of that nature; they don’t have onerous cost structures in terms of development cost charges and all of that — but despite all of that, they’re not hitting their targets for housing because for whatever reason — either the development community doesn’t want to be building; builders might have a labour shortage…. As we well know, there’s a looming labour shortage.

Essentially, if they’re not able to hit their targets, but no fault of their own whatsoever, are they still going to see some of the more punitive sides as a result, or will that be taken into account with these calculations?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this, but the member wasn’t here. The question is a good one, which is: with the target communities, then the targets are targets, which are five years away, so it’s different. But with this legislation, we are asking communities to zone and update their OCPs and change their zoning to reflect the needs of their community for 20 years. It’s different than the target communities. This is different. The two things are different.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

K. Kirkpatrick: Looking at clause 19 now. This deals with heritage designation bylaws, which I think, again, are a big concern for a number of people. Now, when we’re looking at heritage, we need to look at how we increase residential density in historic areas — so not just, kind of, a home, but in a historic area — and policy and design really has to be guided by the context of the history of the community.

There are many communities that have historical and architectural character, as well, that is really important. It’s representative of who we are and what our history here has been. In Vancouver, for example…. I know we’re going to get to the Vancouver Charter. This is related to clause 41, but it’s really the same, and I think that this makes its point.

Vancouver has created regulations, and they’ve got companion design guidelines that preserve and really protect the fabric of the history of various communities. Again, for example, Vancouver has recognized Chinatown, Gastown, Shaughnessy and Yaletown to be within these historic areas. The regulations ensure that new development in these areas is protected and is compatible with the character of those neighbourhoods.

Would the minister please confirm if Bill 44 is going to have a negative impact on the historic fabric of these communities, whether they’re the communities I referenced in Vancouver or those communities across British Columbia that have history and architectural significance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know the member and I talked about this, and I know the member is very passionate about heritage buildings and heritage sites.

I can confirm that any heritage designations that exist prior to this legislation will, obviously, remain. Any new heritage designation that local governments want to put in cannot deny, cannot be used to block small-scale multi-unit housing requirements but the facade can be protected, etc., for new buildings as they come forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There are areas where there may not be heritage zoning, but there is a historical significance to the nature of the community. If there isn’t something that is actually set in a bylaw for a community…. Again, I have lived most of my time here in Vancouver, so I think of Strathcona, and I think of those areas off Kingsway and Clark. There isn’t a zoning designation of heritage there, but there is certainly a unique feel and fabric of the homes that are in that community.

There are many ways to…. You know, you can certainly put multiple units into an existing home. You can stratify existing homes. There are just beautiful ways that that can be done which are very respectful of the community as a whole. These are the areas that I’m concerned about, that the ability to override the public hearing process, the input from councils, in terms of this one-size-fits-all….

[2:40 p.m.]

If these kinds of things are not taken into account…. They can be very nuanced, If they’re not taken into account, we’re going to lose a lot of that charm and character in our communities. What does the minister say to that? We did talk about heritage zoning. This is different than that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments do have the ability, if they believe that there’s a heritage site, to still proceed, as I answered previously. Local governments will have a say. If there’s a kind of look and feel in a community that they want, they’ll still have a say in that, but it has to be reasonable. That’s the difference. But as I answered previously, anything that’s already got the designation is separate. For anything going forward, local governments, as long as it’s reasonable, can proceed with that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. This is what I’m saying. There are places that aren’t designated as such, as a heritage site.

You say that municipalities will still be able to have a say in this. Can you tell me what that looks like? What kind of say can they have in this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments would still be able to designate heritage properties by bylaw and require that a heritage alteration permit be required before development can occur. This provision ensures that permitted use or density cannot be denied solely because it has been designated a heritage property by a local government.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Again, that’s a bit different than what I’m asking about, but it is a concern in terms of just protecting…. I don’t want to use the word “protecting” because that can be inferred as not supporting density. I completely support density, but I don’t support it without having some design parameters and some other things around it in certain of these communities.

If a community makes a determination that there is a particular part of that community within certain blocks, whatever it is, that has historical significance to it, so they want to then deem this as a heritage area, the minister says they’ll have a say in that. Who is to determine the legitimacy of that, if that is really a heritage area? How will the ministry make that determination? Are you looking at historians to come and talk about the community, or how are you validating that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, if it’s reasonable, then local governments can require a heritage alteration permit and ensure that’s acquired before the development can occur.

K. Kirkpatrick: A heritage alteration permit. Is that the same as what we talked about in clause 20, which is the heritage revitalization agreements?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two different land authorities, so they’re different.

K. Kirkpatrick: Could a situation arise where heritage buildings are torn down because local governments won’t allow modifications or renovations to heritage buildings even though the property has the ability to become four suites? What tools are in place to prevent this?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can the member maybe put the question in a different way? We’re just kind of coming together, trying to figure out where the question was.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I appreciate that.

An example might be…. I was talking to a group in Vancouver about this. This may be provincial building codes, not just municipal. But requirements for step codes and some other things…. For example, if there’s a renovation that is going to happen to a heritage property that, because of existing building codes, may not be able to be turned into a fourplex or a sixplex, and the only way to actually make that happen would be to take that building down and to build a new building.

Will the province work with municipalities, or with the provincial building code, to make sure that there are some accommodations for renovating heritage homes, and perhaps look at changing some of the requirements for that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just struggling a little bit on this, but anything that’s designated heritage has to respect the local government’s bylaws around it. We’re not entirely sure, in the scenario the member is talking about…. If it’s got a heritage designation, then the local government rules must be followed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I think we’re talking about two different things. The minister is talking about things that have a heritage designation. I’m talking about things that have kind of have an architectural or heritage significance within a community, and it doesn’t necessarily have to have that designation.

The concern is where you’ve got some craftsman bungalow in Strathcona or somewhere that doesn’t have a heritage designation. But because building codes require renovations to meet current-day step codes and various other things in order to bring it up to the current building codes, that might actually encourage those buildings to be taken down and have new construction there.

I’m not talking about those simply that have heritage zoning, because we know that there are, as I understand from the minister, mechanisms in order to be able to work with that designation.

For those that are not designated, where you’ve got a beautiful craftsman home and because of stringent requirements for upgrading, could there be flexibility with this? What can we do to make sure that is not the outcome of this upzoning so that these beautiful heritage homes — which I’ll call heritage, historical, architecturally significant — are not coming down because it’s too difficult to modify them to meet this upzoning?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. If there is this type of home in a community, the local government can designate it as heritage. They still have the ability with this legislation. We’re not taking away that ability. Local governments will have some flexibility to ensure that there’s a look and feel in a community. That might be the other mechanism.

Those are the two ways, and the building code is not part of the bill here.

K. Kirkpatrick: I keep thinking it’s my last question. The heritage designation would have to be done on a property-by-property basis, I guess. That’s a concern. The minister says that the communities will have a say in the look and feel of the community.

How will that marry with what we don’t know yet about the setbacks, building heights and all those other requirements? We don’t know what those are yet, because they’re going to be in regulation. Is the minister saying that within a community, they could be unique and different in certain areas of the same municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. What I’m saying is that local governments could have some unique characteristics for some neighbourhoods and perhaps not for others in their community.

A. Olsen: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano was talking about specific buildings. Is it the same for entire neighbourhoods? I’m thinking of Moodyville, in Brentwood Bay, for example, which is a densely compact neighbourhood already. It has some heritage significance — it is what it is; it’s called Moodyville — and it’s identified. Can municipalities deal with it at a neighbourhood level as well, then?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it’s similar to the answer given to the previous member: they can designate specific homes as heritage. If the local government wants to have a look and feel in one neighbourhood, there’s some ability for them to do that. In any community, a home that has that designation is obviously not part of this. For anything new, it would have to be home by home, and they can have some flexibility to ensure the community has that kind of a look and feel.

A. Olsen: Could the communities…? The minister has used several times the word “reasonable,” and I recognize that in a judicial review or in a court process, reasonable actually means something. While it might sound like the minister is just saying, “Be reasonable,” and everyone’s saying, “Well, what does he mean by that?” there is actually a definition for that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Using reasonableness, then, wouldn’t it be reasonable for a municipality to say: “This neighbourhood is identified for its heritage, the way it is. We are meeting the minister’s growth goals for the province over our community. We’ve demonstrated it year over year. However, we’re going to preserve this neighbourhood to have a much lighter density.” Is there a reasonable way for a municipality to be able to do that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve spent multiple hours…. I got in trouble, in fact, for explaining how “reasonable” works, using my phone. The member will recall, for those hours where we talked about this, that I said I wasn’t going to weigh in, because there are obviously legal matters in at play.

I did describe what “reasonable” means, and local governments will need to consider that as they move forward, which they do on a lot of other matters.

A. Olsen: Is there another use or zone that is available to local governments in the Local Government Act that has…? It seems like we are in this process throughout this bill, of isolating this singular use. It is the single most powerful use, I think, with all of the insulation that’s happened around it. You can’t use heritage designations. We are stacking up a list of things that local governments are not allowed to do with this specific use.

Can the minister describe why it is that this specific use is more or less destructive than any of the other ones? It seems to me that we have basically isolated these single-family properties and are making them pretty rigidly untouchable.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the reason why we’re leaving the ability for local governments to have that heritage designation, I think, is well understood. There are some heritage homes that are important for history, for the fabric of our communities. We believe that the local government should have that ability for those that have already been designated.

A. Olsen: I go back to my local government days and I remember the heritage designation process. I think I got to probably about three or four years into my time at the council table.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

We had continued the process of designating farming cabins. They were unique buildings, built at a certain time. In order for the owners to be able to build another unit on that property, they had to designate it and basically decommission it. They weren’t allowed to use it. This was largely in rural properties in the community.

I got to a point where I recognized that we were preserving a certain part of our heritage pretty consistently. What we weren’t doing was extending heritage designation to the long history of our communities. We were exclusively, in our community, preserving the pioneer heritage.

When the First Nations, the W̱SÁNEĆ people, came forward and wanted their aspects of it preserved as heritage, we would run into a situation where it hadn’t been done yet. An interesting thing when the minister said that basically, there’s no new heritage that’s going to be recognized here without infringing on the form and character of the minister’s chosen description of what it will be.

From a First Nations perspective, that significantly limits what new heritage we might recognize. I think the minister has to recognize that or has to acknowledge that historically, we’ve not been recognizing the broad heritage of our communities. We’ve only recently started to do that.

[3:00 p.m.]

Now what has happened is that the minister has put a limit into this of adding new heritage. Any of the new heritage that we’d be adding is most likely to be the Indigenous heritage of those communities. Has the minister considered this, and if so, what’s the minister’s consideration?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed this question. This came up earlier in our debate. We spoke about what would be protected under this.

Also, if Indigenous communities came forward and said there are archaeological sites, etc., that need to be protected…. There’s a completely separate legislation that this cannot touch. So archaeological sites, etc. All those things preclude for this legislation to have the development on it.

There’s a completely separate stream that is available, especially for Indigenous communities. I would agree with the member that there’s a lot of history that still needs to be recognized. So there is a separate stream for that.

A. Olsen: I understand that there’s an…. I can tell you. That’s a whole other two-week-long debate when that bill, the heritage act, finally comes forward for us to discuss how the provincial government does Indigenous heritage generally in that other stream.

I recognize that’s not what we’re debating here at all. We are debating a clause that basically outlines a limitation on a local government being able to respond to a request that might come from a First Nation about….

There’s quite a bit of comfort taken when we’re only talking about preserving buildings. When we’re only talking about that cabin, the farmer’s cabin, we can…. Mostly, the frustration there was what this minister is trying to solve. Maybe you can live in the cabin and build a house on the property.

What we were ultimately trying to get was that the cabin could be used and lived in still. It could be updated and used and lived in and maintain the heritage of it. And it wasn’t allowed at that time.

I think we have to remove our mind from the limitation, which we have, that this is only about buildings. Indigenous people don’t see heritage necessarily just as a building. It’s a place. They don’t see protecting a building as being the most important thing. In fact, in some cases, it might be the complete absence of everything that’s man-made. It’s just nature, and it just gets deemed to be a sacred site.

That’s the reason why I’m asking this. Basically, if a First Nation goes to a municipal government and says: “That site there….” Or they own it; they own it fee simple. A First Nation does a land assembly. They’re now, basically, locked into the minister’s new zone, and it can’t be designated to have heritage protections. It can’t be added because it has been removed.

That’s why I’m wondering if the minister has considered this. If so, how does that get navigated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If a local First Nation comes forward and says: “This is a heritage site for us. This is an important archaeological site….”

There is a different piece of legislation that supersedes this. That’s the point I was making. It’s what I’ve mentioned before and what I’ve said here a few times.

A. Olsen: Yeah. I appreciate that. However, that other piece of legislation doesn’t deal with the land use aspect of it. This piece of legislation deals with the land use of it, the actual use.

If a First Nation buys a piece of land, fee simple, and it’s within single-family…. They assemble a handful of pieces of fee simple land, and they want to simply have it as a designated heritage site. They remove the buildings. They sell them. They get trucked off, and it becomes a site. They still own a piece of land that, then, is going to be taxed at what the minister has determined it’s going to be taxed at.

Is there any remedy for First Nations who may want to make this decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re going to go about this for a long time.

This doesn’t override the Heritage Conservation Act.

Interjection.

[3:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: We didn’t talk about this for hours. I didn’t talk about this for hours. I’m not that member.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

A. Olsen: Look, there is a reality where, actually, that land will be having to continue to be viewed as this designation in this zone. The municipality won’t be allowed to, necessarily…. There’s not the flexibility. There’s the reasonableness piece that the minister has mentioned.

This is a real potential. As First Nations have more and more economic capacity, they might choose to purchase land and use it the way they choose to use it. Essentially, what has happened here is that this bill, not the Heritage Conservation Act….

There’s an example of this where Pioneer Park in Brentwood Bay was just renamed to HEL,HILEȻ. Admittedly, not exactly the same scenario. But this is a space and place-making exercise that’s happening in our communities. This could actually…. We could have a scenario where a place-making exercise like this runs afoul not with the Heritage Conservation Act, a different act — I agree with the minister on that — but with this act.

Is that a case in which…? Essentially, the minister said…. Well, basically, they’re going to have to test that out. The First Nation and the local government are going to go to court. I’m assuming it will be with the province. There will be a judicial review as to whether or not that’s a reasonable thing.

Can the minister agree that it’s not reasonable to be sending a First Nation and a municipality to court to determine whether or not it’s reasonable for them to be able to take care of the land in the way that they would like to see the land taken care of?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation does not override the Heritage Conservation Act. The member is raising some legit concerns, I think, around the Heritage Conservation Act, and that’s fine. That conversation, I think, is important to have. What I’m saying is that this legislation we’re discussing here does not override that act.

A. Olsen: If they take it and clear the houses off of it, designate it as a heritage space, a land assembly…. It’s not like an arch site. It’s a space that has not been identified or recognized up till now. It is a new site that’s going to be recognized for something that maybe has previously not been celebrated or acknowledged or been given space to exist.

Is the remedy to sort that out…? The First Nation may decide: “Okay. Well, we shouldn’t be paying mid to high property taxes for this residential property that’s not producing as a residential property.” Is there a remedy, other than court, for the First Nation and the local government with this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation doesn’t override the Heritage Conservation Act. So if a local First Nation were to come forward under the Heritage Conservation Act….

This does not override that act. All the hypothetical questions that may come forward would be under that act and not part of this legislation.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

The Chair: On clause 20, recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The Local Government Act doesn’t provide a concise definition of a heritage revitalization agreement, but it does allow local governments to supersede local zoning regulations when negotiating that with the property owner. In clause 20, this “limits what may be done by a heritage revitalization agreement.”

Can the minister give me an example of a limit to a heritage preservation agreement?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Local governments would still be able to enter into a heritage revitalization agreement and vary other provisions of zoning bylaw. The provision ensures that the density or use cannot be varied in that contravention of small-scale, multi-unit housing requirements.

They can go into an agreement still, so no issues there, but part of that cannot be local government saying to someone who wants to build a home: “You can be part of this, but you can’t have three or four units.” They’re still allowed to have three to four units, depending on the size of the lot, but they can still go into an agreement on the other matters.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Just to clarify, if there’s a heritage designation on the home, the municipality in that heritage preservation agreement can’t say to that homeowner that taking it from a single-family home to a four-unit home would be outside of that heritage zoning or the heritage requirements they’ve got?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Existing heritage homes are exempt from this. I think we’ve canvassed that at great length. I’m not sure if the member is referring to something different or if that was just what you were looking for clarification on.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ve got clarification on that, so I’m done on clause 20.

Clauses 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

On clause 25.

K. Kirkpatrick: On 25, under added sections 785 and 786, municipalities are going to be able to apply for an extension on or before the June 1, 2024 deadline to comply with the upzoning requirements.

What are the circumstances that would actually merit an extension on that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It could be to complete upgrading infrastructure required for small-scale, multi-unit housing, if compliance by June 30, 2024 is likely to increase the risk to public health, safety or the environment, or if there are other extraordinary circumstances, such as natural disaster.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister give me an example of why an extension might be refused or what they anticipate municipalities or regional districts might ask for an extension that would be refused?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The question is a little hypothetical.

I can’t presume what will happen, but I can reiterate the answer that I just provided about the three types of reasons why it would be considered.

[3:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: When we talk about a notice of compliance, requiring the local governments to give the ministry notice of compliance, what does that look like? Who checks to determine its accuracy or correctness?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a two-parter there. First is that they’ll have to notify in writing to us, in the Ministry of Housing. Our staff, as those notifications come forward, will be checking regularly to see how communities are doing. Of course, a site standard guide will make it clear for local governments about how they should adopt and change their policies according to different situations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Have local governments been notified of this process yet?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we’ve been engaging with local governments on this legislation.

Local governments will say: “Well, what if this situation happens, or what if this situation happens?” There are different types of examples that come forward, and that’s how we based the three criteria. The site standards document will come out, and this will be made public to local governments so that they know, if there’s one of these issues that come forward, that they can seek an extension.

K. Kirkpatrick: Are there any concerns about the capacity in these municipalities in getting this work done? I mean, I guess this question could be for just about everything we’re looking at in this legislation. I know the minister will say, well, they can access the $50 million capacity-building fund. But there may be real, true issues, particularly in smaller communities, with really being able to have the manpower and the capacity inside whether they can access funding or not.

Is this a concern? Have municipalities expressed this to the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, certainly some smaller local governments we appreciate would have challenges. That’s why a lot of the provisions are not covering the small, small communities, below 5,000, and regional districts, because we knew they would have particular challenges coming with that.

Some of the work will be laid out in the site standards document, very detailed work. Our expectation is that a lot of that, local governments will be able to adopt very easily.

Now, what we’re also starting to hear is a lot of local governments starting to come together and saying: “Let’s work together.” I met with Metro Vancouver and asked them if they could, from a Metro Vancouver perspective, bring all the communities together and work together to ensure that there’s kind of a streamlined approach. There’s an efficiency that comes with that.

There was interest there. I know the CRD is having similar conversations. So we will see some of those communities come together and take a streamlined approach to the work. But the site standard document will be designed in a way that local governments will be able to adopt a lot of things if they choose to do so.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, as the minister knows, assessment rules are generated based on the July 1 valuation date. If the upzoning…. We’re kind of off-schedule there. Is that going to cause an issue with respect to the assessment rules and B.C. Assessment?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: That wasn’t part of the consideration for the dates as they’re set out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

It wasn’t a part of the consideration, but should it not be part of the consideration? Is this going to cause some confusion for B.C. Assessment, not having those dates aligned?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No concerns have been raised to us about that at all.

K. Kirkpatrick: They haven’t raised concerns. Have you been in conversation with them? Do they know there should be a concern?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared in a previous answer, we worked through the Ministry of Finance, who works with B.C. Assessment, and there were no concerns raised about the timeline. They work on a year cycle. They don’t work on a specific date cycle. So it shouldn’t have a big impact on the work they do.

A. Walker: This clause interests me for many different reasons. When you look at the ability for local government to delay this new small-scale multifamily units rezoning, which all governments are going to have to do on all what we call restricted zones, there are many carve-outs here that a local government could apply for an extension on. They have the broad category in this bill as being specifically identified as being a risk to health, public safety and the environment.

I’m thinking of my community first, and then I’ll ask more broadly. In my community, we have, in some parts of the community, not the whole area, a significant shortage of water. I know we’ve canvassed this to a certain extent, but as we’re on this clause now, would it be reasonable for a local government to request an extension under sub (3) here, knowing that rezoning a large area and allowing that density to take place could exacerbate the existing availability of water?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Out of respect, I’m not going to go into every single circumstance that may come forward. But I will say that we’ll lay out the criteria, and if a local government falls within that criteria, then obviously that extension will be considered.

A. Walker: I’m under the impression that the idea of committee stage is that we can discuss the bills that are before us and the impacts on our community. While the minister may look at this as a minute detail, I have thousands of people in my community that are on a water system that is literally one hookup away from not having sufficient water to meet the needs of everyone that’s existing and hooked up onto that service.

I’ll ask the minister again, specifically to water. If there is a limit of capacity in the region, would this provision allow for a local government to make an application for an extension until the water supply has been addressed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We spent hours talking about this issue with the member. If they’re not connected to water or sewer, then they’re not part of this. If they have infrastructure issues that they can’t have the housing come online, then there are provisions within the legislation for the local government to have a plan to get that infrastructure upgraded before the provisions come in. We talked about this at great lengths.

A. Walker: That is exactly what this clause is. It’s the ability for a local government to make that application. I’m not talking about communities or the individual homes themselves that have wells. I’m talking about people who are connected to a municipal source that has a limited capacity.

[3:25 p.m.]

We have rules in this province that are under the Water Sustainability Act that are great. We have regular reporting. We have drinking water and watershed protection groups. There’s a lot of really good work that’s taking place in our communities right now. They have defined limits based on the capacity that we have.

I’ll ask the minister again. It’s a specific question. If there is insufficient water capacity to be able to quadruple the amount of people that live in large swaths of our community, would that be eligible, under the this clause that we’re on specifically right now, as a risk to health and public safety and the environment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we’ll be putting out the clear criteria. If a community applies, then there’ll be an assessment done on that, based on the criteria that’s been put out.

A. Walker: It’s difficult to debate legislation when this is again going to be…. I don’t know if this is through regulation. I mean, it seems like the act provides an opportunity for local government to describe this.

One of the concerns I have is that there’s a limitation that the minister, in providing this delay that local governments…. This extension of the rezoning process — there’s a limit that that extension cannot pass beyond December 31, 2030. As could be imagined, as we’re talking about water, building water capacity on the eastern side of Vancouver Island requires reservoirs. We do not have the types of rivers that flow from one community to the next.

These reservoir developments take many, many years. The idea of, even if we started today, building enough reservoir capacity to quadruple the population in our region…. We’re looking at far more than seven years between the time that we have the initial conceptual plans, the engineering plans, figuring out the regulatory framework.

We still haven’t even addressed the Indigenous component of this water resource. Then we have to actually build the thing and then hook it up into the capacity. I’m not talking about the size of pipes in our communities. I’m talking about building the capacity to actually have water to flow through these pipes.

So the question I have is…. There’s a timeline for the maximum length of extension under clause (4) here. What happens if a project is not feasible to be done under that timeline?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to clarify for those watching at home. When this legislation passes, it’s not going to quadruple the population in any community. We expect this to be gradual, but I think it’s important for people at home to know that. We’ve already canvassed at great lengths that, in fact, if there are infrastructure gaps and the community has a plan to upgrade that infrastructure, then the provisions won’t come in until that infrastructure is upgraded.

We’ve talked about that many times, so I’m not quite sure how many times we’re going to be able to continue to go over the same topic.

The Chair: Hearing some repetition, I hope you have a slightly different line of questioning on this.

A. Walker: I certainly will enjoy going through Hansard afterwards. The question that I just asked I have never asked before, and I don’t think anyone has ever asked. On sub(4)(b): “in the case of an extension, the date, which may not be later than December 31, 2030, by which compliance with section 481.3 is required in relation to the area….”

This is the first time this has come up. The idea that the minister and the Chair are claiming that we’re repeating things…. This is a hugely impactful bill, and people in our community are asking questions. We understand that we are going to be here late tonight, but this is not a reason not to allow for the conversations that should take place.

If we are rezoning an entire area to allow four times the density, it is naive to not plan for what that could look like as far as infrastructure capacity. If we are going to rezone a whole area to allow four times as many people living on it, and we don’t…. We? Local governments. This is being passed directly on to local governments. If they don’t plan for the infrastructure need for that density, we’re going to have some serious problems.

The question that I asked, and I will repeat this question because it wasn’t answered, is: what happens when we have an infrastructure project that’s not able to be completed by the deadline that’s prescribed in this bill?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The three reasons for extension remain the same. I’ve put it on the record, and I’ll say it again. If there are reasonable challenges with infrastructure, then we’ve already canvassed, in other parts of the bill, where there are abilities for local government not to have this type of housing until that infrastructure is built.

With this specific piece, there are three frames of what people can ask for in an exception. I can continue to repeat it, if the member likes.

A. Walker: Well, I have a proposed amendment then. If the minister…. I’ve asked the question twice, and not getting an answer, I would like to see….

I’m not getting clarity as far as what happens when an infrastructure requirement exceeds the timeline that’s provided in this bill. I have an amendment proposed here that will strike that timeline, and I move such an amendment.

[CLAUSE 25, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

25 The following Division is added to Part 20:

Transition – extension process for small-scale multi-family housing

786 (1) A local government may apply for an extension of time for the purposes of complying with section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] in relation to an area that is subject to that section.

(2) An application under subsection (1) must contain the information required by the minister and must be submitted to the minister as follows:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies, on or before June 1, 2024;

(b) in the case of extraordinary circumstances, on or before June 30, 2024.

(3) The minister may grant one or more extensions of time to the local government in relation to an area if the minister is satisfied that the local government is unable, by June 30, 2024, to comply with section 481.3 in relation to the area for any of the following reasons:

(a) the local government is in the process of upgrading infrastructure that services the area;

(b) the infrastructure that services the area is such that compliance by June 30, 2024 is likely to increase a risk to health, public safety or the environment in the area;

(c) there exist extraordinary circumstances that otherwise pre­vent compliance in relation to the area.

(4) The minister must give to the local government written notice of a refusal or an extension that includes,

(a) in the case of a refusal, the date of the refusal, and

(b) in the case of an extension, the date, which may not be later than December 31, 2030, by which compliance with section 481.3 is required in relation to the area.

Transition – ministerial order related to small-scale multi-family housing

787 (1) This section applies in relation to a local government if the minister is satisfied that the local government has failed, within the time required under this Act, to adopt a zoning bylaw that complies with section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing].

(2) The minister may give to the local government a notice that

(a) sets out the minister’s objections to the local government’s zoning bylaw, and

(b) states that the local government must, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, alter the zoning bylaw accordingly.

(3) If the local government does not alter the zoning bylaw in accordance with the notice under subsection (2), the minister may, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends a bylaw referred to in section 479 [zoning bylaws] to

(a) permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 and

(b) establish the siting, size, dimension, location or type of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 in the area.

(4) In making an order under subsection (3), the minister may

(a) establish different classes of persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters,

(b) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different classes referred to in paragraph (a), and

(c) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different areas or different parts of areas of municipalities or regional districts or different persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters.

(5) On the date specified in an order made under subsection (3), the bylaw enacted or amended under the order is conclusively deemed to be enacted or amended by the local government in accordance with the order.

(6) An order may not be made under subsection (3) after December 31, 2031.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government under section 479 (1) (c).

Transition – effect of official community plan

788 Section 478 (2) [effect of official community plan] does not apply, before the prescribed date, in relation to a zoning bylaw adopted by a local government for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing].

Transition – heritage revitalization agreements

789 Section 610 (2.1) [heritage revitalization agreements] does not apply to a heritage revitalization agreement, as defined in section 586 [definitions in relation to Part 15], entered into before the date this section comes into force.]

The Chair: If the member would like to make some comments on the amendment at this time, then we’ll take a brief recess to distribute the written amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Walker: The amendment is quite straightforward. I have asked the minister twice now, not for hours, specifically what happens if a local government is unable to actually meet the timeline that’s being legislated in here. I have twice now not received an answer. As a result, I’m hoping that this committee will find it prudent to remove the timeline.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess to distribute the materials.

The committee recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. The amendment is in order.

Any questions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we can’t support this. Legally, when you put in language that you’re going to have an extension, you need to have a date in the legislation. By removing this, it does not make the ability for extensions to be legal, so we can’t support this.

M. Bernier: I’m always troubled by the exchange that we’re seeing here. I want to thank my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum for his diligence on this and bringing this amendment forward.

I think the purpose and the idea of the amendment are recognizing the flaws that we’re seeing in this legislation of not enough information to actually make good decisions — not only as critics on this side of the House scrutinizing the legislation but the confusion and the angst that we’re hearing from local governments — because of the lack of answers that we’re getting from this minister.

I think there’ve been some very good examples that have been brought forward on this, and I’ll maybe add one of my own.

I know of communities in rural parts of British Columbia that have, through their official community plans, actually restricted development in big parts of their communities because of the lack of capacity for water. The infrastructure is just not there.

This isn’t as easy as just saying: “Oh, we’re going to snap our fingers and invest tens of millions of dollars and upgrade some pipes.” We’ve actually got parts of and in some cases communities as a whole that have said: “We cannot accept more development. We cannot accept more infrastructure because of the capacity that’s built right now.”

Case in point is we were saying the majority of us on this side of the House come from local government. We have that experience. We’ve been at that table with our planners. With all due respect, I don’t believe the minister has that experience. But we do. We’ve lived it, and we understand the tough decisions when you have to sit around a council chamber listening to your planning staff say: “We can no longer change zoning or upzone or do anything in a quadrant of our community because the infrastructure capacity is just not there.”

I have been unable to get a straight answer, listening to this exchange, from the minister on what a community would do for an extension, or what they would do even in a situation like that, because we’re not getting enough information. And it’s not in the legislation to a level that we would expect to be able to support it because of that.

I think the concepts of what the member has put forward here are really just highlighting the fact that if the minister had put the information in the legislation to begin with, to give certainty to not only UBCM but to the communities that we have around the province, this amendment wouldn’t even have to come forward because it would have been explained in a way that we could have supported.

I’m still very concerned not only, again, by the lack of support for the concept that the member has put forward through this amendment but by the lack of answers that we’re getting from this minister.

I know how this works. I know how the minister is going to vote. I do want to also, respectfully, remind the minister of the arrogance of saying: “When this legislation passes.” What he’s highlighting, then, is it really doesn’t matter what he expects from this side of the House. It’s almost like he doesn’t want us to ask questions anymore, or highlight some of the flaws or issues, because he’s already predetermined that he knows that it’s going to be a whipped vote and this piece of legislation is going to pass.

I would expect different language from the minister, respectfully understanding the process of the House, of “if the legislation passes” — although we know what he and his colleagues are going to do.

With that, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum for his diligence on this and highlighting yet another flaw in this piece of legislation.

[3:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I also would like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I think that this is a big concern, as the past speaker has just said. This is back when we were trying to propose the amendment from Nanaimo, making sure that we had adequate water attached to property, and the minister at that point…. That was not acceptable — that we wanted to make sure that our infrastructure was adequate.

With all the concerns that we’ve had, with the information that we don’t have in order to make good decisions here, I think this is appropriate. I think, perhaps, it’s an oversight on the ministry’s part that, as we’ve said over and over, we’ve got to do these things hand in hand. Infrastructure with the upzoning — they’re all connected and related.

You can’t do one without the other. So I do support what my colleague has put forward here.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak in favour of this amendment.

You know, this debate has taken some time. It’s really been the only time that this bill has had, frankly, even though these policy ideas were in the mind of the Premier way back on July 8 of 2021, when he was on an Urban Development Institute panel getting interviewed by Bob Rennie. The Premier was talking about these principles.

Now, interestingly enough, he wasn’t talking about these principles applied to vast swaths of single-family zones. This policy that the current minister…. And this was when the Premier was formerly the Attorney General and formerly the Minister of Housing. But as it was articulated…. I went back and watched the video — great television. Nonetheless, I went back to watch to see what the Premier had to say and to see what the development industry was advocating for.

It’s quite interesting that there was no talk about doing vast swaths of residential neighborhoods to apply this to. It was very targeted — the transit-oriented corridors, as we’re going to debate eventually in this place, hopefully. There were other areas. We’ve talked about it.

Municipalities have dutifully identified those areas within their communities because they’ve done the preplanning process that this minister and this ministry can’t do on their behalf, frankly, nor have they even really, I think, identified that they’ve gone through the process to understand what the bigger infrastructure needs might be for the province. There’s maybe a general understanding, but….

Certainly, when we take a look at the number of neighbourhoods that are involved in this bill, there’s not the technical look at the issue that my colleague from Peace River South, the issue that has been raised by the member from Parksville-Qualicum and, indeed, the issues that have been raised by local government and former local government — people who, at every break as we’ve been debating, have been calling and going: “How are we going to be able to deliver this?”

I know that the capital region does not want me to walk us back to this, but I’m going to, because those members that have been around the Legislature here and those that are from the capital region will remember the wastewater disposal fiasco that happened under the watch of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Over that decade, the politics that happened, the challenge that happened, I believe, was outside the window that we have here, from what it took. And that included with the intervention of the provincial government. Credit to that former government — they actually….

[3:50 p.m.]

It went on for a long time in the capital region before that, because functioning at a regional district level is not the simplest thing, when there are all sorts of weighted votes around the table and all sorts of community needs around the table at a regional district. So the provincial government did get involved. It was after that involvement that it proceeded, but it was still quite a bit of time that was needed.

Our colleagues have been talking about water. Water is often the reason you would deny that, or you would say: “This is not an area that we’re going to grow anymore, because we can’t supply water.” It requires a plan now to end this deadline of 2030 — set, as the minister said, because it’s required. When you set a deadline, you have to put a date.

I think what’s important to acknowledge in all of this is that if the issue is water, as an example, then there’s also, at this density, a wastewater issue. I know that the minister will respond to this by suggesting, if he chooses to respond, that there’s going to be another debate coming about how this is financed.

However, it’s nearly impossible to determine, until we have an understanding of what that is, by going through the debate, whether what is being proposed for later debate is sufficient at this stage to solve this problem that we’re creating with this bill. This is yet another reason that we should probably be having housing policy brought forward in a coherent plan, linked together. That’s exactly the world we live in: an interconnected and linked world of services, social services and infrastructure.

What’s interesting about this debate that we’re having now on this amendment that has been moved is that it is entirely unnecessary for us to be having it. The member for Parksville-Qualicum gave the minister an opportunity to identify what happens if the scenario of delivering those services, or even planning for those services, can’t be met before this arbitrary date.

It’s in the act only because the minister needed to put a date. There was no other justification for this specific date that has been put in: December 31 of 2030, which is less than seven years away now — six full years.

There is uncertainty. As we go to agree to this date, there’s uncertainty for our local government colleagues to say: “Okay, what happens at the end of it?” It’s not even on the record here. The minister wouldn’t identify whether it’s another judicial review, whether the province will take them to court or fine them.

The province is demonstrating that they’re prepared to get involved in local government heavily, in detail. The number one challenge that I’ve heard from my former elected colleagues — I say that in a broader sense; there are people from all over the province calling me — is that this bill, and the way that this bill is being brought forward, is really challenging because of a loss of local democracy, a loss of people’s autonomy and community.

There is a reality in which the Minister of Housing can say: “We’ve got a housing problem in our province. We’re going to work with you” — as the minister started — “and we’re going to work with targeted communities where we want to see that development happen. We’re going to achieve the goals that we need to achieve. We’re going to work with other communities to achieve the goals that are already identified in their official community plans, if they’re not there.”

I think that’s a reasonable approach for the minister. I think we could achieve a lot of the density and volume of supply that we need. Ironically, we could even achieve the kind of supply that we need and not just pretend that we live in this world where all supply is created equal. It’s not.

We know that people are forced into the supply that the market is creating, well above their core area need. We’ve gone over this a lot. The minister doesn’t want to engage with that, because there’s no linkage between what the market will bear and what people can afford. He doesn’t want to talk, doesn’t want to have any conversation about that.

The reason this is irresponsible for us to pass is that we’ve had to put a number in and a date in — the minister has picked a date; it’s 2030 — and there’s no understanding of what the repercussions are at the end of that if they’re not able to meet it.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think about some communities that come through here. Their responsibility is not only to deliver that service but to deliver that service to a First Nation community. It might actually be their responsibility to deliver that service in partnership with a First Nations community.

Being around the Union of B.C. Municipalities for a while, I know that this journey of reconciliation is a journey that local elected officials are on as well, a different journey. They are on 200 different journeys, and each community is in a different spot.

When I was in Central Saanich, Powell River had already met with our Tla’amin relatives. They were well down the road. They had agreements in place. They had done waterfront work. The district of Central Saanich, at the time, was still at the very nascent stages of taking that UBCM funding and doing community-to-community forums, in that development stage.

Potentially, by having this date and not having the remedy available to us when a member asks for it, the minister is making assumptions that these services are going to be dealt with and that nobody is going to be interested in understanding what the penalty might be if the date has been passed.

The minister was given, on two separate occasions, the opportunity to identify it. I think it’s irresponsible and maybe even offensive for the minister to say: “We’re going to impose this date on you. It’s just going to be hanging over your head.” At the time of the debate, we’re not even going to identify what further measures we’re going to take to impose the will of the provincial government onto the local governments and the communities that elect them.

There is further erosion of local democracy. It is being shifted to an official community planning process that is sufficiently broad that people don’t necessarily even have a chance to talk about the specific things that happen in their neighbourhoods. Most community members don’t participate too much in that process, as they do in the local neighbourhood processes, and that’s not being reconciled in this bill.

I think it’s irresponsible for us to be passing this bill, with this date in it, and not providing some indication to our colleagues at local government of what penalties they face or what kinds of powers this minister or — should the NDP ever not form government again, which might happen — some other minister in the future is granted.

It’s important for us to understand that this decision we make continues into the future. Other people are also given this power, so that they’re able to make the decisions that this minister is making. I certainly hope that either the minister stands up now and provides what the potential outcome could be — making this whole exercise moot — or that we just set this date aside and not have it hanging over the communities’ heads.

A. Walker: This amendment is to eliminate the date, for which we have no sense of clarity of what happens if it’s not met. That’s the date by which a local government has to have a plan to address the infrastructure shortfalls in their communities. Listening to the minister’s first response, about how it would be unenforceable, is really an interesting lens to look at this entire bill.

There are two ways of considering that comment of being unenforceable. One is that there’s no clarity for local government about what the consequences or the timelines are. That’s in force; the date is there. The clause right now provides the minister the ability to set a date to get something done. The other side of “unenforceable” is that government would then not have the power to take local governments to court or step in and take over. Those are two very different levels of force,

We started from the initial question: what are we trying to accomplish? It’s about creating more supply and lowering costs for regular British Columbians. As we’ve gone through this debate over the last several days — weeks, really — in this place, all that we’ve done is divided our communities, creating less clarity and more angst.

[4:00 p.m.]

The development community, builders in my community — they’ve been saying for a while now that things are getting difficult to build homes, whether it’s the step code increases, which I support; whether it’s local governments restricting development; whether it’s interest rates going up. We have builders in our community, as we do all over the province, that are just cashing in, selling and leaving.

Listening to the minister’s response to this and the continual reference to judicial review, originally I was thinking of a developer or a homeowner that says: “I want to seek clarity, and I’ll get a judicial review on the decision that was being made.” But the more I reflect on this, the more I see this as an opportunity for government to use the independent judiciary to take local government to task.

If the goal is to create so much power, whether it’s in the Premier’s office, in the minister’s office or in executive council, that they can supersede local governments to just do what they need to do, that’s not how you get things done. We need to work together with our communities.

I said yesterday the local government officials that are elected to represent our towns and our cities have the same goals that the government does at the outset of this, which is to make homes more affordable for people.

The discussion that we continue to have in here is a lack of answers, being told: “Well, the question has already been asked.” Well, it’s very clear we’ve not got to this clause before, and this specific issue has not come up. So answers are not being provided.

We’re being put in a situation where the remedy that’s being recommended is that government sue local government, which is not a good outcome for anybody. And it just seems like there are a lot of unnecessary challenges that are being foreseen now, that are going to play out in our communities and that I think are going to lead to less homes being built and adding to the costs that people will see in our communities.

This amendment is quite straightforward. I was hoping that the minister would answer the questions and the amendment wasn’t required, but here we have it before us. I look forward to hearing from the minister in response to these discussions.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

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

Excuse me. Would members like to waive the remainder of the time and vote now?

Leave 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 on the amendment to clause 25 relative to section 786(4)(b), which removes the words “which may not be later than December 31, 2030.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Banman	Bernier	Clovechok
Merrifield	Olsen	Walker
NAYS — 8
Begg	Conroy	Dykeman
Glumac	Kahlon	Ralston
Sims		R. Singh

The Chair: Back to clause 25.

A. Walker: This consideration about the lack of infrastructure in a community implies that local government has absolute control over that infrastructure. We’re aware of certain arrangements where there are business arrangements with private individuals. Sometimes there are relations that require another level of government or another agency to make these approvals.

As we evaluate this clause, the ability for local governments to apply for an extension for a lack of infrastructure, if that infrastructure is health infrastructure…. For example, in my community, my hospital is literally bursting at the seams. It’s 30 percent over capacity.

What will happen when local government applies for an exemption under this clause due to infrastructure — for example, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, which is in woeful condition — to ensure that the members of their community have access to public health and safety?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, investments in health care are vitally important. We are making considerable investments in the region.

Part of the need for the housing is also because we have health care workers that need housing. So that wouldn’t be a provision that would be considered for this, because we need the housing for the people that are going to make sure that our community stays healthy.

A. Walker: The example I gave wasn’t about a lack of health care staff. The staff are doing a great job. The problem is that they’re serving patients in hallways and sometimes even in the parking lot. There is a huge concern in my community. If we allow four times as much population…. I know the minister says that this bill will not, tomorrow, bring four times as many people. I’m agreeing with him. I’m not saying it will. But we have to plan for the potential for that expansion of population.

The hospital in Nanaimo is 30 percent over capacity pretty much every single day, and that’s on a good day. It’s not over capacity due to lack of staff. It’s over capacity because of physical plant. The regional district pays for 40 percent of those improvements. The regional district has been fighting for government to match their contributions of 60 percent to increase that capacity, and this government is saying no to increasing capacity to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital.

It is a lack of infrastructure that has been noted by local government in my community. Local government has even offered to pay the entirety of the business case planning process to move things along faster. But the province has said no to the business case, even though they’re not paying anything, and they have said no to the expansion of a patient tower at the hospital.

[4:15 p.m.]

This clause specifically says that there can be an extension if there is an infrastructural deficit that puts people’s health at risk. I cannot think of something that would be as serious as not being able to receive health care when you need it, in a timely way.

The minister has not answered the question. If it is the provincial government that is limiting the health care capacity in our area, will the province allow for an extension for themselves to get back to the table?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The provisions we will consider are for upgrading infrastructure required for small-scale, multi-unit housing development: compliance by June 30, 2024, is likely to increase risk to public health, safety or the environment for the extraordinary circumstances preventing compliance, like natural disaster.

Health care workers need housing as well, so it’s important we get housing built across the province.

A. Walker: That’s a good answer, but it didn’t answer this question.

The question is…. The infrastructure that services the area is such that compliance by June 30, 2024, is likely to increase the risk to health. I’ve identified, in our community, that the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is at capacity. If we allow for four times as many people in our community…. I’m not saying it’s going to happen tomorrow, but we have to plan for what we zone for. That’s what local government is good at — planning.

The question to the minister is: would that be a reasonable request, to have a local government request that this zoning not take place until that much-needed health infrastructure is at least planned for, or, potentially, built?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, respectfully, already answered that question.

A. Walker: Yeah, this is going to be interesting to rewatch.

I’m asking questions about a hospital, and I’m being told that health care workers need housing. I agree, but when you have a senior in your community that is stuck at hospital for two weeks, and they’re not in a shared room — that would be a luxury…. Sometimes they’re not even in a hall; they’re in a closet somewhere. They don’t have access to a bathroom, and they are not getting the care that they deserve. This is something I hear all the time in my office.

If a local government makes an application for an extension because they recognize that risk, it’s an issue. I’ve asked the question regarding hospital care.

The same issues take place at a local level with primary care. Again, this is a similar question but a very different avenue because, again, the delivery of health care in a community is actually privately delivered, as we see, through family doctors. We have a lack of clinic space in our community. It is not something that local government has traditionally led on. The province…. There have been many requests for funding for health centres in our community, and they’ve all been declined.

Is it reasonable for a local government, looking at the local health care situation with primary care, to apply for an extension to ensure that the people who currently live in the community have access to the primary care that they deserve?

Hon. R. Kahlon: All communities deserve adequate health care. We are making historic-level investments in health care throughout the province, actively recruiting health care workers to be able to ensure that people are healthy and safe. We’ll continue to do that work.

We also need housing in our communities. I’ve already given the member an answer to his previous questions, and the answer on what will be considered for an extension is still the same.

A. Walker: A month ago, I had 11,000 people in my community without a doctor. This month, it’s over 14,000, and I’ve heard that other doctors are potentially looking at leaving. It’s a huge challenge. Local government has raised that with me regularly, and we’re working together to try to find a solution.

The minister has not answered any of my questions related to this or water that would satisfy people in my community as far as the questions that I’m asking, so I’ll move along to a different question here.

[4:20 p.m.]

When we talk about proper planning, we talk about natural assets. It’s a natural infrastructure. This bill will allow for the application of an extension if there’s a lack of infrastructure. Does this include the natural assets that our communities rely on, whether it’s water to permeate back into the soil or other types of natural amenities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they can get an engineer or someone who has got designation to help make the case that there are some serious environmental issues within the community, then that might be something that comes forward.

A. Walker: And what happens in that particular case where the conflict is the fact that we have dramatically densified an area that poses that health circumstance or environmental circumstance? So it’s the rezoning that’s itself creating the reason for the lack of infrastructure in an area.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can speak to the clause, and the clause states the provisions for an extension. The member asked a question around the environment, and I’ve already shared that answer. I could speak to the clause, if there’s a question on the clause.

A. Walker: The question is very specific to the clause. The clause is the ability for a local government to apply for an extension.

An example of an area that would pose environmental challenges is, as we see…. And it’s not just about tree canopy, but the parcel coverages increase and the ability for water to be re-entered into our environment…. That has significant impacts both environmentally, as far as providing water within our streams and our rivers, and also potentially to future generations as the aquifer fails to replenish itself.

The question was: if council makes a request for an extension because there’s uncertainty around the increased density in an area and the impact it would have on the environment, what would the minister say to that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the answer is the same because the question is pretty similar. If they’ve got a qualified professional that says that there is a concern to the environment, then that is something that they can consider in this provision.

A. Walker: That, I think, provides some clarity. As long as councils are relying on the expertise of a third party, then that application will go through — not necessarily approved, but at least it’ll come through to the minister. That provides some guidance there.

On sub 787(6), there is a requirement that orders may not be made under sub (3) after 2031. Could the minister explain why that is?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This goes with the extension — the December 31, 2030. What the date that the member referred to essentially says is that I, as the minister, or whoever the minister may be at the time, can’t override for non-compliance after that date.

A. Olsen: Is the minister concerned that it might be a step too far to consolidate essentially all of the powers that all of the local governments have in this province to him?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s certainly not what’s happening with the legislation.

We’re setting a minimum. We know communities have many more needs. They have needs to ensure that there are parks. They have many more needs to ensure that there are different types of housing within the community. With their community planning, this will set a floor to allow for small-scale, multi-unit housing to be built. But it doesn’t say that it’s necessarily what will get built.

I’ve said this many times, and I suspect we’re going back to the conversation we had all last week, which is: this allows for different types of housing to be built, but many people will still choose to build single-family homes because that’s what they want to live in. And they have the ability to do so.

Local governments still have the powers to decide anything higher, if they choose to do so. They have the ability to make a lot of important decisions within their community. This just creates a new floor.

A. Olsen: Again, I think one of the key disconnects that is happening here is that by extending this, but then not also providing the measures to be able to plan for it properly…. This could be built out like this over a long period of time, putting an incredible amount of strain on the systems that already exist.

Like has been said by the members who’ve been making these decisions, who’ve been sitting at these rezonings, who’ve been through the subdivision process, local governments have to go and be able to accommodate 100 percent of what’s available. And what’s available is what this minister is just unilaterally creating through this bill, this process, this….

Then there’s 787. Maybe if the minister, then, could explain what the purpose of 787 is for.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As we’ve canvassed in this House, if local governments are not able to or don’t want to change their bylaws to enable small-scale, multi-unit by the date that we’ve set out, this gives us the ability to put our site standards as the standard until such time the local government has made its changes.

[4:30 p.m.]

A. Olsen: As the minister just described it, essentially, this new clause that’s going to be added to the Local Government Act, in relation to this piece, is going to take the powers of all the local governments across the province, it’s going to consolidate it and it’s going to hand it to the minister. Is that correct, that the minister could end up being the sole decision-maker on this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The answer is the same as I provided previously. The member can make it into whatever he likes to make it into. This is specific to small-scale multi-units, and the site standards would be the de facto policy for local government if they’re not able to do so — to make the changes in the required time. I suspect most governments will.

A. Olsen: Who has this decision-making and policy-making power that currently exists?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Small-scale, multi-unit legislation is new. The power related to this specific provision is now with the Ministry of Housing, because it’s a new piece of legislation.

A. Olsen: This section applies in relation to a local government if the minister is satisfied that the local government has failed within the time required under the act to adopt a zoning bylaw that complies with the section. And it goes through how the minister may give the local government notice that sets out the minister’s objections to the local government zoning bylaw and states that the local government must, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, alter the zoning bylaw accordingly.

The minister is here…. This zone, this small-scale residential use, is now under the control of the minister. And I think that it’s important to point out. It’s like this is just one zone of many zones. However, this zone might be across those 85 communities. This is a lot of neighbourhoods. These are vast swaths of neighbourhoods within the urban containment boundary.

Sub (3) says: “If the local government does not alter the zoning bylaw in accordance with the notice under subsection (2), the minister may, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends a bylaw referred to in section 479… to (a) permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density of use….”

So now the minister is going to be able to make the minimum density use there, establish the siting, the size, the dimension, the location. This is all if the local government, under the powers granted to them on behalf of the citizens of their community, decides not to comply with the minister, which is…. You know, we still live in a democratic society. If the local government is fairly certain that their community does not want to see what this minister has chosen to impose upon them, they could choose not to participate in this process.

The minister has outlined all of the requirements that he expects of the local government to meet his needs. In making an order under subsection (3), the minister may (a) establish different classes of persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters; may establish different things and other matters; may make different provisions, excluding exceptions…. Including exceptions — sorry; it’d be interesting if that said excluding exceptions, but it says including exceptions, whatever that might be — for different classes referred to in paragraph (a) and make different provisions, including exceptions for different areas or different parts of areas of municipalities or regional districts or different….

Does the minister agree that he is giving himself quite a bit of power over a community that may decide that this is not the way that they are choosing to achieve the housing needs assessment that they’ve done? They’ve done the planning. All of the infrastructure requirements point to developing here and not where the minister has unilaterally decided that they’re going to develop. They’re needing different tenures, so they’re not going to build those small-scale multi-residential units that the minister has decided every community wants.

They’re going to achieve that target that the minister agrees they can determine. It comes from the ground up, as we learned earlier today. They’re going to achieve that through other means. The minister is now taking this power within this section 787 and saying: “No, you’re not. In fact, what you’re doing is what I say you’re doing.” Is that not a fair assessment of what’s happening?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve canvassed this at the great lengths, and I’ll just say this. What we’re saying with this is that in areas where communities already have housing — they have already understood that they want to have housing being developed — there be an ability for different types of housing to be built on that.

I’m not saying eliminate single-family homes. Single-family homes can still be built but ensuring that there are different types of housing being available for people, because many people can’t afford when a single-family home gets taken down or when a single-family gets put back. Many people can’t afford that. We need to have housing options available that are more attainable.

What we’re saying with this legislation, which we’ve been saying from the beginning, and I’ve been saying it to the member across the way many times, is that we’re giving local governments the ability to take our site standard document, which will be made public, to be able to put it into their bylaws. Many communities, the majority of communities, will and want to do this.

In fact, the member himself brought an amendment forward yesterday asking for his community of Salt Spring to be included in this.

Many communities know that this is an important opportunity to get the housing they need for young families, for people that are struggling in our communities. What we’re saying with this provision is that local governments have the ability to make the changes off the site standard document next year. If they’re not able to, or not interested, or if they’re fine with our site standard document, this gives us the provision to be able to put our site standard document as their bylaws until such time as they’ve made the change.

I appreciate the member doesn’t like this legislation, and that’s fine. We have canvassed this topic multiple times, and clearly we just disagree on the importance of this to address the housing crisis.

A. Olsen: I think one of the challenges here is that, as I mentioned earlier, as this bill has been given some air, finally — even though, as I mentioned earlier, our Premier had been talking about the basic tenets of this bill back in 2021 — the minister, who’s also the Government House Leader, decided to put these multiple bills on at the end of a fall session at the end of a legislative calendar year after, basically, the Premier had already identified that these ideas were in mind, at least a version of it. Actually, not as it has been pointed out; it was much, much more targeted.

Even Bob Rennie’s version of this was far more restrained, which is interesting, in that video that I watched. Even the vision and the picture that Bob Rennie paints in that is far more restrained than this. Because Bob’s done a lot of development, I think that it recognized the real restraints that local governments have when it comes to actually trying to do their planning well and being able to do it in a coherent way.

Anyway, I think what is identified by the people that are calling me as this bill gets air…. As we finally get an opportunity to see the specifics, we then find out that many of the specifics are going to be delivered to us much after this bill is passed.

In fact, the design has been to jam it at the end of a calendar year, jam it at the end of the session of the calendar year and bring it forward without any of these guidelines, any of these specifications. “Just trust us. We’re going to be fine.”

The discomfort that’s being expressed to me consistently is, frankly, with the amount of power that this minister, and this government, is trying to suck up and take from local governments. That’s a very key primary concern, and it’s from people across the political spectrum. It’s from people that have got a lot of experience in these matters.

Actually, if it was just an isolated piece, if it was just in this bill, that would be one thing. But we’re seeing that behaviour in this House across….

[4:40 p.m.]

When we take a look at 787 here, we recognize that it’s actually part of a broader culture of this minister taking the power away from local government if they don’t comply the way the minister wants them to comply. See, that’s what makes so much of this eye-watering. Even if a municipality wanted to comply, in a coherent way, to their planning and meet the goals that the minister has suggested they need to meet through the new housing needs report, the minister still….

They say: “You know what? Look, we’re not going to participate in this. We’re out. We appreciate that you’re trying to help us out. We’re achieving the goals. We’d love for you to come to the table with affordable housing.” That’s very difficult to get the provincial government to do. “We’re doing hundreds of units here. We’re doing four, five, a dozen units, 30 units over there for the actual affordable rental and the core housing needs housing.”

We get to sub (5): “On the date specified in an order made under subsection (3), the bylaw enacted or amended under the order is conclusively deemed to be enacted or amended by the local government in accordance with the order.” And (6): “An order may not be made under subsection (3) after December 31” — a colleague asked about that — “2031.”

The minister, at least, has provided an outside timeline in which the powers that he is consolidating within himself right now will evaporate and he will no longer have.

Then sub (7) is concerning: “For the purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government under section 479 (1) (c).”

Essentially, this sub (7) is taking the powers that a local community will elect in their mayor and council…. The minister is assuming the role of that locally elected council when it comes to this specific zone. Is that a fair characterization of what’s happening here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A few things. I think it’s important to note, for the viewers at home, that the member doesn’t speak for every local government. In fact, even half of his community wants in on this, given the amendment that he brought last week. So to suggest that this is all local governments is not factually correct.

Now, I get it. In this place…. This is politics. If we had brought this in the spring, there would have been different complaints. In fact, in the spring, a critique was: “Why isn’t this legislation here yet? Where is all this stuff they said they were going to do about housing?” When it’s fall, they say: “Well, why is it now? Why is it in the fall? Why isn’t it next year in the spring? Why don’t we have more time? Why don’t we do it earlier?”

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Then if it was next spring, they would say: “Oh my god. Look at this. It’s before an election. Now they’re bringing this in.”

I appreciate that there are a billion different ways for the opposition to come at this. Fundamentally, we’re talking about the same clause that we were talking about for the last five days. The principle is the same.

The site standards document will be in public. Local governments will have the ability to adopt that in their bylaws. If they’re unable to do so, then this provision allows us to have the site standards be the de facto bylaws for small-scale multi-units.

I can say that multiple times. The member can ask about it multiple times. But we’re saying that clearly. This is the provision, and this is what the intention of it is.

A. Olsen: I think the minister doesn’t want to answer the question and decided to, basically, make a bunch of statements that are not even characteristic of what I’m doing here.

I’ve never once said that I represent all municipalities. In fact, what I’ve said is that the minister is trying to take the power of all the municipalities. That’s what the minister is trying to do, to consolidate those powers by saying that under this piece, under the small scale….

Ultimately, it will flow to him or flow to the minister, whoever it is. It could be a different Minister of Housing when we come back in the spring, and we’ll be asking the next Minister of Housing what it is that they’re going to be doing for the people that are in the core housing need that communities identify.

I’ve never even claimed to represent Central Saanich. I’ve stated that I’ve sat at the Central Saanich council table, though. That’s true. I do have that experience. I have been at every Union of B.C. Municipalities convention since 2008. I’ve been at the AVICC. I’ve been around the conversation. I’ve never claimed to represent the current council in Central Saanich, the current council in North Saanich, the current council in Sidney. I have no business. That’s their business.

[4:45 p.m.]

There is a responsibility that we have here, as legislators, to be able to ask the questions that local governments might be wanting answers to at this stage of the debate. If the minister finds that so offensive, then that’s a problem. That’s a problem.

Let the record show. I’ve never once claimed to be anything other than the person that I am, as a member for Saanich North and the Islands, as a resident from Central Saanich, as someone who has been sitting at both of these tables.

I have identified that I have experience at both of these tables. That’s true. I’ve done that. I’ve identified with my colleagues who also have sat at these tables. There is, actually, something that’s important about that. I know that there are other members in this House that have sat at these tables as well.

I think it’s also important to put on the record, if this is what we’re doing in this debate, that we’ve not been talking about this same clause. As was pointed out in one of the minister’s own responses just a few minutes ago, this is a new clause.

We’ve not been talking about the same clause. We’ve just been talking about the new clause that the minister wants to add. It has sub (7) in it, which says: “For the purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government….”

Is it not correct to suggest that the minister, with respect to this section and with respect to these powers, has given themself the power to be able to act as an elected mayor and council, effectively replacing the mayor and council? If a community decides that they’re choosing to achieve the growth requirements that this minister or B.C. Stats or CMHC or whoever it is that is going to be required to follow the numbers…. They decide to achieve that through a way that’s coherent to their planning.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Nowhere in this legislation do we talk about replacing local government.

What’s important here is…. What this provision does is say that the site standards document, which we’ll make public…. If a local government can’t adopt it by the date that’s set out, we have the ability to make sure that the site standards document is the small-scale multi-unit policy for local government. That’s the power.

Now, the member has inferred that I’m giving myself some powers. I think he had a fair point, which is that I might not be the Housing Minister in three months, four months. In a year, he may be the Housing Minister. The member for Peace River South may be the Housing Minister.

The provisions in the legislation are, we believe, the right things to do to get the housing supply that we desperately need in our communities and to make the best use of the infrastructure that we’ve already invested in. Regardless if it’s me or my friend across the way or my friend from Peace River South, the policy is still the right thing, given that we’re in a housing crisis.

The member has asked this question multiple times. I’m saying to him: “Yes, this is what the provision does.” The provision….

I should say that it may be the member for Parksville-Qualicum, as well, that could be the Minister of Housing. It could be any of us.

In the end, this legislation, we believe, is the right path forward. It’s about using our infrastructure to get the best use of that infrastructure to get housing. It’s not about me getting power. It’s not about anybody in particular. It’s about doing what we believe is the right thing to address the housing crisis.

A. Olsen: Does sub (7) replace the power that a local government has to make a decision with the power of the minister or give that power to the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It gives me the power to be able to ensure that the small-scale multi-unit policy is there, if they can’t, but it doesn’t take away their powers.

That’s what I meant when I said earlier that it doesn’t replace local government. What it does is say that if the small-scale multi-unit policy is not able to be adopted by a local government…. The document that we have will be the site standards document for that community until such time as they’ve had the ability to change theirs.

[4:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does it remove the power of a local government to make a decision to not adopt the site standards but to choose to achieve their growth targets, which have been established through their housing needs assessment, through their updated official community plans? Local government was following all the rules but decided: “We’re not doing it through this method. We are going to achieve everything.” Does it replace their power to make that decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation and this provision ensures that if a local government cannot meet the timeline that we’ve set out for adopting the bylaws, it gives the Minister of Housing the power to be able to make our site standards the standard document for that community.

A. Olsen: So it removes the ability for the community to choose to not meet it. I recognize that both the minister and I are dealing in semantics here a little bit, but the minister says “cannot meet it.” It does remove the ability for a local council to listen to their community, who come out and say: “This is not what we want to do. The community plan achieves what the minister is wanting to achieve. We’d prefer for you to stick that way. We’ve been engaged in these processes.”

This removes the ability of a local council to actually listen to their public, if that’s what the public wanted to do, and say: “We’re going to achieve this through other ways.” And it allows the minister to come in and say: “Too bad. We’re going to do it this way.”

Hon. R. Kahlon: Same answer as I gave previously.

A. Olsen: In that case, I’m going to move an amendment to remove sub (7) from this section, because I think that it’s unnecessary to give the minister the powers of a local government under this section. I think it’s very clear that what the minister wants to achieve from this is to be able to get the local government to follow the directive that they take.

I think by removing sub (7), it still provides that impetus but requires the minister actually to negotiate this and consult and work with the local government, rather than just take their power to make the decision on this clause.

[SECTION 25, by deleting the text shown as struck out

787 (1) This section applies in relation to a local government if the minister is satisfied that the local government has failed, within the time required under this Act, to adopt a zoning bylaw that complies with section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing].

(2) The minister may give to the local government a notice that

(a) sets out the minister’s objections to the local government’s zoning bylaw, and

(b) states that the local government must, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, alter the zoning bylaw accordingly.

(3) If the local government does not alter the zoning bylaw in accordance with the notice under subsection (2), the minister may, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends a bylaw referred to in section 479 [zoning bylaws] to

(a) permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 and

(b) establish the siting, size, dimension, location or type of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 in the area.

(4) In making an order under subsection (3), the minister may

(a) establish different classes of persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters,

(b) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different classes referred to in paragraph (a), and

(c) make different provisions, including exceptions, for different areas or different parts of areas of municipalities or regional districts or different persons, property, circumstances, things and other matters.

(5) On the date specified in an order made under subsection (3), the bylaw enacted or amended under the order is conclusively deemed to be enacted or amended by the local government in accordance with the order.

(6) An order may not be made under subsection (3) after December 31, 2031.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the minister has the powers of a local government under section 479 (1) (c).]

The Chair: We’ll take a recess to distribute the proposed amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

Member, if you would like to speak to your amendment.

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment.

I think there’s an opportunity here for the minister to assert what the minister is choosing to assert, which is setting a timeline, a timeline that ends in 2031, making a very strong statement as to what the government of the current day wants local governments to achieve, despite whether or not that is what’s on the mind of the local government, despite whether that’s what is the choice of the residents of that local government, during all of the processes that the minister himself has held up throughout this debate.

The collection of data based on good data provided by the province, provided by the federal government. The production of a housing needs assessment — to identify what that is. A good assessment of the infrastructure that’s on the ground. As my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum pointed out, likely some kind of an assessment as to whether or not there are going to be sufficient schools and health care facilities, the hard infrastructure that needs to be built.

I recognize that the minister has stated quite clearly that the government has been making record investments in new infrastructure. That’s fine. I mean, I guess that there could be a scenario where we elect a government in British Columbia that decides to not invest, and that doesn’t get captured in this situation here.

Nonetheless, I think that what we have here is…. Without sub (7), we’ve got the majority of this moving the communities toward the direction that this minister wants to go, without giving the minister the power to be able to just unilaterally make a decision at the end of it.

What this actually does is suggest very strongly to the communities where we want them to be. But then it also puts a responsibility on the minister to do more than just brute force, to do more than just simply assert that the community didn’t act in the way that the minister wanted the community to act so now the minister is going to step in and require it. That’s essentially what’s happening here with this piece.

Granted, it’s around the small-scale units. However, I think, if the rest of the stuff that we’ve debated, if the rest of the information that we’ve talked about, which is that the minister is actually interested in seeing the data, the minister is actually interested in seeing good community planning, the minister is actually interested in seeing local governments remain with some autonomy to be able to make those decisions….

I think a Housing Minister in a democratic institution would want to see there be some democracy in this.

Despite all of that, the minister shouldn’t have the power to be able to just unilaterally come in and enforce it — rather, has to do more than just the brute force, has to do more than just shoehorn this in, in the community. So by removing this….

There’s a long window; it’s 2031. This minister and perhaps all of the other members that he named, starting four months from now, apparently — the announcement of a snap election…. No, I’m just joking.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: No, I’m kidding. It did get the minister’s head up, though, I have to say. Nonetheless….

Interjections.

[5:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: No, you said it.

Anyway, basically this gives a long window for a minister, this minister or future ministers, to be able to work constructively rather than having the threat of brute force hanging over those local governments’ heads.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s amendment. It makes the entire section void. It’s important that we have that measure there to ensure that we’re getting this type of housing built, given the crisis we’re dealing with, the challenges we’re dealing with across the province.

We can’t support the amendment. I appreciate the member across the way. I will not agree on this, but I appreciate him bringing it forward.

M. Bernier: Well, I will agree in theory here with the direction that my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands has brought forward.

Again, coming from a local government background, we were talking earlier about how elections used to be every two years. Then it was switched to three years. Now it’s four years for local governments.

I remember the days when we had public consultation or public outreach in our communities. When I was thinking of running for councillor or mayor, I wanted to hear from my communities. What do you want your community to look like? Who do you want to elect to try to, maybe, bring that vision and idea forward on your behalf as a mayor or a councillor? Those are important arguments, discussions, dialogues to have with your community.

It’s going to be interesting, the way this minister is portraying not only this section but what we’re seeing with a lot of different pieces of legislation coming forward, where we have a different approach to this government of pass the idea. “Let’s put the vision forward, and we’ll consult with you later,” to the public, which is completely opposite of what we see in local governments. Completely opposite.

There is no way in heck somebody would get elected if they said: “Elect me to be a city councillor in Parksville, but I’m going to tell you after you elect me what I’m going to do to try to make your life better. I have ideas, but I’m not going to tell you.”

Now we’ve got, even under this piece right here, a completely different piece that this minister is saying to those people who campaigned, who worked with their community…. What this minister is saying is: “Now it no longer matters what you promise. It no longer matters what you want for your community. It doesn’t matter what that vision is anymore, because I have the power and authority to come in and override that.”

Now, the minister doesn’t want to say that for some reason. I’m not sure why he hasn’t just stood up and said: “Look, we all know we’re in a housing crisis. If you’re not going to do what I want, I’m going to step in and do it for you.” That’s what the minister is doing. I’m not quite sure why he’s afraid to say that, because he might as well. Those are the facts.

What he’s saying is: “I want the power to do something in your community and override your decision if your decision does not meet the direction that this government wants to go or I as the Housing Minister want to go.”

Nobody is arguing anywhere in this House…. I’m looking to see who’s here. Yeah, for the people that are here right now, nobody is arguing that we’re in a housing crisis. Nobody is arguing that we need to try to look at diversifying our housing stock in a multitude of ways in many communities — not all, but in many communities.

I think what we’re trying to point out here, though, is this minister has come to the stick approach now. It’s no longer a carrot. It’s a stick approach that rather than working with local governments, we’re going to tell you how to do it. Rather than trying to look at the differences that come in a community and the autonomy that comes through a visioning process and through an election process, that no longer matters.

I hope that the minister can appreciate what we’re also hearing is that, okay, today it’s this issue. What’s tomorrow? Is the Minister of Arts and Culture going to come in and say: “I’m passing a law now that says every community has to have an arts centre, and if you don’t have one, we’re going to force you to build one.”

Does that sound silly? I guess maybe it does, but that’s what we’re hearing now from some local governments. This opens the door for what? This opens the door where government is coming in and saying: “We no longer need to respect the autonomy of a community or the locally elected officials.”

[5:10 p.m.]

I think that’s what my colleagues here are trying to just get the minister to acknowledge. The minister has the right or the authority, as he’s portraying today, to put this legislation forward for it to be voted on.

What we’re just trying to acknowledge and get the minister to acknowledge is the fact that he is coming in to override local decision-making. He’s kind of skirted it a little bit with his commentary. But again, this could have been avoided if that consultation and appropriate dialogue had taken place prior to this legislation. It would have been very interesting to see, because I actually, like my local government colleagues here, have sat on the UBCM executive, as well. So I know the process there fairly well through all my terms in local government.

It’s no wonder that there are concerns raised in this legislation and others by local government officials because of the heavy-handed approach of this government, of taking away that local decision-making autonomy through this.

That’s a reason why, again, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I think it’s…. The minister is trying to skirt a way of why he can’t support it. I’m always open to any other piece of amendment if the minister wants to look at this section and say that he doesn’t like this amendment and he’s willing to put his own amendment forward to meet the direction that we are trying to achieve here and get the minister to acknowledge.

Even in the wording, as my colleagues have put forward here, the minister will have the powers of local government under this section. I’m not sure why he doesn’t want to acknowledge that wording actually means that he’s taking away their decision-making authority.

With that, I appreciate, again, the member bringing forward this amendment. It’s one that I think is fairly reasonable, in light of the situation of what this government is trying to do.

The Chair: I’ve had an opportunity to review the amendment and can confirm it’s in order.

Are there any other members that would like to speak to this amendment?

A. Olsen: Just to a couple of comments, I think, that come from the debate that we’ve had here.

I think it’s important just to acknowledge the disconnect that continues to be highlighted in this is that only the provincial government can plan this way. Local governments can’t plan this way. I think that’s part of the disconnect we’re struggling with, and not just with this section. This section illustrates a broader challenge with this bill, that this bill actually reflects just in its entirety, just in its existence, the approach that the government decided to take.

Local governments need to operate on behalf of their constituents, so this is very clearly taking that.

There has been this culture that’s started to evolve over the last decade or so of eroding the confidence we have in our local governments. Part of the effort — specifically around all of the questions about how local governments operate in this new world, where the province is coming in and making changes in zoning unilaterally across a whole wide swath of area — is that it further erodes confidence that the public have in our local government structures.

If the provincial government continues to assert itself over that local government decision-making, the confidence of the public will be diminished, especially when, actually, the minister leaned on the public having strong confidence in their local governments, because it is going to be from the ground up that is determined how we solve the housing affordability crisis.

On one hand, the minister is saying that we’re going to be really relying on a robust local government system to be able to determine and to develop and to administer all the things that the provincial government’s targets are, all of the targets that they set. The minister has not yet demonstrated that he’s prepared to listen to what the outcomes of that are.

It’s just an assumption that the reason why we’re in the housing affordability crisis that we’re in is because those bad councils can’t build product, that they don’t build fast enough, that they can’t build product that they don’t have any resources to be able to construct.

[5:15 p.m.]

They have no tools to be able to extract more affordability, value, out of developments. They’re getting absolutely every percent that they can possibly get out of a development without making the other units in that development more expensive. In the entire time that I was around the local government table, and even as I’ve watched it from afar now, 10 percent seems to be the highest amount.

So when we look at this, what we need to recognize is that this plays into a dangerous narrative that is evolving and that actually is being elevated, by this action, to say to the public: “Your local government is just now less important. Your local government is now just….”

It has now just been demonstrated that the moment the province wants to step in, as my colleague from Peace River South suggested…. The moment the province decides to step in and unilaterally make these changes — even though the Local Government Act is our act; I recognize it — there’s been a respect that the powers that have been established in the Local Government Act remain to those local elected officials. What’s so dramatic about this is that, actually, the largest changes to zoning in this province aren’t about powers. They’re actually about manipulating and changing the zoning.

I think that part of the reason why it’s important to highlight this, part of the reason why it’s important to stand and speak to this, is that it’s important to be able to put on the record the fact that this government is playing into a political and cultural narrative out there right now that the reason why we are in an affordability crisis is because local governments have not been able to deliver a product that they don’t deliver.

They never have. They’re not designed to. They’re not resourced to. They can’t do that. I think that no matter how hard we try to get them to do it more, they simply won’t.

What will likely come out of this, as the minister has already said, is that only a certain number will be built, and 100 percent of those units, or at least the vast majority of them, will be at the market rate. All of these multi-unit developments that we’re seeing right now….

The market rate is the current market rate, and that is way outside what people who are in core housing need, as identified in community housing needs assessments. Even just marginally above the core housing need, they still can’t afford market rent or market homeownership in this housing market.

We can ill afford the continued erosion of confidence in our local governments. We must stop blaming local governments for doing something that they’re not designed to do. If the minister wants them to do something else, then the minister and this government need to redesign their powers entirely for them to be able to achieve that.

They need to be given the fiscal tools to be able to actually get in and fund it, because if they don’t have a partner at the provincial government that will actually fund the type of housing that needs to be built, then it’s not going to be built for the people that need housing, and those people are going to be forced to leave our communities.

Those are the people working in the front lines. Those are the people working in the shops. Those are the people that we are all talking to when we stand up and talk about Small Business Week. So I really hope that we stop kicking our local government colleagues in this. I really don’t think that it’s helpful that the provincial government helps perpetuate it.

I think in the dialogue that was with Bob Rennie and with Premier Eby last summer, when he was the former Minister of Housing, they talked about the carrot-and-stick approach that we were talking about — kind of a jovial discussion about how local governments aren’t performing the task that we need them to perform. Well, give them the ability to do it then. Give them the resources to do it. Make social housing development the responsibility of the local government and actually give them the tools to be able to fund those projects.

If the provincial government wants to cut all those ribbons, and they want to be able to make all those B.C. gov news announcements that “This is your B.C. government in action,” then they actually need to be able to be active partners on it and not diminishing and eroding the confidence that people have in their local municipal hall, the local government that’s there to be responsible for all the services, that delivers that policing service, that delivers that fire service, that delivers those roads, that delivers community.

[5:20 p.m.]

I think that’s what a lot of people are going to be struggling with here as they see a provincial government that simply says: “Well, they’re not performing at the rate that we want them to perform, and they’re not building exactly what we think should be built. Therefore, we’re going to step in and make this change, and we’re not even going to put in any restraint. You know what? We’re not even going to put any accountability measures on ourselves.”

All the accountability measures that exist in this are on local governments. If this fails, there is no accountability measure on this minister. Politically, maybe, but if it fails, all of the accountability measures are on local governments to scramble through every process to make up the gap, to make up the space.

If this fails and it does increase the wealth gap, as I’ve raised, all it means is that those people who are renters and not homeowners are going to have to scramble to catch up faster. They’re going to have to work harder, to be no further ahead. That’s the challenge that’s happening here.

We need to be honest about where the responsibility lies, and we need to be honest about where the accountability should be. Currently we’re putting the accountability on local governments. We’re saying, “They can’t make decisions; they can’t do what they need to do. If they choose to do something different, then this minister will step in and assert the authority of the powers of the local government,” with the message that it sends to the 12 to 21 to 36 percent of the people that do show up.

We want people to be more confident in their local government. We want those voter turnouts to be higher. We want people to participate in a robust local government. But over the last decade, the provincial government, members of this place, have all been part of eroding the confidence that we have in our local governments.

I think it’s dangerous; it makes me sad. I think it cheapens that level of government in a way that’s really unfortunate. I think it’s totally inappropriate. I would like to see measures put in place here, where accountability lands at the feet of the people who make it: real accountability. I would also like to see measures that restrain the minister from being able just to assert themselves over a local government and force them to work with that government instead.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the amendment to clause 25, which strikes out subsection 787(7), pass?

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

All right. Is there any objection to waiving to the remainder of the time?

Leave 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 25, which strikes out subsection 787(7), pass.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Banman	Bernier	Bond
Morris	Olsen	Walker
NAYS — 8
Brar	Donnelly	Farnworth
Greene	Kahlon	Lore
Phillip		Starchuk

The Chair: Okay, we’re bringing staff back, and when staff are seated, we’ll recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum on clause 25.

A. Walker: Chair, I won’t start by saying how many questions I have, but it’s very narrow. Don’t worry.

The minister has this new power that’s authorized if local governments are not able to meet this rezoning in a certain timeline. If the minister steps in and enables zoning that has costs associated with it, am I to understand that local governments, when they come back to their role, will then, through the budgetary process, have to pay for whatever commitments the minister made while stepping in as the local governments under this section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the $51 million is going to communities regardless. So they’ll have the dollars to do the planning work. If local government is not able to adopt policies or, perhaps, doesn’t want to because they believe the site standards are adequate, then that will be the place.

Of course, the local governments will have to start planning for small-scale units to be built in their community. They’ll need to plan accordingly, regardless of whether they change the bylaws or whether, in fact, our site standards are their document.

A. Walker: The question was if the minister steps in and enacts some zoning, if that has cost associated with it, will local government have to bear that cost? Will a council, which then steps back into that role, have to take that that process on?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Both the housing opportunities and any infrastructure-related matters will be something that local governments need to consider, whether they adopt our site standards or whether we put the site standards in place, de facto, with them not being able to do so.

[5:35 p.m.]

A. Walker: I’m assuming that to that question, it’s yes. I mean, if a local government says, “This is so cost-prohibitive that we just don’t want to take responsibility for it,” we know the province is going to step in. The province will force it on local government, to see this rezoning take place.

I presume the answer is: if the minister does step in and does this rezoning that has a cost implication, that local government will then, afterwards, through their budgetary processes, have to cover whatever shortfalls that rezoning incurred.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Lots of local governments have ways of collecting fees associated with development. I’m not sure what that cost may be. But again, the answer is still the same. The powers allow us to put the site standard document in place. Regardless of whether they adopt their own bylaws or whether our site standards are there, local communities will need to do their planning accordingly.

A. Olsen: Just a clarification from the minister’s last answer. The fees are associated with an application. In this case, as per the member’s question, there is no application. There is a cost, but no application, so there’s nothing that a local government can apply fees against, I don’t think.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The $51 million is there to support communities with the planning. I assume the member was talking about any infrastructure-related costs. He wasn’t clear, so I tried to answer it that way. We are providing $51 million for communities to do the planning work that’s required.

Clause 25 approved.

On clause 26.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister could provide: what is the actual timeline for the interim housing needs reports contemplated in this clause? Is it 2024 or 2028? What is it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: December 31, 2024.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m a little confused, because December 31, 2024, was the interim report date under 585.31(3) before this bill. But earlier on — if I’m not mistaken, in clause 17, I think it was, off the top of my head — that was changed to December 31, 2028. So is it 2024, or is it the new 2028? If it’s not 2028, what the heck did we just amend, because it refers to the exact same clause.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question. I don’t think the member was in the chamber when that question came up.

This is the interim report. The interim report is due by the end of 2024. The next housing needs report is on the date of 2028, which was in the previous clause.

P. Milobar: Well, I get that, what the minister is saying. However, it says: “Despite section 473.1(5)” — now this is (6) on clause 26 — “the council of a municipality must review and, if necessary, adopt an official community plan as contemplated by that section by December 31 of the year in which the council receives an interim report on housing needs under subsection (2) of this section.”

You go to subsection (2), and it says: “Without limiting section 585.31(3), a local government must, on or before the prescribed date, receive an interim report on housing needs.” You then go to 585.31(3), which in clause 17 of Bill 44 was just amended a few hours ago, and that says: “A local government must receive a housing needs report on or before December 31, 2028 and on or before December 31 in every fifth year after that date.”

Could the minister point to where 2024 is referenced anywhere in a date in 585.31, when it very clearly was just amended to say 2028?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked this question two clauses before. I gave the answer at that point, which is: this piece will be in regs, but we made it clear to local governments, very publicly, that that would be the date, so that they could do their planning. We heard that that was the adequate time that would be needed in order to update their housing needs reports or get the housing needs report done.

P. Milobar: Well, no, I don’t know that the member would have been asking about this specific clause, because I’m actually reading the language directly from clause 26, the clause we’re on.

If you go to check when would each of these clauses take effect, clause 17 takes effect on royal assent. It takes effect on Thursday this week, which means clause 17 will be in force and effect as of Thursday.

Clause 17 very clearly states that 585.31(3) will have a date of December 31, 2028. When you read the provisions in clause 26, it very clearly says that you have to refer to that section for the prescribed date. The minister prescribed the date in clause 17 of this bill. That date takes effect on Thursday of this week when we have royal assent.

Can the minister point to where 2024, then, would be relevant, given that 585.31 becomes law on Thursday and it has a date prescribed in it very clearly of December 31, 2028?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, this was exactly the question the member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked. If this is 2028, don’t we need an earlier date to have a housing needs report updated? I answered that we, in fact, will have an interim housing needs report, which will be done by the end of 2024. The specific clause the member is looking for, which gives us the authority to put that in regs, is 792. That’s what I was referring to when I answered the member.

P. Milobar: Once again, we have a piece of legislation in front of us that is saying one thing, but then you have to somehow go two clauses forward within a bill, the Local Government Act, to find contradictory dates.

I guess the question I’m asking is either way it’s either December 31 of 2024 or December 31 of 2028.

It says: “the council or municipality must review, and, if necessary, adopt an official community plan as contemplated by that section by December 31 of the year in which the council receives an interim report on housing needs under subsection (2) of this section.”

As the minister has heard repeatedly, all my members have either been councillors or mayors of municipalities, actually, except for our critic, but the member for Peace River South and myself were both mayors. I know the other two members were councillors for various stints. Everyone has pointed out that official community plans take a long time to develop, and they take a long time to pass.

This seems to say that despite the fact that we have, essentially, one year to go to December 31 of 2024, municipalities not only are going to have to have their interim report on housing needs completed; they have to somehow get an official community plan to go through proper due process with the public, approved by the public, approved by the council and actually be completely done between now and December 31 of 2024. It seems like an awful rush, let alone a total skewing of due process for how official community plans are developed.

Why is 2024 such a hard and fast date, given that this will result in a serious compromising of how official community plans are developed, especially given there will not be the ability to demand off-street parking? There won’t be the ability to restrict four units or six units on 3,000-square-foot lots, if you are within 30 minutes of transit.

[5:45 p.m.]

A whole bunch of other site area things still won’t be in effect yet until the regulations are in place. In fact, the minister is saying to municipalities: “We’ll tell you what the regs are in a few months. We then want you to go out and complete an in-depth overlay of the official community plan and update it in conjunction with the housing needs report, and you must report back to us and have all of that done with proper process by December 31, 2024, which is basically 13 months from now.” Is that what I’m understanding?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, what we’re saying here is that it’s an interim housing needs report. Some communities have just recently done their housing needs reports, and they’ll simply just need to update it with the 2021 data that is coming online.

The feedback we’ve gotten is that the housing needs report process shouldn’t be a major issue as of the timelines we’ve laid out. We expect many communities will have that done well before then. The updating of the OCPs is the end of 2025.

P. Milobar: Well, actually, no, it’s not, because in (6) of 790 of the “Transition – interim reports on housing needs,” it says: “Despite 473.1 (5), the council of the municipality must review and, if necessary, adopt an official community plan as contemplated by that section by December 31 of the year in which the council receives an interim report on housing needs under subsection (2) of this section.”

The minister has said they have to have that interim report by December 31, 2024. That’s the calendar year that they would receive an interim report. By December 31, the way this is written, of that same year, they must adopt an official community plan based on that.

Can the minister not see how they have created, by their own legislation here, conflicting dates where they’re asking for the same basically parallel work to be done at the exact same time, and they must have it done by December 31 of the same year?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve just conferred with staff. Before, they told me December 31, 2024. It’s actually January 1, 2025. It was an error in my communicating that.

P. Milobar: Okay, that’s interesting. The 585.31 typically talks about December 31 as being a drop-dead date. Everything else is December 31. Now when the dates seem to have not worked out on what the minister is looking for, we have a January 1 date. This doesn’t seem like much, perhaps, to the outside world, but it does create a 12-month difference on how the legislation reads.

Can the minister please then point definitively, so that we can look it up, to where the exact language for January 1, 2025, is? It was misspoken as December 31, 2024, several times. I’ll have some other questions once he gives us that answer.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Subsection 790(2) allows us, through regs, to prescribe a date for section 796. What I’m saying is that that date will come in regulations, but what I’ve said already is that we’ve stated publicly to local governments that that will be the date, and that will come in regulations.

P. Milobar: Again, this is a troubling way to create regulation and legislation of this significance for impact of communities. The minister has conveyed that they would have to make some slight OCP amendments. You know, just a quick update to the OCP.

This legislation, based on previous questions to this minister around minimum lot size — which, we know, is 280 square metres, or 3,000 square feet — will say how many units you’re allowed to put on that. There’s a requirement that removes any requirements around off-street parking; you’re not able to require off-street parking.

There’s proximity to transit, which will open up a large geographic area of Vancouver that is not on 15-minute service but is on 30-minute service. That is the B.C. Transit guideline. Again, the minister started telling us it was a TransLink guideline. Then it was B.C. Transit guideline.

We were hearing several questions in a row where the answer was December 31, 2024, and now it’s January 1, 2025, in the blink of an eye. It’s not actually written anywhere, because that’s to come in regulation. The opposition, on behalf of their municipalities and the public we serve, is supposed to somehow have faith and keep track of all of these moving parts that keep changing, depending on how many times the minister gets asked a question.

[5:55 p.m.]

Where I’m going with this: based on all those facts, the city of Kamloops — our high-density area, identified in an official community plan, in the downtown urban core, is 125 units per hectare. That’s for larger, multi-height, multifamily-type structures.

This legislation creates the density in cul-de-sacs — which, as the minister has pointed out, is allowed — and on single-family residential lots in neighbourhoods pretty much anywhere that has transit, because most cities have at least 30-minute transit service, of 142 units per hectare. This creates a higher densification than what most cities have identified in their urban cores for high-density housing within their official community plans.

We’re told, with clause 26, that’s okay. First, they need to come up and review their housing needs assessment over the next few months. Then they have to do an official community plan amendment and make sure that these neighborhoods actually understand the geography involved when they start overlaying the access to transit, what that means for densification, what it means for parking.

All of those things are going to an official community plan, which is supposed to be the reason you don’t need a rezoning anymore, because there’s supposed to be a high level of public input into the official community plan process instead of on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood level.

I’ve got news for the minister. The public does not engage in an official community plan at the same level as they do if something is going to be built within 100 metres or 150 metres of their home. They just simply don’t, but that’s going to be the vehicle to get rid of rezoning for future densification of neighbourhoods that actually exceed the densification already identified in most official community plans as high density.

That is all to take place with supposed good due process for the public. By the way, (7) of this same cause means that all the necessary zoning bylaws have to be changed as well. Now, the minister has bought himself another year by magically changing the date to January 1, 2025, by that one extra day. That means there are now 25 months for these municipalities and their planning departments, on these sections alone, to come up with a strategy around making sure that their housing needs assessment is done, interim, because they’re going have to redo it again by 2028.

They’re going to have to meaningfully try to engage neighbourhoods and talk to them about the fact that they’re no longer allowed to require off-street parking. They’re no longer allowed to say no. These units are going in, whether a neighbourhood wants them or not, at a densification rate much higher that has previously been worked out by these cities through an official community plan process. That all has to get done, but none of that can meaningfully take place.

How can you consult with the public? How can a municipality go and consult with the public about rezoning bylaws and about official community plans and densification impacts in their neighbourhood until the minister provides the regulation publicly? You can’t design any of that without that. You can’t ask for public input without that, because what is the public commenting on? Those 25 months are going to be dramatically reduced, based on the timeline that the minister does or doesn’t have, with rolling out their regulations.

The question I have for the minister, under this clause here, is: what is the point of updating zoning bylaws if the city is not allowed to say no to anything that a zoning bylaw would typically take care of?

[6:00 p.m.]

You’ve already told them they’re not allowed to say no if there’s no parking. They have to still allow it without parking. You’ve said what the minimum lot size is. You’ve said what densification people are allowed to have. It applies in all residential areas if they’re within 30-minute bus service, 400 metres from a bus stop.

By the way, the standard design for B.C. Transit is to design their bus stops within 400 metres of each other. So all the bus stops are 400 metres apart, because it is the walking area. I do know that because I was on the board of B.C. Transit, and we discussed that at length, around walkability and what people will reasonably do to go and get transit.

All of that is actually already prescribed by the government, yet here we have the illusion that there’s still some form of community input needed and required around zoning and around official community plans. Can the minister confirm that in clause 26, municipalities and the public have the ability to submit official community plans or rezoning plans that would restrict four or six units going in on houses that are within the transit corridor that comes by regulation, or based on lack of parking that will be coming by regulation?

Will they have the ability to override any of those rules this government is putting in place, or is this simply window dressing to look like there’s a public process, but in actual fact, it’s already been dealt with by the government and “You shalt do what the minister says you shalt do”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, sorry about the mistake that I made, but in the press release and all the background information that was released, it did in fact say January 1, 2025, just for the record.

There are a few things that my colleague across the way has highlighted. First off, to anyone watching at home, parking is still going to be there. We’re still going to build parking for homes. We have said that close to frequent transit areas, there won’t be parking. I’ve shared with the member that it’s going to be close to 15 minutes of service, every 15 minutes of bus service coming. So it’s isolated to certain areas.

The work to update the OCP and zoning will be a lot of work. We believe communities will be able to do it. We’re not asking for the entire OCP to be updated. Just the housing portion has to be updated. A lot of other elements of the plans are still there, and they’ll be basing it off of the needs in their community. So they’ll be updating their housing needs, and they’ll be updating the needs of their community, their residents. And work will be done to meet that need.

P. Milobar: These have been the minister’s answers. First off, I very clearly asked several times to point us to where the date was. It was at least three questions, I think, where I was talking and the minister kept saying December 31, 2024. I appreciate he corrected there. But again, this is not opposition trying to be difficult here. We’re working off of the answers from the minister.

The minister said frequent transit would be based on the TransLink definition yesterday. Then a couple of questions later, he corrected himself and said, no, it’s based on the B.C. Transit definition of frequent service, which I pointed out is a significant difference.

TransLink — based on what I’ve been able to read, their definition is 15-minute service till nine o’clock at night. B.C. Transit is, I think, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 15-minute to 30-minute service on those corridors and those routes. It’s the minister that said that the regulations will be based on the B.C. Transit definition, despite the fact that TransLink has a totally different definition, and the large portion of where the population growth is going to happen is TransLink.

That area actually has a massive different geography now, with this legislation overlay based on frequent transit, than it had if the minister had stuck to the TransLink definition. Government’s choice. I recognize that. But again, we can only operate off of basically what the minister is answering because there’s nothing in writing for us to work off of when it comes to regulations, or the work that’s been done with UBCM or hasn’t been done with UBCM.

[6:05 p.m.]

Maybe some members but not all members of UBCM have access to the information. They can all have that after the fact.

The reality is…. For the minister to say that an official community plan isn’t the whole official community plan being looked at because it’s only housing…. I don’t know what the heck the minister thinks everyone has input on around official community plans, but it’s really not that hard to identify where the gravel pit and the industrial area in your city might be in an official community plan.

They all exist already. The only real conversation is if you’re going to contract it a little bit or not. There’s not a lot of free land in most communities that hasn’t already been identified for either future development of that type or not.

To suggest that it’s just an update that is only dealing with housing is either completely trying to underplay the importance of an official community plan and the work that goes into it and where the discussion points actually are, or it’s a complete misunderstanding or lack of wanting to understand how critical the official community plan is, moving forward, when cities aren’t able to have public hearings and rezonings to say yes or no to this style of development in their neighbourhoods.

That’s the crux of this whole conversation everyone in opposition has been having for days now. There’s a complete lack of information. There’s a complete lack of local control being removed with Bill 44. We’ve heard it from one of the mayors out in Langley. We’ve heard it from other mayors. Some mayors think this is okay, but they actually haven’t had the benefit of this back-and-forth where the answers keep changing.

Now we hear that according to the minister, just changing housing in an official community plan is not that onerous of a process for municipalities. It is.

Did the minister do any modelling with UBCM or anyone around the impacts of the densification of large geographic areas of communities, based on 30-minute transit service — of taking those large areas from…? Well, actually, it’s single-family right now, but up to 142 units per hectare, based on what they’re trying to accomplish with this, without having parking provisions?

The minister can say: “They will build parking.” I’m not sure who “they” are because if a developer is trying to build housing and they don’t have to put in parking, in all likelihood, they will not put in parking. It’s a large cost. The minister has stated that. I acknowledge that; I agree with that. It is a large cost to a project.

But I guess I’ll ask this. Given that (6) and (7) in clause 26 cannot actually be actioned in any meaningful way until the minister has the regulations set in stone and approved through cabinet, does the minister have a date today, a firm commitment from government, on when all of these regulations will be in place?

It seems to be a bit of a hollow consultation with UBCM. You have all of the must-haves in the legislation. Unless the minister is prepared to change and move on off-street parking requirements, unless the minister is prepared to change minimum lot size or number of units on a minimum lot or the B.C. transit definition of frequent transit access…. If the minister is not prepared to move on any of those things, I’m at a loss. What’s left to consult with when it comes to regulation?

What is the drop-dead timeline that municipalities can hear from this government today that all the regulations will be done, sealed and delivered so they can actually get to work doing exactly what the minister is directing them to have to do with this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve shared the dates with folks before. Again, we expect that when this conversation has moved forward, there will be a vote.

[6:10 p.m.]

If this were to pass, we would take regs to cabinet. Once that is done, we’ll be releasing both the economic analysis based off the regs as well as site standards that will help local governments, provide them guidance on how we move forward.

P. Milobar: Well, that wasn’t an answer to the question, frankly. I’m reasonably confident, I think the minister is pretty confident, given that this government has a 2-to-1 vote advantage — we say this every time in this place — that this bill will pass sometime between now and Friday. At this rate, it might take closure to do it, but it’ll still pass.

The question to the minister was: what are the dates that this government is committed to, to ensuring municipalities that they will have the full suite of site standards and regulations and everything else that still needs all the blanks filled in by this government and this minister, through cabinet and signed off on and delivered to them?

It’s a very important question, because by December 31, 2025, they have to have all this work done. So on Thursday, when this becomes law, the clock is ticking on these governments to have all this work done by December 31, 2025 — various components of it, but the drop-dead date for (6) and (7) is December 31, 2025, 25 months from now. But they can’t do this work until they know what the government’s regulations are.

There’s a big difference between frequent transit that is 15-minute service versus 30-minute service. There’s a big difference if the government is prepared to move on 280-square metres as a minimum lot size or not. Given how many times the minister has stated that, including in the press release and the launch, I doubt that’s moving.

What is the commitment from government today to municipalities out there so they can start having their planning staff gearing up and their planning departments and start scheduling official community plan meetings for their communities?

They’re going to have to go into all the neighborhoods that actually have housing to talk about housing. They have to fit that into all their other community meetings they’re going to have, things like community meetings around budget, about potential referendum on other items they might want to do or not. It’s going to throw a wrench in a whole lot of things going on at the municipal level.

All the opposition is simply asking the minister for is an actual firm commitment from the government of a date that these regulations, as they relate to Bill 44 and clause 26, will actually be enacted, will be signed off on and done.

I do not think that is too much to ask for, for municipal councils to know what their work schedule is like from that date through to December 31, 2025.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Site standards will be out in a few weeks to local governments — so before the end of the year.

P. Milobar: Deadlines have come and gone before with this government on a wide variety of issues. This has been a concept talked about, as we’ve heard, by the Premier, formerly the Housing Minister, since July of 2021; further recommitments in January of 2022; was all supposed to be coming forward in October of 2022. We’re standing here now in November of 2023. Time seems to just tick away with the government, with the local government holding the bag.

If this is not fully in place, if the regulations and site standards are not fully signed off on by cabinet by the end of this calendar year, by December 31, which means that you would still only have about two years, 24 months’ worth of time for municipalities to do consultation on OCPs and get updates and zoning bylaws and everything else…. But at least they would know they had two years to do it.

Is the government prepared to have an extension? If so, where is that ability in this legislation to do that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve already answered the question. We expect the site standards to be out in a couple of weeks.

P. Milobar: Well, that wasn’t the question. What the government expects and what their track record is on this particular topic has been deplorable. It’s been 13 months delayed from when the Premier committed to having it brought in in the first place, just as enabling legislation.

[6:15 p.m.]

The question wasn’t what the government hopes to have or intends to have in a few weeks. The question was: if the government meets this deadline, and I’m trying to be generous, of December 31…. It’s an easy date. We could go to January 1, I guess, or we could do that in a few questions.

If the government can’t meet a December 31 deadline, of 2023, of having all the regulations in place, all the site standards in place, approved and through cabinet so that municipalities know at the beginning of 2024 what they need to do to deliver the changes by December 31, 2025, is the government prepared to extend those dates, and if so, is there an area in the bill that I’m missing that says that they can do that, or does it add another regulation that people would have to wait for the government’s blessing on?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Site standards will be out in a few weeks.

P. Milobar: I can appreciate that the minister might be getting frustrated by these questions and the length of time Bill 44 has been worked on, but there are serious consequences to municipalities.

There’s a stick from government if they don’t meet these deadlines that are being imposed by the government. The government is telling them: “You actually don’t have control to say no, but we want you to go consult with the public about what will happen in their neighbourhood or not. But we’re not going to tell you what those guidelines are. We’re not going to actually admit today that we’ve already figured out what all the regulations are and just table the regulations so everyone can actually see what they are.”

And when we ask a very straightforward question about a missed deadline from this government, whose Premier has talked about this concept since July of 2021, the best we get from the minister is: “I’ve answered the question. I said they’ll be out in a few weeks.”

The question wasn’t: will they be out in a few weeks? The question is: what happens if they’re not out by December 31? Will there be an extension on the clauses that would need to be in effect by December 31, 2025 if the government fails to have the regulations in place by December 31 of 2023?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve said this many times. I’ll say it again. The site standards will be out in a couple of weeks. We’re not going to be missing our deadline.

A. Olsen: I just wanted to go back. One of the responses that the minister gave my colleague from Kamloops–​North Thompson was around the analysis. The minister described: “The bill will pass” or “when the bill passes…”

Interjection.

A. Olsen: If the bill passes. That’s right. So if the bill passes, then it will be brought, along with the regulations, to the cabinet. The cabinet will then approve this package. But the minister said that the analysis, the elusive analysis, the foundation of this initiative, is based off the regulations. How is the analysis based off the regulations and not the bill, and the regulations built off the analysis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The economic analysis is the impact of the changes. The basis for doing this is research that we’ve seen from around the world that shows that this type of action gets you an increase to the housing supply that helps address affordability challenges.

We’re going to go back to this conversation where we spent many, many hours talking about this. In fact, this very question was asked by the member not in my dream — as I said to him earlier, I’m dreaming about our conversations — but last week.

There are many studies that have shown the impacts of this. I appreciate that we’re not going to agree that this is a good direction to go in. I believe it is a good direction to go in. I shared that Sydney, Australia has just gone in this direction, and many other jurisdictions have.

So the economic analysis that we’re going to release is based on the legislation and the regs and what we believe the economic impacts will be. That’s the difference between the two.

[6:20 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate it, and just to close the loop for the public so that they don’t think that it’s only the minister that might be weird, I’m also dreaming of the questions. Clearly, this is in both of our heads.

But I’ll just say this. We’re only having this second conversation about this because of a response that the minister gave. The only way that any of this changes is if the minister agrees to one of the amendments. That’s the only way that any of this package changes from what has been planned. So far, every amendment that has been moved has been rebuffed. The government has used their majority. They’ve turned those down.

There is no change in the analysis, the economic analysis, from what the minister should already have. That’s the reason why, when we raised this question, the media upstairs were asking the question as well. Why is it that the documentation that is the foundation of this entire program, the justification for why this is the right approach that the minister…?

The minister is quick to point out that we don’t agree, and we’ve been inviting the minister to demonstrate why the position that he’s taking is better by providing the underlying analysis. The minister himself opened the door for talking about the analysis actually changing based on what the regs are. But this was not about…. The questions from the previous days were all about what kinds of numbers we had so that we could underline this whole process that the minister has undertaken. None of that changes if the minister is not willing to change any of the bill.

The number of units that we need, which is the number that the minister wouldn’t provide, the information that the minister was looking for that wouldn’t provide us around the 7 to 14 percent…. The media are asking me: “Where was it that the minister was talking about the 7 to 14 percent last week?” They’re interested in this. The public are interested in this.

The ministers use numbers — number of units we need, the amount that people are going to save, the amount of affordability people are going to achieve. None of that’s been made available to the public or the media to scrutinize, to be able to understand.

Yet the minister stands up in here and provides a response to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that the analysis is based off the regs. That’s what the minister said. How is the analysis of how this is going to impact…? How is the analysis of what the foundation of this initiative is built on going to change based on the regulations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I love having these back-and-forths with my friend. We’ve spent many days having this. This has nothing to do with the clause that we’re discussing here. We had an open conversation. In fact, I think my friends across the way said: “Hey, on the first clause, can we just talk broadly about every topic?” And we did. We talked about all these topics and now, respectfully, we’re in the clauses, and this has nothing to do with the clause.

I’ve shared with the member that we did jurisdictional scans. We looked at studies around the world that have shown this is an effective way to use our infrastructure. It’s an effective way to get housing options in communities. We believe it’s the right path forward.

The economic analysis, which we will release shortly, will lay out what the impacts will be from this. I’m, again, committing to doing that, but this has nothing to do with the clause we’re discussing.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister, and I agree we’re kind of taking a step backward, but we’re only taking a step backward to understand what the minister said on the record.

You know what? While the minister might be growing frustrated with this, this record actually is useful to the intention that is laid down by the minister in all of this and being able to go back and take a look at it. It’s useful to the courts if there’s ever any question on what the intention is from the minister.

So yeah, we’ve been dragged back to this long conversation that we had earlier in the week, because the minister provided an inconsistent answer to what the minister was providing previously. And if he didn’t, and he’s shaking his head that he didn’t, then the record will show that he didn’t. At least there will be a time stamp to go back and refer back.

[6:25 p.m.]

The reality is that this is the first time that I’ve heard that the economic analysis that we’ve been seeking to justify the initiative that the minister says is the right initiative has not been provided to the public. Only the ethereal numbers.

When the current Premier was sitting in the Zoom room with Bob Rennie, which I find ironic, considering I was around in 2016…. Nonetheless, they were in the Zoom room together. In fact, when that Zoom room fired up and I heard about it, I was like, “Oh, wow. This is interesting. Okay, all right,” because Bob Rennie was Christy Clark’s buddy. He even noted that it was ironic for Bob Rennie to be sitting in the room with the Premier.

Nonetheless, when he was in the room, the Premier, at that time, gave a clearer answer to the jurisdictions that this government has been informing their housing policy that they’re bringing forward a year and a half later…. He gave a clearer answer than the minister has provided at any point on what information is informing this.

The minister has consistently said we’ve looked at jurisdictions around the world. The Premier, at that time, actually identified those. He actually talked about how he was inspired by initiatives down in California and on the coast. He actually pointed out and was able to identify for the public that were watching, or at least for the Urban Development Institute that was hosting Mr. Rennie and the Premier to have this conversation. He was actually very clear about that.

Part of the challenge that we have is that when the minister says, “I’ve got the right approach,” but won’t show it, won’t show his work and won’t provide the economic analysis to back up the numbers that he’s given, throws out some numbers, and then several days down suggests that it’s actually upside down and that the legislation and the regulations are going to inform the analysis…. That’s the reason why we can’t have it — because the regulations haven’t been passed, and therefore, the analysis hasn’t been updated.

I’m just trying to understand and have been trying to understand what’s informing this bill all along. There are numbers for sure. None of them have been proven. None of them have been justified. It’s all opaque, deliberately opaque. Ironically, the Premier was less opaque and more direct in a Zoom room a year and a half ago.

I think that it’s a fair question to understand, for the public to understand and for anybody who might want to scrutinize this bill later down the road what information it is that this minister is using to justify the statement that this is the right approach. Our approaches are different. I’ve put very clearly on the record why it is that I feel that the direction is wrong. The minister has simply said: “Trust us. You’ll see it once it’s passed.”

The Chair: Member, on clause 26. Can you just sort of come back?

A. Olsen: This is responding to a question in a response that is about the entire discussion that we’ve been having. The minister gave it when he was asked a question about clause 26, and we should have the ability to be able to ask a question on the minister’s own responses.

The Chair: If you could just tie it into clause 26, please, and then after this, we’ll recess.

A. Olsen: Okay, so based on a response that the minister gave to clause 26, then, will the minister provide the analysis that’s underlining the entire justification of this bill?

The Chair: Minister, and then we’ll recess, as per the House order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve canvassed this at great length. We are going way back to the beginning, where we spent hours and hours and hours talking about this topic.

We’ve shared that there are a lot of jurisdictions around the world that have moved this direction. We’ve talked about Auckland. We’ve talked about what happened there. We’ve talked about other jurisdictions like Portland and California and what’s happening there.

I appreciate the member’s wanting to go back there again, but we have canvassed this, and I agree that the member and I are not going to agree on the premise of this bill. That’s the wonderful thing about this place — that you can disagree on policies. But we are continuously having the same conversation over and over again.

We will be back after a short recess, Chair.

The Chair: Yes. By order of the House, this committee stands recessed until 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:29 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, everyone. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, back to order.

We are on clause 26.

P. Milobar: Back to (6) and (7) of clause 26. Specifically, I guess, this first question is more around (6).

It says: “Despite section 473.1 (5), the council of a municipality must review and, if necessary, adopt an official community plan as contemplated by that section by December 31 of the year in which the council receives an interim report on housing needs under subsection (2) of this section.”

Now, we established earlier that will be December 31, 2025, in all likelihood. The question I have is more around the wording of “review and…adopt an official community plan as contemplated….”

[7:05 p.m.]

If a municipality decides they do not have the servicing capacity for lots to have fourplexes and sixplexes on them in a certain neighbourhood…? If a municipality decides that a certain neighbourhood, despite having 15- to 30-minute transit service, would like to not have fourplexes or sixplexes built on single-family lots, does the municipality, through their official community plan review and adoption, have the ability to create that, or is it that it has to sync exactly with whatever regulation the minister and his government deems as the new rules for housing within a municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s our expectation that small-scale, multi-unit would be adopted across communities. We’ve already canvassed that the communities that are not able to or, perhaps, don’t want to meet the timelines…. The site standards would be the bylaws for that local government.

There are kind of exceptions to where, and those are laid out in the legislation.

P. Milobar: I am trying to stick to 26, but 26 is pretty specific. It is about adopting official community plans. One would assume the intention of the government…. Those official community plans would have to be in alignment with the intention of having all single-family homes, if you’re within a transit corridor area, to be up to a fourplex or a sixplex.

Again, can a municipality, if they fall under those areas, still adopt an official community plan that is in contradiction to what the government is setting out in Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is the new baseline. If communities would like to have higher density near bus stops or exchanges, they certainly can. But this is the new floor.

P. Milobar: The minister can correct me if I’m wrong on this. I’m sure he would love to do that.

Based on a 280 square metre minimum lot, which the minister has talked about…. If it’s a fourplex, that’s 140 units per hectare. If it’s a sixplex, it’s actually more. It’s 210 units per hectare. Municipalities right now, several that I was researching several weeks ago when this bill was first introduced, seem to have their high-density areas within their OCPs preidentified as 125 units per hectare.

Given that this new standard would actually dramatically increase the densification in single-family neighbourhoods, is there also a requirement within the official community plan that’s being contemplated in (6) here that municipalities will have to make that 210 units per hectare the new high-density zoning in those urban core areas that have already been identified as high density, or are those urban core areas in the OCP allowed to be a lower densification level than the single-family neighbourhoods that are being created, zoning that will be created and densification that will be created, out of Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The SSMU legislation is now the baseline. Communities can, of course, zone higher according to what their housing needs reports indicate to them.

P. Milobar: Again, I haven’t seen where it’s actually laid out, the per-hectare type of densification, as you would see in an OCP.

OCPs talk about floor area ratios. They talk about units per hectare for densification. They don’t talk about fourplexes and sixplexes. They talk in that language. They talk about multifamily areas. They talk about medium density, rural density, all of those types of language.

[7:10 p.m.]

The question to the minister is…. The fourplex and sixplex complex being proposed by the government with Bill 44, specifically in (6) in clause 26 around official community plans needing to be updated, very clearly will create a densification of 210 units per hectare, based on the minister’s previous answers.

Most OCPs that I’ve seen already identified high-density urbanized areas of their cities, which has been already thought out by the municipality, based on water and roads and servicing, at 125 units per hectare.

Will those high-density areas that have already been identified in the official community plan automatically be elevated by the government, and the new minimum is the 210 units per hectare in the official community plan, or can the high-density, urbanized cores of the city remain at 125 units per hectare, while the more suburban, single-family lot neighbourhoods, that have a 15-30 minute bus service, be the only areas that will be 210 units per hectare?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The small-scale, multi-unit legislation is now the baseline, and communities can base the rest of their OCP off their housing needs report. Communities have the flexibility beyond that to do what they’d like to do.

P. Milobar: Again the minister isn’t answering the question.

The question is, based on Bill 44, based on 26(6), where they have to update their OCPs to show housing in more suburban single-family lot areas that have a 15-30 minute bus service, based on the 280-square-metre lot minimum that the minister has been referencing… That enables 210 units per hectare. Urbanized cores within the same OCPs are set at 125 per hectare, for the most part.

The question to the minister is: are there provisions in this area that the OCPs at 210 are now considered high density? Otherwise, you’re going to have these official community plans that have identified high-density areas. Those are currently meant for those apartment-style condos of multi-floors — ten, 15, 20 storeys — at 125 units per hectare.

If that’s to remain in those official community plans — that under (6), it’s supposed to be updated and amended — contemplating the sections of this bill, those would remain. So people would be looking at an OCP, and saying: “Okay, so in the urbanized core, it’s 125 units per hectare. I wonder what the units per hectare are in this more suburban area that’s full of single-family lots? Oh, look at that. It’s 210 units per hectare.”

I would suggest it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to the average person out there that the areas that are designated on official community plans as suburban will have 210 units-per-hectare zoning densification requirements, and urbanized cores will have 125.

Was that not contemplated by the government when they’re asking municipalities to update their official community plan to reflect the ability for people to build sixplexes on single-family lots?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Respectfully, the answer is the same, which is: this legislation creates a new floor for single-family lots or duplex-zoned lots. For anything above and beyond, the local communities will need to update their OCPs according to the housing needs report. Some areas may increase the density much higher than what we’re proposing.

P. Milobar: Does the minister not see where this could get very confusing as communities go through to fulfil part (6) of clause 26 and update their official community plans?

[7:15 p.m.]

I recognize the minister is only on the housing portion, but that’s a pretty significant portion of all community plans.

The planning departments and the councillors and the mayors are going to go into neighbourhoods to explain what is being proposed and say: “Well, we’re only updating single-family residential with this official community plan, because the minister and the government say we only have to change the densification of single-family dwelling lots. Things that are currently identified as multifamily can stay and remain as is. We don’t need to amend those.”

“Those are zoned at 125 units per hectare or identified as 125 units per hectare in this zone, 75 units per hectare in that zone, but because they’re a multifamily lot, that’s the densification, and they don’t have to change that. But for you residents of this neighbourhood that might be seven or eight minutes from the downtown core but on 30-minute bus service, the province has said we have to make these areas 210 units per hectare for densification.”

“We have no ability to override that, regardless of what you say, Mr. and Mrs. Public, because the province says we have to meet at least that bare minimum.” The minister has established they have to be at least the minimum, but the minimum is 210.

Does the minister not see how that is going to create a very confusing process for municipalities trying to update their official community plans, and the neighbourhoods trying to update their official community plans, when they’re told that the best they can do is show up, and the province is going to demand that a more suburban single-family residential neighbourhood be mass-zoned, mass-approved, for 210 units per hectare, when what everyone agrees is an urbanized commercial/residential core is at 125?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate what the member is saying, but fundamentally, the answer is the same. I’m talking about what the legislation does here, so the answer is still the same.

Local governments will be able to make decisions accordingly. They’ll be able to have additional density in urban core or near train stations or bus exchanges much higher than the provisions we’ve put in. They’ll just need to base it off their housing needs reports.

P. Milobar: I understand what the minister is saying, but the minister is totally glossing past the question.

The question isn’t about those urbanized cores. The question is…. So (6) in clause 26 makes it very clear that these municipalities have to redo their official community plans to be in line with the provisions of Bill 44 and the regulations that will follow and the site selection and all of those things that will come, supposedly in two weeks.

Again, we’ve heard that before. Just look at FOI legislation and look how fast it came. So maybe we’ll see it by Thursday afternoon. You never know. It could happen right after royal assent. We could actually have the stuff.

It’s not whether municipalities can add to the densification of urban cores. They already can do that. But the minister is mandating, with (6), that they have to update their official community plans. The minimum standard for those suburban single-family neighbourhoods, based on the minister’s numbers that he has provided during committee stage, is 210 units per hectare when urban cores are currently 125. How does the minister expect municipalities…?

I guess we’ll frame it this way. Why is the minister insisting municipalities go through the charade of public input if they can’t override 210 units as minimum densification of single-family neighbourhoods?

To answer and say: “Well, that’s the floor. They can go higher.…” I highly doubt municipalities are going to want to go into neighbourhoods and say: “We know you’re currently zoned for a single housing unit on a single-family lot, and the province wants us to put it in at 210 units per hectare now for densification. But you know what we think would be a swell idea? Let’s make it 280.” I don’t think many municipalities are going to do that.

[7:20 p.m.]

Jumping back to what is actually going to happen through the public process of an official community plan, does the minister not see with clause (6) and his requirements that municipalities have to meet…. By forcing them to go and hold these public meetings around official community plans under the guise of hearing what neighbourhoods think but telling the municipality ahead of time they are not allowed to enact what those neighbourhoods think unless the neighbourhood agrees to 210 units per hectare or more in their single-family neighbourhood despite the urban cores in that same city being 125 units per hectare, does the minister not see it’s a recipe for disaster?

Why is section 6 of clause 6 even in Bill 44 if municipalities have no choice but to go into those suburban neighbourhoods and, basically, tell people what is going to happen, not consult with people about what they would like to see happen in their neighbourhood?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a lot of presumptions being made in that question. What I’m saying is that it’s possible and likely that the community’s housing needs reports show a greater need than what can be delivered through SSMU. Their discussions will need to happen in communities about where that will come. It’s possible that for urban cores, the density levels are too low, but we’re just talking hypotheticals.

Fundamentally, we believe this is the right path forward, and we believe that that specific clause is important.

A. Olsen: I agree with the minister that on a lot of the numbers, it’s hypothetical. The vast majority of the data, if you can call it that, that the minister has provided to justify this bill has been hypothetical. When offered and when asked to provide that data and that analysis, we’ve been told that it needs to come after the people of British Columbia have agreed to whatever the changes that the minister is suggesting.

I’m going to try and word my colleague’s question this way. Does the minister not understand that, effectively, what he’s doing with this section, as was described by my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, is that communities have planned high-density areas and now the minister is going to come in and potentially make the areas that were lower density higher density than the highest-density areas in many of these communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the answer is still the same. It will depend from community to community, but it’s important to know that when their housing needs reports are done, updated to 2021 numbers, many communities will see that there’s a significant need for more housing beyond what we’re having with SSMU policy.

A. Olsen: Perhaps you might want to try to address the problem after you understand what the context of it is, but that’s not what’s happening here. Again, we go back to the comment that I made about this yesterday. On one hand, the minister is offering these two linked pieces, saying, “Go and find out what the problem is” and “Here’s your solution” at the same time.

That’s just not how communities plan well, That’s not how the province can plan well. It’s going to send the Minister of Health, for example, scrambling to find more spaces in hospitals, as my colleague pointed out. I guess it will give the Minister of Health another ribbon to cut, and that might be a good thing for the pictures on BC Gov News, but the health care system hasn’t been able to keep up.

Basically, what’s happened here is that we are going to mass upzone these formerly lower-density areas. We’re not going to follow the community planning process.

I think that what’s important to highlight about the question is…. It reminds me of some conversations that I’ve had with First Nations who are sent out to go and do the work, on behalf of this government, and consultation without any of the information, without any of the ability to have any say over the decision in the end, because the provincial government is just going to do it anyway. But there they are, the chiefs, sitting there in front of the community, trying to defend a decision that’s not theirs.

That’s, essentially, what’s going to happen here. This minister has basically said that the foot soldiers for delivering the message for this are going to be the local councillors and mayors that have no control over it.

[7:25 p.m.]

Does the minister not see the incredibly difficult position that he’s potentially putting our local elected officials in, when they are the ones that have to face the community and this minister can sit insulated in this House?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We all face community. The member is elected by people in the community. Everybody in this place is elected by a community.

We’re in a housing crisis every single day. I certainly hear and my colleagues hear about the need for housing. Perhaps the other members don’t hear the same. The member makes presumptions, says the ministers are going to do this and cut ribbons.

We all hear the same concern: we need housing. We’re providing solutions, and this is an important piece.

So again, Chair, we’re doing circles around a question that we’ve had many debates about. I’d like to come back to the clause in the bill.

P. Milobar: Well, we are discussing the clause in the bill and the fact that the minister has several clauses that reference OCPs and other implementation dates and housing reviews and interim reports.

We didn’t draft the legislation. It’s his government that has chosen to reference the same thing in several different locations under the guise of affordable housing. But we can’t actually talk about the development cost charges and community amenity agreements, because we’ll deal with that bill after we deal with this bill.

While this bill purports to talk about and deal with affordable housing instead of also talking about the bill that’s going to add tens of thousands of dollars per unit at the same time…. Or the transit bill. We won’t talk about that one, either, in relation to densification that we’re talking about on single-family lots here.

We fully understand. The problem is the minister won’t give a straight answer to the question. If we did get the straight answer, we could move on. Bill 44 sets the stage on single-family lots to create a densification of 210 units per hectare. Multifamily areas in cities and official community plans are not subject to that, because they’re multifamily, which means the current 125 units per hectare could exist.

Clause 26 deals with the interim reports on housing needs. The minister is saying: “Well, the community will have to take a look, and maybe they realize that they need more density in those urbanized areas as well.”

I guess the question is, as they’re going through their official community plan review to fulfil (6) out of clause 26 and they discover that in fact they could meet their housing needs by ramping up and going from 125 units per hectare to 210 — but in the multifamily urbanized core; they actually don’t need 210 units per hectare in a suburban single-family residential neighbourhood — will the official community plan be allowed by this government to reflect that?

Will they be able to show their housing needs are met by heavily densified multifamily areas that are already in official community plans by just elevating the level of densification in those areas — and instead of approving 210 units per hectare in a suburban area, knock that back to 150, we’ll say, or 100 units per hectare — to better reflect the wishes that they hear from the public as they engage with them on what they would like to see in their official community plan, all the while meeting the housing needs assessment report — the interim report that they need to generate for this clause?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this legislation sets out a new baseline with SSMU, and communities will do their housing needs reports and make decisions on additional density as they see fit, according to the housing needs report.

P. Milobar: Again, thank you, but that wasn’t an answer to the question.

We understand they have to do a housing needs report. The minister has said they might find in doing the housing needs report that they want to increase densification in their more urbanized course. We’re agreeing with that.

The question was…. They take their housing needs assessment.

[7:30 p.m.]

It shows that if they actually ramp up densification in areas that are already slated for heavy densification, they could actually go to the more suburban single-family-lot areas, as contemplated by Bill 44, and have a much lower densification of those areas — while still doing infill and still doing lane houses and things of that nature — and still meet their interim housing needs target.

Do they have the ability, as they readjust their official community plan in 26, (6), to actually do that? Or could the minister just state very clearly in 26, (6), as they adjust their official community plans, that they have to meet the minimum and single-family lots of 210 units per hectare, based on the minister’s own numbers, and they have no ability to go below that number as they go through their official community plan public consultations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Respectfully, asked and answered.

P. Milobar: Well, respectfully, no, it hasn’t been asked and answered. The minister keeps saying there are baselines. He also has said that as they do their interim needs assessment, they might find that they do have to do some other things in other parts of their community that don’t involve single-family residents. That’s all part of that interim housing.

The question was very specific. If they do their interim housing report, they then turn around — which is part of clause 26, the interim housing report. They then go to action No. (6) of clause 26, updating their official community plan — which actually requires public discussion and consultation in neighbourhoods.

They turn around and say to the neighbourhood: “We have good news. We have discovered that if we increase the densification in our multifamily areas that are already identified for high density, we can get close to meeting our interim housing report. In your neighbourhood, what we’ve discovered is that if we enable carriage houses on all lots, that will create enough densification in the suburban single-family residential area to also meet our interim housing report needs.”

Do they have the ability, through that public OCP process, to present that option to the public, get the public’s opinion on that, and if everyone’s in agreement, that is what the OCP will say moving forward? Or is it indeed that the minister is saying that the cities, in those single-family neighbourhoods, have to create 210 units as a minimum densification per hectare, regardless of what the neighbourhoods say and regardless of what the communities want to do, despite the fact that they actually might not need to do it to meet their interim housing needs report?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We can have this same question, and I’ll give the same answer, which is that small-scale multi-unit legislation now creates a new baseline across the province within urban containment areas.

Communities can, with their updated community plans, go higher, but this is the new baseline in communities where there’s single-family or duplex zoning. This is the new baseline. I can say it over and over again: this is the new baseline in communities, and they can go higher in other areas if their housing needs reports indicate that they need to.

The Chair: Members, I know the member may not be satisfied with the response of the minister. However, he’s advised that this question has been answered, and I’d just encourage the member to ensure that they avoid repetition within the line of questioning.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take that under advisement.

Here’s the problem with that. That means this legislation has created heavier densification.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Is there something from the peanut gallery?

The Chair: Members. Please.

P. Milobar: That means that this legislation has created heavier densification on single-family lots.

The minister has clarified, in an earlier answer, that this is for single-family lots not multifamily-zoned lots and that, in fact, an official community planning process, which needs to be undertaken in 26, (6), of this bill, has a very clear minimum standard that the municipalities will need to go into with predetermined outcome — telling neighbourhoods that currently are zoned for very low densification that they have to now have densification in their neighborhoods at a scale much higher than any of the tall apartment buildings they see built in their downtown cores.

[7:35 p.m.]

That’s the backdrop for what a mayor and a council is going to walk into a community hall, in a more suburbanized neighbourhood, to have a discussion around.

Did the minister consult with the Minister of Municipal Affairs at all around current official community plan processes and what is deemed to be appropriate public input that actually would stand up to legal challenges when this piece of legislation and this clause was actually created, being very prescriptive as to what an official community plan actually has to have, before talking with the public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we worked closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

A. Olsen: As it’s outlined here in section 790(6), what is the incentive of a local government to undertake that community consultation piece? The reality is that they’re basically being sent out by the minister to do the minister’s work at a local level for them. There’s no way for them to actually listen to the public on it. If the public comes back with a different outcome, there’s no way for them to actually please that public outcome.

The minister has already said repeatedly in his response…. It was a different response than the question that was being asked, but nonetheless, in the response that the minister was giving, the minister has repeated that this is the new baseline. If this is the new baseline and it’s going to help communities achieve the new target that the minister is setting for them, what’s the point of even doing the official community planning? What’s the point of even going and standing in front of those communities and just saying…?

You know what, Minister? You’ve made the decision. You be accountable to the decision that you made. Going out to the community on this is not going to be of any tangible benefit to the municipality. What is the tangible benefit to the local government officials to going out and delivering the message on behalf of the minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, if the community’s housing needs reports indicate that there’s more housing needed beyond what can be delivered through SSMU, they’ll need to engage with their community on where that will be.

A. Olsen: Has the minister done an evaluation of the number of companies that are able to do official community plan updates currently operating in the province right now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t have a number on exactly how many consultants can do that work.

A. Olsen: Has the minister modelled or analyzed the potential number of official community plans — just based on some rough sketches; you take out a napkin and start sketching out some numbers — that might need to be updated as a result of the changes that the minister is asking us to support here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I suspect all the OCPs will need to be updated, given the 2021 numbers are coming out shortly, which will change the projections most communities have. Some will need small, minor updates. Some may need larger ones, depending on how long ago they’ve updated their plans. Some communities have maybe done it more recently. They’ll need smaller modifications. Some who haven’t done it in a long time may need more.

A. Olsen: Rough number, 161 municipalities may need to do this. There are 85 communities that are definitely involved with this, so maybe that’s the number. The reality of it is that we don’t even have an understanding as to whether or not, based on the timeline that our colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson outlined extensively…. The minister is not even certain that there’s enough of a consultancy network out there that’s able to actually deliver the results that the minister is hoping he will see. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is presuming that every community needs a consultant. Many communities update their OCPs themselves.

A. Olsen: Can the minister provide a number of the municipalities that hire a consultant to do their official community planning process and the number of communities that undertake those planning processes themselves?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It varies, and I’m not sure what the communities will decide going forward.

A. Olsen: The minister takes refuge in a fact that he can’t even defend. Many communities are going to do it on their own; many communities are not going to do it on their own. Some communities are going to do it partly on their own, while other communities are partly going do it on their other neighbouring community’s own.

The minister has done a master class in saying whatever he wants to say about this bill. We get admonished for asking questions that we’re not getting answers for, because we’re being repetitive, yet the minister provides non-responses to the questions that we’re asking on a regular basis, pretending like he has answered the question.

The fact of the matter is that this is a real issue. We are being asked to support a series of dates and a series of deadlines that our colleague went through. Are we just going to turn this over to MountainMath, and they’re just going to come back to us with the plans to be able to fit the numbers that they came up with, that we can’t see, to ground the minister’s justification for this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we’ve heard from local governments that they believe this could be achievable. That’s why we’re proceeding with legislation. Some local governments don’t need it. Some local governments will need a lot of work. Some local governments have already done it, and they’ll need just slight modifications to it. It really varies.

A. Olsen: The official community planning processes that happened on the Saanich Peninsula — I talked a little bit about them yesterday. Two of them are complete; they hired one consultant. Two went fairly smoothly; it took three years to do it. The vast majority of that work, as has been pointed out by our colleagues, is work that’s done around where densification of housing goes.

The district of Central Saanich, as an example, and the town of Sidney, as another example, pointed to densification in a model that is more dense near arterial roads that are serviced by transit and gently moving away to a lesser density further away from that. That’s common planning practice. That’s the way that you can make sure that your services are where they’re supposed to be.

As has been identified in the questioning through (6), we are now going to potentially see, in some communities, density, where the communities plan for it, away from the areas that they plan to be higher density, but it will actually be a higher density than the ones that they planned around those routes. What certainty does the minister bring to this, for the communities that are being impacted by this, that there’s going to be a relative ease in being able to accommodate this change?

As has been clearly outlined by our colleague here, this minister is unilaterally altering the potential form and character, not just of the neighbourhood — which people oftentimes come and defend; they want the form and character of their neighbourhood — but of the community. Just by making the decision, the form and character of a community is going to suddenly be the different thing that he envisions it to be, without there being any real linkage to what can be delivered.

It took three years to update an official community plan, not to start from scratch and build a new official community plan from the beginning, but to update it. It absolutely was not a project that’s done on the side of the desk. What I think is important to point out here is that, in another clause that’s in this, the districts and the municipalities are going to be required to update their zoning bylaw at the same time.

Really, the minister is asking the planning departments of all of these applicable municipalities to be doing multiple things at once. None of it is focused on approving applications that are in front of them. It’s all planning work for which, on the Saanich Peninsula, two-thirds has been completed very recently and could very well be acceptable for the next five years.

No, we’re going to be back in that process again. The very limited planning staff — one of the main concerns that has been raised by community leaders to me — are going to be updating bylaws, updating official community plans, updating housing needs reports. They’re going to be distracted with that work, not focusing on approving housing developments that the minister has talked about as being so important. That will not be the focus.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called. This committee stands in recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 7:45 p.m. to 8:14 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

R. Leonard (Chair): I call Committee of the Whole back to order on clause 26.

P. Milobar: I’m just trying to get a bit more clarification from the minister in terms of the zoning bylaws that need to be changed in the official community plan, changes that will be needed in clause 26. I think we’re getting to the core of it now.

The minister has confirmed that the single-family kind of more what is thought of as suburban-type neighbourhoods with Bill 44 will wind up with a densification of 210 units per hectare, yet the urban cores will have roughly a high density designation of around 125 units per hectare. Yes, communities can make that higher if they want, but that’s typically what they have them set at.

[8:15 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm…? Now, there’s not the ability to go lower than the 210 units per hectare, and there’s not the ability to require off-street parking in this official community plan update that we’ll be having. Is there the ability for the municipalities…? I guess I’m trying to figure out how this is going to work in terms of municipalities updating their official community plans.

They’re going to walk in to the suburban neighbourhood, and they’re going to say: “Okay, we have this area. It’s a downtown core, it’s 125 units per hectare, its zoned multifamily, and there is a requirement for off-street parking in the building. You, single-family-home dweller, we want your thoughts and input on the bare minimum in your neighbourhood of being 210 units per hectare without the ability to require off-street parking. Are you okay with that, or would you like the densification to be higher?”

That’s essentially what the minister is saying — that the community cannot tell the mayor and council that they would prefer the densification of that area to be lower and that they would like off-street parking to be required, as it is in current, existing high density–zoned identified areas within an official community plan. Is that a correct assessment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Chair, the member has phrased the question multiple ways but asks the same question. This legislation that we have in front of us allows SSMU as the baseline. Communities can use housing needs reports to update their OCPs and zoning according to what else they need in their community. What we’ve said is in frequent transit areas, within a certain distance, parking minimums will not be allowed for frequent transit areas. There will be parking built in those areas, we know, but in other areas as well.

We’ve canvassed this for five days now. The member can continue asking the same question, but I’ll provide the same answer.

P. Milobar: I’m just seeking clarification on the baseline through the zoning bylaws and through the OCP, both of which are supposed to be public input avenues. The minister has said he has consulted with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and that that ministry is comfortable any legal challenges would stand up to scrutiny around public process and the ability to input.

I ask that question in all sincerity, because there are very strict rules around things like public hearings and how councils gather public input. That’s part of the whole premise around this. The public hearing process was felt to be frustrating rezonings of fourplexes and sixplexes en masse through neighbourhoods. Apparently, there’s been a dearth of these public hearings, and everything’s been getting turned down. This government feels that the six- and fourplex, to get around all of those rejections at public hearings, which again, is a very prescribed way to receive information….

A council can only receive all the same information. One councillor can’t be in possession, or a mayor, of information that the public or the rest of the council doesn’t have. They can’t receive extra information after they’ve officially closed the public hearing to go into deliberations. There are all sorts of things that go into that. It’s very stringent, because it can be up to legal challenges.

I know this government brought in a piece of legislation — in the case of Vancouver, a very site-specific lot — to override that public hearing process, but it still exists nonetheless. The government didn’t change the law, thankfully, to change the public hearing rules for everything to restrict public input.

There are also rules around official community plan updates and consultation and discussion. You’ve got document it. You’ve got to show how you’ve done it and that it was done in a way that was with best of intentions and didn’t have preconceived results and outcomes.

But Bill 44, 26, (6), it’s telling you to go do that work, but there are already a lot of preconceived outcomes that have to happen in a single-family-lot situation.

I’m simply asking the minister…. We’ve confirmed that the municipalities can’t be below the 210 units per hectare in a single-family neighbourhood under this bill, despite heavy-density areas identified at 125 units per hectare.

[8:20 p.m.]

Those heavy-density areas typically have off-street parking requirements that the city has laid out as well. Those may or may not get varied, but there is usually a minimum. Usually, it’s around one per unit; some do half nowadays. But those are all set out, and there is still some level of it.

The minister says that parking will happen. I’m sure it will happen. The car will park somewhere. Whether or not it’s a dedicated parking facility on the property being built is a totally different scenario.

I’m just clarifying that the municipalities would not have the ability, through the OCP, if the neighbourhoods all say: “Well, we want to see, on those 210 units per hectare, off-street parking being mandatory….”

Despite the residents saying that at a public OCP process, the municipalities will not be able to fulfil that request from the neighbourhood. They will have to follow the baseline set by the province — which is 210 units per hectare, with no off-street parking requirements — while they were already zoned multifamily downtown cores, at 125 units per hectare that are allowed to have mandatory off-street parking imposed by the city.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, this is the fifth time the member has asked the same question in different ways. He’s used a bunch of numbers which I’ve never said.

What I have said is that this legislation that we’re talking about here makes SSMUs the standard baseline for communities.

They’ll get their housing needs report. They’ll do their updated OCP, according to their housing needs report, for the housing that they need. Likely, the communities will need to find other places, as well, to create higher upzoning and update their OCPs. They’ll follow the practice of how they update their OCPs accordingly.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s troubling that the minister seems to think I’m using numbers that he hasn’t used. I am using numbers he has used.

The minister has said you can have six units of housing on 280 square metres. That translates to a densification of 210 units per hectare. The minister has said you cannot require off-street parking. The minister has said all of that.

I don’t understand why the minister will just talk about baselines when we’re trying to get just a very clear statement so municipalities and neighbourhoods know what the actual ground rules are.

We’re using the minister’s numbers and the minister’s answers around transit, around densification and around parking. Why is the minister so hesitant to acknowledge any of these numbers that he has actually put out there?

When they actually get presented to the minister as a package, which is what neighbourhoods will see in an official community plan process, it actually starts to look pretty daunting about the potential impact to that neighbourhood.

I don’t understand why the minister refuses to give a straight-up answer instead of saying the baseline. We’re asking the minister to confirm the baseline. Surely they must have done some sort of calculation to know what densification they were going to be going in to talk to neighbourhoods about and ask municipalities to go talk about.

They simply would have to, because every OCP talks about floor area ratios and densification of units per hectare. That’s what OCP language is. That’s what mayors and councils and planning departments are going to have to go out to, based on 26(6), and talk to the communities about. This minister refuses to acknowledge those numbers put in those terms by his own legislation.

Two hundred and eighty square metres. A hectare is 10,000 square metres. You divide the two in, and you get 35. Times that by six units that you’re allowed on the 280, and you get 210. It’s not a hard calculation. And it’s standard in the realm of housing.

[8:25 p.m.]

Again, can the minister confirm that in neighbourhoods that the mayors and councils are going to have to go to get their official community plan update under 26(6) and the discussion with the community, as they’re discussing the already identified high-density multifamily areas in their existing official community plans, which are not subject to any change based on Bill 44…? Those can remain at, in the case of Kamloops, 125 units per hectare and a requirement for off-street parking.

Then that same mayor and council will go out to…. We’ll say Valleyview, as they have 30-minute bus service. They will be able to say to them: “A neighbourhood of single-family lots. There’s a densification of 210 units per hectare out in this part of the city, and we are not allowed to require off-street parking. Would you like it to be higher? We have to be at the baseline.”

I’m simply trying to get the minister to acknowledge that, in fact, Bill 44 has created a very high-density ratio per hectare that does not require off-street parking. There is absolutely nothing municipalities can do to go below that level, regardless of what their housing report says or not.

We just are looking for a clear statement, not that there’s a baseline set out. Municipalities need to know. Communities deserve and need to know, especially as regulations are supposedly still coming in that might actually change all of this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: What this legislation does is create four small-scale multi-units. The legislation does that.

It does say that depending on the size of the lot, it can be three. If lots are a little bit bigger, there can be four units. It does say that around frequent transit areas, which I’ve said is roughly going…. It’s coming in regulations, but we’re looking closely at the 15-minute service mark. Units can go up to six.

[8:30 p.m.]

Just around the transit, there is no parking minimum. We’ve heard from many in the home-building community that there’s still a demand for parking. So I suspect that parking will be built.

That’s what this legislation does. Communities will update their housing needs reports off of the 2021 numbers. When they do that, when they update them off the 2021 numbers, I suspect they’ll see what jurisdictions around the country are seeing, which is a significant increase in the amount of housing that’s needed. Every community is going to see that, I suspect. The needs are great in our communities.

Sometimes people think it’s about building housing for people that are coming. It’s really about building housing for people that are already in our communities, who already have a great deal of need. So that’s what this legislation does.

Of course, communities, when they do their updated housing needs reports, will assess how much more housing they need, and then they’ll have to engage their community on where the additional housing will come. I’m confident that local governments will do that process according to the rules that are laid out for them.

A. Olsen: Is the OCP process that’s outlined in this subclause (6) the process that’s outlined in the Local Government Act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, it’s consistent.

A. Olsen: The minister is expecting this back-to-back process: the zoning bylaw by mid next year, an official community plan update.

I outlined that 2½ of the three official community plans on the Saanich Peninsula were completed in three years. One of those communities is three years in and is still only at half completion. Their process continues. There was an election. It became quite political, and it became quite an issue. The people that got elected were listening to their community and decided to take a longer process.

The process that’s outlined within the Local Government Act is a detailed process. Is there any way for a local government to modify that process from what is the requirement in the Local Government Act?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The process is laid out. In the example the member shared, the community has done some work. It’ll be just updating the work that they’ve done. For communities that have not done it in a while, it may take a little bit more time.

The process is laid out. It’s engagement. Many of the elements that are laid out the community won’t have to modify from what they’ve already done. The housing portion is where they will have to do some additional work.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that. What guidance is being given by the minister to the communities to what extent their needs…? The communities that I outlined were all in an official community plan update process. So they already had an official community plan. They weren’t writing it from the beginning. They were updating their official community plan, and it still took three years.

The minister has given less than two years. The zoning bylaws have to come first, I guess. Perhaps it could be done in parallel, however, making sure that the policy processes line up.

What level of certainty does the minister have that a process that took a community…? You know, I think what’s important is…. When I look at what the official community plan was and what it is…. The documents maintain a very, very consistent feel from one to another. However, what took so long was the community engagement and consultation process. What needed to be so robust was the process that they went through, the draft plans that they had, the community engagement process on those draft plans.

What guidance is the minister giving about that process — the level of expectation for community engagement and input on the plan as it’s being developed?

[8:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Three years is a significantly long time, given we’re in a housing crisis. Three years to plan the type of housing we need is a lot, you know, and we certainly need housing much quicker than that. And communities have two years to update it. An example my friend across the way raised, where a community has just done that process…. When they update their 2021 numbers, it’s likely that they won’t have to do many more changes, but they’ll have to do some. So it’s more of an updating for the community that the member mentioned.

A. Olsen: In each of these official community plans, at least the ones that I’ve seen, there’s a fairly substantive section around climate change, in response to climate change. I’m thinking shoreline sea level rise issues, wildfire interface, maybe neighbourhoods that were built in wildfire interface that perhaps, now that we’ve seen an increase of fires and frequency of fires and the ferocity of fires that we’re seeing in places like California, for example. I’ve read a few articles about this. In fact, I think that that’s one of the locations that the Premier noted in that conference call that he had with Rennie.

Anyway, talking about California as informing this process, there are a number of communities that are not able to get insurance anymore because of fire. And, in fact, they’re taking communities down and they’re having an issue where people aren’t able to get insurance.

This bill could very well be requiring those communities, if those wildfire interface zones are in the urban containment boundary, to be densifying in a place that perhaps, maybe, the insurance companies are suggesting that they shouldn’t be.

Along the shorelines, we’ve got a situation where neighbourhoods that have been built at a certain elevation are now being told that with the prediction of sea level rise over the expected lifespan of that building, they’re going to have to build elevated — whatever increased elevation.

So we’ve got these situations where some buildings are, you know, down here and some buildings are up here. We could see the entire neighbourhood be…. Because the minister has assured us that it’s not going to happen all at once, you could see a proliferation of housing units that are all at different elevations and increased density at the same time, right up to the lot line.

I guess the other thing is, you know, flood zones for communities that have experienced floods and that are likely to experience floods because, well, frankly, the provincial government has done a terrible job in keeping dikes updated and all of that infrastructure, culverts updated.

We could see a situation where they’re in the urban containment boundary. They’re in a flood zone. This minister is forcing that neighbourhood to densify when perhaps insurance companies would be suggesting that maybe they should be rethinking the neighbourhood all in all.

So can the minister maybe just suggest how municipalities going forward in this official community planning process are to reconcile the forced increased density in areas that perhaps the community would never consider increasing density for climate-related reasons?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was going to say that I share similar concerns, given that we’re seeing climate patterns change, and certainly the impacts of climate change are real. There are provisions within the Local Government Act. Local governments have provisions to mitigate some of that important impact on their communities.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:47 p.m.