The committee met at 9 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from government and opposition parties.

I acknowledge today that I’m joining you from the traditional territories of the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations.

I’d like to welcome everyone listening to and participating in this virtual public hearing for the Budget 2021 consultation.

The committee typically visits communities around the province to hear from British Columbians about their priorities for the next provincial budget, but of course, due to the pandemic, our public hearings are being held virtually this year.

Our consultation is based on the Minister of Finance’s budget consultation paper that was released on June 1. Of course, we invite all British Columbians to participate by making a written submission or by filling out the online survey. Details are available on the website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The consultation closes at 5 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2020.

We will carefully consider all input and then make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be in Budget 2021. The committee intends to release its report in August.

In terms of the format, presenters have been organized into small panels based by theme. This morning we’ll be continuing with a couple of panels for K-to-12 education before shifting topics to housing. Each presenter has five minutes for the presentation. Following presentations, all panellists will have it open for questions from members.

Just a note that the meeting is being recorded and transcribed, and all audio from our meeting is being broadcast live via our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

Now I have the honour of having the members introduce themselves. We’ll start today with Ronna-Rae.

R. Leonard: Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA for Courtenay-Comox.

I am sitting here in the traditional unceded territories of the K’ómoks First Nation.

R. Coleman: Good morning. I’m Rich Coleman. I’m the MLA for Langley East.

I’m in Kwantlen territory.

D. Clovechok (Deputy Chair): Good morning from the Kootenays. I am Doug Clovechok, MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I’m on the traditional and shared territories of the Shuswap and Ktunaxa Nations.

M. Dean: I’m honoured to be speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt and Scia’new Nations.

My name is Mitzi Dean. I’m the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I go by she/her pronouns.

D. Barnett: Good morning. I’m Donna Barnett. I’m the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I’m on the traditional territory of the Secwépemc people.

N. Simons: Good morning, everybody. I’m Nicholas Simons.

I represent Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the traditional territory of the shíshálh, Tla’amin, Klahoose and other First Nations up the coast.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Are you finished there, Nicholas?

N. Simons: Did it sound like I needed to go on? Because I could. You don’t usually give me that option.

Anyway, good morning, everybody.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning. Great.

Well, welcome. Also assisting the committee today is actually not Susan; it’s Jennifer — and Stephanie Raymond from Parliamentary Committees Office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services.

Thank you, everybody.

[9:05 a.m.]

First up we have Shawn Chisholm from the Federation of Independent School Associations in British Columbia.

Please go ahead, Shawn.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 1 – K-12 Education

FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
ASSOCIATIONS IN B.C.

S. Chisholm: Good morning. Thank you all for this opportunity to present. I am Shawn Chisholm. I serve as the executive director of the Federation of Independent Schools in British Columbia. Our role is to advocate for independent schools and for choice in education in British Columbia.

Really, we come from the standpoint that independent school funding is good public policy. It certainly aligns with article 26 of the UN declaration of human rights and provides choice education within a pluralistic society that we have here in British Columbia. It also provides the liberating impact of education at a reduced cost to B.C. taxpayers.

Independent schools receive…. This year we’ll receive over $400 million in funding from the province. That’s with partial funding. If all of those independent school students were to be educated in a fully funded public school system, the additional operational costs to the B.C. government and B.C. taxpayers would be over $500 million. So the value of independent schools.

Today, specifically, I wanted to touch on three issues. Hopefully you received my summary notes in advance. The first concern is with regards to the funding of independent online schools. On May 4, the government announced that there was a dramatic 21 percent reduction in funding, without warning, to the independent school sector. What it translates into is an almost $800 per student reduction in funding.

This has caused extreme difficulties for independent online school students, for their families and also for those schools that provide those services. They had already committed to contracts to their teaching staff and their support staff, to lease agreements and for the revenue sources for that year, because part of their budgeting process is what they should expect in funding from the government. When that was slashed dramatically, that caused a great deal of difficulty.

Also in that situation, if we do see…. If an unanticipated outcome of this is that we have students moving from the independent system into the public system, there are going to be additional costs to B.C. taxpayers, because you’ll have students coming from a partially funded system into a fully funded system.

FISA has been in contact. We have talked with the Minister of Education. I think our families from the independent online school communities have been very active. What we are asking at this point is for the delay of the implementation of this policy. It’s supposed to kick in on July 1.

Really, you know, just to accentuate how unanticipated this was…. I think we were caught off guard for a couple of reasons. First of all, the candidate at the time, now Premier Horgan, had sent a letter to FISA, which we distributed to all independent school families, that indicated that if they were to form government, which they have, that they would not touch independent school funding.

Also, they had a funding model review which they released on February 7, and it did talk…. I’ll quote from it: “Final working group reports were completed in October of 2019, and partners noted that some of the recommendations would be relatively straightforward to implement, while others, like how government funds inclusive education or online learning, would require extensive work to ensure there would be no negative, unintended consequences for students.” Having heard that in February, this certainly caught people off guard.

I’ll quickly jump on to my second point, and that’s….

[9:10 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Shawn, you’ve got about 15 seconds left. So if you could wrap it up. Thank you.

S. Chisholm: Okay.

There are other concerns with independent schools. Of course, independent schools are not fully funded. They do not have secure funding like public schools. They rely on tuition from their families. Also, I’m asking that the government keep in mind and monitor that for the continuation of their operation.

Hopefully, you have my notes, which you can refer to. Sorry I went over a little bit.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No problem, Shawn. Thank you.

Next up we have Sara Kraushar from Heritage Christian Online School.

Please go ahead.

HERITAGE CHRISTIAN ONLINE SCHOOL

S. Kraushar: Thank you very much. My name is Sara Kraushar. I’m the academic head of school at Heritage Christian Online School, which is a group 1 independent distributed learning, or IDL, school. IDL schools serve over 10,000 full-time students in B.C. and have demonstrated a high level of educational quality by creating personalized learning for a diverse spectrum of students.

We’re thankful for how the province has funded diversity in its education model up to this point. However, on May 4, we were notified that funding to IDL schools was being cut by 21 percent, effective July 1, 2020. This sudden change, implemented with no notice or collaboration, contradicts this government’s previous statements.

When asked, “Why this cut?” the initial response from the government stated that it was a correction to a previous increase to IDL funding back in 2012. This, in fact, is demonstratively false. Data in the historical IDL funding table provided in your print materials shows that our schools actually received a decrease in funding per student, not an increase.

For our school, funding has been reduced over the years from $3,690 per student in 2011 to a now all-time low of $3,050 per student. Every other type of educational funding has seen a steady increase over the same period. While this cut may align our percentage rate with other group 1 independent schools, it most certainly does not align funding levels compared to expenses. This is because public DLs are funded significantly lower than public bricks-and-mortar schools, though this is not justified when comparing actual operational and instructional costs. This was the argument made and agreed upon when the IDL rate was set at 62 percent in 2012.

Now we face the same battle but with a government decidedly unsympathetic to the same rationale. However, this current cut is even more devastating, as a public DL, which had been funded at 80 percent of a public bricks and mortar in 2012, is now only funded at 64 percent. This puts IDL at a meagre 32 percent of a public bricks-and-mortar school. We would not be opposed to 50 percent of public DL funding if public DLs were adequately funded.

In spite of the growing gap in funding, IDLs have been the fastest-growing educational sector in the province. These funding decisions seem to be strategic moves to negatively impact our schools.

The Ministry of Education stated that the funding cut was communicated in May in order to provide IDL schools with time to make required adjustments to school planning. Anyone that understands the educational cycle knows that a 21 percent financial cut in May is in no way adequate time to adjust school planning. Hiring, enrolment and budgets had been set back in March.

A 21 percent cut is catastrophic to the way IDLs function, and the timing is ruthless. This allows for mere weeks to completely alter the way IDL schools operate, resulting in terminated jobs, significantly reduced education resourcing and communicating completely new terms of financial engagement to one of the lowest socioeconomic brackets in the province.

This funding cut is marginalizing a population of students and families who need extra support and who are thriving in this type of learning. IDLs have become a safe haven for students who have been bullied or who have learning needs that simply have not been met in the public school system.

If this funding cut proceeds, this will force many families to choose an educational option that has not worked for them previously. Our children should not be denied the method of learning that works best for them because the government is not willing to support their education.

During a pandemic, when the value of online schools has been clearly shown, public and independent DL funding should have been increased. One would hope that the Ministry of Education would now better understand the infrastructure costs of running online schools and recognize the fact that online schools, particularly IDL schools, are able to produce such excellent results with already limited resources.

[9:15 a.m.]

Online schools have also been key to supporting all B.C. schools in their transition to remote learning. In fact, just last week, as IDL schools struggled to survive this cut, the ministry called a meeting to ask our schools to contribute our expertise and resources freely to public schools. It was a shocking ask, given the circumstances, yet clearly demonstrates the recognized value of IDL schools.

Premier Horgan did state to FISA: “We do not have any plans to change the existing funding for independent schools nor the legislation that governs this funding.” I ask that this government uphold Premier Horgan’s commitment and rescind this funding cut.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Sara.

Next up we have Amber Papou from SelfDesign Learning Foundation.

Amber, please go ahead.

SELFDESIGN LEARNING FOUNDATION

A. Papou: Hi, everybody. Thank you so much for having me here today. Before I start…. I am not where I live generally. I am in Fort St. John.

I’d like to acknowledge that I’m presenting from the traditional and unceded territory of the Dane-zaa people.

To begin with, I’ll just give you an introduction to SelfDesign. The SelfDesign Learning Foundation is an incorporated not-for-profit and charity here in B.C. We’ve been operating since 1983. Since 2002, we have developed one of the largest online independent schools in the province, the SelfDesign Learning Community. SDLC is the acronym for that school.

SDLC has grown to approximately 2,000 full-time learners, of which 1,000 this year will be enrolled in our special needs program. This makes us one of the largest special needs schools in the province, regardless of whether we’re independent bricks and mortar and/or public. We have approximately 185 B.C. certified teachers that work with our learners, and 65 of those are specialized in working with children with special needs.

One of the interesting things is not only the fact that we’re one of the largest schools for special needs students in the province, but we also generally have a wait-list of between 100 and 150 learners each year for our special needs program. So 750 of those learners are designated with low-incidence designations, which provides them with supplemental special needs funding from the Ministry of Education.

However, we have an additional approximately 250 of those learners who have a diagnosis of high incidence, and those run a myriad of different support requirements. Those learners, regardless of whether they’re in independent schools or public schools, are required by the schools to provide additional educational supports on the per-student funding level that we receive. There is now additional funding provided by the ministry.

As my fellow colleagues on this panel have indicated, before the initial cut for independent schools, we provided that support for those high-incidence learners with about $3,843. That’s been now reduced to $3,050. We were required to provide educational services that included individual education plans and support for those learners.

The decision to reduce the funding. First of all, I’d like to say that…. I want to acknowledge that I believe that the province and the Ministry of Education reached decisions based on the best interests of the children in the province. However, I am concerned that the recent funding cuts to online schools may not have considered the impact that that reduction will have on children with special needs, not just with the high-incidence learners but also with our low-incidence learners. The funding that went to support those learners went directly to support their individualized learning plans.

Having said all of this, I have three recommendations I’d like to present to the committee for consideration for the 2021 budget: (1) that the government of B.C. maintain the status quo funding levels from Budget 2019-20 for online distributed learning programs and (2) that Budget 2021 increase, and not decrease, the funding that the Ministry of Education allocates for programs for special needs students. This is specifically to address wait-lists for those learners. Finally, and most importantly, that Budget 2021 increase the Ministry of Education targeted funding for learners with special needs and be inclusive of those students designated with high incidence.

That is all.

[9:20 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Amber.

Questions from members?

M. Dean: Thank you to you all for supporting B.C. students and for your presentations today. I think it would be Shawn who would probably be able to answer this. I’m interested in the landscape across the province of independent schools. I have Pearson College and Brookes Westshore in my constituency. Of course, the majority of their students are international, so their business model is massively impacted by COVID.

I’m just wondering. What’s the picture like across the whole of the province, in terms of the impact of COVID and the survival rate and sustainability of independent schools, especially those that would be using that business model?

S. Chisholm: Thanks, Mitzi. That was one of the points that I had in my summary notes that I wanted to get to, but I ran out of time. Yeah, the impact…. This is not just for independent schools. It’s for public schools as well. My colleagues within the public system are really concerned.

Independent and public schools have provided services to international students for a long time. We are one of the most effective provinces and jurisdictions within the world. We attract a lot of students. As I mentioned, in 2017, $2.7 billion of the B.C. GDP was attributable to international students. That’s not just K to 12. That’s also the PSI.

What we’re hearing back — I just actually had a call on Friday from China, where they’re really struggling — is that there’s still the demand to come. However, there are issues as far as travel. Some of our locations, where we have a high number of students from China, from India…. Travelling to Canada is problematic. We don’t know what type of travel restrictions will be in place come September.

There are also visas — securing visas. Offices, say, in China or India and even in Canada…. Processing them has become an issue. The lady I was speaking to from China was saying that normally they would have a three-week turnaround. What they’re finding is it’s more like nine to 11 weeks, which makes it very difficult for those students unless they have that visa.

One of the things that they’re looking at is, hopefully, that the students, if they can’t come in September, would be able to come in November. The schools could still have them and enrol them. However, they would need to be able to offer the online programming, which is happening now due to COVID, for September and October. We’ve asked the ministry for that.

That would really help because we would have international students committing, because they would know that they would have a continuation to their program. If that cannot happen, we have many schools that have indicated that it will be very difficult for them to operate. Some of them will just not operate next year. They couldn’t.

The boarding schools — it’s even more of an issue. They’ve invested capital to provide that kind of service. If they’re not filling those buildings, they will just have to cease operation.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Shawn.

D. Barnett: Thank you all for your presentation. I’m a great supporter of the independent school system. In rural British Columbia, we have many, many, many families who have special needs children and who have children who would otherwise fall through the cracks.

My question is.... During COVID, I know how valuable the online learning from independent schools was. What kind of interruption did your students have during COVID?

S. Kraushar: I don’t mind taking that one. Our students actually faced very little interruption. We do also run blended programs, so all of our blended students were moved online and operated out of Zoom. Now, our special needs students, if we were providing face-to-face services, every one of those services needed to be individually examined. The bulk of those services were also moved online.

However, if we had very highly vulnerable students — say, end-of-life students…. We do serve, I would say, some of the most vulnerable students in the population. Some of those supports were able to continue in collaboration with our community partners.

[9:25 a.m.]

It was really excellent to see these students have an interrupted but still a sustainable and continued learning plan.

A. Papou: If I may, I’ll take that one step further and just say that I echo exactly what Sara said. We don’t run blended programs with SelfDesign. We’re completely remote. The same thing with special needs.

I’d also like to say, and Sara is included in this, that with our independent online schools, we did offer a considerable amount of support that will link to other independent schools and brick and mortars, but also to public brick and mortars, as well, in terms of providing best practices. Sara’s school, in particular, has some amazing online resources for cross-enrolment students and just providing other supports, especially for special needs and vulnerable learners.

I think we took up the reins very well, not just for our own program and students but for other students across the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Amber.

Just checking to see if there are any other questions. Any other questions from members?

Okay. Well, seeing none, thank you so much to the presenters for everything that you’re doing for our students in the province. I appreciate the efforts that everyone has made, especially during this very difficult time with the pandemic. We certainly appreciate that. Thank you for your presentations.

Next up if we could just take a short recess until 9:35.

The committee recessed from 9:26 a.m. to 9:36 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Welcome back. We are continuing with panel discussions from K-to-12 education.

First up we have Karla Verschoor from Inclusion B.C.

Please go ahead, Karla.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 2 – K-12 Education

INCLUSION B.C.

K. Verschoor: Well, I didn’t realize that this morning’s focus was on K-to-12 education. My presentation will deviate from that topic, just to let you know.

Good morning. I’m Karla Verschoor, the executive director of Inclusion B.C. My pronoun is she/her.

I’m joining you this morning from my home office on the unceded traditional lands of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Coast Salish people.

Inclusion B.C. is a provincial federation whose members include people with developmental and intellectual disabilities, their families and 60 community organizations that deliver children, family and adult services around the province. Our advocacy work includes education, training and support, always with a strong focus on partnership and collaboration.

COVID-19 has exposed our vulnerabilities but also highlighted our strengths as a society, offering what I think is a valuable insight this year on how we should prioritize public investments. The pandemic has also shown the value of investing in inclusion — because, really, no one is safe unless we’re all safe. We build healthier communities for all when we work together to leave no one behind.

Unfortunately, we still are leaving some people with disabilities, and their families, behind. There is a better path forward. Targeted investments can leverage our strengths using inclusion, equity and partnership with formal and informal social supports to build resilience in B.C. I’d like to use my short time today to outline four critical investments, but many more — including recommendations around education — are included for your reference in our written submission.

My first recommendation. I know many of you will have heard this from me before. We urge you once again to increase CLBC’s budget to accommodate the expected 5 to 6 percent growth rate for people eligible for services. This number is projected to double in the next 20 years. Every year that we don’t invest, we’re digging ourselves in a little bit deeper.

In the past two weeks, our advocates have received over 20 requests for supports, from families desperate to find solutions for their adult children with disabilities who have been offered no support after leaving the school system. That’s no support to find a job, to connect to their community, to continue learning, to maintain relationships. There’s an acknowledgment that support is needed, with a quick justification that there are others that need it more, and that we don’t have the money.

So for the estimated 1,100 youths eligible for CLBC supports this year, some will get full support, many will get partial support, but many will get no assistance until funds become available. For me, these young people are being left behind.

My second recommendation this morning. We’re asking you to recommend that the temporary $300 for persons with disabilities supplement carry through to 2021 and to please make it permanent. This increase is overdue and only fair, given the $2,000-per-month CERB benchmark to support others facing employment barriers. The dignity this extra $300 a month has provided for people with disabilities has been so incredible to witness. It reinforces, for me, the importance of investing directly in people. They know what they need best.

My third recommendation. We need an inclusive mental health strategy to boost inclusion and provide access to mental health supports for people with developmental disabilities. In almost every single support or advocacy conversation I’ve had in the last four months, the lack of accommodation around mental health supports for both children and adults has come up.

[9:40 a.m.]

We do not universally design our mental health programs to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities. A targeted investment this year is needed to ensure that our province’s mental health strategy is genuinely inclusive.

My final recommendation today. Informal and family caregivers have played a critical role during COVID of stepping up to provide support to their vulnerable family members when formal programs have had to step back. Inclusion B.C., BCEdAccess, the Family Support Institute and the B.C. Parents of Complex Kids ran a survey on April 25 for 2½ days.

We heard from over 1,000 families eligible for CYSN-funded services through MCFD. Many parents with children with complex needs were already exhausted, and the emergent response didn’t even come close to addressing their actual needs, leaving thousands of families with absolutely no support or relief.

Despite the incredible effort of service providers, this umbrella of services and the way it is currently funded, along with its rigid eligibility criteria, for me, represents one of the most significant inequities in our current system. And I don’t use those words lightly.

In closing, we strongly urge you to request increased funding over the next three years for MCFD’s CYSN framework to strengthen inclusion and equity and reduce barriers of access to families.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Karla.

Next up we have Tracy Humphreys from BCEdAccess Society.

Please go ahead, Tracy.

BCEDACCESS SOCIETY

T. Humphreys: Thanks for this opportunity. I’m Tracy Humphreys — she/her.

I’m speaking from the unceded lands of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, specifically the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

The BCEdAccess Society is an organization of parents and guardians of children with disabilities and complex learners, with over 2,700 community members from all over B.C. Since 2015, accountability methodology in K-to-12 education has been under review. Although we’re aware that a new draft framework exists, it’s not publicly available, and it’s very difficult for a parent to know where to go and, ultimately, what kinds of expectations they can hold.

Currently accountability in the education system is poor, and change is incredibly difficult and slow-to-nonexistent. The highest level of appeal available to parents within the school system is a section 11 appeal under the School Act and also very limited access to the superintendent of appeals at the Ministry of Education, and that’s only for the families who are aware that this limited mechanism exists.

Too many families are not aware that they can appeal at all, and others may be fearful of retaliation if they do so. Especially now, during the pandemic, we’re hearing from a majority of families who find they just don’t have the time or capacity to follow the appeals process, yet all of their children have the same right to equitable access to education.

So there’s no independent oversight of the many deci­sions that school districts and school district staff and even the ministry make in relation to children and youth with disabilities and their families. It’s time to remove the burden of accountability from parents and guardians.

This is not our first presentation to this committee with the same recommendation. We continue to recommend that the government create capacity for a body of independent oversight and an accountability mechanism for the over 68,000 children and youth with disabilities in our education system. This may be done through the Representative for Children and Youth in B.C. or through the establishment of a new independent body. Over 50 percent of human rights complaints internationally are disability-related, and at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, 46 percent of those complaints were disability-related last year.

As the largest group discriminated against internationally, as well as in our province, it’s important to have knowledgable staff independent of the school districts and the Ministry of Education. We estimate a cost of approximately $1 million for this investment. In a multi-billion-dollar provincial budget, this is a very small ask that would yield great returns in equity and accountability and also in benefits to the economy.

I want to share a quote from a Facebook post from one of our community members to give you a sense of this.

[9:45 a.m.]

“As a single parent, I had to leave my job because of my son being excluded from school so often. I haven’t been able to go back to work full-time since. The thought of more advocacy next school year has me in tears. I’m very fortunate to have advocacy and peer support, and of course, I will advocate for my son to have what he needs.

“But I’m tired. He’s going into grade 2, and it has always been the same thing with no end in sight. Everyone involved knows what he needs. It’s just a matter of systems and politics, and I’m done with it.

“I’m tired. It’s not fair. The weight should not be on my shoulders, yet it always is.”

I’m sure you know this is not one family’s experience. Far too many families have had the same impact on their finances and are facing the same struggle and advocacy year after year.

What does accountability look like? From our perspective, it looks like each child’s family doesn’t have to beg — in some cases, every year — for appropriate, effective and continuous supports for their child. It looks like elimination of wait-lists and timely assessments. It looks like school districts being required to address the root causes of exclusion, seclusion and restraint.

In our written submission, we’ll expand on all of this, and we’ll also address mental health, as Karla mentioned — something that we have raised before as well. We do feel it needs special and additional attention now due to the pandemic.

We’d also like to endorse everything that Inclusion B.C. has asked for and that Cynthia and Cindy will be presenting on, as well as recommendations by BCCPAC, BCSTA and school district presenters we’ve been able to hear. We haven’t heard all of the presentations yet. But those are the ones that we’re aware of, where our interests align.

In conclusion, really, it’s just long past time to finally invest in children, youth and adults with disabilities. Thanks.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Tracy.

Next up we have Cynthia Lockrey.

Go ahead, Cynthia.

CYNTHIA LOCKREY

C. Lockrey: Hi. I’m Cynthia Lockrey. I’m the mother of a child with special needs. I have written a book on how to advocate for kids with special needs, and I do a lot of work across the province helping families learn how to advocate.

I want you to know the reality of what life is like having a child with special needs. The school year we’re in right now, our school here on Vancouver Island — for 450 kids, we had three EAs. Two children needed full-time EAs. The school district cut one of our EAs, which was a 33 percent cut. With me fighting the fight, we got it back. But that’s three EAs for a population of 450 kids. So you can imagine the services.

I’m getting ready for my IEP meeting, which is tomorrow. I’ve already been warned that for the upcoming school year we’re going to have less EA support, less resource teacher support, less speech-language support, less learning assistant support and less librarian hours in our school.

So I’ve already been told less of everything, and I have a child who should, technically, have a full-time EA. He brings in the money. He meets the criteria.

Every year I have to fight, and I have to fight to get the support my child needs. I am known in the school district, and I’m in a supportive school. It all comes down to funding. What this does is this impacts all kids. It impacts the neurotypical children as well, because the kids that need the support aren’t getting it. I have a child going into grade 3 who is not able to read, because he doesn’t get the extra support he needs to help with literacy.

Also, I want to talk about wait-lists. I have an eight year old who’s on the wait-list for an autism assessment, even though we already have a developmental pediatrician who’s given a temporary. But the way the system works, it has to be through one of the recognized centres to get a formal assessment.

This means that I don’t access any funding. I don’t access Ministry for Children and Family services. I have nothing. We have paid thousands of dollars out of pocket for speech therapy, for occupational, for all the therapy my child needs, and we can’t afford it anymore. So we’ve had to stop, which breaks my heart.

Pre-pandemic it was a 12- to 18-month wait-list. They have frozen a lot of the assessments. We know we’re going to be at least two years for an assessment. So he will probably be ten years old when he gets it — the formal autism diagnosis that everybody already knows he has.

[9:50 a.m.]

If you know anything about early intervention, you should be shocked that somebody is going to be ten, getting a diagnosis, when all the people who interact with him…. We have paperwork this high, but it’s because we still have to go through the system. To get the funding we need, we need that assessment, that diagnosis.

I wanted to talk about the silent crisis in B.C. that no one is talking about. Homeless, seniors, addiction issues are the hot topics in B.C., and yes, they are all important. But children with special needs are being forgotten. The funding is not there. Every year, this committee recommends more funding. Every year the provincial government’s final budget doesn’t have the funding that we know we need.

These are your future mental health problems. These are your future addiction problems. Homelessness, underemployment. These kids are…. It’s cheaper to prevent a crisis than it is to deal with the crisis when it’s there.

COVID-19 — these kids have been forgotten. We have had to fight for whatever we can, and nobody is talking about it. Island Health, for example, has seven steering committees to look at the first wave of COVID-19 to prepare for the second wave. Guess what. There’s no mention of children with special needs. There’s no mention of pediatric on any of those committees. I’ve spoken with the vice-president who is doing this, and she says they’ll be captured somewhere else. They won’t be. Their needs are so unique.

To wrap up, as a mom, I ask that these children not be forgotten. I have to spend more hours than I can count advocating for things that my child has human rights to get. I shouldn’t have to single my child out and fight every year for the things that he’s entitled to, to succeed. I’m fighting, and there are so many parents who aren’t fighting. And as a result, I promise you their kids are not getting support. And they’re too tired.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Cynthia.

Next up we have Cindy Dalglish.

Please go ahead, Cindy.

CINDY DALGLISH

C. Dalglish: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I am Cindy Dalglish, in Surrey, B.C. My pronouns are she/her.

I’m speaking to you today from the unceded traditional territory of the Semiahmoo, Katzie, Kwantlen and other Coast Salish peoples’ land.

I continue to be an education advocate, and this recommendation is based on a glaring gap within our education system. There are multiple organizations and people that are advocating and working to create standards of practice for education assistants, but we haven’t gotten there yet.

As students with disabilities are designated as a vulnerable population, we need to ensure there is a consistent standard of care among education assistants who support them. At this point, education programs for EAs varies so greatly that skill sets are inconsistent and effectiveness as an EA is reduced dramatically. One of these programs is a mere two weeks long. Some are 16 to 20 weeks long, and some go up to as much as 45 weeks long. This disparity affects the level of trust and support for the child.

As we know, EA support is a cornerstone of a strong, supportive, safe and inclusive education system. As a vital member of the teaching team, well-trained EAs mean better working conditions not only for EAs, but, as well, for teachers, the administration and, especially, better conditions for students. Simply put, the working conditions equal learning conditions.

The role and mandate of a provincial body for EAs is to protect vulnerable students through risk management, by way of establishing best practices and professional standards that guide EA education and practice. To ensure that these best practices and professional standards are adhered to, we need to create consistent and provincially mandated and standardized post-secondary curriculum throughout this province. Once these have been established, we are then in a position to provide professional development, to ensure current best practices remain and to fill any gaps with EAs that are currently already working in our education system.

Resolutions have been brought forth recommending EA standards by the BCSTA, BCCPAC, various school boards and even CUPE. The talk of a regulatory body has been ongoing for a number of years.

[9:55 a.m.]

With the current push for more accountability and inclusive classrooms, the timing couldn’t be better for the profession. We need to move away from the accountability being the responsibility of the parents and guardians.

Jurisdictional scanning and intensive background work have already been completed, as directed by the Minister of Education. It’s time to move this forward. This is not an expensive feat but does require financial support from the Finance Committee.

Looking at a recent model with health care aides — which is a similar, although not exact, replication of what we’re hoping to accomplish — the costs are minimal. In the case of their governing body, HEABC opened under a contract with the Ministry of Health at a cost of approximately $550,000. This included two people at the start — a director and an assistant — and office, travel and other sundry costs. Currently, after several years, the registry has grown to have five staff in total: the director, two administrative assistants and two education assessment consultants.

At this point, the annual base budget for the HEABC registry is approximately $600,000. But I must note that it operates for this amount largely due to the efficiencies of it being housed within a larger HEABC organizational structure, with shared services for accounting, IT, human resources, reception and facilities, of course.

As we continue to push standards of practice forward, we need the Ministry of Finance committee to award a similar financial contract. As meetings are ongoing, this would be done with stakeholder feedback and collaboration with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education.

This report is certainly an abbreviated version of what I’d hoped to present. But I will be providing a more comprehensive version in time for the June 26 deadline.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Cindy, and to all of the presenters.

Questions from members?

M. Dean: Thank you to you all for your advocacy and your service. I’m just wondering, Karla. Our esteemed colleague Nicholas Simons chairs the committee for children and youth, and there was also a consultation process around children and youth with special needs. Did you make a submission? Were you part of that process? Were you able to bring your perspective into that band of consultation?

K. Verschoor: Yeah, absolutely. Inclusion B.C. had a very comprehensive written brief as well as an oral presentation to the committee.

Again, the last four months have put a magnifying glass on those umbrellas of services that has showed a little bit more truth and depth of crisis and inequity than we previously understood during that consultation, which is why I feel it’s so important to highlight it again today with more clarity and urgency than even a year and a half ago.

M. Dean: Helpful. Thank you.

D. Barnett: Thank you all for your presentations. Cynthia Lockrey, I understand the issues you’re facing. I have many, many parents in my office as an MLA, trying to get their young children assessed. It is a shock to me that these parents take these young children to a specialist in the health care system, and their letter is insufficient. Have you pursued this with government before, or is this just something you present to the Finance Committee?

C. Lockrey: Oh no. I’ve pursued this, and I’ve talked, and they keep saying: “Our hands are tied.” Everybody I talk to agrees that this is ridiculous. It’s a waste of taxpayer money that I’ve already travelled to the Mainland, seen a developmental pediatrician — who, ironically enough, works in an autism clinic — and his paperwork is insufficient. And until I can wait in this long wait-list on Vancouver Island….

I don’t know what the solution is. The Ministry of Education says it’s ridiculous. The Ministry of Health…. Everybody gets it, but nobody wants to do anything about it.

[10:00 a.m.]

When I talk to the Queen Alexandra Centre about the wait-list, they say it’s all due to provincial funding. The more money we get…. They said it happens, time to time, that they get more money, and they can ram through more assessments, and they can clear up their backlist. Then the money gets taken away, and the wait-list gets long again.

There needs to be some area of reform so that this letter that I have, with all the backing paperwork, would be enough. There are parents like me who don’t receive a nickel of funding besides the disability each month, which is very minimal. It doesn’t even give me half an hour of speech therapy.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Cynthia.

I just had a question too. I know that a certain amount of money comes in per student who is assessed. We’ve heard from other presenters that the funding gets allocated around, and it doesn’t necessarily go 100 percent to the child who may be in the most need.

The question for me is…. Okay. So the money is being paid by the ministry. Is that more a school board decision based on their priorities? Do you have some ideas about how that might be addressed? If the ministry is putting the money in for those students and then it’s not being allocated to those students, then maybe there are some structural issues. So I’m just curious what you feel might be the solutions for that.

C. Lockrey: I’ll answer first; then Tracy, please, I know you want to jump in on this one.

The challenge is that these wait-lists and these assessments and the way that the funding is allocated…. You need the assessment. You have kids….

My son, thankfully, has a seizure disorder. The fact that he had seizures in school got him the funding, although it’s this big of an issue compared to the other that we’re waiting for this assessment.

There are children without assessments, and without assessments, they don’t get the funding. So you can have children in a classroom that you know are on the autism spectrum — it’s obvious — but they’re on the two-year wait-list. So they don’t bring any funding. Then the school has to take the funding they get and try to support these other kids.

It’s a very complex system. That’s why these long wait-lists are devastating. There’s the complex developmental disorder that a child could have. The psych-ed assessments…. You’re in, basically, a lottery to see if your child will even get one. So all the things that bring the money into the school district…. There are bottlenecks.

Tracy, jump in.

T. Humphreys: If you’re open to that, I do have something to add.

I do think it’s a structural issue, certainly. The funding does go to the school districts, and then the school districts are largely responsible for deciding how to allocate those funds. So unlike funding for Indigenous students, which is targeted, this is not targeted. There’s very little that….

Again, coming back to the accountability piece, which is why I keep harping on accountability. There really is very little accountability in terms of how school districts choose to spend that money.

I’ll be fair to the school districts as well. Most of them report that they spend more than twice what they get for students with disabilities. I’m going to give the caveat that I have never seen the accounting of that. There’s a piece where accountability would also be useful.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Tracy.

All right. Other questions from members? I’m seeing none, no hands.

Thank you very much for your passion on these issues. Obviously, children with special needs have been a topic in front of this committee for a number of years, and we certainly hear what you’re saying. So thank you very much for that.

Also, a special thanks during COVID. The COVID pandemic certainly has shone a light on many deficiencies within our communities, including the issues that you’re bringing forward. So thank you very much for everything that you’ve done during this period.

With that, if I could get a recess until 10:20.

The committee recessed from 10:04 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we are starting panels on housing.

First up we have Trevor Hargreaves from the B.C. Real Estate Association.

Trevor, please go ahead.

B. Ogmundson: It’s actually Brendon Ogmundson from the B.C. Real Estate Association.

B. D’Eith (Chair): My apologies, Brendon.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 3 – Housing

B.C. REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

B. Ogmundson: No problem. I think we just didn’t get the change in on time.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the B.C. Real Estate Association’s recommendations for the 2021 provincial budget. We appreciate your time and commitment to this consultation process.

My name is Brendon Ogmundson. I’m the chief economist with the B.C. Real Estate Association. The association represents 11 real estate boards and more than 23,000 realtors across B.C., providing continuing professional education, advocacy, economic research and standard forms to help realtors provide value for their clients.

Realtors are among many professions that have responded to the pandemic with flexibility and creativity. Not surprisingly, given what’s going on in the world and in the economy, we expect home sales this year to slow by about 21 percent before recovering back to long-run average levels of activity next year.

Real estate is important to economic recovery, and BCRA has a total of 17 recommendations in our full written submission that look at both the short term and the long term. While we do expect a recovery in the economy and in the housing market next year, the outlook is particularly uncertain, and we believe the recommendations in our prebudget submission are important to help ensure the best outcome possible. In my brief presentation, I’ll focus on just a few recommendations we see as particularly important.

First, we ask that the province increase the property transfer tax exemption threshold for first-time homebuyers. Right now a first-time buyer only qualifies for the exemption up to a home priced at $500,000, which doesn’t reflect the reality of home prices in many parts of B.C. So we ask that the threshold be increased to $750,000.

Our second recommendation is to eliminate the speculation and vacancy tax. Last year we analyzed the impacts of the tax and found limited impacts on affordability outside of Metro Vancouver. Even within Metro Vancouver, though we did measure some reduction in demand and price growth that may have been due to the tax, it’s very difficult to separate it from the city of Vancouver’s empty homes tax and the federal mortgage stress test. Those impacts appear to be short term, and we saw little improvement in either rental or ownership affordability.

We believe eliminating the spec tax will remove a barrier for homebuyers, particularly in parts of the province with long-established demand from outside of the prov­ince like the Okanagan or Vancouver Island, and will simplify government tax policy.

The third recommendation I’ll highlight today supports the creation of housing supply. We ask the province to create an exemption from the additional school tax for development projects. At the moment, owners of homes valued over $3 million are subject to the additional school tax — a rate of 0.2 percent on the value of between $3 million and $4 million and 0.4 percent on the value over $4 million. These properties include vacant lands, and the tax simply increases the cost of development.

The exemption we want is the same as the one for the speculation and vacancy tax. So it’s easy to create, and it’s consistent with the direction the government has already taken. Actions like this to encourage housing supply help maintain a housing market that works for both buyers and sellers.

The last recommendation I’ll comment on is for the province to commit to a long-term, widespread investment in financial incentives to help property owners voluntarily retrofit existing buildings to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While we’ve been pleased with the financial incentives offered under the CleanBC name, these kinds of programs tend to be temporary, no matter how successful they are. BCRA believes all property owners should be encouraged to upgrade their buildings, and we believe a long-term approach will benefit the environment and help put people to work.

We know economic recovery will be complicated, and we have additional recommendations in our written submission. Thank you for your attention. Happy to answer any questions.

[10:25 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Brendon. I appreciate that.

Next up we have Neil Moody, Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia.

Neil, please go ahead.

CANADIAN HOME BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

N. Moody: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. We have 2,100 member companies in the residential construction industry throughout the province. Together, the industry represents over 200,000 on- and off-site jobs. Our sector creates good-paying jobs in all regions of the province and can play a leading role in economic recovery efforts.

For example, a new home could have up to 63 different trades involved in the process, whether it’s a contractor, drywaller, painter, electrician, etc. CHBABC surveyed its members in May 2020 to understand COVID-19 impacts to the residential construction industry. Although designated an essential service, the residential construction industry is not immune to the economic effects of COVID-19, in particular for new home and renovation contracts across the province.

Our respondents told us that 46 percent have laid off between one and four employees, a significant number with a median staff of six. Half of the respondents noted an increase in municipal permit timelines, delaying potential work site activities. Any injection of stimulus will be particularly needed in the next six to 12 months, this next budget period, when federal government programs and members’ existing contracts will both come to an end.

New projects and work can be incentivized through many different member suggestions, which we will outline below and in our written paper, including:

(1) We suggest temporarily raising the limit for the property transfer tax exemption on new homes from the existing $750,000 cap. This would benefit move-up buyers, which also increases the availability of inventory for others, such as first-time homebuyers and renters.

(2) Temporarily reduce provincial sales tax paid on construction materials for residential projects in 2020 and 2021.

(3) A renewed focus on renovation through tax credits to ensure that any new project work during this critical period is going to professional contractors and not to the cash underground economy.

Also, we encourage you to not include prompt payment legislation in Budget 2020, and here’s why. CHBABC believes in timely payment, and the Builders Lien Act helps enforce compliance when there are problems. Recent efforts to import prompt payment legislation from Ontario will create unnecessary duplication and increased costs for needed housing.

This one-size-fits-all approach would apply the same rules to both small residential companies and multi-billion-dollar public infrastructure projects. It would also apply unreasonable timelines for payment and implement adjudication to settle discrepancies, a burden on small businesses.

Though well-intentioned, it is an imperfect policy. If imported to B.C. as is, it will negatively affect the financial capabilities of small businesses involved in residential construction contracts. There is no unanimous opinion on this issue, and we disagree that it would help with the COVID-19 recovery. We’re all small business members. It would be the complete opposite and actually could make their current situations even worse.

Lastly, we should focus on advancing the development approvals process across the province. In residential construction, there are thousands of new homes sitting in the approvals process that are shovel-ready, awaiting the necessary permits. COVID-19 initiated new approaches for developments to meet social distancing requirements, such as meeting virtually for public hearings, local governments taking submissions through digital formats and waiving requirements for compliant projects.

We encourage the committee to further invest in this type of innovation and continue to advance new approaches for development approvals. Concentrated focus in this area is good for B.C.’s budget and meeting our targeted housing needs.

Thank you for the opportunity, and again, I also welcome any questions at the end of the session.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Neil.

Next up we have Joel Schacter from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board.

Joel, please go ahead.

FRASER VALLEY REAL ESTATE BOARD

J. Schacter: Thank you, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. Your time and commitment to this remote consultation is appreciated.

[10:30 a.m.]

My name is Joel Schacter. I am a director of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and a realtor from Langley. I’m here today on behalf of over 3,600 real estate professionals, who live and represent clients in the B.C. communities of North Delta, Surrey, White Rock, Langley, Abbotsford and Mission. We are one of the 11 real estate boards represented by the B.C. Real Estate Association. BCREA speaks on behalf of more than 23,000 realtors across British Columbia.

Before I get to our board’s recommendations, I would like to thank you, on behalf of our membership, for responding quickly to the health and safety risks posed by COVID-19 and for supporting individuals, families and businesses during this uncertain time. As well, we appreciate your recognition that what we do for our clients — guide, advise and protect them — is an essential non-health service. As you know, the real estate sector is an important part of the province’s economy. Safe and appropriate access to homes, for consumers, and commercial properties, for businesses, are essential to our province’s recovery from this pandemic.

Despite a sharp decrease in real estate market activity in early spring due to the COVID-19, we are now seeing the market start to recover, as realtors and their clients become more comfortable with physical distancing and public safety protocols. As we all know, the last few months have been challenging for everyone. It is impressive how our members and the clients have adapted to conducting real estate transactions virtually.

The fact that real estate is rebounding is good news for the economy, as every real estate transaction in our province is estimated to result in about $72,000 in additional spinoff activity related to household purchases, moving costs, renos and other professional services, as well as approximately $7,000 in taxes. As part of the consultation process, we are asking you to consider our recommendations on residential tenancy, strata insurance and local housing supply.

On the first issue, residential tenancy, as you may be aware, several temporary residential tenancy measures were implemented until B.C.’s state of emergency is over. For example, landlords cannot evict a tenant unless there are risks to people or a rental unit. Landlords can only enter a rental unit for repairs or property showings with their tenant’s consent, and rent increases generally have been put on pause.

We asked our members how these restrictions have impacted them and their clients. We were taken aback by the volume of responses and the serious, stressful situations landlords are finding themselves in, with potentially crippling financial long-term implications.

Tenants are taking advantage of the government restrictions and are simply refusing to pay rent. Tenants who may be eligible to receive assistance from the B.C. temporary rental supplement program are not applying even. Landlords who cannot collect their rent are facing significant stress, both financially and mentally. Rental units are falling into disrepair and posing a health risk. Owners are not able to sell their rental property. Firstly, they can’t with tenants in them, and secondly there will be no potential buyers until the restrictions are lifted.

For properties that were vacant, owners are reluctant to rent them, and some developers have placed purpose-built rental properties on hold. The projects are on hold.

Recommendations. We understand the government’s goal to protect vulnerable people. What we’re asking for is fairness. We’re asking the provincial government to amend the residential tenancy restrictions so they support landlords as well as tenants. Recognize and reduce the burden of risk on landlords by offering financial assistance to support landlords who are having difficulties covering their expenses during this time, which may include partnering with the federal government on an assistance program that helps residential and commercial landlords.

We’re asking to provide a clear path and date for lifting and transitioning out of the residential tenancy restrictions to provide certainty to landlords, tenants, realtors and potential buyers and sellers of rental properties and to separate the residential tenancy restrictions from the state of emergency, especially as far as the dates go, to reduce confusion and lead to more considered decision-making for all parties involved in a rental tenancy situation or rental property sale.

Our issue 2, strata insurance. Since the fall of 2019, B.C. realtors have been noticing that strata corps. are facing significant challenges renewing their strata insurance. Costs have skyrocketed. And for many complexes, old or new, large or small, they can’t get the coverage they need in many situations.

This has led to significant increases in strata fees or fear on the part of buyers to invest in strata properties, because of their uncertainty and risk. That could have serious long-term impacts on the housing market and economy in general. And many people can’t even get financing any more until this has cleared up.

What we are asking the government to do with the B.C. Real Estate Association is to ensure potential buyers of stratas have a clear picture of strata insurance, coverage and costs for the properties they want to buy.

We’re also looking for strata legislation to be amended so strata corporations inform owners and tenants about significant changes to their strata insurance as soon as possible, so strata insurers notify strata corporations about significant changes to the strata insurance in a timely fashion. This is so the parties that may be affected by the insurance changes can make adjustments to their own insurance to cover potential shortfalls or increases in costs.

Another recommendation we have under strata insurance….

[10:35 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Joel, just if you could wrap it up. You’re out of time.

J. Schacter: Okay.

Lastly, the housing supply. I’ll try to paraphrase quickly. The board believes that everyone needs a place to live, whether they choose to buy or rent. This would affect lower…. We’d appreciate provincial government efforts to lower the barriers to housing for low- to middle-income people and those facing particular challenges, such as seniors, homeless and women and children escaping violence.

Some of the recommendations are to increase the availability of local housing supply, and I’d like to encourage the municipalities to streamline fast-track development processes to meet a pent-up demand and to follow the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2019 development approval process review supporting increased residential development near transit, schools, employment and recreational opportunities.

Finally, given the impact of COVID-19 on commuting patterns and working regulations, municipalities should be encouraged to provide incentives to developers, build homes that accommodate residents who want to work from home or who don’t want to live in a single-family home, such as multigenerational living accommodations.

In closing my presentation, please review our recommendations and forward them to the Ministry of Finance for their consideration. Thank you for listening and responding to our profession’s ideas and suggestions. Sorry, I went over time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No problem, Joel.

Next up we have Casey Edge from Victoria Residential Builders Association.

Casey, please go ahead.

VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

C. Edge: Good morning, Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I’m Casey Edge, executive director of VRBA with 190 members, most of which are contractors.

B.C.’s decision to establish construction as an essential service has been proven by its success combating COVID-19 while protecting jobs. Conversely, Quebec shut down construction, and Ontario halted new projects and have not achieved B.C.’s success. A recent report by the Royal Bank says B.C. will also be a leader in the recovery. Here are some recommendations to assist that.

First, cancel WorkSafeBC’s proposal to add viruses, including COVID-19, to employers’ premiums. The Employers’ Health and Safety Association says shifting public health care costs onto employers through WorkSafeBC premiums has no basis in science and would be ruinous for businesses who are unable to absorb any further costs.

Second, a home renovation tax credit can help mitigate a crisis that’s a certainty: a major earthquake on the west coast. Seismologists predict a 30 percent chance of a damaging earthquake within 50 years and a 10 to 15 percent chance of a massive earthquake. Drop, cover and hold is insufficient to address this crisis. A tax credit will improve seismic safety with anchor bolts, tie-downs and other safety measures, create much-needed skilled jobs and provide a tax revenue by requiring receipts — discouraging the underground economy. A tax credit also promotes families’ health by encouraging use of professionals for abatement of asbestos and lead, commonly used in older homes.

Third, enforce B.C.’s best practices guide for development cost charges, often ignored by municipalities. The guide says fairness, stability and certainty should be built into the DCC process, both in terms of stable charges and orderly construction of infrastructure. Stability of DCC rates will assist the development industry in the planning of the projects. Municipalities are surprising developers with triple-digit increases, significantly altering project cost estimates. For example, Saanich recently raised DCCs by 180 percent, an increase that is neither fair nor predictable.

In addition to enforcing best practices, allow DCC grandfathering or prepayment of in-stream housing applications. It can take two years or more for a development to be approved in municipalities such as Saanich and Victoria. By the time the permit is approved and DCCs are due, the projects’ original estimates do not resemble the costs. These costs would be passed on to homebuyers, if the project is viable at all.

Fourth, establish enforceable best practices for municipal rezonings and permits. There’s a disconnect between permit approval processes and federal policies driving the demand for housing. For example, Canada’s record immigration of 340,000 last year helped boost B.C.’s economy and housing demand. Twenty-one percent of homes in Canada are purchased by immigrants, representing one-fifth of the market. Seventy-five percent arrive in Canada with funds to buy a home, yet bottlenecks are created by slow and even obstructive municipal rezoning processes.

We have an obligation to provide housing for new Canadians, best accomplished through enforceable best practices and reasonable approval timelines, including best practices for community associations and their land use committees.

Finally, launch a study to amalgamate the CRD and start light rail transit to the West Shore. Housing supply challenges will continue until there is responsible regional planning. The CRD’s regional plan is only a reflection of 13 community plans, mostly designed to inhibit growth and housing density.

[10:40 a.m.]

The exception is Langford, responsible for almost 40 percent of new housing in the CRD due to proactive and efficient approval processes. This explains why year-to-date housing starts are down only 3 percent in the CRD, while Saanich is down 33 percent and the city of Victoria has declined 90 percent. Both have reputations for slow approval processes, high costs and obstructive regulations.

LRT is necessary for future growth and job creation. The claim that greater Victoria lacks the population was proven false almost 40 years ago when Portland, Oregon, launched its LRT in 1984 with the same population as our region today.

LRT is great value, demonstrated by the new Mackenzie interchange, costing $98 million, while LRT construction to the West Shore is estimated at $280 million, including engineering. LRT moves people efficiently, reduces traffic and GHGs and identifies density for housing. Now is the time to solicit funding from the federal government to invest in this kind of infrastructure.

To sum up, cancel WorkSafeBC’s proposal to shift viruses onto employers’ premiums. Create a home renovation tax credit to mitigate damage from a major upcoming earthquake. Enforce fairness, stability and certainty in DCC best practices and establish best practices for municipal housing approvals. Study amalgamation of the CRD. Launch LRT to the West Shore.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Casey, and to all the panellists.

Questions from members?

M. Dean: Thank you for all your presentations. My question is probably more for Brendon and Neil, because you’re talking about all of the people that are employed in your sectors and all the people that you represent.

I’m interested in: what is the makeup of the people who you employ? You know, what proportion are men and women, how many Indigenous people, for example, and equity-seeking people are employed in your sectors?

I’m also interested in how your sectors are thinking about our restart and rebuilding the economy after COVID when we have so many displaced workers from other sectors. Have you started to think, in your sector, about how we can help transition those displaced workers into your sectors? Is there the capacity for that? Is this a way that we’re going to be able to divert some unemployment into productive and family-supporting employment?

N. Moody: First of all, thanks for the question. On the amount of Indigenous peoples that we have in our industry, certainly not enough. And women in trades is something that our association — in fact, industry — has been promoting for a long time, in cooperation with a number of different organizations, primarily BCIT. They have a great program.

That is something, obviously, we’re challenged with all the time, and we’re constantly trying to support that. We’ve worked with government in trying to develop that area — to bring more women into the trades. Obviously, it’s an ongoing challenge, but we’re starting to make some headway.

We also work with students, as well, trying to get younger people up into the industry. They’ve also been displaced, as you know, by this COVID-19, so they’ll be a part of the recovery process as well. How do we reintegrate them into jobs that perhaps have been lost?

At CHBABC — the acronym — we’re very involved with builder education as well. We have education in place now. We train builders that want to actually come into the industry, and we’re open to, of course, everyone that wants to enter into the industry. That’s part of it.

Perhaps, because of time, I’ll pass it over to Brendon, if he’d like to carry on.

B. Ogmundson: Thanks, Neil.

I don’t know if we have exact data on demographics. Realtors are generally a pretty diverse group, and we certainly encourage diversity in the realtor community.

As far as the recovery, for real estate in particular — for, sort of, the buying and selling of real estate — we’ve got about 23,000 members. We haven’t seen much of a dip. Unclear what the role is for adding displaced workers that might want to become realtors. I mean, there certainly aren’t barriers to that. It’s certainly an avenue that’s open for people who feel like they want to go down that road. Joel would know a lot more about how that works than I would.

[10:45 a.m.]

Clearly, a lot of what real estate does, in encouraging further transactions in real estate, has a ton of spinoff activity that will stimulate growth in a lot of those industries where we’ve seen displaced workers — you know, things like retail. Especially when you buy a home, you tend to make a lot of trips to Home Depot, or you go buy furniture. So it supports a lot of activity in that indirect way.

I think that that will be a really important part of the recovery. As we get higher home sales, higher housing market activity, we would hope to see all of that spinoff activity as well.

R. Leonard: Thank you, everyone, for your presentations. It’s been pretty interesting hearing a couple of different perspectives, especially around the prompt payment legislation — to hear there’s another side to that story.

I have a question around the residential tenancy issue. There was a comment that tenants are not applying for the supplement, and we’ve heard the other side of the coin, where commercial landlords are not applying to be part of a program that gives relief to tenants. It just seems like there’s a reluctance there all around, on both sides, of tenants and landlords. I was wondering if, in your survey, you did go into the commercial tenancies at all.

J. Schacter: I am able to speak to that, if you’d like.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, Joel. Please go ahead.

J. Schacter: We don’t have empirical data here at the moment. Certainly, we can arrange to get you more details on that. I am a commercial landlord as well as a real estate agent. All my tenants stopped paying rent, and we are just starting the process.

One of the things we’ve been cautioned to be very careful with, as landlords, is that all the onus on the paperwork and the disclosures by the tenant comes back on the landlord. Some landlords are just going to choose not to apply and to just absorb the losses, because in the end, the federal government has the ability to come after the landlord if they find any discrepancies on the paperwork where the tenant was obligated to produce information to qualify for the support, the contributions from the federal and provincial governments.

So there is a risk. Many…. I wouldn’t say many. But, certainly, landlords are taking this into consideration when they’re applying.

On the residential tenancy end of things, there’s not necessarily any incentive for a residential tenant to start filling out forms. Whether it’s out of ignorance or just — I don’t know — some other strategy or issue, they choose not to fill out the appropriate forms that would give the landlord the ability to recover and get some support from the programs that have been offered. Certainly, landlords can reach out, but they can’t force people to sign the forms that say: “Okay, we qualify for this support.” Unfortunately, it’s a very uncomfortable situation for residential landlords.

R. Leonard: Right. Of course the tenants have a debt to pay, and it doesn’t go away with the rules that were put in place in the state of emergency. It is a challenging time, and hopefully, we’ll work through it.

J. Schacter: I appreciate that. Thanks.

D. Barnett: I have a question for either Joel or Brendon. Maybe you can answer it. I sold real estate for 26 years. So I understand your complications and the barriers. It’s getting harder and harder to build anything because of provincial, federal and local governments’ rules, regulations and time frames.

My question really is…. Quite a few homes have sold with tenants in them. The new buyers complete the sale, and the renters won’t move out. So now you’ve got new-home buyers stuck with no place to live. Do you know what the ramifications of this are going to be? Are the new homeowners going to have to sue? Is there any solution to this?

[10:50 a.m.]

J. Schacter: Brendon, I don’t know if you have any information on this, but we have not been given a solution to this point. It’s just a significant challenge for those people trying to move in. Some of them are, obviously, having to find alternative accommodation and are staying at Airbnbs — families with their children and pets and everything else. It is a very big issue for some of those people. I don’t think we have answers yet.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Mitzi, I’m not sure if you had another question.

M. Dean: Just a comment. As a CRD MLA, I just wanted to give a shout-out to View Royal and Colwood, which are also approving buildings for residential purposes, including affordable housing. The south Island transportation strategy should come out later on this year. It’ll be exciting to have a look at that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just had a quick question around the approval process, and also in trying to get more developers to build rental stock. I’m just wondering if you had thoughts about ways that we can encourage more building of rental stock around British Columbia. I know, when I talk to my constituents, that seems to be one of the single biggest problems: availability of rental stock. I’m not sure what….

Obviously, there are barriers to building. It might take up to six years, I gather, in Vancouver, to get permitting. I’m just wondering if there are other ideas that you might have in terms of encouraging more development of rental stock in the province.

C. Edge: The federal government could help introduce the capital gains rollover, which they eliminated in the ’70s. If you talk to people investing in rental, rent controls are a big disincentive.

Actually, there’s a lot of rental that’s being built in Langford, and one of the reasons for that is because they have a predictable and certain development process. A development project takes maybe up to six months in Langford. You’re looking at two years in Victoria, Saanich and some others. The process has a lot to do with it. There were rentals actually voted down in Victoria.

I think you have to look at where the housing supply problem is — the issues, the costs. It’s happening at the municipal level, and the policy of self-determination for municipalities is, essentially, a governance failure in terms of creating housing supply and responsible regional planning.

B. Ogmundson: I would echo everything that Casey is saying and just add that, especially in Metro Vancouver, the zoning is particularly difficult — and the time to build. Your project could take six years from start to finish. Those are huge, huge hurdles for rental.

N. Moody: If I could, I’ll just add that there was a program back in the late ’70s, the MURB program, that spurred a lot of development of rental stock. A lot of the stock in the Lower Mainland is 30 years old. Most of it is quite old. It still gets down to the economics. If the builders are building a project for rental housing and the revenue stream is lower than their costs, it’s very difficult to recover that investment. A lot of developers are saying that it’s simply not worth it because of the costs involved.

There’s a combination required to make it work — land rezoning, time for permits; Casey mentioned the capital gains tax as well. A lot of factors are involved.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Neil, and thank you to the presenters. Any more questions?

Seeing none, well, thank you very much. Obviously, construction remained an essential service during the pandemic. We really appreciate all the efforts that everyone in real estate has made over the last few months to keep things safe for people, not only working in building but also dealing with showing houses and doing all the things that you need to do to adapt. Thank you very much for all that.

With that, if I could have a short recess until 11 o’clock.

The committee recessed from 10:54 a.m. to 11 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are continuing presentations on housing.

Our next presenter is Andrea Cupelli from Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness.

Andrea, please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 4 – Housing

COMOX VALLEY
COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS

A. Cupelli: Good morning. I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I’m presenting today on the unceded traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation.

As mentioned, my name is Andrea Cupelli. I’m the coordinator for the Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. The coalition consists of 28 different member agencies who are all working on the front lines with the vulnerable population in our community. We work as a collective to plan and to advocate for and implement community responses to homelessness, and also towards increasing affordable housing. I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all today. So I’ll get going.

A provincially-mandated housing needs assessment was recently conducted for the Comox Valley regional district. The findings support what we’ve been experiencing over the last decade, which is that the housing crisis is getting worse.

The reports show that there’s been a 24.5 percent increase in renters in the Comox Valley since 2006. Of those renters, 30 percent are in the core housing need, spending over 30 percent of their income on housing. And 14 percent are in the extreme core housing need, spending over 50 percent of their income on housing. So that’s about 44 percent or 4,155 households, or nearly half of all renters in the valley, experiencing major affordability challenges with housing.

Of course, this is all based on 2016 data and is pre-pandemic. We know that the affordability challenge is only going to increase with the uncertainties of economic stability because of COVID-19. We need to ensure that these renters are protected and able to keep their housing.

In our community, we’re especially concerned about seniors housing. We’ve experienced a surge in our seniors population, a 58.2 percent increase over the last ten years. So 25 percent of our population are over the age of 65, meaning that they have specific housing needs as they age, and we currently don’t have the housing availability to support that.

Other vulnerable populations are also in need in our community. There’s a lack of non-market affordable housing options. As of January 2020, the B.C. Housing housing registry had over 270 people on the wait-list, looking for subsidized units. Again, COVID-19 has really changed everything. It’s brought to light a lot of the inequities that vulnerable people face daily and has also left many others suddenly experiencing vulnerabilities for the first time.

For those experiencing homelessness during the pandemic, self-isolation, physical distancing and hygiene practices are extremely challenging, if not impossible. We have been working very hard with B.C. Housing, Island Health and other government partners, and we’re grateful that we have been able to provide some motel spaces for people to self-isolate in, those who are medically fragile. However, those are temporary.

In B.C., we’ve proven through this pandemic response that we can house those who need a home. We can look to examples in Victoria and Vancouver to see the creative ways in which we’ve done so. Our hope is that this pandemic provides the push to expediate the government’s promise in building those 114,000 affordable homes. Investing in housing now will speed up progress in reducing homelessness. Building those homes now is an investment that can help with economic recovery by creating jobs, supporting businesses and achieving long-term cost savings, so why wait.

Our other request is to ensure that those people who are currently renting are able to continue to rent and to stay housed. At the basic rate, folks are being offered $375 a month on income assistance for shelter rate. That’s been frozen for over a decade, and we know with inflation, housing costs are rising and that amount simply isn’t enough for folks to maintain their housing.

[11:05 a.m.]

In our experience, these rent subsidies can often mean the difference between someone being homeless or remaining safely housed and can make an immediate impact on people’s livelihoods, more so than the time it takes to build even new units. So we do need both.

Above all, I just really hope that our government takes advantage of this opportunity that we have right now with the pandemic and that we are building towards a recovery phase and looking at more housing and making sure that people are protected in keeping their housing.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you.

Next up we have Katherine McParland with A Way Home Kamloops Society and B.C. Coalition to End Youth Homelessness.

Go ahead, Katherine.

A WAY HOME KAMLOOPS SOCIETY,
B.C. COALITION TO END
YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

K. McParland: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for taking the time to be here today and consult with the people of British Columbia on what is important to them. Today I am here on behalf of young people with lived experience of homelessness to raise awareness of their unique needs and to draw attention to the need for a distinct provincial plan to prevent and end youth homelessness in B.C.

A Way Home Kamloops was the first community in all of Canada to develop a community-level youth homelessness action plan. That happened five years ago. Through this work, we recognized that, at a local level, we were doing all that we could and that the issue of youth homelessness would not be eradicated without provincial investments and resources that help communities to do this local work.

I had the opportunity to release a report this year called From Marginalized to Magnified, in partnership with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. We had an opportunity to hear from 231 young people who have survived homelessness and are calling out for the much-needed resources to prevent this from happening to other young people.

Our report had one sole recommendation. That recommendation is that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing champion a provincial plan to end youth homelessness. That should be in place by January 2021. However, we recognize that with COVID, a lot of things have been delayed. This does not provide the opportunity for us to ignore the issue of youth homelessness. However, it highlights the increased importance of developing an overarching strategy and commitment to young people who are without a home.

In light of COVID, we’ve seen the issues of youth homelessness exacerbated and are really calling on government to have this provincial plan in place. What is the provincial plan to end youth homelessness? It is an overarching commitment to young people by our government. It would include strategies related to youth housing.

Our organization provides youth housing first, and we use that terminology because youth voice is central to everything that we do. We’re calling on government to look at an overarching plan for housing for youth, and it needs to be distinct from adult homelessness. In our report, it outlines some of the different models of accommodations that should be included.

We’re hoping that government will consider a three-pronged approach. The first would be looking at designating existing housing options specific to young people. So this could look at taking the supportive housing fund and allocating 20 percent of those projects to be focused on youth. This would require no new money from government but simply a prioritization of young people who are without a home, to prevent chronic homelessness.

Our second recommendation is for government to put in place rental subsidies. This would provide an immediate impact to young people who are struggling with housing affordability and may just need that little bit of financial support to bridge the gap into safe and secure housing.

The third request is that government consider a distinct call for youth housing that would support the development of youth housing in all communities across the province, as there are many that don’t even have a youth shelter. These are our recommendations.

We also encourage that a provincial plan would look at young people in the foster care system and prevent them from experiencing homelessness.

[11:10 a.m.]

We know that the foster system is the superhighway to homelessness, and we’re calling on government to provide comprehensive and universal aftercare support to the agreements with the young adults program. If our government invests in these critical supports that young people need and makes that overarching commitment through a provincial plan, I am strongly convinced that we will see a reduction in youth homelessness. The young people of the future will give back to this province, as we have seen our amazing group, Youth Against Youth Homelessness, do.

We’ll be putting on a provincial youth homelessness conference in January that will be a milestone in developing this plan. It will be led by young people with lived expertise. We encourage all of you to attend this conference, as you’ll hear directly from young people.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Katherine.

Next up we have Heather Ney from Comox Valley Transition Society.

Heather, please go ahead.

COMOX VALLEY TRANSITION SOCIETY

H. Ney: Good morning. I’m presenting from Thetis Island. I’m on vacation, and I apologize for any extraneous noise in the background I can’t control. I really appreciate the opportunity this morning to highlight a couple of opportunities that would greatly improve the lives of women who are in need of core housing.

My involvement in housing includes overseeing the transition house — 14 beds; a 12-bed residential recovery facility for women at the HPP rental supplement program; the operation and, in some cases, development of 23 units of housing for women and women with children; operating, on behalf of the Coalition to End Homelessness in the Comox Valley, the Connect centre for the homeless; and then, most recently, being the housing operator for the COVID motel and encampment response.

I’ve learned, in my 15 years in this role, that there is no safety, no stability and no healing beyond violence, substance misuse and mental or physical unwellness for women and children without affordable, appropriate and adequate housing. The same is true for men. Although my points will specifically focus on women and women with children, we are all equally aware of the housing challenges for people in general and advocate passionately alongside our community partners, like Andrea, for housing across the continuum.

Before I speak about what we need from the government, I do want to acknowledge and express our deep gratitude for the investment and the steps, including the recent housing needs assessment, that have supported decreasing homelessness in our community thus far. The challenge is, for all of us, that it hasn’t been enough and it hasn’t been fast enough. We know that the challenges that face those in core housing need have been amplified during the COVID-19 emergency.

I wish we had time for a very fulsome discussion on housing need, but I’ll just address two solutions that will address the housing crisis for women. The homelessness prevention program is a success. It works. CVTS has been provided the equivalent of ten rental supplements. We’ve been able to support 17 women — female-led, single-parent families that include 11 children — with just $4,500 each month. The rental supplements are an effective way to address core housing need quickly, rely on the private sector for capital and ongoing operating expenses and offer an element of choice in location where one might live.

The program’s not perfect. In fact, because it’s time-limited, it’s inducing stress. It will continue to do so until adequate quantities of housing are provided. Secondly, vacancy rates obviously pose a problem, and every level of government needs to encourage and remove barriers for development. The particularly problematic issue is that it’s difficult to secure some tenancies with the maximum only being $450 a month. If you’re a woman with four children, it’s virtually impossible to secure or meet your core housing need.

[11:15 a.m.]

On a final note about HPP, the staffing portion is essential for supporting successful tenancy and navigating access to other supports.

My second point is that not all women can manage in supported housing. Many need supportive housing, housing first, and it needs to be gender-specific, with staff trained and experienced in supporting the specific needs of women.

Mixed-gender modular supportive housing does not work for all women. In fact, it doesn’t work for most women. In mixed-gender housing, women report feeling unsafe. They report physical violence, sexual assault, harassment, financial abuses and exploitation. Reporting to staff or police puts them at further risk.

Women in mixed-gender supportive housing are being victimized and traumatized in the same way that led them to be homeless in the first place. By not addressing this, the government is perpetuating violence against women. Women are leaving supportive housing placements because they feel safer elsewhere.

I could speak in great detail — and I’m running out of time — but these two issues will greatly improve, if they could be addressed, the situation for women and housing.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Heather. It actually was kind of nice hearing the birds in the background there. We appreciate that.

First, before I open up the questions to members, I did want to say thank you so much for your advocacy on these very important matters. I know, for myself, one of the reasons I got involved was these very issues. I’ve been advocating for a youth safe house in Maple Ridge for years after we lost our youth safe house.

I was also really pleased that we were able to open up…. I helped launch some housing in Abbotsford, which is wonderful. It actually is primarily for families and women. They have a child care facility and a specialized treatment centre there. Those are the kinds of things that really make a difference.

A lot of that, obviously, has to do with the advocacy from groups like yours. So thank you so much for all that you do. I appreciate the distinctions between the needs of women, especially fleeing violence, and children and youth, not only in foster care but also falling between the cracks. So thank you so much for that.

I’ve spoken way more than I should as Chair. I apologize. I’m kind of passionate about this one too.

R. Leonard: Nice to see you all presenting today. I’ll say, first of all, it’s very helpful, I think, for all of us on this committee to hear about the challenges that are faced beyond what we see on TV. The Downtown Eastside represents a particular snapshot of a particular problem. The problems that exist for youth and in smaller communities are significant, and you definitely expressed that. So I really appreciate it.

It’s nice to see things progressing, particularly for you, Ms. McParland. I see you on a number of occasions. I’m sure that eventually there is going to be some success at the end of this particular road you’re travelling. It takes champions to make that happen. So thank you for continuing on with it.

A couple of questions. If you had to pick between a shelter and housing for youth, where would the balance be? I want to say thank you for talking about the supplement, across many demographics, and the impact that might have on making sure that people get housing. So yeah, I’ll stop.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Did someone want to answer that?

R. Leonard: It was a question for Ms. McParland, particularly around youth.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Go ahead, Katherine.

K. McParland: Thank you so much for your kind words. Thank you for drawing attention to the difference and need for both an emergency response to youth homelessness and the long-term solution. It’s definitely a balance.

I think most communities need both, whether it’s an adoption of the emergency shelter…. Cowichan territory is doing some pretty innovative work around host families, so building on some of those natural supports in community.

I believe that youth housing first is the key. If we are looking at prioritizing investments, it would definitely be permanent solution for young people.

[11:20 a.m.]

So often the shelter does not provide enough time for youth to be able to develop a plan. I think by providing youth with safe housing and the support they need to gain life skills, they’ll be set up for success. We also definitely need that emergency response as well.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much.

If I can have one more quick question to Andrea.

I wanted to say congratulations. I believe you are one of the only communities that has been able to complete the actual homeless count. After the pandemic hit, most communities had to put that to the side for now. So congratulations.

Maybe you could explain a little bit about how you were able to complete it. You have had a lot of experience now, over the years.

A. Cupelli: Certainly. The provincial homeless count, through B.C. Housing and HSABC…. This is the second time we’ve done the count through them provincially.

It really relies on a lot of volunteer support. We had this year, I think, 65 volunteers help us conduct that count over a 24-hour period. Yes, we were very, very lucky we conducted our count on March 11. Things really started to get a little bit wild with COVID right after. So grateful we were able to get that in. Yeah, there’s our poster.

Doing the point-in-time count, I think, especially for rural or smaller communities, is extraordinarily important because there can often be an assumption that homelessness doesn’t really exist.

We’ll have our preliminary results from this year’s count, I believe, in the next few weeks. I just heard from B.C. Housing yesterday.

We talked to 175 people in 24 hours. Whether all of those folks will be screened in will be determined in the results. But just the fact that in 24 hours…. Through street outreach, through events and through agencies themselves, we were able to talk to 175 people who were experiencing, if not absolute homelessness, precarious housing or other issues that were addressed by Katherine and Heather.

I’m very grateful that the province is conducting this point-in-time count for smaller communities. I think it helps to paint a really realistic picture of what’s going on across B.C.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. Yeah. We were quite shocked last year. I think it was last year. We were in Kitimat, and there were 100 homeless people in Kitimat. I was like…. You find out that this problem is throughout the province. It’s in small areas as well as the highly publicized areas. So thank you for all your work in this area and for your passion.

I don’t see any more questions. So I want to thank you for your presentations and for taking the time to present to us.

With that, if I could have a recess until 11:30. Thank you so much, everyone.

The committee recessed from 11:23 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are continuing our discussion on housing.

First up we have Paul Taylor from Mortgage Professionals Canada.

Paul, please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 5 – Housing

MORTGAGE PROFESSIONALS CANADA

P. Taylor: Good morning, everybody, and thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Paul Taylor, and I’m president and CEO of Mortgage Professionals Canada.

MPC is the national mortgage industry association, representing over 12,000 individuals and over 1,000 companies, including mortgage brokerages, mortgage lenders, mortgage insurers and other industry service providers.

I’d like to open by congratulating the government and all civil servants for your collective efforts throughout the pandemic. The challenges have no doubt been herculean, but your resolute focus on public health and safety throughout the period has ensured significantly reduced exposures and infections amongst British Columbians than would otherwise have been experienced. Bravo to everybody for that.

To the matter of the day, in April — on behalf of and with guidance and input from our 1,300 British Columbia members — we submitted our recommendations to the B.C. Ministry of Finance about the current Mortgage Brokers Act review and a consultation on the beneficial ownership directory. For the audience, these documents are publicly available at mympc.ca.

The Mortgage Brokers Act is in need of amendments to align the intent of the legislation with our modern business environments. We thank the government for its continued work in this regard and continue to make ourselves available for discussion and commentary as this work progresses.

We have some concerns about the potential reductions in privacy protections related to the implementation of the beneficial ownership registry, which we describe in our submission. Simply, as envisioned, the registry may be constructed to permit individuals to search a real estate ownership database by name. This would effectively provide anybody who cared to look with a sense of the approximate net worth of real estate owners, potentially disclosing all of an individual’s real estate interests. Given that PIPA and PIPEDA place health and financial information amongst the most sensitive, we don’t feel this is appropriate.

We recommend instead that the registry be searchable only by property address, listing ownership interest on a location-by-location basis, at least for the general public. If structured this way, investors in a given property will be able to see who their co-investors are, and tenants will be able to see who their landlords are, which we believe achieves the objectives of the registry while still striking a balance of protections for the owners. However, we do support all law enforcement agencies having full access and full searchability functions available to them if they’re trying to uncover any misdeeds, of course.

For Budget 2021, we believe the biggest issue will be the provision of support on housing affordability and accessibility for homebuyers and first-time buyers in B.C. The federal Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy programs are designed to ensure that people keep their homes and their jobs, respectively. They’re necessary, but they’re temporary. We believe that governments, including yours, should continue such policies.

As governments are prudently advising businesses to close, governments are also really expected to financially assist these businesses and their employees through the period, and programs such as the B.C. emergency benefit for workers, the temporary rent supplement, and the deferral of hydro and ICBC payments have been tremendously beneficial to those most impacted by the outbreak.

We congratulate the government for the supports provided to date but suggest that the need to continue with these and other innovative programs in the coming months will likely persist. We believe all MLAs will support the overarching objective of keeping people in their homes and, wherever possible, also in their job.

Finally, we suggest that housing, especially in B.C., needs to be a large part of our economic recovery. The desire among young and aspiring middle-class Canadians to own property for a variety of well-founded reasons has never abated. For many, the pandemic has perhaps reinforced the desire for an affordable place to call home.

Commendably, the B.C. government is leading the fight to eliminate the destructive impacts of money laundering in real estate. Mortgage Professionals Canada actively supports these efforts. Money laundering, though, is a separate issue to the need for new generations of homeowners, and housing economics and tax revenues drive much of this economy.

[11:35 a.m.]

A considerable proportion of the government’s liabilities related to COVID can be offset by a stronger and more supported housing sector. Builders, lenders, movers, lawyers, suppliers, mortgage brokers, insurers — the economic benefits their work supplies help pay for the demands that the rest of B.C. faces and creates sustainable and fair revenues, perhaps now more than ever.

We recommend a review of the agricultural land reserve surrounding Vancouver to expedite the rezoning to more residential occupancy, potentially. Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Paul.

Next up we have Terry Dowle from Appraisal Institute of Canada, British Columbia branch.

Please go ahead, Terry.

APPRAISAL INSTITUTE OF CANADA, B.C.

T. Dowle: Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I echo Paul’s congratulations and thank the government on your actions to manage the current health crisis.

My name is Terry Dowle, and I’m the president of the B.C. association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. We represent over 1,200 members practicing in all aspects of the real estate landscape. We’re a self-regulating body, with a strong focus on consumer protection. To this end, we maintain a robust disciplinary process, and each member participates in a mandatory professional liability program.

AIC-BC members are committed to working with legislators, governments and real estate industry stakeholders to ensure that all consumers are protected and well informed when making any decisions involving real property. Our unbiased opinions and strong evaluation fundamentals result in a sustainable and healthy marketplace, which enables all British Columbians to prosper.

Our world has substantially changed over the past few months. The focus has moved from business development to health development. Our needs and wants have new priorities. However, it’s important to realize that business, although undertaken in a new manner, still continues. These changes have altered the way we conduct business, and we must remain vigilant in ensuring that we focus on the right protective measures while continuing forward.

As our society has moved to a more virtual workplace, there has been an increase in artificial intelligence reliance. The use of AI is extremely valuable but also has the potential to be leveraged in fraudulent practice. With physical and social distancing in place, AIC-BC appraisers have shifted from traditional on-site analysis to an increased and necessary focus on data interpretation and analysis.

Allegations of fraudulent or criminal behaviour within the B.C. real estate industry are of primary concern to us. We spend considerable efforts and time researching property transactions, ownership and market trends in the revelation of market value. The availability of accurate market data is the foundation of quality valuations. Unbiased and independent real estate appraisals play a vital role in assisting individuals, businesses and governments in making informed decisions during real property transactions. The lack of reliable data puts our financial system, and B.C.’s residents, at risk for inaccurate evaluations and fraudulent transfers.

Repositories of data have become a new currency. The availability of this data to appraisers has become limited and costly. Access to ownership information, transaction histories, and full sales and listing data is vital in trend analysis and understanding market value. AI can collect, correlate and reproduce data in a swift and efficient manner. However, AI is limited in its interpretation of the data and the specific analysis of physical characteristics which create value. Furthermore, AI may not have the ability to recognize subtle inconsistencies, which could be an indication of fraud. This is where appraisers are of utmost importance.

Historically, data has been extracted from a variety of sources, including real estate boards, municipal and provincial records and private data providers. Many of these data providers, both public and private, have placed greater restrictions on the ability to access the full scope of data. These restrictions typically mean increased costs to acquire reliable data, or the unavailability of data in a timely manner. These limitations have the impact of affecting comprehensive details of report findings, thereby increasing the risk to consumers, as appraisers are restricted to less-reliable sources, with increased costs and loss of historical data for analysis.

The real estate market is a key aspect of our financial sector and economy. The B.C. real estate market affects every segment of our society and is of paramount concern to most British Columbians. Navigating the real estate market, analyzing trends, determining value and mitigating risk are all ways that our appraisers offer protection to B.C. consumers. Our members are uniquely qualified to offer insight into the details of real property transactions. Appraisers help to ensure that properties are not overvalued and can help prevent mortgage fraud or other issues involving real property.

Last year we appeared before this committee with a similar appeal. Given the changes occurring due to COVID-19 and the financial crisis, access to critical data sources is even more important today than before. If AIC-BC appraisers are to continue to be effective in aligning with the provincial government’s mandate to combat fraudulent real estate activity, access to reliable and affordable data is critical.

[11:40 a.m.]

We would recommend the B.C. government ensure that land titles and assessment databases be accessible, at reasonable fees, for professional and qualified appraisers and, in addition, that real estate boards within the province be given direction to allow AIC-BC members full access to their MLS systems. AIC-BC welcomes the opportunity to meet with respective departments in government to consult and provide insight to rebuilding a resilient and sustainable economy.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, we’re privileged to have been invited here today to share our perspective. We would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments you and your colleagues may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Terry.

Next up we have Lee Coonfer from B.C. Seniors Living Association.

Go ahead, Lee.

B.C. SENIORS LIVING ASSOCIATION

L. Coonfer: Good morning, Mr. Chairperson and members of the select standing committee. My name is Lee Coonfer. I am the CEO of B.C. Seniors Living Association. I’m very grateful for the opportunity to present before you today. I provided the committee with a short PowerPoint presentation, which my script should follow if I do my job properly.

In short, BCSLA represents the private pay seniors living operators in B.C. These communities range from large operators providing multiple levels of service to hundreds of residents to small community operators with fewer than 15 occupants. In total, we represent over 170 sites in B.C. That is inclusive of 16,500 units and over 3,000 direct employees, which doesn’t include the multiple contracted services and suppliers. Of this group, 120 of these companies are also members of the B.C. Seniors Living Association as associates.

Our vision is to help create an environment in B.C. where private pay providers thrive and innovate to offer increasing diversity of choice in senior living. To this end, although we are private pay, we are a partner of the provincial government. Success in the private pay sector alleviates strains and pressures on a publicly funded system that is under more stress and will continue to be as we look ahead to the forecasted demand for seniors living in B.C. In real terms, the forecast increase in demand is over 35 percent in the next ten years.

Today we have private pay communities that have provided supply on contract to government to meet the subsidized and publicly funded demand. Therefore, a hybrid system is a reality. As it stands, only the private pay sector has the ability to help the province meet this demand with a high quality of supply. So yes, we are partners.

I deposited my initial presentation in the recycling bin, as things have changed dramatically very quickly due to COVID-19. COVID-19 has presented a new operating environment across all sectors, requiring new socializing norms and, in particular, government leadership.

In keeping with our commitment to be a collaborative partner with the government, a message we delivered to MLAs in Victoria at our inaugural MLA day, BCSLA has worked closely with the Ministries of Health and Housing, participating diligently on the COVID-19 working group with the Ministry of Health and participating on the reference group to help administer the single-site order. These are just two examples.

In both of these cases, much time was needed for the private pay seniors living sector and government to get to know one another better. I’ll be honest. The learning curve has been steeper on the government side. This is why we have made a strategic directional change for our organization to have a focus on advocacy. However, we found ourselves in a position where our members have not been treated like partners. Quite the opposite. A number of these cases are a product of simply needing to work together better, and I am committed to doing that.

There are two areas, mind you, that I have a hard time understanding and that our members see as discriminatory, unfair and a punishment, to be frank. These two issues are the administration of the federally funded $4 an hour pandemic pay and consideration for compensation for the incremental costs of provincial health order compliance during COVID-19.

In both of these cases…. Although collectively we serve the same community cohort and, in some cases, provide the exact same services, utilizing the exact same labour pool, the private pay sector has been treated quite differently than the publicly funded sector.

To be specific, the $4 an hour pandemic pay. When the federal government announced the funding for the $4 an hour pandemic pay, the province followed up with the announcement on how they would administer these funds. It was only logical that the private pay providers of seniors living would assume that this applied to the whole sector. The reality we found is that it doesn’t.

[11:45 a.m.]

Eligibility requires that in order for the employees to receive this hero pay, they needed to work at a publicly funded site. Even BCSLA members who operate publicly funded capacity on behalf of the province yet still had their private pay operations on the same site were told they were not eligible. Using this same logic, one would assume that, therefore, those exact same sites would not be eligible or be required to comply with the single-site order and all of the administrative costs and burdens of that.

To our surprise, we were told no. That part we are eligible for and are to be included in that. For $4-an-hour pandemic pay, the labourer is mobile and will go to where the grass is greener. This announcement of eligibility for $4 an hour at a publicly funded site has put tremendous pressure on our members to meet that $4 an hour out of their own pocket just to keep up and to be treated fairly and equally as their colleagues who operate across the street.

Incremental cost recovery for provincial health order compliance. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was brought to the attention of government by BCSLA, at the working group, that PHO compliance, although necessary and the right thing to do, is requiring operators to incur costs for PPEs, screening and other ancillary areas.

B.C. care providers….

B. D’Eith (Chair): Lee, sorry to interrupt. You’re out of time. If you could please wrap up, I’d appreciate it.

L. Coonfer: Okay. I was going to say that the publicly funded sites are still being considered for incremental cost compensation, yet the BCSLA was recently told that we are not.

I appreciate your time and attention to this. These are the two areas that are of specific concern for our members and a priority for us to get some, at least, discussion started. We have tried and, to this point, have failed.

I appreciate your time. I am available for any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Lee. We appreciate that.

Questions from members?

I had a couple of questions for Paul.

In regards to the database, you had some concerns about too much information going in regards to individual property ownership. I’m just wondering. Presumably, this has already gone through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — or not. I’m just curious if this has already been vetted. If so, presumably it has met the tests of privacy at this point. Maybe you could comment on that.

P. Taylor: At this point, I’m not actually sure. We’re really only responding to a public consultation document that has been released. As there isn’t a formal, I guess, presentation of expected structure of it, we’re really just making the comment as a bit of a caution.

There’s almost a theme or a suggestion within the tone of the consultation paper itself that the provision of some of the information to the public is almost a means to create a policing force from the public itself. So if somebody saw something untoward, they could cry foul. We’re just not sure that that’s appropriate, honestly.

We have no concern, obviously, with any of the law enforcement agencies having all availability to do searches by any particular field. We’re just really reticent about the idea of allowing anybody to basically get a sense of somebody’s net worth by searching by their name. We don’t think that that’s appropriate, frankly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): This is early days in this, and you’re putting a flag up. Okay. I appreciate that, Paul.

Secondly, I appreciate that so many banks and lending institutions have deferred mortgage payments for many people. That’s very much appreciated. My concern is just in regards to pushing some of these costs down the road and what that’s going to mean in three months or four months’ time when those deferrals start having to come back.

I know, in particular, there are commercial mortgagees who have had some deferrals, and then they’re going to have to pay it all by the end of December. I know there’s the federal $40,000 program, but they’ve got to pay that back, too, to get the $10,000 benefit.

I’m concerned overall. I wonder if you have any comments on that.

P. Taylor: Only at the very macro level. I think your concern is probably quite well founded. We’re also monitoring ourselves the performance of some of the books within the portfolios of the lenders that are members of ours.

[11:50 a.m.]

Encouragingly, for the lenders that are able to track it on a month-to-month basis, we’re actually seeing an awful lot of people that were initially in deferral programs now selecting out of them voluntarily. I think there was an awful lot of panic in the early days.

When the banks, through CBA, made the announcement that they were offering these deferrals, I think an awful lot of people thought it was just going to be six months of no mortgage obligation. Once they figured out that there was, in fact, a compounding of the interest because of the deferral of the principal, quite a few folks decided: “Oh, I’m quite capable of making the payments, and I will.”

I’m actually quite hopeful that the expected squeeze for some is not going to be as large as many have predicted. There will be a few folks who…. I think it’s got…. Defaults on property are always very, very correlated to employment numbers. So the more people we can get back to work, the smaller the damage is going to be, frankly.

If we’re not able to get the economy up and running…. It’s probably the travel, tourism and the hospitality sectors in the end that will likely be the last to open. The faster we can get those folks running at something close to full capacity, the smaller the impact will be, I think.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Paul.

D. Barnett: I have a question for Lee, if I may.

Lee, you talked about $4 an hour of pandemic funding for health care workers and that the private sector was not included. Am I correct in understanding that this is from the federal government down to the provincial government to distribute?

L. Coonfer: Correct. It is a federally funded program that has been transferred to the province for them to administer.

D. Barnett: If I could just take another minute. There were no rules or regulations when the federal government gave the money to the provinces to distribute, were there?

L. Coonfer: There were broad guidelines, to my understanding, but no specific instructions. It was up to the province to administer it as they saw fit.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m not sure that’s 100 percent accurate, but anyway. Just in terms of…. The program, obviously, was trying to take into account the fact that, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, there was a much greater impact of COVID-19. Obviously, that had a huge impact on the health care system. Of course, we prepared for it. We were administering a program, I think, that had a national and, provincially, a more central Canada focus. To be fair to that, I think the program was really focused on Canada generally and not B.C. specifically.

Any other questions or comments from members?

Seeing none, I wanted to thank the presenters. Thank you very much for your presentations. Of course, thank you for everything you’ve done during the pandemic and, Lee, for your participation in the COVID-19 consultations. We really appreciate that work and, of course, all the work that everyone has been doing in a very difficult time.

With that, if I could have a motion to adjourn, please.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:53 a.m.