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: Good morning, everyone.

[9:35 a.m.]

I want to acknowledge that I am participating today from the homeland of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, today 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.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

T. Stone: Good morning to everyone. The sun is shining here in Kamloops. Hopefully, it is wherever you happen to be today.

We’ll continue with some housing questions this morning. I want to ask a few questions related to the recent acquisitions of hotels, either through purchasing or leasing. We know that the government has acquired hotels in Vancouver and Victoria and other parts of the province.

I guess my first question to the minister would be this one: what is the plan for hotels once they’re no longer used as temporary shelters? Furthermore, as part of that plan, are there budgeted costs that the minister can share with us that would be associated with remediating those hotels?

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked a question about the purchase, recently, of a number of hotels. First of all, I think it’s important to refer to the context of, certainly, a COVID response. We’ve been leasing a number of hotels and motels as well as community spaces around the province as a result of COVID.

I want to just do a thank-you to local governments, non-profits and partners that worked with us to make sure that we could keep people who were living in shelters safe and make sure that we didn’t have the same kind of challenges that other jurisdictions had, particularly in Ontario, where lots of vulnerable populations were getting quite ill. So I’m grateful that we were able to do that.

In this particular instance, these opportunities presented themselves. There have been numerous opportunities over the last number of years to make these significant purchases with the long-term view of redeveloping those properties.

These are real opportunities to deliver on our 30-point plan, and that’s what these purchases were about: in the interim, to use them as temporary homes for people who are vulnerable within this current context, with a long-term vision of redevelopment. Of course, as part of that, we’ll be working with the community and local governments in identifying how to best make use of these investments.

T. Stone: Again, to the minister: what are the budgeted costs for remediating these hotels? I’ll ask a few…. Actually, I have questions that she can maybe bundle together. But what are the costs? There must be a budget for the remediation.

Two: will the staff in these hotels be kept on, or will B.C. Housing be parting ways with them? Three…. Well, actually, I’d appreciate just a quick answer on those two. Those are kind of budget-related items. Thank you.

[9:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In terms of remediating costs, I just want to make sure I understand the question. These are usable spaces as we purchase them, so we don’t need to remediate in order to use them. So I just want to make sure I understand what the member is referring to when he says remediation costs.

In terms of staffing in hotels, a lot of these hotels are closed and don’t have staff available. But wherever there were staff available to work, they were always invited to continue. In fact, in the Comfort Inn, nine or ten staff did stay on. Then layered in…. The professional staff that provide supports to vulnerable people were added as part of the staffing complement.

T. Stone: Just for clarity for the minister, I was looking for budgeted remediation costs once the hotels are no longer required to be used for the purpose for which they were acquired or leased in the first place. But I’ll throw out the next question in here too.

There are five hotels in Vancouver and Victoria: the Howard Johnson, the Buchan Hotel, the American Hotel, Paul’s Motor Inn and the Comfort Inn, the latter two being in Victoria. The total purchase price for those five hotels in question, by my records, is $125.8 million. I would like the minister to please confirm that I’ve got that number right.

I also understand that the combined assessed value of those five hotels is $84.2 million. So it would appear that the province has paid 50 percent above the assessed value for these five hotels. When you then divide that total purchase price by the number of rooms, the number of beds that are available in those five hotels combined, it works out to about $343,000 per room.

Can the minister confirm that those numbers are correct? In the context of paying 50 percent over assessed value, does the minister have any concerns about paying so much over the assessed value of these five hotels? Is that the approach that the province will be taking, moving forward, with respect to the potential acquisition of additional hotels?

[9:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The $125 million is correct. I want to remind the member that assessed values and market values for commercial don’t always line up. They’re very, very different. Of course, the assessed value is just a bookmark, a point in time, but market value is a very, very different concept and operates differently.

What we do in order to do our due diligence is we get a third-party appraiser. That’s exactly what we did in this case, as we do in all cases. We paid either at or below the independent appraisal value for these properties to ensure that we get good value.

The other thing that I think is important to acknowledge, as part of this overall package, is that these are long-term redevelopment opportunities. So while the member might be doing a calculation on current number of rooms and doing this division exercise, it’s not an accurate assessment of what the potential is. That’s what we’re doing here. We’re investing in properties that have redevelopment potential to build the kind of permanent housing that people need. We’ll be working with these communities to deliver that.

The other thing is that on two of these properties we also purchased parking lots, recognizing that those are redevelopment potentials as well. We will get, actually, a significant number of homes for people to live for the long term. These are 50-year, 60-year investments that we’re making for the people of British Columbia.

T. Stone: I just wanted to point out to the minister, again, that I didn’t hear an answer with respect to the remediation costs.

There have been commitments made to hotel operators that all the hotels will be remediated to their original condition, so for any damage that’s done, any work that would need to be done to bring that hotel back to the state it was in prior is done. We do know that there have been reports of thefts and damage done at a number of these sites. So looking for what the budgeted amount is for that remediation work.

Related to that, will those costs be all absorbed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, or will other ministries be sharing in those costs? If the minister could provide those details, I would sure appreciate it.

[9:55 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for asking the question. Again, I neglected to get the information that he was asking.

As part of all standard leases, when we use hotels or motels for emergency purposes, as part of the lease, we make the commitment to repair the damage, if there is damage, and bring it back to its condition in which we rented it. At this point, it’s really hard to assess specifically, because it’s an active file with a number of hotels that we’re using. There are 3,000 spaces — hotels, motels and community centres.

At this point, I don’t have a specific number for the member. But no other ministries. This will just sit with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and specifically, B.C. Housing will be responsible for repairing those hotel and motel rooms.

T. Stone: Just to confirm, the minister is saying that the ministry doesn’t have a budgeted or projected amount for remediation costs? I mean, we went through this yesterday morning, with all due respect, for an hour and 45 minutes before we finally got to some numbers insofar as the COVID-related impacts on recoveries internal and external to the ministry.

Again, I don’t think anyone would believe that there is no budgeted amount, no sense of a projection as to what remediation costs. You’ve barely purchased half a dozen hotels at this point. So we’re not talking about dozens and dozens of hotels.

[10:00 a.m.]

Again, I’d ask the minister to please provide a number. What is that projected cost for the remediation of these hotels to bring them back to their original condition?

I totally recognize it would be notional at this point. It’s a projection. It will evolve and change, especially as the province may acquire additional hotels, but again, surely there must be a budgeted number. Could the minister please share that with us?

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I apologize if it takes some time. Because of COVID, I have staff in many different places, and it means calling different staff and thinking that someone who I think might have the answer doesn’t have the answer and they need to call someone else. Under normal circumstances, we’d have everybody in one space. But we’re doing our best to keep distance here.

I want to make sure that it’s clear that this isn’t…. For hotels that we’ve purchased, we don’t have a remediation budget because we own them. So for these hotels, we have a line item of $4.8 million as an allocation. Again, it’s a notional allocation. We have never been in a situation here where we’ve had to do what we’re doing. So that might be subject to change, given what we learn and how things play out and how long the pandemic lasts.

T. Stone: I thank the minister for her last response. We also know that with some of these hotels — not all, but in some situations — when the hotels are purchased, there are businesses that exist in those hotels. A couple of quick questions on that.

Can the minister confirm that the province, B.C. Housing and she was aware of businesses that have leases inside of the hotels that have been purchased? What is the ministry’s approach or policy or protocol, in terms of dealing with organizations that might have leases in these buildings when they’re acquired? Obviously, the lessees would not have a say in the sale of the building and so forth. But the purchase by the province for the purposes of providing the housing in question may have some impacts on those that are leasing space in these buildings.

I’m just wondering if the minister could provide some detail on what the government’s approach is, what her approach is, to working with those tenants that have leases inside of these buildings when they’re acquired for the purposes of social housing.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes. We are aware of the businesses that are in the hotels that we purchase, and we approach them on a case-by-case basis. We respect the existing leases. As tenants, they get to make choices about what makes the most sense for them, given the new relationship.

T. Stone: I appreciate that last response. I’m wondering, again, back to the assessed value versus the market value…. And I do very much understand the difference. I’m just wondering if the minister could answer this question.

[10:10 a.m.]

Why not try to purchase these assets closer to that assessed value? Fifty percent above assessed price is a huge increase in costs to the taxpayer, so why not make best efforts to purchase closer to that lower assessed value?

How many more hotels does the minister anticipate the province purchasing over the coming months and years? Does she have a budget allocation, a notional allocation, for the acquisition of additional hotels? If she does, how much is it?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to remind the member…. You know what? We’re really good negotiators. Our team at B.C. Housing are really good negotiators. Landowners want market value. So the negotiation goes back and forth. I’m sure the member well knows how that works.

The third-party appraisal is the key component here. That helps to inform the negotiations. In each of these cases, these purchases were made at or below the third-party appraisal.

The other question had to do with future plans. We certainly have our 30-point plan, and as part of that $6 billion capital commitment, there are opportunities. We’re always looking for opportunities. I think, as good stewards, it’s important that we look for availability of land that we can identify that can be redeveloped to deliver on the housing that people need.

I want to take the opportunity to let the member know that the federal government very much has expressed interest nationally in looking at how to make these kinds of purchases, and we’ve been in very good discussions with the federal minister and looking to identify other opportunities to have partnerships to deliver on this kind of housing in this way.

T. Stone: I want to just ask a few questions about public engagement and consultation with neighbourhoods. Again, I think that all of us in the Legislature, on all sides, understand the critical importance of the broad range of housing that is provided to folks who have a broad range of needs and challenges.

[10:15 a.m.]

It’s also important to make sure that neighbourhoods are consulted and engaged and that there’s a respect for the input of folks in neighbourhoods and that there’s a response to or an acknowledgment of challenges and issues that may arise and a response to those issues and challenges.

The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain asked a number of questions yesterday about the hotels that have been purchased in Yaletown and the issues that have arisen there. Our understanding is that B.C. Housing representatives were invited on three separate occasions to attend a town hall with concerned Yaletown residents and did not attend.

I’m just wondering if the minister could explain why that would be the case. I guess, more importantly, moving forward, will the minister commit to presenting a public plan for the future of social housing hotels in the Yaletown area and then utilize that approach for public engagement in other parts of the province where similar situations of very negative challenges are occurring? Could the minister please respond to that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think, again, in this context, we need to remember this is a pandemic. We have been diligently working in communities to identify emergency spaces.

Again, I think there’s tremendous pride that we can take, as British Columbians, in the fact that not only have we flattened the curve. Certainly, we have been able to respond to ensure that those who are most marginalized, who don’t have a place to separate themselves out from the public sphere, have had the opportunity to be safe.

This is a health and safety issue. Unlike Ontario, where they’ve had a significant outbreak of COVID among the homeless population and vulnerable people that was absolutely ravaging in that population…. We have been able to avoid that because of our swift action. So, in the context of COVID, we did move people directly into spaces so that they could be safe.

Having said that, we have been in dialogue with the community through numerous channels around what’s going to be happening and how things are going to be operating. And now that we have made these purchases, just like we do with anything else, we are engaging in the community dialogue process. We’ve formed a community dialogue group. That’s just been formed. It is made up of people in the community.

[10:20 a.m.]

In relation to the gatherings that the member was saying, my understanding is that those were MLA-led town halls. Just as practice and protocol, B.C. Housing doesn’t participate in political forums like that one, but they do host community engagement dialogues.

We did that with every single project. We’ve done that in Kamloops. We’ve done that in Kelowna. We’ve done that in Richmond. In Richmond, I think there were 11 or 12 different dialogue opportunities. We did it in Marpole. They do it in every single place where we’re delivering housing for people. That is part of the process. There is an existing process that’s worked quite well.

Again, we’ve had a significant response as a result of COVID. We needed to get people housed, so we took swift action. Now we’re continuing to move forward because we know that this is going to be a more permanent situation in terms of permanent housing for the long term.

T. Stone: Well, I’m certain that the residents of Yaletown, the hundreds of people that attended the town halls that I mentioned, will be disappointed to hear the minister say that B.C. Housing wasn’t there because they were “partisan events.” They were not partisan events. They were events that MLAs of all parties hold that are non-partisan in nature.

There are many, many issues where we check our partisan politics at the door — I know the member knows what I’m talking about — where it’s important to recognize we’re there to support and serve every one of our constituents. So I find it disappointing that there was an opportunity on three occasions for hundreds of residents in the impacted neighbourhoods in Yaletown to engage with B.C. Housing, and the opportunity was not embraced.

Similarly, back over to the Island, in Victoria, three of the hotels requisitioned…. There are a number of hotels requisitioned by B.C. Housing that are located in the Burnside Gorge neighbourhood of Victoria, specifically the Howard Johnson and the Travelodge, and then the province has purchased the Comfort Inn.

In response to significant neighbourhood concern, community concern, in 2018, B.C. Housing signed a memorandum of understanding committing to no additional supportive housing projects and shelters in the Burnside Gorge area. However, all three of the properties I just listed are leased or purchased in the Burnside Gorge area.

The question would be this: how can neighbourhoods, the people who live in these neighbourhoods, community associations, community advisory councils, and so forth, trust the minister that B.C. Housing will uphold its commitments when it signs MOUs and then overrides those in the months and years beyond?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I was getting some more detail. It was a little slow coming in. We’re on different tools and phones and stuff. So I appreciate your patience with this process.

I think it’s fair to say that with the MOU, we have been in ongoing conversation with the Burnside Community Association. We’ve met with them, reiterating our commitment to the MOU.

Again, I want to remind the member that the current use of these spaces is as part of an emergency response. The community understands that, and the community is looking forward to working together with us for the long-term permanent use of these sites. That’s an exciting opportunity for this community — to have affordable housing available to people in the region.

T. Stone: Well, I would encourage the minister to actually go and meet with neighbours who live in this community. That’s not how they see the situation. I know that there are a tremendous number of people that live there who absolutely have big hearts, who absolutely understand the critical importance of a wide range of housing products to be made available for those who really need those supports and services. But what’s lacking here is the upfront engagement and consultation with the community.

The minister keeps talking about the pandemic we’re in. We all know we’re in a pandemic. One of the hallmarks, I think, of how we’ve all managed to work our way through this pandemic has been exceptional communication on the part of Dr. Bonnie Henry and the public health community. That communication is the piece that is so critically important to bringing everybody along with you, especially when you’re in the middle of a crisis like a pandemic.

That’s the piece that is missing when it comes to the neighbourhoods within which a number of these supportive housing projects are being located and where the decisions are being made. They’re being put in, and then, after the fact, there may be some discussion and engagement efforts made, by which time it’s too late.

These communities are also feeling that their concerns — the issues of crime, property crime in particular — and the worries around public safety and their own health and so forth…. There are some very significant concerns that aren’t being addressed. Again — communication, communication, communication. It’s why the forums in Yaletown were so important, to get hundreds of people together so they could ask questions.

By the way, I want to note for the record that those Yaletown public hearings, the public townhalls that the minister claims to have been partisan…. The city of Vancouver sent representatives, and so did the city of Vancouver police department, neither of whom thought that those meetings were partisan at all. So I would strongly hope that the minister will focus on engagement and consultation with these communities more up front.

This brings me to my next question that’s specific to Kelowna. The mayor there, Mayor Colin Basran, has indicated that the province used paramountcy to skip public consultation on a rezoning application for a supportive housing project in the downtown core, specifically a project on Ellis Street.

A two-part question. Can the minister confirm that, indeed, that was the case — that the province used paramountcy to skip public consultation on the rezoning application for this particular project? Secondly, what is the province’s criteria for exercising paramountcy in order to skip or override local development processes?

[10:30 a.m. - 10:35 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to get on the record that when we’re making a permanent investment and delivering a permanent housing, we always consult with the community. We always engage with the community. Especially when we’re moving quickly in a crisis, we act as quickly as we can, but we still do our best to communicate as efficiently as we can with the community.

In fact, we got a note from a resident of the community that the member was mentioning, Burnside Gorge. This is what they said:

“Thank you for your thoughtful letter to the neighbourhood regarding your purchase of the property and existing hotel facility. As a resident of the Hudson building, the street community have been my neighbours since I moved into the building last year. I’m so glad to hear that you’ve been able to secure a site to aid the folks who are members of that community and to provide services alongside housing for those who were previously underserved.

“I’m looking forward to news pertaining to how your plan evolves, first with an operator and, hopefully, eventually with a redevelopment plan, as I’m sure that adapting an aging hotel facility into supportive housing is unideal. Thank you for the work you and your colleagues do for the members of our community and our city.”

I think there is certainly an appreciation for our attempts as we move quickly to house people under a crisis situation. We do communicate with them. We let them know. This particular person was very grateful to have received a letter communicating what was happening in his neighbourhood and understood that we had long-term developments that we would be considering as time evolved, and that we would involve the community. And we’re committed to doing that.

As for the situation in Kelowna, I want to assure the member that we received a request from the mayor and council. They had a vote to ask the province for paramountcy. This came from the community. It came from the representatives who know their communities best and who came to us and said this is a temporary modular project. Their assessment has been that they have a significant homelessness problem after years of neglect and lack of investment. They were struggling to address the significant homelessness challenges in their community. I’m sure the member has seen the waterfront and the challenges that they were having in parks in their community.

They came to us and asked if we could bring in paramountcy to assist them. Again, this is a temporary project. So we said: “Because it’s temporary, we’ll certainly work with you to do that — to deliver in the interim while you take a look at the long-term plans for this community.”

T. Stone: Okay. I didn’t hear from the minister what the criteria are or the protocol that kicks into gear when the province decides to implement or use its tool of paramountcy, if we can call it that. Perhaps she can clarify that for me in her response.

I wanted to focus on an issue that’s quite specific to my constituency and my hometown of Kamloops. I’m speaking specifically of the West Victoria Street corridor in downtown Kamloops. At the present time, there are three very important supportive housing projects, services that are available to people.

To refresh the minister’s memory, there’s the Mustard Seed, which is at 181 West Victoria Street. This is a live-in men’s sobriety program. I believe it has about 17 beds and so forth. The second project is run by the CMHA. It’s Emerald House. This is a facility that provides very important shelter beds for homeless women and children. The third project, which is the newest of them all, is Rosethorn House.

[10:40 a.m.]

Emerald House is at 271 West Victoria. Rosethorn House is at 259 Victoria Street. Again, this is run by the Canadian Mental Health Association. It has 42 units. It opened up in January of 2020.

The issue here is that there…. Well, there are certainly community concerns that there wasn’t enough up-front engagement and so forth. But the bigger challenge is what is happening in this corridor, particularly since the Rosethorn House opened its doors last January: the very significant increase in crime, property crime, folks feeling threatened, damage that has been done to properties, businesses where employees and their customers just don’t feel safe. Their customers don’t feel safe patronizing the businesses in the same volumes anymore, and staff are, in many cases, fearing for their own lives.

I want to just ask a couple questions. One, could the minister provide for us these details…? With respect to the Rosethorn project, how many FTEs are assigned to this project? How many nurses are available at this site 24-7? What does that FTE count look like? How many staff who are mental health professionals are on site 24-7? What does that FTE complement look like for Rosethorn House?

It was pitched as a 42-unit modular project with 24-7 supports, so I’m looking for a confirmation of those details with respect to this project: total number of FTEs assigned to this project, how many nurses are available at the site 24-7, and how many staff who are mental health professionals are on site, again, 24-7?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The Rosethorn supportive housing just opened up a few months ago, pre-COVID. The CAC, the community advisory committee, has met once. It hasn’t been able to meet because of COVID. Of course, police participate in that as well as community members. The member can certainly get more information from them. It is a 24-7 staffed facility. The CAC takes a look at how to build community support and pays attention to what’s going on in the community.

I think it’s important for the member to understand that we’ve been at this now for a couple years in different communities. We’re seeing a real pattern and an understanding about how things play out. I can give him the example of Marpole. When Marpole was first being proposed and being established, there was certainly a lot of community angst. These were new neighbours that were coming to the neighbourhood. There were certainly concerns expressed, just like what we hear in other communities, because it’s change. It’s change to the community.

What we find is that when we develop a CAC, a community advisory committee, where the police can attend, the service providers are there and the community members are there, they talk about ways to do integration and bringing people together. The focus is really on how we support people on getting healthy. One of the things that we find is that after a few months of everyone settling in to new neighbours, things really do settle out.

In fact, in Marpole, they do community events together. I mean, this is pre-COVID, of course. There were community barbecues. Neighbours were coming to help out. There are schools around, and the school children were involved. They’ve really been a tremendous success in bringing communities together.

Our approach as a government is really to bring people together. How do we find ways to make space for new neighbours? How do we support our new neighbours so that they can be successful in their housing? How do we work with people who are new to the neighbourhood to respect the neighbourhood and participate in its overall well-being?

It’s really a two-way street, and we work to build collaboration and support. That is, I think, the way through to success, rather than dividing people and seeing them somehow as not worthy of living in nice neighbourhoods or not worthy of participating in communities. It’s not an approach that we think works for anybody. We find that by building a strong community advisory committee, finding ways to bring people together, it is really enriching for everybody.

The other thing. The member asked again about, sort of, who’s working there. I don’t have the specific FTEs. I hope the member will be okay with us getting that to him. If he doesn’t mind, after estimates, I can dig that up. Getting the right person here who has that detail is just going to take too long, and I know the member has other questions. I can commit to getting that to him in writing.

What I will say is that many of our non-profit housing providers hire mental health workers. I’ll read for the member a recent job description for different supportive housing. But this is an example of the skill set that does get hired as part of the 24-7 staff complement.

I want to make a distinction between clinical services and support services. Clinical services are available for clients as they need them. So whether it’s a nurse practitioner or a psychologist, those are available on an as-needed basis. But the 24-7 support workers are people who participate in case planning with clients and health care providers. They have a range of skill sets.

[10:50 a.m.]

In this particular job description that I have, they need a minimum of two years’ post-secondary education in mental health and addictions and a minimum of two years’ experience in a similar setting with a mental health and addictions–related agency.

They have to have extensive working knowledge of psychosocial rehabilitation approaches and services, including individual service plan development and implementation and life skills training. They have to have 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. They need to be able to provide medication support. They provide, of course, meal and program support; social-economic, recreational and educational services. They have to be able to facilitate client physical, recreational, educational and employment needs.

It’s quite broad-based, and there’s someone with that skillset, at least one — I believe it’s often two — to support these residents.

T. Stone: Well, the member did read the job description of the mental health professional into the record yesterday. So we got that. I do want to emphasize…. I’m being somewhat cheeky here, for sure, but Marpole is not Kamloops. I didn’t ask about Marpole. I’m asking about the West Victoria Street corridor in Kamloops.

I also don’t think that we should have to go and talk to the community advisory group to try to get answers, when they’re the very ones that are approaching us saying that they can’t get answers. They are struggling to understand where B.C. Housing is and the supports from government that are needed.

I’ve got another question or two on that. But just to the minister’s point about not having FTEs available at her fingertips today, fine. We are winding down in our time for these estimates this year. But I would like to just read into the record what I would hope the minister could commit to providing to us in written form as soon as possible after our estimates are done today.

I would appreciate having the following. How many FTEs are assigned to the project? How many nurses are available on site 24-7? How many mental health professionals are available on site 24-7? If nurses and mental health professionals are not available on site 24-7 for a project, then what are their contact hours that are specific to each project?

I would like to request that information for all of the government’s modular supportive housing programs — specifically, the facility in Maple Ridge at 22534 Royal Crescent; the facility in Maple Ridge at 11749 and 11761 Burnett Street; in Nanaimo, 2020 Labieux Road; in Nanaimo, 250 Terminal Avenue; in Kamloops, the project we just spoke about, at 259 Victoria Street; in Kamloops, at 317 Tranquille Road; in Kamloops, at 777-817 Mission Flats Road; in Terrace, at 4523 Olson; in Vancouver, the Howard Johnson, the Buchan Hotel, the American Hotel; and in Victoria, Paul’s Motor Inn and the Comfort Inn.

I’ve put that into the record. Again, I would ask that the minister provide a written response with the number of nursing and mental health FTEs that are on site 24-7, or, if not, what that complement of nursing and mental health resourcing looks like for each of those projects. Actually, one final thing on that, the budget that is provided: what’s the budget for the nursing and the mental health resources, as I’ve just asked for, for each of those sites? Is that entirely the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, or are those funds coming from other ministries in government or other agencies?

I’ll leave that piece there. I did want to just…. Back to the West Victoria corridor in Kamloops, the importance of the communication that is needed, moving forward — I cannot underscore enough.

[10:55 a.m.]

What is happening to this neighbourhood is heart-wrenching and needs to be the focus of the minister and government moving forward. I will just read a couple of comments from a couple of the small business owners that are in this corridor.

The first one is from the Spoke Bike and Ski shop. This is Carolyn Barry and Paul Barry, the co-owners. They write:

“We are writing to you to express our concern with the state of Victoria Street W and the continued deterioration in the area, due to all of the supportive housing projects that have put in to accommodate a variety of clientele. We are subject to break-ins, vandalism, theft and unlawful use of our private property daily. We, as a small business, have had to spend a lot of money just to secure our business, repair damages caused by these residents and clean up messes left by them — needles, human feces and garbage — on a daily basis.

“We have been threatened in our own business when we have denied entry or have asked these people to leave. We have arrived to an entire bin of garbage emptied all over our parking lots, camp-outs in the back of our building. We were broken into, most recently, a month ago. We had our phone lines cut in an attempted break-in, in spring of 2019. We’ve had an attempted break-in through the back of our building. We’ve had an attempted break-in through the roof of our building. Fires started in trailers beside our building. We’ve had bikes stolen while our staff were preoccupied with others.

“We need a solution to this ongoing issue. Our staff feel threatened. Our customers are being affected as well as cost in cleanup. This is the reality we’re dealing with at Victoria Street W.”

This one is from Reid Hamer-Jackson of Tru Market Truck and Auto Sales:

“I’ve had multiple vehicles stolen recently from people that came across from their property. Vandalism, fires set, needles disposed of, people camping out, people stealing power to charge their devices, being cased out by residents for future theft, building break-ins, gas siphoned, the list goes on and on.

“I have spent thousands upon thousands dollars out of pocket for these damages. I’ve had to get several different insurance companies, as they don’t want to insure my property anymore. I fear for my employees’ safety. I will not leave my female employees alone in the building without it being locked.”

The last one is from David Ramunno of Riversyde Motors. He says:

“The reason I’m writing to you today is to advise you of the situation regarding the problems we are experiencing along the corridor of West Victoria. For the last few years, we’ve noticed the crime rate explode in the area. From needles and garbage to break-ins and vandalism, our employees and our customers are both expressing concern regarding the safety of their vehicles and ability to walk from our business to the downtown core while having their services done at our shop.

“My family and I are very concerned about the value of our property, and we’re very concerned about the safety of our employees and customers.”

Those are just three of about 15 letters that I have from this corridor, and it has really reached a crescendo over the last year. I want to have that on the record so that the minister can, hopefully, be more aware of this situation, which we’re hearing is happening in communities all over the province and really requires a focused effort on the part of government to address.

There’s the front-end consultation. There’s coming into these communities and engaging with the small businesses, with the residents and bringing everybody together to address the issues that are happening that are very real and impacting people’s lives.

If the minister would like to comment on that last piece, I’d be happy for her to do so. Then I have one final question before we will be concluding our canvassing of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the concerns that are being raised by the members of the community in Kamloops. The reason I did talk about Marpole is because we had similar concerns, in the very early days, raised there — and similar ones, I believe, in Surrey.

These investments in these people and the supports…. It does take a while for people to settle down and to get, sort of, a routine established with the community and with the residents. These are early days, and I know it’s hard. I also know that we see change happen over time, and we work together with the community to do that.

[11:00 a.m.]

I will flag this with our B.C. Housing team to make sure to put a special eye to this and identify how we can best support the community.

Again, I want to point out that typically, we have opportunity to meet more regularly with our CAC, our community advisory committee. In this particular instance, COVID struck six weeks after it opened, and that’s created a real barrier for being able to work together to resolve this. But I certainly will give direction to B.C. Housing to pay particular attention to this particular project and listen to the residents to make sure that we have the things in place that need to be in place.

The other thing that I think is important to say on the record is that part of what we are seeing is that, as we’re doing these investments and people are finding their feet, finding their health, finding themselves, we have to do more. Often what happens is that if there are still others that are yet to be housed, it continues to create a sense in the community that there’s still activity happening. Here we are, we’ve invested, 40 people have moved into the neighbourhood and there are still people who aren’t housed, and as a result, there are challenges.

If anything, when I hear these stories, it makes me want to work harder to deliver more because I know that there are still so many who have yet to be housed, and we still have a lot of work to do. I hope that the members will continue to help us deliver on that.

The other thing that I think is important to note is that as we house more and more people and we’re doing follow-up…. We do follow up with everybody. We do a follow-up on every single project. If the member would like, we certainly, as this particular project unfolds and establishes, would be happy to send our follow-up evaluations to the member so that he can see the impacts this is making and the results it’s having in the community. I think that is really good to understand.

We’ve seen results in our Surrey investments and our Vancouver investments where people are healthier, where people are getting a handle on their mental health. People are going into treatment for recovery. We are seeing people who are taking medications, and they’re stabilizing. That’s a good thing. Police calls are down. Their interaction with the criminal justice system dropped significantly. The demand on the health care system dropped significantly. These are all worthwhile things.

I think it’s important, and we’ll certainly be sure to share that with the member as well. I think it is important that he have that information.

T. Stone: I will look forward to receiving that information. I thank the minister for that.

To sum up on this particular issue, I think we all understand the challenges. We all understand the need. We all understand the need for more supports. We all want to see true 24-7 care be inherently existent within these facilities so that people can get the support and the services they need and so that, most importantly, they can get better.

All we’re trying to say here, on behalf of a lot of folks in the province, is that there are communities of interest and neighbourhoods that are, and will continue to be, significantly impacted, and that requires attention too. Small businesses being constantly broken into, small businesses worrying about the safety of their employees and their customers, neighbours being terrified in their neighbourhoods — these are all very real issues and challenges that require more effort, more attention, more focus, not less. Certainly, we’ll be paying close attention to this moving forward.

I wanted to just make absolutely certain that the item that I read into the record previously, looking for the FTE counts on the modular facilities and supportive housing facilities, both for the nursing and the mental health…. I just wanted to confirm that the minister is willing to follow up with us on that and provide us with those numbers following this estimates process.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d be happy to. The member has given us a significant list, and I know that staff watching have been writing it down. We’ll get the information to the member as soon as we can.

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

With that, this will be my final question. It’s, I think, a quick one. So I will also take this opportunity to thank the hard-working men and women in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well as B.C. Housing and all the other agencies and organizations for which the minister is responsible. I do appreciate everyone’s professionalism, hard work and dedication to their jobs.

Frankly, the dialogue that we had here over the last couple of days is a very important one for a lot of people in the province. So I thank the minister as well for her time and for sharing the information that she has today.

My final question would be this. It just goes back to an item I forgot to ask, with respect to the acquisition of hotels that we talked about at some length earlier this morning. I just wanted to ask a very specific question. Did B.C. Housing price the lease revenue into their purchase of the properties that they have purchased to this point?

With that, again, thank you for everyone’s time today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I, too, want to take time, given that this is the last question, to thank the member for his questions. It’s always a pleasure. I’m glad he’s safely back in Kamloops, and I hope his family continues to be well through this COVID experience that we all seem to be sharing. I look forward to…. I know we’ll be busy in the House in the next couple of weeks, and we’ll see him there.

The answer is yes. Yes, we did.

Vote 37: ministry operations, $120,978,000 — approved.

Vote 38: housing, $505,858,000 — approved.

Vote 50: Auditor General for Local Government, $1,806,000 — approved.

[11:10 a.m.]

The Chair: The committee will now take…. I think I’ll make it a ten-minute recess, but no later than that. We’ll start another estimate for the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

The committee recessed from 11:12 a.m. to 11:23 a.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE

(continued)

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $155,323,000 (continued).

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. It was begun back in March, so we’re going to continue on.

Given the length of time that we’ve had since these estimates began, rather than restarting with opening remarks, we’ll give you 15 minutes, if you’d like, to just sort of restart the process.

If the minister would like to make some opening remarks.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: No, I’ll waive opening remarks, but I’ll introduce my team.

We have Shauna Brouwer, deputy minister, and David Curtis, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer. We have Claire Avison, ADM tourism, arts and culture; Suzanne Ferguson, executive director for tourism; Amy Schneider, executive director for creative, sports and multi; and Kim Reid, executive for arts and culture. And we have Debbie Chiu, director of financial planning and reporting, alongside me.

Looking forward to re-having the debates from March.

T. Wat: Although I cannot attend in person, it’s truly an honour to be able to come before this committee again for another year of budget estimates.

British Columbia is blessed with so many qualities, one of which being our rich cultural diversity and strong belief in equal opportunity for all, regardless of religion, ethnicity or cultural background.

Although our multiculturalism is a key part of our identity as a province, our communities are not immune to incidents of racism and racial intolerance that strive to undermine our values and our identity. Throughout this past year, events have unfolded both within and outside our province that have been a grim reminder of the many challenges our cultural minorities continue to face every day.

Globally, the Black Lives Matter movement has brought so many underlying issues into the forefront that are present even here in B.C., including racial profiling against African Canadians and other minority groups. The spike in vandalism and racially motivated attacks against Asian Canadians has shown us how these acts can have a long-lasting impact on individuals and communities.

The recent investigation into allegations of racial profiling in our health care system, particularly towards Indigenous people and communities, highlights that racism is taking place in every aspect of our society, including our public services, and is being experienced by every culture and minority group in our province. All this has reminded us just how easily racism and intolerance can take hold, how many different forms it can take and how easily it can grow.

Part of our duty as elected members is to defend and promote our identity as a province that embraces a multicultural identity, and it is the responsibility of this minister to be the leader in this mission.

Over the next hour, I look forward to consulting with the hon. minister to hear what she has done to engage with our multicultural communities, what forums she has created for consultation and dialogue and what actions she has taken to fight against the growing sentiment of racism in our province and promote our cultural diversity and heritage.

We, as British Columbians, have many challenges ahead of us, but none of us should ever face more because of our culture and ethnicity. We must do everything we can to ensure that we move forward together as a province and offer the same help and support to all who call B.C. home.

I’ll start off my debate with the Chinese-Canadian museum. The minister hosted a fanfare event on November 8, 2019 at the Chinese Cultural Centre with several ministers and the Vancouver mayor present to announce the $1 million funding to the city of Vancouver to establish a project office to further develop plans for the Chinese-Canadian museum.

Since then, it’s really, really strange that nothing has been announced or mentioned by either the Minister of State for International Trade, who oversees this project, or this minister on the progress of the Chinese-Canadian museum.

[11:30 a.m.]

The Minister of State for Trade told Sing Tao after last November’s announcement that a detailed plan of the museum would be available early this year. Now it is July, more than half a year past. The minister should have the information ready to share with us on the detailed plan of the Chinese-Canadian museum — the location, the governance model, the operation model, the budget, etc.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for her opening remarks. I know she’s going to have a number of questions along all the topics she listed throughout the remarks. Specifically, the question was on the Chinese-Canadian museum. We did hear from people all across the province that they want the museum to showcase all Chinese-Canadian history and culture, combining the past and the present.

The member participated in our trilingual public consultation on the museum, where more than 480 people attended community meetings in Vancouver, Richmond, Kamloops, Nanaimo and Victoria. A number of feedback forms were submitted. There were over 8,700 visits to the engagement website.

Our government is continuing to work with the members of the Chinese-Canadian community to establish the Chinese-Canadian museum in British Columbia. I will let the member know that it is still in development, but I and the Minister of State for Trade will be sharing some very good news in the very near future. I look forward to letting her know about that soon.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for reciting all of what she has done and what the minister has done in the past several months. But the minister hasn’t answered, really, my question.

My question to the minister is…. The Minister of State for Trade, who oversees this project, told Sing Tao, clearly, that a detailed plan would be available early this year. That’s what I asked in my last question. Now it’s July. From the minister’s answer just now, I fail to see any detailed plan that she can share with this committee.

Hon. L. Beare: I just answered the previous question. We have some exciting news coming soon, and I hope she’ll be happy and look forward to participating with us.

[11:35 a.m.]

T. Wat: Again, the minister has not given this committee any plan. Let me quote the 2020 throne speech: “In the future, people will be able to visit renewed cultural institutions…as well as a new Chinese-Canadian museum.”

Can the minister tell British Columbians when they can visit the promised Chinese-Canadian museum?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, we have answered this. This is the third time now. There is great news coming. I’m looking forward to sharing it in the near future. I look forward to sharing that with the member.

T. Wat: I also want to put on the record that this is the third time that I’m asking the minister to share the detailed plan. The Minister of State for Trade made it very clear to the Chinese-language media that the detailed plan of the Chinese-Canadian museum would be available early this year. I did not make that up. It is on record.

Now it is July. Where is the detailed plan? I put it on record again that I keep asking, and I get a “no” answer from the minister. Is the answer still the same?

Hon. L. Beare: The member has to absolutely recognize that we have had COVID over the past three months. There were exciting plans that would have been announced earlier. We’re now in a situation, as we are in phase 3 here in British Columbia, where those plans, these types of announcements, can now start happening.

I will let the member know again that we have some exciting news coming soon. She will have to stand by. It’s exciting, and I know she’ll be excited.

The Chair: Just a reminder that we would like the questions to move along and not be repetitive.

T. Wat: I put it on record that I have nothing from the minister regarding the detailed plan, even though the Minister of State for Trade made it clear that a detailed plan would be forthcoming early this year. For the record, for the minister’s information, COVID-19 started in March. Early this year should be before March.

I guess I got nowhere from probing this question. So I’ll move to the next question.

Eight months have passed after the $1 million announcement. What of progress on the project office at the Chinese Cultural Centre in further developing plans for the Chinese-Canadian museum, as we have this fanfare announcement event at the Chinese Cultural Centre?

Hon. L. Beare: We did open the project office in December, as the member did indicate. It was very exciting. This is a great milestone for the community. Again, to the member, we have had delays due to COVID from March until now, but there are announcements coming soon. There is exciting information coming soon. I’m going to be really happy to share that with the member in the coming weeks.

T. Wat: It looks like every response to every question I ask is “because of COVID-19.” Does that mean that the ministry does not have to do anything because of COVID-19? I hope not.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m asking for the progress of this project office. Let me try another way to get some information from the minister. Is the city or the ministry overseeing the operation of this project office? As the news release says, as all of you spoke at the event, this project office is making plans for the Chinese-Canadian museum. It’s crucial for the planning of the museum.

What is the line of authority here? Please provide more details, such as the office budget, the operation and the staffing. I’m sure, with COVID-19, the ministry should have this kind of information available.

Hon. L. Beare: This is a close partnership with the community, the city and the ministry. The ministry provided the $1 million to the city last year and has been working closely with the city to build out the project office and the associated work around that.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the non-response.

My question was asking…. The budget, the $1 million, I understand, is given to the city of Vancouver. Then what’s the line of authority? Who is staffing that project office? What’s the budget for this project office?

This is a very simple question to answer. I don’t understand why I cannot be given that kind of information. This is operational information only.

Hon. L. Beare: We did provide the $1 million to the city. All the member’s questions do fall within the city. That is where the budget is residing, and our ministry office is working very closely with them.

T. Wat: I understand that the $1 million is given to the city of Vancouver, but then this is a joint partnership. All I’m asking is: what is this $1 million for? I guess you don’t just give the money to the city, and you forget about it. Then it’s not the minister’s responsibility.

[11:45 a.m.]

Has the city of Vancouver hired any staff to oversee the project office? Or is it on a voluntary basis? How many staff are there? I’m sure this ministry’s staff are extremely professional. They must be in communication with the city of Vancouver to understand whether this $1 million is well spent, whether the city of Vancouver just takes that $1 million and is not doing anything. I think this is the taxpayer’s money. British Columbians deserve a clear answer from this minister.

Hon. L. Beare: We did sign an MOU with the city of Vancouver. There is a grant agreement in place. I am happy to provide the member…. You know, we will go back, take look at the Hansard and what the member is specifically asking and provide her all the details we can from the city of Vancouver and our MOU. We can provide that in writing for her.

T. Wat: I guess I will not get any response at this session, so I’m really waiting for more information. I think it’s necessary for the minister to be answerable to British Columbians on whether this $1 million is well spent or not.

The next question is also on this announcement. The project office will feature a pocket gallery. This pocket gallery, located at the Chinese Cultural Centre, is open to the public. But even though I pass by the cultural centre practically once a week, or a few days a week, I hardly see any human traffic.

What’s the point of having this pocket gallery if neither the city of Vancouver nor the ministry have done any promotion? Why waste the money? Is the pocket gallery the same as the project office, and what function does the pocket gallery really serve?

Hon. L. Beare: The function of the pocket gallery is to stimulate interest in the project. It is very exciting and was a great addition to the community.

Of course, these are unusual times right now. Chinatown has been significantly impacted by COVID. There isn’t the level of traffic. I know the member is saying she is walking by there every day, but the traffic levels just aren’t there right now.

Hopefully, in the future, as we’re now in phase 3 and as people are now being encouraged to travel across the province, since about two weeks ago, we’re going to have more interest in our cultural institutions, as they are one of the backbones of our society and really help with health and wellness.

[11:50 a.m.]

We look forward to increased interest in the pocket gallery as we move towards a new normal.

T. Wat: Yeah. I’m not talking about after COVID-19, Minister. I’m talking about after the announcement in November.

There are a few months, especially during the Christmas period, and I don’t see any traffic. I want to get some statistics, through the minister, on how many visitors there were to the pocket gallery in the first four months after it was open, from the day of the announcement.

I think this is very important. It is necessary to see whether the ministry has done enough promotion work to promote this legacy, because this pocket gallery is to try to pave the way for the establishment of the Chinese-Canadian museum.

Hon. L. Beare: As the member knows, the opening of the pocket gallery had 250 people attend. It was very exciting for everyone in the community. The Christmas and winter season were upon us immediately.

It was open, and then we ended up in a COVID situation. I know the member doesn’t like that as an answer, but that’s what it is. So I will just have to let the member know that. That traffic we would have hoped to see generated isn’t there.

As for the future and promotion, we have exciting announcements coming up very soon which will generate a lot of interest in the pocket gallery, and we look forward to seeing it become a busy hub quickly.

T. Wat: I just want the minister to know that it does not matter whether your response will make me happy or not. We have to be answerable to British Columbians. I don’t see any promotion of the pocket gallery, except that particular day, on that day of the announcement.

I put it on the record that the minister should provide me with some information on the visitors to the pocket gallery for the first three months that it was open and whether there’s any promotion of this pocket gallery.

I move on to the next question. The minister said at last year’s debate that once the museum consultations are complete and the consultation report finished and brought back to us in June, she will be extremely happy to have those conversations with her federal counterpart. The consultation report was released in July last year.

In the last 12 months, how many phone calls or conversations has the minister had with her federal counterpart regarding the Chinese-Canadian museum? How many emails did she write to her federal counterpart? How many letters has she sent to her federal counterpart? What’s the progress and the outcome of the conversation?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: We have to continue to engage the federal government. I don’t have the numbers that the member is specifically looking for — a list, a count of emails or anything. Happy to provide that to the member after this.

For example, Minister Guilbeault was in Victoria. I met with him personally. We had a conversation about this one-on-one. These are things we are continuing to engage our federal counterparts with, as we were building out what the project would look like. We have some exciting announcements about that coming soon, and that gives us the opportunity to really continue connecting with our federal counterparts moving forward on what the project could be.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the response, but I haven’t heard about any outcome yet, because in the minister’s ministry budget, I don’t see any budget allocation for the museum. If the ministry doesn’t have enough funding for this museum, it might be a good idea to get the federal government’s financial support.

Is there any pledge of funding for this museum in your discussion with the federal minister?

Hon. L. Beare: We’ve not secured a commitment yet. We continue to work with them.

The Chair: We have time for one more question. Recognizing the member for Richmond North Centre.

T. Wat: Is the minister aware of the federal government’s pledge of half a million dollars for a Chinatown story­telling centre?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, we are.

The Chair: Thank you. I would ask the minister to make the motion.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 11:58 a.m.