Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 61 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 61 — APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 61, standing in my name on the order paper, with respect to the appointment of a Special Committee to appoint a Human Rights Commissioner.

[That a Special Committee to Appoint a Human Rights Commissioner be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual as Human Rights Commissioner for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to section 47.01 of the Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210).

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

d. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Ravi Parmar (Convener), Brittny Anderson, Norm Letnick, Joan Phillip and Teresa Wat.]

Motion approved.

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SCHEDULE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise today in my capacity as the Government House Leader to move a time allocation motion. Under Standing Order 81.1, we have tried to reach an informal agreement on the allocation of time for the business of this House with three distinct Opposition House Leaders as well as an independent member. However, we are unable to reach a consensus.

It is with this understanding, and in accordance with Standing Order 81.1, that I am compelled to bring forth a time allocation motion. This motion is intended to ensure that we’re able to effectively carry out the business of governing in our responsibility on this side of the House. It is a tool to manage our time efficiently and to ensure that all items on our agenda receive the attention they deserve, and they are not obstructed.

With that, I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2):

1. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 44) intituled Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, be disposed of by 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

a. If at 3.25 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional Order on February 6, 2023.

2. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 46) intituled Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023, be disposed of by 9.45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

a. If at 9.40 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional Order on February 6, 2023.

3. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 45) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, be disposed of by 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.25 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional Order on February 6, 2023.

4. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 47) intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023, be disposed of by 4.45 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.40 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional Order on February 6, 2023.

And further, that, for greater certainty, a committee considering a bill in Section B may rise and report progress for the purpose of receiving a report from Section A or Section C in accordance with this order.]

[2:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: This motion is not debatable, so we will not have….

Points of Order

M. de Jong: Point of order. The motion is not debatable, but for that reason, it strikes me, notwithstanding the minister’s ability as a speed reader, that the past practice has been for members to have the motion in front of them for the vote. It strikes me that courtesy, if nothing else, would suggest that members who have just been told that debate is being curtailed could see the motion that is bringing down the guillotine.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. In the past practice we have in front of the House, we have seen that the Government House Leader will stand up and read the motion, and that’s what we have in the front of the House now. So that motion is not debatable.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole….

Mr. Speaker: No, hold it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, hold on, please. Thank you, Members. Thank you so much.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Walker: I’d like to raise a point of order. In the minister’s remarks, he mentioned that efforts were made with all three parties and an independent member to negotiate scheduling. That conversation never did take place, and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Members, as the Chair has said earlier, we are not going to debate it. So that’s the end.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, I heard the point of order. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, do you have something new to add?

[2:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

A. Olsen: In the comments that were made by the Government House Leader, he notified this House that effort was made to reach consensus with all House leaders. I want to inform this House that no such effort to reach consensus…. I was pulled into the side room prior to the beginning of this, and I was told that one Government House Leader was not going to comply with his will, and so there was going to be absolutely no discussion. There was no discussion on this. There was no effort to get consensus. This is an appalling misuse of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, I think we are getting into the debate mode, but we are not going to debate it. I understand. I hear the member’s point of order. I appreciate it. Let’s leave it there now.

T. Stone: I will move a point of order as well. This decision here today does not reflect….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Members. Members.

Members. Members, the Chair….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members at the back of the hall.

All Members. All Members. The Chair will hear the last point of order, and then we will continue. No more points of order on this subject after this, please.

T. Stone: The point of order is this. It is absolutely incorrect, it is not factually accurate, that there was an attempt to achieve consensus. The official opposition, of which there are 27 members, were not in any way consulted on this. We were not engaged. We were not asked how much time we planned on spending on any bills.

I, too, was hauled into the side room for a very brief conversation which was, as a matter of fact: “Here’s the motion. There isn’t consensus. Let’s move on.” That is not how this place is supposed to operate.

Points of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, let me read Standing Order 81.1(2) under “Time allocation.”

“A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Member, you don’t disrupt the Chair when you’re making a comment, please. Okay.

“… has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill, may propose without notice a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill. The motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.”

Debate Continued

Mr. Speaker: We have a motion in front of the House.

Division has been called.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Members, we are voting on the motion tabled by the Government House Leader.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Malcolmson
Mercier	Paddon	Parmar
Phillip	Ralston	Rankin
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 29
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Furstenau
Halford	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Sturko	Tegart
Walker		Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Amendment) Act….

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. Hold it.

Member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Questions of Privilege

A. Olsen: I rise to raise a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Do you want to state that now?

A. Olsen: The minister, in reading the justification for his motion to invoke closure upon this House, removing the right of the members here to be able to dutifully do their job, was based on a conversation that never happened, so Mr. Speaker, that Government House Leader misled the House.

T. Stone: I rise on a point of personal privilege as well.

I am very, very certain that if the Government House Leader was to take a look at Hansard from his comments that he made in introducing this closure motion, he would very quickly see that there’s language he used in there which is completely and totally false — in particular, suggesting that there was any “consensus” whatsoever about the time allocation for the balance of this session. To suggest that there was consensus is completely and totally not true. That there was a lack of consensus is totally untrue. Therefore, that represents a case of the Government House Leader misleading the House.

I don’t know of any standing order that permits any member of this House, not the least of which is the Government House Leader, to mislead the House.

I’d ask the Government House Leader to acknowledge that there never was any consensus whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that. Thank you, Member.

Members, we have already decided that motion. We have taken a vote on it. So there will be no further ruling on these motions of privileges.

Interjections.

[3:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, as I stated earlier, we have the Government House Leader under Standing Order 81.1, subsection (2). We have now decided on that, so we will not be entertaining any personal privilege on that matter.

Just the facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll take it under advisement. I’ll get back to you. Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

On clause 26 (continued).

The Chair: All right. We’ll get this committee underway.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the Government House Leader for being generous with the time to debate this bill. We now have 9½ minutes, ten minutes left to canvass 21 more sections in a bill that is supposed to somehow address housing in this province, but the government doesn’t want to actually talk about it or the detail in any great degree.

Back to clause 26 of 48 clauses, actually, yesterday we were talking about the OCP that the municipalities are going to have to adopt, which are being contemplated with the baseline criteria that this government has laid out in terms of number of units per….

The Chair: Members, could we have a little quiet in the chamber so we can hear the questioner? Thank you.

P. Milobar: In terms of minimum lot size, number of units that would be allowed on that lot size, the proximity to transit….

[3:20 p.m.]

The minister seems to be all over the map of whether it’s 15-minute transit service or 30-minute transit service. That will come in regulation later.

I guess the question I have for the minister around a municipality’s official community plan…. Now, the heavier densification, as I understand it, will be allowed if you’re on, and we’ll use the minister’s example, a 15-minute rapid transit access or frequent transit access. If that’s the standard, municipalities, typically, are under a lot of pressure with their budgets around transit provisions, around whether or not to provide an increased level of service or not.

Would municipalities be able to get away from those higher densifications by simply removing 15-minute bus service and changing it out to a 30-minute bus service? I’ll use Kamloops as an example, not that they’re threatening to do this. But yesterday I noticed in their budget deliberations that we’re going to see right now a proposed 11 percent property tax hike; $2.2 million, or almost 2¼ percent of that tax hike, is actually for the transit contract, increases to the transit contract.

Actually, at budget time, cities are going to have to start having some pretty serious talks about how they’re going to pay for various aspects.

If a city was to remove 15-minute bus service on a corridor and put it back to 30-minute service, because of volumes and not wanting to subsidize low ridership on those other service levels, would that then get them out of needing to agree to the highest possible densification under this plan in Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ll set the exact times in regulations, and I can share with the member that it’s going to be close to the 15-minute service.

The member’s question is, as I understand it, if a local government has that 15-minute service and decide they don’t want the 15-minute service — they want to go to a 30-minute service — they will have the ability to do that.

P. Milobar: Well, I understand they have the ability to change the service levels of the transit. I’m asking how that would then impact Bill 44 and the provisions within their official community plan of identifying a section of the city that you would be allowed to have six units on the 280 square metres, because it’s within 400 metres of a frequent transit route, versus that route now no longer being frequent transit.

Would that not then enable a municipality to have a bit of a workaround here and say: “Well, we don’t want that densification, so the only way this government has made that possible is for us to actually reduce transit service to a neighbourhood, whether we actually did or didn’t want to reduce transit service. But we’d rather do that than see 210 units per hectare in that neighbourhood”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I suppose a local government could say: “We want to avoid allowing six units near a frequent transit area, and so we want to lower our service from 15 minutes to 30 minutes.” I suppose they could do that if they wanted to avoid the six units. But it’s more likely that, certainly….

I’ll give an example of my community. A 15-minute service route, approximately, in my community has got eight storeys to 16 storeys — in fact, actually, 22 storeys. So it’ll vary from community to community. I mean, I suppose a community could do that, but I don’t know why a community would want to cut back services that their residents depend on.

To the member’s question, if a local government decides for some reason that they don’t want that service, because they don’t want the ability to have six units, I suppose they could make that change and have their OCP reflect something different.

A. Olsen: One of the reasons why a municipality might do it is not because they’re choosing to do it but because this minister with this change is giving them no choice to do it, because it’s in a neighbourhood where there is a floodplain, because it’s in a wildfire interface area, because it’s in one of these areas that insurance companies are saying: “You probably shouldn’t densify those areas because they’re very close to where wildfires might happen.”

It might be because the infrastructure is not there to support it, and the plan to deliver that infrastructure is going to take longer than the deadline that this minister is arbitrarily setting. That might be one of the reasons why they’re forced to do it.

[3:25 p.m.]

The minister can stand up and say: “Well, one of the reasons why…. They might do that, but I don’t know why they’d do that for their citizens who rely on the service.” They might be forced to do it because this minister has given them no choice but to do it.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. Member.

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier today, the committee now has to proceed to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

We’re done with the debate now. We have to go through clause by clause. I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill.

Members, a division on the remaining clauses in the title cannot be called. But in accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division.

With that, we will proceed.

Clauses 26 to 48 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[3:30 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 45
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	Donnelly	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Glumac	Greene	Heyman
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Lore	Malcolmson	Mercier
Paddon	Parmar	Phillip
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 29
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Furstenau
Halford	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Sturko	Tegart
Walker		Wat

Questions of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

T. Stone: I rise to reserve my right to a point of personal privilege.

A. Olsen: I rise to reserve my right to a point of personal privilege.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUES
(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 46; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:45 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: We’re going to call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Sorry, Madam Chair. I thought the minister might lead things off. If he wants to, I’ll cede the floor.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for giving me an opportunity.

I want to first start off by recognizing the amazing people that really do the heavy lifting and the work here. I’ve got my deputy minister, Teri Collins; Bindi Sawchuk, my ADM. I’ve got Jessica Brooks and Lesley Scowcroft — the amazing folks.

There are other folks in another room that are supporting the work here. I want to thank them for the work they do. It’s challenging work.

Of course, this is an important tool that we’re introducing here for local governments to be able to invest in infrastructure in their communities while we’re building the housing that we desperately need. Again, thanks to the member for allowing me to open it and recognize these amazing people.

P. Milobar: It’s good, I guess. We have some time to dig into Bill 46. It’s frankly a little unfortunate, though, that the government decided how much time that will be, without consulting with us.

Frankly, we would have preferred to have more time on Bill 44 and allotted more time for that bill and a little less time to Bill 46, but the government has decided they know best and the length of time opposition needs to properly ask questions around bills in this place. That’s unfortunate, because both have very serious consequences to municipalities.

I don’t think it’s any accident that the majority of speakers at committee stage to these bills come from municipal backgrounds — former mayors, former councillors, former regional district directors — because they very much understand the real-time implications these bills are going to have on not just their communities but municipal councils across this province, moving forward, and the neighbourhoods within those municipalities.

I find it interesting that Bill 44, where the debate got cut off pretty quickly, was really a bill that the minister was characterizing as dealing with affordability. Now here we are with Bill 46, which very clearly is designed to give municipalities the ability to not just add a few dollars to the cost of a housing unit but literally tens of thousands of dollars.

We’re going to dive into that a bit as we move through these sections and see what modelling has been done by the government. I certainly hope they will actually be able to speak to any modelling and data that they actually had to defend in the creation of this bill.

In Bill 44, they certainly did not want to provide that. In fact, as we found out, any of the people that they did consult with all had to sign non-disclosure agreements, so we actually don’t know what that data and information would reveal on Bill 44. We certainly hope that’s not the case on Bill 46, as the opposition.

I think it raises another concern. When we look at Bill 46 and Bill 44, and, tomorrow, Bill 47 and the sheltering clauses in Bill 45, these all have significant impacts and trade-offs to a municipality. But they’re all being dealt with in isolation by this government instead of as one housing bill, where you can actually properly evaluate how it all interconnects — how transit interconnects or doesn’t; how the densification of single-family neighbourhoods interconnects with that transit or not.

Then with Bill 46, how it interconnects with Bill 46 and the potential of development cost charges and, more importantly, community amenity agreement charges that don’t actually exist in most communities in this province yet will now be a tool for most municipalities to actually access.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, I said this even at second reading: as a former mayor, I can totally see the appeal for municipal councils with Bill 46. They’ve been asking, long and hard, for access to funding for infrastructure and things of that nature.

So a vehicle that enables them to charge more money will certainly be a welcome thing for municipal councils. I’m not here to prosecute whether they should or shouldn’t be doing that, but I do have serious questions for the government, through Bill 46, as to how the government is going to reconcile those tens of thousands of dollars being added to every housing unit in this province with Bill 44, where they purport to be trying to bring affordable housing into play.

As we start here on section 1, I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a bit of overview as to why the minister seems to think that enabling added charges to development cost charges, and added community amenity agreements into communities that don’t currently have them, will help with affordability in this province.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation creates another tool for local governments to be able to ensure that they have dollars for the critical infrastructure that they need in their communities. The basis of this work is from multiple reports. The DAPR review done by government, which engaged with stakeholders throughout the province on what we need to do, had a recommendation about creating a development finance tool that would be available to local governments. UBCM also had a report, in 2021, ensuring local government financial resiliency, a report that was very public. They also recommended the province do this.

Then there was also a Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel report in 2021, called Opening Doors, which emphasized the need for moving away from the negotiated and unpredictable nature of collecting these kinds of fees to something with more certainty.

I also will put on the record that there have been UBCM resolutions going back to 2005. It started with Invermere requesting to expand DCC categories to include fire and emergency response. In 2011, North Okanagan regional district requested expanding DCC categories to include solid waste facilities. In 2012, the Sunshine Coast regional district requested expanding DCC categories to include fire responses.

[3:55 p.m.]

In 2019, Harrison Hot Springs requested the province to expand DCC categories to include fire protection and emergency response capital; the city of Coquitlam requested the province to review DCC legislation to include a wider range of categories, such as emergency services; the city of Nanaimo requested the province to expand DCC categories to include emergency services and solid waste management; and then UBCM, overall, requested the province to review existing funding mechanisms for financial growth related to infrastructure services, including emergency services and solid waste.

This has been called for by local governments for a long time. I believe this legislation does two things.

It creates a level of transparency. Right now, often a lot of these amenities and the dollars associated with these amenities are negotiated. That creates a lot of challenges for everyone involved. Sometimes it can delay the process, I’ve heard — up to a year in some communities — because they’re going back and forth about how much money should come with each project.

It creates some level of cost certainty up front. For any proponent that wants to come in, they have something more predictable as to what their costs are. That cost certainty, we know, is a very important piece to ensure that housing goes forward and that the local governments have the ability to know that those dollars will be there for them to invest in the important infrastructure that they need.

P. Milobar: As I said in my opening comments, as a former mayor, I totally understand why municipalities would want the ability to have more revenue streams and a way to pay for infrastructure. I don’t take issue with them asking for that at all.

The fact that there has been a substantive lack of meaningful infrastructure programs to tap into from the provincial government over the last seven years has made the problem all the worse for municipalities trying to deal with water, sewer and traditional infrastructure-type programs, which development cost charges are designed to help with, with the growth in their community.

I know that we just finished 44 in a very rushed fashion, but Bill 44 was about creating more densification in single-family neighbourhoods, whether or not they actually have servicing or not to adequately address that growth, which could trigger a need for development cost charges for growth. Development cost charges, for those listening at home, are meant to help offset the cost of providing roads, water, parks, sewage, those types of things — and fire is to come.

You have a certain capacity in your system. If you’re a city, you may say: “Well, we want to have growth in this area, and it’s going to cost us $10 million. We think that 50 percent of that cost should be borne by the new growth, which is going to result in a slight oversizing of pipes and things of that nature. We’re going to time it out. The work is to be timed out as that growth starts to happen, the pipes age out, and the road needs repaving.”

It’s a very complicated process that municipalities go through with their planning and their official community plans, which we’ve talked about at length in Bill 44 as well, to overlay all that information and come up with what the cost should be. Then they go either per square foot or by housing unit. It’s all based on growth, on new building permits and new applications coming in or on new lots being created.

In the case of Bill 44, the intention of the government is to have sixplexes added to neighbourhoods on single-family home lots. Will the changes in Bill 46 impact those housing units? Will they be subject to development cost charges? Will those sixplexes also be subject to community amenity charges if a city decides to implement those based on the provisions of Bill 46?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re not changing any of the rules around DCCs, around how they can implement them. Local government could implement DCCs. But with the new tool we’re creating, the ACC, there is a framework of when that tool can be used. The details of that are in clause 7.

P. Milobar: Well, taking a quick scan, and I’ll use Kelowna, it looks like a single residential unit. They define a residential unit as something that has separate cooking and sanitary facilities, washrooms, and access to open-air space outside without having to go through other units. So it very much sounds like what would be one of a sixplex of units.

If you were tearing down a house — now, I guess, that one housing unit that’s currently there — it might mean you only are charged on five. I say “only,” but this is without community amenity agreements that don’t exist in Kelowna. You’re pushing $40,000, based on a quick scan.

That means that that sixplex in Bill 44 that the minister characterized as affordable housing will be subject to somewhere in the neighbourhood of at least $200,000 based on this legislation. That’s before we’ve added in fire protection, police and highway interchanges. That’s before we’ve added in community amenity charges.

Can the minister explain how, on the one hand, the government can be talking about housing affordability and at the same time be introducing Bill 46? That despite…. I understand why municipalities would want it, why this government, on the one hand, literally 12 minutes ago or 20 minutes ago will be talking about a bill purporting to be all about affordable housing…. And then the very next bill would see upwards of tens of thousands of dollars, at minimum, levied on each unit of a sixplex that’s contemplated in Bill 44.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It is interesting that we spent four days talking about how we’re not listening to local governments and how awful it is going to be, and now we’re shifting to: local governments shouldn’t get this power because they’ll abuse it. I know that’s not exactly what the member is saying, but it’s kind of implied in where we’re going forward here.

Kelowna, as the example the member has shared with me…. He gives an example of what Kelowna does. This new tool doesn’t necessarily mean…. If Kelowna didn’t have the CACs because they wanted to ensure that projects were viable, there’s nothing in this legislation that says they need to have the new ACC tool involved as well. This is an option for communities. Just like DCCs and CACs, if Kelowna wanted to get dollars from the CACs, they could have adopted it. They didn’t. This gives them another tool. It’s still available to them if they choose to. The other tool is still available to them as well.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister failed to acknowledge, too, that we’ve also been pointing out the problem with how they brought forward the housing legislation in this session in that we have closure now invoked on them. We have a bill that deals strictly with transit corridors. Yet Bill 44 also touched on implications around transit corridors, but that regulation is not ready yet. And we actually don’t have the site standards ready yet, but we may or may not have those ready in a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, we have Bill 46 in the middle that actually gives some extra autonomy to municipalities to go out and get some money, which I totally understand, and roads are expensive and water is expensive. I understand the ask from local governments. I don’t take issue with the local governments asking that.

The question was how this provincial government reconciles all of their discussion in Bill 44 about it creating affordable housing. Bill 44, which creates sixplexes on those transit corridors that we’ll have to take on the preliminary discussion that the minister has, because we still don’t have the regulations or any of that, let alone the data that the minister will not provide to us or the public or municipalities….

How the government, how the minister can reconcile his statements around a sixplex piece of legislation will create affordable housing, while at the same time, 20 minutes, 30 minutes after that bill gets passed, we are now dealing with a bill that this government, at a minimum, will see charges of $40,000 or $50,000 just based on existing DCC bylaws and charges per unit of that sixplex.

That’s not counting all of the extra stuff that’s on here. That’s really the statement that we’re making on this. As I mentioned, development cost charges get to be a very complicated formula, and they take a long time to calculate.

I’m wondering if the minister can share with the committee…. There’s going to have to be a whole lot of OCP amendments and reworking and calculating based on interim housing reports, based on Bill 44’s directive nature on what has to be allowed for densification in neighbourhoods.

Will the DCC bylaws under Bill 46, as they come into effect, also have to take into account the interim housing report and growth or what municipalities are currently planning for growth in their communities?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: As local governments go to update their OCPs and bylaws, they’re going to need to consider, as the member has highlighted, what infrastructure they need in their community. That will be reflected in how they move forward with their DCCs, as well, if they choose to use the new tool for that.

M. Bernier: By the minister’s own admission — it’s interesting; when we talked about the closure on Bill 44 and some of the debate around local government and now Bill 46 that we have in front of us — it sounds like he’s saying that he is openly admitting that he picks and chooses when to listen to local government’s requests.

In the last bill, we talked about: the local government had very specific requests, and he ignored them. Now he’s trying to tout himself as saying: “Look at me. I’m listening to local government’s concerns.” He can’t have it both ways. Sometimes he does. Sometimes he doesn’t. I’m just kind of curious, I guess. It’s when it goes to his own desires.

My question to the minister, I guess, first of all — and my colleague from Kamloops touched on it — what provincial grant programs are there right now that every municipality has access to for infrastructure improvements within their municipalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s outside the bill.

I can share with the member that we have provided this year $1 billion to communities, not through a grant process. We’re not asking communities to apply. We trust that they’ll put those dollars to addressing either infrastructure or any amenities that they feel need to be addressed in their communities.

We funded, for example, in Metro Vancouver, I believe it was, $250 million for the Iona wastewater facility. We invested in supporting the TransLink, also, because it’s connected to housing. So we continue to make investments with our local government partners. We certainly have more to do.

Of course, the federal government has already indicated that their funding will be tied towards housing as well. So there are tools that we have put out for communities, and we’re going to continue to support local governments in that infrastructure as we go forward.

M. Bernier: I know the minister likes to try tout the federal government and their contribution in trying to trying to save the province from their failures on dealing with the housing file, but I want to speak specifically to what this minister and this government is actually attempting to do.

Trying to tout some year-end funding that they put out as a one-time, I mean, I’m not going to take away the fact that every municipality is begging and pleading for more infrastructure funding.

He talked about the majority of the year-end funding that went out this year. My question, though, is actually relevant to this bill, although the minister is trying to avoid it, because it will tie in to my commentary, I feel, either through this section or in other later sections.

The minister didn’t directly answer by saying if there are present grant opportunities, so if a city like Dawson Creek is feeling pressure right now because of the infrastructure deficit, whether they can apply for it. Is there going to be…. After these bills pass — so let’s say next year — can the minister highlight, then, what grant applications will be available next year, aside from just saying, “wait to see the budget,” because that’s not fair to local governments?

[4:15 p.m.]

He’s putting the pressure on them right now, on infrastructure deficits that they’re facing through Bill 44. We canvassed that one at length. But next year, when the municipalities start seeing in real time the pressures on their water, sewer infrastructure, are there going to be grant applications next year from the province to help alleviate some of that pressure that’s going to be brought on and forced on them because of the bills that this government is putting forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve canvassed that we have been making significant investments with local governments. I can share with the member…. The member knows I can’t speak to what the Minister of Finance will do in future years, but we’ve made a pretty strong commitment to local governments that will support them with that infrastructure.

It is my understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance have a working group with UBCM on addressing this question that they’ve been working on for a long time, about how infrastructure can be funded in the local governments.

This is why I think all members should support this bill, because I think everyone in this House, especially experienced members who have sat at the council table, will know that it’s critical to invest in our infrastructure while we build housing, and this tool allows us to do that in a more predictable way.

It’s not just because local governments were asking for it. Those that are in the homebuilding community also understand that this is an important tool, an important step.

For example, Anne McMullin, who’s with the Urban Development Institute, put out a statement saying they’re “encouraged by this new legislation, which aims to make development charges more transparent and predictable. Combined with zoning measures announced last week, these are some of the most substantial changes to the development approval process in decades.”

Bridgitte Anderson, who members may know in this place, who’s the President and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, said: “This new legislation is a welcome step forward towards more certainty and clarity that will improve the timelines to build the housing we need.”

Trevor Koot, the CEO of the B.C. Real Estate Association, said: “The need to reform development financing was a key finding of the Development Approval Process Review report. The B.C. Real Estate Association is supportive of efforts of the government to bring more clarity, transparency and predictability to the fees collected by local governments from builders of new housing.”

I guess, to kind of wrap all the pieces together, we are making investments with local governments. We know it’s important to do. And of course we’re going to continue to work with local governments to support them with their infrastructure as we go forward.

This tool is supported by local governments, yes, because this creates an opportunity for them to help fund the important infrastructure. But it’s also supported by industry, because they understand that you need both. We need to invest in infrastructure, and we need to ensure that the housing gets built. And there’s a belief — certainly, we believe — that we can do both together.

M. Bernier: I think, to be fair…. You know, I don’t want to speak on behalf of all of the people that the minister just quoted, but a lot of people are supporting this begrudgingly. Of course, people are saying finally, under this government, they’ve seen the deficit as well in houses being started because of some of the challenges around not having that transparency or predictability.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m pretty sure, if we canvassed most organizations, they’re saying: “We’re in a housing crisis. Housing is unaffordable.” And any time we add any cost to it, it’s going to be at the detriment to the end user, which we know is the people who are already struggling to get into the housing market.

The minister can quote groups that are saying: “We’re happy that we have some predictability.” Fair enough, because we know we haven’t seen that under this government. We have not seen that transparency. So of course it’s great that they’re acknowledging that, finally, this government is bringing that forward.

But my concern is always around making sure that we keep the housing affordable so people can actually get into housing. Everything that we’re seeing is actually going to add to the price and the cost of housing.

Back to the original point, the concept here was around municipalities and the infrastructure deficit that they’re already facing. In Bill 44, we talked about how now, in some areas, we’re going to have densification taking place that is beyond the capacity of the infrastructure that’s there.

I want to acknowledge the minister has said, and committed, that he wants to continue working with local government. But there’s…. That does not…. His well wishes, or his good intentions, don’t necessarily pay the bills for local government.

What I’m hearing, and some of the concerns…. And I’m curious how the minister will want to acknowledge this. I want the minister to know this is not an I-got-you moment. This is not about trying to find some political angle where the minister is not doing his job in this section. Other sections, I’ll say he didn’t — maybe right now.

But I do want to, in all fairness, say one of the things I’m hearing is that because we’ve seen the lack of investment and acknowledgment from this government on those deficits that I’ve talked about in the infrastructure within municipalities…. Right now the major way that governments raise funds to pay for their surface infrastructures and other things…. And we’ll get to it later on in the bill; I understand some other sections we can talk about. But a lot of that is through local taxation.

Local governments are always looking for support, and need support in lots of areas, from the provincial government. What my concern is, and it’s a concern that I’m hearing from some local governments, is if this bill passes….

And yes, some governments, some local governments have said they want the ability around DCCs. I get that. As a former mayor, as a former executive member on the UBCM, I understand that intention and the need and desire.

What I’m also hearing through that is we do not want to use this tool as a scapegoat for government to now not step up and support local governments. That’s why I’m curious on the acknowledgment from the minister.

I think he understands where I’m going with this. The last thing we need now is a community saying: “We’ve been forced under Bill 44 to allow this densification, whether we wanted it or not.” Yes, we’ve been given advantages or privileges — however the minister wants to word it — through Bill 46 for the ability to collect some money up front from DCCs on development that will come in. We know that that will not be enough to offset the pressures that governments are going to face.

So my concern, some local governments have told me their concern, is now they’ll go to the government and say, “There’s a financial difference here. We need grants, we need supports, because we do not want to continue to download these costs to our local taxpayers” — and, in essence, to the people who are struggling to get into the housing market because of the increased costs through the DCCs. Nobody wants to technically see that as we’re trying to find opportunities for people to get into the housing market.

Will the minister confirm today that he and his government will not be pointing to DCCs and local governments as an avenue to collect funds locally, and they will continue — this should be an easy answer — to be open to local government? So when they come forward and say, “We can’t afford it, and this is why,” this minister will be stepping up through grant applications, especially in our smaller communities who struggle already, that he will help with that infrastructure deficit to pay for the subsurface concerns that they have.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for his question and comments.

We canvassed this at great length previously. If the member wasn’t here…. He mentioned the previous legislation, and I don’t want to go back to doing that. But it is the most effective way of getting development done with the infrastructure that we have.

Now, I strongly urge all members to support this bill, because what I hear already is there’s an understanding that local governments need the tools to be able to fund the infrastructure in their communities. That’s what local governments have said to me, that they need this.

I haven’t heard from a local government saying: “Don’t give us this tool.” I haven’t heard that. If the member has a specific community that’s saying, “We don’t want this tool,” I’m keen to hear it.

We know that it’s vitally important that we have healthy, vibrant communities. As we build the housing for the people, not necessarily even the people that are yet to come, the housing for the people that are already here, that are struggling….

We’ve talked about this in the House. We have young families who can’t afford the large single-family home when it’s being built, and having options available to them is great.

We have Kathleen Higgins from my community who built a fourplex in their old family home — the entire family, all the kids, are still staying in that one parcel, raising their families, which is amazing.

But when we do that, we want to make sure there are parks and fire halls and police stations and all of those important things. That’s what we’re trying to do here: to ensure that they can continue to have the dollars they need to fund that infrastructure.

Of course, to the member’s point, we’re going to continue to partner with local governments to invest in infrastructure. The challenge we have is, to date, local governments still get a lot of this funding, but they get it through negotiations. That negotiation is challenging both for local governments, but it’s also challenging for those that are bringing projects for the not-for-profit or private sectors.

What we’re saying is we’re acknowledging that there are infrastructure needs. We’re saying up front that there’s a way for communities to be clear about what their infrastructure needs are, and there’s a tool available now with more certainty for everyone involved.

To the other core point the member is making, of course, we want to support communities. I’m fortunate in my community in Delta. The province made a significant investment in a new track and field facility. Local government put in some money, but we put in a lot of money as well. That’s separate from the $1 billion.

We’re investing in parks, because we know the playgrounds in our parks are vitally important. Four playgrounds in my community have been funded.

All of those things are important. They’re going to continue to happen. We’re going to continue to partner with local governments. This is just another tool for local governments as we move forward.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I don’t think anyone on our opposition benches is oblivious to the fact that municipalities would like tools to raise more money to pay for infrastructure, especially if there’s a lack of provincial infrastructure programs for them to tap into to deal with that growth.

To be clear, I fully supported…. Back in Kamloops, when we waived development cost charges for affordable, supportive housing projects, when we would actually accelerate the permitting process and move them to the front of the line through the development services department…. When we would do all of those sorts of things, we had a local affordable housing fund that people could tap into to help pay some of the costs, if they were successful in getting grants out of B.C. Housing and other agencies, and things of that nature.

I don’t take issue with that. I don’t take issue with the fact that this is at least protecting those types of carve-outs in terms of making sure that affordable housing projects are not subject to development cost charges and community amenity agreements.

The problem is the minister admonished us — I guess that’s the word I’ll use — in terms of picking and choosing when we listen to the local government. But in fact, it’s the government that’s doing that. They’re the ones bringing in the legislation, picking and choosing when they have or haven’t listened to municipalities.

I thought: “Well, jeez, the minister says UBCM is fully supportive of Bill 46,” and I can understand why. What else has the UBCM asked this minister for, specifically around housing? I thought: “Well, let’s just see what the most recent convention is: 2023.” Well, look at that. EB10 is a motion endorsed by UBCM around B.C. Housing delays in their communities. I haven’t seen any action under this government on that.

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

In fact, I can speak from experience in Kamloops. The housing that’s been bought at three times assessed value, that was supposed to have people living in it in September…. Just one building alone of the three — I’ll reference the one, but all three are in similar states — actually still has no one living in it, because it was a disaster of a purchase, as we warned this minister about. Everything we warned this government about has actually come to pass.

In fact, the person that they bought the building off of that was supposed to do renovations didn’t actually do the renovations. But the minister assured us due diligence was done on that purchase. Now, lo and behold, they have to go back in and keep renovating because the service provider wasn’t able to use the building in the condition that this government bought it in and tried turning the keys over to the service provider.

That’s one example of a few. In fact, in the last report I saw, despite some of these units being bought three years ago, we have 80 units with people living in them out of 225, I think it is off the top of my head, from B.C. Housing, all overpaid for. That’s just the Kamloops example, let alone all the other cities.

I can understand why UBCM would come to the minister and endorse a motion saying: “B.C. Housing delays. Where’s our support from the provincial government?”

Then you only have to look from EB10 to EB11 to see the affordable housing infrastructure upgrades. What that was, endorsed by UBCM, essentially says somewhat what the minister was just saying. It’s saying: “We’re waiving the development cost charges.” I’m paraphrasing it. The premise is municipalities are waiving the development cost charges for affordable housing units. They don’t take issue with that. But you know who’s not backstopping that infrastructure that still needs to be done? The province of B.C.

It’s very interesting. Whenever someone needs actual dollars, from a municipality, out of this government, they don’t seem to be listening and taking action. But if it’s just enabling legislation to let municipalities bear the brunt of adding extra costs, be it to a local property tax owner or someone trying to build actual housing in a community, we’ll push all of that over to them and let them wear that. And then they can try to figure out how to cover off the infrastructure deficit, because we haven’t funded it appropriately.

I guess the minister could correct me if I’m wrong. But this bill does assure that the waiving of development cost charges for things around affordable housing still will happen, which means that still creates an infrastructure deficit.

The minister has spoken twice now, in two different answers, of his embrace of the direction of UBCM, in support of UBCM’s lobbying efforts. EB11 very clearly is the affordable housing infrastructure upgrade resolution that was endorsed by the assembly to have the provincial government help with the linear costs of infrastructure.

Has the government taken steps to action that while they were bringing forward Bill 46?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, there are a lot of things in that. The question was short, but the preamble was long. I’ll try to address as many of the points the member made.

We are making historic levels of investments in affordable housing. The member is correct to note that. Yes, of course local governments want us to continue to do that. I meet with local governments through UBCM. I met with a lot of local governments who obviously were very excited about the community housing fund opening, the intake.

We’re going to continue to invest in communities now. We just provided communities $1 billion for infrastructure. That’s significant, probably one of the largest direct grants for infrastructure to local governments in B.C.’s history, because we know it’s important to invest.

I mentioned to the member that we provided money for the Iona wastewater facility, $250 million. We’re going to continue to make investments in infrastructure.

But I’m struggling. I really appreciate the member saying that when he was mayor, he understood this. But I’m really struggling with…. Why the opposition to this when we understand that local governments need dollars for infrastructure? We understand that it’s important to have that infrastructure to enable housing and have vibrant and healthy communities.

Why the resistance for a tool to be created so that local governments have the dollars, resources they need with a level of certainty and transparency that, I think, everybody in the public would want? There’s a reason why local governments are pleased. The member thinks it’s because they just want more dollars. But there’s also a reason why the homebuilder community is very happy with this as well. I think both sides understand that infrastructure funding is vitally important. Both understand that infrastructure is going to enable us to have the ability to have more housing for people desperately needing it in our communities.

If the question is: are we going to continue to support local governments? Yes. Does this tool allow local governments to be able to capture dollars for infrastructure, critically important infrastructure — police stations, fire halls, etc.? Yes. Are we going to continue to support local governments through supports with other infrastructure? The answer to that is yes as well.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister can be confused on why we don’t support this. Frankly, it’s because every bill that they’ve touched on housing over the last seven years has been a disaster. Everything they have said that they would do to improve housing has done the exact opposite.

In fact, on Bill 44, the minister will recall that the initial response was that this seemed like a good idea by a lot of municipalities. Then, as we actually got into the bill debate, which has unfortunately been cut off by this minister…. As people started to understand the true ramifications of the bill, you started to hear from communities that they actually thought it wasn’t such a great piece of legislation.

That’s why committee stage is important. That’s why bill debate is important. That’s why not cutting off debate unilaterally is something that should not happen. So the minister can think that this is the greatest piece of legislation known to man. It’s not.

I get it. Municipalities — yes, they want revenue sources. Yes, developers want certainty. That’s a given. But you know what both of those sides want too? They want certainty out of a provincial government that has created nothing but chaos in the housing industry. They actually want proper infrastructure programs from the provincial government that are on a regular basis, not one-off, year-end money.

I’ll inform the minister that, yes, $1 billion sounds very impressive. It was around $15 million for the city of Kamloops, after six or seven years of no substantive infrastructure program to try to apply for, infrastructure programs that you would actually see tens of millions of dollars come for projects, not $15 million once in seven years.

Of course, they were thankful for that money. So of course, they want to see this bill, and I totally can understand it. I’m not going to try to stand here and pretend that I don’t understand why a municipal council would want some opportunity to potentially cover things off.

[4:40 p.m.]

But the minister is wrapping himself in defending this bill by saying that he is taking action based on what UBCM and their membership have been asking for. The question was those same members, with EB11, actually asked the government to buck up in a meaningful way, on infrastructure that is not being covered off for affordable housing infrastructure upgrades because they don’t get to charge these development cost charges and amenity agreements on affordable housing, which is understood.

I support that. I understand that. But what it needs, then, is for the government that creates that clause to say: “Well, we’re creating that clause to remove that revenue stream from a municipal government. We’re going to cover the cost.” That’s what the ask was at UBCM.

The question to the minister is: has the government actioned that resolution from UBCM — EB11, 2023 — of the affordable housing infrastructure upgrades?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The motion passed at UBCM said that they wanted the province to fund the affordable housing, fund the acquisition of the land and fund all the infrastructure for housing. That’s a tall ask for every single community.

I can share with the member that, right now, we fund affordable housing at a record pace, at a record rate. The community housing fund is open for that right now. We provided the $1 billion funding. And of course, the Ministry of Finance will consider what future investments they’re able to make to support local governments, just like we have in the past years. There have been a lot of investments made in communities around the province, and of course we’re going to continue to make that.

Again, the reason why I urge members to support this is…. The member himself said he was a mayor of Kamloops, so I think he would understand what this tool means. I’m sure he would agree that this tool will be used for good, to be able to get the dollars for infrastructure. I think the certainty and the predictability that comes with this is vitally important.

I appreciate that there’s a big discussion that happens in public about the need for infrastructure — for communities to have the fire halls, the police stations. This is a tool for them to be able to ensure they have the dollars so they can support the growth of our communities.

A. Olsen: Just a question to the minister. Why is this bill being managed by the Minister of Housing? It seems to me that this would be a Municipal Affairs situation. It’s a local government act exclusively. Why isn’t the Minister of Municipal Affairs stewarding this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. We’ve been working very closely with that ministry as well as we move forward on this.

[4:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: That’s good. It’s good that they’re working together.

The question was: why is the Minister of Housing taking responsibility for what is, in the end, primarily the account­ability of the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s vitally important that we address the challenges we have around the housing crisis, that we get the housing we need. We now have a ministry that’s dedicated to working on housing-related issues, and so when we bring in legislation that creates both the opportunity for the infrastructure that will enable housing but also ensures that those that are building the housing have the certainty and the predictability, it makes sense for the new Ministry of Housing.

I know that we haven’t had a Ministry of Housing in British Columbia, dedicated, and so the team has been working closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as we do this important work.

A. Olsen: Isn’t it a better characterization of what’s happening that the Minister of Housing is actually doing the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ work? This is the job of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The minister is correct. We do have a Minister of Housing. Formally, it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing because housing was, up until very recently, linked to municipal affairs. I mean, actually, housing is in communities. I appreciate the distinction the minister has made — that there’s a minister that’s responsible for housing, but there’s a minister that’s responsible for municipal affairs.

If you think about the management of this House, this bill actually, all of the good things in it, could have been debated today, this afternoon, alongside Bill 44, right next to it, in the House that’s still open just down the hallway. It’s not being used right now. The heat’s on in there. The lights are probably, maybe dimmed, but there’s space in there.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs was responsible for this housing statutes bill…. It didn’t necessarily need to be a housing statutes bill. It could have been a Municipal Affairs local government statutes amendment act, because this is dealing with supporting the infrastructure in local governments.

The programs that the minister is responding to, as programs that the government is doing, are programs that come under Municipal Affairs. The $1 billion came from Municipal Affairs. Not a small point, because UBCM has to figure out a way to have a relationship with this government.

Now, UBCM has relationships with multiple ministers. That’s true — 100 percent. However, we could have, just from a time management….

I know the minister is also the Government House Leader. There could have been an opportunity here to actually be debating this bill this afternoon. We could be debating the misc stats bill in there right now too.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: That is more to do with housing than this. Yeah.

This is a bill that is the responsibility of the Municipal Affairs Minister. Why is it that we waited for a couple of weeks while the minister was debating the housing bill to debate this bill that could actually have been shepherded through…. Well, it could have been shepherded through the House by any minister, but it certainly would have made sense to have this bill shepherded through the House by the Municipal Affairs Minister.

Why didn’t this government do that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s unfortunate the member doesn’t want me to be answering the questions here on this bill. I think the member would agree that there are a lot of important things in this bill — that we may want to talk about this bill and ask questions about this bill so that we can get that important information.

If the members want to talk about other bills and generic things, then I understand, but we’re here, and I’m happy to answer any questions the members have regarding this bill.

P. Milobar: A very quick question, then, to the minister.

[4:50 p.m.]

Will the inspector of municipalities still need to review and sign off on the development costs charge bylaws that come forward as a result of this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that is correct.

P. Milobar: Is the Minister of Housing now responsible and overseeing the inspector of municipalities, or is that still the Municipal Affairs Minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

P. Milobar: I guess when I hear the House Leader of the Third Party ask why it is the Housing Minister and not the Municipal Affairs Minister, given that all of the oversight of Bill 46 will be dealt with by the Municipal Affairs Minister and the inspector of municipalities…. I think it’s, actually, a pretty fair question.

Regardless of which bills are being debated when or where, why would we have the Minister of Housing answering Municipal Affairs questions? I’ve dealt with a few other bills with the Municipal Affairs Minister. She seems very on point with her answers. She knows the file very well and usually gives very direct and straightforward answers to people. That’s what I’ve heard from munici­pal members — a good working relationship with muni­cipalities.

I don’t understand why the Housing Minister, who is also the House Leader, who is also in charge of the legis­lative review committee, felt the need to, essentially, take over from her and not have the Municipal Affairs Minister deal with this.

Does the minister know what the current timeline is with the inspector of municipalities from the time that a municipality submits their development cost charge bylaw for review to the time it actually gets approved by the inspector of municipalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, the member is correct. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs is amazing, very capable. I’ve got a great deal of respect for her. She’s very hard working. I certainly don’t want anyone in this House suggesting that she’s not capable of doing the important work that she does.

As much as I appreciate the member trying to be clever with this comment around DCCs…. The new ACC tool does not go to the inspector. We’re talking about a new tool, the ACC tool. It does not go to the inspector.

He asked me about the other DCC bylaws. That’s correct. It does. But the new ACC tool does not.

Now, the member has asked a more detailed question on some matters. I’ve got my staff looking into that.

P. Milobar: Well, the question I asked wasn’t about the ACC tool. The question I asked was about the development cost charge, which is another major component of Bill 46. In fact, the staff that the minister’s current staff are searching for an answer from is probably the Municipal Affairs staff, to go to the point.

We’re not trying to suggest anything about the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It’s this Government House Leader, by the actions of who he has decided to have shepherd this bill through, that is sending whatever signals he wants to in this chamber. I’ve not heard anyone, through the opposition, say anything contrary to her skills and abilities as a minister.

Back to the development cost charges. The question was: what is the current timeline that it takes the inspector of municipalities, from the time a municipal government submits an updated development cost charge bylaw to having that development cost charge bylaw enacted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It depends on the complexity. It could take eight to 12 weeks.

P. Milobar: It can depend on the complexity.

These are very complex. Eight to 12 weeks, frankly, sounds quicker than the real-world application of it, when you talk to other municipal governments about how long it actually does take them.

[4:55 p.m.]

Why it’s an important timeline…. Does the minister know that until it gets approved by the inspector of municipalities, cities are still, by law, having to charge the old development cost charge rate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s possible that local governments have to wait a few weeks for that to be approved.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s more than a few weeks. It’s several months, on a best-case scenario.

Again, I would be surprised…. Well, we won’t have time to canvass municipalities based on that answer by the time this bill has been crammed through this legislative session and closed off. I think the minister might be surprised what the real timeline is versus what staff have indicated.

The reason I’m asking is…. There’s a whole lot of components that go into development cost charge bylaws. I’m assuming that the minister here is not intending on making any changes to assist factors and things of that nature. We’ll get into that a bit later in the bill.

The minister referenced the amenity cost recovery tool. We are on section 1 still, which actually deals with that. It inserts it in. Why will that charge not have to be reviewed by the inspector of municipalities, if, indeed, it only takes a couple of weeks to review?

There are provisions around double counting that need to be looked at. There are the complexities of making sure that you’re not charging for a park in your development cost charge bylaw as well as within the community amenity agreement. All of those nature come into effect. The percentage that new growth should pay for the community amenity versus existing residents. It’s literally the same type of formulation. It’s just a different set of projects that it will help fund.

Why is that not subject to the same type of provincial overview as a development cost charge?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The approval of the inspector is not required for the ACC bylaws. The legislation contains explicit rules for setting rates and the authority for the province to limit rates if it’s determined that they’re deterring the construction of new housing supply, which is in clause 7.

A. Olsen: I want to close a bit of a loop that I opened up by asking why the Minister of Municipal Affairs was not shepherding this bill. I highlighted the House management issue. I think, from a bill’s management, it’s important to raise that.

My suspicion is that the Ministry of Housing actually developed this entire bill as one package. Is that, in fact, the case? The Housing Ministry developed all of this housing policy, including this amenity charge component to it, and that’s the reason why Housing is managing this bill through the House now.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for clarifying why he was asking the question. I take him at his word for why he asked the line of question.

I do get sensitive on the topic because, for example, just yesterday the Attorney General was answering questions, and members of this House were asking her to go get help, to call me into this place. Women in this place, especially our ministers that are women, face that all the time. I do believe the member that raised that question now is honourable, and that’s not his intention, but I just wanted to share with him my sensitivity around it.

Now, that being said, the team that’s working on this legislation was originally, when there was no Ministry of Housing, at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. When the Ministry of Housing was created, that team came over to the Ministry of Housing. So yes, we work closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but that core team that handled that is now with the Ministry of Housing.

P. Milobar: I’m sorry; I need to….

The Chair: One second. I have to acknowledge you first, Member.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Mr. Chair, what the minister just said is completely outrageous.

This is the Government House Leader that chose, with no notice, to put the Attorney General on the pin, on a bill that was not her part of the bill to deal with, and had her come in with an amendment to try to follow through on something the Premier directed her to do. It had nothing to do….

The Chair: Members….

P. Milobar: No, Mr. Speaker. It had nothing…

The Chair: No, no. Members. Member.

P. Milobar: …to do with the gender of the minister responsible whatsoever. It had everything to do…

The Chair: Member. Member.

P. Milobar: …with the scheduling of this House Leader.

That is reprehensible that he is trying to say that we were questioning…

The Chair: Member.

P. Milobar: …the minister about a bill in this House based on gender.

The Chair: Please. Will you take a moment, please? Let’s take a deep breath…

P. Milobar: That needs to be withdrawn by this minister immediately.

The Chair: …and then we’ll take a deep breath. I ask all members to try and treat each other with respect, and I ask members to direct comments through the Chair and listen to each other, respond respectfully and don’t cast aspersions one way or the other. I would ask members to take that into their consideration.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Mr. Chair, is that you asking the minister to retract his statement calling us, alluding to the fact that a male in opposition is not allowed to ask a female cabinet minister questions about a bill that he, as the Government House Leader, put in charge of those sections of the bill with no notice…

The Chair: Okay. Member.

P. Milobar: …and created the situation and is trying to…?

The Chair: Member, please.

P. Milobar: No. Mr. Chair, you just said…

The Chair: No, no, no.

P. Milobar: …we can’t cast aspersions, and this House Leader did.

The Chair: Member, I am taking the floor here. Member.

Member, I was starting to remind members that discussion of bills that happened yesterday is for yesterday, and that goes for the Housing Minister as well. In this House, discussions about legislation, who said what under other bills — that’s to happen in those places.

We’re here for the discussion on Bill 46. I would ask us all to take a moment to…. If there are points of privilege people want to raise, they are welcome to. But this is a…. We’re trying to get to the debate here, and I’d ask us all to just take a moment to focus on that.

I see the House Leader for the Third Party.

Questions of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

A. Olsen: I rise to reserve my right to make a point, another point, of privilege today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: I rise to reserve my right to a point of privilege as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, we’re not going to have a debate back and forth across the table, please.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members. Let’s take a moment. We have a job to do here. Let’s focus on this job for the people of B.C. Thank you.

We’re coming back….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, we have a bill to discuss here.

Can we please…? Okay. We’re going to take a two-minute recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:05 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Debate Continued

The Chair: All right, Members. I’d like to call the committee back to order. We’re here with Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair. I made some comments previously in a previous answer, and for that, I’d like to withdraw.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. So noted.

We’re here on clause 1, and I recognize the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The minister indicated…. I recognize we’ll get to clause 7, possibly. We will be through this bill one way or the other, based on the government’s time management of the clock by the end of the day. So this may wander into clause 7 as a question, but we’re also dealing with amenity cost recovery in clause 1 as well.

Section 25(1) of the Local Government Act is what’s being amended with clause 1: “provide that Division 19.1 [Amenity Costs Recovery] of Part 14 applies to the municipality.” That’s (d.1). And if you go and look at the existing legislation, it’s (d): “provide that Division 19 [Development Costs Recovery] of Part 14 applies to the municipality as if the municipality were in a resort region.”

I’m wondering. The minister has said that, well, the amenity cost charge has restrictions on it, and it’s not the same as the development cost charge, so therefore it doesn’t need the inspector of municipalities to review it. But when you actually look at what an amenity cost charge is, it’s very similar to the development cost charge. It’s just a different mix of functions that a municipality needs to fund, and the rates and the calculations are going to be based very similarly to development cost charges.

[5:25 p.m.]

Again, how can one be deemed to be so complicated it needs final approval by the provincial government before it can be enacted by a municipality, but the secondary piece that will be actually a brand-new creation for most municipalities can just get done on the goodwill of whatever a municipality deems it to be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The difference is, with the DCCs, it’s core infrastructure, and with the amenities, it’s more about complete communities. What we’ve done is, the work that the inspector does — we’ve built it straight into the legislation.

A. Olsen: Was this bill drafted as one bill? Was this bill and Bill 44 and maybe the other housing bills that we’ve seen in front of us drafted as part of one call for legislation and called all together and brought forward together?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. All the pieces of legislation…. They do work together, but it was not done together.

A. Olsen: So there was no real reason, then, other than a choice by the government to make this bill a bill that’s being administered by the Housing Minister, rather than the one that the minister that is actually responsible for this legislation when it comes to….

I mean, this is about housing because it happens as a result of housing, but it’s not about housing. It’s about municipal governments, which is why we have a municipal affairs…. I’m wanting to find out where the line that has now been blurred — where we can add some definition to it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the specific work around this came from the DAPR review, and so there was a specific team that was doing the work around DAPR. The other pieces, obviously, were different. The teams do work together, but they were really two separate pieces.

A. Olsen: One act though, right? The Local Government Act is the same act as the one that we were amending before. The way that the legislation is drafted is that it works its way through each section of the Local Government Act in a coherent way. It starts at the lower numbers, and it works to the larger numbers. So you have this situation where you’re dealing with different sections of the Local Government Act, but it’s still the same act, right?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, it still is the same act but, again, two different processes and two different teams working on this.

A. Olsen: Is there a process within the Housing Ministry that could take Bill 44 and Bill 46 and get them together, like in the same document?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again to the member: completely different teams, different legislative drafting teams, as well, working on this. Again, all the pieces…. Yes, they work together. But it is distinctly different.

A. Olsen: So that’s not how communities work, like, at all. Everything is actually interconnected. That’s why it’s in the Local Government Act, not in the Housing Act and the regional district act and the infrastructure funding act. That’s the reason why it’s all brought together under the Local Government Act.

I guess the illustration that I’m hoping to paint or to draw is that there was a decision to keep these two bills separate, even though they were introduced very near to the same time. There was a decision to have them introduced separately, even though for coherence and ability to be able to debate the implications of this in a coherent way, which we haven’t been…. Multiple times through the process, through the other bill, it was like: “Well, that’s going to have to be debated in the next bill.”

We couldn’t have a conversation, but the outcome of that has had some really distinct results. Because the minister made the decision to bring them forward separately at the end of the session, it means this bill is going to get less time for debate.

Bill 44 got shuttered early. Bill 46 will be shuttered early. Bill 45 isn’t going to be debated until the very end. The very unfortunate incident that happened here a little while ago need not have happened if those encampment pieces were also part of this legislation and this coherent approach to housing.

Is it true, then, that there’s no way to get Bill 44 and Bill 46 and get the drafters to put it in a single document so that we would have either debated it, and it would have been clearly part of housing? Or could it have been the case that today, right now, we could have been still debating 44, and we could have had the minister that’s actually responsible for this, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, doing the work in the House that’s now closed?

Again, it’s not technically closed. We can still use it. It’s still available to us. Is that a correct analysis of the situation that we find ourselves in?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I respectfully have answered the question that different teams were working on this in separate…. All the pieces worked closely together.

I’m sure that if we put different pieces together, then there would be a critique that it was an omnibus bill, and it’s a challenge for everybody to navigate what’s in it. It’s all hypothetical. But what I’m saying is that we had two different teams doing the work, and all of those worked together. That’s reflected here.

C. Oakes: I’ve had the file of local government and understand it very clearly. It’s not hypothetical that there’s an actual legislative drafting process that is in place with the teams. Were there shared legislative drafting teams that went in on the work on these bills?

Further to that, there’s a legislative review committee that sits in the executive team that would have reviewed these bills. So where is the interaction? Did you have multiple members of both local government and the housing team on the legislative review team, working collaboratively on this, or were they completely separate? How, if so, did you manage to bring these forward?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The policy was done jointly with Muni, but there were separate drafting teams that worked on the pieces.

C. Oakes: Can the minister confirm, then, that the two drafting teams…? Again, I’ve been involved with bringing in legislation through both the Local Government Act, the Community Charter and the Vancouver community charter. There is work that is required when there are legislative changes that are being brought forward. The two teams would have, at some point, had to come together to look at the impact of these bills on all of the different legislative aspects of the bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The drafting teams were separate, but yes, they had meetings to discuss what was happening in the other ministry, and also in the policy development, we worked with Muni. What I’m saying is there was collaboration between us and Muni. That’s the first thing I want to say.

Second, they’re separate drafting teams, and yes, the drafting teams would have to talk to each other.

C. Oakes: I think that speaks to the point that the legislative team, the policy team all would have worked with the local government team and invariably the minister of local government would have been involved in this process.

If that’s the case, why isn’t the local government minister provided the opportunity to be moving this legislation through in a second House so that we would have a fulsome opportunity to have the necessary debate needed to respect all of the local governments across this province and other levels of First Nations and other levels of government?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member earlier, the team that led this work was originally in Muni. When our ministry was created, that team came to our ministry. The work has been happening in our ministry, and that’s why our ministry is bringing it forward.

A. Olsen: I maybe wanted to just switch gears here a little bit. I think the point has been made that the choices that have been made here to manage this House…. I think that it’s important that the point is made, because I don’t think British Columbians should be left with anything in their imagination about why it is that we stand where we stand today.

The minister’s responses, the questions that were asked, the whole fiasco that happened in the hallway here — all of that is a result of choices that were made not by the members of the opposition but by the Government House Leader, the person who’s managing all of these bills.

The incident, frankly, that happened yesterday…. If there was a coherent housing plan put in front of us and given the time for people to see it, given the time and the credit for people to be able to go in and understand what’s being proposed….

The minister got offended earlier on when I suggested that there was a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for us to track this in a coherent way. I think it’s a legitimate criticism of the process that we’ve undertaken over the last few weeks. How this works is really important. It’s every one of those 85 communities, after all.

Does the minister know what the infrastructure deficit is in British Columbia?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff inform me that it’s really difficult to give an exact number. But the infrastructure needs — yeah, they are significant in communities throughout the province. It depends on the size of the community, etc.

That’s why tools like this are important for communities to have the dollars they need to support growth in their communities. And that’s why it’s important, like with the $1 billion and other investments that have happened, to invest in the other infrastructure that’s needed in communities.

A. Olsen: Does the minister have just a ballpark round number? No? There’s no clue? UBCM doesn’t have a number? No?

I think that I didn’t…. Part of the reason why it’s important is that we understand the infrastructure deficit that exists in the province — tens of millions, hundreds of millions…. It’s billions of dollars. It’s important to understand that number so that we can put into context what is being offered back in return as the solution for it.

A billion-dollar infrastructure fund, one time…. The minister can say it quickly. It can roll off his tongue, and it can sound like it’s having a dramatic impact, because it sounds like a big number. But the reality of it is that the infrastructure deficit in this province is ten times bigger than that, maybe 100 times bigger than that. It’s one of the reasons why we called for this government to, until there’s a new fiscal framework in place, extend $1 billion in grants and stay using the same formula.

In fact, I actually quite like the formula that the Minister of Municipal Affairs came up with. I like that bit of work. It’s unfortunate that the Minister of Finance hasn’t seen the opportunity that fund provides.

In fact, the only critique that I have of that program and of that project — I talked to the Municipal Affairs Minister during the supplementary estimates debate this past spring — was that there wasn’t enough money for it. To stand up and say $1 billion in infrastructure as a bit of rhetoric can sound like a lot more is happening than actually is.

It doesn’t mean that local governments aren’t going to be thankful for it. I know that we get into that kind of point-making in the Legislature here as well. I haven’t heard a local government say that they don’t appreciate the $1 billion of infrastructure that’s going to help them through their deficit, but it’s clearly not enough.

We know that, actually, one of the most limiting factors — and the minister can stand up and point to this bill — to a local government is the fact that we have these conditional granting programs. The conditional granting programs are really a way for the provincial government to take credit for the spend. There are actually communications guidelines around it so that if you get the money, you’ve got to have the government of B.C. logo. You’ve got to do the charade. You’ve got to give props to whoever it is that needs good feelings that day.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think that the challenge and the reason why I’ve been asking these questions is because the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for those other programs. The Minister of Housing is delivering one piece. Similar to what happened in Bill 44, one zone, one use, single-small use — that’s now the Minister of Housing. The rest of local government — that’s still Municipal Affairs, apparently.

Same thing here. This piece of infrastructure development financing bill, that’s Minister of Housing. Everything else, Minister of Municipal Affairs — apparently, maybe. Until a different minister shows up to talk about it, potentially.

But the problem is that…. I made the point about House management. Now I’ll make the point about this. It makes it very difficult for us to debate policy that’s in a different ministry than the minister that’s sitting here. The minister that’s sitting here doesn’t have responsibility for all of the other municipal…. Unless the minister that’s sitting here is making the decisions in Municipal Affairs.

Having a conversation about how this links with the billion-dollar plan…. Not just that we have a billion-dollar plan so that you can say that we have a billion-dollar plan, but how does it link with the billion-dollar plan, the discussion around that plan, the potential future of that plan? It’s actually an important piece.

The minister has just sloughed it off and said: “Well, it doesn’t make a difference.” I argued. I said, “Okay, well, you could actually physically link it in the bill” and gave the minister that option. But no, they chose to fracture it, so now we’ve got two bills.

And now that we have two bills, is the minister not concerned that he’s unable to provide the context in the way that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will absolutely be able to provide in terms of the funding programs that this provincial government and, specifically, that Minister of Municipal Affairs is delivering to local governments in the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s true that federal and provincial governments have to continue to support local governments with infrastructure. I spoke about the $1 billion to support local governments. The member says maybe it’s ten times more, the need. Maybe. We know the need is great in communities. Certainly, some smaller communities have even greater needs.

The member was asking questions about future spends. The answer would have been the same from whatever minister gives you, which is that it’s a process that we have to go through with Finance. We have to go through Treasury Board. Unless it’s been announced, you’re not able to announce future plans. So I can talk about the funding that is available now.

Then the other piece is…. When the funding goes out to communities, whether it’s our government, the previous government or a previous government before that, it’s important to know where the money went. It’s important to know what the infrastructure went to.

The member characterized it as just so that we can, you know, put up a sign or something. It’s important to communicate, but it’s also really important to know where the infrastructure dollars went because when we go into estimates, we’re going to be asked questions about that $1 billion, about where communities put those dollars, and we need to have that information available.

A. Olsen: Yeah, the point about…. I think that what’s important is that the minister doesn’t get confused that I’d be asking the same questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as I’m trying to get from the Minister of Housing. We would have a much different conversation about…. We likely would have had quite a long conversation about how this fits within all of the programs and services that Municipal Affairs is responsible for.

Again, what we’re hearing is: “This is good enough. Just trust us that it’s good enough.” The minister will throw $1 billion around a couple of times to make everyone feel like it’s good enough, yet municipalities and I think electoral areas are somewhat concerned.

[5:50 p.m.]

There were some changes I think the fund could deliver, and that would be some amendments to the electoral area distribution. I think that could have been some work, could have had that conversation, in addition to how it has impacted those local governments on the southern Gulf Islands that could have accessed funds.

The point need not be lost that we need to understand what the total cost of the infrastructure is. The fact that the minister can feel accomplished saying that we don’t know what the infrastructure deficit is, but that it feels like we’re solving it….

“Feel like that. Get the feeling like we’re solving it. Billion, billion, billion, billion. Did I say it enough? I feel like it.” There’s no fact-based conversation that we can have here where we’re working from the same set of facts. The minister is reluctant, and has been reluctant for two weeks, to provide facts, data, stats and analysis. It all has to come after the fact.

I think that an incredibly important part of the whole package that we’ve been putting forward is the infrastructure. I’m just wondering if the minister can confirm that infrastructure financing can come, from this bill, for the dams, the dikes, the culverts and wildfire suppression.

I know that there are fire halls. Can the minister talk about how this bill will impact the ability of local governments to provide the infrastructure that’s needed, in those neighbourhoods that I was talking about in the earlier bill, and that this minister is going to require to be built, even though they might be marginal, and insurance companies might suggest that they shouldn’t be built there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I understand the point he’s making, that the infrastructure needs are great in communities. I said $1 billion. He said it’s probably ten times that. We can go back and forth on that, but $1 billion is significant to supporting communities. It’s welcomed by communities. The flexibility for them to use the dollars for what they need is important.

A few years before, we had another $1.2 billion fund with the federal government partnership, investing in Canada. Of course, that went to important things. Those types of partnerships are going to be important as we go forward. The federal government, as I’ve shared, has already signalled that they’re going to come in with infrastructure dollars attached to housing. They have the housing accelerator fund, which is important.

I say that because we’re going to invest and support local governments, but it’s important that the federal government do that as well. We’re going to have to find ways to partner with local governments to make that happen.

[5:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does the minister agree that understanding what the target is, is an important thing in order to understand how we’re going to generate the revenue that we need? How did the minister arrive at the results that we see here in Bill 46 on how much money is generated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation sets out rules to ensure that charges are reasonable, including a few things.

Many cost charges can only be used to pay capital costs and must benefit the development being charged. Local governments must consult with the development community on planned amenities and the charge on development. Local governments must conduct an economic analysis to ensure that proposed rates do not deter development. Costs must be shared between existing and new users, and developers only pay for the portion allocated to the new users.

The Chair: We have time for one more question. We will be recessing at six.

C. Oakes: In 2013, we signed a bilateral ten-year agreement with the federal government for $2.3 billion. That work went in to support local governments across British Columbia, specifically for small-scale water systems, for the type of infrastructure that we’re now looking at creating legislation for. It’s almost like this government is abandoning work on the bilateral agreement with the federal government.

Has the government abandoned this ten-year agreement, which runs out this year? It was a ten-year bilateral agreement with the federal government, $2.3 billion that goes towards local governments and that was supposed to be renegotiated so that funds would actually go to local governments.

If I had the minister for local government, I could ask that minister specifically, but perhaps this minister could reach out and find out where those negotiations are at.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. That $2.3 billion fund is in the process, right now, of being renegotiated with the federal government. We’re hoping that it’ll be a positive outcome.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee will be in recess until 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:59 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We are on Bill 46.

Interjections.

The Chair: The Chair has the floor. Thank you for that support.

Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

A. Walker: In communities that already have community amenity contribution policies, will this bill, when it becomes an act, replace those or make those null and void?

[7:05 p.m.]

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

No, it doesn’t. This is just a new tool that’s available to communities.

A. Walker: I appreciate the intentions of this bill to add predictability to development. I mean, one of the challenges that we’ve seen with community amenity contribution policies is they create a situation where developers could have an application come before council and have absolutely no idea what the cost is that they will have to pay for those amenities.

Is there a reason why those existing community amenity contribution policies are allowed to continue in a world where we recognize that maybe those are not the most transparent forms of contributions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A lot of folks showed up. The late-night duty is a popular one.

To the member, the new tool, we believe, is way more effective. I agree with the member. It creates more certainty for everyone involved. The intention with this is to make it in a way that all local governments will want to adopt it, and we suspect many will adopt it. But it is another tool that’s available right now.

A. Walker: I was going to ask this question in Bill 44, and it sort of related to this. Hopefully the minister can understand the overlap between having two fairly similar bills.

In the community of Qualicum Beach, there’s currently an amenity contribution policy that every time a property is rezoned, each individual property is assessed to determine what the uplift or land lift would be. The private property owner has to pay 50 percent of that amount.

What we’ve seen through Bill 44, and I was hoping that this bill would sort that out…. What we’ve seen through Bill 44 is a requirement by next June that a whole swath of my community has been rezoned. That amenity contribution policy, if it is to remain in place, could lead to a significant cost to many, many homeowners.

Is that…? I guess through the bill, this one that we’re debating here right now, there’s no intention to restrict that type of blanket uplift policy that’s been considered here.

Hon. R. Kahlon: First thing, it is important that the municipal governments will need to get their own legal advice on how to proceed, which tool is more beneficial for them. I think that’s the first important piece.

[7:10 p.m.]

It’s hard for me to give you an exact answer, because I’m not sure of the specific policy that you’re talking about for your community, but this new tool will enable local governments to be able to gather the revenues they need for the amenities in a more certain way.

We were having a little bit of a tough time understanding the specifics of what you’re talking about, but generally, this is a new tool, but the member is correct to note that as rezonings become less, because the communities will be upzoning their communities, many communities will want to adopt this new tool.

A. Walker: The minister, in a roundabout way, answered the question. It was just: does this bill consider that? The answer is no. That’s fine.

One of the reports that was originally mentioned by the minister early on was the Opening Doors report, which is quite a fulsome report about the challenges that we face in our communities. The tenth recommendation is that the provincial government conduct a full review of local government revenue sources and spending responsibilities. It’s around this idea of amenities.

Has that review taken place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry for the delay. Just getting the specific language the member was referring to.

The second part of it is exactly what we’re doing here. This review should include consideration for digital enhanced funding resources for infrastructure amenities that are more predictable and do not rely on rezoning of the development process.

The portion of the full review — the top part of that, I think we’re talking about the same thing — is work that’s happening with our ministries, with UBCM right now.

A. Walker: It’s disappointing that this hasn’t taken place because, if you read the full paragraph, it says: “This review should include consideration of additional or enhanced funding sources for infrastructure and amenities that are more predictable.” This bill does that. “And do not rely on rezoning of the development process.” This relies on the rezoning of the development process. The idea of an amenity contribution through a rezoning process or through the development process is exactly what we have here.

I guess the question I have is we’ve already canvassed that communities have amenity contribution policies already. Those will be allowed to be maintained.

[7:15 p.m.]

There’s a new tool that’s being used. As we look at other options, it says: “Preference should be given to means that capture land value through taxation rather than homebuilding.” This bill that we’re talking about is through the homebuilding process, not through the taxation process.

What consideration has been taken as far as looking at the mechanisms that local governments can use as far as loan amounts for long term capital, as opposed to using these, whether they’re development cost charges or amenity contributions? What consideration has taken place as far as other mechanisms that could be used to ensure that some of these long-term assets could be funded through debt, which would be a far more equitable way of making sure that both new and current homeowners are able to contribute to that amenity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are three parts to this.

First, the review is happening. I’m not sure if the member heard me, but the UBCM and the ministries are doing that review right now.

The member said this relies on rezoning. This new tool does not rely on rezoning, and so I’m not sure what that miscommunication is, but this new tool does not rely on rezoning for the revenues.

The third one around loans, etc. That ability exists through the Municipal Finance Authority.

C. Oakes: First, I want to acknowledge that we have staff that have now come from local government ministry. I think that’s critically important as we canvass these pieces of legislation, and I know the good work that the ministry of local government do.

As we’ve been following through a lot of these pieces of legislation, one thing that we haven’t really delved into and understand how each of these bills interconnect is around the Community Charter, specifically section 226, as a tool for local governments on how we can support….

It is a tool that local governments have to utilize. I wonder what the contemplation was in all of these bills, specifically this one and this clause, of providing a tool to local government specifically as it relates to the Community Charter and section 226.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can the member maybe rephrase it, because we’re trying to get an understanding of….

I know the member’s got experience in this file. I’m just getting an understanding of how that specific piece that she mentioned relates to resources or funding for local governments. If the member could just help us out, and we’ll get the answer?

[7:20 p.m.]

C. Oakes: What I’m trying to gain through the ministry is section 226 is a tool, often, that local governments can utilize in order to fund different types, specifically around industry rates and things like that. It’s a powerful tool that local governments can access on how they fund amenities in their community.

I’m trying to understand. We’ve got lots of discussion in these bills around the Local Government Act. I haven’t heard a lot on the Community Charter and, specifically, the tools. It speaks to the importance of understanding the responsibility of the local government ministry and how it’s working with the Ministry of Housing to make sure that all of these different acts and legislation ensure that local governments continue to have the tools that they need.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Clearly, it’s a person who was a former minister of this file. It’s a very detailed question.

There are two tools. I just put it in the record. I know the member knows this. The tool the member referred to…. It has got property taxes. It has got the ability to support forms of revitalization in communities. And this is focused on development. So they’re different. They’re just two different tools.

This is another tool that’s available now to local governments to help ensure that amenities that need to come with growth in community can be resourced for local government.

A. Walker: So the three points from before. I appreciate that that review is taking place with UBCM. Was UBCM consulted on the bill as it is right now? And did they, as a body, agree and encourage this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct. I shared earlier that UBCM passed a resolution to have this type of tool made available to them. I won’t repeat it in the record.

[7:25 p.m.]

Many communities passed resolutions asking for this type of thing. And of course, for UBCM, they really welcomed the transparency and certainty that comes with this new amenity charge tool. There’s some work that we still need to do with local governments around unique needs in each community. But generally, they think this is fantastic.

A. Walker: UBCM has also called on this government to fund 40 percent of these types of infrastructure projects. Is that a consideration, as this bill was being brought through? Is that a consideration that UBCM could expect? I know that UBCM received a letter back in 2017 saying government was looking at doing this. I’m just wondering if that’s something that’s being considered.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member is referring to our grant program, with the 40 percent. There are conversations happening between UBCM, Municipal Affairs, Finance, etc., right now.

A. Walker: Yes, that’s important, because as this bill lays out, you cannot over-collect. So if local governments are looking at collecting whatever that dollar amount is, if they can anticipate a certain amount to come in from provincial government, then they don’t want to collect that money and then be in a situation where they’ve over-collected.

The minister mentioned that local governments can have access to loans through MFA. Of course, MFA offers tremendously good rates for loans. But the process is very cumbersome for local governments. Unless it’s under a specifically exempted clause, it requires electoral assent.

The tenth recommendation from this opening doors policy was that the preference should be given to capture land value through taxation rather than homebuilding. That’s why I brought up that question and comment as to why this bill doesn’t take into consideration the inflexibility of borrowing, as it requires electoral assent. What was the consideration? Why was that not a part of this bill?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The borrowing that the member referred to…. Local government has to engage the public quite a bit. But of course, I think he fully understands that the public will be responsible to pay that loan back. So that’s why those kinds of stringent rules are in place for that.

[7:30 p.m.]

That being said, the specific piece around the land value capture piece is a conversation that Finance is leading, because it’s a tax measure. They are engaged with UBCM and others on it, but I can’t provide a further update on where that’s at.

A. Walker: I see that as a tremendous barrier for local governments. Yes, it’s a burden that future members of the community will have to pay. Either way, it’s going to have to get paid for.

Local government determines priorities. They establish those with their community. It can mean….

When electoral assent is required, if it’s a rec centre or something like that, it creates inequities where…. If you have to save up money for a really long time to build that amenity, often you’re losing substantial investment dollars as cost escalations go up, as inflation goes up and as the current users who have paid into that system no longer have access or won’t have access to that amenity. It creates some real inequities. The purpose of this bill, as I see it, is to eliminate some of those inequities.

I don’t need any comments from the minister on that, unless he so wishes.

I do want to correct…. I did mention rezonings. When this gets triggered…. Of course, it’s through the subdivision process or the building permit authorization process, but often that is the rezoning process.

As we go through and local governments consider this new tool that they have access to, compare that with the community amenity contribution policies that already exist in our communities…. The community amenity contribution policies are very flexible. They can come up with any rules they want. You contrast that with this. You have to create that balance between new and existing users.

What incentive would there be for local government to even use this tool, as opposed to continuing to use the inflexible and untransparent amenity contribution policies that exist across the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. I appreciate the member’s question. I think that the level of certainty and the planning that come with this tool are incentive enough for local governments to want to use it, especially as we’re moving to having more rezoning of properties up front. It makes more sense to be using this tool as they move forward.

I can share that many communities have already told us that they’re going to start right away, start shifting towards this. It gives staff more predictability. It also gives the proponents coming in a lot more certainty. I know that communities are going to start adopting it because it makes sense for them.

A. Walker: I see the predictability for a developer. I mean, you’ve got a clean document that itemizes each individual amenity. There’s a formula for how that’s calculated. They know when they bring an application forward what they’re going to pay.

[7:35 p.m.]

We also know that local governments use to their advantage the fact…. If they have a policy right now where they are the arbiters of that…. We have a land lift policy in one of the communities in my constituency. That land lift assessment is done by staff. So they can determine what they feel is appropriate.

Yes, it creates more certainty for the development community. It eliminates that ambiguity or that power that council has right now.

I appreciate that there are some local governments that are looking at this as trying to create a more streamlined development approval process. That’s to be commended.

I’m trying to understand, for communities that want to have that arbitrary power granted to local governments…. And it’s not entirely arbitrary. I mean, they have to have clear policies for that.

I still don’t understand the rationale as to why communities that have these amenity contribution policies…. I’m thinking of the one in my community. I think the funds are basically for general revenue. They go to an asset. They don’t have to fit under this class of amenity under 570.1. Literally, it’s a free-for-all.

I want to ask the minister again: recognizing this information, what incentive is there for a local government that wants that arbitrary power to move towards this formulaic process?

The Chair: Could I ask the side conversations to step outside the room, please?

I’ll recognize the minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Don’t mess with this Chair.

Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. Unanimous support, I think, would….

Thanks to the member. I appreciate where the member is going with this.

There are some communities that like that negotiation. Maybe it’s a benefit for them to be able to negotiate. I know sometimes it takes years for that negotiation.

What this tool does…. Yes, that negotiation would go away with this new tool. What I think it does — and you’ve already made it clear — for the proponent coming forward, whether it’s a not-for-profit or a for-profit builder…. It gives them certainty, for sure. They know up front what their costs are.

Really, a challenge that we’ve heard from that community, the home-building community, is that going through that process and investing so much money up front to do something and then getting to a protracted negotiation…. It puts a lot of projects at risk. Then they’re like: “Oh, man. We’ve already invested this much. What do we do?” So it makes it really challenging for projects to go through. That’s the home-building side of the community.

What we’re saying with this tool is…. It actually gives the municipality, the local government, a lot of predictability as well. This is why UBCM called for it. This is why the local governments are working with us on it. It allows them to have upfront planning. It allows them to know how much revenue is going to come for what amenity, have the community engage and make public what amenities they want to build.

It actually gives everybody more certainty. I think that’s why it’s being received the way it has been from local government.

Yes. The new tool does move away from that negotiation that sometimes happens.

The Chair: We do have a quorum in the room, so if people are having a side conversation, if they could step outside, that would be great.

Recognizing the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. Like all good Chairs, you’re laying down the law. You’re doing it with a smile, and I appreciate that.

The minister has made it very clear that this tool adds consistency and predictability, but again, local governments can continue to use the old tool. That’s what’s going to happen in some communities, and that’s up to the councils to make that decision.

Has there been any consideration, as this moves forward…? I know there’s a clause in here that provides some restrictions on this. When these amenity contribution policies are put in, they’re based on new homes. The idea is that new people to a community are paying for their impact on the community. As we go through the list of different amenities that would be captured by the social, cultural, heritage, recreational, environmental and then a list of some examples…. It’s quite broad.

I see a tremendous risk of local governments putting together a laundry list of things they’d love to see in their communities and costing them out, with an intention to build them way down the road. All these little earmarked amounts will go into different reserve accounts for different amenities, to the detriment of affordability.

I do recognize there’s a clause further on that says that these can’t be used to impact affordability. Again, that’s arbitrary, and it’s to be tested.

[7:40 p.m.]

What consideration was there, when this was drafted, about the impacts on communities of local governments putting in so many amenities? Those costs become so high that it actually deters development in our communities.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is going to be a little bit longer answer, but I want to put this on the record.

I want to just lay out the process for local governments to implement the amenity cost charge.

First, they determine areas for projected growth based on official community plans, housing needs reports and other planning documents and then assess the current state of amenities, identify what amenities are needed to support increased supply in areas of projected growth and capital costs of these amenities.

Then they develop contents of the amenity cost charge bylaw, which identifies the area or areas where charges will be imposed, the amenity project list for each area, the amount of charges for each area to fund the identified amenities.

Next, the local government needs to determine any waivers that will be provided — affordable housing, etc. — and then consult the proposed amenities and rates with affected parties, such as folks in the development community, the public, neighbouring communities, First Nations. And then, of course, incorporate that feedback.

So that’s the process. Now, the member asked about checks and balances. Charges can only be imposed for development that results in growth and that benefits from these amenities. Charges are restricted to one-time capital costs, which must be shared between existing residents and new residents. Developers only pay the portion for new residents.

Rules to prevent against double-charging for amenity projects and to require consultation…. There’s a public accountability measure such as a rule about how the charges may be spent. Lastly, authority for the province to set specific requirements and limit costs if needed….

A. Walker: I appreciate that. That outlines the process, but it doesn’t really get to the crux of the question, which is: what happens when a local government earmarks all sorts of additional amenities that drive up the cost of new construction? In my community right now, the sewer DCC alone for a new single-family home is something like $27,000. You add to that additional costs that are to be borne by new development.

If we have a council that says we have enough child care right now, which in my community, we don’t…. Say they accept that; and say they accept that the water infrastructure in their community is sufficient for the existing homes — which again, those depreciate; and say they list all these different amenities…. They say: “We’re fine now, but every new home that comes in, well, that’s a big cost.” They have that discretion to set that balance between existing homeowners and new homeowners, and they have the potential to add all sorts of new amenities to that list.

The question originally was not how the process works with the checks and balances, but what happens when this list of new amenities that are being charged for new homes gets to the point where it’s so cost-prohibitive to see the type of development that we want to see in our communities so people can afford to live there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think I said this, but I’ll say it again. Local governments must consult with the development community on planned amenities and the charge on development. Local governments must conduct an economic analysis to ensure proposed rates do not deter development.

[7:45 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Building on what my colleague just was canvassing about the list of amenities, so what happens? I certainly have had this experience in local government. When the local government sets forward a list of amenities that they decide are important to move forward, they put it into a capital reserve account.

The development takes a significant period of time to move forward, and a local government decides to access that capital reserve account for different projects. So what’s to stop a local government…? Four years is a very small amount of time in the development field. What’s to stop a local government from going and accessing that capital reserve account and using it for other projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The dollars are tied to a reserve area, and it requires a public bylaw. So it’s a very public process. This ties into clause 7, where there are details and rules around it.

A. Walker: The minister said that these new provisions that are going to be allowed to local governments for amenity cost recoveries are not able to deter development.

Again, this comes back to the reasonableness question that we talked about before. In my community, between all the various fees, you could be looking at $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 per home in amenity contributions. The fact is that these assets cost money. The idea that the provision says “can’t deter development” will not restrict local governments from bringing this to be so excessive that some homes don’t get built…. I’m not saying that all homes won’t, but it will deter some homes.

Has there been any consideration about the impact as we see the rezoning of single-family lots to allow for four homes? The impact of this potentially means that in a home that could have four people living in it, four families living in it, we might only see three or two, because it will impact the balance of the costs and may become cost-prohibitive to fully maximize the utilization of that lot.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I understand where the member is kind of going with the question, but that’s why the economic analysis piece is important. That step is going to be important because they may find from the economic analysis that they’re making projects unviable, which would be contrary to what the rules have laid out in the legislation.

M. Bernier: Just trying to wrap my head around this a little bit, if the minister will indulge me, because legislation through the ACCs, DCCs, the minister keeps saying, cannot deter investment. By whose standards? By what measure? By what level are we looking at when we say “do not deter investment”?

And how will the minister know if investment is deterred? As a former mayor, I know when we were talking about any form of DCC, some of our contractors said we may not invest at all if you actually put this in. We talk about reasonableness, whatever that means. It sounds very arbitrary to me.

Can the minister actually explain how he will be able to determine if investment has been deterred? Because when we’re looking around right now, nobody’s not saying that we have a housing shortage, and a lot of people can point to different reasons for that.

I won’t get into my political narrative of what I think has caused a lot of it, but I think in all fairness, everybody judges differently what they think will be a reasonable investment and return on their investment if they want to change the zoning, if they want to put in a duplex, fourplex. They might change their mind. I mean, there are so many things on this that could be arbitrary.

How will the minister know if a community has deterred investment through anything they’ve done through a DCC or ACC?

[7:55 p.m.]

The Chair: I was going to declare a recess.

Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the members for letting me step out for 30 seconds to pick up my son’s call. I’m single-parenting right now, and any time he calls, I think the house is burning down. It wasn’t. It was a pocket dial. Here I thought my son cared enough to want to see how I’m doing. So I appreciate that.

I appreciate the member’s question, because any cost might be seen as something that is a challenge for somebody that wants to build a home. I think generally there’s an understanding — whether you’re a homebuilder or a local government or public — that we need infrastructure to support housing. There are a couple of things.

One, I think the economic analysis will help us get a lot of the information of what’s viable, what’s not. That’s the first important piece.

The second piece is that we are also going to be developing guidance to support local governments to set expectations for local governments and the development community about how this tool will work.

Lastly, section 570.93 also gives the inspector of municipalities the ability to go in and ask for more information from a local government. It’s not the same as DCC, but they do have the ability to go and get information from a local government if there are issues and bring it to the attention of government.

M. Bernier: I think it’s really important just to highlight the fact that…. I’m glad I was able to make the minister laugh there.

I think it’s really important to highlight the fact that there are so many nuances and things that could change, it’s hard to actually quantify what a deterrent would be. Especially when you look at rural British Columbia, you could have a place like Quesnel that is struggling in the forestry sector right now.

People might make investment decisions on building or not building based on that. It has nothing to do with the development cost charge. Or an AAC — that’s brought in as well.

That’s why I’m flagging this, as it’s going to be very hard to quantify. Municipalities will have expectations of what they want to see and what they need, but that doesn’t necessarily, from what I’m seeing, match what the government’s expectations are.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

That’s why I just wanted to try to get a more clear answer of how we quantify, how we gauge. What’s the litmus test on this, on where somebody is actually deterring? How do you compare those, right?

[8:00 p.m.]

If a municipality comes in and says: “We want to have a development cost charge and AAC of X,” and there’s no investment taking place, there could be no investment taking place for 20 other different reasons. How do we compare…? How do we figure that out?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s points. And Uncle Mike called a second ago, so I appreciate that as well.

There are a lot of variables. The member is correct. It could be local market conditions. It could be interest rates. It could be a whole host of variables that put pressure on projects. I appreciate that point.

What I would say to that is: the biggest thing this tool does is create more certainty and predictability. I would say that is the key piece here. It’s the reason why we have local government saying this is helpful for them. It’s the reason why we have homebuilders coming out and saying this is helpful for them, because it creates a level of predictability and certainty.

And yes, from community to community, there’ll be variables as far as what amenities are needed, etc. I take the member’s point for that. But knowing up front and having that clarity, I think, is a really important piece that will help to get more housing built in our communities.

The Chair: Of course, Members, please turn off the technology.

Interjections.

The Chair: I don’t know. He might turn into a cat or something. We’ll see.

A. Walker: Certainty is something that, of course, is tremendously important.

How is that certainty guaranteed, though, when there are regulatory-making powers that have been granted to limit the maximum of amenity contributions and the economic analysis for how those are to be determined?

If regulation does change for an existing…. If a local government has already established its amenity cost recovery plan, and regulation comes in that changes the maximum, or it changes the business analysis, are the existing plans allowed to continue to function? Or are they required to be updated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We seem to have three different understandings of the question. Can the member just, maybe, rephrase that question for us?

A. Walker: The goal of this all is to have certainty. The minister mentioned that there’s going to be an economic analysis that will provide some guidance to local governments. That economic analysis can change. It’s set through regulation; it’s not set through this act.

That same regulation-making power also allows there to be a cap on the limit for these amenity cost charges.

So the question is: how…? One, what does that process look like? Two, if there’s an existing amenity cost recovery plan that a local government has put together, and the regulations have changed, will the amenity cost recovery plan that council has enacted be forced to change to reflect the new regulation?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know we’re getting into a bit of a hypothetical down the road. But I do think that the member’s got a good question.

Right now, obviously, with this legislation, it’s creating certainty where there’s no certainty. That’s, I think, understood. In the future, if a reg were to change, yes, communities would have to adjust to that. But the whole purpose of this is to create that certainty right now where no such certainty exists.

M. Bernier: I would make the opposite point. I mean, there’s tremendous uncertainty right now. This bill doesn’t eliminate the community amenity contribution policies that we see in communities all over this province that are, in many cases, arbitrary.

Now we have a new framework, which I applaud. I think it makes a lot of sense, in many respects, but that framework has a lot of the caps and maximums, and even the way it’s calculated is to be determined through regulation. We’ll see that when it comes out. That’s fine.

The fact that that regulation could at any point change in the future creates the opposite of the certainty that we’re trying to seek here, especially if a local government has to retroactively amend their amenity cost recovery plans based on future regulatory changes. That can have significant impacts to local governments who have set aside dollar amounts for fixed-cost items that, all of a sudden, they could see a lot less revenue for.

The last question I have is — I say that; sorry — just for clarity. This new power under Bill 46 will enable local governments to collect the costs, potentially, if they set up the plan, for the rezonings that take place under Bill 44. When the development permits take place, it’s presumed that this new tool could be used by local governments to collect for that increased amenity cost. Is that correct?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It would be correct to say that because communities will be pre-zoning to their housing needs reports, this tool will allow them to collect dollars for amenities because of that change.

M. Bernier: I delayed because I thought the minister was getting excited that we might move to clause 2, but I didn’t want to quite get there yet. Pretty close, but I just want to….

I’m still, if the minister will indulge me with all seriousness here…. He keeps saying that this brings in certainty. It brings in certainty. That’s the slogan, phrase — whatever you want to use. I’m trying to understand if the minister can quantify that for me. What I’ve been hearing so far is…. I don’t see how it brings in certainty. So he can try to do the sales pitch for me here to help me. If it’s still for the DCCs or ACCs….

I know we’re going to get to them in section 3 and section 7, and stuff like that. I do realize we’re going to get to specifics around that, but I want to, at this point here, just talk about the certainty before we get into the details of each.

How is there certainty if it’s not mandatory? How is there certainty if there’s flexibility in how the municipalities can choose to or not to do this? How is there certainty for a developer if you have two neighbouring communities, I’ll say Coquitlam and Maple Ridge, and one charges different than the other? Developers maybe pick and choose now.

How does that create certainty in the process? If the minister can explain that to me.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Selling this to this member might be a tough one for me, but I’m going to try my best to try to sell it to him.

The certainty comes because a proponent coming in, in the beginning, knows what their cost is. With negotiations, as the member will know, it can go in any direction. The cost can go in any direction. It can be prolonged, sometimes a year or longer, depending on the community. Many proponents…. I had a not-for-profit, for example, just recently, who told me that they went through a process. Actually, I’ll share an example from the province.

We had a project that went through for seniors housing. Everything was good. The money was there, and then we had some changes. The local government wanted to negotiate additional things. Additional parking. Additional CACs. So it created a real uncertainty about whether that project could go forward. That’s with us, as the province, building low-income housing for seniors. That is what I hear consistently from not-for-profits and from the general homebuilding community.

The certainty that comes now is that…. As we start moving to pre-zoning for housing needs reports, now the certainty comes from people who will know their costs in the beginning. They want to come through the door. They know what their cost is. Not only does that create a level of certainty. It also creates a level of transparency, because everyone now knows this is the cost. This is not only the cost, but what it is contributing to.

We’ve got mayors who have said they want this. The mayor of Abbotsford came out. The mayor of Langley has come out. A whole bunch of mayors — Vancouver. They all believe this is helpful for them, because it creates a level of transparency. They can do better planning. Then you’ve got the homebuilders community. They got the urban development issue, not-for-profit folks, who are like…. It gives both sides a level of certainty.

It doesn’t solve all the problems. There are still going to be challenges, no doubt, but there’s a level of understanding of what the cost is in the beginning, which creates more certainty for everyone along the process.

M. Bernier: The minister’s right. He wasn’t able to sell me on it through that answer. I’m still trying to understand where the certainty comes in. I stand to be corrected.

[8:15 p.m.]

If I understand the minister, municipalities will still be able to go through a negotiation process. That would take place at the front end. Fair enough. But that doesn’t give certainty to a developer right off the bat. What it tells me is that it gives certainty in an aspect where the municipality knows that they can go to the community once they come to an arrangement or an agreement gets solidified.

Where I’m curious on this is…. The minister knows I have a little bit of experience in the development side. The question I would have around that, then, is: can the rules of the game change for a developer? By that, I mean that there are many developers out there that are doing multiple projects within a municipality, but they don’t necessarily do all of them at once.

So if I go in and negotiate, let’s just say, the development cost charges that I’m aware of when I make my determination on the investment for the project…. I say: “Okay, I’m willing to — knowing what my costs are going to be now, because that’s been determined — negotiate whatever term we want to use.”

I know that in my building plan, I plan on building ten complexes. I negotiate the first two, and I start building. Most developers don’t go out and borrow the capital up front for all ten. They’ll borrow for a few. They’ll build. They’ll sell. They’ll build the next phase. They’ll build. They’ll sell.

How do we determine, if the minister wants to talk about certainty…? In the example I just said, if I was going to be building ten units in phases of two, as I build and sell, can the community change the development cost charges if it’s six months down the road, I’ve finished building two complexes, and I’m going to start the next two? Do I have to renegotiate what those cost charges will be on the next phase, or will it all be determined on all ten? Do I have to let the municipality know that I’m building ten over a four-year phase?

I hope the minister understands that there are a lot of nuances that build into this that cannot necessarily bring in certainty for the developer, unless the minister’s answer is that I would be expected to negotiate my five-year capital plan on ten developments all up front to try to determine what the development cost charge is.

I guess that’s a long way of saying: can it change through the process, or is the municipality locked in on one determining factor on what the DCCs and ACCs will be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the first, I guess, confusion is that with this new tool, there’s no negotiating. Under the other models, there is negotiating. With this one, the cost is upfront. That’s the first separation.

This one is…. There’s a set cost at the beginning that you know. The member touched on another point, which is around in-stream projects, so projects that are in stream. I’ll refer him to clause 7, 570.91. It says that it ensures that new amenity cost charge bylaw does not apply to development projects if an application has been received by the local government by the date a bylaw is adopted. This ensures that a development project is not subject to an amenity cost charge that was not accounted for when they are project planning.

A. Olsen: I’m just going to ask a couple of questions here around the certainty and predictability.

[8:20 p.m.]

I feel like the minister has kind of used it in two ways. What I mean by that is that it gives everybody certainty and predictability because we’re bringing it in, but really….

Then the minister’s examples have been that it gives the development community…. It’s basically non-profits, but the development community mostly gets the predictability and the certainty. But that predictability and uncertainty doesn’t happen if the municipalities don’t bring this in, right? So it’s still up to the municipality.

When you take a look at Metro Vancouver or when you take a look at the CRD, it’s up to each municipality whether they want to bring this bill in or if they want to go with a system that they already have in place. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says that he fully understands the predictability for the homebuilding community. I think that’s what I heard him say, but if he didn’t, that’s okay, and I’m sorry.

There is predictability for them. There’s also predictability for local governments as well. I just wanted to touch on that, which is….

The mayor of Langley said: “The changes proposed by the province help address some of the challenges with our current system, including increasing transparency and speeding up the housing approval process.” The mayor of Abbotsford…. It’s both sides that are saying that this creates a level of certainty for everyone.

So, yeah, this is helping both local governments. It’s also helping the homebuilding community, and I don’t want to leave it hanging that it’s supportive of one over the other. Both can see a benefit from it.

The member’s other point is that as we move to having more pre-zoning done with housing needs reports where communities are planning for the future, the traditional rezoning, negotiations for CECs that happen in the rezoning process, over time, perhaps won’t be there for many communities. So that’s why this new tool is there — so that they can, in a predictable way, get dollars they need for the amenities they want to see built in their communities.

A. Olsen: Has the minister looked at what the impact would be if some communities opt in to this and some communities opt to continue going, and they’re kind of adjacent? One of the issues around the regions and having so many municipalities is the patchwork that can exist.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. Right now not all communities use DCCs, and that tool is available to them. It will be available for communities. They can decide. But it just would make sense as we move forward. This tool would make more sense for everyone to have that predictability of the funds for whatever amenities they need.

A. Olsen: For a couple of weeks, we debated a government that chose the tool of unilaterally taking a zone and turning it into something else. Why didn’t this government choose to just make this the plan — “This is just how communities extract it” — rather than arguing that we should have a patchwork because we have a patchwork? The patchwork doesn’t necessarily serve regions very well.

When you have a situation — I think it was alluded to here — with 13 zoning bylaws, for an example…. The zone in Oak Bay and the zone in Victoria and the zone in North Saanich are different. Similar; named something different. Probably arrived at, too, differently. So you’ve got this patchwork of policy across the region.

The minister has already shown the willingness to simply create a blanket approach. Why wasn’t such a process taken with this?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the way that this tool is structured…. Over time, I believe, most communities are going to have to use this tool, because communities are going to have to plan. They’re going to have to update their OCPs, their zoning, to their housing needs. Anything that’s within that community plan won’t go through that rezoning process where they normally would negotiate.

Over time, this is going to be the tool that will be used more by local governments. That’s why we want to make this tool available to them. It makes sense. I would expect the majority of local governments are going to shift to this tool just because of the certainty that it creates.

A. Olsen: I think that’s fine, and I understand the answer. I guess I’m just trying to get an understanding of the consistency of the government’s approach. That’s all.

Why take an approach where municipalities are forced to achieve something and create a problem in which, shortly, the place where those local governments would have received some benefit for the improvement of that property or the increase in value of that property, increase of people on that property, and replace it with this system?

Why not just say, “This is part of the package that we have. You get this new SSMU zone, and you get this new tool in order to be able to generate revenue for it. Where it’s applicable, this tool is applicable” and just make them consistent and connected with each other?

Clearly, I think that there is a linkage here. It’s just everywhere except for in the legislation and in the approach that’s been taken.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member just kind of said the same thing and what….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, can we have a little quiet in the House, please?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair. Two Chairs that we’ve had really enforcing the rules. I appreciate that.

The answer is the same as the answer I gave previously, which is that I expect most local governments are going to shift to this tool because it makes sense. It makes sense for them. It makes sense for predictability, especially given that they’re going to be zoning for their housing needs into the future.

A. Olsen: Using the powers that exist for local government now, could they create this tool?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, they could not. There’s no authority in the act to do so.

[8:30 p.m.]

A. Walker: The minister said that the power is not granted through the Local Government Act or the Community Charter, which enable local governments to do exactly this. Community amenity contributions are voluntary. I don’t like using air quotes in this space. I don’t know if Hansard picks up air quotes; probably not. So the power is not afforded to local governments right now — officially, through the act — but that power is already being established.

The minister says that this isn’t a power they have, but it is a power they have, because they’ve been using it, and it hasn’t been enforced. To this point as well, the minister said that this is a power that they may stop using in the future. Is there any intention, whether through the creation of Bill 46 or in general, to eliminate local government’s power to be able to do these voluntary contributions through CACs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s nothing in the bill to do that.

A. Walker: The question was: through the development of this act, was there a consideration to eliminate CACs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was no consideration to touch anything, other than to create this new tool.

A. Walker: We’ve seen, in other jurisdictions where DCCs are lower, that it can have a direct impact on lowering costs of housing. The example in Canada would be Quebec, which has a very different structure for amenity contributions. In communities like mine and in Vancouver, you can see costs that are tens of thousands of dollars or, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars. In Quebec, that number is in the hundreds or the thousands, and we can see that direct correlation to the cost of housing in general.

Is there any concern from government, by adding costs to the upfront costs of this development, that it will then translate directly into increased costs to homebuyers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The challenge, certainly, as I’ve said, that I’ve been hearing from not-for-profits or homebuilders is that negotiation is what’s killing projects. It’s that unknown of going in on a project and then not knowing what that one year of negotiating is going to look like, what that cost will be on the other end.

There are a lot of variables that go into whether someone proceeds to build a home — interest rates, market conditions, demand, etc. Those things will always exist, but it’s important to note — I think most people would agree — that in order for us to have the housing we need, we also need the amenities.

[8:35 p.m.]

I guess it’s a general question the member is asking, but my view is that local governments do need dollars for infrastructure. At the same time, we want to make sure that we can save time and money by putting certainty in at the front. That also has a benefit for projects to go forward.

A. Walker: I definitely understand the benefits for a developer or a builder for this. It creates that certainty. The question was that in jurisdictions like Quebec that have much lower DCCs, we see that translate…. It’s not just a correlation. There have been studies that I’ve seen online that link the lower DCCs to lower costs of real estate.

Here we are debating a bill that could dramatically increase the costs that developers pay when they build new homes. Those costs then are passed on to the people who purchase homes in our community. The question wasn’t: does this provide certainty? I recognize it provides certainty for developers. The question wasn’t: is it uniform, or does it provide a structure that could be consistently applied throughout multiple communities? We get that. It does.

We are adding a substantial tax on new home construction. That cost is going to be passed on to homebuyers. Is that a concern that the minister has — that these new taxes that will be put onto these homes are going to increase the cost of homes in British Columbia or, at the very least, won’t help us lower those costs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My belief, and that of those we’ve engaged with in the homebuilding community. is that having the pieces — in regulation, in clause 7 there, around the economic analysis and the need to engage all those pieces — creates a level of certainty to ensure that the costs are reasonable and that projects can remain viable. That’s why we built that into the legislation, so that it’s clear, with the recognition that if we don’t have that infrastructure, we’re not going to get housing anyway.

I would say most people understand that you need that infrastructure to enable that housing. This is that balance that we find. By putting those provisions in clause 7, it creates more certainty, more transparency, so that everyone knows what the cost is. Without this legislation, it’s a free-for-all. People can talk about whatever they want. They can negotiate whatever they want. A lot of projects are just done because of that process.

That’s why, I think, this tool is important. It lays out clearly the requirements for local government, what they need to do in order to get dollars for amenities. It puts the costs in at the front end, and it gets rid of that uncertainty that comes with not knowing what’s going to happen when you get into that negotiation or how long it’s going to take.

A. Walker: The minister has described very accurately the challenges with community amenity contributions. We see massive community amenity contributions.

I’m thinking of one development in my community. We have a policy in Qualicum Beach that the town is a beneficiary of half of the uplift of the value. We saw a single-family home make a request to put a second home on the property. I don’t remember the dollar amount, but I think it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars that council received as part of that voluntary contribution. So the challenge isn’t that this doesn’t provide that certainty. It does. The challenge is that it’s just another layer of tax.

We’ve got our DCCs, we’ve got our amenity contributions — which will, in many communities, continue to exist; yet we’ve got another layer of tax that’s going to be put on the front end. As the minister says, the challenge is that costs on the front end get passed through to the homebuyer when they go to buy that home.

Reading through the government’s own report, the Opening Doors report, it says: “Preference should be given to means to capture land value through taxation rather than homebuilding.” The challenge we have is that we have a policy that’s going to dramatically add costs on the front end instead of collecting those costs.

We know that the infrastructure costs are real. The cost of maintaining the services in our community — the social, cultural, heritage, recreational and environmental outlined in this bill — are huge costs to local governments. With the cost escalation that we’ve seen, whether it’s through COVID or just in general, every day those costs are going up dramatically. We know local governments need to collect those costs.

[8:40 p.m.]

The minister has pointed out that this adds those costs to the front end, to the developers. The concern that I have is that this is going to dramatically increase the cost of new homes in B.C. We know that clause 7 has that exemption, but when you add costs to the front end, they get passed along to the homebuyer. What consideration has the minister had to try to minimize that impact on new homebuyers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think I answered that question, which are the elements in clause 7, which ensure that there’s economic analysis done. All those variables that I’ve highlighted already are what gives us more certainty.

Not only that; I think it’s also important to note that this new tool can only charge for net new. If you’ve got five units and it’s coming down as five units, you can’t charge from the tool. It’s only for the net new portion.

I think the provisions we put in clause 7 help us get a level of certainty that local governments can have the dollars they need for amenities but that it’s not so much that it deters development. We can go over and over again, but it’s clause 7. It’s got those details.

A. Olsen: Interesting that the question…. The member for Parksville-Qualicum….

In the minister’s response talking about net new, I’m wondering what the impact of that is, then, on how the municipality can recoup for the buildings that are already there — the neighbourhoods that were built in the 1960s or 1970s, where the infrastructure is diminishing, degrading and needing to be replaced. If the contribution that is collected is only going to be on…. If it goes from five to ten, it’s only on the five new units. There’s still a load that the original five are carrying.

I’m just wondering: how does this dissuade the local governments from not also having the amenity contributions that they already have in place?

The minister hasn’t deconstructed the systems that are already in place. They’re just adding this new system on top of it. The fact is that local governments still have all of the costs from maintaining and upgrading all of the infrastructure that’s in place.

Maybe I’ll ask it this way. Were there any other models that the ministries looked at other than the amenity charge scheme that has been laid out here? Were there other systems that were looked at, other jurisdictions that were reviewed, and how was this determined to be the best system?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll go backwards to say we did the jurisdictional scan. We looked at other models. We looked at Ontario’s model, but it was felt that this was the most effective tool for British Columbia.

The member made a point earlier around why local governments would use this tool. I just want to say it again for the record. As communities do their housing needs report and start zoning their communities for that need, that rezoning process is no longer there.

Because that rezoning process is no longer there, they’re not able to capture the dollars they need for amenities. This tool allows them to still capture those dollars, because no other tool will be available to them. I just wanted to reemphasize that. The member’s nodding, because he understands. I just wanted to make sure, for the record, that was clear.

If I can just ask, Chair, for a short recess?

The Chair: Yes, this committee will take a short recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 8:44 p.m. to 8:48 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will call this committee back into session — Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

And already on his feet…. Which one?

Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. I thought we had more time, so I apologize. I think there’s another member here that was hoping to continue on these discussions.

The minister mentioned the Ontario model and that that wasn’t something that was considered. What other jurisdictions were looked at as far as how to equitably charge for both development cost charges and amenity contributions, and why was this model chosen as opposed to others? What is the Ontario model, and what are some other jurisdictions that could be looked at?

[8:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for his interest in this.

We did do a comprehensive jurisdictional scan. I would say that a lot of the pieces in this are similar to Ontario. That was probably the most closely resembled model. We also considered Halifax and Alberta. We didn’t consider Quebec, just because they have totally different legal practices.

So we took pieces from different places, but really, what we have here is kind of a made-in-B.C. solution. This came from local governments. It came from our homebuilders community. We took best practices from different jurisdictions and made it something that works for the communities here in British Columbia.

A. Walker: I appreciate that. It’s a lot of work for staff to be doing that cross-jurisdictional scan, so I appreciate that.

The question was, though, that the minister said: “We’re not doing what Ontario did.” I was just wondering what the minister meant by that comment. You know, I have no idea what Ontario is doing with this. I know that’s the work that staff and the minister have led. Just looking for clarity. What is it that Ontario did that we’re not doing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve got the team getting the information on different communities and what pieces we’ve taken in, but I can take another question while we’re waiting.

A. Walker: Teamwork makes the dream work, so that’s great to hear.

There are provisions in here that require that local governments do not overcollect for these amenities, and of course, there’s uncertainty as far as what grants could become available and future grants that may come in.

There are also provisions under different clauses as far as how moneys are to be disbursed. What happens when a local government has collected more than they ought to have for an amenity based on grants that have come in or other costs that could have come in to collect against that?

[8:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are provisions in this to allow, if a grant comes in, for the dollars to move to another amenity within that reserved area. Of course, there are regular report-outs of special…. There is a process that is a pretty transparent process for that to happen, if a grant were to come in.

A. Walker: What is the timing of this bill? Both when this tool becomes available to local governments but also when the restrictions under clause 7, that will come in through regulation, will limit what local governments can do with this new tool.

Hon. R. Kahlon: At royal assent.

M. Bernier: I want to thank the minister for acknowledging the fact that through this process, housing in British Columbia is going to become even more expensive. The Housing Minister can chuckle all he wants, but he has acknowledged, through this process tonight — not just in this bill but other bills — that he’s allowing an additional tax to be put on, and he says it’s bringing certainty for developers.

The concern that I have is what we are hearing out in the public. Yes, we’re not getting enough housing. I find it very interesting that the minister, through this, appears to be more worried about the impact to developers rather than the actual people who are struggling to get into the housing market.

We are faced with an affordability crisis here in British Columbia. I don’t think anybody has argued that. The minister and his government continually stand up and acknowledge that they understand life is too expensive in British Columbia.

One of my concerns, again, is: can the minister point to a section in this bill…? I know we’re still on clause 1, and unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of time left, because the minister wants to invoke closure and not let us debate this bill, as we should be able to do in opposition, to its completion. But can the minister point to a place in this bill that highlights for me…? Prove me wrong. I’m more than willing to be proven wrong. Can he point, for me, to where it says in this bill that this is going to make housing less expensive, that it’s going to make it easier for somebody to get into the housing market?

What I’m hearing from the minister is that we’re adding charges, that it’s going to be more expensive.

[9:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Every single person that I know in this field, because of the housing shortage we have, will not come out and tell me that by building more housing, it’s going to lower the cost, when more costs are being added to the developers to build that housing.

I’m just trying to square the circle here and help the minister out if there’s actually an affordability crisis on housing. And I may have missed it. I know it’s a Municipal Affairs bill, not a Housing bill, but I may have missed it in here. I’m not trying to be cute by half here with the minister. But we do need to acknowledge….

Interjections.

M. Bernier: Okay, maybe I’m trying to be cute by a full here, not just by half.

We do need to acknowledge that we’re at the very end of a session. We’re at the point where we’ve been talking about: how do we make life more affordable for people? And government, through the Premier, has said: “Don’t worry. We’ve got this suite of bills that is going to make housing less expensive, to allow people starting out to get into the housing market.”

What I know, specific to this bill, is that…. The minister, again, can correct me if I’m wrong, if he has some amazing expertise that I’m not aware of in the housing sector.

If you have a brand-new housing complex that’s being built that has been charged development cost charges or ACCs, that all gets passed on to the purchaser. We all know that. The minister can’t dispute that.

If a developer has an extra $100,000 in taxes and fees, that project is passed on plus a profit. Because very few developers will build without…. They can’t borrow money. As we’ve talked about, they can’t get money from a bank unless they can prove that there’s at least a return on the investments, and the bank is good for their money.

What that almost instantly does is the other houses in that neighbourhood — the value goes up. You could have a 40-year-old house, and I’m making up examples here, but a 40-year-old house that’s worth, let’s say, a half a million dollars in a subdivision. You’ve got an expansion on the subdivision. Now the development cost charges are put in. And now, because of those development cost charges, an equal-sized home is now put in there, and it’s valued now and sells for about $700,000.

Yes, that other house is older. In every scenario that I’ve seen, that old house goes up in value. So not only is that brand-new development harder for a new person to get into, but now that old house, the value has gone up.

I don’t know if anybody can argue that. We’re seeing that take place right around our province right now.

A. Olsen: My neighbourhood.

M. Bernier: Saanich North and the Islands just acknowledged his neighbourhood. Maybe he’s in one of those older houses, though, that just went up in value. I won’t….

But we’re seeing it happen everywhere. And the reason why I’m flagging this is the minister keeps going back to saying that this is bringing in certainty. We have to remember that he’s bringing in certainty for developers, not for families that are struggling to get into the housing market.

Before I go to my next monologue with a question at the end of it, can the minister point in this bill where it actually will help achieve affordability for housing for our families?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member prescribed words that I never said.

I disagree with the premise of his previous statement.

What we’re saying with this is it creates a level of certainty. If this legislation didn’t come forward, communities would have the process that they have, which is, right now, getting the dollars they need for infrastructure, for amenities, for everything they need but it’s done in a way where there’s not as much transparency. There’s certainly no certainty or predictability for anybody in the process, because it can be a year. It can be two years. There’s negotiation.

I gave an example of a not-for-profit project that we are funding for low-income seniors. If that’s happening to us as a province, and we’re providing housing for low-income seniors, it’s happening to homebuilders across the province.

Let’s say this legislation doesn’t come forward. What do we have? We have a system where dollars are being collected, but it’s done in a way that does not give us any certainty or predictability.

[9:05 p.m.]

What this tool does is it creates a clear pathway so everyone knows the amenities, the infrastructure they need, but it’s done on the front end.

Now, why? Because we know that time is money, and so saving that time is very important. It not only will save time and money, but it also will create a level of certainty that will allow us to get homes built faster.

In the end, I assume…. Well, certainly the member across the way and I hopefully agree that we need more supply in the housing market. So part of that is to get that certainty. And at the same time, there’s certainty for local government so that they know that they can get the dollars for the amenities that they need.

There’s a reason why UBCM was asking for this, but there’s also a reason why the folks in the homebuilder community are excited about this as well. It’s a recognition that we need infrastructure to allow growth in our communities, but at the same time, it creates a level of certainty.

I appreciate that the member doesn’t want to support the bill, and that’s fine. But he can’t dispute that this creates more certainty and predictability, whether it’s coming from the homebuilder community….

And again, UDI — they’re in the homebuilding community. They’ve said that they’re “encouraged by this legislation, which aims to make development charges more transparent and predictable. Combined with the zoning measures announced last week, these are some of the most substantial changes to the development approval process in decades.”

I’ve read into the record others who talk about how…. Bridgitte Anderson, Vancouver Board of Trade, said: “This new legislation is welcome step toward more certainty and clarity that will improve timelines to build housing that we need.” I’ve got many of them. I read them into the record earlier.

I just fundamentally disagree with my friend across the way, because the opposite of this, if this legislation wasn’t there, would be that we’d have the system that we have, which, as we know, doesn’t create any certainty or predictability. What this recognizes is that we need amenities for our communities to ensure that we have housing but we also have healthy, vibrant communities.

This is an important piece. It was part of the DAPR review. It was part of conversations that we’ve been having a long time with local government partners.

I certainly don’t think the member is suggesting that local governments should not have those dollars. Maybe he’s suggesting that the province should fund all of that infrastructure ourselves and that the development community shouldn’t pay any of it. But we know there’s a balance, and that’s what we’re trying to find a balance on.

M. Bernier: I feel like I’m in the twilight zone or some weird, altered universe here when the minister is standing up and defending businesses, corporations, after they spent the last five, six years trying to scare them out of the province.

You know, what really upsets me the most of that answer is that I thought we were here to actually try to help families, to try to help people who are trying to get into the housing market. I asked a question that said: please show how this will make it better, cheaper, more affordable — opportunities for my kids, the minister’s child or children, that they will be able to get into a house someday. That’s what I was asking.

Yes, I understand the purpose of the piece of legislation that’s in front of us here, which is giving a tool to local government, as the minister is acknowledging. What I also just hoped the minister would acknowledge is that the people that are paying the price are actually the families trying to get into the housing market.

The minister said that I couldn’t put words in his mouth, so I’ll let him use his own words on this. I’m hoping he’s going to be at least honest and forthcoming with an answer. Probably shouldn’t use the word “honest;” forthcoming with the answer.

If there are additional costs to a developer to build a property for whatever reason — I’ll use the example of this piece of legislation, which is ACCs or DCCs — who pays them? Does the developer swallow those costs, or does he pass them on to whoever buys the property after it’s finished?

[9:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member started with families, but he ended with developers, in his comment. In the end, this is about families. We have got families across British Columbia that can’t find a home, that don’t have a home available to them. We have families across British Columbia that want a home, but they also want a home that has amenities nearby, because it’s not just about the home. They want to be able to live in a community that’s got all these things close to them.

We know that with greater certainty and transparency around the costs, we’ll be able to get more homes built faster. This is about getting homes for families quicker. That’s the work we’ve been doing with our Homes for People strategy.

So of course this is vitally important. Of course this is vitally important because we’re doing this for families. We’re doing this for the most vulnerable people in our communities.

I shared in committee stage the other day — and I know some people chuckled — that I’ve got 18 people living in a single-family home in my community.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s not funny. I agree with the member across the way. It’s not funny.

Eighteen people. Now, they came to meet with me, and they begged me not to say anything to the city, because they said: “What will happen if we don’t have an opportunity for a home?” That’s why we desperately need to get housing online.

I’m nervous about saying this next part because I suspect it’s going to open another conversation. But we need the private sector to play a role, and we need non-market housing as well. We need both. This is what it’s fundamentally about. This is why homebuilders are applauding this. This is why local governments are applauding this, because we know we need to ensure that we have that balance. If there are not some, I’d like to hear from the members about who they are.

We’re going to continue to ensure that families have the housing they need. And I think the level of certainty and transparency that comes with this…. If this didn’t exist, we know what already is there. This creates a level that is being applauded by everyone.

A. Olsen: I recognize that there are various conditions that need to be met through 570 that that could largely impact this. But has there been some modelling done — some selected communities? Plug in some numbers just to get a sense of how much these amenity costs could, in communities around the province…? Like, is there any way to understand the potential impact?

On the face of it, I mean, I absolutely agree with the minister, even though in the last couple of weeks…. Depending on how you viewed it, depending on how you looked at the debate, you might be able to think that we don’t agree on this. I think we do — the private sector and non-profit.

The debate that I’ve had with the minister has been about scale and scope. That’s what the debate has been about and where the focus should be. The claim that’s been made is that we need to get homes for people. We need supply. I have a challenge with the type of supply that’s being built. I want to make sure that these market homes are going to be largely coming out of this process that we’re talking about here that this bill will impact.

How much on a home is going to be the result of Bill 46?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities have to go through a big process still — identifying what amenities they need, putting it through, doing an economic study, doing all those things. So it’s hard to project what that will be. Some communities are growing faster than others, and there are so many variables involved that it’s hard to say.

Again, I want to emphasize that if this legislation didn’t come forward, communities would still be getting those dollars. I know maybe that’s not what the member is saying, but the point is still the same. Because of the variables involved, it’ll vary from community to community.

A. Olsen: Just because it’s different in different communities…. This bill was created with a set of parameters, and depending on what is put into those parameters, you’re going to get an output. And it’s going to be the amount that this Bill 46 costs a development or costs the customers, in that cost is added to the product that’s produced from this process.

[9:15 p.m.]

It seems to me to be quite remarkable that we would come up with 570.3, 570.4, 570.5, 570.6, all the way through, create the parameters for it and then not run some basic numbers to determine how much money is going to be generated out the back end of that. The minister has said: “Look, we need to be making sure….”

I agree with this. This was a huge part of the discussion that we had during the Bill 44 debate. There are costs, infrastructure costs. I agree.

I think this model is a good model. One of the weaknesses with the approach to this, frankly, isn’t the model. It’s the fact that the government didn’t say: “We need to streamline these models and make them consistent across….”

One of the ways to really strengthen the argument for consistency and certainty and predictability is to create consistency, certainty and predictability across the province by creating a tool. There has not been a good reason given that we can’t just have a single tool that helps municipalities generate revenue for all of the things that they need, rather than the very specific piece that has been selected here.

It’s kind of hard to believe that the people who drafted this did it and didn’t understand what the potential impact on the cost of a development will be. Either the government doesn’t know it — we haven’t done the modelling — or they don’t want to put the number attached to this out there.

It seems to me to be an impossible scenario. There haven’t been some just basic choices made. Put them in a model, and see what a potential outcome could be.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I highlighted, there are just so many variables involved, so it’s hard to do a calculation of this kind.

I think it’s fundamentally important to say two things and, maybe, re-emphasize this thing. If this tool didn’t exist, local governments would still find a way to get the revenue. The difference between this tool and that is that this tool ensures that it goes to an amenity.

My friend from Parksville highlighted that there are some communities that use that negotiation process for general revenues. It goes to costs, not even the amenity. It just goes to help with the bottom line.

What we’re saying with this tool…. The reason why it creates that certainty is…. What we’re shifting to is…. You have to identify what amenities you need. You need to lay it out. You need to have a bylaw. It creates certainty on the front. People know what the cost is. It’s going to an amenity in the community. It’s benefiting the community directly, on the ground, and it’s not going to general revenues.

If this tool didn’t exist…. People can say: “We don’t want to support it.” What exists now is not helping. There’s a cost associated with that as well.

This is not adding a net new cost. Those costs are being recovered anyway by local government for whatever amenity they need. In fact, many are using it for general revenues as well.

I appreciate what the member is saying. I’m just saying that this creates more certainty for everyone involved. Certainly, in the end, we want to get housing for people, for families who need it. This helps us do that and get the amenities that we want built.

A. Olsen: I think we’re saying almost the same thing all the way through to the end, with the exception of….

All I’m trying to understand is what the impact is. I’m not trying to find out what the impact of this is to then have it threaten this approach. I’m simply trying to understand the potential impact that this has on a home that’s being developed, because ultimately, that’s what….

When we’re talking about needing more homes, we need more homes that people can afford, right? I think having an understanding of how much the infrastructure costs are and then having a tool that is going to be able to produce that and streamlining that tool so that there aren’t both this and the DCCs and the others that could still delay it….

What I’m worried about, in terms of the certainty and the predictability narrative that the minister has been talking about so much, is…. You can’t guarantee that predictability and certainty. The community could continue to do what it’s already doing plus this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate what the member is saying and his comments. I agree with a lot of it.

What I’m saying is…. There are a lot of variables that are involved. It’s hard to come to a precise number, given that every community is different. They’re all growing at different rates.

[9:20 p.m.]

I would go a step further. I would actually argue that this will be more cost-effective. This will actually lower costs, because right now what we have are local governments using the negotiated process to get more dollars, not only for amenities but also for general revenues — not all, but many.

What we’re saying now is that it has to be tied to amenities. If the amenity was going to get built through the negotiation, it’s going to get built through this tool. The difference is that with this tool, it won’t be going to general revenue; it’ll be going to the amenity that the community needs.

A. Olsen: I accept the answer. Unfortunately, what’s outlined here in 570.1…. Those are not all of the costs that are associated with a development. They’re not all the costs that are related to a development, necessarily. There are a bunch of other costs.

Part of the going-to-general-revenue narrative — at the end, one thing that we know for sure is that local governments have to produce a balanced budget. They have to produce an audited statement at the end of it. They’ve got to show their numbers. They can’t mess around with those numbers. If they do, they’re in real trouble.

Even if we do use the argument, “Well, it goes into general revenue,” in the end, that local government uses it to offset the costs of running a municipality — whether it’s in general revenue or going to a public square.

I think that of all of these things, the public square is so great, because that’s a place for people to come together, talk about their community and celebrate with each other. I think those are cool things. What’s outlined here, through these amenities, is not the full set of things that local governments need to be able to purchase, maintain and upgrade.

With respect to what the minister says, without adding the full suite of things that a municipality needs in order to be able to operate and maintain, it’s actually encouraging the Bill 46–plus approach, which says, “We’re going to do Bill 46, we’re going to generate the revenue through that, and we’re also going to have this other thing” — the air-quoted approach that our friend from Parksville-Qualicum was talking about earlier. The air quotes: “You know, we’re just going to have this other process that’s a negotiation.”

Was there any concern that because this is such a limited list in 570, it just encourages the municipality to have another process? Admittedly, in this process, you haven’t taken those cleanly away. You’ve said: “We’d prefer you to use what’s up in the amenities here, but you can still have this other system.”

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was a lot of agreement. I really appreciate the member highlighting that, yes, the housing is critically important. That’s what we need. But we also need those other things, as well, to ensure that we have vibrant, healthy communities.

The staff wanted me to just read this process into the record, as well, just to emphasize that in order to implement the amenity cost charge, local governments will need to do a few things: identify areas where more housing supply is planned based on official community plans and planning documents and what amenities are needed to support that supply. Amenity cost charges would apply to new development in those areas.

They will next need to determine the amenity cost charge amounts following the rules set out in legislation, section 7, consult on development of the amenities and charge rates, and then pass bylaws that implement the charges.

It’s not a simple process of just saying: “Hey, we’re going to add this; we’re going to add this.” They have to go through a comprehensive process. And that’s good. I think local governments want that transparency with the public. The public knows what’s coming as well.

P. Milobar: Well, we established earlier that the development cost charge piece will still have to go to the inspector of municipalities for review, to make sure everything’s on the up and up with those calculations.

Those calculations are very, very complicated. I’ve been in the midst of them. We would do it every two years in Kamloops. You would bring the development community and the builders, you’d go through all the projects, and you’d figure out what your assist factors were for roads and parks and try to keep them competitive with neighbouring jurisdictions.

[9:25 p.m.]

You would go back and forth on whether or not potential infrastructure grants could…. If it were deemed to be 40 percent paid by growth, and 60 percent of a $10 million road paid for by existing residents, and you happen to get an infrastructure grant for $5 million, does that get split 60-40 as well? Or does it all go against the 60 percent, and then growth has to pay their full 40 percent?

All of those go into those negotiations. You then send your list of projects and the costing of those projects based on growth rates, based on OCP planning, off to the inspector of municipalities, and they review, and they say everything seems on the up and up. You can implement. The minister has said that on the community amenity charges, there isn’t that oversight. The minister said that, well, they just have to follow the list of what’s allowed or not.

Can the minister explain how, yes, the list is different? But it will be just as complex to come to costing, come to pricing, come to that split between growth and existing residents — all of those things — when there’s not an oversight body to review that and say this is fair and reasonable versus a municipality just saying: “Yes, we have the right to implement this, and we are deeming it to be 100 percent growth-related, so therefore, 100 percent of that amenity has to be charged.”

How does the community and how does the development community have any oversight with this if the inspector of municipalities is not responsible for the reviewing of this? In fact, no one is, according to the minister earlier on in this debate.

[9:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, there’s public reporting on all of the funds. That’s an important piece. The inspector of municipalities does review those funds. If there are issues that have arisen, that comes to government. So there is still an oversight ability for this and a system to ensure that dollars that are being collected are going for the right purpose.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Earlier, I was very clear with the minister. I asked specifically if the inspector of municipalities would be the person that municipalities would send their community charge to, and the minister made it very clear that, no, they would not need to do that.

Is the minister now saying that, in fact, they actually do? Because this, I think, highlights why this should have been a Municipal Affairs bill all the way through in the first place. But it would be nice if we could get definitive answers for municipalities out there, given that we’re going to have closure on this bill anyways — in terms of what the actual important pieces like this would be, in terms of whether or not they have to do that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member asked me: “Does it need to go to the municipal affairs inspector for approval?” I said: “It does not need to go to the inspector of municipalities for approval.”

What I’m saying here is that when the funds are collected, they have to go to specific accounts. There’s public reporting of that. I’m saying that the inspector of municipalities does review those accounts, and if there are issues, it can come to government directly.

It’s two different things.

P. Milobar: Well, I wasn’t asking whether or not the money would go into a separate bank account, like a water or sewer utility does anyways. What I was asking was about review. And if there’s no review, what is the process for somebody to adjudicate whether or not the charges are actually fair or not, and reasonable or not, when it comes to this new scope?

If it did have to go to the inspector of municipalities, you’ve doubled their workload. If it doesn’t need to go to them, how do developers, builders, home…? Just people that want to build something. If you want to build a sixplex on your personal family lot, you’re going to have to pay these charges.

What’s the recourse for that person to go to the government and say: “How was this approved through the city, and who signed off on it on the provincial end?” not “Who checked the bank account?” Who actually approved the whole amenity charge piece in the first place?

[9:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: What the inspector of municipalities reviews with DCCs — that entire part is put straight into this legislation. Clause 7 lays out all of the things that the inspector of municipalities would review. It comes straight into the legislation.

This process is actually more public. It’s more transparent, because bylaws need to be passed. So what clause 7 does is create standards or requirements to ensure consistency and clarity for local governments, development industry, the public, regarding amenity cost charges and how they are set and applied.

Sorry. It’s going to be a little longer.

Requiring local governments to identify the areas and amenities for which a charge will apply in those areas ensures that there’s a connection between where growth is anticipated to occur in the community, the amenities that are needed to support that growth and who is anticipated to benefit from those amenities. Example: developers, new residents who will live in the development, etc.

Requiring local governments to take into account considerations like capital costs, all amenities, whether the charges will deter development and allocate costs between existing and new users ensures there is a rigour to the process of determining charges.

This approach reduces the potential impact of charges on development viability to help prevent against development being deterred and helps ensure costs are allocated between new development and existing users who benefit from new amenities.

This also establishes checks and balances in the framework through regulation-making authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to adjust or limit charges, prescribe specific analysis that must be undertaken in setting charges, prescribe a standard method for allocating capital costs and amenities between existing users in the community and new users and set the amount of portion of costs attributed to existing users that local government must subsidize.

So what we’re saying is that the things that the inspector of municipalities, the powers the inspector of municipalities has, is now worked directly into this legislation, and all of that needs to be considered when local government moves forward and does it in a very public process.

P. Milobar: Well, again, that is fundamentally different. I take the minister with his answer there, but that is fundamentally different than how the minister characterized things at the very front end of discussion on this.

Again, I keep going back to the complexities of development cost charges and community amenity agreements because the framework, as the minister just said, is the exact same, which creates the same complexities.

The project name and what the project is might change. One thing might be a community centre, where there’s a development cost charge. It’s a water main, but complex nonetheless when you get into the calculations, how it’s based on growth and how it’s based on development and who should pay what portion or not.

I would also point out that, earlier on, the minister, with development cost charges — very early on — said police services and fire services. That’s a much different scenario for a development cost charge than police capital and fire service capital.

We certainly won’t have time before closure of this bill to get into that. But I certainly do hope it’s capital that’s being discussed and that the minister misspoke yet again, and it was actually not a service, because operational dollars certainly should not be funded by growth.

But when you look at the amenity charge, which is going to be brand-new, the fact there’s no cap set out by the government on this, the fact that you have it needing to tie in with growth plans….

[9:40 p.m.]

When you actually start to equate what Bill 44 will mean to a city in terms of the densification of single-family neighbourhoods up to 210 units per hectare on transit routes that have fifteen-minute service.

What that will do is…. If you have a 2 or 3 percent growth rate projected with your interim housing report, you would try to target that growth into certain areas so that you would only have to expand a water main and a road into the one area.

What’s going to happen now with official community plans…. They may show 3 percent growth, but it’s going to be spread out over the whole city in a disproportionate way without a targeting, which means your development cost charge bylaw is going to have to be better reflective of a 6 or 10 percent growth rate…

The Chair: Hon. Members.

P. Milobar: …to be able to properly service those areas. The same with the community amenity charge.

The Chair: Hon. Members.

Hon. Members, it being 9:40 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier today, the committee will now proceed to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill.

Members, a division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called, but in accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division.

With that, we will proceed.

Shall clause 1 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Some Hon. Members: Nay.

The Chair: Member, on a point of order.

Point of Order

P. Milobar: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

Given that the minister speed-read the motion in, I think it would serve the public very well if we can get a very clear description by the Clerk or the Chair as to why….

Despite the opposition winning the no vote because the government failed to have enough members in the House for their own closure, the government has made sure that democracy really didn’t matter tonight, because the government’s motion made sure that the government assured themselves of a bill passing regardless of what a vote might actually be in this chamber.

The Chair: Okay.

“2. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill 46 intituled Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023, be disposed of by 9:45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

“a. If at 9:40 p.m. the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.”

Debate Continued

Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

[9:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 9:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES
(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[9:50 p.m. - 9:55 p.m.]

Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chen	Chow	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Glumac
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Lore	Malcolmson	Mercier
Paddon	Ralston	Rankin
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 28
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
Doerkson	Falcon	Furstenau
Halford	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Sturko	Tegart
	Wat

[10:00 p.m.]

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we adjourn the House, I also would like to state this. Earlier today the member for Peace River South raised a point of order, stating that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure used unparliamentary language during question period. I took that matter under advisement.

Pursuant to practice, Speakers have ruled that if the Chair did not hear the offensive language or phrase, or if the offensive language was not recorded in the debates, the Chair cannot be expected to rule in the absence of a reliable record. In this instance, I did not hear any such remarks. Also, a careful review of the Hansard Blues and broadcast video has been undertaken, but no unparliamentary remarks are captured in either Hansard record.

Therefore, I advise the House that I cannot take any further action on this matter.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 10:01 p.m.