Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Families.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $196,910,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that we’re getting started, and I look forward to hearing questions from the other side. I just want to say a few words, if I might.

I’m very fortunate to have with me a group of experienced senior staff who are key to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing work. I’m joined by the deputy minister, Jacqueline Dawes, and assistant deputy ministers. I’ve got Greg Steves with housing and Tara Faganello with local government. Later we’ll be joined by Kevin Volk with community and legislative services. I also have Tracy Campbell, our executive financial officer and ADM of management services.

We have a strong leadership and a great team at Municipal Affairs and Housing, and I want to thank them for making progress on the issues that matter to British Columbians. We’re doing things like improving access to safe, functional housing that people can afford to buy or rent. We’re improving policies and services for many landlords and renters in the province and working to support better transportation options for people in Metro Vancouver by supporting the Mayors Council’s ten-year vision.

We’re also working with British Columbia’s 189 local governments to help them to help their residents and the communities so that they can all thrive. I’d also like to recognize the leadership of our Crown agency. We’re joined here today by the B.C. Housing chief executive officer, Shayne Ramsay, one of the busiest people in the province these days.

[2:50 p.m.]

We also are supportive of the B.C. Assessment Authority’s president and chief executive officer, Jason Grant, and Technical Safety B.C.’s president and chief executive officer, Catherine Roome.

I know that our time is valuable here. I want us to use it well, but I’d like to also give a few brief highlights of what we’re doing.

Improving housing affordability and housing availability is one of the most important mandates British Columbians have given our government. After listening to British Columbians and after consultation with experts in the housing sector, experts on both the supply and the demand side, we released Budget 2018. It includes significant new investments that are grounded in a new 30-point housing plan for British Columbians.

Our plan has started with taking action to stabilize the housing market, to curb demand and to provide better protection and better options for renters. While the Ministry of Finance takes action to curb demand, my ministry is focused on rental policies and on increasing the overall housing supply.

Our plan includes support for affordable rental homes for people with low and middle incomes, new rental homes for seniors so they can stay in their communities, more homes for Indigenous peoples, new housing for women and children fleeing violence, new spaces of student housing and new homes with 24-7 support for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

We will also make a significant investment, more than $1 billion over ten years, to preserve and protect our existing social housing for people already living in those homes. Altogether, we will be investing more than $7 billion over the next decade. This will be the largest investment in housing in the history of British Columbia.

You’ve heard me, certainly, here in this chamber and elsewhere, talk about the importance of building strong partnerships. That’s why we launched a new housing hub at B.C. Housing — in order to bring everyone together to facilitate the building of homes that people can afford. The housing hub is already developing partnerships to find, use or redevelop available land in communities hardest hit by the housing crisis.

The new hub underlines the importance of partnerships and the coordinating of effort that it takes to address housing affordability and availability. The hub will be actively pursuing partners, whether they are non-profits, co-ops, local governments, landowners, First Nations, investors, faith communities. These people and these groups are looking to partner with us, with their government. The hub will be tasked with trying new things, bringing together innovative partnerships to build the homes British Columbians need — homes to rent and homes to own.

With rental vacancy so low in many parts of province, we need to make sure that renters have the secure housing they deserve. Budget 2018 includes new investments to expand eligibility and increase benefits for our rental assistance programs for low-income seniors and working families. This will help families and seniors stay in their homes and in their communities.

These enhancements will benefit 35,000 households, including 3,200 new eligible families and seniors. Effective September 2018, on average, seniors will receive an extra $930 per year, and the increase for families will be about $800 a year.

We’ve also taken steps this spring to further strengthen protection for renters and for manufactured home owners. These actions build on the steps we’ve already taken, including closing what is known as the fixed-term-lease loophole and eliminating the geographic rent clause.

While addressing the housing crisis is a major priority of this ministry, we have a number of other important roles. I’m pleased to continue to support approximately 5,000 not-for-profits in delivering programs through B.C., through our community gaming grant program, and to work with the federal government on much-needed infrastructure funding around the province.

As the Minister Responsible for TransLink, we are very much focused on investing in transit and transportation to make life better for residents, for businesses and for visitors. We support the mayors’ vision and our funding will be ready to support them as projects take flight and start liberating people from the current congestion.

Before we get into questions, there are a number of other people I’d like to thank in my office. I’d like to acknowledge my senior ministerial assistant, Craig Ashbourne; ministerial assistant, Daniela Gardea; executive assistant, Matt Djonlic; administrative coordinator, Christine White; and administrative assistant Lisa Grant. These are the people that keep life rolling, keep me busy and help us, together, deliver for British Columbians.

T. Stone: Thanks to the minister for that introduction. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the staff that, I know full well, are instrumental in helping the minister prepare and do all that really heavy lifting back in their respective offices to bring to life the government’s priorities, which is a lot about the investments that people really need in this province.

[2:55 p.m.]

I just wanted to let the minister know that I will be leading the questioning on the municipal affairs side of the equation. I’ve got a few initial questions there. Then we’ll be turning it over to the member for Vancouver–False Creek, who is the official opposition Housing critic. He will lead our questioning on the housing side of the equation. I may jump in, as will other select members of the opposition, with respect to housing.

That will likely take us through the majority, if not all of, today. We’ll reserve TransLink and a few other bits and pieces for tomorrow as well.

Without further ado. First off, I’m wondering, with respect to ministry organization…. We talked in estimates last fall about some things that had been brought into the ministry and some things that were taken out and so forth. The first question would be: have there been any further changes to the ministry structure, the ministry organization, this year? If so, could the minister please detail that for us?

Related to that, I’m wondering if the minister could just provide a little bit of detail to this House with respect to the expenditures, insofar as operating expenditures being up about $15 million overall. By my read of it, that looks like the housing-related components of her ministry’s budget are up about $32 million. Ministry operations is down about $47 million. I’m just wondering if the minister could just provide some detail as to what accounts for the increases on the housing budget side of the equation and the decrease on the ministry operations side of budget and, again, if there have been any significant changes to the ministry structure and responsibilities.

Hon. S. Robinson: There have been no additional reorganizations, no additional structural changes.

I have a response around the budget changes. There have been changes to the ministry’s budget since the last update. In particular, they include the following: an increase of $31.89 million for the housing program’s operating budget and an increase of $54.474 million for the housing programs capital budget. These increases are offset by a decrease of $47.629 million to ministry operations.

The decrease is mainly due to timing of grants and federal recoveries under the clean water and wastewater fund and the New Building Canada fund. There’s been a $50 million decrease for the clean water and wastewater fund and a $6 million decrease for the New Building Canada fund. Provincial funding for these two programs was accelerated last fiscal.

There’s also an increase in federal recoveries for the CWWF, which is the clean water and waste water, of $25.172 million, and in the New Building Canada fund, of $4 million.

These reductions are offset by the following increases: $2.1 million for housing initiatives within the local government division, an increase of $209,000 for BCGEU wage increases per the collective agreement, an increase of $171,000 to reflect administration of the federal clean water and wastewater program. And there have been some miscellaneous administrative adjustments of $61,000. That includes benefit rate adjustments — that kind of stuff.

[3:00 p.m.]

Just to wrap it all up. The ministry saw an overall budget increase of $38.731 million. So a decrease of $47.629 million for ministry operations, an increase of $31.89 million for housing operating dollars and an increase of $57.474 million for housing capital dollars.

T. Stone: Thank you for that, Minister.

Could the minister provide a little bit more detail as to what accounts for the issue related to the timing of grants? I can think of a number of scenarios, but I would appreciate if the minister could just kind of go through those categories again and indicate what exactly accounts for the timing being different than what was originally planned.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to get on the record that the commitments are the same. There’s been no change in the commitments. It’s really about cash flow, about when projects actually get the funding. I just want to note, for example, that when we had this terrible fire — the wildfires of this summer — it meant that projects got delayed. Or if there’s a particularly rough winter and they can’t actually start construction in the time frame that they thought they would be able to start, there’s oftentimes a delay on some of these major projects. So this is just really a cash flow situation.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, thank you for that, Minister. I’m wondering if we could shift gears. I just have a couple of questions with respect to the community capital fund.

This was a community capital infrastructure fund that was outlined in the minister’s mandate letter, I believe. I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate to this House if this fund actually has been created. If it has been, can the minister outline how many dollars have been dedicated to the fund? And who will be eligible for the fund once the application process is understood by those who can apply?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to clarify that the member was referring to the bullet in my mandate letter that directs me to partner with the local governments and First Nations to develop a community capital infrastructure fund, rather than the community capital fund, because it’s slightly different. I’m assuming it’s the first.

I want to assure the member and the House that work is well underway with that. There’s an opportunity to join with the federal government to make sure that there is a significant fund available for communities to access.

We all know how important it is for local governments, in terms of making their communities livable and rich, to have opportunities to create sports facilities, playgrounds, local community centres, arts centres and such. That work is being undertaken right now to put this together.

T. Stone: Can the minister just indicate some timelines here? When will the application process be up and running? When does she anticipate receiving applications? How will the applications be adjudicated? Who will be involved in that? I’m assuming it’s internal to her ministry, but potentially, there may be some third parties involved as well. I’d appreciate some detail around there.

Again, what would those ideal projects that the minister has in mind actually look like, that would represent really good value for the taxpayers’ money in the context of this new program?

Hon. S. Robinson: The work is being undertaken as we speak. What I can tell the member is that the application process will be a merit-based application process, so it will be adjudicated by professional public servants. We’re working on putting together what the ideal project is, and that work is just being undertaken and reviewed right now.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House if her ministry is contemplating any boundary changes for local governments or local jurisdictions around the province, for communities that want to extend their boundaries for any particular reason.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that when I was a part of the former government, it was an often requested subject of great debate inside the government. So I’m wondering if the minister could just advise me, and the House, if there are any active considerations being given to boundary changes for any municipal or regional district jurisdictions in the province.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. This boundary change request does come up. Of course, it comes from the community themselves. The way the process works is that it actually comes to staff first, who take a look and ask questions in talks with the staff. They take a look at community support and stakeholder support, and they explore what’s going on.

I can assure the member that none of these boundary changes are before me as minister. So I don’t have a comment on anything that’s before me.

T. Stone: Shifting gears, I’d like to ask a couple of questions about the employers health tax and the impact of that on municipalities. I certainly know that the details relating to the tax itself would not fall under the purview of the minister but rather of the Minister of Finance. But I do think it’s a very relevant line of questioning here in Municipal Affairs estimates, because I can say, with a great deal of conviction, that there is no issue I’m hearing more about, as the critic for Municipal Affairs, than municipalities and regional districts that are concerned about the impact of the employer health tax on their operations.

I’m wondering if the minister could advise this House if her ministry has done any analysis or any modelling with local government to determine what the potential fiscal impacts could be on local government of this new tax, moving forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member fully appreciates that local governments are an autonomous level of government that make choices about how they’re going to be spending the revenue that they get. I was just checking with staff around if we have received any formal complaints, concerns, issues. They haven’t. I have heard from some who are concerned, and I have heard others who say that it’s a wash. It’s not affecting them. So the response that I’ve been hearing is quite varied.

T. Stone: Well, no quibble from me. Local government is an autonomous level of government, for the most part, but they are often on the receiving end of decisions that are made by the provincial government that can have positive or negative consequences, particularly when it comes to their budgets.

The employer health tax. I know, in the case of my community in Kamloops, the finance director in the city accounts and the mayor believe that they’re staring down the barrel of a $1 million hit to their bottom line, including the impact on policing costs.

I would like to ask the minister again if her ministry has done any analysis or any work with perhaps the UBCM or other local governments to understand what the budget impacts will be, recognizing that it would be very different depending on the size of the municipality. I get that. But has there been any work done to try and understand what the impacts will be on local government budgets as the result of a decision taken by the provincial government?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d also like to remind the member that when they doubled MSP premiums, the local governments, I’m sure, had to make adjustments accordingly, because that’s what local governments do. There are always various changes that happen in the landscape, and they make choices about how they’re going to adjust.

I also want to point out that I think it’s really important that we all remember that this is a significant savings to families, and families live in all of our communities. So as communities and local governments make decisions about how to best serve their constituents, families now have $1,800 in their pockets that they didn’t have before.

T. Stone: Well, the proof will be in the pudding on that one. The city of Kamloops and other municipalities that I’m talking to are trying to determine what the fiscal impact will be of this new tax on their budgets, and they will all make different decisions as to how to cope with the change. But I tell you. A $1 million change or a $1 million impact to the city of Kamloops’ budget is a pretty significant property tax increase that the people of Kamloops, the homeowners in Kamloops, are going to face.

It’s also resulting in…. It’ll put pressure on the cost of goods. I think it’s…. It might be easy for the minister to kind of gloss over the impacts here. But I’m just trying to reflect what I’m hearing from the municipalities that are contacting me.

Let me ask this, then. Was there any consultation on the part of the minister and her ministry with local government, whether it’s through the UBCM or directly with local governments, as part of the government’s thought process and ultimate decision to proceed with an employer health tax?

[3:20 p.m.]

Again, for a city the size of Kamloops, it’s going to hit their bottom line to the tune of $1 million more per year. Once the MSP is fully phased out and there’s just the employer health tax, which is not till 2020, it’s a $1 million hit to their bottom line.

Was there any consultation, and could the minister detail what that consultation looked like with respect to the UBCM and other specific local governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to reflect back to what the member had said earlier when he first started these remarks and just remind him that it was the Minister of Finance that brought forward the budget. Really, I’m very proud of this budget in terms of what it does, how it affects families and the impact it has on putting more money in people’s pockets, because there’s certainly been an affordability concern for families.

As part of that, I recognize that local governments will need to make decisions going forward to address the needs of their constituents. They have the information going forward in order to do that.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with any thoughts that she has — I’ve read some of her public comments — with respect to the loopholes in the local election campaign financing, which have clearly arisen.

We know that every member of this House supported getting big money out of politics, corporate and union donations, and lowering the maximum contribution amount for individuals only to $1,200 per individual per year, both on the provincial election campaign side as well as the local election side of the equation.

[3:25 p.m.]

Yet we now learn that Elections B.C. — in their interpretation of the amendments to the legislation, as amended from last fall — has determined that, in fact, the way the legislation is worded, there is a loophole that means elector organizations are able to continue to raise corporate and union donations and continue to accept any contribution amount as long as those dollars are used for operational purposes and not campaign purposes.

Certainly, in the opposition, we feel this violates the spirit of the amendments, the spirit of the legislation as amended from last fall, which was why I saw fit to offer a suggested fix in the form of a private member’s bill earlier today. I’m certain that the minister will give it very careful consideration.

I’m wondering if the minister could comment on what her plans are to close this loophole so that the spirit of these legislative changes is truly honoured. We’re running out of time. There are six months before the municipal elections, and elector organizations are out there. Everybody’s confused. The government, I think, needs to provide some direction on this.

Could the minister comment as to what her plan is with respect to closing this loophole?

The Chair: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two people that I’ve just met. We’ve done a nice tour of the building. With us today from Richmond, B.C., is Albert Adamoski. He’s a printer. He loves skiing Whistler. That’s a surprise, eh? He’s accompanied by Michaela Sal from Taiwan. She’s a housekeeper in Whistler. She loves outdoor activities. They’ve come here to visit our House, their House. Can we please all make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s commitment to getting rid of big money out of our politics. It’s certainly music to my ears to hear this change in perspective and this conversion that has happened. It’s very exciting. I think we should have a little party recognizing this commitment.

This interpretive challenge that we are seeing is one my staff are taking very, very seriously. We’re committed to addressing and fixing this interpretive challenge that we have right now, and that should be coming shortly.

T. Stone: I’m just wondering if the minister could explain why the legislation was introduced with such a glaring hole in it. We did canvass this particular topic at great length in committee stage of the bill. We did go back and forth. We were provided assurances that indeed big money, corporate and union donations, would be removed from the mix as a result of these changes and that the maximum contribution would be the $1,200 per individual.

I certainly voted for that. I support that, as do members of the opposition. It was unanimous in this House. So can the minister explain why she brought forward a piece of legislation that was so obviously flawed insofar as allowing this loophole to exist?

Furthermore, when will she introduce a fix of some sort that will provide local governments and all of those British Columbians out there that are contemplating running for office, all of those elector organizations out there that are looking for some clarity on this…? When can they expect some clarity from the minister on a fix to close this loophole?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to thank the member opposite for his willingness to put the effort into a private member’s bill. Now he has this sudden interest in banning big money, and I’m really grateful that he feels that way. I’m also thankful to the elector organizations who understand the intent and have gone on record for continuing with that intent.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m sure the member knows full well that when you are working with a piece of legislation, how it rolls out, how it plays out on the ground, sometimes doesn’t actually hit the mark. I’ve gone on record and certainly been very committed to addressing that interpretation. It’s an interpretation that we didn’t anticipate. Now that others have brought it forward in terms of how they understand what’s acceptable, we are in the process of identifying a way to make sure that that is not the case.

T. Stone: I appreciate that, Minister. It certainly is our role, as the official opposition, to hold the government accountable for the decisions that it makes and to ensure that we’re asking the right questions and the tough questions with respect to those accountabilities.

This was an important piece of legislation that was supported by everyone in the House. Again, just a very simple question to the minister, because it sounds like she’s committed to a fix. I want to, again, highlight the urgency from a timing perspective, with municipal elections on the horizon and bearing down on all of us quickly. When does the minister plan on actually coming forward with a fix to this particular loophole?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the time pressures. Trust me; I am fully aware. But I think it’s important to tell a bit more of this story.

I want to remind all members of the House that it was a number of years ago — I want to say 2014 — when there was a task force put together by the old government to look at campaign finance and, in particular, expense limits for local governments. At the time, there was zero interest by the members opposite to include campaign contribution limits and get big money out.

[3:35 p.m.]

I know that I brought forward a motion to see if we could include that in this task force. It was denied, which was very disappointing, because we’ve known for a long time…. British Columbians have been asking for some time to get big money out of local elections. That would have been the time, I have to say, to actually do something to get big money out. It was certainly the opportunity to have the legislation working and understanding so that you’re not in this six-month crunch.

However, that wasn’t to be, which was really unfortunate. But it seems that the members opposite have seen the light and recognize the importance of banning big money and getting it out of our election process. I’m pleased to hear that there’s still that commitment. I thought maybe it was just around the piece of legislation, but hearing that they’re still committed to that is a good thing.

Again, we heard at the UBCM in September — you know, a new minister, just three months — a commitment from the UBCM. We did move quickly, I want to say, because there’s an election coming up this coming year, and we wanted to make sure that we could get big money out.

I want to assure the member opposite that staff are working diligently to identify a fix. That should be available for all parties because they do need to know exactly what the expectations are. I can tell them right now the expectation is that big money will not be influencing our politics in this upcoming election. The fix is in the works, and we’ll have it shortly.

T. Stone: While I do appreciate the minister’s walk down memory lane on campaign finance reform and the gospel according to the minister on this, the fact of the matter is that she is the minister, and she is responsible for this piece of legislation. She was responsible for overseeing its drafting. She was responsible for ushering it through this chamber.

It contains a very significant loophole that is now causing tremendous concern and tremendous strife within local government as local politicians prepare to put their names forward for the forthcoming municipal election. What was or was not the right thing to do in 2014 or 2015 or 2001 or 1991 is not relevant to the line of questioning here today.

On behalf of all of those mayoralty, councillor, regional district and school trustee candidates out there and all those electoral organizations, I will ask one more time: could the minister confirm that this loophole will be eliminated via some sort of a fix on her part in time for the municipal elections that will be taking place later this year, in 2018?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pretty sure I answered this question, but I want to assure the member opposite that this interpretive challenge that we’re facing right now will be fixed, absolutely, in time for the upcoming election.

T. Stone: I’d like to ask a few questions about gaming grants. First, I’m wondering if the minister can confirm what the level of funding will be for the forthcoming fiscal year with respect to community gaming grants and whether or not that funding level is the same as last year’s. If it’s not, is it going up or is it going down?

Hon. S. Robinson: The budget for community gaming grants remains unchanged at $140 million.

[3:40 p.m.]

T. Stone: I wonder if the minister could provide some details on the allocation of the gaming grants. My understanding is that there continue to be six intake categories: arts and culture, sport, parent advisory councils, environment, public safety, human and social services — and capital. Are those still the grant categories — one? Two, will there be any movement of funds from one category to another?

The overall amount is unchanged. I understand that. But are there any allocation changes within that overall amount? If so, could the minister please provide those details?

Hon. S. Robinson: The community gaming grants will continue to award a diverse range of grants to a variety of non-profit organizations that represent six categories: arts and culture, sport, environment, public safety, human and social services, and parent advisory councils. The capital project sector also will be available.

We’re committed to the notional allocations that the member noted, but of course, I know that he appreciates that communities and trends change over time. What’s going on over time changes. At this point, we’re not anticipating any significant shift, but staff monitor very, very closely to see what the requests are, and we try to make sure that we’re a responsive grant opportunity for communities around the province.

T. Stone: If I’m hearing correctly, the minister is not anticipating any significant changes in allocations from one application group to another as part of the overall amount. I appreciate that.

I’m wondering if capital grant requests from volunteer fire departments would be an eligible request. There are a number of volunteer fire departments that the official opposition is aware of and that have some capital needs. It would seem to me that the new capital project grant component of the gaming revenues program might be a useful area to extract some funds to meet the needs of volunteer fire departments.

I’m wondering if the minister has received any of those kinds of requests and if she has any thoughts on whether or not those kinds of requests might be considered within the overall application process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to let the member know that volunteer fire services have made application, and some have been successful. It’s case by case. They have to meet, certainly, the criteria, but that’s certainly an eligible opportunity for them.

T. Stone: To the minister, I appreciate that.

One more on the gaming revenue piece. The chief of the Tk’emlúps Indian Band, Kúkwpi7 Fred Seymour, obviously was — along with many First Nations around the province — appreciative to hear of the government’s commitment to provide gaming revenues to First Nations.

Kúkwpi7 Seymour received a letter back from the Minister of Finance on November 3, 2017. In it, it says: “As part of government’s commitment to reconciliation at this time, government is committed to working with First Nations leaders and communities on the development of a framework for a share of provincial gaming revenues. I will be working closely with my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who will be leading this work.”

My question, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is: could she advise the House as to whether or not a share of provincial gaming revenues applies to the existing pie that is provided to existing recipients in those six allocation categories that we just talked about? Or is it the government’s intention to provide net new gaming revenues above and beyond what’s currently available for the First Nations to apply for and receive?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that gaming revenue and how that’s distributed is tax policy. That comes out of the Ministry of Finance, and it’s outside of the scope of the administration of the program, which is what my ministry is responsible for.

First Nations groups are certainly, if they meet the criteria, eligible to apply, along with other non-profits, in order to access the funds. Like I said earlier, the gaming revenues, overall, are part of tax policy.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Stone: I understand that. But it is the minister’s responsibility to those existing allocation categories and the organizations that apply for and receive funding. The minister would be able to rattle off all kinds of organizations, I’m sure, in her constituency. I have lots in mine — there are others around the province — that really rely on the gaming revenue stream that they receive each and every year.

I’m wondering if the minister could allay the concerns that some are expressing, in some of those existing organizations — that their gaming revenue fund levels are not going to be compromised when First Nations are cut into the existing pie but that rather, the intention on the government’s part is to provide net new gaming revenues to First Nations that will not come at the expense of existing recipients of community gaming grants.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I want to let the member know that my ministry is responsible for the administration of the $140 million gaming grant program. We have no anticipation of having to do anything more than what we’ve been doing or changing it in any way. Again, if the member is concerned, overall, about what happens with gaming revenues and how that is distributed across government, that work happens out of the Ministry of Finance.

T. Stone: Let me ask the minister the question this way. Does she believe that the existing organizations that receive gaming revenues — and are largely, in many cases, dependent on those revenues — should be kept whole, irrespective of any other priorities of government?

Insofar as providing provincial gaming revenues to First Nations, does the minister think that those existing organizations that have come to count on these revenues — in many cases, for many years — should continue to have the confidence that those gaming revenues are going to be there for them on a go-forward basis?

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t anticipate any changes.

T. Stone: One final question on this. In the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I asked the minister a similar line of questioning — again trying to reflect, on the one hand, the support that I certainly have, and the opposition certainly has, towards the concept of First Nations being provided provincial gaming revenues but also balancing that off with ensuring that existing recipients of gaming revenues are to remain whole.

[3:55 p.m.]

The minister said: “I think the idea is that it’s a share of the provincial government portion. It’s not going to be coming out of the existing funds that go out to all the good organizations and local governments that currently are there. They’re not going to be linked.”

One final question. Does the minister agree with the comments of her colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on this matter?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

S. Sullivan: In the interest of trying to get as many questions in, given the shortness of time, what I’d do is just speak for a few minutes on the context of how I’m seeing this file. I certainly respect that the minister has a weighty responsibility on this incredibly important topic of the housing crisis. We do have a real affordability crisis.

I’m going to spend a little bit on this groundbreaking study that has just been produced by the CMHC group that basically had 30 PhD master’s economists spend a year and $1½ million to get to the bottom of the issue. What is behind the rising house prices, especially in Toronto and Vancouver?

They looked at Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. They concluded that the real challenge that we have is a supply curve that is incredibly inelastic. It’s the worst supply curve in the country, possibly on the continent. The actual number is around 0.25. It means that for every escalation in price, very few new housing units are actually created. So we have a supply curve that is broken.

Now, there are two options on how to deal with this. One is to fix the supply curve, and the other is to break the demand curve, just go after and damage the demand curve as much as possible. The problem with going after the demand curve is that there are a lot of unintended consequences, and, especially, there are real challenges. Sometimes going after the demand curve can actually cause even worse supply problems.

I do have a number of people that have come to me recently to ask me…. There’s a lot of uncertainty, and one of the big problems of going after the demand curve is it injects a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty then affects supply. The people who actually make supply pull back.

Now, the 30-point plan that I read through…. Almost all of the points deal with demand. There are a number of points that deal with supply, but it’s all government supply. In fact, there is not a single point that I can find that deals with the broken supply curve, the actual market-driven housing. Some of the points that attack the demand curve are actually risking reducing the supply and making an even worse supply curve.

For example, there doesn’t seem to be a great sense of trying to determine the different types of speculators that are in the market. There are some speculators that cause price rises, and there are other speculators that actually create housing. You’ll find, I think, most of us live in speculator-created housing. It’s called spec housing. Most British Columbians live in speculator housing, housing that has been created by speculators.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s very important not to attack those speculators. There are other speculators who simply create turmoil in the market and actually cause rising prices.

Rather than fixing the supply curve, I think the first effort of the government was a kind of rationing. As I tried to understand it, it was basically home rationing. We haven’t seen rationing since World War II. This was even a type of rationing where it was one home per household — I know the government has pulled back since that time — to basically punish anybody who had more than one home. This has actually created a lot of uncertainty as well and a lot of unintended consequences.

The kinds of people that I am hearing from…. Because I’m in downtown Vancouver, this is the place where people have the most…. There are homes, small condos — they’re called pied-à-terres — that are common in all global cities. Vancouver is a global city. It’s a city where we have a lot of people from all over the world who come here, who love being here.

We have…. For example, a person I’m dealing with, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, probably spends about three or four months here in total. He’s created a business here and hires a lot of Canadians. He comes here mainly to manage and to create a lot of employment in Vancouver. He’s now called a speculator, because he has a flat in Vancouver. He will only be three or four months here. He’s also liable to the vacant house tax. So he’s wondering about why he’s trying to create employment in Vancouver in this tech sector. We’ve got a number of people who, actually, are in that situation.

Another gentleman owns a very significant property. He’s paid over $20 million in property tax since he’s owned that home. His home is actually used as one of the highlights of the film industry. When they send out their prospectuses around the world, his home is one. Because he’s not in it that often, he allows it to be rented out for film companies. It’s a heritage house. He keeps it immaculately. The film industry is worried about losing that home.

A couple retired to Bowen Island, but they sit on a major foundation’s board in Vancouver. They do a lot of volunteer work. A lot of the people on Bowen Island keep a flat in the downtown, because they can’t make their ferries. They’re now considered speculators.

Some people want a getaway home. I now know that they’re moving their purchases to Birch Bay in Washington, just to go across the border. I think one of the unintended consequences is that we’re finding British Columbians now moving across the border for their second homes and taking their consumption dollars and taking their economic consumption to the U.S., where they’re not labelled as speculators and they’re not given punitive tax bills.

A lot of people are concerned about the future of Whistler. Whistler is exempt, for some reason, from the speculation tax, but they are concerned that it won’t be long before they eventually get covered. That’s creating a lot of uncertainty there. People are not willing to make the purchase of the homes there.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’ve got rules that seem to be balkanizing the province. Our artificial boundaries, where one property is treated one way…. A person can own a large home in Whistler, but an elderly person with a bungalow in Vancouver is being treated entirely different.

A B.C. couple lives part of the year as snowbirds. Fifty thousand British Columbians live in other parts of the south, especially, volunteering for Médecins Sans Frontières. It pushes them into the category of the empty homes tax.

There are a lot of things that I am dealing with on people coming to visit me and to express their concern. I’ll just ask the minister a couple of questions. Does she feel that there are reasons that some people, for employment, would need to have two homes? Does she accept that that’s a legitimate status that someone would have?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s an interesting question. I think people can do whatever they want. They can have as many homes as they want.

S. Sullivan: The question is to be liable for punitive taxes. Right now, there’s, you might say, an empty homes tax. Or you could say the speculation tax would be a kind of a vacancy tax. We do have people who, through their employment needs, require two homes. Do you accept that that’s unacceptable and should not be liable for punitive taxes?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to recognize that our government has taken quite a balanced approach to the housing affordability issues that have been growing over the last decade and were ignored until the point where it reaches a crisis.

Our government has taken a really broad-based and balanced approach, addressing some of the demand issues but also addressing supply and taking some significant steps so far — and there’s more to do — but also making sure that we have the kinds of securities in place for renters and landlords so that that relationship works better. We’ve taken some significant steps.

I want to remind the member that our government made the biggest investment in housing in B.C.’s history — $7 billion over the next decade. It’s a significant investment in the supply-side component. In this budget, we’re already moving ahead to directly support investments into 36,700 units over the next ten years. We’ve already started to make significant investments there.

I also want to point out this new branch of B.C. Housing. I’m very, very proud of this new branch, because they are being tasked with being innovative and creative and with bringing partnerships together. I certainly spoke about it in my opening comments. We announced it about a week and a half ago, where we’re able to demonstrate already how this housing hub is bringing together partners who have land or are ready to reuse the land or repurpose the land.

What they needed was a little bit of help in taking a look at how this development can work, in creating a land trust across four different communities and in developing 400 new affordable housing units that will meet the needs of British Columbians who are challenged with finding affordable housing.

We’re not going to be able to do this fast. Housing does take some time to build. But we have to start, because it hasn’t been done before. Our government is taking swift action both on what I’ll call the social housing front as well as on the market front.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve got some other pieces that we’re looking to do legislatively that we’ve talked about already around housing needs assessments, rental-only zoning, so that we can stimulate the kind of supply that people need.

S. Sullivan: Perhaps I can help the minister. Right now MLAs are paid by the government to have two homes. Some MLAs own two homes, and they’re required to do that for their job. They live partly in Victoria, and they live in other parts of the province. So MLAs are conveniently exempted from this home rationing.

I know the Premier has said that cabinet will now be meeting more often in Victoria. This means that Vancouver MLAs, at least cabinet ministers, may be liable for the empty home tax if they spend any more than 180 days away from their home. If they’re on the road, if they’re in Victoria meeting, ministers will have to pay the empty home tax. Will they be compensated by the government for any empty home taxes that they’re liable for?

Hon. S. Robinson: Although this is a finance question, because it’s about the speculation tax and my ministry isn’t technically responsible for the application of that tax…. No one is exempted. I’m not clear that the member understands that — that it has nothing to do with MLAs. It has nothing to do with any of that.

S. Sullivan: So ministers would be liable to pay to that if they spend more than 180 days away from their homes?

Hon. S. Robinson: MLAs make choices about how they’re going to do accommodation here in the capital, while they’re working. Some may have purchased. Some rent. Some stay in hotels. That’s to suit individual needs. In this case, if they’re responsible for the speculation tax, then they’re responsible for the speculation tax.

S. Sullivan: So ministers and MLAs are speculators, then, according to this government. By living in Victoria and maybe not spending enough days sleeping in their own homes in Vancouver perhaps…. I know that Victoria has asked for the empty home tax. If that gets imposed on Victoria, that means those of us who do not live in Victoria for up to 180 days would then have to pay the empty home tax and would also be considered speculators, according to this government, even though the government is subsidizing them to be speculators. Do you think it’s right that the government subsidizes speculation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that part of what the member is getting at is trying to find a way to not acknowledge the kind of housing that people need. What we are talking about is people need housing. And the option to rent out housing is always available to people to make sure that people have the opportunity to have a home that they can afford, recognizing that it’s really important that those MLAs who make choices make whatever choices that suit their needs around their own housing.

S. Sullivan: I’m not sure that it’s a choice for us to come to the Legislature. We have to be at the Legislature, and we have to be there the days that the government requires us. That’s our job. I don’t think that MLAs are speculators either, because we have to do our job.

If Victoria will get an empty home tax, the MLAs would have to pay that. And I wonder if they will get extra compensation. I know in the private sector, they don’t.

I have a neighbour who lives in Yaletown, who lives right beside me. He owns an air-conditioning company. He lives in Abbotsford, and he also has a flat in Yaletown. When he does most of his work in the downtown area, he stays in his Yaletown flat. When he works in the suburbs, he stays there, at his regular home.

[4:15 p.m.]

Is this person considered a speculator, and should he be liable for punitive taxes?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening very closely to the member’s comments, the hypothetical around what Victoria is doing, and I can’t comment on what may or may not happen. It’s just…. Victoria may make whatever choices they make. They get to do that as a local government, and then we’ll see what happens. But I can’t comment on something that hasn’t happened that I know nothing about, because Victoria hasn’t implemented any empty home tax.

S. Sullivan: Is it right for government politicians to not have to deal with the same issues that private sector people who create jobs have to deal with? Here we are. We must come to Victoria to work. I actually stay in a hotel. Many people don’t like to pack up their luggage every week and then move into their home every week. It’s much more difficult, so some people choose to actually purchase a home in Victoria. They’re committed to their work.

Many of the ministers currently may not be liable to the empty home tax in Vancouver, but if the Premier does decide to have more cabinet meetings and more work done in Victoria, they will be likely out of their home in Vancouver for more than 180 days. In that case, they will have to pay the vacant home tax in Vancouver.

Does the minister feel that ministers are speculators because they have to work in another city, in Victoria, where they do most of their work?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the member is moving into a hypothetical that I can’t really respond to. It’s hypothetical, and I don’t have a response for hypothetical. However, I do know that he’s asking a significant number of questions about tax policy, and that’s the purview of the Minister of Finance.

In my ministry, we’re putting a tremendous effort into making sure that we have the kinds of homes that people can afford, making sure that we are building the kind of supply that the member actually started his comments with. He commented on a supply issue. I think it’s really important to get on the record that at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we’re working together, between the municipal part and the housing part, to make sure that we have the kind of housing that meets people’s needs.

I know that the member was the mayor of Vancouver and would have come across this in his time on council. I certainly saw, in my time on council in Coquitlam, where we were getting a lot of proposals for towers, because the Evergreen Line was coming to Coquitlam, and the number of proposals that were coming through to build supply were all 600-square-foot apartments. Just 600 feet, all of them. We’re talking tower after tower after tower.

We were doing some significant density, because that’s what was required when you have quite a transportation node like that in the Tri-Cities that has been starved for a long time and waiting for efficient and affordable transportation. And what struck me at the time…. I remember asking, very specifically, a couple of the developers who were coming through again and again, three and four towers, and saying: “So 600 square feet? Why is that all that you’re building? Where are the two-bedrooms? Where are the three-bedrooms? Where are families going to live? Where are people going to downsize to?”

I don’t know if the member is familiar with Coquitlam, but it’s a traditional suburban community, as traditional as traditional could be, with lots of single-family housing, lots of cul-de-sacs, lots of 1950s, ’60s, ’70s houses. And now people want to downsize. I’m one of the youngest on my street, and I have no children at home anymore, so there’s no place to downsize as a result of this overabundance of 600-square-foot apartments. So as a result, people are, as my son says, staying overhoused.

[4:20 p.m.]

I agree with the member that there is a supply issue, but the problem is that it’s the right kind of supply. When I would ask the development community, the developers that were working in my community, why just 600-square-foot condos, their response was: “Because that’s what the market demands.” They’re flying off the shelf. Their presales were gone in a day, in half a day. So for them, they were saying: “Well, that’s the demand. We’re responding to the demand.” But it wasn’t responding to the demand of the community — a different kind of demand.

I think it’s really important that we focus on what communities need, remember what British Columbians need. British Columbians are saying they need homes that work for their families. They need homes that are affordable. They need homes that are appropriate. That’s exactly what…. Everything that’s in the 30-point plan related to the supply side, which is critically important, is what we’re focused on right now.

S. Sullivan: Well, I don’t see anything that deals with the market supply curve — the atrocious 0.25 supply in elasticity that we have. I understand that there are some condos being built in Port Moody, absolutely, and I’m glad that that is happening. But we are not solving this.

All of the points that you have in here…. In fact, we’d call those condos, speculator condos. Those condos were built as spec housing. There are certain speculators that are actually building housing, and most of us actually live in those houses. I’m just concerned about some of the uncertainty that the minister is bringing in. Almost the entire 30 points are dealing with demand and trying to break the demand curve.

I want to ask…. I’ll just get into some other questions on some of the literature she’s put out recently. First of all, how many units of housing will the minister’s government build over the next three years?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked specifically how much government is going to build. Is that correct? We anticipate building between 2,500 and 3,500 a year over the next three years. That’s government-built.

[4:25 p.m.]

I’m sure the member can appreciate that once you fund it, you still need to go through a development permitting process, and actually building and delivering will take anywhere from 18 months to three years, depending on the community. Those processes take some time.

I also think it’s important to recognize that we are working very closely with a range of other sectors to deliver on other housing. In fact, we just announced over 400 units of housing, partnering with a faith group. That is not government-subsidized. That’s working with a faith group to build housing for what we call “the missing middle.”

S. Sullivan: The 2,500 to 3,500 per year. You mentioned that there was going to be planning and working through the processes and then actually building them. Would I conclude that there won’t be any housing done within three years?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member fully appreciates, it’s a constant flow. We’re expecting to be able to open 2,500 to 3,500 units every year. As the next year, you announce, and it just keeps going. You just keep working at it.

This is what happens when you haven’t had anything in the pipeline. You have to start moving. You start, and you move it through, and that’s our commitment: to get between 2,500 and 3,500 opened every year.

S. Sullivan: The housing that the current government is committing to…. Actually, for people to actually move into them, there won’t be any housing that has started now, funded now and actually is to be moved into in the next three years. Would I say zero?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud to say that we have people already moving into housing that we announced in September. They moved in, in January.

S. Sullivan: I would imagine that would be the modular housing, then. Okay. So temporary housing.

How many units over the next ten years?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s 114,000 units.

S. Sullivan: That is both government and private sector.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

S. Sullivan: For government housing, what is the cost per unit of this plan?

Hon. S. Robinson: I suspect that the member is well aware — maybe he’s not — that with every project, the costs vary.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We’re a government that’s about partnership, and we’re always looking to partner. Every project is different — by location, by area of the province, the unit size, the kinds of things that people bring to the partnership, whether or not the fees and charges get waived from the local government.

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s really important to recognize that we are looking for partnerships wherever we go, wherever we build, to make sure that we’re able to deliver the kind of housing that people need and that they can afford.

S. Sullivan: So there’s no average price that you could give as to what you use for your budgeting purposes?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, certainly there’s no average community, because they’re all very special. They’re all very unique, and they all have opportunities.

What I can tell the member, which has been impressive, is that wherever we go to talk about a new piece that we are introducing in order to bring on more housing, people — whether they’re non-profit providers in the private sector, local governments, First Nations — all want to partner with us. They all want to bring something to the table. As a result, when they bring something to the table that we weren’t anticipating, of course then it makes it easier for us to deliver more units in certain communities. So we’re always looking for those kinds of partnerships.

S. Sullivan: Okay. You outline in your 30-point plan the increased funding to the residential tenancy branch for the purpose of reducing wait times and improving service to deal with disputes more quickly. I think this is actually a very valuable thing for people who are thinking about investing in rental housing. What they worry about is that more staff will actually tie up things longer and that disputes will actually be lengthened. I’m hoping that the actual focus and the results are what she has wanted to have.

Can you confirm if any of these initiatives have been acted on, how much the wait times have decreased and if there has been more efficient dispute resolution? Are there any practical numbers that would indicate that we’re actually achieving that?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to note that the member’s conclusion — somehow more arbitrators would take more time — I think, is illogical. The simple math is that when you have a lot of disputes, if you hire more people to hear those disputes, the numbers go down.

I want to assure the member that we have hired 11 new arbitrators. We have hired 15 new information officers. We have launched the on-line service portal, which is designed to expedite and reduce wait times. These things have all just started, and we are starting to see some of those numbers move. It’s a bit premature, given this has only been over the last couple of months. We’re waiting to see what the results are, and I’ll be happy to share them with the member opposite.

S. Sullivan: That’s very encouraging. I do hope that the minister will get these updates on actual time that is spent, and I hope that we will see more efficiency. I know that is valued by people who do provide rental housing.

Can the minister explain why the federal transfers to B.C. Housing will be declining over the upcoming years? How much will these declines affect B.C. Housing supports and programs? And will the province be making up that gap?

Hon. S. Robinson: What the member is commenting on is the natural end of a previous government program, which has come to an end. We’ve just signed on to the multilateral agreement with the federal government for a new program, and we’ve just started to look at what the bilateral agreement would look like.

I want to assure the member that our government’s $7 billion commitment is the provincial government’s commitment and that when we negotiate with the federal government on the bilateral, that will be in addition. There’ll be additional opportunity to address the housing crisis with the federal moneys that will get layered on.

S. Sullivan: A different question, a different direction. What is the budget for the Home Adaptations for Independence — they call it HAFI — this year? Has that increased or decreased from the previous years?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The Home Adaptations for Independence program provides financial assistance up to $20,000 to help low-income seniors and people with disabilities with home adaptations so that they can continue to live in the comfort of their home. The program will receive approximately $5 million annually, and that has been sort of the standard program allocation that has been going on, to date.

S. Sullivan: Okay. Do you have numbers for how many units were supported in fiscal 2016-2017, and then how many units, say, from 2006-2007 over the last ten years?

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t have the year-by-year breakdown. What I can tell the member is that as of March 31…. Since the program’s inception, which was 2012, there have been approximately — I love this — 1,956 homes. It’s a pretty specific number, so I don’t know how approximate that is. I’m pretty confident it’s pretty specific, give or take maybe one or two, but almost 2,000 homes have received help to adapt their home.

S. Sullivan: Very good. Congratulations. It’s very valuable and needed.

Can the minister explain B.C.’s role in the announced federal housing strategy? I believe it’s $40 billion over ten years, which I guess is $4 billion for B.C.

Hon. S. Robinson: The provincial government has been sitting at a table, with all of the provinces and territories, with the federal government to negotiate and develop the multilateral agreement that just got signed last week, last Monday.

Staff are working right now to take a look at the bilateral agreement to make sure that B.C. is certainly being considered and making sure that we are working together with the federal partners to deliver on homes that people need desperately here in our province.

S. Sullivan: That’s $40 billion. That’s a lot of money. Does the minister think that this federal plan will make a major difference for housing affordability in B.C.?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Our government has made a $7 billion commitment over the next ten years to deliver on housing for British Columbians. I think it’s important to recognize that we’ll certainly work hard to make sure that British Columbia is recognized as a place that needs significant housing. I’m really proud of the fact that our government has made such a significant commitment, and any additional federal support, federal commitment, for funding for housing, will certainly allow us to deliver more housing for more British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: The question about advertising. I know the minister has spoken about the 114,000 new homes. The idea that the government itself is building 114,000 new homes…. It seems to be that with the ads that ran, the people of B.C. were led to believe that the government was building 114,000. The government ran an ad called “Housing affordability in B.C.,” which said 114,000 new homes. It didn’t specify government building 30,000 and such. I’m just wondering. Does the minister think the ad misrepresented what’s actually happening?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think what’s really important is that British Columbians want a government that is working for them and working to make sure that there is the kind of housing that they need. Our government is taking significant action to facilitate that.

Whether it’s changing legislation so that local governments have the tools they need to facilitate the development of the kinds of housing that people need. Or if it’s legislation that requires local governments to take a look at their housing stock and to help them in their decision-making so that they’re building the kind of housing that people need. Or if it’s something like the housing hub, where we are actively working and actively pursuing partnerships and pursuing opportunities for British Columbians to have the kind of housing they need. I think that that’s exactly what British Columbians want.

They want a government that is going to be working for them to make sure that the housing that they need for them and for their families is there for them when they need it in a way that’s affordable, in a way that’s secure and in a way that meets their needs.

S. Sullivan: Yes, but I’m not sure that the people of B.C. need the government to pay money to tell them about this. That’s the real question as to what’s the content of advertisement paid for by the public. I know that this has been a sensitive topic over the years of government advertising, and I know that the minister had promised to — or the minister’s government at least, her party — have these types of ads vetted and cleared by the Auditor General. I wondered if that had been done.

Also, I know that there were statements that these ads on the housing were good because they were educating the public about programs they can access. But the ads just spoke about the foreign buyer tax, which I don’t think people are trying to access, and planning on building 114,000 homes. So I just wondered if the ad was cleared by the Auditor General and if she felt that the content of those ads was actually informing the public of programs they can access.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: That ad was put together by government communications, and they answer to the Ministry of Finance. I would invite the member to direct that question there. That’s what that ministry does.

S. Sullivan: Okay. You didn’t approve that ad, though. No?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that British Columbians have been seeking some relief around this housing affordability issue. Our government has taken significant steps, very significant steps, to deliver for British Columbians. We want to make sure that they’re aware that their government is working for them. I think that’s really important.

But in terms of the specifics about how it was reviewed, what the policies are, I think that’s a different ministry that the member needs to direction the questions on.

I think it’s really important to recognize that we’re taking significant steps to deliver housing for British Columbians. I think British Columbians want to know that.

S. Sullivan: About the temporary housing. How many modular projects have been announced, and how many have been opened? Then, what is the average cost to get them ready for occupancy?

Hon. S. Robinson: We made the announcement for modular housing back at UBCM. That was end of September of last year. I was quite surprised at how quickly we were oversubscribed in terms of the number of communities that wanted to partner with us.

[4:55 p.m.]

To date, we have announced 1,466. We’re still working through, with other communities, the remainder of the 2,000 units. But we know that we’re oversubscribed, which is why we provided for additional funding for Budget 2018.

We have 150 that are open. What’s amazing is that we announced at the end of September, and five months later, people were moving in. From a housing perspective, it’s almost unheard of to be able to deliver housing — safe, warm and appropriate accommodations — that quickly. What we have learned is that once the site is ready, people, in 3½ months, have a place to call their own.

The cost. Again, the cost is variable. I’m sure the member can appreciate that some sites have a slightly larger amenity space, depending on exactly how big the community is. So it costs anywhere from $100,000 to $140,000 a unit, depending on layout and design.

S. Sullivan: Okay. The occupancy rate in the modular housing projects in the city of Vancouver. Do you know if…? I’d heard that they hadn’t all been filled. Do you know what the occupancy rates are now?

Hon. S. Robinson: All of them are going to be, certainly, 100 percent, and operationally, the preference is to move people in over time. It just takes a matter of weeks to get the full occupancy up, to make sure of the proper attention to detail, and making sure that the community works within the program is really important. So we expect 100 percent occupancy in all of our sites.

S. Sullivan: The modular housing, though, are considered temporary. They’re not permanent, would you say?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, our rapid response to homelessness, like I said earlier, has been completely oversubscribed, because communities have been waiting a long time for an opportunity to provide housing for people who are — I would perhaps argue — some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

The modular is a form of construction, right? They’re built in a factory, and then they’re shipped. In some places, they’re absolutely temporary, where the land is available for five years or eight years. The idea is to provide some security for people to have a home until a more permanent option is available, a more permanent structure is available. In other communities, it’s a permanent structure for 40 to 50 years.

I actually toured the factory. I want to give a shout-out to all the members from Kamloops, for Horizon North. There are other providers, but I was quite impressed with the modular construction. I think they’re able to make 17 at a time, and it just takes a couple weeks. They build modularly, with all of the wiring in it and everything, all of the insulation in it, and it’s all panelled. It goes together sort of like LEGOs, and I was just completely wowed by their ability to do that.

The thing that I was most impressed about with this modular construction was that if there’s damage to a wall, you pop the wall, and you pop a new one back in, so you don’t have to worry about all of that other dusty stuff. It’s also easier to maintain for housing.

[5:00 p.m.]

I was quite impressed. The modular component is really a style of construction.

S. Sullivan: It sounds like some are temporary and some are permanent. I know that they are included in the government commitment to housing. The ones that are temporary…. I’m wondering if that should actually be in the commitment, since they’re not long term.

Hon. S. Robinson: One of the beauties about this modular kind of construction is that you can move it to different neighbourhoods, to different communities. So it is actually part of government’s housing bank, if you will.

If we move it…. Let’s say it’s in Smithers, and then you need it…. Perhaps in Terrace they have a particular issue, and Smithers no longer needs their temporary…. If it’s temporary in Smithers; I’m using it as just a hypothetical example. Then you can move that housing to another community. It still is part of our resource as a province. I think it’s really important to remember that different communities….

The thing that I love about my ministry, the thing that I love about it the most — besides all the fabulous people who work with me around here — is that it’s local government with housing, together. I think they need to be married. It’s really important to think about that, because it keeps you in touch with what’s happening on the ground.

I’m responsible for 189 local governments, so I get to hear what’s going on in different communities. When I was at the UBCM and hearing about how different communities were struggling with different kinds of housing….

If my ministry knows exactly what’s happening in another community where they’ve been able to develop more supportive housing or other affordable rentals and people are starting to move out of this modular that we’re bringing on line for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, then we can move it into other communities that may have a particular challenge, right?

We’ve certainly heard stories where communities have a fire in a low-cost affordable housing development that displaces dozens and dozens of people. If there’s another community that no longer has need for their modular, we have this ability to deliver and bring some housing on line.

It’s an incredible investment for our government to make, so I actually do think that it is part of our housing commitment — absolutely.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I wanted to ask some questions about the rental task force. I believe the minister determined the makeup of the task force, which included a member of a party not in the government.

I’m just wondering if the minister had considered asking a member of the largest opposition party in the Legislature for their participation.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The makeup for the rental task group was based on the platform commitments that we certainly saw with the Green Party. They had a line in their platform, which I don’t have in front of me, of course…. They were really very keenly interested in tightening up the rules so that landlords and renters could have better relationships and really focus on reducing wait times for the residential tenancy branch and making sure that disputes were resolved in a timely fashion. It was based on that, and we invited them to participate.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I wanted to know the timeline for the task force. Probably more importantly, is rent control or a rent freeze one of the mandates that they will be looking at?

Hon. S. Robinson: The task force will be going out to communities around the province and hosting opportunities, as well as having opportunity for people to feed in, electronically, what they identify as issues for both landlords and for tenants — to identify opportunities to make the relationship work better, to look at how to support — whether it’s the development of more purpose-built rental or what additional things the government can do to provide security for both of those parties.

Those are the kinds of things that they’re going to be looking at. Everything is on the table for them to explore. I’m not going to presuppose what comes out of their work. That’s their work. In terms of timeline, we expect to have recommendations in the fall.

S. Sullivan: The minister has not asked them to not consider a rent freeze. They could actually recommend a rent freeze or rent control. That could be something they might come forward with. The minister has not precluded that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have asked them to go out and talk to as many people as they can and to come back with some recommendations, based on those conversations with all the various groups from all the various parties, and identify some strategies that would help provide security for renters and for landlords that they both need in order to make the relationship work better.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I believe the minister…. The last rent hike that she approved was at 4 percent. I know that if the task force is indeed looking at a rent freeze or rent control, that would be difficult. I guess they could then come forward and recommend rent control. Do you think that’s possible?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the question is: could they? They’ve been asked to go out and hear from various groups about what some of the concerns are and what the possible solutions might be, to make recommendations. We’ll go forward from that.

S. Sullivan: I wanted to talk a bit about, or ask some questions about, the school tax. I know that the school tax actually doesn’t go to schools. So it is, perhaps, inappropriately named.

I just wonder when the minister learned of the planned school tax increase and how it would have originally affected purpose-built rental before the change announced on March 1.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Our budget — again, I want to point out — is a balanced approach that has many different components, 30 different components, all designed to be interoperable and deliver on the housing that British Columbians need. We are addressing demand. We’re addressing supply and security for renters. Those are the three large chunks of what we’re doing.

From the purpose-built rental component that the member mentioned, there are some significant things that we’re able to do as government around giving local governments the tools that they’ve been asking for that would help them to deliver on purpose-built rentals and, certainly, making sure that they understand the housing stock that they have.

As I’d mentioned earlier, in my community, we really have two kinds of housing, for the most part. It’s either 600-square-foot condos or 3,000-square-foot and larger single-family homes.

Making sure that you have the range of housing and also making sure that you have the kinds of rental housing that you need and that local governments have the tools and the ability to make the kinds of land use decisions that they need to make…. We are working across government on all sides to make sure that we can deliver for British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: I’d missed one question from just a moment ago on the manufactured homes. We passed some legislation last week. There were some calculations based on the assessed value of manufactured homes.

Since that time I’ve heard that we should have probably said “appraised value.” The appraised value, in some people’s definition, is the actual value of the home. The assessed value is the home and the land — very, very significant difference. I don’t know how the minister is interpreting assessed value. Has the minister heard this suggestion, and will she look into the legislation to make sure it’s working?

Hon. S. Robinson: For manufactured homes, it is different. It’s just the assessed value, because they don’t own the land. So it’s just on the assessed value of their home.

S. Sullivan: Okay. The way the ministry is interpreting that, the assessed value of a manufactured home is just the home itself and not the land. Thank you very much for that.

Back to the school tax. Did the minister speak to the Finance Minister about this issue on behalf of the owners of rental buildings?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I have to say how proud I am of our government working together to bring to fruition a 30-point plan to address housing. All the component parts, we recognize, are interoperable.

I’m sure the member appreciates — I think everybody in this House appreciates — that the affordability crisis, particularly around housing, is complex. It requires coming at it in many different ways and that we work collaboratively to make sure that people can have the homes that they can afford. That has really been sorely missing. There hasn’t been a plan in place at all to address this. It has just been allowed to continue to grow, to get significantly worse over time and for there to be no attention to it. I appreciate that there’s finally some attention being put to it from the other side.

Our government has actually taken some concrete steps, in many different places, in order to deliver on our commitment to make housing more affordable for British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: I’m just going to ask maybe one more question, and then we have some other MLAs that would like to ask some questions.

I guess, trying to encompass a number of things that I’ve heard from investors and potential investors, is: with the school tax we have…. Well, with property tax right now, it is very progressive. The same type of house, the same house, in different areas or in different neighbourhoods would sometimes be many times the value from one house to another, from different communities. So it is very progressive.

What this does is it seems to put progressivity on top of progressivity. There are actually different rates based on how expensive your house is. A person owning a $2 million or $3 million home would be taxed very differently from one $6 million home.

There is this sense that there is uncertainty about how tax is going to be treated. There’s this long-standing tradition in North America that property tax is meant to service properties. It’s meant to provide municipal governments with the support they need. So there is a great element of uncertainty being introduced here.

I’m just wondering if the minister accepts that bringing uncertainty into this and making it very hard for people to plan financially can actually harm the supply of housing — make it less likely that investors will build housing.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, taking a balanced approach has been really important to our government — making sure that we are addressing the demand side and the supply side and making sure that renters and landlords have security. We are tackling this significant challenge from all sides and making sure that people have the tools and the opportunities to deliver and that we can have the kind of housing that British Columbians need.

There are many specific things that we’re doing, out of my ministry, around housing needs assessments, making sure that local governments understand what their housing stock is, so that they can make really good, informed land use decisions. I know the member appreciates the role that local governments have in creating the kind of housing that their communities need.

We also are looking at rental-only zoning, which is something that local governments have asked for. Again, it’s another tool for them to use that will help address some of the gaps that currently exist, so that we can have the kind of table set that would provide opportunities to get the kind of housing that people need, in all kinds of communities around the province. So it’s not…. I know the member is from Vancouver, and it’s a significant problem in Vancouver, but it’s a significant problem in Coquitlam, in Kamloops, in Kelowna, in Merritt and in Tofino — right around this province.

There are significant challenges. In every community, it’s slightly different. They’re not all the same. Making sure that there are the kinds of tools they need so that they can identify the ways that they can address their housing affordability needs is really critical to our government. That’s what British Columbians want, and they want a government that works in partnership.

I believe there’s understanding that no one body is going to be able to solve the housing crisis alone, that we need to be working in partnership. That’s why we’ve been working very closely with local governments to make sure that they have the tools they need. That’s why we’re working very closely with the non-profit housing community to make sure that they have the supports they need. That’s why we’ve reached out to the faith communities.

I have to say that they have been incredibly responsive and are very eager and excited to work with our government to deliver on the kind of rental housing that will meet the needs of communities right across the province. There’s tremendous opportunity.

I have to say that everywhere I go, I have groups come up to me and say, “We want to work with you. We have land,” or: “We have this opportunity, but we’re not sure how to go ahead and move this forward.” So we have this housing hub that will help them bring together the kinds of partnerships, the kind of financing, the kind of development opportunity for the kind of housing that British Columbians need. We are taking as many steps as we can to move in that direction.

D. Barnett: Minister, in early April of 2017, there was a non-profit organization in my community of 100 Mile House that put in for a housing project in my community. In April of 2017, there was an announcement made that there was $1.5 million in capital funding toward the project. For some unknown reason, which I can’t disclose — because I really don’t know — the particular project did not move forward. Late September or October of 2017 is when everything seemed to come to a standstill.

Is the $1.5 million in capital funding still available for this non-profit society to move forward in 100 Mile House with affordable rental housing units?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member give us the name of the non-profit society so that we can take a look at what happened?

D. Barnett: I don’t have the authority to give you that name at this point in time. But if you so wish…. Well, I guess I can. It is the Canadian Mental Health Association in 100 Mile House.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll ask staff to look into that for the member and find out what’s happened with that commitment. Our government is very proud of the fact that we have been carrying through on previous commitments.

[5:25 p.m.]

We’ve been identifying where there have been some challenges around affordability and making sure that they can move forward. But I commit to getting more information to the member so that we can find out where this project is at.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate that. The person who owns the particular property has been left high and dry at this point, with no response back from the housing division of government that, actually, the project is not moving forward.

D. Ashton: First of all, I just want to thank the minister for her recent announcement in Penticton regarding the modular homes, not only for the individuals that are going to utilize those facilities but also for the company that’s building them and keeping those jobs in Penticton. So to the minister, thank you.

Minister, my question is regarding the cluster effect. We have a group of these homes in a specific area in Penticton, and it’s the security of the residents at the homes. Can the minister enlighten me if there are additional security measures planned — i.e., 24-hour gating or 24-hour supervision in these particular premises — not only for the security of the residents but also for those in the immediate area?

Hon. S. Robinson: Based on the earlier comments, I’m assuming you’re talking about the modular program. Is the modular housing what the member was referring to?

D. Ashton: No, it’s actually…. That forms part of it, but counting that modular unit, there would be three facilities within very close proximity. To be frank, there has been an issue there, a serious issue. I have heard from citizens asking about additional security measures.

Again, it’s not only for the individuals that are inhabiting these facilities. It’s also for some of the individuals in the immediate area.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the clarity. It was helpful.

With the modular program, that, of course, is staffed 24-7. So they have some significant staff resources. I’m familiar…. I actually saw what he’s calling a cluster. What that’s going to do is relieve some of the pressure on the other programs as well, so that the staffing complement is eased up a little bit.

With the 24-7 staffing, then, he can assure people in his community that people are supported 24-7. There are additional resources.

D. Ashton: To the minister again, thank you for that information.

Just north of that, at the corner of Industrial and Main Street, the government has purchased another motel unit and is in the midst of a conversion at this point in time. A similar question is: will there be security on site for the residents also?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The project that the member is referring to will have 24-7 services as well. Again, we want to make sure that everyone, of course, is secure but that people get the supports they need so that they can make other kinds of choices and have the kind of life that we all want for them.

D. Ashton: To the minister, I would thank her for that information. Also, the opportunity to be a bit proactive, especially with the new site at the corner of Industrial and Main, just off the corner of Industrial and Main — if staff in the area could be a bit proactive.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There have been some concerns raised with some of the actions that have taken place on Skaha Lake Road. If the staff could be a bit proactive with the adjoining businesses, I think it would be good for everybody. That was probably more of a statement than a request.

Last but not least, if the minister is able, would she have any indication of when the property one block east of Winnipeg on Nanaimo, behind the Canada Revenue Agency and the city of Penticton fire hall No. 1…? There’s a site there that has had some trepidation in being started, but I had a picture sent to me today of excavators on the site doing some cleanup and all that. Could the minister let me know maybe at some point in time if there is going to be something coming forward, when ground works would start? It’s a site that’s been announced a while ago. Housing is…. We’re just waiting.

Hon. S. Robinson: Just listening to the member’s questions, it’s like, man, we’re doing a lot in Penticton.

I just checked on the status. It got final approval a couple of weeks ago, and so because of that, we want to get moving and make sure that we’re giving people the kind of housing that they need. We’ll certainly keep the member apprised as things grow. But he’ll get to see it, over time, getting built.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the minister. I was listening a little bit earlier about working together. There was a previous government that worked really hard, and I’m glad to see that’s carrying on with the current government because, as we all know, these sites are required to put roofs over people’s heads. I really do want to thank the minister and her staff for being very proactive on that.

J. Tegart: To the minister: I’m pleased to hear you say how much work is being done in Penticton. I’m looking forward to hearing that about Clinton. We have a seniors housing project that has been on the go for about four years. We worked through a property that was owned by the school district, a building with asbestos in it, the tearing down of the building and the property then being able to, we hoped, be built on. Then multitudes of different groups owning pieces of the property. We worked through that.

We have a very dedicated group working on seniors housing. They visit my office weekly. Recently one of their seniors had to move to Ashcroft because she just couldn’t wait.

[5:35 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister could give me a timeline, some dates, any kind of tidbit. My group would just be thrilled to hear about what the next step is and if, in their lifetime, we’re going to see the building built.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for bringing this project to my attention. I do remember…. As soon as she mentioned Clinton, it was like: I met with Clinton at the UBCM. I remember this. I met with 62 communities, and they stood out. You can let them know that they stood out because they’re so earnest.

I just checked with staff, and this was a complicated land assembly. It had to do with school district land, which made it very complicated. Staff have invested a lot of time to help move this project forward. What I would encourage the member to do is to let them know that we’re on it. They’re well aware of the project. We’ve just announced significant funding. I’m hopeful it will be able to capitalize on that. Because we’ve invested so much time already, we’re committed to finding a way to see this through to the end.

J. Tegart: Thank you so much for that. I can guarantee you that I have a group in Clinton that will be phoning every week. I’ll put you on their phone list also. They absolutely are dedicated to keeping their seniors in their community and to looking for affordable housing. It’s affordable housing not only in the urban centres, but it’s so critically important to rural B.C. So thank you very much for that. They will be holding all of us accountable.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to respond to the member’s comments. I want to express appreciation to her community and to other small communities around the province.

I have been going out speaking to various groups, and I declare myself to be a suburban-urban MLA — and how valuable the UCBM was. Again, it’s another example about why I so value the fact that the Minister of Housing is also the minister for local governments, because hearing from those communities about their unique needs….

They are different from urban and suburban communities, absolutely. The UBCM was a place for me to hear that loud and clear. Seniors housing is one of the big things that came through for me around what’s happening in rural British Columbia and what the challenges are. So if you could let them know how much I appreciated and how valuable their telling me what was going on in their community was to me, for all of rural British Columbians, around helping me to understand what the housing challenges are there.

J. Rustad: In Nechako Lakes, we’ve got many housing projects that have been done over the years, but I’ve got one particular question.

[5:40 p.m.]

In the community of Vanderhoof, we have a situation where there is a supportive housing unit in the community. There are, I think, perhaps as many as seven vacancies at the moment in this unit. I’ve heard varying numbers. It may not be that high, but I’ll just use that number.

Vanderhoof is a community, of course, that’s got a shortage of housing. There are all kinds of challenges within the community. What seems to be happening is that there are rules put in place as to who can qualify to go into the subsidized housing and who can’t. The particular requirements around the facility have left many of the people — that could, and probably should, be in a situation where they could benefit from subsidized housing — not eligible to actually be able to apply and to obtain one of these rental units.

The question to the minister: is there an opportunity to review or to look at the requirements for a community like Vanderhoof — understanding that in a rural community, it’s different from other areas in the province — to be able to have some flexibility so that the local managers would have the ability to build or consider cases, outside of what that normal requirement would be, to be able to meet some of those needs?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member bringing that specific project to my attention. The vacancy is as a result of renovating the units. They’re moving people through in order to renovate, which is, I think, a good thing. We want to make sure that we’re investing in this kind of housing.

They are actually undergoing a review to make sure that it has some broader opportunities than previously. That’s the work that they’re currently undertaking, and I’m sure that we’ll be up at full capacity once they’ve done the renovations and identified a way to use this asset more fully.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that response. I look forward to seeing that and seeing those opportune jobs for the people there.

I’m wondering: would it be possible to ask the ministry to be able to provide an outline in terms of the requirements today and what some of that flexibility can look like? We have cases that come into MLA offices — like all of us do, around the province, as we represent our areas. So we don’t want to be, necessarily, sending people off and then them having to come back, being frustrated. I’d rather know where those rules could be so that when they come in, we know what we can help them with or if we have to try to find alternative or other opportunities.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just confirmed it with staff. They’d be happy to share the income levels, once those policy decisions are made, and to share that with the member’s constituency office.

M. Stilwell: Minister, I just wanted to touch base with you. I thank you for coming to the community of Parksville just a few weeks ago to announce the project on Corfield.

In my community, it is something…. The Homelessness Task Force, the city of Parksville, the RDN, the town of Qualicum, the SOS and all members have worked hard to make sure that we can get an affordable housing unit in place in our community to support those people who are vulnerable, who are at risk of homelessness. Of course, with these projects, sometimes there comes conflict and there are people who are opposing the project, which we are now seeing in our community.

I just wanted to come and ask a few questions to verify for the record and to sort of dissipate some of the myths that are out there and that are happening. One of the questions I have is in regard to the funding. The conversation that’s being had in the community now is that the funding was given to Parksville because Nanaimo and Chase River declined it. I’d just like, for the record, for you to acknowledge that that is, in fact, not true.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can assure the member that the decision to provide Parksville with this resource, with this asset, was made completely independently of what’s going on anywhere else on the Island. Communities came and asked to be considered for this opportunity, and Parksville was on the list. In fact, staff are saying that they’ve been looking for land for several months, and working with the community to identify it, well before anything happened in Nanaimo. They’re completely unrelated.

M. Stilwell: Thank you for clearing that up, Minister.

The minister has the experience and has the knowledge, with the staff, of other communities that have projects just like this one. I’m wondering if you can just speak a little bit about the record of the success of those projects, how it has helped individuals in communities around this province and the difference it makes in their lives.

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s interesting, because I do. I have been part of a community where there was vociferous concern about having homeless people in their communities. I’ve had one around the corner from my house, in fact, in Coquitlam. There was certainly some opposition. It was a very successful program and actually moved people into housing.

This was actually, I would say, a program that had way less supports than what we’re providing, in terms of 24-7. Knowing that people were getting off the streets, were getting out of our parks, getting them out of our stream beds…. Because they’re already there. They’re in our woods. They’re in our downtown cores, wherever you go in this province.

Making sure that there are some resources and some assets for the community, to make sure that people are safe and that they are getting the services they need, is really critical, not only for helping those people but also for making sure that we don’t have people in our parks, we don’t have people on our trails and we don’t have people living along our rivers and in the back alleys of our communities. It’s not where anybody wants people to be.

One of the things that’s different about our government’s work is that we’re putting in 24-7 supports. That has not been the case, historically. We recognize that people need the kinds of supports that wrap around, that make sure that they have access to people who can help them when they’re having a tough time, when they’re having a rough day, when they get bad news in their life. We want to keep them focused on making better choices for themselves.

We’re investing significantly to make sure that not only are people housed but that they have services they can rely on. We’re working closely with the health authorities throughout the province, making sure that people can get the health care they need. It’s because we know that people who are homeless get very sick, physically sick, and we want to keep them out of our hospitals. We want to make sure that they get the kind of care they need, so that they don’t take up hospital beds that people need. There’s a whole bunch of interoperability, if I can use that word here, that’s at play.

We also know that…. One of the things that I have witnessed in many communities is that it also has a way of galvanizing communities. I know that we tend to focus on, and the media tends to focus on, the voices of concern, but there are voices, also, of support. That’s the other thing that I think is important to recognize. It galvanizes people to come together and provide support for people who are less fortunate.

I’ve seen faith groups come together and create comfort kits or welcome kits. Students in high school…. I want to give a shout-out to Kristi Blakeway, who has done some amazing work with students, first in Coquitlam and now in Maple Ridge, where she has students going out into the Downtown Eastside and into other homeless camps, connecting in real ways with people who are homeless and helping them reconnect with their families, because they’ve been so disenfranchised.

[5:50 p.m.]

The stories of people finding their siblings, finding their children, finding their parents, after years of no communication, have been incredibly heartwarming. Again, it teaches our young people about how you help people who need it. There’s tremendous opportunity for communities to grow as a result of having an opportunity to make a difference in people’s lives.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. I would agree with you on many of those fronts. The previous government did a lot of good work across this province, and it’s good to see that you are continuing that work and making sure that communities are being supported.

One of the other questions I have…. I don’t know if this is a question that you can actually answer or that your staff will have the answer to. Is there any data that references crime rates going up or going down when these affordable housing units are put in place and people have started moving into the community? We talked about how, obviously, they’re already in our community. They’re in our parks. They’re in our stairwells. They’re out in front of businesses.

I’m just curious if you could provide any of those statistics to offset some of the noise that we’re hearing in the community.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, because I remember in my community that those were similar questions that I had to face.

We are continuing to gather data, because I think it’s important to be able to go back to the communities to let them know how things have played out. What I can assure the member is that for land values, it has no effect. It doesn’t change at all. In terms of the crime rate, what we’ve noticed over time is that it actually drops.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. That’s good news. I’m happy to hear that.

The final question is in regards to comparing it to other housing units around the province. The comments in our community are that there is no other affordable housing unit to compare ours to. I find that obscure, because there are hundreds and hundreds in our province, around communities.

I think the difference, of course, for our particular affordable housing unit is that we have now found a permanent home for our cold weather shelter, which will be a component of the modular building that will be put in place. It will run just like the cold weather shelters have in our community for several years. It will follow the same rules of cold weather shelters, where people check in, in the morning. They have a curfew, and there are rules around drinking and drugs and all those things.

I’m just wondering if there’s any kind of comfort or anything that you can add to that that will help the people in the community hear that this is a positive step for our community.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s concerns, because it’s really hard for communities.

I remember going to an information session. I wasn’t even a politician. I was just a regular person. There was a cold/wet weather map program coming to my neighbourhood, in the local church. I had people in my neighbourhood very, very concerned. Some of them were getting a little intense and putting in block letters hard-to-read notices at homes around the neighbourhood. It was really hard to read. Then there were others who were just saying: “I’m really scared.”

[5:55 p.m.]

I remember going to the information meeting and being a little bit surprised at how frightened people were. I had a chance to ask a number of questions about what their fear was about, because it got me curious about what was going on. I wasn’t afraid, but I also am a family therapist. I’d work with people from all walks of life, and I’ve had different experience and different exposure.

That was the thing that really struck me when I talked to my neighbours in my neighbourhood. These were friends. These were people where our kids played together. And finding out that it was about “I don’t know them, I don’t understand them, and therefore I’m afraid of them.”

It took some doing, and it took a lot of effort. But the whole neighbourhood changed after groups got galvanized and invited to volunteer, invited to come in and meet these people and find out that George, who’s the binner, and Fred, who seems to always sleep on this one sidewalk, and those three other people whose tents you see off by the river, but you’re always afraid to go in, are people who…. Life went sideways for them. There was a tragedy, or they made bad decisions. They just want a warm place to live and the privacy of a bathroom. They really want to be able to make a cup of tea for themselves at night if they can’t sleep. That really changed the feel in the community — when people went and volunteered.

There’s one story that I love. Someone said that they had volunteered for a few nights the week before. I said: “What was that like?” They said: “Well, you know what? I learned that that guy came down from Prince George. He was out of money, and he just wanted to go back to Prince George. He kept going to Labour Ready to see if he could get work, but he didn’t have work boots.”

That was the barrier. So this neighbour went and bought work boots, gave him work boots. He was gone two days later and working. He was able to move forward. Those are the kinds of things that I think are really important for communities to try and do — and try to create some bridges so that people understand how they can help.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. I would agree that we need to hear more of those positive success stories so that people can embrace it more than they currently do instead of fearing the unknown.

I’ll end with just giving a shout-out to Shayne Ramsay. You have a phenomenal person over there at B.C. Housing who does great work. You’re very fortunate to have him, and I thank him for the support.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for giving me some time here. I’ll be fairly quick.

Affordability in rental housing units is really important all over British Columbia. The Kootenays certainly are not exempt from that. Cranbrook is facing a big shortage right now on housing units and rental units.

We have a proponent right now that wants to assist in this area. We have a trailer park in downtown Cranbrook. It’s legal but non-conforming. It’s about 60 years old, and it’s a trailer park. It’s a beautiful area. It’s situated on six acres, right downtown, close to all the amenities. It’s an ideal location, close to services and all that kind of stuff.

He wants to build it to go from 110 up to 300 units here. Before Bill 12, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, was passed, it was going to cost him about $500,000 to demolish and to set up for some new units. Now it’s going to cost about $2.7 million, with some of the provisions in place that are making it a little bit restrictive for him to do this project.

The proponent suggests that the price paid per unit — the minimum price of $20,000 up to $35,000, I believe, on each unit — is part of that problem. It reflects mostly on what Lower Mainland prices are and not rural B.C. prices — i.e., these provisions wouldn’t be so prohibitive in the Lower Mainland, where real estate values are a lot more and you can put in $500K condos and things like that. Where he wants to do it, we just can’t get that kind of stuff.

Just a comment from the minister on that, if she sees that as being prohibitive to rural B.C.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There are currently 60,000 people who make their homes in manufactured home communities. We think it’s really important to make sure that when there is going to be a change in the land use, they’re compensated fairly for the asset that they own, given that it is really tough to move a manufactured home.

The legislation said if there’s no other place to take it or if it’s not stable enough, then there needs to be some fair compensation for that asset, because there’s nowhere else for them to take it. As a result, they have no home, and their asset is really…. They can’t do anything with it. They can’t sell it. There’s no place to move it, so this legislation is really about making sure that those 60,000 people right across British Columbia in all communities have options available to them.

T. Shypitka: Yes, I realize that. Absolutely, they have to have a place to go to. That’s primarily what this project is all about.

As I said earlier, it’s a legal lot, but it’s non-conforming. It’s old. It’s about 60 years old. The infrastructure is pretty much done. Electrical is done. The sewer and water lines and things are collapsing and in need of desperate repair. If Murphy’s law is true with the folks there, most likely it’ll happen in the middle of wintertime. Quite honestly, to do the repair, to get rid of the electrical, to do all the other revamping, they probably won’t get the permits needed, because it is non-conforming.

This proponent wants to write it, make sure that we’re getting these people the homes that they need, affordable housing, and create some space in the Cranbrook area. Not to belabour this any further, it’s an issue, and I think we can work together and make this work out.

I was wondering if the minister would be at all in favour with getting together. I’ve got some discussions with the proponent tomorrow. When the minister could find time, would she be accepting of maybe talking to the proponent, getting together with B.C. Housing and seeing if we can work together and come to something so that we can get some affordable housing in Cranbrook?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s music to my ears to work in partnership. I would love to hear from the proponent and would love to work with the member opposite and my staff team to identify ways to bring affordable housing in communities right across this province.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for the opportunity.

I wanted to talk a little bit about fixed-term leases. Certainly, I do understand the challenge that these leases posed to some tenants and landlords who are using the opportunity to adjust rents outside of the allowed amount or the prescribed amount. I know that the other option was to increase availability and ensure affordability. That’s really what the objective was — my interpretation, anyway — of prohibiting fixed-term leases.

I think we all generally support the thrust of the initiative. But in certain situations, there have been some unintended consequences that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister, which are maybe specific to certain communities and not broadly an issue.

[6:05 p.m.]

One of these issues that’s come up is in the resort municipality of Whistler. There is what’s called a phase 1 of condominium units, and there are hundreds of these units in the village itself. The objective of these phase 1 units is to rent them out. They’re for nightly rentals. That’s what they were created for. In fact, there’s a 219 covenant registered on title that allows them to be used as nightly rentals. That has always been encouraged.

Typically, what would happen is the units would be nightly rented in December, January, February, March, and for the balance of the year, a fixed-term lease would be put in place. So you’d have about a nine-month lease and a three-month opportunity for nightlies, and this has worked well for many, many years.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that there’s a mechanism for that to happen any longer. The unintended consequence is that the landlords have tended to default to nightlies because they know what kind of incomes they can make. As a result, we’ve had an actual shrinkage of…. It’s not long, long-term rental accommodation, but nine months in a tight, tight market is an important addition to the inventory.

I wondered if the minister or staff had any suggestions. Is there any way…? Has this been considered? I know this is an unintended consequence. I’m sure this is not the objective here, but ultimately, this is reducing some of the longer-term rental opportunities in Whistler, and I wondered if there were some suggestions from the ministry in terms of how we could deal with this.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that this is something that staff are aware of in terms of…. I know he knows that we wanted to make sure that we had provided security for renters. What was happening is they were renting and in order to circumnavigate rent control…. A new lease would allow a significant increase in rent, so we needed to put a stop to that.

The situation that he’s mentioned in the resort municipality of Whistler is something that staff are monitoring closely.

J. Sturdy: So it’s fair to say, then, that this would be a circumstance that will continue? Is there any…? Perhaps I’m interested in how the ministry is monitoring. Are there some statistics that are being generated? How is that monitoring actually working?

Hon. S. Robinson: Through the residential tenancy branch, we look at disputes and the kinds of questions that are being asked. That helps to inform us about what’s happening on the ground.

J. Sturdy: I’m not sure that following things through the residential tenancy branch is really going to illuminate the ministry in terms of the scope or the magnitude of the issue. The question is that we have hundred of units in phase 1, and if those…. They just won’t be rented out. That’s the bottom line. They will not be available for a fixed term. They’ll be going to nightlies, and that’s it.

You’ll have hundreds of units, potentially, that…. Some units, admittedly, would be rented out on a nightly basis year-round, but the majority of them, I would contend, would have been nightly rented for a three-month period, around January, February and March, and then go to a fixed term for the balance of the year. If there’s no opportunity to have vacant possession of the property at a guaranteed time, they just won’t be made available.

I’d suggest that there needs to be…. If there’s a consideration around creating an opportunity to make this work for both tenants and landlords, then we need some better data. Dispute resolution is not going to solve that.

I wonder if there’s anything that I could do to help the minister, or whether there’s anything the RMOW can do to perhaps get better data in order to resolve this problem. It’s neither good for the landlord, the property owner, nor the tenant or the prospective tenant in a very tight rental market.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s concerns, but the piece that we’re really very focused on and that I think is very critical is making sure that the tenants have security of their home, right? Nine months is a very short-term opportunity, but it’s not ongoing. People need security. They need to know that they have a home for longer, I would imagine, than nine months in most communities.

That’s what this fix was about, in terms of addressing the fixed-term-lease loophole. We felt it was really important to put an end to that practice that some landlords were taking.

I also want to remind the member — and if he’d like, he can certainly share this with his community — that we have the rental task force that is going to be out and about in the community. We look forward to hearing about some of these challenges and are certainly willing to hear about how things are playing out and what more we can do to address the needs of landlords and tenants in this tight rental market. We know that there’s more to do, and that’s certainly an opportunity to hear more specifically about what’s happening in the member’s community.

J. Sturdy: I’ll, then, take this opportunity to bring to the minister a very similar example, which perhaps you won’t have much sympathy for, because it is not, again, a longer-term situation. In the situation of agricultural communities, again, farmers will have seasonal agricultural worker housing, either owned or rented, either on farm or not on farm.

[6:15 p.m.]

Typically, that accommodation is used during the growing season by seasonal workers. Then in the off-season, it would be rented out — again, on a fixed-term basis — for approximately six months, generally. That provides an opportunity for the farmer to generate some revenue. But the bottom line is that it needs to be vacant for when the growing season starts.

In the case of a place like Pemberton, it works very well. You have the potential for a six-month tenancy in the winter where seasonal workers in the RMOW, in the resort, can take advantage of that six-month tenancy over the winter, and then fill the same accommodation with farmworkers in the summer. So it’s a win-win. The resort grows by several thousand people in the winter and then shrinks a bit in the summer. It’s quite an advantageous circumstance for seasonal workers, both summer and winter.

Again, agriculturalists, farmers, can’t afford to not have that property vacant at the beginning of the growing season. I know personally of circumstances, in fact, where there are dozens of units in Pemberton today vacant, and they have been all winter, because the landlords need that property available at the beginning of April, typically, for the growing season.

I know this wasn’t an intended consequence, but the unintended consequence is an actual decrease in worker accommodation, typically. And I know, again, in Pemberton it’s a unique circumstance. You might not find that situation in other agricultural communities. But to create some certainty for the landlord or the employer and to help them generate a little bit of revenue in what would otherwise be empty….

I recognize that it’s not a long-term accommodation solution. But in the situation that we face these days, I would suggest that every bed counts. I will encourage the people I know that have agricultural accommodation to certainly submit to the task force. But I wanted to bring it to the minister’s attention. If she has any suggestion for me, I’d certainly take it back to my community.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member coming forward with this very unique situation in his community. I’ve just checked with staff, and they’re aware of it. That’s something, again, that they are monitoring.

I really want to encourage the member to invite everyone to participate, to provide ideas and solutions and to describe the situation to the renters task force. That is why they’re going out, because we think there are lots of solutions for the housing crisis and housing affordability in communities. The more we can hear from people…. It helps us to identify what some of the opportunities are for making housing more accessible and more affordable for people throughout the province. I hope that the member will be able to encourage people to do that.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. I’ve just had a couple of notes passed to me that it’s not a unique situation for Pemberton. It is a provincial problem, and we’ll need to find a provincial solution.

[6:20 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: I wanted to ask the minister the definition of the “primary residence.” How does the ministry define that?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s actually a tax policy question that is dealt with at the Ministry of Finance.

S. Sullivan: Last week the minister’s government announced a ten-year rental construction plan. The plan is $1.9 billion for 14,000 units of affordable rental. Now, page 81 of the budget says, under affordable rental housing, $1.9 billion and 19,250 units. Can the minister explain the difference?

Hon. S. Robinson: The numbers are an addition of two different what I’ll call buckets. We have 14,350 units. That’s the $1.89 billion that we announced.

There were another 4,900 units that were projects already sort of in progress, but the affordability of them wasn’t working. Their numbers weren’t working. They weren’t affordable. So our government added an additional $75 million to those 4,900 units so that they would achieve the affordability that they needed in order to be successful, in order to just better meet the needs of British Columbians.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I just noted that Rob Shaw had felt that some of this discrepancy was an announcement from previous governments of the work that they had done. I just wondered if that had been part of it.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. My understanding is that in 2001, a whole bunch of projects from an earlier government got cancelled. Our government decided not to do that. We didn’t cancel any projects. We thought that would be an unreasonable thing for any government to do, so we carried on with projects.

There were 4,900 units that were already being considered and already being identified that weren’t going to work. The affordability on them, the rents on them, were not going to work for British Columbians.

We had two choices to make — well, three choices. We could cancel the projects. We could leave them alone and have rents that weren’t affordable and weren’t going to hit the mark for British Columbians. Or we could add a bit more money as a new government — $75 million, in fact — in order to make 4,900 units achieve some of the affordability goals that people were saying that they needed. This was about what British Columbians were saying.

We felt it was most prudent to actually keep these projects moving forward, but they needed money. They needed more resource because the numbers just weren’t going to work. We added an additional $75 million to that pot in order to make the numbers work better so that British Columbians can have the affordable homes that they need.

S. Sullivan: Some numbers came out from the city of Vancouver on the vacant home tax. I’d just note that a number of homes did not declare and that there are probably going to be some challenges there.

Also, the numbers were quite a bit lower than what people expected. I’m just wondering if the minister has had a chance to review that. Is the program working as she hoped it would?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked a question about the Vancouver empty home tax. I want to remind the member that that’s a Vancouver program. It has nothing to do with our government. It’s not anything that we have anything to do with. As a local government, I’m sure the member is well aware, they’re independent and autonomous and get to make their own policy decisions within their purview. This is a program that Vancouver implemented. They’re free to do with it what they will, because that’s their purview.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.