Contents

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Chris Allnutt

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a person who was just a gem of a human being and who worked tirelessly for the common good in our province, leaving a significant legacy to British Columbians. Chris Allnutt will be remembered as a loving husband and father, a wonderful friend and colleague, former HEU secretary–business manager and project director at Rainforest Solutions Project.

Chris’s wife, Jean, and their son, Patrick, join us in the gallery today.

I also want to really extend my gratitude to my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for her support to Chris and Jean and their family in his later years.

Chris was a key figure in his role as the chief spokesperson and chief negotiator for HEU in advocating for health care workers and for our public health care system in a time of great change in the 1990s. That was a very heady time as the NDP government of the day began to implement a more community-focused public health care service model. A new B.C. health accord would pave the way to bring together unions, employers and government to craft this new vision of how we care for British Columbians together.

Chris had such a unique combination of serious policy chops, a keen strategic vision and a moral compass absolutely dedicated to standing up for working people. His skills and his values helped bring the accord to life, a completely innovative agreement that provided stability and security for health care and health care workers in a time of profound change.

He led the fight for pay equity for the predominantly female health support services workforce. In 2002, when the B.C. Liberal government of the day introduced the most draconian and cruel bill, with the intended purpose to privatize health care services and break the union, he led health care workers into the fight of a lifetime, against Bill 29.

By the time of the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision ruling Bill 29 unconstitutional, Chris had moved on to work on another massive campaign so close to his heart and so deeply embedded within his values. He joined the Rainforest Solutions Project as its project director. His incredible work, again bringing together different groups to a common table, resulted in a tripartite agreement between the provincial government, First Nations and corporate interests in 2016, and it has been heralded as a breakthrough in land use and shared futures.

[1:05 p.m.]

For my part, I just feel very lucky that he took a chance on a young CUPE activist and hired me to work at HEU in the late 1990s. It was an honour to work with him, and I will always remember his ability to listen, his open door and his calm, resolute, principled leadership.

After suffering from Parkinson’s disease for more than 15 years, he opted for MAiD, medical assistance in dying, on September 21, at age 74.

He leaves behind his beloved wife, Jean; their beloved son, Patrick; family and many friends and colleagues with whom he helped shape a better world.

He will be remembered, and we miss him.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I also had the opportunity to work with Chris for many, many years when I was with the HEU. I fondly remember working with him.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I call the orders, I just want to notify the House…. I know that often this time of the year, there is an issue of will we finish early, or will we be sitting till the full December 4. I know that there is often the discussion in the halls, but I will inform the House today that sometimes things are unavoidable. The government will be tabling one more piece of legislation on Monday of next week, so there will be plenty of work to keep us occupied until the fourth of December.

With that, I call, in this chamber, continued committee stage on Bill 20.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee stage on Bill 25.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:09 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

The Chair: Members, I’ll call the committee to order. We’re continuing Committee of the Whole for Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, on clause 44.

Clause 44 approved.

On clause 45.

Steve Kooner: Clause 45 refers to immunity of adjudicators. I’ll just read this clause for the record: “Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against an adjudicator because of anything done or omitted in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under this Act, or in the performance or intended performance of a duty under this act. Subsection (1) does not apply to an adjudicator in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.”

[1:10 p.m.]

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain the intent of clause 45.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a pretty common protection for decision-makers in a dispute. It has the added benefit of ensuring that there isn’t an expansion of the disputes that are related to this, because the whole point is for it to be efficient and effective and narrow. So it protects the adjudicator, except if there’s anything done or omitted in bad faith.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the last few words there, I think it’s important to know, when we’re talking about bad faith and there’s an exemption for bad faith, for adjudicator immunity…. What does that mean — bad faith?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is another one of these common legal terms that have a lot of meaning in adjudication. It’s pretty common to have these terms like “bad faith.” An example of that would be if an adjudicator operated or took conduct of a matter but they were in conflict of interest and they shouldn’t have done that.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General rightfully pointed out that this is a common legal term that is often discussed in the general sense, bad faith. But with this term, also, sometimes there are similar words used, such as “negligence” or “incompetence” or “being reckless.” This specifically carves out if there’s bad faith. An adjudicator knowingly does bad conduct, and then they get exempted from immunity.

Could there be an explanation why we’re not talking about negligence, reckless behaviour or gross negligence? I guess, rather than negligence, we should be talking about gross negligence and recklessness. Both of those….

When we’re talking in the criminal legal sphere, when we’re talking about gross negligence and talking about recklessness, sometimes that amounts to behaviour of conduct unbecoming or even borderline, maybe, perhaps at times, criminal or quasi-criminal.

Is there a reason why only bad faith was considered here and gross negligence was not, or being wilfully blind?

Sometimes people know the circumstances. They just don’t want to turn their mind to something. They just don’t want to know about it, because they know there’s something wrong with it. Then if they turn their mind to it, they know they’re going to be accused of bad faith.

So wilfully blind, recklessness, gross negligence — why was that not all included here?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very common…. It is the protection that we use for decision-makers in B.C., the standard of bad faith. Just for clarity, that means things like fraud or malicious conduct, things that are of that kind of nature. It’s part of the spectrum of protections to make sure that the adjudicator has the integrity that they need.

I think we talked about some of the other ones previously, about the code of conduct being an important way of whether you’re rostered or not and the judicial review procedures that are there to challenge if there are breaches of rules of procedural fairness.

It’s a range of protections against, really, adjudicators that probably shouldn’t be adjudicating.

Clause 45 approved.

On clause 46.

Steve Kooner: For the record, I’m just going to read this clause out. This clause has to do with testimonial immunity: “An adjudicator may not be compelled to give evidence in any action or other proceeding in relation to a dispute that was the subject of an adjudication that the adjudicator conducted.”

Can the Attorney General please explain this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s an additive of the type of immunity in the previous provision, and it extends to testimonial immunity. So it protects adjudicators from being drawn into prolonged legal disputes over their determinations.

Steve Kooner: Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm or deny this. This is a fairly common provision for arbitrators, quasi…. Judges are usually not called for testimony, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Clause 46 approved.

On clause 47.

Steve Kooner: We’re moving on to a different part, part 6, “General.” Each piece of legislation usually has some general provisions towards the end, so we’re getting there.

Clause 47 states: “Section 14 (2) of the Interpretation Act does not apply in relation to this Act. A provision in a contract that provides that this Act is not to apply, or that the remedies provided by this Act are not to be available for a person’s benefit, is void.”

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain this clause.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to explain the two clauses here. The first one makes it very clear by exempting section 14(2) of the Interpretation Act that government and government projects are part of this act because it exempts that provision of the Interpretation Act. And the second one just makes sure that parties can’t contract out of any of the application or parts of this regime.

Clause 47 approved.

On clause 48.

Steve Kooner: The next clause here deals with the application of the Offence Act. This is a very important part of the bill. It deals with if there are any penalties as a result of any contraventions within this piece of legislation. “Application of Offence Act,” clause 48, states: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this act or the regulations.”

Can I first get an explanation of this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is to ensure that the prompt payment regime that’s put in here remains a civil matter and doesn’t become an offence.

Steve Kooner: I understand that it may not involve the Offence Act. There might not be a criminal issue or quasi-criminal issue, but sometimes there are civil remedies, as well, that involve fines, and that’s relatively a civil matter too, I would assume.

Most acts do have some sort of element of a fine or something. How come the fine…? Nothing like that was put in here, when specifically we did in a previous clause talk about bad faith, where certain adjudicators would not get immunity if they exhibit bad behaviour. So would there not be any repercussions for bad behaviour if you are…?

On one way, you’re saying that they’re not exempted if they do bad faith. So if they’ve done bad faith, there’s nothing to kind of deal with those bad actors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to say that if an adjudicator operates in bad faith or does something, they may be subject, depending on the nature of it, to criminal offences or civil remedies. That is possible.

The purpose of this clause is to make sure that if there’s a breach of a part of this act, like, for example, failure to pay on time, there’s nothing…. All of the remedies contained in the act are the remedies that that person has. They can’t look to the Offence Act and create a parallel line of seeking that remedy. This is the regime.

Clause 48 approved.

On clause 49.

[1:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: We are now into regulations. We’ve spent a lot of time deferring a lot of questions, and we’ve had a lot of discussion over regulations over many other clauses. Now we’re here, so it’s important to go through this clause. But I’d like to go through each subclause, because it actually covers a lot. There are a lot of subclauses here, and it’s a few pages long, so I want to make sure that we’ve got an accurate understanding of this whole clause for the record.

The first one, the first subclause, (a), deals with that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. Maybe the Attorney General can explain that first.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a convention in our legislative drafting in B.C. where this provision in reference to section 41 of the Interpretation Act is included in all statutes of regulatory-making power. If you refer to that section, it allows for regulations that are considered necessary or advisable or ancillary or not inconsistent with the act and many other subsections.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation.

Now we get into subclause (2), which reads: “Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act; (b) respecting whether a person is an owner, contractor or subcontractor for the purposes of this Act; and (c) respecting agreements for the purposes of section 3 (substituted owners), including, without limitation, respecting the contents of agreements or respecting who may or may not enter into an agreement.”

Can the Attorney General explain this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That subsection (c) has a very particular purpose. If we refer back to clause 3, this was a clause that had a power to make substituted owners. So we can imagine in very complicated structures…. The act is very…. The trigger is you need to know who the owner is, and then it triggers that pyramid that we talked about at the very beginning of our debate, our committee stage.

[1:30 p.m.]

You need to know who that is, but there is in complicated structures this idea that maybe somebody just needs to be designated as the owner somehow. So substitute owners is that provision that allows for that. But in the operation of that, you want to make sure that it’s not being used to kind of run afoul of the purpose of the act — for example, substituting an owner or picking the owner that, I don’t know, in one scenario, doesn’t have all the money or something that makes it so it’s actually doing the opposite of what we intend it to do.

So in the wisdom of the policy team and the drafters, they put in a regulatory-making power there, in the case that clause 3 was used in a way that it wasn’t intended.

Steve Kooner: Yeah, I remember that clause. It was really complicated to understand because there’s a chain of, I guess you can call them, parties or actors. Once you get the general contractor, then you have the subcontractor, but then that subcontractor might contract to another subcontractor, and it just continues and continues. I remember, from back then, in that clause, there’s a certain time limit to kind of get everybody paid.

It was a little bit complicated to understand. So I think it’s important to, kind of, have shed some light in terms of having a further clause here that actually speaks about that and that particular chain, as well, here.

I don’t really have too many other questions on this. Well, I don’t have any other question on subsection (2), so I’m going to move on to the next part of it.

I guess the answer that was supplied was to like (a), (b) and (c). I’d just like to get some light shed on (d): “respecting whether something is a service or a material or whether or when a service or material is supplied for the purposes of this Act.”

Now, this is a very important thing, because this is all about services and materials. You have the parties. That’s one important thing. And the second important thing is, “What’s the dispute about?” — services that are supplied, materials that are supplied. Now, this talks about that second important thing. It’s important to know what the regulation would do in regards to the services and materials that were supplied now that they’re in dispute.

Maybe we can get elaboration of this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. That subsection is to…. We had an earlier discussion related to the definition of service and material. We talked about that, I think, at the beginning, how it’s meant to be in the broadest term. And there were some questions related to it. Is an IT included in that?

And yes, we’ve designed them to be the broadest categories of things for service or material. But in the case there’s any confusion of what is a service or material, and we’re seeing that show up in the system, we have a regulatory-making power to remedy that, to list it as a service or maybe not as a service.

Steve Kooner: That was helpful.

This next subclause is, I guess, the most…. It touches on an area that was probably the most confusing for me when I was trying to understand this piece of legislation. That was the calculation of when you had to deal with a subsequent subcontractor. This subsection (e) actually deals with a calculation and those time periods. So (e) reads: “respecting the calculation of days for the purposes of this Act.”

Maybe the Attorney General can shed some light on this and add an example of how it would work for those subcontractors that are in line. How would this work?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The default for calculation of days is found in the Interpretation Act, and that, barring any regulation made under here, would be how you would calculate the days.

We talked about how, in phase 2 of the implementation phase, we’re going to be talking to industry, and this is one of those areas where we will gather information from industry on whether or not we should stick with the Interpretation Act for the calculation of days or if there’s a particular calculation of days that would be better for the industry in this area.

For example, I think in some systems they don’t include the end of December as days that could be calculated — things like that that you could put through regulation.

Steve Kooner: That’s very helpful because, like I said earlier, this is probably the most confusing part, in terms of calculation of days and all that. Although it’s the most confusing part, it’s probably the most important part of this legislation, because this whole legislation is about prompt payment. It’s about how fast you can get that payment. Calculation of days will play a significant role.

It’s good to hear that the Attorney General’s department will do some further consultation with the industry to figure out what would work for the industry in terms of timing and calculations and stuff. That’s helpful.

The next subclause is (f): “respecting when a record is given or issued or a payment is made for the purposes of this Act, including, without limitation, providing when a record or a payment sent, transmitted or delivered in a specified manner is deemed to be given, issued or made.”

Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Another important regulatory-making power, because it’s related to the trigger of delivery, so when somebody has received a proper invoice. This will give the regulatory-making power, again, once we talk to the industry to see what’s the best way to do this, so that we can make it very clear when a record is given or issued or a payment is made for the purpose of this act and how it’s transmitted, sent or delivered — and specify the manner.

It’s a very important part to bring clarity to the whole system.

Steve Kooner: That was helpful, that information.

Subclause (g) refers to “respecting the preparation of proper invoices for the purposes of section 7 [proper invoices], including, without limitation, respecting whether amounts are to be included in an invoice or prescribing information for the purposes of subsection 7 (1) (a) (viii).”

Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked in section 7 about how important the proper invoice was. In that section are listed some of the elements. Of course, in order to add some flexibility in case, in the operation of this once it’s out there, you need to add something, then we have the regulatory-making power to do that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Yes. I can agree with that. When you’re talking about invoices, that really triggers calculations of days as well. It’s important to have more of an enforcement in terms of meaning behind it. It’s important, probably, to elaborate on that discussion with the invoices through the regulations. I find that was helpful as well.

The next subclause is (h). It refers to “prescribing information for the purposes of section 12 (1) (c) or (2) (right to information), including, without limitation, (i) the amounts paid to the contractor in relation to the invoice, the dates payments were made or any information necessary to apply section 10, [prompt payment – partial payment], or (ii) information about adjudications, including, without limitation, whether a notice of adjudication has been given or a deadline has been extended under section 30 (2) [determination by adjudicator].”

Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is a similar flexibility through regulation to make sure that the clause has that support of being able to add things if it’s not working. This was the asymmetry of information that we were trying to correct with the right to information, and this regulatory-making power will allow us to, if needed, clarify the types of information that are required under that clause.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (i) states: “requiring information to be provided under section 12 (1) or (2).” Can we get elaboration on that, please?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s a subsection in those clauses that says “any prescribed information,” so that gives the regulatory-making power in the clause. Then this is a way to close the loop related to that, so the regulatory power is listed in the regulations section.

Steve Kooner: So (j) states: “prescribing a rate of interest or the manner in which a rate of interest is to be determined for the purposes of section 15 (a) or 38 (1) (a) [interest on late payments].” Can we please get an elaboration on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s as it says. It’s to prescribe the rate of interest. That was another clause that I think we talked about earlier on, about how it would be set down through regulation.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (k) speaks about “respecting procedures for the purposes of section 17 (1) (a) [adjudication procedures].” Could we please get an elaboration on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Those clauses rightly give the adjudicator conduct over the decision-making to do with the adjudication, but the reasons it’s subject to regulation is in the instance that we want to step in at all and set out any procedures that are required under that section.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (l) speaks of “respecting notices under section 18 [notice of adjudication] and responses under section 26 [response to notice of adjudication], including, without limitation, limiting the length of notices or responses or respecting timelines for making a response.” Can we please get elaboration on that?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The purpose of this is to…. With the goal of ensuring that the process is moving quickly and that none of the elements of it actually could be used to delay or to add complexity that’s not needed, it gives the regulatory-making power to limit the length of notices or responses, and for timelines for making a response, so we can make sure that we can step in through regulation if needed to make the process move quickly.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (m) states: “respecting the consolidation of adjudications for the purposes of section 21 [consolidation of adjudications], including, without limitation, whether adjudications may be consolidated under section 21 (a) or (b), or procedures for consolidation or consolidated adjudications.”

Can the Attorney General please elaborate on that subclause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an important regulatory-making power that allows us in the instance of complexity, either multiple disputes for the same invoice or payment, or multiple parties or one project…. It gives the power to consolidate the adjudications, again with the goal of making sure that the process could be streamlined. So we have that regulatory-making power if it’s needed.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (n) states: “respecting fees under section 24 (1) (b) (ii) [adjudication fees] or section 43 (1) [administrative fees].” Can we please get an elaboration on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is the regulatory-making power that we talked about in the fee section. It allows us to have that power to put in a regulation if we want to make sure…. If we’re not seeing that the fees are accessible or fair or there’s something that we disagree with or government disagrees with, they can make that fee schedule.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (o) states: “limiting extensions under section 30 (2) [determination by adjudicator].” Perhaps we can get an elaboration on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: To keep the process moving along, this clause 30 allows, by consent, for there to be a delay in the issuing of determination and, again, that we want things to move quicker, so this is a regulatory-making power. If we ever see that this is happening a lot, where by agreement or things are being delayed or things are not moving in a way that we want them to, we can have a regulatory-making power to limit any extensions to the timelines in clause 30.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (p) states: “respecting corrections that may or may not be made under section 33 (1) (b) [corrections – oversights].” Can the Attorney General please explain that?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for the decision to put this regulatory-making power under the corrections clause, under 33…. You’ll remember that clause was related to, within five days after the determination, if somebody sees a typographical error or the determination has something in it that has an injustice that was caused by an oversight. It’s meant to be a narrow opportunity to fix something that should be fixed, but it’s not a reopening of the matter.

One example would be that the adjudicator missed an invoice, so the calculation was wrong, or they admit that something was wrong with the number that was provided. You have those five days to go back after the termination to correct that.

In the case that, during the rollout of this, we see that people are using that inappropriately to actually retry the case or reopen it or send it back to the adjudicator, we have a regulatory-making power to add more limitations to make it clearer.

Steve Kooner: Subclause (q): “respecting the duties of an adjudication authority for the purposes of section 42 [duties of adjudication authority], including, without limitation, (i) establishing requirements for the purposes of section 42 (b) [qualification of adjudicators], (ii) authorizing an adjudication authority to establish a code of conduct for adjudicators, or (iii) conferring powers on adjudication authority.”

Perhaps an elaboration on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is the regulatory-making power that will become, actually, quite important to the functioning of the adjudication authority, because it has a clear ability to have a regulation for the purpose of the qualifications of the adjudicators. This is what we talked about earlier, about what the requirements are for getting in. Ten years in the construction industry was an example from another jurisdiction.

And then authorizing the adjudication authority to establish a code of conduct for adjudicators that they would have to abide by to be on the roster, and there’d be a way to have oversight then and monitor if they were staying within it.

Then subsection (iii) is really to do with conferring any other power that we feel like we need to give to the adjudication authority to oversee their functions.

Steve Kooner: Subclause 49(3):

“In making a regulation under this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following: delegate a matter to a person; confer a discretion on a person; make different regulations in relation to different improvements, contracts, services, materials, persons, things, circumstances or other matters; or different classes of improvements, contracts, services, materials, persons, things, circumstances or other matters, including, without limitation, classes defined by reference to a sector of the construction industry or public or private ownership, nature or purpose.”

[1:55 p.m.]

Perhaps we can get an elaboration on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a standard part of all legislation, and it’s to rebut the presumption that it’s not permissible for a regulation to discriminate amongst the persons or things it regulates without express authority. These are the kinds of things that are routinely included in B.C. statutes.

Clause 49 approved.

On clause 50.

Steve Kooner: Now we’re in transitional provisions. Essentially, when there are gaps between different legislations, we want to make sure everything is flowing properly and there is some transitional link to link different pieces of legislation, just to make sure there’s continuity. This seems to be getting into that part of the legislation.

Above section 50, we see it’s written, “Transition – existing contracts,” and then clause 50 reads: “This act does not apply in relation to a contract entered before the date this section comes into force or a subcontract that relates to a contract referred to in paragraph (a).”

Perhaps we can get an elaboration on this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a provision that provides certainty to the industry on the transitional period so it’s just clear that those contracts or any related subcontracts that are already underway at the time that the act comes into force are exempt from the application of the act.

Steve Kooner: I think that’s the only question I had on 50, so I’ll wait till we get to 51.

Clause 50 approved.

On clause 51.

Steve Kooner: The title for clause 51 is “Transition – phased implementation.” It reads: “For certainty, a regulation under section 49 [regulations] for the purposes of section 4 (2) [application] may provide for the gradual application of this Act to different sectors of the construction industry, or different classes referred to in section 49 (3) (c) (ii) (B) [public or private ownership, nature or purpose].”

Can we get an elaboration on this particular clause, please?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In our extensive discussions with industry, this is a provision that some sectors have asked us for, and it allows for…. The intention is for it to apply to everybody, but in the case where some sectors or individuals are asking us to create classes or to differentiate somehow, it gives us that regulatory-making power.

Steve Kooner: I just have a few questions on clause 51 myself. I’m just going to go there.

I don’t know if this was answered, but what criteria will the government use to decide which sectors receive prompt payment protections first?

Hon. Niki Sharma: At this stage, it’s like many of the provisions that we talked about with the regulatory-making power and things like that. It gives us the flexibility to do that if needed.

At this stage, we have no decisions that were made on this, and I don’t know the framework we would use, but it would be definitely guided by discussions that industry would have with us.

[2:00 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Just a quick one on this one from me. How long may a gradual application take, and is it negotiable as to the length of time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an important clause that builds in flexibility for a gradual application. Once we hit phase 2, which I think we’ve talked about throughout the committee stage, it’s going to take discussion with industry. It’s going to take setting up an adjudication authority, setting other types of regulations that are going to be important to be put in place and industry needs to be ready. I know we talked about that transition period, so this was considered to be, in our discussions, an important part of how we would think through it.

There is nothing I can offer about what a gradual application means and what that timeline is. What it would be would be a discussion with the sector and with the associations that we’ve been having all along to kind of understand…. The intention, I would say, is to move quickly on everything and to get this up in place as quickly as possible to everyone in the construction sector. But we also need to be continually talking to our sector in B.C. to make sure we’re getting it right.

Clause 51 approved.

On clause 52.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the opportunity to join the committee stage deliberations on Bill 20. I haven’t been asking questions so far, but I’ve been following along pretty closely in the bill and appreciate the Attorney General and her staff — all of the effort to answer these questions on behalf of the public, just making sure we have a good understanding for the public record.

I’ve certainly been a proponent of prompt payment legislation for some time. I’ve witnessed, in major project construction, the challenges for subcontractors when there is a dispute between an owner and a prime contractor and how long that takes, and this is important. But the consequential and related amendments, particularly to the Builders Lien Act, I think are an important part of this.

I know we’ve talked about the Builders Lien Act earlier in the discussions on the bill. Obviously, as we’re getting to now, the changes that will come to the Builders Lien Act, I think it’s just important for the construction industry to know what those are going to look like.

The Builders Lien Act itself. The Attorney General will recall that it has not had a substantial update to that legislation since the 1990s. It is something that is a little bit long in the tooth, I would say, in terms of legislation in the province, but it is long-standing.

So there is a precedent of contractors who are used to using this process, of owners who are aware of it. The legal community is very aware of it. It’s just important to understand how the changes to the Builders Lien Act are going to work in practice.

With that, on clause 52, perhaps the Attorney General could just provide a brief update on the addition of “‘any demolition or removal of any of these things and’ after ‘and also includes.’” What’s the effect of that, just so that the construction industry is aware?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, I agree with the Builders Lien Act and its need of improvements as well, which is obviously a bigger project. I’m glad we were able to move this prompt payment legislation quickly, and we know there’s more work to do.

Just to say that the big change here is to ensure “any demolition or removal of any of those things” is to include that demolition or removal workers are treated consistently under the prompt payment framework. Adding that to the definition of “improvement” ensures that so that the contractors and subcontractors carrying out these works on the same construction project can rely on consistent treatment for prompt payment and for builder lien purposes.

Clause 52 approved.

On clause 53.

[2:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: For clause 53, the Attorney General can correct me on this if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that this changes how lien claims are secured and how they’re prioritized. So I think it is essential to confirm that subcontractors, and especially smaller ones, don’t lose that protection when holdbacks may be released more quickly in some cases.

I’m just wondering. Under the new section 4(9), how will lien claimants be prioritized when the holdback is released?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a really important discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify it.

This clause and the next clause are related to what is called a Shimco lien. Essentially, it was from a decision in 2003, just to explain it, where the court said that you can put a lien on a holdback.

Now, the issue with that was, unlike other liens, you couldn’t register it in the Land Title Act. A Shimco lien against a holdback created a lot of uncertainty because the holders of the holdback didn’t know when they could start paying or if there was a Shimco lien coming, and it just created a lot of uncertainty on that side of it.

Because of the good work that we did on prompt payment to get money flowing through the sector, it was seen as necessary to basically remove the Shimco lien. So these amendments bring certainty to protect owners and contractors and subcontractors by clarifying that there is no separate, independent lien against the holdback funds and that the holdback funds are for the purpose of satisfying the claims of contractors and subcontractors who remain unpaid for services and materials they provide to projects.

So it provides greater certainty as to when and how much a payer, such as an owner or contractor, may pay out of the holdback after the holdback period. That was key to providing what this whole thing is about, which is certainty and then money flowing.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the comments on Shimco liens. I certainly understand the challenges that that particular provision has created. I know the Law Institute and other groups have been wanting to have it removed because it has created a lot of complexity, a lot of challenges — that dual lien structure.

I witnessed this on a linear project. The effect it has is it actually brings in, at times, third-party landowners, when they have to be notified on a lien on a land improvement, that really have no idea why they’re included in it. It has all kinds of challenges. Then, as the Attorney General mentioned, the timing and waiting for whether or not that’s going to happen creates confusion. I do understand that.

I guess maybe just to follow up on this, just to ensure that…. Obviously, these two acts now will work together in tandem. The Builders Lien Act is still in effect. Just to ensure for this new substitution that is being included here…. What’s the effect of this new provision to ensure that subcontractors’ claims will be properly secured and paid when the holdback funds do become available under the Builders Lien Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of a subcontractor and any secured payments they would have or priority in payment, it doesn’t change any of that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Really, the purpose of these amendments is to make sure that money can flow faster to where it’s due and that you can avail yourself, if you’re a subcontractor that has a payment that should be due, to the benefits of the prompt payment regime without having any of this Shimco lien uncertainty on a holdback.

The only thing that it changes out of that subsection (9) in the Builders Lien Act is that narrow wording about the Shimco lien.

Clause 53 approved.

On clause 54.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. We’ll continue a little bit more on Shimco liens here.

I think one of the calls from contractors that I have spoken with is really the idea that a mandatory, progressive release of the holdback is something that is important to them. Some of this is particularly for larger subcontractors in the payment chain. It seems to be a big issue cash-flow-wise for them.

I’m wondering. On clause 54 and subsection (4.1), Shimco liens being abolished, working together…. We’ve talked about the fact that 53 is connected, but so is all the way through 56 here to an extent, I guess.

Do these amendments, particularly clause 54, effectively create a mandatory release of the holdback, or is there still too much discretion for that?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it’s not a mandatory release of the holdback. This is separate. It’s the ending of the Shimco lien, which we think, like we talked about before, will help get money from the holdback flowing faster into the system. Just to acknowledge, the Builders Lien Act has probably a number of other things that we would need to update, because it’s such an old piece of legislation.

I know that some parts of the sector have asked for something that’s more like a mandatory release of that holdback. I’m told by my team that doing that would require a bigger policy and legislative analysis of how that shows up in the sector. We’re always happy to make things better and to have that discussion. But no, this doesn’t talk about or require any kind of mandatory release. It’s getting rid of that Shimco lien that was causing a lot of uncertainty on that holdback. So it gives that ability for money to flow quicker.

Kiel Giddens: I would certainly agree that that broader discussion on lien act reform is still going to be needed. I appreciate that there are limitations, in the context of the consequential amendments to this bill, to what can be done.

I’ll just maybe quickly read into the record what the B.C. Construction Association included in their press release on October 7: “The B.C. Construction Association remains committed to working with the provincial government to deliver on payment certainty. That includes lien act reform, which is absent from this legislation. A modernized lien framework that includes progressive and mandatory release of lien holdback is essential to ensure contractors and subcontractors receive payment in a timely manner.”

We do have agreement on the fact that further changes are going to be necessary. I guess some of those changes that the B.C. Construction Association is looking at couldn’t be completed in amendments that we’re talking about now.

I am just wondering if the Attorney General could offer some comments on the limitations of Bill 20, on why, overall, more couldn’t have been done in the context of lien act reform.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re in discussion with the construction industry and the construction association quite a bit. They helped us a lot in sitting down with us on the prompt payment legislation. I think in all the meetings that I’ve had, since becoming AG and a little before, it’s been one of their top priorities to get a prompt payment regime.

With the resources of government, in terms of how we target something quickly and how we get something out the door with our resources, we decided, after the working group set up, that we would focus on a prompt payment regime in the province, thinking that that would be the first ability to tackle prompt payment in the province and putting the right tools in place.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’m really grateful for all the partners that came together with us to do the work. That doesn’t mean there’s not more work to do. I would expect the construction association would come to us with further issues, even in the rollout of this, or further things that we could improve, including the Builders Lien Act and ways that we can do that.

At the time of doing it, it was really felt that if we tried to do both projects together, the prompt payment and the Builders Lien Act, we wouldn’t be here today in terms of being able to deliver on the prompt payment. We heard from industry that one of the biggest issues they have is being able to have money flow through projects, so we tackled that one first.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate it. I think that satisfied it. Thanks to the Attorney General for letting me ask just a general question there, because I think we can all agree that there is more to do.

Pretty amazing advocacy that they have had in sticking on this issue for many, many years now. That’s the B.C. Construction Association and the Electrical Contractors Association. I’ll give a shout-out to Nicole Bryant from the Northern Regional Construction Association, who has come to my office several times on this topic. I had chatted with her before being elected, as well, about this topic.

As we get back to talking about Shimco liens and getting rid of them, obviously, there are problems that we know — they’re difficult — about how hard they are to discharge. People can circumvent time limits with this, so I understand why its removal is necessary. Of course, when you have a long-standing policy in place, the contracting community does get used to it, perhaps even relying on it, from a legal sense, in knowing their rights.

Just a couple more questions on this topic. I’m wondering if the government could just provide clarification. If subcontractors are concerned about removing Shimco liens, removing this mechanism, if they’re worried about it exposing subcontractors to a greater non-payment risk, especially in longer chains of contracting, what would you say to those contractors who may be concerned about that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We know that the industry has been operating under the current tools right now, and they’ve been kind of unsatisfactory, as they tell me in making these changes, in getting payments moving through the sector and projects on time. That has been a chronic thing.

[2:30 p.m.]

I understand there’s going to be a time period between when we get royal assent and when it comes into force with regulation, some parts of it, because we’ll need to educate the industry to let them know what changes are in place. That will require a change in behaviour related to the reliance on Shimco liens. But I do believe that they will now, when it comes into force, have far superior tools when it comes to collection of payments.

To the question about subcontractors and non-payment, this will actually bring fairness and transparency to all subcontractors. For example, a subcontractor has followed the rules and filed liens in the right timeline. Then the Shimco lien comes in from another subcontractor, and then you have the holdback that’s tied up and these other…. It can create a lot of unfairness or confusion in who gets paid.

We’ve actually given better tools to the system, we think, through this prompt payment regime. But there will be an adjustment period that we expect where we educate the sector on the new tools there.

The fairness and transparency aspects of this also will provide some contractors with better information about payments and where payments are flowing, so they’ll be able to understand when they can, if they need to, trigger a very quick adjudication of a dispute to get paid on time.

So we believe that, on a whole, they’re far superior tools to the ones that are in place right now, although we know there will be an educational period to adapt.

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify, without Shimco liens in place, the adjudication would be a better mechanism, especially when the holdback is released earlier, as a protection for those subcontractors if they still require that in the value chain. Is that correct, or am I confusing that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This prompt payment regime provides that subcontractor with a whole bunch of new tools with respect to getting paid on time. One of them is better information, depending on where they’re sitting on the construction chain of payments, better understanding of how payments are flowing through that, clearer timelines of when they should be paid and when they can trigger a dispute — and all that clarity about when payment is due and recourse if it’s not paid on time.

Clauses 54 and 55 approved.

On clause 56.

Kiel Giddens: We’re now on clause 56. We’re talking about the reduction of the holdback period.

There could be an argument, perhaps, that shortening the holdback period compresses the time available to discover a non-payment or file a lien. In this case, I think it would be important just to show that the faster release will not increase the financial risk for small trades.

I’m wondering in that regard. Why was 46 days chosen as the new holdback period, and how does this benefit to cash flow without increasing risk?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is another aspect of making money flow faster through the system. The existing timeline, to the member’s question, doesn’t take away from the time period to file a lien.

It’s 45 days under the Builders Lien Act, and that’s still there. But there was an extra ten days, and the purpose of that extra ten days — it went to 55, which you see there is being amended — was just in case it took longer for the lien to show up in the Land Title Act. But that’s antiquated because actually, it’s pretty instant, if something is filed, that you can see it. So it was actually wasted days for money to be sitting there for those ten days, in the case that the holdback could start flowing.

That’s why the timeline was changed to 46 days. It still preserves the right to the…. I guess it kind of abides by that time period of 45 days for the lien but doesn’t allow that extra ten days that are probably not necessary, because you would know right away after that 45 days what liens are on it.

Kiel Giddens: So it’s the 45 days plus a bonus day, I guess, is one way of looking at it. That’s fair.

In an adjudication process, perhaps, is there any risk of someone arguing that there…? Is the ministry confident that there’s not a risk of someone arguing that 46 days is insufficient, given that new change from 55 to 46?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The B.C. Law Institute recommended actually just to stick to the 45 days, but we decided to give an extra day in case there’s something that happened that…. You know, give them an extra day in the case.

I think that because the goal of it is to move money faster through the system, sticking to timelines is a pretty key part of this. Maybe there’ll be adjustments for behaviour afterwards, but the end result will be better flow.

Kiel Giddens: Some anecdotal evidence has made it clear that on a complex project with many liens filed on it, sometimes the 55 days was challenging to meet, and they would use the land title piece of it as a sort of excuse to extend the time. So it was a bit of a loophole more than anything. It is a bit of a…. We’ll have to wait and see on it, perhaps.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering, when there’s payment from the holdback, how it will equal to the difference between the holdback and the total amount of any claims of the lien. The new section 8(4) — how will that work in practice, especially if all lien claims are not yet resolved within the 46 days?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that the answer is found in clause 57. I’m happy to move on to that if we’re done with clause 56.

Clause 56 approved.

On clause 57.

Kiel Giddens: Can I say ditto?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that it operated before is that if, let’s say, there was like $100,000 in the holdback and there was $10,000 on a lien, then even if a portion of that holdback was on a lien, no money would flow. You could freeze the whole holdback. This amendment allows that to not happen. So the $10,000, in my example, that’s on the holdback or on a lien can stay, but the rest of the money has to flow.

It’s another one of the measures to keep money flowing that’s available in the system for a project. And if the amount of the lien is equal to the holdback, then of course there would be nothing to flow, because they’re equal. But that idea of proportionality and that you hold on to what you absolutely need to and you keep the rest, pay out the rest to everybody else, I think, is what we were trying to capture here.

Clause 57 approved.

On clause 58.

Kiel Giddens: All right, so we’ve got through the consequential amendments on the Builders Lien Act, and there’s just a little bit here on the Strata Property Act, again, probably a contentious piece of legislation. If anybody has been involved in a strata, there is no avoidance of disputes. And when it comes to construction or redevelopment or certainly a major cost to fix a building, this is one that I think a lot of folks will be looking at.

I picture buildings from the leaky-condo crisis era and the major construction projects related to that. These are types of things that could have a lot of disputes between contractors and a strata. The strata developer teams or their consultants may have disputes in this, so it’s one just to be watching, certainly.

[2:45 p.m.]

Strata developments already do involve complex certification turnover processes, so one could argue that the shorter holdback timelines may increase that risk of disputes unless all of these groups, especially the strata developers or the construction firms, can realistically meet these goals.

With that, I’m wondering if…. Given that we’re moving to a bit of a shorter timeline, does the Attorney General’s ministry believe that all of these related groups — whether they be consultants, payment certifiers, strata developers and various construction firms — can realistically meet these deadlines without triggering more disputes or adjudications that involve strata corporations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The only changes to this one are in line with what we talked about before. So it changes the day of 55 to 46 days, and it’s for the same reasons as the Builders Lien Act and also removes Shimco liens and that concept. Those are the two key changes. Otherwise, it doesn’t change anything else in relation to the Strata Act.

Kiel Giddens: Without having the full Strata Property Act in front of me…. Within the Strata Property Act itself, it was referenced to the Builders Lien Act, and this change, in effect, just aligns the two acts. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, there was mirroring language in the Strata Property Act similar to the Builders Lien Act with the Shimco lien, and this would just remove it.

Clause 58 approved.

On clause 59.

Steve Kooner: This is the last clause of the bill. The act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Was there a reason that there wasn’t any fixed date put in here? I guess it’s just going to be by royal assent. It’s going to be on that specific date of royal assent?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not by royal assent but by regulation, so that allows us to have that time period of phase 2 implementation. When we’re ready, when it’s ready to go and we’ve consulted with the industry on some of the important regulations we talked about, we can put it into force by those regulations.

Kiel Giddens: I certainly appreciate the critic for the Attorney General and very much so the Attorney General and staff for all of the work to answer the questions, all of the work that went into this bill. I think this is something that was a long time coming, and I appreciate all the work that has gone into it.

It sounds like there’s an earnest effort to want to continue to consult with the construction community in the province. Obviously, this bill allows for commencement by regulation, so there’s still a lot of work to do. I’m wondering if the government, just at the very end, will commit to that fulsome consultation with the construction industry before all of these regulations come into force.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We got here today because of the advocacy and the expertise and the deep commitment that…. We had our team work together with many parts of the industry. I’m grateful for that, and we will continue that relationship in phase 2.

Clause 59 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before these two leave, I just want to thank Katie and Maria for their time and commitment in helping guide me through answering this committee stage and all the team at the AG that were involved in this for their excellent work in bringing us to where we are today with this bill.

I couldn’t have done it without you, and I’m very appreciative.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:49 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:54 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re going to call this House back to order, and we are going to have a report.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 20 reports the bill complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 20, intituled Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, has been read a third time and has passed third reading.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21.

Deputy Speaker: I understand that we are going to take a brief recess of about 15 minutes while we prepare a new team for the upcoming bill and for its committee stage.

The House recessed at 2:55 p.m.

Committee of the Whole

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025
(continued)

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:13 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we are going to contemplate Bill 21.

We’ll be contemplating clause 6 at committee stage, but we’ll start with an introduction from the minister.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s with great appreciation that I thank the members of my team that are sitting beside me here today that will be offering me guidance on answering questions: Andrea Buzbuzian, legal counsel, policy and legislative division, justice services branch; and Jillian Stewart, legal counsel of legal services branch.

On clause 6 (continued).

Steve Kooner: I’d like to start by thanking the Attorney General staff that’s here today to help answer the questions. I know a lot of work goes into the legislation, and I, as the critic for Attorney General, am very appreciative of the staff that are putting in the work to kind of let us know and let the public know what these bills are all about. So thank you for being here today and helping out in the process.

Also, I thank the Attorney General. I look forward to actually working through this piece of legislation. I know it’s been a couple of weeks since we looked at it.

With that, I’ll start. I believe we’re on clause 6.4.

The Chair: Yes, we are, Member.

Steve Kooner: Now, 6.4 is under division 2, “Property Guardianship of Children.” The subheading for this 6.4 is “Circumstances for property guardianship.”

This clause reads as:

[3:15 p.m.]

“The Public Guardian and Trustee is a child’s property guardian in the following circumstances: when appointed by a court order, including a court order under section 58 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act; (b) when appointed or otherwise authorized under an enactment, including the following: section 24 of the Adoption Act; subsection 50 (1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.”

The first question I have on this clause is: what was the intent behind this specific clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a section that acts as a pointer for what the Public Guardian and Trustee is as authority over property guardianship. The one change that is under this section from what already exists is (c)(ii), “as described in section 6.5 (2) of the Act,” and it will get to…. Section 6.5(2) of the act is the power of the Public Guardian and Trustee to enter in agreements with Indigenous authorities, so it just brings it under by referencing that clause.

Steve Kooner: I guess one more specific question is under clause 6.4(d), which refers to “when property guardianship in respect of a child results from the circumstances described in section 6.6 of this Act.” Now, there’s a reference being made here to section 6.6 of the act.

My question is: how does it make a difference, by connecting this up with section 6.6? Say if section 6.6 wasn’t there, what would be the logic of this section? The substance of the answer will go to section 6.6 — how that makes a difference here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the reasons that there is such a section here — and I think it’s worthwhile to explain — is that it’s really also to put the framework of what the PGT can act on as child property guardianship in one place. If you look at all the subsections in this act, you’ll see it refers to other acts; it refers to other sections.

[3:20 p.m.]

For the purpose of clarity, there’s this list here that’s a pointer for what the PGT’s authority is for property and guardianship and in what circumstances.

Subsection (d) that the member is asking about is in section 6.6, which was brought in from the Infants Act to this act. We’ll talk about that when we get to it. It changes something pretty minor, but it just makes sure that proper guardianship that results in the circumstances in 6.6 is also under this summary list that helps bring it all together.

Steve Kooner: When we’re looking at the words “property guardianship” and it’s referring to clause 6.6, we see a specific elaboration on what that means, what property guardianship means, and what sort of conditions, if you will, come as a result of that.

I think, earlier in the bill, we spoke about personal guardianship. Now, one of the concerns I had was, sometimes…. I brought it up; I think we discussed it. The Attorney General did provide some answers about the concern. Sometimes there’s an overlapping of property guardianship versus personal guardianship, and then you’ve got to figure it out.

We know what guardianship is. What seems to be happening here is that there’s a more detailed explanation of what property guardianship is here. But we still want to be in a position to make sure there are clear boundaries between the two, property guardianship and personal guardianship.

What sort of oversight will there be? Although there’s a clarification to property guardianship here, as it refers to 6.6, what sort of oversight will there be to make sure that all the authority for property guardianship, as explained here, is being given, say, to the PGT? What sort of oversight will there be to make sure that this actually happens and that it just stays within that realm?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Each of the things that is listed here in referring to circumstances is a different scenario and, potentially, arises from a court order or a decision from another actor that triggers the PGT or sets up a process for the role of the PGT to step in as a property guardian. The PGT is a statutory creature, so their authority is bound in the statute of when they can step in. In that way, the role of the PGT in the province is very clear.

[3:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Section 6.5, which is a portion of clause 6, talks about property guardianship by agreement with Indigenous authority. This piece of legislation at 6.3 spends some time to talk about respecting Indigenous customs, traditions in terms of considering decisions about children as well.

We see a reference to Indigenous authority here. The subheading here states: “Property guardianship by agreement with Indigenous authority.” This section here states:

“The Public Guardian and Trustee may, in circumstances other than those set out in 51.1 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, enter into agreement with an Indigenous authority in relation to the Public Guardian and Trustee acting as a property guardian for Indigenous children for whom the Indigenous authority has jurisdiction to provide, and is providing, Indigenous child and family services under Indigenous law.

“If the Public Guardian and Trustee has entered into an agreement with an Indigenous authority under subsection (1), the Public Guardian and Trustee is an Indigenous child’s property guardian when, in accordance with the agreement, confirmation is provided in writing by the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Indigenous authority.”

Going into this, there seem to be some mechanics here for how this section works. Perhaps the Attorney General can take us through this particular section in clause 6 and say how it works.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision will provide specific authority to the PGT to act as property guardian for the Indigenous child for whom an Indigenous authority has jurisdiction, by agreement with an Indigenous authority.

The first section is really about that type of circumstance and setting up that agreement, and section (2) is related to a particular child’s property. Remember the difference between personal guardianship and property guardianship, which we talked about earlier.

[3:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: What are the circumstances where there would be concurrent responsibilities for the children’s property in there being a property guardian under Indigenous authority and the PGT?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a decision that would be made by the Indigenous authority. Once they have resumed jurisdiction over their children, they can decide whether or not they want to use the PGT for property. In that circumstance, it would be the personal guardianship in one place and the property guardianship under the PGT.

Steve Kooner: This section here is discretionary on the part of the Indigenous authority, so it’s not mandatory. The PGT only gets involved when the Indigenous authority states that they need some help with property guardianship, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The short answer is yes. It depends on the Indigenous authority, when and how and in what circumstances they use the PGT, and it’s done by the agreements that are contemplated.

Steve Kooner: I think this is a very important point. The Attorney General mentioned that it depends on the circumstance. Would there be a circumstance where the PGT can just get authority for the property guardianship of an Indigenous child?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m told that the PGT is kind of always available in circumstances where they’re needed or when nobody is acting. It’s like a default to step in for property guardianship.

Steve Kooner: But isn’t it by default that the Indigenous authority actually gets the guardianship over property? My understanding is that there always will be an Indigenous authority. Is my assumption incorrect? There might be circumstances where there may not be an Indigenous authority?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s different in each part of the province, and we’ve made some really groundbreaking agreements with nations for resumption of child and family services. There is an Indigenous authority, and there is an established agreement, and in some parts of the province that’s not the case. It’s the systems of MCFD and PGT that are there for those children.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Let me wrap my mind around this to make sure I’ve got it right. If there is a situation of property guardianship and there is an Indigenous authority, automatically the Indigenous authority will have authority over that property guardianship.

[3:35 p.m.]

But if we’re in an area where there is no guardian and there is no Indigenous authority, then essentially, the Ministry of Families and Children will get the authority, and then they will handle it, and then it’s up to…. How does this all kind of…? I am just kind of trying to wrap my mind around this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. We talked at 6.4 about all the ways, by cross-reference, the property guardian, as a statutory body, can take on the property guardianship of children. The circumstances are lifted, and they’re varied. That is the statutory regime for the PGT.

What we’re adding is the ability, in circumstances where there’s an Indigenous authority that’s resumed guardianship over their children, and that means both personal and property guardianship, we’re giving them, in those circumstances, those authorities the ability, if they want, to have an agreement with the PGT to have that entity take over the property guardianship for Indigenous children that are under that authority.

That’s the change that we’re making through these sections.

Steve Kooner: So the prerequisite for this particular section is that in the area that gets involved and this legislation involves…. The prerequisite is that that area must have an Indigenous authority. If there is Indigenous authority, that’s when this section kicks in. That’s the only time it kicks in.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, this section is only related to Indigenous authorities, so in the circumstance where there is one.

Steve Kooner: I guess that would take me…. To understand this section better, we’ve got to kind of figure out when there’s Indigenous authorities, and when does this apply. We talked about agreements with Indigenous authorities.

Can the Attorney General tell us how many Indigenous authorities currently deliver child and family services and may potentially enter into agreements under this section? How many of those?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m told that there are lots…. We had to reach out to MCFD. There are lots of negotiations going on, and it gets complicated, because sometimes jurisdiction shows up in different phases through agreement. But I’m told right now that there are five that have full jurisdiction over child and family services for their nation.

Steve Kooner: Did I hear the Attorney General correctly that there are five Indigenous authorities?

All right. Because we’re talking about agreements between Indigenous authorities as well as with the PGT, will there be any resourcing to help facilitate the process of making these agreements between the Indigenous authorities and the PGT to actually switch hands for this property guardianship, pursuant to this section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We can look at this as kind of a resource support for Indigenous authorities. If they want to use the services of the PGT for property guardianship, then they can do so by virtue of this legislation, if it passes.

The PGT is a self-funded organization. They run through, I think, a fees-for-service type of model. I know, from meetings I’ve had with the PGT, they’ve been reaching out to Indigenous properties, and they would take on the work of who is interested in setting up these types of agreements.

Steve Kooner: In the next section in this clause, just before that, there’s a title: “Property guardianship if no other guardian or if guardian is dead, refuses or is incompetent to act.” Then the section under clause 6.6(1)…. Well, let’s just read 6.6 in its entirety.

[3:45 p.m.]

“Unless otherwise ordered by the court under subsection (2), the Public Guardian and Trustee is the child’s property guardian, as circumstances require, when a child has no other guardian responsible for legal and financial interests or if the guardian appointed for that purpose is dead, refuses or is incompetent at law to act.

“(2) In the case of a property guardianship described in subsection (1), if there is a dispute or any uncertainty as to whether the Public Guardian and Trustee is or is not the property guardian in respect of a child, the court may make an order declaring whether or not the Public Guardian and Trustee is the property guardian of the child on application by the Public Guardian and Trustee or a parent or guardian of the child.

“(3) The fact that, in respect of a child, the Public Guardian and Trustee does not apply to the court for a declaration (a) does not affect the authority of a Public Guardian Trustee as the child’s property guardian and is not evidence that the Public Guardian and Trustee is not the child’s property guardian.”

This is a long section here. Perhaps the Attorney General can explain first the intent behind it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision change is really for clarity. Under the Infants Act’s existing 51, there was already a provision that you could consider a default role position. So in the case where there’s nobody protecting the property interests of a child, the PGT has a clear authority to step in for that property guardianship, just as that safety net for every child out there. I think it was just hanging out there in the Infants Act, so for ease of putting everything together in one spot, it was brought through this bill to be put under the PGT Act.

There was one small change done to it, which is the removing of the director of the Child, Family and Community Service Act as a personal guardian option for a child, because there are other parts, and we talked about it in one of the other sections in 6, that list where MCFD does have a role in that, and it was just to bring clarity and just make sure that the PGT is the default.

Steve Kooner: If there’s some uncertainty whether the PGT has the authority to be the property guardian and there are some issues related to procedure of whether that happened, is the court the mechanism to actually clarify that, or is there another mechanism pursuant to this section?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Some of the other amendments in this provide real clarity in the case of uncertainty related to it. There you could see, in that provision, that the Public Guardian and Trustee can make an application to a court — sorry, it can be made either by the PGT or a parent or guardian of the child — in the case that there’s any uncertainty related to who the property guardian is for that child, and that helps to clarify the pathway.

Steve Kooner: I guess my question should have been: is that the exhaustive method of clearing up that uncertainty? Is it that the only option to clear up the uncertainty would be to go to court, or is there another option here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The first line would always be just to sort it out amongst parties, without the guidance of the court — to clear up that uncertainty amongst themselves. If that doesn’t work, there is an ability to go to court to get that certainty.

Steve Kooner: If there are uncertainties and the parties have to go to court — say, for example, there’s a parent and then there’s the PGT — who ultimately will have to be responsible for the cost of that? A child is involved, and the parent may be trying to look out for the interests of their child, but there is some uncertainty in the situation. Who would pay for that cost ultimately?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a pretty extraordinary circumstance that this would be necessary to put in, in case there’s any uncertainty. It’s always in the jurisdiction of a court for costs. If I were a party that felt particularly aggrieved that I had to go to court to clear up certainty, then I would certainly make sure I asked the court for costs to cover my expenses there. If it’s the PGT that goes to clarify that certainty — and I mentioned before, that’s a self-funded organization — that would be there, too, in the interest of that child.

Steve Kooner: The next section within clause 6 here is 6.7, and the subheading is “Powers, duties and functions when property guardian for children.”

Section 6.7 reads, for the record:

“(1) When the Public Guardian and Trustee is a child’s property guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee has the powers, duties and functions under this act and any other applicable enactment in respect of property guardianship.

[3:55 p.m.]

“(2) The powers, duties and functions of the Public Guardian and Trustee under subsection (1) include, with respect to a child, (a) authority with respect to the following responsibilities listed as parental responsibilities in section 41 (k) of the Family Law Act: (i) starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child; (ii) identifying, advancing and protecting the child’s legal and financial interests, and (b) to the extent necessary to facilitate the exercise of the responsibilities described in paragraph (a) (i) and (ii) of this subsection, the following responsibilities listed as parental responsibilities in section 41 (h), (i) and (j) of the Family Law Act: (i) giving, refusing or withdrawing consent for the child, if consent is required; (ii) receiving and responding to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive; (iii) requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child.”

And then further:

“(3) For certainty, this section does not affect the powers, duties or functions of a child’s personal guardian.”

This is a very, very long section. Understanding mechanics of this…. Because there is a lot of technical nature to how all this works out, perhaps the Attorney General can take us through this section and just kind of, from start to finish — how it’s going to work and how it’s going to affect property guardianship.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this change is…. Because of the way the statutory scheme existed for the PGT, and I think you can see it in the beginning of the changes of clause 6, it pulls in from many different statutes, their authority. This was to give a very clear section of powers, duties and functions of the PGT when they take on their role as property guardians for children.

Steve Kooner: There are references to the Family Law Act. The first reference is under section 6.7(2)(a): “authority with respect to the following responsibilities listed as parental responsibilities in section 41 (k) of the Family Law Act.”

How does 41(k) of the Family Law Act interact with this section here?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is based on case law that referenced the Family Law Act. It makes sense that this section that’s referred to, 41(k) of the Family Law Act, lists parental responsibilities. It has a big list of making day-to-day decisions, all these kinds of things of what you deem to be a parental responsibility, including stuff related to property of that child.

The case law actually directly cross-referenced the certain sections of the Family Law Act to say that if the PGT was acting as the property guardian of a child, these are the kinds of things they would be able to do. So it makes sense that there’s a parallel between that section of the family law and the PGT.

So what this does to create the kind of legislative clarity that we’re looking for here is it just kind of lists that all together in one spot.

Steve Kooner: In this section, 6.7, it seems to be referring to a court process: “starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child.” At times when you’re involved with the court procedure…. When a child doesn’t have a representative, there’s at times a court-appointed guardian. The court-appointed guardian has certain responsibilities.

My next question is: the responsibilities that the PGT will have in regards to the child in terms of these court proceedings, will they be the same responsibilities that a court-appointed guardian has?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for more assistance in the question as we’re sorting through an answer. Maybe if the member could help clarify, is he talking about…? What do you mean by a court-appointed guardian? Then we could help answer.

Steve Kooner: What I mean is that when there’s not representation for somebody that requires representation, there may be some elements of having a court-appointed representative. Sometimes you see personal representatives on court actions. People are able to do it themselves. They’re like: “This child….” It’s very common when you have infant claims; the infants are trying to sue somebody. They can’t do it by themselves. So they have…. Through a personal representative, that’s how they make that claim.

Sometimes there is no personal representative, so at times, court may have to appoint one. Then there’d be a court-appointed representative for, say, a child. There are certain things that that court-appointed representative can do.

Now what we have here is we’re talking about court process with starting…. One of the things is that to actually start a court action, you have to have that representative for the child, right? So there are certain responsibilities that go with that, whoever is acting as a representative, and sometimes you don’t have…. Somebody can’t find a representative. It might be that the court has to appoint one.

The question goes to: if there is a court-appointed representative or a guardian to handle that court matter, are these duties or these responsibilities for the PGT to handle the court proceeding of starting, defending and compromising or settling any proceeding similar to those duties, or would it be that the court would actually, maybe…? If the PGT is not fully equipped, it might be that a different representative still has to be appointed.

I just want to understand. When there’s a court action that often has to be made…. Sometimes lawyers do get involved, and they find a personal representative to file that court action. But would the PGT be stepping in?

I have actually seen many cases where the PGT is involved. They just try to get approval, and then there’s a legal counsel on the file, and they’re being guided by a personal guardian. But personal guardians can also be created through the court as well. Then there are specific duties that those personal guardians — or let’s just say there could be a court-appointed guardian too — have to run the court action.

So would this PGT property guardian have that same responsibility, or would it be that some of the responsibility will still have to be delegated? For example, they’ll still have to appoint somebody on the record to act as a personal guardian that will take that role for the court and be responsible to the court. Hopefully that clarifies the question.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think this will help clarify the way that this would show up in the scenario provided. If the PGT is the property guardian, you have a scenario where a lot of these provisions are kicked in. The duties and functions here would also be of the litigation representative. Those roles go together. Hopefully, that helps to clarify the question.

Steve Kooner: That really clarifies it, because this is talking about, essentially, a court proceeding. It’s saying that the PGT has that role to start it, and usually it is the litigation guardian who has that role. This clarifies the point that the PGT will be acting as a litigation guardian, but there are many circumstances where PGT is more on the sidelines and where somebody else is the litigation guardian.

It may not even be the parent. According to the court rules, it doesn’t even have to be the parent. It could be a grandparent or somebody that’s willing to take the responsibility. It’s important, when you have a section like this, how it is going to work, right? It’s important.

The next question I have on this particular section. Now, we’re talking about litigation proceeding here. At least, that’s my assumption. I guess I’ll get that clarified. It says “starting.” What does it mean by “starting any proceeding”? Starting what?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s just the ordinary meaning of the word, so starting a proceeding.

Steve Kooner: Would that be starting…? Say, it could be like filing a notice of civil claim. It could be a petition. It could be, I don’t know, an application. It’s any type of proceeding? Whether originating or interlocutory, it applies to everything across the board, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it does.

Steve Kooner: The next word is “defending.” We used to have statements of defence; we no longer have those. The court rules changed back in 2010 to change the forms. Now what we have are responses.

When we say “defending,” does that include responses to civil claim and then, I guess, responses to application? Is that defending? Would that be read in the same way?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Then we have here “compromising.” Would compromising be a negotiated settlement?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Then it states: “any proceeding.” Now, we’re talking about court, but there may be other forms as well, in addition to the court. There could be a tribunal or something that has some property rights. For example, there could be the residential tenancy branch, or there could be some other board that you may have to go after to enforce some of the rights in regard to the property.

Is this foreseen to include all proceedings, or is this just court-related?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

[4:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Then the next part of this goes to (ii): “identifying, advancing and protecting the child’s legal and financial interests.” Is that just the literal meaning of it? Whatever those interests are, for the property guardian to be able to advance those? Why is it separated from, say, (i)? Why not have just the one clause?

If that is the case, just to protect their interests, why can’t you just…? Instead of having “starting, defending, compromising or settling any proceeding relating to the child,” why don’t you just refer to “identifying, advancing and protecting the child’s legal and financial interests” and just have authority as a result of that? Why is there a distinction with the Roman numerals (i) and (ii)?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Those subsections are found in the Family Law Act, and I mentioned that we cross-referenced those specifically because of the case law that referenced them. They read a little bit differently, too, just on what they’re meant to capture, I think. Sub (ii) is broader.

Steve Kooner: Now, just going to subsection (b), we talked about 41(k) of the Family Law Act. This one talks about 41(h), (i) and (j) of the Family Law Act, in subsection (b). It refers to parental responsibilities.

How do these subsections of the Family Law Act relate to this provision listed here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reference to the Family Law Act is also based on the case law and the guidance that the court has provided about the PGT. You can read this subsection in context of (a), in the sense where it starts off with “to the extent necessary to facilitate.” The reason for that is because the ones in subsection (b) could be seen to be potentially also a role for personal guardianship, not just property guardianship. It’s clear now, in the way it’s worded here, that it’s only to the extent necessary to facilitate the powers, duties and functions that are listed above.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Steve Kooner: Clause 7 starts by stating:

“Section 7 is amended

“(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

“(1) The Public Guardian and Trustee, when exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions as a child’s property guardian, is a trustee of all property that comes into the control of, or is eld by, the Public Guardian and Trustee on behalf of the child, and

“(b) in subsections (2) and (3) by striking out ‘young person’ wherever it appears and substituting ‘child’ and by striking out ‘young person’s’ wherever it appears and substituting ‘child’s’.”

That’s how section (7) reads. Perhaps the Attorney General can take us through this section and explain the mechanics of the section and the intent behind it.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a necessary amendment because the existing version of this says: “If appointed under a court order or an enactment as a young person’s property guardian.” But we’re adding this ability to have agreements with Indigenous authorities, as mentioned previously, so it was a necessary amendment to make it clear that the PGT has powers and performs duties and functions of property guardianship of all properties that come in its control, including by agreement with Indigenous authorities.

Steve Kooner: In subsection (b) here, it refers to “young person” and “the child.” Where does “young person” come from?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a pretty minor change just for consistency. I’m told that in all the other acts, the reference is “child,” and it’s also defined, but the definition and actual content don’t change. It’s just for consistency’s sake. We want to make sure that we’re abiding by the names used everywhere, so “child” is replacing “young person.”

Steve Kooner: So it essentially has no meaning behind actually changing this? It’s just to make language more consistent. There are no rights that are affected. There are no responsibilities that change. Nothing gets affected.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: I think that’s it for that one.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

It doesn’t affect any responsibilities, but is there any sort of transitional procedure in place? Say if there are a lot of places that are using “young person,” and they’ve just got to switch the language and agreements and all that kind of stuff, is there a certain procedure to make sure that people have time to make these changes?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s absolutely no change in the powers or meaning or definition, and I’m sure that we wouldn’t do this amendment had we not been opening up the act to do more substantive changes, like with the Indigenous authorities. It’s just a matter of doing this because we are amending it.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Steve Kooner: Clause 8 essentially takes out section 7.1 and repeals it in the original act. Can the Attorney General explain why we’re removing section 7.1?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The section is now the new proposed section 8.2 of the act, which will come up under clause 10.

Steve Kooner: If it’s the new clause 8, it seems like it’s procedural in nature. I just want to confirm that it doesn’t affect any sort of substantive rights as a result of making this change.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Steve Kooner: We are now on clause 9, which reads: “Section 8 is amended by striking out ‘young person’s’ and substituting ‘child’s.’” We already dealt with this in another section. Why place this again if we already changed the word? What’s the need for clause 9?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the same change, for the same reason — just for consistency.

Steve Kooner: Once these changes are made, sometimes there are other statutes still hanging out there that are using the old terminology, though maybe not in the PGT Act. Are there any circumstances that the Attorney General’s department can think of where some other legislation is still using “young person,” whereas now this legislation is going to be using “child”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t think that that’s a relevant question to this clause. I can’t get you an answer, to search all statutes, to say where “young person” is made. I would say that that would probably be not applicable to this.

What I can say is that the only reason these types of changes are happening is because we were opening up this act anyway for other more substantive changes. Then the drafters and the policy team decided that we should change “young person” to “child,” just to be more consistent.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Steve Kooner: Clause 10 is actually a very lengthy one. It deals with section 8. It’s a couple of pages here, actually. The first section under clause 10 is 8.1, and the subheading is “Powers for maintenance and education.”

[4:30 p.m.]

It reads: “If the Public Guardian and Trustee is the property guardian of a child, the Public Guardian and Trustee may, for any money or other property of the child held by the Public Guardian and Trustee or to the Public Guardian and Trustee’s account, exercise for the benefit of the child the powers conferred on trustees by section 24 of the Trustee Act and, without obtaining leave of the court, by section 25 of that Act.”

Now, perhaps the Attorney General can take us through this particular section in this clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: For this clause, 8.1, there is no substantive change at all to this section. It is found, again, like a previous clause in this bill, in the Infants Act. Just for consistency, we’ve moved this from that to this act.

Steve Kooner: Chair, I see that we don’t have quorum in the House right now. Is that an issue?

The Chair: We have quorum, Member.

Steve Kooner: We do? Okay.

Under 8.1, how will the PGT ensure that exercising these trust powers aligns with the child’s best interest and with the Indigenous law considerations for Indigenous children?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked about this already under clause 6, “Best interests of child.”

The act as a whole, and certain sections of it, set out the duties and responsibilities to act in the best interests of the child on the PGT.

Steve Kooner: The next section here within this clause is 8.2. The title for this is “Use of trust money.”

“If the Public Guardian and Trustee is acting as trustee under section 6 (b) (v) for a person who has not yet reached 27 years of age and in respect of whom the Public Guardian and Trustee was property guardian when the person reached 19 years of age, the Public Guardian and Trustee may, during the term of the trusteeship, authorize payment of all or part of the trust money for the maintenance, education or benefit of that person.”

First, some specific questions on this one. When I first read this, 27 years, I was just a little bit puzzled. I’ve never seen another statute that refers to 27 years. You do see a lot of statutes referring to 19 and 18, but not a whole lot of statutes referring to age 27. Was there a certain reason why age 27 was chosen as the upper limit here?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In the context of this bill, this is not a major change. The difference between what is currently there and what’s here is, similar to a previous amendment, to make sure that the PGT can act in this way for all circumstances, including the new agreement ability with Indigenous authorities. That is the reason for this clause being amended.

The 27 years existed prior to any work that we’ve done, and the reason is because children, after they reach 19, can ask for the PGT to stay helping them as a property guardian until the age of 27, which in this circumstance is for trusteeship or authorized payments of trust money, maintenance, education or benefit of that person. So that’s the reason for that age thing, but it pre-existed these amendments.

Steve Kooner: I get that this pre-existed. I just would like to know. It seems like it’s wholly discretionary on the part of the child. If the child doesn’t want it, this is not going to go up to age 27. The child is going to be off the hook. They’re going to get access to their property at the age of 19.

This is only if the child says: “Hey. I’ve reached 19, and I want all my property. I can actually take it all. But if, by choice, I want you to still manage it for another eight years, that can happen.”

There will be nothing stopping the child from just taking their property and handling it on their own once they hit 19, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: Now going into section 8.3 of this clause, 8.3 actually deals with disclosure and collection of information.

So 8.3(1) states: “Any person or public body may disclose information in the custody or control of the person or public body to the Public Guardian and Trustee that is necessary to enable the Public Guardian and Trustee (a) to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions as a child’s property guardian or (b) to assess whether the circumstances for property guardianship referred to in section 6.6 are present.”

I guess perhaps, if the Attorney General can just explain the first part of this section, and then we can go into the next subsection after that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an amendment that’s meant to be helpful to the PGT in their operations. Currently it’s, I’m told, like a piecemeal situation of where they have an authority to access information in their role of property guardianship for the child. So this just provides a clear authority to disclose and collect information in their role in the act, and I think it’ll be beneficial to the operation of the PGT.

[4:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Then this next subsection, (2), reads: “The Public Guardian and Trustee may collect information from any person or public body that the Public Guardian and Trustee considers necessary (a) to facilitate the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties and functions as a child’s property guardian in all circumstances in which property guardianship arises, or (b) to assess whether the circumstances for property guardianship referred to in section 6.6 are present.”

Perhaps just elaborate on subsection (2), as well, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Subsections (a) and (b) cover two scenarios. The first one is pretty clear. It’s that they are in the role of property guardianship and, in that way, have this authority, then, that’s clear to disclose or collect information. Third parties can provide them with information.

Subsection (b) is in the scenario that was the kind of safety net provision that we talked about earlier where, as a default, there may be circumstances where a child is not getting the type of property guardianship that they should be getting, and the PGT wants to assess whether that’s occurring. Then it gives them that kind of pre-property-guardianship authority to take a look on behalf of the interests of that child.

Steve Kooner: For me, some of the key words in this section, 8.3 of clause 10, have to do with disclosing information and collecting information. In this day and era, collection and disclosure of information has actually become a big deal. We hear a lot about privacy. We hear a lot about protecting and data. We hear a lot about the integrity of the information and making sure that it’s all protected.

What sorts of mechanisms would be here? I know the responsibilities would come out to actually collect that information and disclose that information, but what safeguards would there be to make sure the information will actually be protected and they’ll be secure?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As a public body, the PGT would have all of the legislative responsibilities and oversight that other public bodies have with FOIPPA and the Privacy Commissioner and all those safeguards that are offered to British Columbians in the fact of collecting very personal information.

The other side of that is the confidence that we have that the PGT has been operating for many years with very sensitive information that they collect on behalf of children that are very vulnerable, and they do so in a way that respects the privacy and the interests of that child.

Steve Kooner: This is indeed a very important section because there is a lot of confidential information that even is involved with, like, property. If you’re doing a proceeding and you’re seeking compensation, there might be, like, medical records that are disclosed or collected that may have a lot of personal information of a child.

It’s very important that there are those safeguards to protect that kind of data, especially and even more so because we’re dealing with children.

[4:45 p.m.]

The next question I have is: what type of informed consent would the PGT get to…? Would they get any informed consent if they’re going to collect this information or release it, or is it assumed that they just have the authority and they’re going to operate that they have assumed consent? Or would they actually go get some consent whenever they’re going to collect and disclose information?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s no legal requirement for a consent because they’ve taken the role of property guardianship. As long as they’re operating, obviously, within their consent and authorities and duties and that whole section of best interests of the child, then the provisions here about disclosure and collection of information could be done without consent.

I do think that there’s a requirement for medical evidence or records that if a child is over 12, they consent for that. But other than that, I think that’s not required.

Steve Kooner: Section 8.4 within clause 10 reads…. There’s a subheading.

The Chair: Member, just considering that everybody has a copy of the bill and also the public, and it’s quite a long section, no need to read the whole thing if you just have a specific question.

Steve Kooner: I’m going to seek some clarification. Do I have 15 minutes to ask a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Okay. When I do read it, there’s sometimes some interpretation, things I’m asking. So in order for me to be able to ask that question, I’ve got to be able to talk about it. When I’m either reading it or talking about it, I’m kind of viewing it as the same thing, right?

[4:50 p.m.]

I could be paraphrasing it or I could be talking about it, but it’s important that I be able to read it because it helps me ask that question.

The Chair: Certainly. I’m just referencing that for everybody who has got a copy of it. But continue.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Thank you.

The next clause has to deal with evidence of authority. The clause reads as follows: “If the authority of the Public Guardian and Trustee as a child’s property guardian arises from a source other than appointment by court order, a letter signed by an authorized signatory of the Public Guardian and Trustee indicating that the Public Guardian and Trustee is the child’s property guardian is conclusive proof of the Public Guardian and Trustee’s authority in respect of a child’s property guardianship.”

Now, this particular clause deals with a particular letter, and it deals with an authorized signatory, in terms of authorizing a letter, and then provides an avenue of conclusive proof that the Public Guardian has trustee over a child’s property. I have some questions in regards to the particular letter — a couple of questions, as follows.

Because it is a letter, I assume there’ll probably be a digital signature on this letter. Will there be proper oversight to make sure that it goes out properly and that there is proper oversight?

The rest of it talks about getting authority through a court order and getting authority through the legislation, but then in this circumstance, we have a letter. A lot of times when we see letters from government officials, a lot of them have electronic signatures, and sometimes those are authorized through staff. We want to make sure that when these letters are going to go out…. Because authority is going to be conclusive proof, that letter actually gives authority to everybody else that the property guardianship lies with the PGT.

Are there going to be any safeguards and oversights to kind of protect that and make sure that process is an integral part and there are no issues and nothing falls through the cracks?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The purpose of this is to remedy a situation that causes a lot of, I guess, problems for the PGT right now. If their authority, as mentioned in the different circumstances, is that they can take over as property guardian of a minor, and it’s not based on a court order, third parties rightly require something that shows them that.

Sometimes it’s hard for the PGT to piece together the different ways to show that, so this just gives them that. There can be an official letter by an authorized signatory of the PGT, so they can use that as their authorization to get evidence to third parties that they are the property guardian of that minor.

I’m told by PGT that they have checks and balances that are built into their process that are strictly controlling the e-signature and who has access to it, then executive approval before any such letter comes out or the sign-off on it and a limited ability to access the signature and the ability to make such a letter, once this bill has passed.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up question in regards to 8.4, this section, in regards to the letter, which would be signed by the authorized signatory. Because it’s going to be conclusive proof that the PGT has authority, there might be other parties outside that look at that, and they may think that’s not right or they may want to challenge that — for example, the child’s family or current guardian from whom this authority is going to be taken.

[5:00 p.m.]

Does the Attorney General’s department foresee any risk of challenge by a child’s guardian or family coming as a result of now creating a procedure that this is conclusive proof? A letter comes out; PGT has the authority. Has the Attorney General’s department turned their minds to that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to this question is actually in many different pieces of legislation, in different parts of it. I think the root of it is how you challenge the authority of the PGT, and that is set out in other pieces of legislation, also dependent on where the PGT gets the authority from. So I just refer the member to all those. I think you can go back to clause 6 and see the different areas where that shows up.

This section is simply isolated to the incidents where the PGT already has authority somehow, and they want to be able to provide something to a third party that they can rely on to say the PGT has that authority. In those circumstances, we needed something more official that helped that third-party reliance for the PGT, when they already had their authority but there was something to signify that.

Steve Kooner: Say if there’s a letter, and this letter is conclusive proof that PGT has the authority over the property, as the child’s property guardian. If this letter is out there, but there’s an error in that letter, what recourse is there, if there’s an error, to rectify the situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I talked earlier about all the checks and balances that, I’m told, PGT has, including executive sign-off for these kinds of things. So there are internal controls to prevent such an error, if it was sent up.

We were trying to think about what the contents of the letter would likely be: some way to identify the child, where the source of that authority is for the guardianship and, maybe, what property they’re asking questions about or whatever. I’m sure if there was an error, there would probably be a communication between the third party and the PGT to try to rectify that if it was something related to the information or a misspelling or something like that.

Steve Kooner: In section 8.5 of clause 10, we start getting into when property guardianship terminates.

The section reads: “Property guardianship in respect of a child terminates on the earliest of the following as applicable: (a) in accordance with the court order.” So it can terminate in accordance of the court order.

Subsection (b): “when a court order declares that the Public Guardian and Trustee is not the property guardian of the child.” Then, in accordance with the court order, we get a declaration.

Subsection (c): “when an enactment provides for termination of property guardianship.” So I take it this enactment also provides for termination.

Subsection (d): “in accordance with any terms or conditions that provide for termination of property guardianship in an agreement.” We’ve spoken about agreements in the past, specifically in regards to Indigenous authority.

[5:05 p.m.]

Then subsection (i): “ to continue property guardianship under section 51.1 (2) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or (ii) described in section 6.5 (1) or (2) of this Act.”

Then, finally, subsection (e): “the date the child reaches 19 years of age.”

In all of these circumstances, we have…. Either you could have a court order that terminates; you could have an enactment, so legislation; you could have an agreement; and/or you just go to the age of 19. But what’s important here is that there’s an end in sight. When the end is in sight, there’s going to be certain property that’s in control of the PGT.

The property…. Who knows how complicated it is currently to kind of hold on the part of the PGT. But as soon as somebody reaches 19 years of age or an agreement happens or something happens, it could be a pretty significant handover or a pretty significant transition of control over the property. Specifically if, say, some child reaches 19, they might have problems.

We’ve dealt with one situation where it may be discretionary, where somebody wants to kind of opt in, saying: “Well, for an additional eight years, until I turn 27, I want to kind of have some extra guidance.” Other than that, is there anything else that will make sure there will be a proper transition of that property, and they’ll be well protected?

Otherwise, somebody is going to be left — there’s that uncommon word — cold turkey. People use that word sometimes to refer to your….

You have all this hand-holding, and all of a sudden there’s a turn of events, and you’re on your own after that. What we would want to make sure of is that a property would not actually get affected as a result of there being a stop, either pursuant to a court order or an enactment or an agreement or, say, the date of maturity, 19.

Is there something in place? I know there’s that one thing that’s a discretionary thing. You can stay within the system until you’re 27. But is there anything else, you know, some more proactive steps where…? I don’t know. Is the PGT going to send out notices or something, some educational training to kind of make sure the child actually is capable of handling that property?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This clause is particularly just there to provide clarity. It doesn’t add anything, necessarily. It just says that it sets up all the circumstances where the PGT authority as property guardian for a child ends. That’s the reason for this.

I’m told from the PGT that when that happens, and I think we’ll talk about some transitional provisions coming up, they have a trauma-informed process, which includes financial management help or assistance to that person at that time. There’s also the thing that we talked about, the ability to have them act in a trust-like relationship after 19 up to 27, if the child wants it.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation. That kind of really added some context to help understand what would be done.

So the next topic that comes up here under clause 10 is “Payment or transfer of property after termination before child reaches age of majority.” This is 8.6.

[5:10 p.m.]

What’s discussed here is: “On termination of a child’s property guardianship before the child reaches 19 years of age, the Public Guardian and Trustee, after deducting any fees, commissions or other amounts payable, must pass the Public Guardian and Trustee’s accounts under Supreme Court civil rules.”

When I read this, before reaches the age of 19, I think I need a further clarification to make sure I am understanding it properly. Perhaps the Attorney General can enlighten us on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very rare occasion, I’m told, from the PGT, where the property guardianship ends before the child reaches 19. In this case, there is a court oversight role associated with that, as is written here, the types of accounts that are under the civil court rules. That’s part of the transitional requirements when it’s terminated before 19.

Steve Kooner: Is this like a mechanism that the accounts have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court? Is this what it is? The PGT is going to deduct their fees and all that, and they have to get those fees always approved by the court. Does that mean that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is after deducting any fees, commissions or other amounts. They must pass their accounts under the Supreme Court civil rules. So there’s court oversight in the whole thing and, yes, including what they’ve deducted for their fees.

Steve Kooner: When this legislation is talking about accounts, it’s talking about what’s on the ledger for the infant or the child. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Just going a little bit further into the next section here in this clause, it deals with…. We’re talking about money matters still, payment or transfer of property after termination when the child reaches the age of majority. Of particular interest to me when I read this…. It has to do with the age of 27.

But before we get there, there are two defined terms in section 8.7(1): “In this section, ‘individual’ means an individual who is under property guardianship when the individual reaches 19 years of age.” Why did we have to define the term “individual” here?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a choice of our legislative drafters, and the reason behind that is upon drafting of this section, it was clearer to have these defined terms for this section, and it provides clarity for how to read it.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:16 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 21 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Section A reports progress on Bill 25 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Niki Sharma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday at 10:00 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:09 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, to order.

On clause 9 (continued).

[1:10 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Just before the break, we clarified that extraordinary circumstances would include insufficient infrastructure, transportation, water, sewer. I believe my question now to the minister is, what checks would be in place to prevent or safeguard this override authority?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I am unclear what’s meant by “override authority,” so maybe the member can clarify the question.

Actually I will say, just to clarify, before the break, we were talking about that there are, as laid out in Bill 44 and also this legislation, extensions available in situations around upgrades to infrastructure. More extraordinary circumstances are a unique set of circumstances related to, as we spoke about, floods, wildfire, etc. But infrastructure concerns were, again, in this bill, part of a reason for extensions.

There were 18 communities that were granted extensions under Bill 44. We don’t expect many under this bill. So separate from what we talked about as extraordinary circumstances.

But if you could clarify the override in the question.

Linda Hepner: Maybe if we can clarify the answer, that would be helpful.

When we talked about what would be an extraordinary circumstance within a local government, I wanted to hear that…. If they have insufficient infrastructure, does that count as an extraordinary circumstance, and would that be considered under the exemption or the request for an extension?

The same goes for insufficient water and sewer. Many places have old pipes or would need upgrading of that kind of infrastructure. Does that qualify for an extension as an extraordinary circumstance? Or if there is no transportation, and they can’t densify on the basis of not having sufficient opportunities for people to get around, in smaller communities, does that qualify as an extraordinary circumstance that you could request an extension?

So looking for where it is that the province believes a local government has the opportunity to say that this isn’t going to work because of these reasons, whether it’s well water, whether it’s not enough capacity within their existing infrastructure.

I believe the minister was saying earlier that those would, in fact, be opportunities to say: “We need an extension until this, this or this happens within our local communities.” That’s what I took to understand. I was looking for confirmation that that was a correct interpretation of what you were saying to me earlier.

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Happy to again clarify.

When the original small-scale, multi-unit housing legislation was introduced, extensions were available for areas where infrastructure was being upgraded or where upgrades were still required to avoid risks to health or public safety or the environment or for extraordinary circumstances. Wildfire is an example of an extraordinary circumstance.

Local governments, if they feel there is an extraordinary circumstance, can make that case to the ministry, and then we would talk with them and work with them to understand if we’re in agreement that it should be considered an extraordinary circumstance. But the infrastructure piece is its own category of consideration already outlined for extensions.

I also think it’s helpful to again clarify that these rules only apply in urban containment boundaries where existing single-family zoning is in place, so there is already some level of infrastructure, road network, etc., and also only where connected to sewer and water. Wells are not relevant to the zoning we’re discussing.

Linda Hepner: When you say “urban containment areas,” are those the more populous areas of the province? There are many communities in British Columbia that are towns over 5,000 but that don’t define a containment boundary. Could you just clarify for me what you mean by urban containment boundaries within all of British Columbia?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the clarification question. There are many shades here, so happy to help outline it.

The small-scale, multi-unit housing regulations apply in communities over 5,000, as we’ve discussed, so not rural areas, where there is an urban containment boundary described through a regional growth strategy or an official community plan.

Linda Hepner: So where there is no urban containment boundary, does the legislation still apply relative to their infrastructure deficits or their water or sewer deficits or their…?

I’m just talking to my colleagues, and they live in communities that are over 5,000 but don’t have urban containment boundaries. So how is the legislation describing their areas, and what are the parameters around the exemptions and the extraordinary circumstance that you would measure that by in the absence of an urban containment boundary identifier?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Let me try this again, and again I appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide clarity on this.

If the community is over 5,000, then the small-scale, multi-unit housing rules apply, unless they’re not connected to sewer or water. If they’re not connected to sewer or water, it doesn’t apply.

For a community over 5,000 that does have an urban containment boundary, it only applies within the urban containment boundary of the community. But for all communities over 5,000, it applies, again unless there’s not sewer or water.

I’m happy to follow up if there are specific communities. We don’t have a detailed list, so we might have to get back to you. But if there are questions, we are in touch with local governments. They will know. If the members opposite have a specific question, we can respond as able there.

Linda Hepner: I think it would be helpful to have the list of those cities and communities in the province that are over 5,000, covered by this legislation, that do not have urban containment boundaries. I know there are several. So if you could maybe follow up and give us an identifier there, and we can go from there. That would be helpful.

I close….

Interjection.

Linda Hepner: And I wasn’t finished, so that’s okay.

The Chair: Hello, folks. Could we go through the Chair?

There you go. Thank you.

So the minister is correct. In order for the next speaker to…. I have to recognize and….

[1:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t quite finished. So that’s helpful, but I will sit down when I am.

Depending on the minister’s response, that will conclude our questions for clause 9.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks. We’re both learning the process. Glad to do it together.

The information about which communities have urban containment boundaries is publicly available. But we will look at and can follow up on what…. We have a list, for example, of communities with regional growth strategies. I’m happy to look at what would be useful.

Just to respond directly to the question, the communities with urban containment boundaries is publicly available information.

The Chair: Great. Thank you so much.

Shall clause 9 pass?

Division has been called.

[1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m.]

The Chair: All right, Members, I see all duly appointed representatives are present. Can I have consent to waive time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is on clause 9.

Clause 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Bailey	Boyle
Ma		Malcolmson
NAYS — 3
Mok	Williams	Luck

On clause 10.

Lynne Block: Imagine this. You are trying to go to your doctor’s appointment, and you live on the North Shore, West Vancouver or North Vancouver. North Vancouver has the Second Narrows Bridge or the Iron Workers Memorial, and we have the Lions Gate Bridge, which was privately built many, many years ago by the Guinness family. It used to have tolls, and that’s how it reimbursed.

Anyway, we have the North Shore, and there’s an accident on the Second Narrows Bridge. Then there’s another accident on the Lions Gate Bridge. So we have traffic starting to pile up the cut on the North Shore. We have traffic on Marine Drive in North Vancouver trying to get on to the Second Narrows Bridge. That backs up all the way along Marine Drive. You’ve got other traffic trying to go onto the Lions Gate Bridge via Marine Drive from North Vancouver and from West Vancouver.

Then you have commuters coming from Lions Bay along the Upper Levels Highway. Then you have people from Horseshoe Bay and the ferry unloading, so we have all the ferry traffic.

This happened a few months ago. Literally everything was at a standstill. It was a parking lot from about Horseshoe Bay all the way to the Second Narrows. Nothing was moving. Down Capilano Road, down Taylor Way, along Marine Drive, West Vancouver — nothing moved, including emergency vehicles.

That is our infrastructure that we have right now to get on and off the North Shore. Buses couldn’t move. Nobody could move. You couldn’t even move two feet because nothing was working. That’s the infrastructure.

[1:40 p.m.]

I come to this clause 10. I’ve got wonderful mayors on the North Shore and great councils, and we work very well together. I asked my mayors what they see as some of the issues with this particular clause.

Now, according to Mayor Little of North Vancouver district, while the community has supported densification in or around town centres where transit services can support it, this particular section has to know that if we have a 25 percent density increase in formerly car-centric neighbourhoods…. In other words, there’s no transit, there are no buses, and it’s either uphill or downhill on the North Shore. There’s nothing in between. The transportation is brutal, no buses. That would enable a 25 percent density increase in formerly car-centric neighbourhoods, which will risk, certainly, more traffic issues.

Respectfully, I’m looking at section 3. It refers back and references 481.3 and 525.2. The reason why is because one focuses on traffic infrastructure and parking. Given the intent to expand density in a broader set of single family–owned or what we call car-centric neighbourhoods, how does the ministry anticipate mitigating the risk of increased local traffic, parking pressure and neighbourhood change?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll begin by absolutely agreeing with the statement that there are strong leaders on the North Shore. I’m always grateful, from my own time working with them at the Metro Vancouver board, to be working with Mayor Little and Mayor Buchanan. We served together in local government, and I know the two of them, in particular, personally and in their leadership on housing and more.

There were a number of questions in that question, so let me do my best to try to answer them.

The first is to say that in building more housing options in communities, we’re working to actually reduce people’s commute times, reduce the number of people who have to be in long commutes to get to where they work by building housing options and more complete communities.

I also want to speak to the public transportation piece, because I know it’s important on the North Shore and across the province.

Since 2017, we have supported $11.6 billion in capital and operating funding for TransLink and related road projects, including $4.4 billion for the delivery of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain — I know that’s not helping on the North Shore, but it’s certainly helping a lot of families; and more than $312 million for TransLink’s 2025 investment plan. There’s more work to do, and we’re working closely with TransLink on that.

[1:45 p.m.]

Since 2017, we’ve also increased B.C. Transit’s base operating funding by more than 70 percent. We’ll be investing $537 million over the next three years to support B.C. Transit capital projects across the province, all of these pieces advancing together.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Minister.

I can appreciate that’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t build another bridge or a tunnel off the North Shore. That’s one of the basic infrastructures that is absolutely, sorely needed.

If you ask any citizen on the North Shore, one of the major issues that they have is transportation, transit — or lack thereof. In fact, TransLink has cut a number of bus routes which were integral to getting from one point in Park Royal to Horseshoe Bay. It’s very frustrating when the options are not there.

I have a question then, just to follow up on that. Are there criteria, data, research, modelling or cost-benefit analyses to determine where such densification is appropriate versus where it must be linked to transit upgrades or other supports?

Just as a little aside, they did Phibbs exchange. They redid the whole bunch down there, but my understanding is that they didn’t put a bathroom in there. Just a minor issue for people.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is about expending the ministerial order authority. I answered a number of the previous questions around housing and transportation, but I’m failing to see the relevance here to the clause.

Lynne Block: I can appreciate that, but in the references in (c), it says under (3)(a): “permit, in relation to an area, the use and minimum density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3.” That’s under clause 10. I’m just referring back to that because I need clarification.

So 481.3, and then you’ve got also part (b), which also references 481.3, and then (c) references 525.2. I’m looking for clarification. Not that I want to go backwards, but I do want to have a look at this clause quite minutely. Those were the subsections.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Clause 4 speaks to the policy intent, and we covered this range of issues when we discussed clause 4. Clause 10 speaks to the ministerial order authority related to regulations.

Lynne Block: Thank you for that answer.

Still, that’s high-level, and I’m really looking for answers for my municipalities here. I’m looking at a concept called “the principle of growth equals growth pays.” We’re highlighting that the municipalities will be required to expand the utility and servicing infrastructure in newly densified areas without adequate tools to require growth to pay for growth.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’m just following up on 481.3 and 525.2, which are referenced here in clause 10. What mechanisms is the ministry putting in place, or will it put in place, to ensure that this new development contributes appropriately to the costs of servicing — like utilities, sanitation, roads — so that municipalities like North Vancouver and West Vancouver are not left to absorb the costs alone?

Hon. Christine Boyle: So again, this section is about the ministerial authority. I can answer the question, but I again want to be clear that this line of questioning is not related to this clause, and I hope we can stick to the clause at hand. We’re on 10 of 53, just as a reminder.

So we have provided new and updated development finance tools, including development cost charges and amenity cost charges that local governments can use to help fund the costs of infrastructure and amenities needed to support complete and livable communities. Those changes are not part of this bill, but work we have engaged in deeply with local governments.

Lynne Block: I’m just looking at it. Clause 10 makes amendments consequential to amendments made by this bill to the act. It expands the minister’s authority to make an order enacting or amending a bylaw if specified bylaws of a local government fail to comply with regulations made for the purposes of section 481.3(6) of the act, if any, or with section 525.2 of the act as added by this bill.

That’s why I’m referencing both of those, because it’s right there in the first part of clause 10.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will just again clarify that those specific sections were dealt with as part of clause 4 in terms of the policy issues that the member opposite is raising. Section 10 is about the ministerial order to implement what we have previously discussed.

The Chair: I invite you to rephrase your question.

Lynne Block: I will rephrase.

As the ministerial umbrella over this particular clause, the details you’re saying were done earlier — great. But I’m just curious about a few things that are still in there that I’m not clear about. I think that there are some sections or some concerns in here that were not addressed previously. I would just like to clarify.

Before I carry on with that, just a curiosity. What is the purpose of dropping “zoning” and instead of saying “zoning bylaws,” just saying “bylaws”? I’m just curious.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, can I just clarify you were speaking of (b) there?

Lynne Block: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is just about drafting. It’s because (b) refers to parking, which doesn’t necessarily sit within zoning in municipal bylaws. So the language refers simply to bylaws under (b).

Lynne Block: Thank you. I appreciate that. I was just curious why. So one refers to parking, and one does not.

I would really like to focus on the idea of part (b), where it says: “Establish in relation to an area, the siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form or density of housing units required to be permitted by regulations made for the purposes of section 481.3.”

Now, I’m sure you did discuss some of that stuff in between there, on the previous one, on clause 4 before, but what I’d like to focus on is this. On the North Shore, we have tremendous concerns regarding flooding. What we had a few years ago in North Vancouver was that there were several houses built that supposedly, in that day and age, were okay to be there. However, there were heavy rains, and because of building and development above them, there was a landslide, and people got killed.

So my curiosity here and my concern is: what parameters do you have or what guidelines do you have — perhaps in section 4, but I would like to just review — to ensure that there are no issues with flooding, landslides?

The last time that it was really a serious concern was the election day. We had literally rivers running down streets. One person’s house was…. A culvert overflowed over the road and the brand new house went…. In ten minutes, the flood waters were up to the top of the television because of the flooding, and it didn’t cease.

My question here is: what do you have, specifically…? I realize that you’re going to have the regulations later, but do you have an overall umbrella idea of how you will make sure that everything is established in a logical, comprehensive, transparent framework to ensure that everything is covered regarding any catastrophes or any emergencies?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I will point out that this question, while relevant to the subsection that was previously dealt with under clause 4, is not actually relevant to section 10, but let me provide an answer anyway.

These changes won’t impact the existing tools local governments have to manage growth in hazardous areas, such as development permits. As well, land which is subject to hazardous conditions where additional residential density would increase the threat or risk are exempt from the small-scale, multi-unit housing requirements if the risks can’t be practically mitigated and the local government has obtained a report from a professional engineer or geoscientist which certifies these conditions exist.

So munis have the ability to exempt hazardous zones.

Lynne Block: Thank you for your patience, Minister. I really appreciate that.

This particular section, I realize, is high level, and basically it is stating that it pushes major capital and operating costs to local governments or municipalities without cost recovery assurance. I would really appreciate if you could outline how these issues will be addressed.

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. Could you show me where in this section that is relevant? I’m not seeing the connection.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair. “Establish, in relation to an area, the size, dimensions, location, type, form or density of housing units required to be permitted by regulations made for the purposes of section,” which we’ve already dealt with.

I’m just curious. We’re looking at density. We’ve got lots of capital costs coming through, and the concerns from the mayors are the major capital and operating costs for local governments without cost recovery assurance from this government.

Could we have an outline of how these issues will be addressed or could be addressed?

The Chair: I think that this section refers to, as you mentioned, the high-level powers that would be through an order in council or…. I’m not sure that this section is where you want to ask those questions. This is about regulation and not about cost recovery, so could you perhaps rephrase.

Lynne Block: Okay. Well, let me give you an example. Yes, thank you, Chair.

We have the wastewater treatment plant, which is going to add to the taxes of the local taxpayers quite a few hundred dollars per month, per year, for about 20 years. So the concerns now are that besides the wastewater treatment plant, which still isn’t finished — right? — and we’re looking at infrastructure needs on the North Shore…. I won’t go into bridges or transportation or services or utilities except for sewer and water. So the sewer….

My concern is: who is going to pay for the upgrade of the cost of servicing the utilities like the sewer, like the water? Who is going to do that? What mechanisms do we have for the new development to be put in place?

The Chair: Would the minister like an opportunity to respond?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I don’t feel it’s relevant to clause 10, and I’m struggling. I am not trying to avoid providing the information, but we are working through 53 clauses here. I guess I will just be honest. I’m struggling to keep answering questions that aren’t relevant, but here we are.

We’ve been working with local governments, as I’ve already said, to ensure they have the necessary tools to fund critical infrastructure amenities and affordable housing development cost charges, amenity cost charges, inclusionary zoning and a range of other new and expanded tools that we have worked with local governments on, which allow local governments to continue to build complete and livable communities, alongside the $1 billion from the growing communities fund, which gave local governments funding directly to fund amenities in their communities.

The Chair: I would invite the member to find a different approach to questioning.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Chair. I can appreciate that. I’m going into the specifics. I can appreciate it’s frustrating for you.

I wanted to reference 481.3 and 525.2 in relation to clause 10, but obviously, that is not under the auspices here.

I would just like to add, though, that with all the infrastructure needs, specifically on the North Shore, whether they be transit, transportation, safety, sewer, water, electrical, roads, bridges, whatever it may be…. My concern and my question is: if the municipalities do not have the funds to do any of this, where will the money come from, or the support?

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. That’s not relevant to this clause. Is there another…? Would you like to rephrase?

Linda Hepner: Let’s get down to clause 10 specifics.

Can the minister explain why it is necessary to give the province direct power to enact or amend municipal bylaws, and under what context did that make it necessary?

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Maybe I will start by answering, as a reminder, and I think we’re in agreement about this, that we are in a housing crisis. Families are being priced out, young people are leaving communities they grew up in, and businesses can’t attract workers because there aren’t enough affordable options.

[2:10 p.m.]

We are tackling housing now because the crisis demands urgent action. Ministerial orders are a last resort, not a first step. We’ve made it very clear that the goal is to work collaboratively with municipalities to remove unnecessary barriers and get more homes built for people, especially in communities falling short of housing needs.

When local governments delay or resist implementing these housing changes, such as those under Bills 44 or 25, the province may intervene to ensure progress. Again, it is a last resort and not a first step. But providing the authority to issue a ministerial order allows us to react efficiently and in real time to ensure consistent conditions exist and don’t make it financially impossible for developers to get the necessary housing permits across the province to support this kind of supportive family housing being built.

As a last item, I’ll add that even when a ministerial order is considered, municipalities are given time to respond, provide feedback and align their bylaws. The province’s priority is to have collaboration with local governments. These orders are a last resort, but we may also act decisively when housing needs are not being met.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I’m interested in the comments around “consistent conditions exist.” We know clearly they do not within the province. I’m wondering what measurable evidence has been demonstrated that existing municipal authority was so obstructing housing starts that it justifies the provincial override.

It would be really helpful if you gave me examples of how many communities within the province have been so negligent in providing housing and working diligently to provide housing that their communities support that this override of authority is necessary.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I’ll just start with the reminder that we are in a housing crisis. These are the types of homes that the people who make our communities strong, nurses and teachers and tradespeople, need to put down roots to get into the housing market and to build a good life.

The zoning reforms in Auckland and New Zealand more broadly, similar to ours, have been very successful. Just to give you a specific example, several recent studies have found these reforms significantly increased availability of housing and reduced rents since reforms started there in 2016. Those findings dovetail with wider economic evidence and the views of most economists.

Auckland isn’t the only example. An increasing number of jurisdictions — California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, to name a few — have reached the same conclusion as B.C. that we need to get rid of restrictive single-family zoning so that homebuilders and homeowners, including extended families, multigenerational families and friends, have options to build a variety of housing types.

[2:15 p.m.]

Housing economics is never simple math, but one thing we know is that if we don’t make it easier to build more different types of homes that people want and can afford, we will never address the housing crisis.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that answer from the minister, but with all due respect, what I’m trying to get at…. I’m very familiar with the Australian example.

I’m really trying to get at: how obdurate has local government been in advancing housing that the provincial government feels…? This legislation is the only tool we have that will actually provide the housing numbers that we’re looking at.

I know of many municipalities, and they’re working very hard at providing housing within their own communities. I’m very curious as to what data has been used to demonstrate that municipal authority was obstructing housing in the province.

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I’ve said previously, most local governments have done an exceptional job of enabling this type of housing. However, a small number of local governments took a narrower approach.

This ministerial order, again as I have already said, is in place as a last resort. Most local governments have stepped up and have been working very hard since these original changes were brought in. In the event that they don’t step up, we intend to act, but the ministerial order, which is the clause we’re on, is, again, as I’ve said, a last resort.

Linda Hepner: When the minister says 98 percent of the communities in this province have signed in for Bill 44 and then identifies that only a few are not complying the way the minister of the province would like to see that compliance, it’s astonishing that we need legislation to work with that final 2 percent or those smaller numbers.

I’m just wondering what significant effort has been made to reach out specifically to those that are less inclined and to understand their reason for being so disinclined.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, as has been stated, and as I know the member knows, the vast majority of local governments have been working hard on this front and doing good work.

We are regularly in touch with local governments, where they’re having great success. We want to learn from and work with them on that. Where local governments may have interpreted these rules differently than intended, we’re in conversation with them to understand and to come to alignment on that.

There are a small handful of local governments who, whether through misinterpretation or intentionally, have not implemented these bylaws. Again, the ministerial order is a last resort. Our intent always is to try to work collaboratively to get there.

I will add that it is not fair if the vast majority of local governments are doing this work and a handful don’t do their part. It’s important that every community do their part.

The ministerial orders are one important tool to ensure that everyone does their part so that all of those local governments who have been doing good, hard work are seeing the good community results of more housing options for families, for tradespeople, for seniors and that a handful of local governments aren’t not doing that work.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that answer, but it strikes me that 2 percent…. You’ve identified very clearly that the support of 98 percent of this province exists under Bill 44.

I’m wondering, with those that are obdurate, why legislation needs to be imposed on all of those other communities that are already doing good work and are vigorously trying to adapt to the requirements of Bill 44, albeit with the strain on infrastructure and other services, but they’re doing the work that is required and has been asked for by the ministry.

This 2 percent non-compliance, obdurate folk, for whatever reason…. Whether it’s geography and it doesn’t work, whether it’s infrastructure and it doesn’t work, whether it’s no jobs and they can’t fill those homes and it doesn’t work, whether it’s no contractors to build the homes and it doesn’t work…. I don’t know what the reason would be for the 2 percent.

I’m asking the minister why there was not a concerted effort to identify those 2 percent, and I’m assuming you know exactly who they are, to say: “We need to work with you, as opposed to the 98 percent, who are now going to be struggling to do what is now mandated here.” To turn that power over to the province is what many of them consider to be an overreach and certainly what I consider, as a former mayor, to be an overreach.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: These legislative changes are necessary to ensure all local governments have clear expectations for compliance and implementation and to remove legal barriers to development.

The intent of Bill 25, as I have stated, is a consistent approach. I’ll add, because the member referenced it, we are working with all municipalities, including municipalities whose zoning is not currently compliant. That’s always our first and second and third approach — engaging with local governments directly and attempting to work to come to alignment.

Linda Hepner: Just one….

The Chair: One moment. Remember, let me recognize you first, Member.

Linda Hepner: Thank you.

Through the Chair to the minister, thank you for that. That clarifies it for me. It doesn’t settle it for me, because I believe that there is consultation and data that I don’t quite understand here, but let me ask something further relative to the existing municipal authority.

You’re suggesting that this is a last resort, and what I’m trying to get to is: why is it a last resort? What other resorts were we using in advance of this to try and get compliance for everybody liking SM, the small multi-housing units? Clearly that is, in my opinion, a really good initiative and a good housing model.

I’m wondering why you’re calling it a last resort. Who does not understand that within the UBCM and the communities at large?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. I’m grateful to hear the member opposite supports small-scale, multi-unit housing. I’m happy to speak to many of the steps that we have taken.

We have issued policy direction. We did consultation. We’ve worked one-on-one in collaboration with municipalities on implementation. Alongside all of that, many, many webinars provided detailed technical guidance. We worked with the Planning Institute of B.C. on peer learning networks for implementation at the local government level. And we provided $51 million in capacity funding for local governments to do their internal work in making these policy changes.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that. I’m aware of the $1 billion community fund that is to provide infrastructure, although I can say — not the riding I come from, but the city I come from — that we need that $1 billion all by ourselves. So the number is nowhere close to what is going to be required under this legislation to advance that.

The minister earlier said, and I asked for clarification, that the object was to build homes closer to where people work. May I make an inquiry regarding that, or is that out of order given the clause? It was within this clause that the response was given, so I need clarity from the Chair if I can ask a question on that.

The Chair: I will allow this question, but just don’t stray too far, please.

Linda Hepner: Okay, thank you.

Earlier the response was that the object of this legislation was to build more homes closer to where people work. I’m wondering what analysis has been done on that and the extent of the job-making. I can understand that within large urban centres, but this legislation applies to all of the province.

Is there a job plan that aligns with the densification required in this legislation?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll be brief because the question, in my opinion, strays quite far from the ministerial orders referenced in section 10 here.

Bill 25 is focused on adding residential density in neighbourhoods that have already been residential, single-family neighbourhoods to allow more people to find a good home in the community that they know and love.

The Chair: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to ask the minister a couple of questions.

Specifically on this issue, we keep going sort of around in circles about when we’re changing the “zoning bylaw” to just “bylaw.” Then we’re talking about small-scale multifamily housing. Can the minister please give us a little bit more of an explanation of what, exactly, multifamily housing is and what the expectation in size is?

We’ve heard about a dozen times here now of the real, desperate need of housing in our province. I don’t disagree with that. But after being a municipal leader, I understand the importance of official community plans. I appreciate the opportunities when we end up doing zoning for specific reasons, particularly when it comes to infrastructure.

The minister has said many times that she honestly believes that there’s enough money in the piggy bank, in this one grant of $1 billion, to be able to cover all the shortfalls that we have in this province. I will vehemently disagree with that statement, inasmuch as I know, as my colleague has just mentioned, that in one city in particular, they could probably use the whole $1 billion themselves.

We don’t have to talk about some of the challenges in transit, where we’re densifying areas of our province that, we could argue, should be densified somewhere else. If we had proper rapid transit in this province, you could easily have people that were working in a downtown core be brought 20, 30, 50 miles away and not take two hours or three hours to get there, whether it’s by car or by the systems of transit that we have in this province.

I could go on quite a long time, if you want me to, to be able to talk about some of the challenges that we have when we look at the specifics in clause 10. The minister is right when she mentions there are a lot of clauses to go through.

I think, rightfully so, there’s a reason why there was significant pushback at UBCM, specifically on these changes that were coming down here. It wasn’t just because people were cranky, and it wasn’t just because they were afraid of losing local autonomy. They were afraid of having to put additional pressure and stress onto their existing taxpayers, because at the end of the day, it’s going to be those local taxpayers that are going to be paying for those infrastructure improvements, not the provincial government and not the federal government.

As I can remind everybody in this room, there’s only one level of government that we have that actually balances the books. That’s our municipal governments, and that is by law. No other level that we have in this country, whether it’s provincial or federal, has to balance the books.

I would offer up, as a municipal leader, and as my counterparts who have done the same, that we’ve done a very good job of trying to manage with the little money that we have to try to make sure that we are not putting an unfair burden onto our taxpayers.

The Chair: Member.

Ward Stamer: So that is why. I’m getting to the point of adding some of the additional things when it comes to multifamily housing density.

In this clause, it also talks about off-site parking, regardless of whether that parking even exists today or in the future. I would like an explanation from the minister on what actually are going to be the requirements and the limitations in these multi-housing areas.

If they were originally zoned as residential, and now all of a sudden there seems to be a need to be able to go multi-storey — because in a lot of cases, that’s what we’re talking about — what are the parameters and what are going to be the maximums allowed by this minister with these cabinet orders, and not looking at any official community plans or what the municipal governments want to have in the first place?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Respectfully, there were a handful of questions in there, and I’m not sure that any of them were relevant to the ministerial orders that this section is referring to.

The members opposite might want to coordinate their questions. In my understanding, and I’ll look to the Chair for clarity, we have covered those topics in previous sections of this committee stage.

The Chair: Member, could you rephrase or clarify your question?

Ward Stamer: I will. Thank you, Madam Chair.

In this section here, it talks about required multi-unit housing and densities. I’d like more clarification on this, on clause 10, because it goes back to 481.3 of the act and then also 525.2 of the act. Part of it is with indirect questions to off-site parking.

I’m wondering what are those density levels that they are trying to say can be put on this typical type of zoning. So if the zoning is residential, and now all of a sudden we’re going to have multi-housing, is there a number that says this is the maximum number that we can put on this, regardless if there’s even any off-site parking or not?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, those clauses referenced were established in previous sections and have been covered in this committee. This clause is specific to the minister’s ability to issue an order.

Linda Hepner: I think the minister can see the angst amongst the opposition on how difficult this legislation is going to be within our various communities. But I appreciate we’re talking about a ministerial order here now.

I will ask the minister: can you acknowledge that small municipalities may be required to fund extra planning and bylaw staff to amend those bylaws that are required here in order to ensure the cabinet does not amend or enact bylaws on their behalf? Lots of these smaller communities — even over 5,000, still a small community — won’t have the planning or the bylaw staff to do this. Can the minister acknowledge that that may cost extra money?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I think it’s worth clarifying, as the member noted, these rules don’t apply to small communities under 5,000. But as I have answered in a previous question, this is why the ministry provided $51 million in capacity funding to local governments to do that policy and implementation work, as well as why we worked with the Planning Institute of B.C. on peer learning networks to support staff in those communities on engaging in this work.

Linda Hepner: Is the minister suggesting that that money was to be used to pay for staffing to implement these bylaws?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, it was capacity support funding.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that.

If a local government fails to comply with the regulations and now the minister can enact or amend municipal bylaws, how will the minister ensure that the changes being made by the minister are best for that particular local government?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The small-scale, multi-unit housing provincial policy manual provides guidelines for local governments to consider when establishing site standards for small-scale, multi-unit housing development. These recommended site standards vary based on the lot context and number of units and are intended to create a viable building envelope for small-scale, multi-unit development.

As I’ve said before, we worked with a team of planners, architects and engineers and relied on an advisory group of local government planners to get the site conditions right and to confirm that it will work in communities. We also consulted with local governments, developers and builders to ensure that these policies would create viable projects.

Linda Hepner: I don’t think that answered the question. How will the minister ensure that the changes made by the minister are the best for that particular local government? The answer I heard was that the planners and the architects have looked and have created opportunities that each of these municipalities have already accepted.

Can you clarify just exactly what that means? I didn’t get that each of the local governments have somehow been connected to and that their geography will work for the legislation that is in here. If so, I don’t see anything in the legislation that says certain communities, under certain conditions, will or will not be able to achieve the mandates.

Hon. Christine Boyle: As we canvassed pretty extensively yesterday, the policy work was done in consultation with local governments as well as experts, but also with a goal of balance and to achieve consistency across communities to meet what we know — and what the member opposite, I’m grateful, has acknowledged — are housing needs in communities, for exactly these types of homes. As well, as we have spoken about already, there are provisions for exemptions for unique local circumstances.

[2:50 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Consistency across municipalities. I know the minister doesn’t mean that, because you know there cannot be consistency across municipalities. You know that going to Burnaby Mountain is quite different than going to the Delta landscape. So the consistency across municipalities is exactly what local government is afraid of. We’re looking to ensure that the legislation understands the frailties of different geography.

Every time I hear the response, it’s that the local government has the opportunity to ask for some exemption within that, for whatever those reasons are. I’m sure that’s so, but I’m wondering what the process is by which that could happen quickly.

I don’t know, under the ministerial order, that that question is timely. I’ll reserve that to ask at a later date.

I’ll move on to one that is within the clause 10 parameters, and that is: will there be consultation with local governments, even if they fail to comply with the regulations?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Linda Hepner: How soon after a municipality misses the deadline will the province intervene?

Hon. Christine Boyle: If a municipality doesn’t comply by the deadline, our first action is to pick up the phone and call. We work closely with local governments, so we would reach out and have a conversation with them, and then, on a case-by-case basis, determine next steps.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate the comment around working closely with local government because that doesn’t seem to be the case in the current legislation and the current environment.

For instance, when you worked closely with local government, did you deal with local government at the UBCM on this, and did you get their blessing in terms of endorsement from the local governments generally?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I am not sure how directly this applies to clause 10. But as I have spoken to, we consulted with local governments and through UBCM. We received a range of feedback, and all of it was considered as part of taking a balanced approach.

Consulting and working closely doesn’t always mean agreeing on everything. But it does mean hearing from and learning from and incorporating feedback. That’s the approach that we have taken.

Linda Hepner: I think, Minister, it actually does relate to clause 10 because the minister, by order, is defining what’s going to happen if they don’t comply and what the processes are by which that could occur.

I’m assuming the consultation, in a non-compliance environment, will take place over a certain period of time.

If I could just get some clarification around what the timeline would be that is acceptable to the province before action would have to be taken to local governments who simply don’t comply.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I think I answered two questions ago, it is on a case-by-case basis. The timeline will differ depending on what the issues are. Again, as I said, our first response is a call and to understand and work with the local government.

Chair, if you’ll allow, I’m hoping to request a break for those of us who have been here a while, a ten- or 15-minute break.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

The committee will take a brief recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the committee on Bill 25 back to order. We are on clause 10.

With no further questions, shall clause 10 pass.

Division has been called.

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Members, before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

Clause 10 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Kang	Lajeunesse
Morissette		Boyle
NAYS — 3
Hepner	Mok	Williams

The Chair: We will take a minute for the minister’s staff to come back in.

On clause 11.

[3:20 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: First off, I’d like to ask the minister a fairly straightforward question. That question is possibly a framing question as well, when we start talking about official community plans, because there’s a request to suspend the long-standing rule requiring zoning to align with the official community plan until 2027.

Can the minister explain what her belief is in the importance for municipalities to have official community plans? And by allowing the minister to make significant changes to bylaws in the guise of increasing housing and density in our province, why would the government still go forward in not recognizing local autonomy when it comes to official community plans?

When we are looking…. Again, as I mentioned previously, there is only one level of government, particularly in this province, that is tasked to balance their budgets by law. We know that there could be some extreme difficulties in them doing that, but because of the law, they’re able to do that.

That’s one of the reasons why communities have spent so much time on their official community plans. They’re trying to balance growth with cost and the capacity for their taxpayers to be able to provide those infrastructure improvements in a timely fashion.

One of the concerns that I have and that we have is that by not following these official community plans, it’s going to make it that much more difficult for those municipalities to balance their budgets. Can the minister please explain why they’re going to suspend that long-standing rule till 2027?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question.

The purpose is to allow local governments time to align their OCPs with their zoning bylaw, allowing time for specified small-scale, multi-unit housing zoning bylaws to align with their official community plan.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for her answer.

To follow up on that, what are the ramifications if these communities are not able to adjust their official community plans because they are not able to comply with sections 481.3(3), (4) and (5)? What are the circumstances going to be when we get there? It’s only a little more than a year away.

What happens if these municipalities are not able to comply with these new regulations and are not able to adequately plan around some of these new densification requirements by the ministry? What is the ministry going to do about it?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: By way of background, I will say that, as I’m sure the member knows from his own experience, local governments are required through the Local Government Act to ensure their zoning bylaw and official community plan are consistent and aligned. Local governments impacted by these changes may need to update their official community plan if the zones they amend no longer align with their corresponding OCP land use designations and policies.

Ensuring that OCPs and zoning bylaws are aligned reduces conflict between policies and bylaws and improves transparency for developers and for residents. It can also, of course, prevent delays in development approvals and reduce costs and uncertainty for developers.

If a local government misses or is unable, for some reason, to meet the deadline, then we would work with them to get into alignment.

Tony Luck: The next question we have on that one around clause 11 is why, in relation to a zoning bylaw adopted by local government for the purpose of complying with section 481.3(6), the official community plan does not apply before the date that is one year after the prescribed appliance date. There seems to be some confusion there, and we just want to make sure everybody complies at the right date and everything.

Can you just explain that, clarify it for us, please?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m not understanding the question. Maybe the member can restate or clarify.

Tony Luck: To clarify a bit, why, in relation to a zoning bylaw adopted by a local government for the purpose of complying with section 481.3(6), does the official community plan not apply before the date that is one year after the prescribed compliance date? Is that a little bit clearer? Sorry.

The Chair: Members, next time, please wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking. Thank you.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The one year is to give time for the local government to align their OCP with the zoning bylaws that they have updated.

Tony Luck: That sounds good. Do you think one year is adequate time for these municipalities to apply? Have you tried testing them? Is there going to be enough time for these municipalities to comply with that one year? Is that going to be enough time for them?

[3:30 p.m.]

Some of them are pretty busy with some of the work they’re doing out there. Do you feel that’s enough time?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I can answer that question.

One year is consistent with the approach we took with Bill 44. These are much less significant changes than that and, as we have canvassed many times, extensions are available in particular circumstances.

Tony Luck: Thank you for the clarity and for that understanding.

In some ways, you have already tested that and the other one that you’ve done, so it seems to be working. That’s good.

Was this clause included to ensure that local governments do not have a loophole to not comply with the regulations, forcing them to change their bylaws?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is included because local governments are required to align their zoning bylaws with their official community plans.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Tony Luck: This is just more of a clarification question, just to make sure we’re catching all the clauses, hearing what we’re hearing and what we’re seeing and what we’re reading.

Why was section 78 repealed? Just a clarification on that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: It simply repeals a spent transitional provision for heritage revitalization agreements.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Tony Luck: In clause 13, a lot of it mirrors the Local Government Act, but we’ll go through it again for clarity, with maybe some other questions around that. I’m sure that the minister will be able to help us out through that. I know that it’s overlap in here and everything, but it might give us some opportunity to ask questions that we may have missed the last time here.

Are the amendments made to the Vancouver Charter in clauses 12 to 23 identical to the ones made in the Local Government Act? We haven’t done a clause-by-clause comparison, so I’m sure they are, but we’ll just get clarification now from the minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: They are the same in policy intent. Vancouver doesn’t have an OCP, so there are slight differences in language, but the policy intent is a mirror.

Tony Luck: That kind of leads to the next one. By amending the Vancouver Charter, does this align all municipalities across British Columbia now?

Hon. Christine Boyle: On small-scale, multi-unit housing, yes it does.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Tony Luck: Clause 14 is interesting. It might give us some latitude to go back into clause 4. This is now the Vancouver Charter, and clause 4 covered some things for local government. This could do that. I’m not sure if we’ll go there yet. We’ll have a look.

Is this clause identical to all the clauses in clause 4 of this bill?

The Chair: Member, please wait to be recognized by the Chair before you start speaking. Thank you.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, in policy intent, they’re identical. The wording of the original legislation is different, so the amendments are slightly different, but the policy intent is identical.

Tony Luck: I just want to go back because this is the Vancouver Charter now. I just want to talk maybe a little bit about some of the things that we talked about in clause 4, but they’re relevant now in this clause here, because it is Vancouver Charter versus the Community Charter.

I think at that time I was talking about density issues and how we’re failing at building the units that we’ve talked about in the past, unfortunately, and they’re kind of dropped. I just have a quick question for the minister. Does she know how much land is available in British Columbia for private ownership?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m not sure of the relevance of the question, as these are amendments to the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I was going back there because a lot of the questions we had in clause 4 would be relevant here too. So I wanted to just make sure it applies to Vancouver as well. We’re looking at some of those same questions that we had there, but now we’re in a different clause. It is a different charter. Rather than the Community Charter, it’s the Vancouver Charter. Some of those questions would be relevant around here.

The reason I’m asking: we go back to that issue about this trying to solve something around affordability, and I don’t think I really got an answer in the last one. Has this resulted in affordable housing?

One of the issues around affordable housing is not enough land to build on. When you get a city like Vancouver, the only way they can go is up. With some of these small units for these communities, everything is going to be challenging because you’re going to be affecting older neighbourhoods.

One of the challenges is that there just isn’t enough land. I was asking the minister if she knows how much land is available in British Columbia for private ownership.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I spoke in a previous clause about the affordability question, and I will happily repeat myself because my beloved colleague Minister Kahlon here, whom I do love to quote in talking about housing, spoke to Bill 44 in saying that the nature of fourplexes makes homes more affordable than in a single-family home. That’s why we’re bringing this forward. When a single-family home is built on a single-family lot, it’s often unattainable for many people.

I will leave that as the answer because, again, I don’t think the amount of land available in British Columbia is relevant to these specific amendments to the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: Okay, we’ll leave that one alone. I’ll answer it sometime later, when I do find the clause to put it in. We’ll have that answer there. It is a challenge for communities outside of the Lower Mainland and everything. But you’re right, we’re not talking about the Community Charter right now.

We do not have any more questions on clause 14.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Tony Luck: We had an amendment for 14, so we missed the vote on that, right? It was a similar amendment to clause 4 but it probably…. Yeah, okay.

The Chair: We have moved on to clause 15 now.

Tony Luck: We missed it. Thank you. Our fault.

Is this clause 15 identical to clause 1 of this bill?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, the policy intent is identical.

Tony Luck: How many Vancouver parcels fall within the new restricted zoning definition that was within this clause?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I don’t have that exact number. We work closely with local governments. It’s up to them on the implementation end, and the city of Vancouver has been a very good partner in implementation.

Tony Luck: Would we be able to get that tabled, or do we have to go to the city of Vancouver to get that information, if we were looking for that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s the responsibility of the local government, so the city of Vancouver would likely have that information.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Tony Luck: What criteria will be used to exempt Vancouver areas, as in the other clauses? Will there be special exemptions for Vancouver because it has its own charter, or is it going to be consistent across all municipalities in that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

It will be consistent.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Tony Luck: On clause 18, there’s just one question we have. What operational change occurs with the word-tweaking in this particular clause, if there’s any?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a minor housekeeping amendment identified by editors. It was that there was a hyphen in some places between “one” and “family” and not in other places. We are correcting that error. It’s huge news, and I expect hours of questions.

Tony Luck: You know, we have it, and we want to just clarify. It’s good to get it on record, I think. That’s where we’re at. I know they’re mundane and there’s a lot of that stuff. Thank you, Minister, for cooperating and doing what we need to do on those things.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Tony Luck: Same kind of idea again. Does this clause operate in the same manner as clause 7?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: These are consequential amendments to ensure coherence and functionality. This section was updated with revised numbering to align with revisions in 565.03. It ensures that the city of Vancouver is required to provide written notice to the minister once necessary zoning bylaw updates are adopted. Again, it’s similar in policy intent but within different language.

Tony Luck: How will this compliance be assessed and reported publicly when the city complies with it? Will there be a reporting process to know that we’re on track?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It will be assessed through written submissions. Then we’ll make a determination at that time. Last time we did issue a news release.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Tony Luck: Is it the intention that this clause operate the same way as clause 9 of the bill?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, it is.

Tony Luck: This question we’ve kind of pulled out from the further clauses. Will the same criteria for determining extraordinary circumstances apply to this clause as well, and equally to the Vancouver city council and all other local governments?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

Trevor Halford: Can the minister confirm that clause 22 will allow government direct power to enact or amend bylaws if council has failed to comply with sections 565.03(3), (4) and (5) or 306(1)?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Welcome to the member.

Yes, it would, though as we have covered extensively on earlier clauses, it would be a last resort. We would work with, in this case, the city of Vancouver, which has been quite a good partner in the implementation of this work.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I’m playing a little bit of catch-up here, so I apologize for that.

If you’re making these changes, would this give the minister direct control to enact or to, I guess, amend bylaws of all the municipalities if they do not comply?

I represent my riding. I’ve got two municipalities. I’ve got White Rock, and I’ve got Surrey. I can tell you I know White Rock has sent correspondence to the minister regarding some of the targets that they’re not able to meet, which is very challenging for local government, especially one the size of…. The population of Surrey is quite extensive. The population of White Rock is just over 20,000.

Is that the goal or the intent of the minister with this piece?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is specific to the Vancouver Charter, which only applies to the city of Vancouver and, yes, as I said, does create the ministerial authority, though the intention is as a last resort. We’ll continue to collaborate, and the city of Vancouver has been a good partner on this work.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Can the minister give an example of what one of those circumstances might be and when she would have to enact that power?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. Again, for the city of Vancouver, if they weren’t in compliance on the small-scale, multi-unit housing, then we would have the ability to issue a ministerial order. Though again, our first act would be to pick up the phone, call them, understand the situation and work with them on coming into alignment, before a ministerial order was the step we took. There would be many other steps before that.

But to the specific question, yes, that’s what this clause is related to, within the city of Vancouver specifically.

Trevor Halford: Thank you for that.

Would there be an escalation of — I guess maybe “penalties” isn’t the right word — action that the government would be taking once formal notice of something like that would transpire?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Trevor Halford: Can the minister outline what that is?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We did cover this in earlier sections, but I know everyone’s rotating through.

Related to the Vancouver Charter, we would, as I said, reach out, understand what the circumstances and situation are and attempt to work together in a collaborative way to get to alignment. If that weren’t working, we could issue notice. They would have 30 days to respond to that notice, and if necessary, it would get to a ministerial order, again with every effort made to engage as partners in the implementation of this work.

Again, Vancouver has been quite supportive of this work.

Trevor Halford: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Once you would get to that ministerial order, if you got to that point, is there an outlined appeal process that could take place for Vancouver? Is that detailed on what that appeal is? If there is an adamant disagreement within the example the minister gave, is there an appeal process for the municipality?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This legislation doesn’t include an appeal provision. But again, it would be a last resort to get to that step.

Trevor Halford: What was the rationale for not including an appeal provision within this legislation? You would think that, with all circumstances, if the minister is directing an order…. There’s even, when you look at…. If there’s an EA certificate issued for a proponent or not ordered, or there’s a fine issued or things like that, there’s usually an appeal process within that. What was the rationale for not having an appeal process under this?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This isn’t about a penalty or a fine, as other situations may be. This is about consistent implementation of small-scale, multi-unit housing and our continued goal of addressing the housing crisis by building a range of more affordable and family-friendly housing options that allow people to continue to call the communities that they love home.

[3:55 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Again, I’m sorry I’m late to this, but I just want to make sure. I think I’ve maybe got things confused. There’s no penalty or fine associated with this clause?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There aren’t specific provisions in the bill related to penalties and fines. The intent is to reduce barriers and make small-scale, multi-unit housing options viable and ensure they’re delivered in communities on a consistent basis — in this case, in the city of Vancouver, because we’re discussing the Vancouver Charter.

Trevor Halford: I guess the point that I’m trying to illustrate here — maybe I’m not doing a good job — is that this clause here, clause 22, we’re talking about…. The clause will allow government to direct power, enact or amend bylaws if council has failed to comply with the sections that I listed in a previous question.

What I’m getting at is that government has the hammer here. And we have duly elected leaders in our municipal governments. I think the minister served as one recently. I know we’ve had, actually, in this room, quite a few people that have served at municipal levels. But the government is the ultimate hammer here with what they’re laying down specifically in this clause. When I’m talking about an appeal process, government…. When we look at….

The city of Surrey just debated speed limits in certain areas. That is within their mandate. That is within their jurisdiction, right? And we’re talking about zoning and other things — all of which, by the way, the government has taken away the right for public hearings to happen on. But now they are saying that they are going to have the final say when it comes to amending bylaws if, in their view — their view, not a third party — council has failed, in their opinion, to comply.

I guess my question is very specific. Does the minister not think…? And I know that when she says she would be working in good faith, I take the minister at her word for that. I don’t disagree with that. But when they’re saying that they are ultimate authority here…. Sometimes government gets it wrong. Not just this government, every government at every level. They make mistakes with unintended consequences. That’s why we have municipal governments at every level across this province to carry out those duties. Now those duties are under threat under this section here.

Again, why was there no appeal process contemplated? I know the minister says we would take every step necessary to make sure we don’t get to this point. Eventually this is here because they think they’re probably going to end up at this point somehow, so why would there not be an appeal process, whether it’s 15 days, 30 days or whatever it is, for the city to outline why the government’s amendments would be an affront to their bylaws?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Bill 25 is about making sure the system works for people who need housing now and sets clear expectations for local governments to meet the small-scale, multi-unit housing requirements to ensure the conditions exist for homes to get built. We know that a central issue for getting new housing supply on the market quickly has been the challenges local governments can face in approving housing in a timely way.

As the member noted, many of us have served at the local government level. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that local governments do. They know their communities best. We know that the housing crisis doesn’t stop at municipal boundaries, and neither can the solution.

Councils are responsible for establishing the overall vision plans and policies for their community through their official community plan. Official community plans go well beyond just housing and include policies related to other land uses, transportation, recreation and more.

Councils also continue to make decisions on project proposals that don’t align with their community’s official community plan or that go beyond allowable densities. In this specific case, while not a formal appeals process, councils have 30 days to respond to a ministerial order and outline the reasons why they weren’t able to comply.

I’ll just end this question by saying that when families are being priced out, when workers can’t live near their jobs and when housing approvals are stalled for years, the province has a duty to act.

Trevor Halford: I understand the answer the minister gave. That wasn’t even close to the question that I asked. I asked about the contemplation for an appeal process.

Maybe I’ll ask this in a different way. During the consultation phase of this piece of legislation, was an appeal ever discussed or advocated for, at any level, to the minister or to the staff or either before or during legislative review or contemplation of this bill?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We consulted with local governments as a continued part of this process. One of the requests was a time period to be able to respond, so as part of the legislation, local governments have 30 days to respond and outline reasons why they haven’t been able to meet the deadline to come into compliance. Then the minister would respond after that time.

Trevor Halford: If there are financial costs to a municipality on some of these changes specific to clause 22, would the province be covering those costs or have an assessment of those costs based on a ministerial order in proposed bylaw changes?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: We know, as I’m sure the member opposite is aware, that development-by-development rezonings take up significant public and private sector resources, and we’ve heard from both local governments and development industry representatives that the shift to upfront zoning will help advance developments more quickly, effectively, efficiently and affordably.

We also, to the question of costs, and again we have spoken to this a few times earlier, allocated $51 million for local government development approval funding to support local governments in doing the work and implementing changes at their own staff level.

Trevor Halford: One of the struggles that I’ve heard from municipalities, not just mine but other local municipalities — we heard it quite in detail at UBCM of this year and, actually, in years past — is, just to the minister’s point here in terms of staff, municipal staff that are now being pulled off of files because they are dealing directly now with the province going back and forth on interpretation targets, things like that.

This is very specific to the housing mandates and other…. But when we’re talking about this and clause 22, they are almost suffocating under bureaucracy right now because of the back-and-forth with the province and the amount of….

You look at a municipality like White Rock that serves just around 20,000 to 21,000 residents. It’s not a huge city hall. It’s actually quite small, and one person getting pulled off in a department results in a massive backlog in permitting and other things. They’re pulling people off all the time to deal with stuff that’s being driven down by the province, and that’s actually creating a massive backlog.

Does the minister have any concerns about what these items, specific here on this clause, are going to do when they say: “Yeah, we’ll work with municipalities in good faith”? If they’re going to get a ministerial order on a bylaw, I can guarantee you that that is hundreds and hundreds of hours of staff level in a municipal city hall, either talking to legal, talking to…. Whatever it is, that is back and forth. Has the minister got any advice on that, or did anything…? Were there any flags for that in consultation with different municipalities?

I know the minister, through her own history, would probably be aware…. Vancouver’s the largest city — well, soon to be second. But I can tell you, especially on these smaller cities, that the back-and-forth with the province in trying to understand what this means….

A lot of them are feeling fairly intimidated, especially on the housing side if targets aren’t being met, and the city of White Rock is top of that list. But they are spending hours and hours of city time, which is taxpayer money, which is also taking them away from some of the critical work that they’re doing in regard to permitting, in other development, economic development, outreach.

Does the minister have any concerns that this is going to impede that work as well?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is specific to the Vancouver Charter. We have had an opportunity to canvass this particular issue related to other communities, but I would welcome the question if the question is specific to Vancouver. The member was talking about White Rock.

[4:10 p.m.]

I can speak to Vancouver, to say that I know the city of Vancouver has experienced how housing approvals can get bogged down in inconsistent local rules, inconsistency across municipal boundaries, lengthy delays. This work sets clear provincewide standards so that homebuilders and developers, municipalities and communities know what can be built and where.

By removing unnecessary steps and creating certainty, it speeds up approvals, creates the conditions needed to build the housing we need.

Trevor Halford: I understand the minister’s point. I was being specific to Vancouver. I was using White Rock as an example. I could use other municipalities as an example as well.

Again, just going back to the cost here. If they’re looking…. These amendments or bylaws, if they can be amended by the province, will any of them have a sunset clause? Will any of them…?

If they do make a change and the province mandates a change and it’s clearly not working, as maybe Vancouver would illustrate…. Then we get six months down the road, and there are unintended consequences. Maybe the government was warned about those consequences. What would the minister’s expectation be on how that could be rectified?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province always has the ability to update legislation based on feedback and new information.

Tony Luck: I’ve got a request here for a short bathroom break. Would that be possible?

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the committee on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 back to order. We are on clause 22.

Trevor Halford: On the previous question I asked there, and I talked about unintended consequences of bylaw changes, the minister did say yes, that they would do that. She used the word “legislation.” I’m wondering if there were bylaws changed that weren’t working out.

Is the minister saying that would have to be done, that she said we would amend legislation? I don’t understand why that would be done through legislation.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s possible I misunderstood the question. This bill lays out the small-scale, multi-unit housing approach. If there are unintended consequences in this bill that we were to make changes to based on feedback or new information, we could amend the legislation.

Trevor Halford: Maybe my question wasn’t…. I didn’t articulate it in the best way I could have. What I meant is that if the municipality is forced to amend a specific bylaw and there are unintended consequences that the province then realizes after they’ve made them amend the bylaw or the province has amended the bylaw, what can be done to go back and make that change?

If the city or the province goes and amends a bylaw through ministerial order, and then it turns out that that was not a good idea and there are unintended consequences from that, and that’s very evident to both the city and to the province, and ultimately to the minister, what would the minister’s course of action be in a circumstance like that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I think one of our challenges is just that it’s hard to work in hypotheticals here, so let me do my best.

If there were unintended consequences of these zoning changes in the city of Vancouver, which is what we’re discussing, then we would work closely with the city of Vancouver to better understand and make adjustments based on that understanding on a case-by-case basis.

Again, the city of Vancouver has already been out ahead in implementing these changes, but we are always in conversation with local governments as things move forward.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall clause 22 pass?

A division has been called.

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

[4:35 p.m.]

Clause 22 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Kang	Lajeunesse
Morissette		Boyle
NAYS — 3
Wilson	Mok	Williams

On clause 23.

Linda Hepner: On clause 23, I believe it’s still relative to the Vancouver Charter.

What heritage transition protection has been removed for Vancouver?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It is just a minor housekeeping amendment to repeal a spent transitional provision.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister.

I have no other questions. It’s straight housekeeping. There was nothing else related to that at all?

Okay.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister confirm that this clause is purely interpretive and doesn’t create any change or any new power or any obligation on local governments?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, the member has it exactly right.

Linda Hepner: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear that. Did the minister say that it was simply a housekeeping mechanism?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

David Williams: Maybe I can just ask for a clarification. What exactly was the purpose, then, of having this change?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It simply adds an interpretive rule for the purposes of the transitional provisions related to the Local Government Act. It’s just interpretation, as the member’s previous question got to.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Trevor Halford: How many bylaws would be protected under this clause?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It would depend on how many have been given first reading before the date that this section comes into force.

[4:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Can the minister please explain — sorry if that has been answered in previous sessions — an example of that and kind of clarify what exactly that means?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Bill 44 established that heritage designation bylaws, following the date the section came into force, can’t be used to prevent properties from being developed to the minimum density requirements. If a property is in the process of getting a heritage designation bylaw and has passed first reading when Bill 25 takes effect, then the density requirements don’t apply.

So it’s a transitional provision protecting heritage designation bylaws that are being reviewed and finalized and which otherwise may not have been permitted if the bylaw impacts the property meeting the small-scale, multi-unit housing minimum density requirements. The provision allows in-process heritage bylaws going through readings to proceed, even if they limit the minimum density requirements for small-scale, multi-unit housing.

Trevor Halford: Could that not lead to intended or unintended consequences of…? What tools would the minister have to prevent the overuse of the heritage designations? What does the minister have in her toolbox to…? If a municipality was going to block development, this would be a tool at their disposal. Can the minister please outline what she would have to prevent the overuse of heritage designations?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The clause only applies, as outlined, to heritage properties that are in the process of being designated already. We don’t anticipate that this will be a major challenge.

Linda Hepner: I know that in the city of Surrey, which is significantly large, oftentimes we have requests from long-time members of the community or long, long-time residents, farming communities, to designate a property. We have done that several times when they come and say to us, “This is a heritage property,” and give us rationale and reasons around why it is very important.

I could use the Bose heritage farmhouse for an example. They turned it, now, into a coffee shop that has a designated heritage. We designated a tree as a heritage tree.

[4:45 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister can give me some examples of where, in the future, if we wanted to designate something as a heritage, what would happen relative to this legislation.

Let me just give you an example, because I actually was going to try and meet with the minister to talk about this very house, the Emily Carr House here in Victoria. The person that owns that property wants it designated heritage, or I believe it is designated, and wants to have some exemptions allowed around the uses of that heritage home.

There are many opportunities either in the future to have a heritage designation or because it has not yet been outlined as such in various communities around the province. I wonder what the approach would be relative to this legislation in those circumstances.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Just to clarify, Bill 25 doesn’t change any of those heritage provisions that were established in Bill 44. This is just a transitional piece.

It is off topic, but I’m happy to follow up on the Emily Carr building at another time.

Linda Hepner: If it does not interpret future opportunities for heritage housing, I’m wondering how municipalities, if they get those requests to identify a property as a heritage property…. How does that then aligns if someone comes in and asks for a development permit for multi-unit housing? Can that then be either denied because they’re also looking at a new opportunity for a heritage designation in that same area, or does it have to go through the exemption process of the province?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Local governments retain their heritage protection powers, but they will have to integrate and meet density requirements for small-scale, multi-unit while not unreasonably restricting the development of small-scale, multi-unit.

Again, this is just the base zoning, but those heritage protection powers are retained. The intent there is to ensure that heritage buildings can continue to be protected and be landmarks in their community while also adding value to them by ensuring they can continue to be valuable and viable housing for their communities.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify heritage. If they redesignate something that is heritage within a community, then are they not obliged, or are they still required, to adhere to the densification irrespective of the heritage designation in the future?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks. Glad to be able to make sure we’re clear on this.

If the heritage designation is already in place, then the current level of density requirement is retained. I think it’s helpful just to clarify that nobody is required to develop. It’s just about creating the option.

If the designation is not yet in place and gone through first reading by the time this section comes into force, then that additional level of density would be allowed. I think it’s worth noting that many homes which are currently designated as heritage do accommodate multiple dwellings within either one larger residential building or through heritage infill, which is a common practice in many communities across B.C. already. The ability to retain certain aspects of heritage or do infill around heritage would again create more good housing options balanced with that heritage protection.

There are some beautiful examples in communities around the province where they’re doing that really well.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if the minister could give me some of those examples. I’m having a hard time to visualize when I think of the city where I know the heritage designations are. Then I’m thinking about: if they were to develop beside those, what would that look like in a community? I wonder if the minister could help me with some clarification around real-life examples.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, happy to.

I’m going to speak to Vancouver because that’s where I know best. But the community around my church used to have large single-family homes. At one point during the war, many of them became rooming houses. They’ve had many forms, but the exterior has remained the same.

Now many of these buildings have multiple units, even family-sized units within them, and then a laneway or coach house on what used to be a large lawn to add additional housing.

I can think of actually one in my riding where a good friend used to live. What used to be a big older house is now four units in the main house and two units in an additional building in the back, stratified, and in a beautiful place where her and her partner raised their two kids. They had a senior in one of the other units whose family lived further away. It was lovely for her to be near these young kids.

So a lot of great, creative and really beautiful options where heritage is being matched with adding more housing options in neighbourhoods.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that example. I could visualize that because being a former Maritimer, we have lots of those beautiful big heritage homes that are often divided up into large family residences.

But what I will say about that is that there is often a requirement to marry the historic look and feel of those homes. I’m just wondering, within this legislation, if we do the multi-units on a lot, does the province align it to, say, the heritage home look and feel, or is that still within the purview of local government?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

That would still be the purview of local government, those aesthetic pieces around heritage. I know the city of Vancouver has a heritage paint colour program. That’s their business.

The Chair: Shall clause 25 pass?

Division has been called.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Before putting the question, Members, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

Clause 25 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Kang	Lajeunesse
Morissette		Boyle
NAYS — 3
McInnis	Mok	Williams

On clause 26.

Linda Hepner: We don’t have a lot, but I would like the minister to clarify the significance of this clause.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. This is the same discussion as the previous clause but for heritage revitalization agreements.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:08 p.m.