Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $120,978,000 (continued).

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I’m participating today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work before us on this land.

S. Furstenau: I just have one last question to follow up on the theme we were on before, the temporary rental supplement. I’m wondering if the minister could give us some insight into the plans for when this program expires, at the end of August. Those would be plans for supporting renters — and, potentially, also landlords looking at challenges with their mortgage payments.

That’s my final question.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question.

Just to remind everyone, when we brought in the temporary rent supplement, we brought it in for a three-month period of time, recognizing that none of us knew how long this COVID response was going to last and what we needed to do to keep everyone safe.

Since that time, we’ve extended it another two months so that people can continue to get the supports that they need. So for July and August, the rent supplement is available, and people who needed it extended didn’t have to reapply. We just allowed it to continue through, recognizing that people still had considerable needs.

We’ve also said that the expectation is that people will continue to be responsible for any rent arrears, that that was always part of our plan, that this was just an aid to help people to get through the difficulty.

The other thing that I think none of us knew, because this is so unprecedented — and I double-checked numbers over the break — is that 86 percent of renters paid full rent. That, I think, is outstanding — the commitment that people had to their landlord-tenant relationship and making sure that they were keeping things whole. Twelve percent paid partial rent, based on the data that we’ve been collecting, and just about 3 percent or so — the numbers are rounded, of course — didn’t pay any rent. So we know that for the most part, renters have been doing their level best to keep their landlords whole.

We also committed, as we moved through this pandemic response, to making sure that people have the time they need to make the appropriate housing arrangements that meet their financial situations. We’re monitoring exactly what that’s going to look like going forward, and we’ll certainly have more to say about that in the coming weeks.

T. Stone: I just wanted to finish off one or two quick questions on the HAFI program, which I was canvassing with the minister just before lunch. Again, I had asked a couple of times who actually made the decision to close the HAFI program. I specifically want to know: did the provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, make that decision or make that recommendation to government, or was it government that made the decision to close the HAFI program?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: For the record, I want to make it really clear that we didn’t close this program. We pressed the pause button.

Just like everyone else, like every other British Columbian, we were listening to Dr. Henry’s advice to all British Columbians around minimizing contact with other people and shrinking our exposure risks. In order to do that, we made the decision that for now, this was not a safe program to operate, so we pressed the pause button. I’m happy to say that it’s been reactivated, because we now have criteria about how to best proceed, given that we’re still in a COVID response.

T. Stone: I appreciate that. What I heard there was that it was the government that made the decision, at the end of the day, based on the broader perspective of the provincial health officer. I also think I heard in the minister’s response that the program, while it was on pause, has now been unpaused.

I just want to clarify, though, that when she says that, it means that folks who had applications in to the program prior to the program being paused…. Those applications are going to continue to be considered. I believe she mentioned an extended deadline for the consideration of those applications. So that’s question 1. I want to make sure that that’s clear.

The second part of the question would be this: why not allow net new applications for the program? I do understand…. The minister said earlier that the program was scheduled for a review this spring. She also said, in her answer earlier today, that that review is not expected to be concluded until the fall. It would seem to me to be somewhat unfair for quite a number of people that, because they missed getting an application in before the program was paused, are now going to have to wait many months to see if the program is even going to be maintained, if it’s going to be kept.

Could the minister just explain what the rationale is for that part of this? Why not allow applications to continue to come in and be processed during this very difficult time for a program that provides a really important service? It helps people stay mobile, particularly seniors, through these retrofits that are done in their homes through this program.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I agree completely with the member about the importance of this program. It makes a difference for people, in terms of their ability to continue living in their homes and having it meet their needs, which is why we’ve provided an extension for those approved applications.

We also, I think, have an obligation to review and refresh all programs. This has been a planned review of this particular program, making sure that it delivers exactly as it’s designed to deliver. That’s the work that we’re undertaking. Anyone who is interested, I mean, they can…. We’ll certainly continue to work with people as we have this refresh program, which will become available, I hope, in the next number of months.

T. Stone: Again, one final two-part question on this program. First off, the minister keeps referencing the fall. Can she be more specific for all those people out there who, through no fault of their own, didn’t get an application in before the program was paused? They have real needs. Why make them wait for three, four or five months if it can be less time?

Assuming it’s an expedited review that the minister is contemplating here, can she be a bit more specific around what she would like to see as a time frame for the completion of this review, instead of simply the fall? A little bit more specificity there would be much appreciated, if possible.

Secondly — again, this will be my final question on the HAFI program — the funding that we’re talking about here…. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide me with the total dollars that were expended in this program in the last fiscal year, so ’19-20, and what was budgeted for this current fiscal year for the HAFI program, for 20-21.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now that we’ve confirmed that there’s a pause on the program, pending a review of the program, does that mean that whatever funds still remain in the program will be protected so that they can be put to use on similar investments, as per the existing HAFI program?

If the review suggests that the program is going to be discontinued, will those funds be moved elsewhere? And how many funds are still remaining that haven’t been expended in the fund for the current fiscal year, ’20-21, on the HAFI program?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can tell the member that we are expediting the review and expecting a relaunch around October 1. That’s where our target is.

I want to remind the member that historically this has been a $5 million budget for this particular program. In ’19-20, we doubled it because there was an exceeding demand. For ’19-20, close to $8.5 million was expended. For ’20-21, the $5 million is yet to be allocated.

I think I answered all of the member’s questions, in terms of what he’s asked.

T. Stone: I just wanted to be really clear. The amount allocated for ’19-20 was the $8 million and change, up from $5 million? I see the minister nodding her head on that. I think she wants to answer that. And then what again is the dollar amount of the allocation that hasn’t been spent yet for ’20-21?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to double-check with staff around the numbers. The ’19-20 budget was $10 million, and $8½ million was what was spent. The ’20-21 budget allocation is $5 million, of which the full $5 million is still available.

T. Stone: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

Let’s move on. Let’s talk a little bit about affordability — housing affordability, in particular. We know that over the last…. Well, there’s been a lot of talk about affordability, and it’s been a priority, I think, of all of us for a number of years. What we also know, however, is that over the last three years, the price of housing has actually gone up.

It’s gone up by about 8 percent in the Lower Mainland. I believe the latest numbers that I have for the minister’s own community of Coquitlam are that housing prices have gone up about 10 percent in the last three years. Average rents in Metro Vancouver are up about $172 per month. That’s an additional $2,064 per year spent on rent for the average person.

Of course, while we’ll likely not canvass the strata insurance crisis during these estimates, considering there’s a bill on the floor and we’ll have ample time to get into the strata insurance issue, we know that that’s causing significant financial hardship for British Columbians as well.

I want to start with the housing market piece, with a few high-level or general questions. I think it goes without saying that despite some claims that the market is moderating, the fact is that housing prices have continued to climb. Most economic forecasters and financial institutions, the HBC and others, are projecting that housing prices will continue to increase.

Recognizing that that’s likely the trend line that we’re on, to see continued increases in housing costs, and looking back over the last three years and recognizing that house prices have actually increased, again, by 8 percent just in the Lower Mainland, as one segment of the provincial economy, how do these results on housing affordability, both past and over the last three years that the minister has been in government, and the projections for the months and years ahead…? How does the minister suggest at all that that really jibes with the commitment to delivering housing affordability for British Columbia’s homeowners in this province?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to make certain that the member understands that when we talk about affordability, we look at affordable living. Housing is absolutely a critical part of it, but we also recognize that investments in transit and investments in child care also add to affordability. If people have a safe, affordable place for their children, then that helps with the affordability concerns that, frankly, we’ve been hearing for quite some time from British Columbians. Those investments are also significant and add to affordability, as well as the investments in transit.

[2:10 p.m.]

Making sure that people can get out of their cars will not only help reduce GHG emissions and be good for climate action, but it’s also good for people and good for affordability if they don’t have to own a vehicle in order to get around and they have transit that works for them. That, too, will absolutely contribute to affordability.

Certainly on housing affordability, we’ve taken some significant actions with our 30-point plan. I’m very proud of the work that we’ve done in the last couple of years. Taxing speculators who were driving up housing costs was one of the first actions that we took, as well as increasing the foreign buyer tax rate to 20 percent.

Expanding the foreign buyer tax to areas outside Metro Vancouver. We’ve done that as well. Increasing the property transfer tax on the value of homes over $3 million. Increasing the school tax rate on the value of homes over $3 million. Allowing online accommodation providers to apply provincial sales tax and municipal and regional district tax on short-term rentals. That was done as well in our early days.

The other thing I want to mention that we’ve done is addressing the issues around tax fraud and closing loopholes. We’ve taken significant action there — again, making sure that everyone is paying their fair share. That’s absolutely been very critical to us. We also are making the largest investment in affordable housing in this province’s history, a more than $6 billion investment in affordable housing. That was done a number of years ago, and I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve been making on that and making a difference.

The other thing I think is really important is the investment that we’re making in housing for students. For the longest time, universities were not allowed to take on any debt in order to build desperately needed housing. We’ve fixed that and are investing in student housing. Think about what that means for students. They can live on campus. Again, from an affordability perspective, if they don’t need a vehicle because they have to commute, they can live on campus. That just makes life more livable and more affordable for them as well.

We’ve also seen, really, an increase in the number of purpose-built rentals in ways that we have never seen before in this province. That’s going to make a significant impact on affordability for British Columbians.

Remember that all these investments will take time. One of the things that I think is important to note is that, previous to our coming into government and taking these measures, we saw housing prices and affordability literally off the charts. The growth, year over year, was unsustainable. It was absolutely unsustainable. So our measures are about making things more manageable for British Columbians. We could not keep up with those skyrocketing prices.

One of the other things that we did is we capped the annual rent increase to just inflation. We removed that additional 2 percent that the previous government brought in, recognizing that that, too, would create additional affordability challenges if we kept that going. So we’ve reduced that, in terms of what landlords can charge for rent increases each and every year.

We’re also seeing, from CMHC data — I think it’s important to get it on the record — the 19 percent increase in the rental market. Because of the spec tax, there are 11,000 more units that are available in the rental market as a result of the actions that we took. Again, when there’s more supply, that will ease pressures.

I am not in any way wanting to suggest to the member opposite or to any British Columbian that we have achieved where we want to get to. There’s absolutely more to do. We need to keep going. We need to keep doing what we’re doing, because that’s how we’re going to deliver on affordability for British Columbians.

T. Stone: Yes, certainly, there is a heck of a lot more to do. Again, I remind the minister that the average price of housing in the Lower Mainland is up 8 percent in the last three years. The housing prices in Coquitlam are up 10 percent. The average rents in Metro Vancouver are up $172 per month. That’s over $2,000 per year more that renters are paying now than they were three years ago. The strata insurance crisis is driving all kinds of people to very significant financial distress.

[2:15 p.m.]

It definitely paints a picture of a government that I think is failing on the key objective of making housing more affordable for British Columbians. At the end of the day, if your rents are going up, notwithstanding everything that the minister has cited, and if house prices are going up, notwithstanding everything the minister has cited, you’re not doing much to improve housing affordability for British Columbians.

A quick question for the minister. Does she have any short- or long-term targets for real estate prices in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to apologize to the member and to the House. We just had an earthquake announcement here in the building. We were focused on doing what we were being directed to do, and I didn’t hear the question. We’re just confirming whether or not we still need to be under our desks.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 2:16 p.m. to 2:22 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, everybody. I really appreciate your patience. For those of you who aren’t in the precinct at the moment, we just had a false alarm over an earthquake warning, telling us to get under our desks. So it was a bit alarming until we had it all sorted out now.

I really wanted the minister to be able to concentrate and not have any worries and concerns. I appreciate everybody’s patience. We’ve been told it was a false alarm.

I would ask the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, please, to ask a question.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair. Certainly very happy that it was a false alarm. I didn’t think that my question was that good. Anyway, let’s carry on.

Can the minister advise whether or not the government has any short and/or long-term targets for real estate prices in British Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Now that my heart rate has come down and we’re not experiencing a real earthquake, I have to apologize to the member. I heard him. I was focused very carefully on his question. Then we got the announcement there was an earthquake, and my ears stopped working. It’s amazing how it just turns off. So I appreciate him being patient with us.

First of all — and I know that the member knows this — as government, we don’t regulate prices in the market. That’s not what we do. However, we are very focused as a government on making sure that we have the right kind of supply for people who live and work in British Columbia.

We need to make sure that we have the right kind of housing being developed, being designed, and that it’s available for British Columbians. That’s why we are doing a number of things. Certainly, in our ten-year plan, we are focused on increasing the right kind of supply and also having demand measured so that we can help moderate and so that it’s reasonable for people here in British Columbia to expect to be able to have the kind of home that meets their needs.

I want to take a moment to talk about this housing needs assessment legislation that we brought in, because — and I keep saying this to anyone who will listen — it’s a bit of a geeky piece of legislation, but it’s also a very critical piece of legislation.

Certainly, in my time in local government, I had the opportunity to make housing decisions, land use decisions…. I should qualify that: land use decisions. And I remember that I [audio interrupted] forward proposals, mostly for bachelor, some one-bedroom highrises, that they said there was certainly demand for around a coming SkyTrain station in Coquitlam. I kept asking: “Who is this for? Who’s going to live there? Where are families going to be living?” The response I kept getting from the community was: “Well, you know, there’s market demand. They’re selling like hotcakes.”

This was, I would say, 2009, ’10, ’11. What we were seeing was demand for investment — for, essentially, safety deposit boxes in the sky. Real people were not living there. The demand was certainly there, but it wasn’t demand to live there. It was demand to invest there. So as a result of not having accurate data, for not making the right kinds of decisions and not having legislation or policies in place that didn’t allow for that kind of behaviour, we saw lots of empty condos. That, to me, was a disgrace and really hard on British Columbians, and it contributed, I would say, overall to unaffordability in a really significant way.

We’ve been diligently trying to fix that, and we are making, certainly, some progress. But I want to say that the housing needs assessment, as a tool, will help all local governments right around the province to make decisions for their communities about the kind of housing they need so they can make the right planning decisions. We’ve already heard, for example, from the mayor of Mission. They just got their housing needs report, and she is very excited to take a look. What she’s been able to identify is that they need more two- and three-bedroom apartments and that they need more townhouses and duplexes.

It is informing them as well as the development community about what the appetite is, not because it’s market-driven; it’s needs-driven. So in order to better meet the needs of the people who live in those communities, local governments will be able to make the right kinds of land use planning decisions. I think, from my perspective, that as we see more and more of these come online, we’re going to see better land use planning decisions made to deliver the right kind of housing that addresses the affordability challenges that we’re seeing.

The last thing I just want to mention is that what we’re seeing is actually a moderation in the housing market. The skyrocketing, year-over-year numbers increases that we were seeing prior to us forming government have moderated. That very steep curve that we were seeing that was going up and up and up is levelling off. I have to say that’s made a considerable difference to people here in British Columbia.

[2:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: In the government’s latest or B.C. Housing’s latest progress report, the affordable housing investment progress report for Q4, the report indicates that 43 percent of units in progress have no funding commitment; 59 percent of projects underway have experienced delays. Can the minister explain why that is?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can I ask the member to tell us what page he’s referring to?

T. Stone: I am referring to page 4.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member providing us with the specific details about where he’s reading.

I’ve pulled up the report. The projects that are…. I believe this is what he’s referring to, around the fourth quarter. As of March 31, we have 16,564 homes in various stages of development, with 13,474 of them through the Building B.C. programs. There are various funds listed above that.

The programs capture our programs that were created in 2018. The projects in initiation phase are public knowledge, so they’ve been announced or they’re in municipal process. They have not received their final B.C. Housing approval, because they’re still in early stages of planning and final unit counts.

Again, in terms of the exact number of units — and the budget sort of can change a little bit this way or a little bit that way — we can’t finalize it until the planning process is gone through, but the commitment is absolutely there. The projects in development, under construction and complete have gone through the necessary requirements through the executive committee or board of commissioners, as per the capital review committee terms of reference, for approval.

T. Stone: Well, I’m glad that we’re focused on the same page here.

I will reiterate that the Q1 report for the B.C. Housing affordable housing investment progress report had a definition in it that has gone through a few iterations and is very different today than it was in Q1. The original definition of “initiated,” which is one of the key columns in the progress table that’s on page 4 here…. The definition of “initiated,” insofar as the Q1 report indicated, was: “These are projects that have been announced, but no commitment has been made towards them.” Conveniently, that definition no longer appears in the existing reports.

I’d be curious to know why the minister has changed that definition such that it doesn’t even appear in the existing report. This is important, because almost 6,000 units of housing — according, again, to the progress table on page 4, 5,910 units, to be exact — are in the initiated phase, which, as per that definition, represent projects that don’t have any funding attached. How can they possibly be counted as units when they basically have been announced — there’s been a photo op; there’s been a ribbon-cutting ceremony — but there’s no funding that’s been committed to ensuring that these projects actually come to fruition?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to make sure that the member understands, and that British Columbians understand, that when we go out with a funding call, for example, like we just did with the community housing fund, to build 3,000 homes for people, that’s a funding commitment. We have set aside resources to build homes for British Columbians.

Now, once that call goes out and people and organizations apply for that funding, we take a look. They are reviewed and identified about what makes the most sense. Does it meet the criteria? Will it deliver in the way we expect it to be delivered? Then it has to go through a development approval process. Again, that takes some time. We’re working on that as well. I hope we do get to talk about the development approval process review that we’re doing.

Again, depending on the permitting fees and depending on DCCs and how that gets negotiated…. Each one is a negotiation. We invite local governments to support these projects as well. We work through the final details until we actually have an identified, very targeted amount, and we know exactly what that project is going to cost.

It’s that in-between phase that is initiated. It is initiated. The work is progressing and is continuing, and that’s what that means. When we take a look at those numbers, that is what has been initiated. It is working through the various systems until it’s finalized with the exact amount it’s going to cost to build those homes.

T. Stone: Well, again, the Q1 report had a really clear definition of what “initiated” meant. The initiated definition was that these are projects that have been announced, but they haven’t been funded. They haven’t been allocated funds. That definition is now conveniently missing from this report.

We even checked this morning. Perhaps the minister can point me to where I can find this. We checked the B.C. Housing website this morning. Conveniently, the only report, the affordable housing investment plan report, that’s missing from the website is the Q1 report, which has the definition of initiated being projects announced but not funded. Fair enough. The other interesting wrinkle, I would suggest now, is that as of this Q4 report, B.C. Housing is no longer providing details and reporting on project delays.

I’m wondering if the minister could tell me: why is there no component in this report anymore that highlights where these projects actually are, which ones are a bit behind schedule, which ones are really behind schedule? Why is that information not contained in this latest Q4 report when it was in the previous iterations of this exact same report?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to have context here as well. I think it’s really important. We’re about 2½ years or so into a ten-year plan of the Building B.C. framework that we established. Of the, I think, 28,700 that we committed to, we’re at 13,474, which is about half, almost half, that we’ve allocated within 2½ years of a ten-year plan. That’s, I think, pretty significant.

As the member knows full well — he reminded us earlier today that he once upon a time had been in cabinet — you can’t make announcements unless funding has been allocated for the project. I know that he’s asking questions about language. I want to assure him and all British Columbians that every single initiated project that has been announced, that is moving through the development permitting process, where an architect is looking at drawings, where we’re consulting with the neighbourhood…. Every single one of those projects has funding attached to it.

[2:50 p.m.]

The specific dollar amount is still working through the system. We don’t know exactly which materials are going to be used, or we don’t know exactly whether it’s going to be a 75-unit building or a 72-unit building. Those are the kinds of details that are being worked through, but I can certainly assure the member that funding is most definitely attached to every single project that we announce.

T. Stone: Well, that’s a twist. We’ll look forward to getting the details from the minister in the days ahead on that on a project-by-project basis.

I want to ask the minister this question. We asked questions in the Legislature when the Q1 report came out about this whole concept of initiated projects not being projects that have funding attached. That was in black and white in the minister’s own B.C. Housing report. She’s responsible for that. The Q2 report then comes out, and the definition for initiated projects is gone. It’s no longer there, and it hasn’t been back.

As the member knows well, one of the tools that one can use to try to get to the bottom of these kinds of things is freedom of information. So the opposition put in a freedom-of-information request. It was for B.C. Housing. It was request No. 30-2620. We wanted an actual version of that document that was not edited, not redacted. What did we get back? We got back a document that was heavily redacted.

It does make us wonder: what is there to hide here? Why would there be redactions in a B.C. Housing report around the definition of initiated projects when there clearly was some political heat applied to the government — rightfully so — for making a big deal about projects that apparently didn’t have funding attached? At least up to that point, the definition of initiated projects in the minister’s own report was projects announced but projects that did not yet have funding.

Will the minister commit to releasing that Q2 report without the redactions so that we can see what edits were actually made to it and therefore compare that with the Q1 report? I think that would likely settle this matter. Is the minister prepared to release that report with all of the edits in it and no redactions?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about some FOI, and I know that he well knows that that happens independent of this office. It is done by career public service. People who work in the public service apply the FOI legislation. They do it professionally and according to very specific guidelines. The member is certainly free to appeal that if he’s not satisfied.

I also want to just point out…. I took the liberty of taking a look at some of our initiated projects that are happening in the member’s own riding. There are a number that are happening in Kamloops that are under the initiated phase, which means that there is funding attached to them. I know that the member will be very excited to know that there are certainly two community housing fund projects that will deliver, it looks like, close to 80 affordable homes in his community. Those are in the initiated phase.

We also have some housing under the women’s transition housing fund that is also initiated. Details are still being worked out, but that’s going to provide some refuge for women and children in his community. Actually, there are two that are being built in his community, and those are under the initiated phase.

We also have — it caught my attention — supportive housing that is coming to his community: Valleyview supportive housing, some 52 units of supportive housing that are under the initiated phase. What that means is that we have been working with the local government. We’re working with the service provider. We have taken an envelope of funding, put it aside for these projects. The final details are being worked out. Once we have the exact amount of money that is needed to see these projects through to fruition, once we’ve sorted out all the permitting and all the various other elements that go into development, from an accounting perspective, it will be identified as fully ready to go.

I know that at the end of the day, people will move in, and their lives will be better because of the investments that we’ve made in collaboration with the local governments and with the community housing sector so that people have an affordable, safe place to call home.

T. Stone: At the end of the day, we all want people to move in, but I would suggest that we want people to move into these units much, much faster than is the current clip of the government.

[3:00 p.m.]

There were 2,963 units completed out of a total target of 114,000 for the overall plan three years into a mandate. It’s not exactly, I would say, lighting things on fire here. It’s not moving quickly enough.

The issue of this initiation and what does it actually mean…. Again, in the Q1 report, “initiated” was projects that didn’t have a commitment yet. They’d been announced, but no commitments. That definition was conveniently pulled out of the Q1 report. I’ve asked the minister whether or not she would be willing to provide us with the Q2 report with the edits in it that have been redacted.

I can’t for the life of me understand why any of that would be confidential financial information or proprietary information that would compromise anybody. That’s a B.C. Housing report that presumably must have originally included the same details and definitions as the Q1 report, only there were some edits made to it. And we’re not allowed to see those edits, because it’s been redacted. That’s really disappointing.

I’m wondering if the minister could tell us how many projects have actually secured a final project agreement to date and how many are in each program stream.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: All projects receive project development funding in order to initiate the projects and then to move them through the various stages of development. I’m sure the member is well aware that it can take a couple of years to start with a project, start with the funding commitment, work with the community group, work with the neighbourhood, work with local government, get the designs all done and, finally, get shovels in the ground to build homes.

In some communities, we can be very efficient. I want to say that in Grand Forks — it was very exciting — we were able to…. In nine months, I think over 50 people were able to move into affordable homes in Grand Forks. That moved very, very quickly. Other projects — again, depending on which community we’re in and if the site has challenges or is an easy site to work with, the timelines may change.

I want to let the member know that final approval, once that happens…. Typically, once a project has final approval, that means that everything is in order — the permits, everything, all the components that go into the design work and all the permitting and all the zoning. Typically, 30 to 60 days after final approval, actual construction begins.

T. Stone: Again, we’re three years into the government’s mandate, three years that the minister has been the minister responsible for housing, and the total number of units of affordable housing that have opened under her watch is 2,963, including a whopping 189 units of new housing opened or completed in all of Q4. Is this the minister’s idea of good progress on delivering affordable housing for British Columbians?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to read into the record the details of this report in terms of the level of activity that is going on around housing.

I also think it’s important to recognize that we announced this program in February of 2018, just a little over two years ago, and put out our call for proposals just shortly after that. So we’re only really, I would argue, two years into a very significant program. Again, I want to remind the member that a typical build is anywhere from 18 months to three years, so that’s the time frame for getting people moved into a completed home.

There are days that I wish I was…. Was it Tabitha from Bewitched who used to sort of wiggle her nose and make things happen? I wish that I had the ability to do that because people have been desperately looking for affordable housing.

The other thing I think is really important to also get on the record…. Unlike the previous government, when they came in 2001, we didn’t cancel a single housing project of the previous government. We recognized that a lot of work had gone into these projects and a lot of money had already gone into these projects. In fact, we added additional funds because on a lot of these projects, the affordability just really wasn’t there. Something that was being built that would only be 5 or 10 percent below market wasn’t sufficient, so we added additional funds and additional resources into these projects so that they could bring real affordability to people right around the province.

Under the affordable rental housing project, we have a fund. We have 109 completed, and 337 are actively under construction. This is, of course, as of March 31. More have come online since then, but I want to stick with the dates, so I’ll stick with the fourth quarter. And 280 units are under development. So there’s activity happening, design work happening and that’s going to be coming online.

Under the rapid response to homelessness program, 1,776 homes are now open, and 116 are under construction. That’s, I think, pretty exciting. I believe some of those have already opened, those ones that are under construction, since Q4 was reporting out.

[3:15 p.m.]

Under the deepening affordability of existing projects, we’ve opened up 588. People have moved in. And 1,063 of these units are under active construction. There are people on site, swinging hammers and lifting drywall and doing all the things that you do in order to build housing. We have another 365 of these homes that are under development. Architects are working to draw up plans and working with local governments to finalize exactly how it’s going to be situated in community.

Under the community housing fund, 52 projects were completed. And 1,023 homes are under active construction. That means that thousands of people are going to be able to move into their new homes, I hope, in short order. And I’m proud to say that under this pandemic, we didn’t shut down construction. These projects are continuing to move forward, and I think that’s a really good thing for British Columbians.

We have 484 under the community housing fund that are in development, and we’ve just put out another call for another 3,000 homes out of our Building B.C. fund. We’re doing a second intake because we want to keep that going, and we know how critical it is to do that.

Under the Indigenous housing fund, we have 314 that are under construction and 70 in development. Under the supportive housing fund, we have 358 homes that are open, and people who were formerly homeless are now getting the supports that they need in order to be successful in their new housing. We have 402 that are under construction and 40 that are in development.

Under the women’s transition housing fund, there are 80 that are completed. So 80 women now have a home that they can afford, and they can live safely and rebuild their lives. Another 40 are under construction, and 67 are in development. A number of these are in the member’s community.

Again, there is certainly lots of activity happening, and we’re going to continue to see more and more of these homes come to fruition in pretty short order. We put this project together, this whole plan, in February of 2018, and here we are, 2½ years later. In a time frame, from a housing perspective, when it can take three years to get something built, thousands of people have new homes.

T. Stone: The member made some reference to the former government. I’m really proud that in our time in office, we invested about $4.9 billion in affordable housing. We invested in 26,000 units of affordable housing. During that time, thousands of Downtown Eastside units were preserved, and new units came on stream. There were actually people in the units.

The minister can rattle off all the numbers. You know, I can read. On page 4, I’m looking at the same chart that she just read into the record, which is fine. We don’t have to do that now moving forward.

My concern, and I think the concern that people have, is with the significant number of units that the minister continues to count as having, you know, almost magically delivered, when the significant number of those units don’t have commitments attached to them. They’re in the initiated phase or in the development phase. There are only 2,963 units that are actually open, meaning that they actually have people in them. That’s ultimately what matters.

I’ll ask the minister this question. To this point, three years in, there are only 161 new units of rental housing that have opened across British Columbia — 161. Is that the minister’s idea of good progress in delivering affordable housing for British Columbians who really need it — 161?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to make it really clear that every single project that we’ve announced has a commitment. It has a funding envelope attached to it as it moves through the development process, as it moves through the design process, as it moves through the development approval process. Those numbers get refined more and more and more. We have done an outstanding job of delivering as quickly as we can.

Like I said earlier, I wish I was like Samantha on Bewitched, or Tabitha, where I could wiggle my nose and just deliver on housing with a little wiggle of my nose. But I know that the member understands that the building process, the development process, does take time. We are moving as quickly as we can. I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.

I know that in the coming weeks and months, there is going to be more and more and more housing delivered, more and more people moving in. The fact that here we are, 2½ years in, since we announced our program…. Again, it’s a ten-year program. We’re committed to doing this over ten years. We’re making good progress. There is absolutely more to do. No one is suggesting for a second that we should take our foot off the pedal.

Certainly, in this case, people have been waiting a long time for affordable housing. That is why, again, we made another announcement just a couple of weeks ago, inviting community housing providers to join with us, Indigenous communities, local governments, to put their projects together and identify how they can work with us to deliver on the housing that is needed in their communities so that we can keep the momentum going.

[3:25 p.m.]

It does take time. It does take two to three years to build any project. We need to keep going. We’re committed to doing that. I hope the member for Kamloops–South Thompson will be joining me when we cut the ribbon on the numerous projects that we are building in his community.

T. Stone: Well, let’s move into the development process. The minister has referenced that a number of times.

She indicated moments ago that she would be thrilled to talk about the development approvals process review that was undertaken by her government. This is a document that was produced, I believe, in September of 2019. What is that, about nine months ago? It provided a wide range of recommendations to the provincial government with respect to the kinds of changes that needed to be made — regulatory changes, changes that impact cost — that would unleash the much-needed supply that we need to see in this province. We have a growing population. We’re not keeping up with the current demand, let alone the fact that the demand is ever increasing.

My first question on this development approvals process review and where it goes from here is this. There was a lot of talk about this as it was first announced by the minister. There was a lot of talk about the release of the report. Where’s the plan for implementing it? When can we expect to see the government actually begin to implement the recommendations contained in this Development Approvals Process Review, which the minister made such ado about only nine months ago?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question about what we refer to here as the DAPR report, Development Approvals Process Review.

When I first became minister, in talking with various housing stakeholders on all sides, it became really clear, certainly, that there was concern in the development community around the amount of time it can take to get through the development approval process. In some communities, it was certainly more challenging, more convoluted and more layered than in other communities. So we made a commitment to work together with all of our partners, local government side as well as development side and community housing side and planners, to work together to identify how to move forward and how to make this a much more efficient practice.

We did put together this report that the member is referring to after a number of meetings. That was in September. I will say that COVID has sidelined some of that work. We had to prioritize support for local government and support for those who were desperately in need of housing. In recent weeks, things have settled for us significantly as we move through some of the responses that we needed to do as a ministry, and we are back at it.

I want to say to the member that what’s been very interesting…. As a result of COVID, I’ve had weekly conversations with mayors. They’re now sort of biweekly at this point. They became biweekly eventually, but regular conversations.

As we were moving through the COVID experience and looking and turning our minds to recovery and what that looks like, it became really clear to me, just listening to what these mayors were saying about their appetite and their desire to move through the development approval processes much more quickly than they had been, perhaps, historically, that there’s tremendous appetite at the local government level to pick this back up and really dig in and make sure that we are refining this process so that we can expedite development. I’m eager to get that work done.

T. Stone: What’s the time frame, recognizing everything she said about the COVID pandemic? I think all of us in the Legislature rallied, as the public rightfully expected us to, to focus on that very real public health emergency that was in front of us. But it’s now time to also focus on picking up some of these balls again and moving forward. I see the minister nodding, so that’s good.

I’m looking for a bit more detail in terms of what the minister might be thinking around timing, moving forward. There is so much good that could come from the kinds of changes that would flow from the recommendations in the DAPR report insofar as reducing complexities, reducing costs and reducing regulatory burden, which are largely inherent in a local approval framework that, frankly, local governments have to operate within because it is what it is.

What is the time frame that the minister is looking at in terms of beginning to pick up these recommendations and actually implement them?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When we put together the review, we identified some general priority areas for this review process — streamlining of approvals, development finance area, looking at public hearings and public input, and official community plans and zoning. Those were sort of the four areas that we committed to reviewing. Then, of course, COVID hit, and we have learned even more since then in terms of what works, what the priority areas need to be.

Right now we are actively working on this file. We are working with local governments that I have to say have also been sidelined from this work and are dealing with a response to COVID. So they, too, are just coming online. We are looking at: do we need to reprioritize? What have we learned from COVID? How do we incorporate that into what we learned from the review process?

We need to incorporate new learnings. We’re committed to working as quickly and as diligently as we can. It was designed as a multi-year action plan. At this point, I know that there are discussions that we’re actively doing around: do we need to expedite it even more given what’s happened because of COVID? That work is being undertaken as we speak.

T. Stone: I think the minister would agree that the total dollar value of building permits is way down. It dropped, I believe, 61.3 percent in April of this year. We know that the flow-through effect of that means that the supply is going to get even tighter. So more needs to be done to speed up the development process and to reduce costs and so forth to ensure that that supply is coming on stream.

[3:40 p.m.]

The home construction sector in particular faces significant costs, onerous regulatory requirements, and that is dealt with quite prominently in this report. In the report, there are recommendations to improve those onerous regulatory requirements by, I guess, uncomplicating the regulatory process overall. That’s a bit of a loaded word: “uncomplicating.”

I’m just wondering if the minister could take a moment to let us know what work is being done on this particular point. What does she think is likely to unfold in the months ahead that would work towards the fulfilment of this recommendation to uncomplicate the onerous regulatory requirements, which, I think, are universally viewed as one of the single greatest barriers to more housing supply coming onstream faster?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member is referring to our commitment to engage in streamlining and streamlining these processes that, over time, have become much more cumbersome. I just want to provide the member with an example of new learning through COVID that I think highlights the opportunities before us, from a streamlining perspective.

One of the things that came out of COVID — because people couldn’t gather in ways that we’ve traditionally gathered — is that we reminded local government about where the obligations were for having a public hearing and where there weren’t obligations to have a public hearing. We just reminded local governments of what those obligations are.

A lot of them had gotten into the habit of having public hearings for things that they weren’t obligated to have public hearings for. Because we reminded them of what the legislation actually said and what the requirements were, many of them started to question and to change some of their practice through COVID as a way to keep things going. They were committed to keeping things going.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m hearing back from mayors about how well that worked for them and what the advantages were for them. Again, we’re continuing to have these conversations with the mayors. We need to be working in partnership with them so that we can get it right, as well as working with the development sector. That’s what we’re committed to doing, and what we are doing.

Local governments are working with us to help us identify what they can do quickly. Just like the member highlighted, this is an opportunity to stimulate the economy. We know that we need more housing; we need more of the right kind of housing. We want to be able to keep this rolling and keep it more efficient. We know that time is money and that if we can shorten the amount of time it takes to get projects through, the cheaper it is. That’s good for affordability.

This is an example of how we’re moving forward, looking at streamlining and reminding local governments about how they, too, can be more efficient. In that work, I think, there are going to be some really good opportunities. It’s really good learning that has come out of COVID and that we can apply in this case.

T. Stone: Yes. The DAPR report actually does provide a recommendation for, I believe, a provincial review of public hearings and looking at the consideration of alternative options to ensure that the meaningful public input that needs to happen, happens, but that it, perhaps, happens in a manner that is more conducive to enabling projects to actually move forward.

I’m glad the minister mentioned that specific learning from the COVID pandemic that we’ve all gone through. Is the minister committed to doing what she can to accelerate the work required to bring to life this recommendation from the DAPR report, insofar as the recommendation to explore new ways of facilitating that public engagement in the development process — looking at alternative options, alternative means for meaningful public debate? Is the minister committed to making that happen?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, I am.

T. Stone: Great. We’ll keep talking about that one. That, I think, will be a significant reform that would make a real difference. Let’s hope that we get on with it.

I wanted to ask about one other recommendation in the DAPR report. The report recommends that some development permit categories could be combined or eliminated within the Local Government Act. I’m just wondering if any work has been done within the ministry to determine what those combinations or those eliminations might look like.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s keen interest in this topic. I think it’s one where we can really make a significant difference in addressing some of the burdensome processes that were highlighted in this report.

The specific recommendation that he’s referring to is very technical and requires working with the local governments and all the technicians and the permitting people at local government level to identify how to best peel this onion back, all the layers, and identify which layers need to be retained and which layers can be eliminated and still have a significant onion. So this is the work that we need to be doing with the local governments. We’re committed to working with them — not doing it to them but with them. That work needs to happen.

We also want to get it right. We absolutely want to be transformational. We recognize what needs to happen. So we’re going to be, in the next little while, focusing on what the things are that we can do now and what the things are that are going to take time to get it right. We’re committed to driving the recommendations and the review process and moving it forward.

Again, I think it’s important. Land use planning and building is just too important to put on a back burner. It has been pulled forward now that we’re through, I would say, I hope, the hardest part of COVID, and local governments are pulling it forward too.

I just want to reiterate that whereas the local governments, perhaps, prior to COVID weren’t seeing this as important as we were and perhaps even as the member opposite saw it as important…. I would say I’m very pleased to hear so many local governments recognizing the importance of doing this work. It feels like the work will be able to progress even faster, because they’ve experienced what it means to be more efficient and how that keeps things going in their communities, and that’s a good thing for the people that they serve.

T. Stone: I think we’ve canvassed the DAPR report.

The minister refers to the regulatory and the cost burden that’s wrapped around housing projects as being like an onion and we need to peel back the layers. Well, the best onions are the smallest onions. So let’s start peeling those layers back and focus on less cost, less onerous regulatory requirements, faster approval processes and better ways to ensure the public engagement that must take place takes place but does so in a way that facilitates faster housing supply that’s so desperately needed across the province.

I want to shift to CleanBC housing retrofits. The CleanBC plan, from December 2018, states that $1.1 billion is in the plan for the capital renewal fund for public housing. That’s to specifically improve living conditions, energy efficiency and reduce emissions. This will be part of a 0.5 metric tonne reduction of emissions by 2030.

[3:55 p.m.]

The fourth quarterly update of the affordable housing investment plan report — the minister maybe thought we were done with that particular report — provides an update on this capital renewal fund. The update is as follows. Of $1.1 billion in funding, $222.07 million has been committed to non-profit projects. Sorry, $136 million is non-profit and $86 million is provincial projects.

However, the AHIP report also reveals that not all projects contribute to energy efficiency. What’s of concern that I want to canvass for a few minutes with the minister is that of the 243 non-profit projects, only 69 are “energy performance” projects. So that’s only 28 percent in that category. Of the 288 provincial projects, only 99 of those projects are energy performance projects. That’s a little bit better, but that’s still only 34 percent. And just 32 percent of the CRF projects are energy efficiency upgrades.

With that backdrop, my first question to the minister would be this. How will British Columbia meet its climate targets if only one in three housing retrofits are actually energy-efficient?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m just going to ask if we can have a recess so we can have a little bit of a bio-break.

The Chair: Members, we will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

T. Stone: I had asked an initial question, actually, of the minister. I might have been a bit quick in putting my hand up again there. I’m wondering if the minister would like…. I can repeat the question if she would like me to, but it looks like she’s ready to answer.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the bit of a break.

The member had asked a question about energy efficiency in our budget, our $1.1 billion budget, to improve social housing as part of our capital renewal plan. I want to draw the member’s attention to the fact that about $400 million of that $1.1 billion was designated to meet our legislated climate goals. So about a third of the total budget. That’s why he’s seeing the numbers up to a third. We’re really excited to do that work. It’s really important work. It helps not only to mitigate greenhouse gases, but it also addresses affordability for families.

The other thing that I think is important to acknowledge as part of this $1.1 billion fund is that it’s being used to renew and upgrade existing buildings. Let’s be really clear. They haven’t been well maintained, and it’s a critical part of our housing stock. When we formed government, we saw that the annual investment was only about $20 million a year in all of this really vital and critical housing stock, and now we’re spending $145 million a year. That’s the importance of investing in this housing stock.

Just to give you an example of what we were seeing. We were seeing elevators breaking down in older buildings and stranding people, leaving them stranded on upper floors and unable — especially if they had a disability or if they were a senior — to leave their apartments or leave their floors. So this was desperately needed.

I’m very proud of the investments that we’re making to make sure that these buildings are well maintained, that they’re upgraded, that they’re fire-safe. We’re doing some seismic upgrades, as well, and making sure that people’s homes are comfortable and that they can last a long time, because we need to preserve this stock.

[4:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: I’m just wondering. The CleanBC plan implies that the 51,000 housing units in British Columbia will be made energy-efficient. Is that not the case? Because the numbers in the minister’s B.C. Housing AHIP report would not suggest that there’s much progress being made toward the 51,000 number.

Hon. S. Robinson: In addition to our commitment to clean energy, the upgrades also include improving the building efficiency, which is another part of reducing energy use. We’re going to see things like boiler and electrical upgrades, replacing doors and windows, building envelope repair, electrical upgrades and other investments.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge that in 2019, the total greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use for heating and electricity in all buildings that are owned or leased by B.C. Housing were reduced by 36 percent from the 2005 levels, which I think is pretty good. This has exceeded the reduction target of 25 to 30 percent.

We’re going to keep delivering on that commitment to keep investing in these buildings. They’re a critical part of our housing stock that we need to make sure is there for the long term for British Columbians.

[4:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: I appreciate that the member says that the numbers that she has cited are good. What I’m trying to focus on here are the commitments that the government has made in its CleanBC plan, of which a significant component is energy retrofits, upgrades in the housing sector.

As I mentioned in my preamble at the outset of this line of questioning, when you look at the total number of non-profit and provincial projects combined, a total number of 531 projects, only 168 of those projects are deemed to be energy performance projects. That’s only 31 percent.

It would strike me that it’s going to be a bit of a challenge for the government to meet its CleanBC emissions reduction targets in the social housing and affordable housing sector when it would appear that only one-third of its projects, these non-profit and provincial projects combined, are actually deemed by the government, by B.C. Housing, to be energy performance projects.

Again, does the minister think that the CleanBC plan will actually meet its objectives for emissions reductions in the social housing and affordable housing sector? Based on the numbers I can see, it’s pretty hard to paint that picture. Could the minister please explain how she expects to meet her emissions reductions when only 31 percent of the projects are listed as energy performance projects?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a number of things I’d like to share with the member. First of all, he’s referring to two different numbers — sort of an apples-and-oranges piece. He keeps referring to number of projects, but each project has lots of units in it.

Really, when he refers to projects, we’re talking about thousands of units. We know that we have 51,000 that are in our stock. I think there’s that. I want to make sure that’s well understood. Also, the new construction meets the energy code. This is really about looking at the older stock. So it’s a combination of those things.

Also, a reminder that we’re just a couple of years into a ten-year plan. When you multiply it out over the coming years, I’m very confident that we will reach our targets.

[4:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: Do the 51,000 units that are referenced in the CleanBC plan, the existing units of social housing that are all to receive energy upgrades, energy retrofits…? Can the minister confirm that the 51,000 units are equivalent to the 531 non-profit and provincial projects that are cited in the AHIP report?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to say that we’re 1/10th into the spend. There’s a number of projects that are listed as part of an annual report. We are committed, over the time of the ten-year plan, to get through all of the projects. We are well into this work and delivering on our targets, and I am confident that we are going to get there.

T. Stone: Can the minister say whether all 51,000 social housing units cited in the CleanBC plan will get energy-efficient upgrades, yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: Over the ten years, that is absolutely our intent.

T. Stone: Does the minister think that she and her government are going to meet their CleanBC emissions reduction targets insofar as the energy retrofits and upgrades in the social housing space? If she does believe that, if she believes she’s on track to meet those emissions reduction targets, what metrics can she point to that would show her program is actually on track?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to refer the member to the annual service plan for B.C. Housing. It’s reported annually. Again, I’ll reiterate. In 2019, total greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use for heating and electricity in all buildings owned or leased by B.C. Housing were reduced by 36 percent from the 2005 level, exceeding the reduction target of 25 to 30 percent that we had established as a target.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, we’ll move on to our next topic. Time is ticking here. So much to cover and such little time to do it.

I’m going to move on to the temporary rental supplement. I’m assuming the minister has the correct people at her disposal on this particular piece. Okay.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if the minister could…. I’m looking for a quick snapshot as to the following numbers. What’s the total dollar value of the supplement that has been distributed to date, I guess, prior to the extension of the program, and then what is anticipated to be expended as part of the program extension? What has the application rate been as a percentage of the total number of renters in the province? How many have actually applied for the grant? How many have actually received the grant? How many would be in the midst of being considered for approval at this particular point in time?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to…. I’ll read into the record again. I did for the previous member who had asked these questions about the temporary rent supplement. We had — again, notional allocation — $84 million for the first three months for the temporary rent supplement and then $64 million estimated, of course, for July and August. We are still in the middle of this pandemic, and we won’t have final numbers until we’re through this current situation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then the numbers that I have till mid-June in terms of the number of applications — 90,504 applications were received, and approved, 82,681. Those are the numbers as of mid-June.

The other thing, I think, that’s really important to recognize is that pretty much 97 percent of renters paid full or partial. I think it’s 85 percent paid full rent and another 12 percent paid partial rent. That’s significant — that people did what they needed to do to keep paying and maintain the landlord-tenant relationship as whole as possible. That’s the good news here.

T. Stone: Could the minister provide a breakdown of the total number of applications from households with dependents that received the corresponding $500-per-month payment? If she could provide that as a percentage as well, that would be appreciated.

Likewise, what is the total number of applications received without dependents that received the $300? Expressed as a total number and a percentage would be great. I’ll bundle up the next couple of questions after this one here.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do have some numbers. I don’t have percentages. I’ll have to leave that to the member to calculate. In terms of singles who received, 54,089; couples, 13,611; single parents, 8,171; two-parent families, 12,966. Then we have 1,667 that we’ll call as other or unclassified, and that is in the process of being determined.

T. Stone: How many households had non-related roommates at the same address with each of the roommates receiving $300? Did the government actually track that? Why was the decision made to offer households with dependents less money than a couple of roommates living under the same roof? Why was the decision made to do that? It essentially provides a family with less support than is available to two-plus roommates living under the same roof.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t recall if the member wanted the numbers. I can get that for him. I don’t have them right now, but I can certainly explain the decision around this. I want to remind everyone that this was made in the context of a crisis and trying to understand exactly how it was going to affect different people.

In the case of roommates, the rationale was that with roommates, you don’t share all the living expenses. They might not share a vehicle. They have independent lives. Whereas in a family, they tend to share these expenses differently. They tend to share, perhaps, food, in terms of being able to bulk buy. You might not get that as roommates. So the decision was made in that particular context.

T. Stone: Can the minister tell us if the program is going to remain in place as long as the eviction ban is in place? Are the two intrinsically tied together — i.e., you can’t have one without the other? What’s the plan in terms of this program being wound down? Does that depend on the eviction ban for nonpayment of rent essentially being in place as well?

Hon. S. Robinson: These are two separate programs.

T. Stone: Okay. I just wanted to touch briefly on the decision that was made, I believe on June 19, where the province announced the extension of the temporary rental supplement but also, and very importantly, continued the moratorium on rent increases as well as evictions for the nonpayment of rent.

I think MLAs from all sides of the Legislature have received a lot of correspondence from British Columbians who are landlords and who, for all intents and purposes, fit the definition of a mom-and-pop landlord. They have one unit or two units. It may be a mortgage helper or may be part of their retirement planning and so forth. That makes up a huge chunk of the rental stock that we have in the province.

I think there was a certain amount of understanding in the midst of the pandemic, certainly in the early days, that the government needed to make some decisions in a crisis situation. Fair enough. The government is now going to allow the process of initiating an eviction — and the appeals and everything that’s done through the residential tenancy branch and so forth — for a wide range of causes except for the nonpayment of rent.

The government has said that the plan is, working with stakeholders, to wind that one down over time as well. The problem is we don’t know what the details of that look like. Again, there’s tremendous anxiety, stress and financial uncertainty for a tremendous number of people out there who have been caught in the middle on this situation — again, these mom-and-pop landlords.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could talk a bit about what her plan is for putting in place whatever this repayment scheme is going to look like. What is the timing wrapped around this? What can the landlords out there look towards with some degree of certainty in knowing that there is a framework coming? When is it coming, and what will that rent repayment framework actually look like? And ultimately, when does the minister anticipate removing the ban on eviction for the nonpayment of rent in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s important to remember that almost 85 percent of renters paid full rent. They paid full rent, and that’s, I think, really important to keep in mind. Another 12 percent paid partial rent. So people were really trying to keep their landlords whole, recognizing the importance of making sure that they continue to pay as best they can.

Thousands of people made use of our temporary rent supplement. That was paid directly to landlords. I think it’s important to recognize…. I mean, the member keeps referring to just landlords, but it has also been really hard for tenants, tenants who want to make good on their rent. But service workers who weren’t working in restaurants as they were closed or hairdressers who couldn’t ply their trade or tourism workers who found themselves without unemployment….

I think it’s really important to recognize that everybody within this relationship has been under stress, so we’ve been working with both sides as best we could to understand how we can best help landlords as well as tenants so that the relationship, the integrity of the relationship, is maintained.

As the member referred to, we’ve lifted the ban for reasons other than for nonpayment of rent. We did that a number of weeks ago, recognizing that we were in phase 3 and it was time to get back to more normal. We’re not quite there yet. We’re still under a state of emergency. I think that’s really important to recognize. Work is ongoing around how to best support renters and landlords so that we can get to a more normal state.

We are putting together a framework that I expect in the next number of weeks we’ll be able to share with everyone. Again, I think what’s really important to keep in mind is that most renters paid their rent. That’s, I think, incredible, and I know that many landlords are grateful for that, for those payments. We’ll continue to work with both of those groups and make sure that the road ahead means that everyone can remain whole going forward.

T. Stone: At the end of the day, there is no question that this was a crisis and that it affected everybody. It affected tenants. It affected landlords.

The key here is: as the government focuses its attention on recovery and how we come out of this pandemic and all facets of it from an economic recovery perspective, how do we ensure that that framework works for renters and for tenants? How does it also work for landlords?

You can’t have one without the other. Eighty-five percent full payment, 12 percent partial payment, as expressed in percentage terms, sounds great. But in a population of five million people and on a renter base of 600,000 renters, we’re still talking about a lot of situations where landlords — good, honest, hard-working mom-and-pop landlords, not the big huge companies…. I’m talking about the small one- or two-unit people that are an important part of the housing mix. A lot of them are in significant pain right now.

The government did announce that it was going to be working with stakeholders to figure out how to put in place a regime that would ensure the full payment of rent that’s owing. At the time of the announcement, it was made very clear that the repayment of back rent would be required within a reasonable amount of time.

[4:50 p.m.]

The government also made clear that it would be setting in place a framework to ensure that landlords are able to collect the rent that is owed from their tenants. So I’d ask the minister again: what does that framework look like, and what is the time frame that she has in mind for putting in place the appropriate measures that will ensure that landlords are able to collect the rent that they are owed?

If they’re not able to collect in a timely fashion, it will actually cause some of these folks to lose their homes and find themselves in financial ruin. What does the plan for building that framework look like? When can we expect to see it? What does a reasonable time frame actually mean in terms of the repayment of back rent? When can landlords expect to receive the rent that they’re owed in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have been working with landlord groups as well as tenant groups on the development of a framework. We’re doing it in collaboration to make sure that both sides can recoup and manage through the next phase of recovery. We will be sharing that framework once we have it finalized.

T. Stone: What’s the time frame on that? Again, 599,000 renter households in British Columbia, and 8 percent didn’t pay rent. That works out to almost 50,000 households that didn’t pay rent. So what does that time frame look like? The minister talks about the engagement and consultations she’s doing. Are we talking six months? Are we talking 12 months? Are we talking 18 months? When are landlords going to know what that framework looks like? And what is the repayment framework going to look like?

Government is going to have to put something in place, something that provides landlords the ability to actually collect the back rent that’s owing. The minister and the Premier have said many times on the record that the back rent, unpaid rent, still had to be paid at some point in the future. Landlords would like to know what does some point in the future mean. What is the time frame here, Minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate to the member that we’re one of only two provinces that has made a commitment to support landlords through this pandemic. Let’s remember that thousands and thousands of landlords have benefited, and tenants as well. But again, we paid directly to landlords because we wanted to make sure that they were supported. Our temporary rent supplement has made a significant difference.

I wish I had a crystal ball for the member that would tell him exactly when we’re going to be out of the state of emergency. This is an ongoing emergency. None of us could have predicted in January that we would be here and, in March, that we would still be here in July. We’re continuing to work with both landlords and with tenants on this framework. The residential tenancy branch is working to make sure that all the elements are captured in that.

[4:55 p.m.]

We are still committed to making sure that we have a framework in place that supports tenants and landlords to pay rent arrears over a reasonable amount of time. As soon as we have the framework in place, I will be sure to share it with everyone so that everyone has the time that they need to prepare and understand what the expectations are.

T. Stone: I’m not hearing any willingness to commit to a time frame of any sort. I take at face value the minister’s good-faith commitment to work on it. I’m certain that she’s working on it, but what landlords around the province need to hear from this minister and from government is a firm commitment, that working on it means that something will be in place in a few months or five or six months or whatever. Give them some sense of hope here.

Perhaps to really underscore the importance of this for the minister, I’ll cite a few examples here. Here’s a letter that I have from Kirsten in Salmon Arm. She says:

“My name is Kirsten. I live in Salmon Arm with my husband and three young sons. We are both self-employed and have no pension plans. As a result, we have built a new home with legal suites, with the intention of building a second home so that we can retire in 30 years. In 30 years the mortgage will be repaid, and the rents can supply us with a retirement income.

“We recently sold our family home with the intention of moving into one of the rentals while we built the second rental. It was our understanding that if we owned the house we could, with two months’ notice, move into it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We will be the proud owners of two homes but be homeless. In addition, one of the four tenants we have has not made a payment since they moved in, in January of 2020, and are currently in arrears, but we can’t do anything about it.”

What does the minister have to say to Kirsten in Salmon Arm?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that it’s been hard for many around the province. This family in Salmon Arm are doing all the right things, and then this pandemic hits and creates challenges for them.

My first part that I want to remind the member, and certainly I hope he passes this on to the folks who wrote the letter, is that landlord use of property is now available. We’ve been slowly shifting back to a more normal framework, so they can evict for their own use. That is now available to them. That’s been available for the last number of weeks.

Again, I can’t predict when the state of emergency will be lifted. We have made a commitment, and I’m making a commitment, to have parameters in place for repayment plans so that landlords and tenants are properly supported as we come through this pandemic.

T. Stone: I guess, again, what I’m trying to get at is: what is the time frame for developing those repayment plans and putting that framework in place?

Here’s another letter. This one from is from Grace in West Kelowna. She says:

“My family and I live in West Kelowna, and we have a tenant that’s not paying the rent and is in breach of our agreement. The tenant isn’t even communicating with us and was late on rent even prior to no longer paying it. We run the risk of losing our home. We’ve tried to reach out. Our tenant is blatantly ignoring us and has not applied for any relief or even indicated that he is experiencing financial hardship.

“We, however, are experiencing very serious financial hardship. My husband was laid off during the pandemic and still doesn’t have a job. I’m a health care professional experiencing the stress of COVID-19 in the workplace, and now I have to worry about losing my investment.”

[5:00 p.m.]

What does the minister have to say to Grace in West Kelowna? This is not a big huge corporation with thousands of rental units. This is a husband and wife who, by all measures, have been doing all the right things to look after themselves. Through no fault of their own, they’re being caught in the middle of a terrible situation here.

They need some certainty. They need to understand when they’re going to be able to collect some rent so that they don’t find themselves in the misery of financial distress and financial hardship.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate how hard it is for Grace and her family. I know that there are many like them that are caught in this, but none of us also predicted that we would be in a pandemic. None of us predicted that it would be unsafe to be in close quarters with other people. None of us predicted that we would have to really hunker down at our homes. You know, some people are losing their jobs, like Grace’s spouse has. None of us could have predicted this. I feel for Grace and for her family and for others like her.

We are in this situation now where we are slowly turning the dial. Dr. Henry has been very clear about reopening at a slow pace in order to ensure that we don’t fall back into significant loss of life and people getting sick and spreading this disease. We are in line, following the best practices as we slowly turn that dial back to more active engagement in our social life and in moving and in work. We are doing the same thing around the housing file.

As we moved into phase 3, we lifted some of the eviction moratorium around personal use so that people could start shifting back. There’s another phase that we look forward to. We’re putting a framework in place. I hope we can have it ready in short order so that when we can get out of the state of emergency, we are ready and that everyone has the time that they need to prepare and plan accordingly.

T. Stone: Again, I didn’t hear a time frame there, which is what Grace and her husband really need.

One more example I want to read into the record just to, again, really underscore the impact that thousands of British Columbians are feeling, in not being able to collect rent on their rental units. This one says…. This is Dan in Surrey.

“I’m growing increasingly concerned over the provincial government’s decision to extend the moratorium on tenant evictions for non-payment of rent. I understand this moratorium was recently extended to the end of August, and it seems likely that it could be extended even further. This ban effectively removes any incentive for my tenants to pay rent, which is highly problematic and seems utterly unfair.

“What advice does the government have for landlords, like myself, who rent a second property where the tenant has opted not to pay rent? Despite my ongoing efforts, I have not received rent since March. This means I will be out at least five months of rent, constituting thousands of dollars. This causes considerable financial strain for me and my family. When the ban is eventually lifted, it’s likely that my tenant will move out and disappear, while owing me thousands of dollars in rent but making it near impossible for me to find her and to go through any process to collect it.

“In addition to eviction protection, tenants have access to numerous financial aid programs. However, there’s nothing in place to support landlords like me. The costs of keeping and maintaining my property continue unabated, including mortgage payments, utilities, insurance, property taxes, upkeep, yet I’m unable to collect a large portion of the revenue that I need in the form of the rent that’s owing.”

I could go on. It goes a bit longer. Again, Dan in Surrey has one unit, and it’s a significant component of his financial planning. He’s trying to do the right thing. He’s not even blaming the tenant per se — I think understanding that we’re in a pandemic.

[5:05 p.m.]

Let’s remember that the government intervened in the tenant-landlord relationship, for good reason, in this crisis. Therefore, it’s incumbent on the government to intervene again to make sure that everybody is whole at the end of the day — everybody, the tenants and the landlords, especially these mom-and-pops.

I’d like the minister, perhaps in the backdrop of these stories, to just confirm whether or not tenants will be required to repay back rent all at once or over time. And when will that repayment framework and whatever aspect of support the government is going to wrap around it…? When will British Columbians see this come forward from the minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have been very clear that our expectation is that people will pay rent. We’ve encouraged people to pay rent if they can, and the expectation is that they are responsible for their rent arrears. We also said that we would put a framework in place so that people can pay out any rent arrears over a reasonable amount of time. We are working on that framework, and as soon as we have it finalized, we’ll be sure to share it with everyone.

T. Stone: Is it the minister’s expectation that rent repayment will begin in phase 3, phase 4 or phase 5 of the government’s reopening strategy?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, as we come out of the state of emergency, we’ll be sure to let everyone know what the expectations are so that everyone can plan accordingly and do what they need to do as we move through this pandemic.

T. Stone: I just want to move on to a few questions on the rental space, actually beyond the COVID-related measures and the ban on evictions and so forth. I think the government has had some pretty lofty expectations around vacancy rates and creating a supply of affordable rental product in the province.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak to what she believes the likelihood is of us seeing a 2½ percent, 3 percent vacancy rate here in British Columbia anytime soon.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Right now we are seeing a little bit of an increase in the vacancy rate. In Metro Vancouver, in particular, we’re up to 1½ percent, which is an edging up, moving in the right direction.

This measure, I want to point out, is only for purpose-built rentals. So the mom-and-pop landlords that the member was referring to earlier don’t get included in this measure. What we are doing is we’re looking at the availability of rental housing. We think that that’s an additional measure that we need to be looking at.

We’re seeing increases in housing. In fact, because of the speculation tax, we’re seeing an additional 11,000 rental units come on to the market, which helps alleviate some of those pressures. We’re seeing progress, and that’s a good thing.

T. Stone: Well, thanks to the minister. The 11,000 rental units, which she’s mentioned a few times now today…. The minister says it in a way that makes it sound like these are suddenly available to be used.

The fact, however, that the vacancy rate has remained largely unchanged clearly indicates that these 11,000 units that she speaks to are occupied. Otherwise, the vacancy rate would have changed. And while we have seen, you know, a little uptick here and a little uptick there in the vacancy rate, generally speaking, in the most recent CMHC rental market reports, the vacancy rates are largely unchanged across the Lower Mainland.

What policies does the minister…? What efforts is the minister going to bring to bear in the weeks and months ahead to actually focus on increasing those vacancy rates and getting more supply of the rental housing that’s so desperately needed definitely in the Lower Mainland and — I would suggest, and I think the minister would agree — in communities all across the province.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate. I don’t think the member is making the distinction very well. The CMHC vacancy rate that he refers to is only for purpose-built rentals. It’s a very narrow data point that doesn’t take into consideration what’s available for rental housing. So when he talks about all of those mom-and-pop landlords, they are not counted in the vacancy rate.

When I refer to those 11,000 units…. Those are not counted because they are not purpose-built rentals. They were investment properties that were sitting empty. They were empty. Because of our intervention, they are now on the market as part of the secondary market, which won’t get captured in those vacancy rate numbers.

This is a flaw, and I’ve certainly taken it up with CMHC and let them know that we need better data. Their data does not reflect what’s truly happening on the ground.

[5:15 p.m.]

While their numbers are increasing, and that’s a good thing — their number of purpose-built rental vacancy is increasing — there’s a whole lot of secondary market, available-for-rent homes that don’t get captured in that data. It is a challenge. I’m not disputing the fact that getting good numbers is certainly a challenge. But I don’t want to discount the secondary market and the value that brings. The mortgage helpers that so many people have don’t get captured in the vacancy rate numbers that CMHC shares with us regularly.

We pay attention to the availability of rental housing. Some of that might be coach housing. Some of that might be basement suites. Some of that might be investment properties that people purchase and now are renting out. Those 11,000 homes that I’m referring to are now homes for people to live in. They pay rent to a landlord. But it’s not captured in the vacancy rate that CMHC produces because it’s not actually built as purpose-built rental.

I think it’s important that the member understand that distinction, and I hope that British Columbians understand that distinction as well.

T. Stone: I do understand the distinction between the secondary rental market and the purpose-built rental market. The 1.1 percent vacancy rate that I mentioned previously is the latest number in the purpose-built market. The vacancy rate in the Lower Mainland is even less in the secondary rental market. It’s actually 0.3 percent, as per CMHC numbers. I don’t know….

Frankly, I’m not sure what the heck the minister’s actually talking about here. It’s an even tighter rental market in the secondary space than it is in the purpose-built space. When you bring the two together, at the end of the day, there are not enough rental units available to meet the existing demand, let alone when you overlay population growth in British Columbia.

Again, I guess that we could quibble back and forth on percentages here and there and which report and all the rest of it. I think we can certainly agree that the vacancy rate is very, very tight. It’s very, very low, particularly in the Lower Mainland, across all types of rentals. It’s not conducive to a healthy housing market. Efforts need to be made to increase that vacancy rate. How do you do that? We’ve got to figure out how to bring more supply on faster.

I’d like to ask one more time, recognizing that some very strong commitments were made by the government to drive down the cost of rents, to increase the supply of units in the rental space…. We’ve seen average rents are up $172 per month in Metro Vancouver over the last three years, and the vacancy rates are largely unchanged. What are the minister’s plans to rectify this very, very tight and expensive rental market in British Columbia?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I will differ with the member around how CMHC looks at vacancy rate. I’d be interested to know where that number came from on the secondary market, because it’s not what we’ve seen. I’ve just checked with staff again, and that’s not how CMHC reports out on vacancy rate. They do not report out on the secondary market. So that’s been a huge gap in the data that we are trying to fill.

I’ve certainly spoken with CMHC and let them know that we need them to actually get us better numbers, because it’s not helpful, given that governments, for years, have been out of the housing sector, and there hasn’t been a lot of purpose-built rental being built, so the secondary market has become a critical market. But they’re not monitoring it, so we need that to be monitored. We are doing our best, and we are asking CMHC to do what they need to do to get us good numbers.

In light of the member’s question around how critical it is to move on housing, that’s what we’ve been doing. It’s what our 30-point plan is. It’s not just supply; it’s also demand. We have been curbing demand. I read into the record early on today around all the actions that we have taken, and I’m proud of the fact that 11,000 more units came available as a result of our spec tax. That’s good. That’s good for renters. It’s good for the supply part by reducing demand. We can’t just do one without the other. We really needed to address both.

We’re also…. We’ve created a rental-only zone. We’re starting to see some pickup. It has taken local governments a little bit of time, but we’re starting to see some pickup on the application of that and the opportunities that come with that.

We’ve developed the housing hub as a new branch of B.C. Housing. They are very busy, and the opportunity to partner with the private sector, with local government, bringing everyone together to deliver middle-income, affordable rental has been a significant opportunity, and there’s certainly lots of appetite to deliver housing through that program.

We’re also working on transit-oriented housing with local government partners as we invest in transit, and the expectation to deliver on additional rental housing is part of the actions that we’re taking. Again, there’s tremendous appetite and excitement to deliver, as part of our ten-year plan, on that kind of housing, making sure that we have affordable rental available.

Again, we talked earlier on about DAPR and making sure that the development approval process is streamlined and more efficient. We’ll move some of that purpose-built rental stock through to fruition and help alleviate the challenges that, frankly, have been a long-standing problem. It’s one that we inherited when we formed government. Again, I want to say that we’ve seen a little bit of movement. I’m not shouting from the treetops by any means — there’s still a ways to go — but that’s moving in the right direction, and that’s a good thing.

T. Stone: Well, the minister has consulted with her staff. I’ve consulted with my staff. You can pass along to your team that the numbers that I’m referencing are available at this moment — I’m actually looking at the page — on the CHMC housing market information portal. That’s where these stats are. You put in the city of Vancouver or whatever community you want and — boom — up come the rental apartment vacancy rates by structure, and 0.3 percent is the current vacancy rate. That’s on the secondary market.

[5:25 p.m.]

Again, you can talk about 11,000 units that suddenly appeared. They’re all occupied. They’re all baked into a 0.3 percent vacancy rate in the secondary market and a 1.1 percent vacancy rate that’s baked into the purpose-built rental market. The market is tight, and it’s no wonder that the cost of rent continues to escalate.

So the CHMC housing market information portal — have your staff check that out to verify the numbers that I’ve thrown out there today.

I want to move quickly to the rental-only zoning. I recognize this is a tool that wasn’t in place anywhere else — the minister was proud to be blazing a trail on this — and we wouldn’t have known how it would work until it was in place, so fair enough. But what we have seen in the limited cases where it’s actually being implemented by a local government is that it’s been implemented to downzone. That was not the intended use for this.

We do know that the city of New Westminster used this tool contrary to, I think, the spirit of the legislation. FOI documents appear to show that the city of New Westminster intended, again, to use this for downzoning purposes, yet there hasn’t been any noticeable activity on the part of the government to rectify this situation insofar as making whatever changes can be made to the legislation so that it can’t be used as a downzoning tool.

The first question is: has the minister or the ministry taken a look at the rental-only zoning legislation, understanding now the issues that have come into play in its application in some local communities where it’s being used for the exact opposite intention than was in the original legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a new tool, as the member pointed out. It’s enabling legislation which allows local governments to use this as a tool to make the best determination about how to use the tool. It matches, in part, the housing needs report requirement that we brought forward into legislation so that they can identify how to best respond to the land use planning that they’re responsible for.

I mean, it is new, so ministry staff are continuing to respond to questions from local governments and monitor how they are using it. To date, there are several municipalities that have adopted this, including Victoria, Burnaby, Ladysmith, Kelowna and Squamish. We’re going to keep monitoring how this gets used, because it’s a real opportunity to help address the problems and the challenges that the member was just asking about — making sure that we have purpose-built rental.

[5:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: I mentioned in my last question FOI documents that appear to show the city of New Westminster with intent to use this rental-only zoning tool to downzone. The FOI documents that came back to us indicated that the minister actually met with the city of New Westminster mayor on June 7, 2019. The discussion pertained to renovictions and mentioned the rental-only zoning tool. There were suggestions that the city was using it as a renoviction tool.

I’m just wondering if the minister could comment for us. What exactly was the message that the minister was conveying to the city of New Westminster in terms of the intended use of this tool in contrast to how it appears that the city of New Westminster was actually trying to use the tool?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this is enabling legislation for local governments to make the best decisions that they determine are in the best interests of their communities. It’s not appropriate for me to comment on a local government matter that I understand is currently before the courts.

T. Stone: Will the minister, then, comment on the rental-only zoning tool, which she refers to as enabling legislation? Will she comment on whether or not the use of that tool for downzoning purposes, the use of that tool to essentially result in downzoning, was not the intended use of the tool and shouldn’t happen? Can the minister, at that high-level policy place, agree that that tool was never intended for downzoning and that it shouldn’t be used for downzoning?

Hon. S. Robinson: This tool is another part of our 30-point plan to help local governments preserve and increase the overall supply of rental homes in their communities for the long term and to help increase housing choice and affordability. That was the intent of our legislation — to help make sure that we had and to stimulate more rental supply.

[5:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: Chair, after I ask this question and the minister responds, my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will have her hand up to ask a few questions. Just a heads-up for you.

To the minister, then, if the intent of this enabling legislation is to, as she said it, “increase rental supply in communities” and, as part of that, to drive affordability in communities, then surely she agrees with the assertion that this tool should not be used for downzoning purposes. Does she agree with that assertion, yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s right before the courts as we speak, and I can’t provide comment.

T. Stone: Okay. I was going to go to my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, but I will ask one follow-up question.

I’m not asking for the minister to comment on a case before the courts. What I’m asking the minister to do is to make a comment on what she believes the intended use of a tool is. She has answered that part of the question. This tool is intended to increase rental supply in communities.

However, the second part of what I’m looking for here, the second part of the question, is not about a court case. It is about whether or not she believes that a local government should use this tool for downzoning purposes. Downzoning will not result in additional rental supply in the communities, which she says is the stated intent.

Again, does the minister agree with the assertion that this tool should not be used for downzoning purposes, yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the intent is to increase rental housing supply. The very essence of what the member is asking is before the courts, and I’d leave it up to the courts to make that decision.

J. Isaacs: Good afternoon to everyone, and good afternoon to the minister. What I’d like to canvass today is the opening of the Brunette Avenue expansion shelter.

I know that B.C. Housing has secured a hotel in Coquitlam for 28 spaces. That will be used as shelter spaces for homeless people who are over the age of 19, people that are living in and from the Tri-Cities without a home or people in the Tri-Cities who are at risk of homelessness. I understand that the shelter’s also open to people with no fixed address who may have been released from hospitals within the Tri-Cities.

We’ve seen some experiences where the residents have been moved from Oppenheimer Park to the hotels in Yaletown. The residents and the businesses are dealing with a lot of aggressive behaviour, needles, street disorder. People don’t feel safe stepping out of their homes or walking in their neighbourhoods. According to the business improvement association and reported by News 1130, crime is up 400 percent. We’ve seen similar incidents and reports in Victoria and Kelowna.

I’m just wondering if the minister can advise what impacts she’s identified for Coquitlam, what her strategy might be to deal with any of those negative impacts that may arise that we have seen in other cities, and what assurance can she provide to Coquitlam and the residents and the surrounding businesses that their experience would be different?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the member. She talks about — crime is up 400 percent. That’s actually inaccurate. It might be calls to police that might be up, and we’ve certainly seen this in other places. But that does not mean crime. It just means that people are making phone calls to say that they have some concern. They get investigated, and most often it is not a crime. It’s just a concern.

I think it’s really important to make that distinction, because I think that that contributes to fearmongering, and that’s not good for the people who are pretty vulnerable, who live on the streets or who find themselves in situations where they don’t have a home. So I think it’s really important to make that distinction.

I also want to point out…. And I’m very proud of the fact that this is coming to my constituency. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, when he kept referring to Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, was actually referring to…. He kept saying Coquitlam-Maillardville. This is a program that is coming right into my backyard, and I’m really proud of the fact that it’s going to be there and make a difference in people’s lives.

Phoenix is a well-established and expert operator, and they are the on-site operator to support these 28 individuals. Of course, there are supports to help people adjust to living indoors, making sure that they’re getting the supports, making sure that they’re getting meals, making sure that they’re seeing physicians and they’re getting their health care taken care of, access to mental health and substance use supports. Phoenix is a well-known substance use recovery provider, so they really do know what they’re doing. I’m very proud of the fact…. I had a meeting with Keir Macdonald, the CEO, and he was certainly filling me in on all of their activities and how they’re going to be supporting people.

[5:45 p.m.]

If the member has any specific questions, I would certainly facilitate setting up a meeting with Keir. But I want to assure my constituents that they’re a very good operator and will continue to support these people.

I think it’s also important to speak to the impact that these investments have in people’s lives. There was a physician recently, Dr. Anne Nguyen, who works with the Cool Aid Community Health services’ Mobile Inner-City Outreach team here in Victoria, who talked about the work that they’re doing in Victoria. Because, of course, the encampment that the member refers to at Oppenheimer…. There was certainly another encampment here in Victoria that we addressed simultaneously.

She has spoken about the impact that these services are having in people’s lives. I think it’s really important to speak to that and to comment on it. One of the things that she has said is that there is an adjustment period of time to facilitate new routines in people’s lives. Remember, these are people who didn’t have structure before, and now there is a bit more structure. There is a bit of an adjustment period, but they do settle in.

She’s saying — this is what she said — that currently the buildings are up and running, and they’re well-staffed and they’re well-run. She’s hearing that people are glad to be indoors. They’re glad. She’s hearing a lot about people who are interested in getting better. They’re saying that now that they are inside, they can turn their attention to getting better. That’s what this is about.

I know that the member wants people to get better and wants people to have the supports, because if they don’t have them, then they’re still in our communities, except they’re in our ravines and they’re in our parks, and then that’s not good for anybody. Having them housed in our communities, having them housed with supports, is really the way forward.

The last thing I just want to say about this doctor who was on the radio recently…. She was honoured by the Doctors of B.C. on National Physicians Day. She’s really well respected. This is what she had to say. She said that what she’s hearing from folks who are now indoors is that they’re turning towards health, because they have their basic need of housing met. Then she goes on to say: “So I think that what we’re hearing is that housing works, housing first works, and that we need more of it.”

I’m very proud of the fact that we were able to deliver more for people who are from the Tri-Cities so that their needs can be met so that they can become healthy and they can find another path forward.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister for the full answer there.

I understand that Phoenix, who’s the contractor and the operator of the hotel, has that contract up until September 30. Of course, in October, then we’re kind of heading into the winter months.

Is there a plan to move residents on October 1 with the hope that there are some other housing options that become available by then, or is there a plan to renew the lease on October 1? Are there any other hotels in the Tri-Cities that are under consideration?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s question, we are always looking for opportunities to keep people housed. Our desire is to keep people housed as long as we absolutely can, so looking for lease extensions is always on the radar. This is something that we’re looking at right across the province.

We also want to build permanent housing. I invite the member, who shares in my community, working with local governments, to identify opportunities to build the kind of permanent housing that these folks need so that we can all make sure that their needs are met and the community is better. That work continues, again, right across the province, as well as in the Tri-Cities. Any time the member wants an update on where we’re at in the Tri-Cities, I’d be happy to give her one.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister for the offer. I will probably take you up on that offer. I think we do share many of the same types of concerns, and I’d be very interested in what work is being proposed and what work is being done.

We saw, in the dismantlement of Oppenheimer, that almost 90 percent — actually, over 90 percent — of the residents had addiction or substance abuse problems and even a higher number with mental health challenges. Is the minister seeing a similar trend here in Coquitlam? What is the percentage of the people that are housed in Coquitlam that may have addiction issues or may also have mental health issues?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member refers to Oppenheimer, which was a significant camp that was situated in the Downtown Eastside that had grown over a number of months and years. This is a very different kind of situation, so I think it’s really important to understand the distinction.

In Coquitlam, what we are seeing is not a camp like we saw in the Downtown Eastside. What we are seeing is that there are individuals that are in our community — whether they’re in some parks or they’re in ravines or they’re down by the Coquitlam River — that are needing housing. So it’s a different comparator.

[5:55 p.m.]

What we do — and this is right across the province — is…. When we identify someone who is needing a home and is interested in having a roof over their head and supports in place to successfully house them, they go through an assessment process. We take a look at what their primary health needs are, what their mental health needs are and what their addiction challenges are so that we can put the proper supports in place. We do that as we identify people who need supports.

In the Oppenheimer situation, as well as Pandora, we knew exactly who needed supports. Assessments were done, I’ll say wholesale, so we understood exactly what the needs were before we moved people in. So we were able to put supports in place for those folks, knowing exactly what the needs were.

In this situation in Coquitlam, it’s about identifying people. As they are identified, we will assess them and then determine their needs. I can’t give her specific percentages that she’s asked for, but I will say…. I think we need to remember that these people are the most marginalized. They’re the most challenged, in many ways.

We do know that there are higher needs about primary care. They’re physically not well. They probably haven’t been eating well. Their hygiene has been compromised because they’re homeless — and their ability to take care of their mental health. When you have to find a place to sleep every night, when you feel like you’re not worthy and the public treats you as not worthy, I’m sure she can imagine how that would, in turn, feed and fuel mental health challenges. We do see higher rates of mental health challenges as well as addictions.

I want to assure the member that we also work very closely with Fraser Health as well as the housing provider to make sure that the supports are in place. B.C. Housing has excellent relationships with the health providers to make sure that the supports are there for people when they need them.

J. Isaacs: I understand that Fraser Health is doing the assessments. That’s part of the intake process, so I would imagine that they would, in doing those assessments, be able to provide a percentage of how many people have addiction issues, what those substance abuse issues may be, as well as those who have mental health problems, as well as those who may have brain injuries. I’m sure that is all part of the assessment. But we’ll leave that for now.

Just a question on the safe injection sites. Is there a safe injection site at this hotel? If so, were residents advised that a safe injection site was going to be at this location? If the lease expires and the lease is terminated, are there any plans for the injection site to remain open after the lease expires?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no safe injection site at this location.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

When I was talking to the estimates with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, we talked a little about 24-7 support and what that means. We hear an awful lot about the term “wraparound services,” but when you actually boil it right down, it really isn’t 24-7 care, as is implied. It basically means that there are some security staff there overnight and that meals are provided. So it’s not the 24-7 that people think it is.

I know that there’s a nurse practitioner that’s on site once or twice a week. There’s a counsellor. There are outreach workers, a physician and so on. When you meet with these health care professionals, you get a referral to access addictions specialists or mental health supports, but you don’t actually get the support on site, and it really isn’t available 24-7.

I just want to make the point that people are getting access to the service, but they’re not getting service on site. I think that there’s a distinction there. The new term that has come up is “rapid response,” and I’m wondering what exactly rapid response is. How does it differ from what is being delivered right now? Will it improve services that can provide quicker access to services and supports that are already in place?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to reiterate what 24-7 means. Not only is it the daily meals that she identified, as well as security, as she refers to it, in terms of monitoring. I’ll call it monitoring, rather than security. I don’t want her thinking, or anyone thinking, that it’s just about having a security guard. This is about monitoring. How are people’s health? Are they engaging with other people? Are they safe? Making sure who’s going in and out of the building is part of that. That’s certainly available 24-7.

Again, there’s helping people learn how to clean. People forget. If you don’t have a home, you forget how to clean. Do people need skills training? Do they need help with some of their social skills? That is what’s happening. That’s what is available 24-7.

I have to say that Phoenix, as a provider, is very skilled. All of their staff are very skilled and provide the supports, and I will say 24-7. If someone wakes up in the middle of the night and they’re feeling distressed, there is someone on site who will sit down and have a cup of tea, listen and remind people about their worth and about their capacity for loving, for living and for doing the things that they need to do. To me, that is support, and that is what it means to be in supportive housing.

What the member is referring to, I would say, are more clinicians. That’s available, certainly, as a sort of outreach, right? There are not clinicians on site. That’s a different level of service. But there are absolutely support services 24-7, and clinical services are available as well.

I was just checking on the status of this particular project where we’re housing people. The member would be very pleased to know that already — it just opened, I think, last month — two individuals have made the decision to go into Phoenix recovery in Surrey. That’s a good thing. It’s because we’ve invested here in Coquitlam-Maillardville. The people in the Tri-Cities have a safe place to go, I’ll say, to get their wits around them, have a place where they can shower, where they can eat meals, where they can think clearly and not worry day to day about dragging your stuff around in a shopping cart and trying to keep yourself safe.

They’ve had a place to rest their head, a place to have a shower, a place to get well. And now we’ve already had two people make the decision that it was time to change and turn away from a life of abusing drugs into something healthier. I think that’s something we can all be very proud about.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Of course, it’s great to have someone to talk with — and support, when you need it, through the night — and have a cup of tea. But the term “24-7 wraparound service” really implies that that clinical support is there. I think there’s some confusion, certainly in the public’s mind, of just what kind of support is there.

I do want to take the minister back to a time when the proposed shelter and transition housing project on Gordon Avenue was taking place. The minister was then a Coquitlam city councillor and — at the time, as a councillor — was quite adamant about the process and the necessity for public consultation with both residents and businesses. She called for full transparency from the government, and she’ll recall a very lengthy public consultation meeting because people were worried about how a shelter and transition house would impact their neighbourhood.

We’ve heard the minister state, many times, the importance of consultation and how important it is for her and her government to be collaborative, to be partners when decisions are being made. Can the minister advise what consultation took place prior to the opening of the Coquitlam hotel, and who was involved in the discussions? What did the process of engagement or consultation look like? Did it include residents and businesses in the area? Were the stakeholders part of that conversation and involved in the decision-making process prior to the hotel opening on June 22?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I do want to go back and talk about the 24-7 misunderstanding that it would appear the member continues to have. So 24-7 supportive housing is about support. It’s not institutional care. That’s a completely different thing. If you were looking for having nurses and doctors around the clock, then we call that a psychiatric ward, typically. It’s a very different framework.

Supportive housing is about making sure that people have the supports that they need. There are other places where that happens, whether it’s a recovery house framework…. Again, it’s about having support there 24-7. But clinicians come in and out to provide additional clinical services. So it’s in that framework, and I think it’s important to make that distinction.

The question that the member asked was around community consultation around this particular site. I want to remind the member that this was a part of the COVID response. We’ve secured over 2,600 spaces and 80 sites to temporarily house and provide services and supports for people experiencing homelessness, who are unable to self-isolate at home. This has been part of the COVID response. In this instance, because it’s an emergency, because it’s a crisis, we had to move quickly.

Making sure that we were engaging in other sorts of consultations…. We’re always available to meet with people and make sure that their concerns are being addressed. But in this particular case, because it’s a crisis…. Of course, the member well knows that we can’t gather because of the COVID crisis, so it certainly would be challenging.

With 3030 Gordon, that’s a completely different model. It’s a permanent site for housing people who are formerly homeless. In that instance, it’s absolutely appropriate to do community consultations and to do the work necessary when you’re dealing with a permanent site. So in comparing a temporary site to a permanent site, there are different protocols.

J. Isaacs: Having said that, Minister, about the consultation process and that it is a different element, if you like, different circumstances, the Yaletown residents would argue that they didn’t have any consultation. In fact, they’re still looking for some consultation, some engagement. We’ve seen the negative impact without that consultation and without those wraparound services that you’re speaking about.

In that case, would it not have been appropriate to talk to the residents and the business owners in Yaletown?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First, I want to just point out…. I have a response for the member’s question that she just asked. But I want to go back to an earlier response that I made around the 24-7 supports. I think it’s important to recognize mental health workers that work 24-7 in these supportive housing projects.

[6:20 p.m.]

I managed to track down a job posting for one of them. I think that it’s important to get on the record and I want to make sure that the member understands that these are well-trained professionals who work with these people 24-7. I have identified….

In this job posting, the expectation is that they have two years of post-secondary education in mental health and addictions and a minimum of two years in a similar setting with a mental health and addictions–related agency. They have extensive working knowledge of psychosocial rehab approaches and services, including individual service plan development and implementation of life skills training, a solid background and knowledge of concurrent disorders with related work experience, two years of experience working with people with mental illness or those at risk of homelessness and a demonstrated commitment to promoting empowerment and individual group advocacy.

As well, they also need to be able to…. Just from the job description, I think it’s important to understand that they can provide medication support. They can provide meal programs or support. They’re able to identify available social, economic, recreational and educational services and resources in the community, and they facilitate clients’ physical, recreational, educational and employment needs.

That’s quite a sophisticated support system, and those are the people that are around 24-7. That’s, I think, a lot of benefit that people can have. Certainly, it’s a contrast to how they’re living, perhaps, by Coquitlam River in our community. They’re not getting any of that. In our case, they’re getting people who are well trained, well educated, to make sure that they have the supports that they need.

Now, in terms of the more recent question that the member had asked, I think it’s important to recognize that as COVID has manifested, we have been working quickly to get people the housing that they need to keep themselves safe but to keep all of us safe, because I think it would be terrible to have COVID moving through unhoused populations. So it’s really important that we move quickly to get people housed.

There have been consultations that have gone on for some time with the BIA in Yaletown. There has been lots of communication with them, as well as the city of Vancouver, the VPD, the non-profit providers, Coastal Health. All of that work has been going on for some time.

Of course, homelessness continues to be an issue in neighbourhoods, certainly, across Vancouver and around the province. I mean, we only got our first homeless count…. I think in 2018 was the very first time that anyone in the province undertook a proper homeless count so that we could understand the scope of the problem. It is significant, and it’s because it’s been years of neglect, and while there were some efforts made in the preceding years, it certainly wasn’t sufficient, which is why we have so many people who don’t have a home.

The solution to homelessness…. And housing with supports is the answer. I think the evidence is very clear that that’s exactly what we need to be doing, and we need to do more of it.

There are a number of programs and initiatives to support communities while housing solutions are still being developed. We need to do more permanent housing. I think, certainly, our medical professionals I just quoted from here in Victoria have been very clear that we need to do more housing, housing first. I do appreciate that there is some increased concern with relocating people into safe housing with supports. We’re committed to working together with the community to make sure that it’s safe for everybody, for people who were formerly homeless as well as for people who have to work at sharing their neighbourhood.

I want to point out that we’ve been at this now for a couple of years. I want to remind the member that in Marpole, for example, when we were doing that particular project, there was quite a lot of concern from the community around what it was going to look like. We have had tremendous success there in that community, where people did settle down, and they are getting better. Same thing in Richmond. We certainly had expressed concerns from the neighbourhood. I understand that it’s a change and people get anxious when there’s change. But again, things settled down. The people who were formerly homeless who are now housed have integrated quite well into the communities.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Up to you if you want to take one more question, or we can note the hour and come back tomorrow.

Hon. S. Robinson: We can take another question.

The Chair: I’ll go to Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for one final question.

[6:25 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: I’ll take one final question. I would have to say that there are literally hundreds of people, absolutely hundreds of people that disagree with you that Yaletown had….

The Chair: Sorry, Member….

J. Isaacs: Through the Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

J. Isaacs: Hundreds of people disagree that there was any kind of consultation or any kind of an engagement process prior to the people moving from Oppenheimer Park to their neighbourhood. The business community would also disagree with you — through the Chair, to the minister.

I don’t for one second believe that a proper process was put in place. I understand the urgency and the emergency that was happening, but to this day, as of yesterday, these people have still not been properly consulted or engaged with.

I would like the minister to respond to my question, which was whether or not consultation had taken place in Coquitlam prior to the Coquitlam hotel opening. Who was involved in those discussions? What was the process of engagement? What did that consulting process look like? Did it include residents and businesses? And were all of the stakeholders a part of that decision?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member that this is in the context of a COVID crisis. Right across the province we moved and mobilized quickly to identify spaces. The Coquitlam situation is part of that emergency response. So we did what we needed to do in order to keep people safe. We’ve identified 3,000 units right across the province. I think that British Columbians are grateful for the fact that we moved as quickly as we did.

In terms of the Yaletown example, we’ve had conversations, absolutely, with the BIA over this last number of weeks, with the city of Vancouver, with the VPD, with non-profit providers. And we’ve set up a community dialogue group to bring together experienced non-profit housing providers, service providers, business and community representatives to communicate how the hotels are operating, how they will be managed, and receive feedback from the community. At least one-third of the dialogue group will be made up of community and business representation so that there is a space for those folks to share their concerns, to make sure that it is operating in a way that is safe for everyone.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Now, noting the hour, I would like to suggest….

Hon. S. Robinson: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Have a wonderful evening, and we’ll see you again tomorrow.

This committee is now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 6:28 p.m.