Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill #13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, to order.

On clause 5 (continued).

Ward Stamer: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister to wrap up the rest of the wildfire changes. First question on 5. When it talks about…. In section 2, it goes through after the order is given and the subject of the order and then informing the person of the following and then it talks about possible work that is going to be done or prescribed or required.

On section (2)(v): “the right of the minister under subsection (3)(b) to carry out the work.” Is that a generalized term inasmuch as giving the minister authority to actually get the work done? Are we talking about still having the parameters in the order where that remedial work may be done by the proponent in a timely fashion or if the minister or the ministry has to step in and do the work and then that work will be charged back on the order.

Can I get a little bit more explanation on exactly what that section means where the minister will carry out the work?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This section, I’m advised by staff, is rarely used. We’re keeping it aligned with section 25 and 27. Nothing really has changed here, as it’s noted. As the member touched on, the Wildfire Act, section 28, provides

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This section — I’ve been advised by staff — is rarely used. We’re keeping it aligned with sections 25 and 27, and nothing, really, has changed here, as it’s noted.

As the member touched on, the Wildfire Act, section 28, provides the minister with the authority to issue a remediation order requiring specified persons to carry out remedial actions in relation to harm resulting from a contravention. It sets out a requirement, allows the minister to take actions and sets out the information that must be included in a notice as well.

Ward Stamer: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

Then down further, when it says, “(b) in subsection (3) by striking out ‘the date specified in a written notice given under subsection (2)’ and substituting ‘the date specified under subsection (2)’” and then repealing and substituting the following…. Can we get a little bit more clarification?

I know we had a question last night about written notices, how those notices were going to be delivered — if there was going to be an order, or if there was going to be a time for a proponent to be able to discuss. Can I ask for a reason why we’re going to be taking the written notice portion out of this?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member’s question is a good one. Very similar to the answers that I provided yesterday, it’s just updated language. The notice requirement still remains. It’s just redundant, and so it has been covered in other sections.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

[11:25 a.m.]

Tony Luck: I really appreciate the opportunity here to go over some of the things about municipal affairs, especially some of the changes to the voting procedure for civic elections — excited to see some of those, having been involved in a couple of civic elections in the past. Some of them are good. We’re just going to go through here and ask some questions. I don’t think there’s anything too technical here, but certainly holding feet to the fire and making sure we get all our i’s dotted and t’s crossed. So thank you very much for that.

The first question. We’ll look at clause 8 first. I’ve only got two questions there, so it should go pretty straightforward here. The first question: could the minister clarify whether the intent of clause 8 is to harmonize practices across local government jurisdictions, or is it targeted solely at addressing a unique issue with greater Vancouver region? Is there a bigger picture involved there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First, I want to thank my critic for…. I did hear his speech to this bill, and there were thoughtful remarks and some critiques and I’m happy to canvas that today. I do have to say that I heard some other speeches from the opposition members, which were a little, I would say, hyperbolic and a little bit over the top. So I hope when I make some opening comments to each of the sections that my critic doesn’t see that as a reflection on his comments, because they were not his comments.

It’s important to note that this section was requested to us. This is not a section where we’re overtaking local government…. Because that’s what I heard in the speeches, and that’s not the case. I’ll just put some context for the member. Clauses 8 and 40 are aligned to this section. And this is an agreement that Metro Vancouver and the federal government had around $250 million to go towards the Iona wastewater facility. The agreement was that in order for Canada to give $250 million for Iona wastewater, the Metro Vancouver would agree to two years in-stream protection. So the province’s role is changing the rules to allow Metro Vancouver to do that.

I know there were some questions raised by some members about how much money is going out of Metro Van’s pockets, etc., etc. First, I’ll say that this was canvassed amongst mayors. They made a decision. My understanding is that the federal government is providing $250 million. The in-stream protection and the measures that Metro Vancouver agreed to is about $220 million. So there’s a $30 million net for Metro Vancouver above and beyond what they will be putting in place for industry protection.

I just wanted to ensure that that was on the record. This is very much focused on just Metro Vancouver and the commitment that they made to the federal government to unlock that federal investment.

[11:30 a.m.]

Tony Luck: Excellent, thank you for that answer. We were just wondering about how far the reach would be; $250 million on a $10 billion project — I think that was the last number — is a small amount of money, not in our eyes but certainly in the government’s eyes. We appreciate the answer there.

I’ll just ask one other question related to clause 8, having looked at the rest of that. Is there any potential for retroactive financial impacts on developers or property owners

million on a $10 billion project — I think that was the last number — is a small amount of money, but not in our eyes, but certainly in the government’s eyes. We appreciate the answer there.

I’ll just ask one other question related to clause 8 then having looked at the rest of that. Is there any potential for retroactive financial impacts on developers or property owners as we move forward with that, with the amount of money and what they’ve done on that one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just read this into the record. “Metro Vancouver regional district and its greater boards have an existing development cost charge bylaw that was enacted on March 22, 2024. The in-stream protection period for that bylaw expired on March 22, 2025. The legislative change that’s being made is retroactive to ensure that the developers that had completed applications prior to the enactment of the development cost charge bylaw continue to have access to the lower rate of development charges for an additional year.”

Tony Luck: So that’s to the city and to the developer. Is there any financial impact to the property owners themselves, the ones that are carrying the burden for this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s not our understanding, because this is DCC-related and that goes on to new development and not to existing tax base.

Tony Luck: No other questions for clause 8, unless one of my members does? Nope. We’re okay there.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Tony Luck: Careful. No, not so quick on that one.

Just a couple of questions around clauses 9, 10 and 11 that seem to be related. What is the rationale for defining Vancouver land use provisions within the Housing Supply Act and how does this definition enhance the act’s applicability to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a drafting omission from when this bill was introduced. So everywhere where we make a change to the Local Government Act, it enacts with the Vancouver Charter act, except for in these three places, we had found that it didn’t actually have it in both. And so that’s why we’re adding it. It’s just to make sure that it’s consistent to what’s in the bill for the Local Government Act.

Tony Luck: Clause 10 amends section 11 to include references to Vancouver land use provisions. How will this amendment affect the process by which housing targets are set and enforced in Vancouver compared to other municipalities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It mirrors them, so that they’re the exact same. I should note, again, there were comments being made about some sort of massive power grab being done by the government in the second round of speeches. This is aligned with everything that’s already in place for local governments.

As well, Mayor Ken Sim was praising this legislation when it came forward, because it allowed us to be able to ensure that we’re comparing apples to apples from communities.

The biggest challenge we had was communities had different understandings of how much housing that they needed. This legislation allows us to do all of that.

[11:35 a.m.]

But to the member’s main premise of his question, everything that’s there for the Local Government Act is the same for the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: I think we had a discussion about Vancouver Charter versus Community Charter in one of our debates some time ago and what that might look like moving forward. But yeah

available. Everything that’s there for the Local Government Act is the same for the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I think we had a discussion about Vancouver Charter versus Community Charter in one of our debates some time ago and what that might look like moving forward. But yeah, I think…. So clause 9, I think we’re okay with, if you’d like to call that one.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Tony Luck: I got to be a little quicker on those ones, don’t I? My age must be showing or something. But anyway, thank you. Appreciate that.

Given the unique governing structure of Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter, how does the amendment ensure consistency in housing supply and objectives across different jurisdictions in British Columbia now, not just in Vancouver and that? There may be a consistent answer on that one, but we’ll explore it.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a similar answer to the other section. It’s just to ensure that the same powers under the act that are available under local governments are the same for the Vancouver Charter. So again, it’s mirroring the powers that are there for local government.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Tony Luck: So just some questions around clause 10 of the Islands Trust Act and a few things like that. What specific circumstances trigger the need for appointing an acting local trustee under the amended section 6(6) of the Islands Trust Act?

The Chair: Member, we’re on clause 11.

Tony Luck: Oh, I’m sorry. I’ll stay sat for clause 11.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Tony Luck: I’ll make sure we un-cluster those next time. They’re a little clustered up, but yeah.

All right, so a question for clause 12. What specific circumstances trigger the need for appointing an acting local trustee under the amended section 6(6) of the Islands Trust Act?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll start by saying this is not some power grab of government to try to take over local government. I have to, unfortunately, say that every time.

This host of recommendations comes through a group that we have by legislation. It’s a technical advisory group committee. It’s got UBCM, LGMA, Elections B.C., BCSTA, Ministry of Education and AG. Then they give us advice on the changes that are needed.

To the member’s specific question around what the process is that we follow for the Islands Trust, under the legislation, the terms of office for electoral area directors of the Islands Trust trustees continue until their successor takes office.

For municipalities, their term ends immediately before the first council meeting. This means that if no candidates come forward for the office of electoral area director, or none, or only one local trustee office, then the term of the previous director trustee is continued. This provides for continued representation for the area.

Incumbents will have discretion to decide if they want to continue for the next four years, or they can formally resign and trigger a by-election.

Tony Luck: That sounds reasonable. Are there defined qualifications or eligibility criteria for individuals to be appointed as acting trustees?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Under the legislation, persons who may be appointed to local office are those who are qualified to hold office, which means they are 18 years of age or older, a Canadian citizen, a B.C. resident for at least six months and not disqualified from being nominated or voting in an election in B.C. or otherwise disqualified by law.

In addition, those requirements are resident of the jurisdiction to fill the vacancy.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.