Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[1:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES
(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 47; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s get this committee underway. We’re here with Bill 47, 2023, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.

P. Milobar: I’ll be very brief with my comments to the proposed amendment to clause 1. Under the definition of “transit-oriented area,” which, as it currently reads, “means an area within a prescribed distance from a transit station,” it would actually add in “except for an area that is part of a heritage conservation area.”

We have this amendment, as I indicated, at the very front end. We also have a similar, exact-same-worded amendment except to deal with the Vancouver Charter in clause 12.

However, due to the closure provisions that the government has brought forward, restricting debate and what time this bill will have to be dealt with, we’re not 100 percent sure we’ll get to that clause. But we wanted to make sure that it was known.

That’s why you would have heard previous speakers interchanging what may or may not be happening with Vancouver and heritage areas, as well as other areas of the province. Just to make the minister aware, we are aware that this would not impact Vancouver directly, but certainly clause 12 would.

That’s why those comments were made, in that light, if there was some confusion, potentially. We are well aware, as an opposition, of the differences there. We probably have very light commentary on clause 12 as a result, though, and just thought we would try to bundle those together.

That pretty much sums up my comments, and we do hope the government will see fit to support this amendment that many, many community leaders have been asking for, over the last few days, as this bill has moved forward and getting closer to committee stage.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for bringing this amendment forward.

Although I support the principle of the amendment, we won’t be supporting this amendment. The reason why is that heritage properties are, with this legislation, already exempt. So if it’s a national, provincial or local government–​identified heritage site or area, it is already exempt from this legislation.

Chinatown is something that certainly my colleagues from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Fraserview also spoke to me about and is not part of this legislation. The Heritage Conservation Act and the national heritage acts and the Local Government Act supersede this legislation.

[1:15 p.m.]

I do appreciate the members raising it, because I, too, share that passion to protect that vitally important heritage. I know all members of this House do, so that’s why that important provision is there.

Chinatown has a national heritage designation, the entire area, so all of that is exempt from this this important legislation.

The Chair: Shall the proposed amendment moved by the member for Richmond North Centre pass?

Division has been called.

[1:20 p.m. - 1:25 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24
Ashton	Bernier	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Furstenau	Kyllo
Lee	Letnick	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Olsen	Ross	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Tegart	Walker	Wat
NAYS — 45
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Banman	Beare
Begg	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Glumac	Greene	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Malcolmson	Mercier	Paddon
Parmar	Ralston	Rankin
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Rustad
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
A. Singh	R. Singh	Whiteside

[1:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Members are reminded that photos in the chamber are not permitted.

Member for Kootenay East, photos are not permitted in the chamber.

All right, Members. Let’s resume here with the committee stage of Bill 47. We are on clause 1.

M. Lee: I want to take this opportunity to join in the review of Bill 47 with the time that we have in this chamber.

I must say that I didn’t have the opportunity to address the points I wanted to raise in relation to the Vancouver Charter. We were just into clause 27 of Bill 44 when closure was brought down.

As we know, in terms of the tremendous build of transit infrastructure in the city of Vancouver, including the Canada Line, which runs right through the middle of Vancouver-Langara and the ridings for Vancouver-Fairview, Vancouver–False Creek and out to Richmond…. We know how important that transit infrastructure is.

As we consider Bill 47, in terms of transit-oriented areas…. There were a number of items that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, as the shadow minister responsible for housing, and the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson were addressing with the minister around off-street parking and what that means. The minister, in response, was talking about some measure of frequent transit areas, including what is contemplated by TransLink.

This is the linkage between, for example, what this government has brought forward, in a rapid fashion, in a piecemeal fashion, without due consideration and an opportunity for discussion and understanding, at least for residents in Vancouver, as to the impact of Bill 47….

I wanted to ask the minister, as we consider Bill 47 and transit-oriented areas and the density that will be sought around transit-oriented areas…. Is the test around fre­quent transit areas the test that will be applied, in terms of understanding, when we’re talking about transit, in terms of wait times being the 15-minute test? Is that the test that is going to be brought to bear in terms of determining transit-oriented areas?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member. It’s the first time the member and I have had a chance to have an ex­change in this place.

There are two types of provincially designated transit-oriented areas, transit hubs — within 800 metres of a rapid transit station, like SkyTrain, and within 400 metres of a bus exchange where passengers transfer from one route to another.

And the three TOD area types would be type 1A, which is rapid transit hubs in Metro Vancouver. Type 1B is bus exchanges in Metro Vancouver. Type 2 is bus exchanges in the capital region, Kelowna and other medium-sized municipalities, and then type 3 is bus exchanges in small-sized municipalities.

M. Lee: I can’t resist to respond to the minister responsible for housing, because I was standing in this chamber, of course, only…. I think it was two days ago when we were debating Bill 45. I did make a comment that I was disappointed that the minister responsible for housing wasn’t in the chamber addressing the important provisions around shelters in clause 1 and clause 2 of the bill.

Of course, my colleague the member for Abbotsford West is now doing that with the Attorney General, and I did get called out for that…

The Chair: Of course….

M. Lee: …as you are about to call me out on that as well, and I appreciate that.

The Chair: I am, because we don’t comment on legislation happening in another place.

M. Lee: At which point, Mr. Chair, I did say: “Well, I’m not getting any answers from the Minister of Housing.” But in any event, I just had to say it that way.

I appreciate the opportunity here to get clarity from the minister responsible for housing. I know, when the minister says that…. And I observed in the Douglas Fir Committee Room previously, on Bill 44, that the minister certainly recognizes the build around infrastructure, including the Metro Vancouver 2050 transport plan.

Again, just focusing on Vancouver, because that’s the time that I have here, when we talk about 800 metres from a SkyTrain or a Canada Line, 400 metres from a bus exchange or the first category of transit-oriented development — 1A, as the minister referred to — for rapid transit bus exchange and, presumably, rapid transit….

We know that in that plan, in terms of the 2050 plan, there has been a focus on the important need to support and expand rapid transit bus service across Vancouver, South Vancouver, 49th and 41st Avenue.

The minister may well know that, for example, at Langara College, 85 percent of the students there, before the pandemic, arrived to go to school at Langara College, at 49th and Cambie, by transit. It’s just an example of the importance of transit along 49th. And 41st, of course, we have the build of a second town centre for Vancouver around Oakridge.

Of course, Mr. Chair, as you may well know, as a local Vancouver MLA as well, Marine Gateway has expanded tremendously because of the vision of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he was the Transportation Minister under the former government, building the Canada Line, which of course has now enabled the kind of density, transit-oriented development, that this government is now recognizing the importance of.

Having said that, the concerns around frequent transit areas and 15-minute wait times are very present for the residents of South Vancouver, because when they get…. They’re trying to get to work in the morning or return to work.

[1:40 p.m.]

Let’s just say they go to work in the morning, and they’re standing at the foot of Marine Drive and Fraser or Main Street. For those who are above 49th or 57th, the buses go by. The wait times are more than 15 minutes, and the buses are often full.

I’ve been told by riders who are getting on at the Marine station of Canada Line at the foot of Marine Drive and Cambie, Marine Gateway, that bus 100, when it leaves that station and goes to its next stop and the stop after that, is already full. This is a place in South Vancouver which…. Unlike so many areas in Vancouver, 32 percent of the residents travel on transit to work every day, yet its transit infrastructure is at a deficit compared to all the other parts of Vancouver.

This is something that the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and SFU have done a study on and have released. Marpole Neighbourhood House is doing a similar asset-deficit review.

As we look at frequent transit areas and the build around what is permissible under Bill 44 as it was passed and this transit-oriented development bill, Bill 47, has the government done an assessment as to the transit needs that are going to be necessary in order to support the potential lift in density in South Vancouver?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for his question. TransLink has just completed their 2050 strategy, and it includes growth patterns expected with the expansion of transit. This is very much aligned with that. The member, I think, raises the point around South Vancouver, in particular — his community, his region — and all of that was considered by TransLink in that strategy.

The member also asked about investments. We provided $1.9 billion to TransLink in the 2018 investment plan, $2.4 billion for the TransLink 2022 investment plan. We just provided $479 million with the year-end to support TransLink so they can continue to maintain the service levels. I know that goes a long way, as the member highlighted, supporting the students in Langara.

I think we could agree those investments are important, and they need to continue to happen to support people in the member’s community but also those that commute from outside of the community to come to the member’s riding.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response and, of course, the continued need to build transit infrastructure in Vancouver.

We’ve seen recognition by the city council in Vancouver. Recently, they focused on the need to support and give input to Metro Vancouver’s board around the further need to support transit build-out on Hastings Street on the premise that it would then link up in a better way with the North Shore.

Of course, we know, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has called upon, in terms of building additional infrastructure out to the North Shore, how critical that’s going to be. This just demonstrates the need for understanding around investment in rapid transit and build-out of transit infrastructure.

[1:45 p.m.]

As we do that and as we encourage, under this Bill 47, what is clearly recognized as important, both by myself and members of our caucus and our leader, in terms of recognizing the importance of what we’re building around transit infrastructure, the planning around the impact on communities — as I was just giving a few examples of — is very important.

Right now, even with the current plants of density around the Canada Line, South Vancouver still is at a deficit. We don’t have enough supports. By that, I also mean further consideration of a bus line going along 57th Avenue, east to west, and additional Canada Line stations at 33rd and 57th avenues. These additional stations for the Canada Line were contemplated as part of the original plan back in 2010 and 2011, when the Canada Line opened.

Now as we continue to see silence from TransLink around those sites, we know it’s important — as we build further development at Langara Gardens, on 57th and Cambie; at MST lands on the Heather Lands, on the site of the old RCMP headquarters, the Cambie corridor — that those additional Canada Line stations will be very important to ensure that we have the continued support of and access to the Canada Line.

Right now, as it stands, we go from King Ed at 25th to 41st, with nothing in between — 16 blocks. We go from 41st Avenue down to Marine Drive, with nothing in between. This is the reason why we need to have those additional stations built at 33rd and 57th.

When we’re talking about this Bill 47 coming forward and creating greater density allowable around this transit-oriented infrastructure, including the Canada Line, we need to ensure that the province is working with the local governments to build that additional transit infrastructure to support the growing population.

I know, from my past discussions with the city of Vancouver over the last number of years, that there is a business case to be made for a $100 million station to be built. We’ve seen the city of Richmond do an infill station. We know it can be done technically.

We know, if we are working with builders of housing, including those who are doing the sites at 57th and Cambie and 33rd and Cambie, that there are great possibilities, but I know, in talking to those builders of housing, that they’re not getting much response from TransLink.

What is the expectation of the minister responsible for housing around building further transit infrastructure as we continue to look at building further housing around the infrastructure itself?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that I share the member’s desire to see the transit-related infrastructure expand. I think we all can agree in this House that, as more and more people are using transit, we want to continue to meet that test for everyone.

There’s a huge generational shift that’s happening with transit. You know, when I was younger, you’d catch a bus very rarely. Now my 13-year-old and his friends are on the bus everywhere, all the time. Because of their student passes, they just get on a bus and call me from some random place. I’m like, “How did you get there?” and they’re: “Well, we just took the bus.” As a parent, I worry a little bit about that, but it also is a reminder that that shift is happening in a big way.

I share with the member his belief that we need to continue to expand this. I know the mayors council is having deliberations on what that expansion looks like. I’ve had an opportunity to talk to Mayor Brad West multiple times about the need for us to work together to expand the services in communities in Vancouver and also across Metro Vancouver. I think he shares that passion.

I’m confident the member knows that they announced their first three, I guess, routes that they’re going to prioritize for bus rapid transit. The North Shore is part of it — Surrey, King George, much needed, and of course into the North Shore. I think that is going to make a significant difference in those communities. I know Richmond is having conversations. I know my mayor, with councillors, is advocating strongly that Scott Road be part of that.

I think that we need to ensure that transit continues to expand, and we need to ensure, when we invest billions of dollars in transit, that we have housing that comes with it. So I think the member and I agree. Certainly, I’ve been advocating for that increase to happen.

M. Lee: Just to respond to the minister, I know that in global cities like Vancouver and Surrey, and elsewhere in our province, we recognize the shift as we see the greater reliance on public transit, if we have the systems in place. That’s why that forward-looking vision by the Leader of the Official Opposition, to see the needs of where the province needed to go, was years in the making, prior to 2010.

Metro in their 2050 plan have projected that there’s going to be a need for an additional 500,000 homes built in the Metro Vancouver area in the next 30 years. As the minister talks about what that might look like transit-wise, through that plan, we know that with this housing bill, Bill 47, the changes that this government has brought forward overnight have changed the view, even on those existing projects on the Cambie corridor.

I was speaking to a recent homebuilder who has a project at 49th and Cambie. Originally, they had contemplated it to be townhomes, low-rise condo-type arrangements, as we see along the Cambie corridor. I always had advocated, for years, even before I was elected, that we needed to build the right mix of housing — more rental, more family, not what was viewed to be so-called luxury projects along the Cambie corridor. It was all the same.

I think that with the city of Vancouver, after different attempts with the developer responsible for Oakridge, we’ve seen a different mix. It’s a better mix, and we’ve seen the cascading down of six-storey units and the like around Oakridge.

[1:55 p.m.]

That’s an example of the importance of working with municipalities and understanding, of course, as did former Premier Mike Harcourt and former MLA Darlene Marzari, MLA for Point Grey…. I remember meeting with MLA Darlene Marzari and Dr. Tom Perry when they were MLAs for Point Grey and I was student body president of UBC, talking about the importance of housing and student housing around the university campus.

I know that in their history, as this minister and this government well recognize — as the Premier did recognize today, as well — they know a lot about urban planning and about housing in our city, including the city of Vancouver. Their concern, as they’ve communicated — the words they’ve been using — is that there has been a blizzard of arbitrary measures, that this is a one-size-fits-all approach and that it’s a blunt policy framework that the government is moving forward with.

Really, there are suggestions that they have, which do speak to the importance of understanding, of working with municipalities. For example, even in the Marpole community…. The minister did hit on some of this in his debate, in committee review on Bill 44, clause 15, which I wanted to get to, and clause 27, on the Vancouver Charter, which we did not get a chance to do because of closure.

I know that for my constituents in Marpole, they were committed to, by successive city governments in Vancouver, that there would be a 10-acre park built in Marpole, in South Vancouver, in exchange for greater density that was being built in Marpole as part of the Marpole plan, dating back to 2008.

Here we have an example of a neighbourhood, a community, in Vancouver. I know Grandview-Woodland, Sunset. There are many other communities — Yaletown, West End, False Creek, who are still waiting for a Vancouver Olympic elementary school.

The importance of coordination and investment by the province of British Columbia in education, health care and transportation…. That coordination is necessary. That’s what I’m asking for the minister to clarify, as to bringing forward these housing bills, with what continue to be big disconnects with municipalities.

The city of Vancouver has not honoured that Marpole commitment. They have gone forward with TransLink to build a second bus exchange. This is for green, electric-powered buses at the foot of Cambie Street. That’s important, certainly, but it’s a second bus exchange in South Vancouver.

The density continues to be built by virtue of this Bill 47, yet in the debate on Bill 44, there was mention and recognition of green space. There is an acknowledgment of the importance of healthy, sustainable communities. Marpole has been overrun.

When we bring forward bills like this, without the necessary discussion of measures around it, I’m very concerned about what former premier Mike Harcourt and Darlene Marzari talk about and refer to, as we see, to try and understand the measures that this government is bringing forward and to try and put it together.

I’ve been advocating through my elected life for the communities of South Vancouver to build that right level of community infrastructure to support the housing that we need for the growing population that we see.

To the minister, I would give him one last opportunity to at least respond to myself, for the residents of South Vancouver, as to the recognition of how, with this Bill 47 — and the other bills, if he chose to comment — this government is going to ensure that we’re building the right level of community infrastructure on health, transit and education to support the growing population that these bills are arbitrarily putting on top of municipalities to build without much interaction and coordination with the local community plans.

[2:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for sharing the concern that residents in Marpole have raised with him.

I haven’t spoken to the mayor of Vancouver around Marpole specifically. I think the member does touch on a really important point, which is that we need to ensure that we continue to invest in our infrastructure and have housing. We need to do them together.

When we look at hospital expansions, we see St. Paul’s is being built. We’ve got expansion happening in New West. Surrey hospital is coming. All these things have to be integrated.

Look at schools. I mean, it varies for schools. We have some communities — in Surrey, in Langley — where the population has surpassed the modelling that the local governments had. I had an opportunity to meet with the mayor of Surrey, the school board trustees and the Minister of Education. They shared with us their modelling of what they expected over the three or four years, and then where the trend line actually went. Their modelling was completely off.

Some communities have seen additional populations. Then I met with the chair of the Vancouver school board, who shared that there are schools that just don’t have the same population numbers as they used to. Obviously, there’s been lots of discussion about the school board and the deliberations about whether they should sell the land or if they should keep it, etc. So it does vary from community to community.

What we’re trying to do here is…. First, there’s a certain level of predictability with the infrastructure that there will be housing around it. But also, a move to a process where we’re planning more often: set five-year planning so that everyone understands — and pre-zoning is done so people understand — where the growth can potentially come so you can plan.

It also helps, I think, the mayors council. Their work that they’ve done on the 2050, in the modelling, combines population growth and transit needs in their report, so it gives them the ability, also, to plan. And it gives B.C. Hydro the ability to plan, because now they know this is coming, and they’ve got to do the work.

I would agree with the member that all of these things need to work together, and it’s not one or the other. We need to do all of it at the same time.

[2:05 p.m.]

Of course, we canvassed that the mayors council is looking at what the future expansion could be. We’re talking Vancouver right now, but I think the member would agree with me that going out to Maple Ridge and making sure there are transit opportunities out there…. All of it is important, but we want to make sure that housing is connected to it.

P. Milobar: I’ve just got a few questions for clarification. As I said at the onset, and as we have said through second reading, we generally support both the concept of Bill 47 and what it’s hoping to do. There might be some areas we don’t totally agree with. We might not agree with some of the regulation to come, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Similar to our amendment to clause 1, which we dealt with earlier…. Really, our goal here today, I think, is to get some answers and provide, maybe, some extra clarity to the public. That’s really what that amendment was about. I’m not going to speak to that amendment. We’ll have another one on 12 that we’ll still pursue.

If I can get the minister…. There was some confusion, when we’ve been talking with groups out there about this bill, on whether or not the 20 storeys on certain corridors is a minimum or a maximum. The ten storey, or is it six storey…? We’ve heard both in terms of some of the smaller centres that strictly have the bus service and not the high-speed-rail type of SkyTrain service.

Could the minister just give a very clear overview of…? What are the minimums, both in that much more highly densified, high-speed, SkyTrain-type of corridor versus the more bus-and-transit-hub scenarios of the six or the ten storeys?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To make this conversation the most efficient…. I’ve got a spreadsheet here that’s got all the breakdowns. If the member wants a copy of that, I can just pass it along.

P. Milobar: Just because we are under a closure time frame where the government…. If the minister is fine, I’ll read the chart but ask what would have been my follow-up question regardless.

The Mayors Council on Regional Transportation, on the 16th, passed some new high-speed corridors. Again, we fully support that. This is not about if they should or shouldn’t be doing that. Obviously, we need to see transit continue to expand, especially in fast-growing urban areas.

One of the routes was Surrey to White Rock down King George Boulevard. That makes sense, just off the top of my head. Knowing some of the transportation corridors, as little as I do, within that area, that makes sense.

Obviously, some questions arise. White Rock, over the years, has not exactly had skyscrapers grow quickly. Would these provisions in Bill 47, on that new rapid route, come into effect, and if so, what would be the height minimums within the White Rock area?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question around BRT.

There’s still work that needs to happen with TransLink. TransLink doesn’t have clear definitions of how they define BRT yet because it doesn’t exist. The work is happening right now with TransLink on how they want to define it, how we can come to an agreement on definitions. Then that’ll be something that gets considered with regs sometime in the future.

The BRT doesn’t exist right now, so it was a challenge to put it in legislation until that work is done.

P. Milobar: Reading the minister’s chart, I think I can see where, maybe, some of the confusion I’ve been hearing from other municipalities, people that I know from a past life, may have come from.

Just to clarify, there’s the minimum allowable height of storeys, be it 20 or up to ten, up to six; minimum allowable floor area ratios or densities; and the prescribed distance to the various types of bus exchanges. Cities — I understand how they’re broken out. Kamloops would be a type 2 city, Kelowna, things of that nature.

The way it’s written for the bill, then, the minimum allowable height, unless a city has zoning or an OCP re­quirement that would say — for the 20-storey, we’ll say — that everything built has to be more than 20 storeys, it would actually be up to…. The city couldn’t say no to someone that wanted to build ten, even though they’re in an area that says “minimum allowable height of 20.”

Is that correct? In other words, it would still be up to the developer to figure out what would make sense for their business case, unless there’s a higher standard by that municipality.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct.

P. Milobar: Okay.

Is there any expectation…? Obviously, as soon as rules are changing in real estate, things can either be put on hold, things can be accelerated based on clarity of what the rules will or won’t be. We’ve already heard that several of the other bills have a lot left to regulation, which creates uncertainty, a chance to slow things down.

When does the minister expect those conversations with the mayors regional transportation around BRTs and other transportation definitions to be solidified so that the broader community knows what the real state of play is with Bill 47 as it actually interacts with the actual physical land?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s hard to say exactly. TransLink, in their press release, has stated that they’re just starting the concept design work on what this will potentially look like, what stations can possibly look like, what the service times will be. And then on top of that, there’s obviously a big ask to the federal government for dollars to make it a reality.

It’s hard to give an exact timeline given that (a) it doesn’t exist yet and (b)TransLink hasn’t defined what kind of service it’s going to be, how frequent it’s going to be. I can’t give the member an exact date until TransLink has done that work.

[2:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’ll use a couple of other examples, then, not TransLink but more B.C. Transit–related.

Kamloops has a downtown bus exchange. I’m assuming that would be considered a type 2 bus exchange. To qualify as a bus exchange, what would be the minimum number of buses that would be queuing and coming and going? Would, say, the queuing that happens just outside of this building, on Government Street, be considered a bus exchange?

Hon. R. Kahlon: For bus exchanges, it must have two or more bus connections added.

Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On clause 12.

P. Milobar: I rise to make an amendment.

It’s essentially the same amendment as the member from Richmond presented back in clause 1. This is on clause 12, which is the Vancouver Charter.

[CLAUSE 12, by adding the underlined text as shown:

12 Section 2 of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, is amended by adding the following definitions:

“transit-oriented area” means an area within a prescribed distance from a transit station, except for an area that is part of a heri­tage conservation area;]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I’ll be very, very brief, because our members did speak around both Vancouver as well as other parts of the province — and fundamentally, I guess what we didn’t make clear the first time to the minister. Hopefully, this one could come into effect because it does impact Vancouver, which is where the vast majority of the concern around this has arisen.

We understand about the provisions overriding one another and how heritage acts can take precedence. That’s why we say heritage conservation area, because we knew it would have a certain meaning. But the reality is that there is confusion out in the general public.

[2:20 p.m.]

This doesn’t fundamentally change the bill at all. It doesn’t restrict anything. It doesn’t change anything. It provides clarity. It provides clarity, especially to communities of ethnic origins that have concerns around this — Chinatown, the Punjabi Market and things of that nature — so that as they read the legislation and go looking to see how it might impact them, they have certainty and clarity.

They’re not hunting around to check other forums to see if it does or doesn’t take effect. They’re not trying to figure out what actually takes precedence over another. Does the federal government take precedence over, or does the municipal government act take precedence over?

It’s really about providing that clarity to people. More importantly than providing clarity to the people while the debate around this bill is happening, and there’s a hyper-awareness of what’s going on, once this bill is passed, this is about providing clarity three years from now for somebody when there are totally different players involved. There are different staff. There are different ministers. There’s different everything. Because there’s always perpetual change.

That’s really what the intention of this is, as was with the first one. I apologize we didn’t make that abundantly clear in our comments, but we’re trying to correct that error that seems to have been missed in the drafting of this. That’s why we are trying to amend a definition area just to provide clarity to people, a very clear and easy, concise way for people to look at it and say they can or can’t do something within that heritage area.

That’s why, based on the minister’s comments on the amendment last time, saying that he supports the concept but just can’t support the amendment, I would suggest this is not a reach too far for the government to say, you know what? It’s really not that bad of an amendment to add in to make sure that the public can go to one source and get clarity as they’re reading through a piece of legislation to see how it impacts transit-oriented development than having to try to sort through the hierarchy of different levels of government and superseding pieces of legislation or not.

R. Glumac: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce a class from An­more Elementary that is in the House today. They made the long journey, got up really early this morning to be here and to see this debate.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: We will take a short recess to get copies and distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 2:22 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

The amendment is in order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for bringing this forward. The drafters have notified us that the legislation is pretty clear on this matter. In fact, I just did a quick search on historic places online, historic places in B.C., and a full map shows up of all the places and regions that have this type of designation. So it is fairly easy for folks to go on there.

I would agree with the member that perhaps there was some commentary made public that created some confusion. So this is a good opportunity to clarify that any historic site that is designated by the federal government, by the province or by local government is not covered by this. I share my colleague across the way’s passion for wanting to protect Chinatown, etc., to ensure that we have those historic sites protected — at the same time, able to get housing built.

We can’t support the motion, because the legislation already makes that clear.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, all those in favour of the amendment.

Division has been called.

[2:30 p.m. - 2:35 p.m.]

Members. Members, it would be helpful to the Clerks if people could be in their seats so that we could take the attendance, as there’s a number of people absent.

Members, we’re voting on the proposed amendment to clause 12 in Bill 47.

[2:40 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22
Ashton	Bernier	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Furstenau	Kyllo
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Ross	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Walker
	Wat
NAYS — 42
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Banman	Beare
Begg	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Glumac	Greene	Kahlon
Leonard	Lore	Malcolmson
Mercier	Paddon	Parmar
Ralston	Rankin	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
A. Singh	R. Singh	Whiteside

Clauses 12 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES
(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) 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 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

Members, is there an agreement to waive the time? Thank you.

Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Act.

[3:00 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee to order. We are on clause 1.

M. de Jong: What I’m going to do, out of deference to my colleague the Leader of the Third Party, is to encapsulate a whole series of questions into one glorious statement to be followed by an amendment proposal, because the leader of the Green Party has some questions, and time is of the essence.

I only make that point because it’s the kind of collaborative approach to discussions in this chamber that in the past have served the chamber very well. It is, again, regrettable that a committee room in this assembly sat empty for eight hours yesterday, when we could have reviewed this material more fulsomely than we are presently having the chance. However, we have registered that disappointment and concern. I won’t spend any more precious time now doing so.

We’ve learned, as is always the case — I’m obliged to the Attorney for the information that she has provided with respect to the clauses that we have considered — the government’s intention insofar as we have been able to discern them thus far.

The key point, a part of the discussion earlier relating to the commencement clause 42, is that the government recognizes, in introducing clause 1 and 2 — we are on clause 1 now — that there are serious concerns. We’ve had those concerns articulated here. They have come from the leadership council. They have come from municipalities across British Columbia and their representative body, UBCM, from advocacy groups for communities and the homeless — most specifically and pointedly, the homeless themselves.

The government’s response to that was to acknowledge there are these grave concerns that apparently they did not anticipate and did not foresee, and secondly, to suggest that those concerns were sufficiently serious to warrant distinguishing these sections. I think, in an attempt to provide some comfort, it announced publicly: “Well, we won’t be moving forward with these sections.”

Forgive me, but in the past, what that has meant is that the government would sever those provisions, engage in the discussions and then come back and try again following the outcome of those discussions.

That’s not, pointedly, what is happening with respect to clauses 1 and 2. The government has said: “We still want to pass them. Now, rather than having them take effect upon royal assent” — which would take place, I guess, in an hour or two, today — “we, the government, at some point in the future,” through a far less transparent process, a decision in the cabinet room, “will decide how, when and where for the sections to take effect.”

[3:05 p.m.]

We’re not really clear on what the nature of the discussions will be. We really don’t have any sense of what the outcome is that the government is looking for or what will trigger, in the government’s mind, a belief that the prerequisite has been met for enacting the section. We don’t know any of that.

We only know this: that the language in the act won’t change. Whatever discussions take place between the government and the First Nations Leadership Council, between the government and the UBCM, between the government and other advocacy groups, nothing will impact the letter of the law before us. That, I would suggest, is highly presumptuous and does a disservice to the notion of true consultation. The outcome is preordained because the only option is a question of when the same provision will take effect.

The government has made it clear. The spokesperson for the government on this is the Attorney, and she has said that that is the approach the government wishes to take. Of course, the government majority has determined that that is so.

I’m going to table an amendment, and I’ll offer it to the Chair for distribution. I’ve made copies.

The amendment tries to place, within the confines of what the government has determined it is intent on doing…. It at least tries to further define and add some statutory protection around this question of consultation. The amendment amends section 274.1, or clause 1 of this bill, to add a subsection (2).

The amendment says to amend section 274.1, or clause 1 of this bill, to add subsection (2).

[CLAUSE 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and by inserting the underlined text as shown:

1 The Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, is amended by adding the following section to Division 4 of Part 8:

Availability of shelter

274.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), for For the purposes of enforcing, under section 274, a bylaw against a person who is sheltering at an encampment while homeless, alternative shelter is reasonably available to the person and meets the basic needs of the person for shelter if

(a) the person may stay overnight at the shelter,

(b) the person has access to a bathroom and shower at or near the shelter,

(c) the person is offered without charge one meal a day at or near the shelter, and

(d) the shelter is staffed when persons are sheltering at the shelter.

(2) For the purposes of enforcing, under section 274, a bylaw against a person who is sheltering at an encampment while homeless, subsection (1) does not apply until after both of the following criteria have been fulfilled:

(a) On or before June 30, 2024 the minister must conduct a consultation with all local governments and the First Nations Leadership Council about the following:

(i) the impact and effectiveness of section 274.1 of this act on enforcing, under section 274, a bylaw against a person who is sheltering at an encampment while homeless, and

(ii) the availability of shelter that meets the criteria set out in section 274.1.

(b) The minister must, in respect of each consultation conducted under subsection (1), lay a report before the Legislative Assembly.]

The government says: “Take us at our word.” We say, at a bare minimum, these groups deserve to have statutory protection that their views will be considered, notwithstanding the fact that the government has made clear it has no intention of altering the language of the provision before us.

That is the amendment I propose and offer to the committee, and I move that amendment.

The Chair: If the Chair might ask the member a question? I heard the member say in the speech that the consultation was with local governments and the First Nations Leadership Council. In the proposed amendment, I don’t see “and the First Nations Leadership Council.” Is it meant to be in the text? Is it possible for the member to amend his amendment to include that?

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re just going to make some copies, for process rea­sons, to make sure that everyone has the complete text, as moved by the member for Abbotsford West.

On the amendment.

S. Furstenau: Given that I think we all understand the spirit and the intention, I’m wondering if I could just say a few words in support of the amendment.

The Chair: Yes, please. I think we now have the copies anyway. Please go ahead.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the amendment being in­troduced by the member for Abbotsford West in that it provides some clarity around the process that would be undertaken, as has been suggested by the Attorney General. It also shows some respect and acknowledgment for the role of the Legislative Assembly in that we would be provided with the report on that consultation that we’ve been told is going to happen, so I support this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, does the Attorney wish to address this?

I would say, for clarity’s sake, the amendment appears to be in order.

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to refer the House to the public comment the Premier made, I believe, yesterday. He said he was open to changes to the consultation process and that if we did not get this in the right place, we would not put it into force. We’ve been very transparent and open with our partners.

[3:15 p.m.]

In fact, I’m informed by the Minister of Housing and the Premier that they already had meetings with the federal housing advocate, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner, UBCM and FNLC to share the intent, hear the feedback and discuss next steps for consultation. In fact, the list of the people they have met with is broader than what’s contemplated in this amendment as it stands. So in my view, it’s not necessary.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the proposed amendment as moved by the member for Abbotsford West pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

S. Furstenau: It’s 3:15, and I won’t repeat what the member for Abbotsford West said, but we’ve had extremely limited time to debate these very serious clauses. I’m hoping the Attorney can provide answers as rapidly as possible, because I have a lot of questions to ask about these amendments.

The first question is: what problems related to encampments is this bill trying to address?

Hon. N. Sharma: I will endeavour to answer as quickly. I think we talked about it in detail with the other member, about the problem that it’s hoping to address. One is lack of clarity in the law when courts are contemplating these issues of de-encampment. De-encampments are growing in communities. Municipalities are taking steps to act.

I gave an example, a few times, of Prince George. The best practice that we try to employ when it comes to de-encamping and providing alternative shelter on the spectrum, all the way to housing for individuals, involves partnerships with municipalities. It’s necessary for us to have that partnership together.

This particular amendment was with respect to a municipality seeking an injunction. And in that scenario, we felt like there should be a common understanding of what’s necessary to prevent issues like what happened in Prince George, where, despite the MOU, the municipality moved forward with a de-encampment without there being alternative shelter available. We think that it provides that common ground and a good intervention into the law related to this.

S. Furstenau: Was there other wording considered for these amendments, and if so, what was it?

Hon. N. Sharma: Under the normal rules of this Legislature and legislative process, drafts or previous drafts of legislation are under privilege for cabinet and legislative reasons.

S. Furstenau: The Attorney indicated that the problem related to encampments…. The example she used was Prince George, where there was an MOU, but the city moved to decamp people.

How does this particular legislation prevent decampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: There’s bigger work with the Ministry of Housing and local partners to, I think was the question, prevent encampments or prevent de-encampment.

[3:20 p.m.]

The purpose of this amendment is to, in an instance where there is action to de-encamp, set criteria before the court and the local government as to what they should consider with respect to alternative shelter or meeting the basic needs of people.

S. Furstenau: Did the government consider alternatives to putting this legislation forward? For example, increasing services to outdoor sheltering spaces, such as washrooms, storage, electricity and fire safety training?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to the question is yes.

It’s important this provision be put in the context that it is and not be used to say it’s our full answer to encampments. We provided $4 million over three years for an encampment support fund to invest in things like the member suggests, like better washrooms, better things for an encampment.

We’ve also invested $1.5 billion through Budget 2023 for new initiatives aimed at helping people to prevent and reduce homelessness in the province. That’s including $44 million for temporary modular housing to support people sheltering in encampments to move inside.

I could go on, but we’ve done a lot with respect to that.

S. Furstenau: Does the Attorney have the number of temporary modular housing units that have been provided?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Because there have been so many investments in supportive housing, and I think the member’s question was about modular housing, I’m going to give a broader…. Because some is modular; some isn’t.

Since 2017, there have been 4,800 people who were moved from homelessness, who have moved into new supportive housing units. That’s in 30 communities across the province.

I also had a stat for the specific program, which I can endeavour to get to you at another question.

S. Furstenau: I think I heard the number 4,800 since 2017, of people that have been provided with some form of housing.

If the number is readily available, does the Attorney General know how many people in B.C. are currently homeless?

[3:30 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: If I may, we’re discussing encampments. We’re discussing the housing crisis and homelessness. I have asked a question of how many people in B.C. are currently homeless. I don’t think it should take five minutes to get that answer.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, thanks for asking me. I was endeavoring to get you a more complete number of the number of units available than we had, but I will move on. Then we can try to get that to you at some point.

From the preventing and reducing homelessness project, the stat from 2020, which is…. I think the one that we have here is that an estimated 23,400 people have experienced homelessness at some point between January and December 2020. That’s the one stat that relates to that.

S. Furstenau: So 23,000 plus in 2020. We know that the crisis of poverty has deepened. We know that in regions that have reported out on homelessness, numbers have typically increased pretty significantly. We’re probably nearer to, let’s estimate, between 30,000 and 40,000 at this point. I could be wrong. I would say well over 23,000 if that was three years ago, given what we have seen in all of our communities as the growing crisis of homelessness.

The onus in these amendments really isn’t on, as was established by the member for Abbotsford West in the conversation around the responsibility for providing shelter and social housing, which is on the province…. The onus is providing what the Attorney General says is a clarity of definition around reasonable shelter so that municipalities have the capacity to seek injunctions.

Did the government consider issuing a moratorium on encampment and evictions until housing was made available to people who need housing? This could be a whole range of the types of housing — tiny home villages like we have in Duncan, mobile homes, other measures that encampment residents have asked for.

Why was the onus not put on the province to provide the social housing and the housing that they should be required to provide?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think it’s really important to put this provision in context. I think the member said that the onus is shifted onto a municipality, and I just want to correct that. That’s not the purpose of this.

We know that the provincial government has responsibility for housing, and we’re actively investing in a range of not only initiatives for support of people but also a range of types of housing in communities to prevent homelessness and to move people into housing that they need to stay housed.

The purpose of this is when a municipality is seeking an injunction to enforce an order to de-encamp. In that particular situation, we felt it necessary for clarity on the law. I went over, in detail, why the reasons were for that: because of scenarios that have come up in this province and in courts that I think didn’t meet the dignity of the people that were being de-encamped in the scenarios. I just wanted to say that.

These are very complicated issues in scenarios we know. And we probably have all heard of safety issues that can exist in encampments, particularly for women. So the reason that this particular provision is before the House right now is to answer the question of what is meeting the basic needs of people to move them along from an encampment.

S. Furstenau: Courts have repeatedly recognized — and I think it’s really important, in the context of this conversation, that there have been a lot of court cases — that evicting encampments where actual long-term housing is not available simply leads to a cyclical movement of people from one place to another, from one park to another, without changing any of the negative effects of an encampment. In Adamson, Stewart and Bamberger, this was part of why the courts refused injunctions to evict encampments.

How does this bill do anything but continue to perpetuate that cycle?

Hon. N. Sharma: I would agree with the member, with the statement that said that displacing people from an encampment without alternative shelter is not solving the issue, is not leading to dignity of that individual that’s de-encamped, nor is it helping municipalities, because encampments may start in different places.

Exactly for those reasons, we felt the need to come to a common understanding for municipalities and the courts that when de-encampments happen, there is alternative shelter that meets the basic needs of an individual and to provide that dignity and consider that when a de-encampment process is happening from a municipality.

S. Furstenau: How can this legislation address any of the negative effects of people who are living outdoors when it doesn’t require that there be long-term housing available to put in when prohibiting outdoor sheltering?

I’m going to add to this. I brought this up in my second reading comments. There are people for whom shelters are not a feasible option. How does this legislation impact those people?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I think it’s important to put this provision in the context that it is.

The provincial policy and how we have shown our commitment to de-encampments starts when the people are in the encampment, and, on a voluntary basis, an individualized assessment of the needs of that individual and then the moving along to an alternative shelter space.

Like in the example that I raised in Prince George, there was an MOU. There were shelter spaces set to come on board from that assessment in the encampment of what the needs were for that population of people.

This is very specific, this provision. It’s when a municipality is seeking an injunction to enforce a de-encampment. In that scenario, we think it’s right that the municipality will have considered the criteria of shelter that meets the basic needs of that individual in the process of that de-encampment.

S. Furstenau: I think it’s important to note that if the shelters were available, and they met the basic needs of people, then people wouldn’t have to be forced into those spaces. Has this been taken into account?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think it’s important to say, to acknowledge the member and the question asked, that people have individualized needs with respect to housing, and this, our bigger housing plan, has seen record investments in a diverse level of shelters across the province.

Since 2017, overall shelter space has increased by 45 percent across this province, and permanent shelter spaces have doubled. We have record investments in setting up shelter spaces across the province. We have some municipalities that are willing partners in establishing the shelters in their communities, and some that are not. So I think to answer that question, we acknowledge that there are diverse needs.

We’re making those investments in shelter spaces, and we’re willing to work with municipalities across this prov­ince to get more shelter spaces in their communities.

[3:45 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I think it’s also very important to recognize the difference between the aspiration of having more and more shelter spaces versus the aspiration of having homes for people to live in. Those are two very different things.

I think that the point I was raising was that for a lot of people, shelters aren’t a viable option for a variety of reasons, including, for example, being a residential school survivor, or having suffered abuse in the hands of a provincial institution, like a health care system.

The aspiration of more and more shelter spaces is like the aspiration of more and more food banks. We’re not solving the problem. We’re just responding to the symptoms of the problems.

In this case, creating the conditions where municipalities can seek injunctions against encampments, and saying, “You know, we can forcibly evict people because there are X number of shelter spaces nearby,” does not solve the problem for a lot of people. It continues to perpetuate exactly the kind of harms that actually make it harder for those people to thrive.

What is an encampment, for the purpose of this bill? How many people and structures need to be present in a place for it to be an encampment? Does one person living in one tent constitute an encampment? What about one person sleeping under a tarp in an alley or a park? Is that an encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the member raised an important point of shelter and home. We have built and are underway on 77,000 units of homes for people in this province. You can’t isolate one part of our plan that’s very comprehensive. I could probably stand up and talk a lot about all the investments we’re making — record investments — on homes for people in this province. But I know we won’t have the time to do that.

I also want to correct what the member said about what these provisions do. It’s not a green light for municipalities to move towards de-encampment. It’s not a checklist.

The point is that when they’re going towards an injunction, and they’re seeking an injunction to enforce their rights for bylaw enforcement for de-encampment, there’s a common understanding of what the criteria is to assess if alternative shelter is available that meets the basic needs.

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s what was missing in the way the law was developing and the way municipalities and courts have been communicating to each other through court hearings. That’s why we did it.

There is, as I mentioned earlier, no need for a definition of “encampment” in this legislation. It doesn’t require a definition of encampment. It’s in an instance where a municipality has sought to enforce their bylaw with respect to removing what they have already determined is an encampment through the courts. In that scenario, what we’re asking is…. We’re putting in this criteria that sets out the factors for what’s meeting the basic needs.

We don’t have a definition of encampment here. It’s not needed.

S. Furstenau: What is overnight? How many nights must a person be able to stay overnight for? For example, could a municipality evict everyone from a tent city into a shelter if that shelter is scheduled to be closed a few days or, even, a few weeks later?

Hon. N. Sharma: Putting this in the context of a court determination…. That’s when this would come up.

The member was talking about subsection (a) and the overnight. Maybe she could nod if that’s what she was talking about, or was it a broader thing? Okay.

[3:55 p.m.]

Overnight shelter. It would be up to the court to determine, but it’s in the context of the larger provision. The larger provision says reasonably available to the person and meets their basic needs and is alternative shelter. The goal and the drive would be for a municipality to show that the overnight space was not there to displace the person and not provide the rest of it.

You have to put it in the context. It’s reasonably available to the person and meets their basic needs. That would be for the court to determine.

S. Furstenau: Would there need to be enough reasonably available shelter for everyone who is currently homeless in the community or the municipality or just for the people who are in the encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: That would depend on the scope of the injunction that’s before the court in that scenario. It would apply to that scope.

S. Furstenau: I’m not sure what “apply to that scope” would mean.

I’m going to put a scenario in front of the Attorney. Maybe she can answer this. What would prevent a municipality, for example, from evicting everyone currently staying in a shelter and then being able to say they have enough shelter spaces to address all of the members of this encampment?

Hon. N. Sharma: I mean, I assume that it wasn’t meant this way. I would say…. The way that the shelters operate is with non-profit partners and B.C. Housing and partners in the community. It’s not in direct municipality control.

The scenario that was brought up by the member…. It wouldn’t be the non-profit or B.C. Housing displacing people that were in the shelter. I guess the scenario wouldn’t happen. It’s disparaging to the people and the partners that we would work with in the community to run those shelters.

S. Furstenau: No intention of being disparaging. Just wanting to really understand the circumstances that could be created to make injunctions successful.

Considering what we have seen and what the Attorney has raised about Prince George and what we saw with the decampment that happened in Vancouver earlier this year…. I would say that there’s not a lot of ground for a huge amount of good faith at all times when it comes to how people who are homeless are treated in this province.

I think it’s important to recognize that people are not having their basic needs met. In 2020, there were 23,000 people without homes in this province. I think there are more now. This is a significant number of British Columbians.

What does the term “may stay” mean? Does it mean that the person is permitted to stay? Does it mean only that the person is permitted to stay by the space provider, or does it mean that the space is practically accessible to the person in question, considering their individual circumstances?

[4:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you. Welcome to the chair.

I’m informed that the purpose of the “may” is to distinguish between daytime and overnight shelter. There are shelters that are only daytime, and there’s no overnight. So the “may” is in there to set the shelters, that a person may stay overnight at that shelter.

The Chair: Member.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The second part of the question. Does it take into ac­count that the space is accessible to the person in question considering their individual circumstances, for example, in a wheelchair?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I talked about it before, but I’ll mention it because it’s important in this context. Generally speaking, the way our provincial policy approach aligns with the bigger work we’re doing is the assessment of the needs of the individual as they move through the spectrum of housing or what’s available to them.

In a best-practice scenario, in which we work with our municipal partners, we go to the encampments. We speak to people who are voluntarily offered alternative shelter that is based on what their needs are.

This provision — I want to set it apart a little bit because this is when municipalities seek an injunction. It’s not meant for the individualized assessment criteria here. It’s to put guidance in and criteria for the courts and municipalities in determining whether or not the alternative shelter is reasonably available to the person when they’re enforcing the encampment for that population.

S. Furstenau: I’m asking for these kind of details because I think it isn’t entirely clear what the intentions are. For example, how near do bathrooms, shower facilities and free-meal providers need to be to meet the bill’s requirements? Within a certain distance? What is that distance? Is it a walking distance? Is it a transit distance? Again, is a person’s mobility taken into account with that?

Hon. N. Sharma: At the very top, in the language that couches it, it talks about “reasonably available to the person.” We would expect that a court, on a fact-specific basis, would assess the application and whether or not, with that reasonableness, that particular fact scenario meets that the person has access to a bathroom or shower near a shelter.

The point of these provisions is to work towards common ground and understanding the alternative shelter that meets the person’s basic needs. I’m sure the engagements that the Premier and the Minister of Housing are having now are getting at some of those details.

S. Furstenau: Would it, for example, be considered reasonable if there was a 24-hour Tim Hortons and that there is nearby access to shower and a free meal in a community warming centre down the street?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The direct answer is no, we wouldn’t consider the scenario laid out by the member to fit the criteria that are laid out in this provision.

S. Furstenau: Does the access to bathroom and shower have to be free? Would a nearby community centre with these facilities count, even if you have to pay for entry into that facility?

Hon. N. Sharma: The provider that would be running that shelter and providing that shelter space may pay for the service of a washroom, but we wouldn’t expect that the individuals would have to pay for that use.

S. Furstenau: Questions pertaining to human rights. There have been a significant number of groups and or­ganizations that have raised very serious considerations about this legislation, including the federal housing advocate and First Nations Leadership Council.

The letter I mentioned two days ago now has 161 signatures of people from 34 community service and advocacy organizations, 11 universities and colleges, nine law firms, two churches or ministries and several individuals with lived experience of homelessness.

What are the considerations that the province is putting in place in response to these human rights concerns that have been raised?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we talked about it at length two days ago, and I have an update, also, that I added to it. The Premier has very openly…. I think, also, I’ve described in detail, with the good questions that are being asked, the intent and the purpose and the area of law that we want to make sure has more clarity to it.

The Premier has said that we’re open to changes through the consultation process, and if we don’t get it in the right place, we wouldn’t put it into force. I know that since we met a few days ago, he and the Minister of Housing have met with the federal housing advocate, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner, UBCM and FNLC to share the intent of the legislation, hear the feedback and discuss next steps for consultation. It’s something that we’re going to take very seriously.

I was also informed that the federal housing advocate asked B.C. to contribute best practices for a federal report based on our overall housing strategy and the work that we’re doing to move people to housing in the province.

S. Furstenau: What specific considerations were taken of human rights and constitutional requirements in the drafting of these provisions?

Hon. N. Sharma: All the appropriate and usual processes were followed in terms of the internal legal advice sought, but I can’t speak about that, because I would in­fringe upon solicitor-client privilege.

S. Furstenau: Back to the minimum shelter standards. In the definition of “reasonably available shelter,” would the shelter space be required to provide an actual bed for every person to sleep on?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: This criteria sets out that every shelter has a place to sleep. My understanding is that what that is varies, based on the shelter.

S. Furstenau: Would there be a requirement to provide secure space for storage of belongings? Is it reasonably available if it limits the person to one or two small bags of belongings, forcing them to abandon survival items and precious personal belongings?

Hon. N. Sharma: The way the decampment policy plays out in the province is that before the person is offered alternative shelter, there’s discussion of storage, or storage necessary. Some shelter spaces may have storage; some may not. But before the alternative shelter space decision, there is a discussion with them about what the storage needs might be for that individual.

S. Furstenau: Just to be clear, there’s no clear expectation of what sufficient storage would be?

Hon. N. Sharma: Not for the purposes of this provision.

S. Furstenau: Would space need to be available to the person during the day, either at the same shelter or at some other space?

Hon. N. Sharma: This provision specifically refers to overnight, so it’s not contemplated in this provision.

S. Furstenau: If one considers a real-life scenario where people are decamped and there isn’t sufficient space for storage of their survival items, such as a tent and a sleeping bag…. But the reasonableness of this indicates that it only has to be overnight.

It is now in the winter months. In many places in B.C., it’s well below zero. People are now outside, often for most of the day. How are they supposed to meet their basic needs to stay warm enough and survive in those conditions?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We would expect municipalities to…. It’s their jurisdiction about warming weather responses for cold weather in their area, so people have a place to go to warm up during the day. The best practice for the province and in the de-encampment response would be that — and this happened, I think, I’m told, when the province stepped in on Hastings — people would have storage but also access to their storage during the day.

S. Furstenau: Why are these two clauses being added now?

Hon. N. Sharma: We had a chance to talk about this in detail today, but I’ll repeat it.

Encampments are becoming an increasing issue for municipalities in this province, but across the country, the municipalities are grappling with dealing with it. The province is focused on making sure people have access to alternative shelters and permanent housing through the spectrum of housing. We all want to make sure peo­ple are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve in all scenarios.

What we saw was a gap in the law with respect to the criteria to assess what alternative shelter meets the basic needs of people in that de-encampment process.

Specifically, this provision is related to when a municipality seeks an injunction related to enforcing a bylaw for a de-encampment and sets out criteria for the court and the municipality to consider what that alternative shelter that meets the basic needs would be. These criteria are meant to guide that decision-making. We felt like there was a need for that clarity in the law, on the basis that we want municipalities and courts to consider the needs of the person when they’re moving through a de-encampment process.

S. Furstenau: From what I understand from the Attorney, the provisions were as a result of the government’s sense that these were needed.

What we’ve seen since the amendments came out is that UBCM, First Nations Leadership Council, 161 signatories, the federal housing advocate all expressed a range of concerns about this legislation. Did government consult specifically with UBCM, with First Nations Leadership Council, with the federal housing advocate in the preparation of this legislation?

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, it being 4:25, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House yesterday, the committee will now proceed to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.4), 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.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 2023

Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 2023

Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, read a third time and passed on division.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have been advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023

Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act

Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023

Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023

Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

As always, it’s wonderful to see all of you. I think you will be relieved to hear that now is not the time for my 40-minute Speech from the Throne.

It is a pleasure to be here, to release you from the session, to say I wish for all of you every possible happiness over the season ahead, for the new year and always, and also to express my appreciation to all of you for your loyal service to the province, for all that you do for your constituents and all the care that you provide to them.

I look very much forward to seeing you next year, to the throne speech and to welcoming all of you to Government House.

Take good care. Enjoy the time you have with your families and friends, and all the best for the season and the new year.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. See you soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[4:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 62 — AMENDMENT TO
STANDING ORDERS FOR
THURSDAY SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 62 on the order paper:

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended

1. at Standing Order 2 (1) to provide for the Thursday afternoon sitting to be from 1 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. instead of 1.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and,

2. at Standing Order 3 by striking the words “6:00 p.m. on Thurs­day” and replacing them with “5:30 p.m. on Thursday”.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Kahlon: It gives me great pleasure to table the 2024 parliamentary calendar. A copy has been sent to the opposition House Leaders’ offices as well.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 42nd parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date.

By agreement of the Speaker of the House and the leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and the means of conducting sittings of the House may be altered, if required, due to an emergency situation or a public health measure. Such agreement constitutes the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it for it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

In the event of the Speaker being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act on his own due to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. In the event of the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Mr. Speaker: Before we take a vote on this motion, I just want to say thank you, everyone, for your cooperation. We had wonderful times. Yeah. That’s part of our teamwork. That’s okay.

I wish each and every one of you the best of the best of the season. Have a wonderful holiday. Be safe. Enjoy time with your families.

Before you leave, if you can clean your desks, that will be wonderful.

Now the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On behalf of everybody in this building, all of the MLAs, I want to thank the amazing staff who make sure that this place continues to run.

Of course, the dining staff, the cleaning staff, the legislative protective services, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the ushers, the Clerks, the Hansard staff, the tour guides, the librarians, the Chairs of committees, the Deputy Chairs of committees…. I want to thank all of them for the amazing work they do to enable us to be able to do this important work.

I want to wish everybody a safe and healthy holiday with your families and your loved ones. If you’re lucky enough to have so many grandchildren, I hope you get a chance to enjoy that.

Thank you, all.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 4:44 p.m.