Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate in estimates in the Ministry of Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000 (continued).

T. Wat: First of all, I’d like to thank the minister and all the staff for coming for this multiculturalism, anti-racism nature of the discussion. I have to thank the member for Peace River South for his kindness to offer me a few minutes to read some of the questions that I want to really put on record.

For the minister, I know that time might be running short and that the minister might not be able to respond to my questions. If he can, I appreciate that. I don’t know whether my colleague will object to it, because I’m taking away his precious time on the most important issue of housing. Anyway, I’ll just do my best and see what the minister’s response is like.

The first question I was planning to ask yesterday. When we discuss a 700 percent increase in anti-Asian hate crime, we often forget the impacts each crime can have on individuals in the communities. Just recently, on May 20, an 87-year-old Chinese senior was attacked with bear spray in Chinatown. This is a senior who doesn’t feel safe in his own community. A family will fear every time he steps out of the door, in a community that fears for their elders and the most vulnerable.

These acts of hate persist today. I just heard last night again. The latest painting by another artist in Chinatown was destroyed with graffiti the night before. It looks like there’s an organized kind of…. I don’t know whether it’s organized or whatever. They’re trying to shut the mouths of people who advocate for Chinatown. It has been going on day after day.

I know that the minister and this government have been doing a lot to try to turn Chinatown back to the normal days, but with this kind of anti-Asian hate crime and unprovoked attacks and graffiti going on day after day, I would like to hear from the minister what kind of actions he will try to raise and what kind of move he’s going to do to stop such violent acts towards the most vulnerable in our community.

I’ll just continue to read all my questions. Yesterday, actually, I was trying to start all my questions with: “Can the minister discuss what progress is being made on the implementation of the recently passed race-based data legislation”?

Yesterday I also asked about the status of the anti-racism bill, and the minister heard it. I would like to thank the minister for providing all the briefings for me before the presentation of the race-based data legislation. I think that’s the kind of non-partisan cooperation that we are all aspiring to. Thank you for doing that.

Another question I’d like to ask is: has the minister spoken with his counterparts in the Ministry of Education regarding the fact that 75 percent of respondents to a survey of persons of African descent felt that their educational experiences were affected by anti-Black racism from school officials, from teachers and even from their peers?

[1:40 p.m.]

Another question. In 2020, a BCCDC survey found a majority of South Asian, Southeast Asian, Filipino, West Asian, Arab, Black and Latin American, Hispanic respondents had financial stress about the future. While we are in a different stage of the pandemic, these groups felt a disproportionate amount of economic anxiety at the time. Has the minister noticed whether these groups has continued to face divergent outcomes from other groups during the economic recovery, and if so, what is the minister doing to fix this disparity?

I still have two more questions. While many communities experienced racism and discrimination prior to 2020, we saw an unfortunate increase during the pandemic. In our discussion, we have highlighted the experiences felt by a few communities. We also, as a society, are coming to terms with the legacy of anti-Indigenous racism. Are there any other communities that continue to face discrimination that the minister would like to draw attention to? What is the minister doing to help reverse this worrying trend?

The last and final question is: does the minister feel that the anti-racism and multiculturalism branch is able to accomplish their goals with their current budget levels and no additional, one-time funding, like during the early stages of the pandemic?

Thank you so much for allowing me my time, to my colleague, and Mr. Chair, the minister and the staff as well.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for her questions and for her passion on this issue of racism in our province.

I will touch briefly on some of the topics she raised but will provide answers to her in writing to the majority of the questions. Like her, I was shocked and disturbed by the incident where a senior was bear sprayed in Chinatown. The graffiti in Chinatown is an ongoing issue in that community.

I was very pleased and honoured to be a part of the Chinese museum community event there last weekend, where 600 people came out to show their support for Chinatown and to show their support for government’s partnership with the community to deliver a museum about the contributions of Canadians of Chinese descent to our province’s history, which I think is an important part of fighting back against racism — education about how we’ve all been working together to build this province for a long time. That needs to continue.

On the specific question of what we are doing about it, staff have reached out to the Chinatown BIA, from my office, and we’ve had meetings with the VPD to discuss this issue. We will be meeting with the Chinatown BIA, Minister Farnworth and I, to find out how we can provide more support. I’ve engaged with the mayor of the city of Vancouver on this issue, as well, to understand more about what the city’s doing to take on this problem in the community.

I think that, without doubt, some of the challenges in Chinatown are linked to the challenges in the Downtown Eastside — the closure of some very large SRO buildings increasing street homelessness in that community and issues of disorder, addiction and mental health, all closely intertwined, impacting the Chinatown community.

Our work on housing, which we’ll go into more this afternoon, is a key part of that, our work with the family associations around the SROs that are owned in Chinatown, making sure that housing is safe and appropriate for the seniors who live there, as we did in our intervention in the Grace Manor situation to preserve that housing for the seniors who live there.

There is lots of work happening and more to come. I just want the people who support Chinatown and the people who live in Chinatown and the merchants who are in Chinatown to know that they have government’s full support to address these issues.

The answer to many of the member’s questions relate closely to the anti-racism data legislation that we passed unanimously in this House — collecting that information about the disaggregated data about the backgrounds of British Columbians to find differences in terms of, for example, as the member said, divergent outcomes from the pandemic, divergent economic impacts, health impacts from the pandemic. This work will become significantly easier for government to take on the challenges of systemic racism and differential impact of government policy through having that information.

I am confident that the anti-racism multiculturalism branch is not only able to do the work, but they are doing the work. I will acknowledge that staff have been working very, very hard to deliver these initiatives, working overtime and at considerable personal sacrifice.

[1:45 p.m.]

I wanted to put that on the record and recognize the commitment of that branch of the ministry to delivering huge pieces, like the anti-racism data legislation that involved engagement with communities across British Columbia, co-authoring with First Nations and involvement of Métis Nation B.C. — just a very, very significant project and just one of many projects delivered by that branch. So I thank the member for that question and her concern about ensuring that there are adequate resources for that branch.

All the other questions I will respond to in writing. The member knows that the specialized staff from that branch are not with me today, as we’re focusing on housing, but I wanted to encourage her to bring the questions forward, and I’m glad she did.

J. Tegart: As the minister is aware, my riding of Fraser-Nicola has seen more than its fair share of challenges regarding housing units this year, with the devastating loss of the community of Lytton and surrounding area to wildfire; the incredible flooding, which has left hundreds of residents unable to return home in Merritt; the loss of homes and lands throughout the Highway 8 corridor; and all of this in just the last year. I have people who’ve been displaced for over 300 days, living in motels, on couches, in campers and with extended family.

My first question is: what role does B.C. Housing play in the need for transition housing during disasters caused by climate and fire events?

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing has a number of roles in relation to the housing crisis caused by emergencies in Merritt, Lytton and Princeton. The roles are diverse. B.C. Housing was involved in relocation of individuals from those sites to Kamloops and Kelowna and is working with those cities on short- and longer-term housing solutions for displaced residents.

B.C. Housing is also involved in working on the rebuild on those city sites of affected locations — so some cities profoundly affected, some cities and other areas that are not as affected. For example, in Princeton, there are two B.C. Housing sites that were impacted by flooding that are going to need to be either remediated or relocated, so that work is undergoing with the city of Princeton.

In Merritt, B.C. Housing is involved in piloting 3-D printing of homes in that community as a way to, potentially, deliver homes more quickly.

[1:50 p.m.]

There is funding through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for short- and long-term responses that B.C. Housing is involved with assisting Municipal Affairs in delivering in those communities. So there are a number of different roles. A subject-matter expert is liaising with cities and direct assistance to residents in relocation.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister for the answer. In the role, as part of the team that responds to disaster, does B.C. Housing sit on the provincial task force or round table that actually is dealing with each of the disaster zones?

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is yes. In addition, there are also, as I understand from B.C. Housing, local community discussions that are taking place in those communities. So there’s the provincial work that B.C. Housing participates in, in those round tables. But then there are also local discussions on responding, and B.C. Housing is sitting at those tables as well.

J. Tegart: As a local elected MLA, as we talk about the role of different agencies within government, I guess my thoughts always are: what does it look like when it hits the ground?

If you’re the person who is displaced or cannot find homes…. We know that during the disasters this last year, we were extremely challenged due to COVID, due to the number of disasters. We had people who had been evacuated out of Lytton that were then again evacuated out of Merritt, so we had people moving. Trying to follow them and figure out where people were was sometimes one of our biggest challenges.

In your role with B.C. Housing, the question is: what have you learned over the last five years? I mean, my riding definitely has seen five years of fires and floods and whatever it seems can be thrown at it. What have you learned in the last five years in regards to the importance of providing housing support — and in that, do you provide expertise; do you provide funds; fo you provide land; do you provide an overall plan with timelines?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, one of the pieces that has been the experience of people on the ground, as the member says, is the unprecedented scale and size of these disasters and the impacts of them. To lose an entire town to fire is a remarkable thing and a very disturbing thing to happen in British Columbia, let alone for the people who have to live through it.

As a result of the scale of the destruction and the consequences of some of these disasters, some of the solutions that would usually be more immediately available have not been available in the same way. In a situation where there would be a desire to deploy and the ability to deploy modular housing…. For example, in Lytton, the cleanup work that had to be done first due to the contamination resulting from the fire — before modular housing could be deployed and people could be living in the community — is a significant piece of work that is delaying the housing deployment.

With that said, in other communities, one of the opportunities that has been identified — the member asked about lessons learned — is the potential for having modular units available as short-term options to deploy quickly to neighbouring communities that are less affected. That can provide housing more quickly.

As the member will know, during COVID-19, we purchased a number of motels and hotels. We’ve leased hotels and motels to house people out of these disaster zones and also to respond to the arrival of Ukrainians. That has been an effective response, but it does have limits, given the number of hotel and motel rooms and the fact that we’re coming out of the pandemic and tourism is returning.

B.C. Housing is currently focused on responding in these particular communities, but one of the lessons that is emerging is the potential for having more of a stock of short-term modulars on hand to respond to emergencies as they arrive.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I think one of the things we’re seeing as we go through the process is that huge gap in transition housing and people wanting to go home — particularly in the Lytton situation, where people scattered, ran for their lives. So if the learnings from the last year have been to identify that huge gap, it is good to hear that and to know that some planning and some action is going to be taken forward.

We are not in our first year of disasters, unfortunately. We had the Elephant Hill fire. We’ve seen a lot of devastation through the Interior. So as we move forward, I guess my questions are focused on how we make sure we don’t find ourselves there again, talking about these gaps next year and the year after and the year after.

My last question is: in the next three to five years, what is in your budget to do the plan around disaster relief — whatever needs to be bought or to be put in place so that we don’t find ourselves where we are today? Even though it seemed like every disaster that could happen, happened, Lytton is an opportunity for all of us to make sure no other community ever goes through what they did.

I’m looking for the next three to five years. What’s budgeted, how will you plan, what are the timelines, and how will you execute support for climate disasters?

The Chair: Of course, through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this work is absolutely being done. It is being led out of emergency management B.C. They have assembled a committee. My ministry, the Ministry of Attorney General and Housing, sits there along with B.C. Housing representation in order to inform the emergency management planning process from the perspective of housing to ensure that we are prepared for future emergencies.

Any funding for those initiatives will flow through emergency management B.C. and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, not through this ministry.

J. Tegart: I guess what I’m looking for from the minister is assurance that we will not be in this place again. My experience this time around is that there was a document. There was an outline. There was a process. But I can tell the minister that there are many people on the ground that felt it didn’t work. So documents are great, all the best intentions are great, but if they don’t work for the people on the ground, they are merely something written on paper.

I am extremely hopeful that the minister will feel confident enough to assure the people of my riding that we have learned lots and that we will not find ourselves in this place again without having learned from the experience.

Hon. D. Eby: I know it’s a priority for the Premier, for the Minister of Public Safety and certainly in my own ministry that we be as prepared as possible for emergency. I certainly hope this is the last time we see emergencies of this scale. But we know, with the changing climate, that there is a very high risk and a disproportionate impact on British Columbia in terms of climate disasters such as fire, flood, and so on.

A big portion of the work in the Ministry of Environment is resilience and ensuring that, in our infrastructure, we’re building back better to respond to — in the Ministry of Transportation, for example — the changing climate, the changing impacts of flooding, and so on, on roads, housing, and so on. That work is very much underway. The lessons that have been learned are incorporated in that.

I will also advise the member that I am aware that EMBC does do reviews following disaster response to determine the lessons learned, formalize those and incorporate those lessons learned into future emergency response. That work is underway. I will advise the member that this committee work — to be prepared and ensure that the lessons learned from these disasters are incorporated into future response — is underway. My ministry is participating in it, and so is B.C. Housing.

J. Tegart: To the minister, thank you to you and your staff.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to my colleague for giving me a little bit of time here today and also to the minister and all of the staff here today ready to answer some questions.

Obviously, my hometown riding, the city of Kelowna, is one of the fastest-growing municipalities and needs help. Severity of crime is up, and Superintendent Triance actually delivered news yesterday to council in which she noted that the severity of mental health issues has increased.

In a report that was delivered to council, it’s noted that the Kelowna city council has been diligent in planning — through the Journey Home document and society — as well as funding police officers, creating 350 new supportive housing units, with the community inclusion team, the Kelowna Integrated Court and the community safety plan.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s also, in this report, I guess a desperate plea. That is for complex needs and for complex needs care. That is what Kelowna requires.

In my canvassing of the Ministry of Mental Health and the Minister of Mental Health, she indicated that there is no capital for funding of new spaces for complex care. As the Attorney has noted, and I’ll actually quote the Attorney General: “So specifically on this issue, in the most recent budget, we are opening 20 complex care housing sites across the province to really engage with and hopefully interrupt this rotating door of criminal justice system for people with serious mental health and addiction issues.” That was said by the minister on March 16, 2022.

One of the reliefs of the prolific offender crime that we have today is through complex care, but the Ministry of Mental Health is not funding those spaces, and currently, I don’t see how B.C. Housing is. I’m not exactly sure how those 20 municipalities are supposed to go about funding those complex care spaces without actually having means to do so. Why does the complex care program not have any capital dollars attached to it at this time?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s an important issue.

Complex care housing is medically based services delivered by the local health authority to people with serious mental health and addiction issues who are at risk of or who are currently homeless. The member is right to ask: “Well, if you’re funding the services, where will they be delivered?” The goal of the complex care housing work that is happening, the 500 beds that have been funded this year, is to deliver these services in different ways, in different settings to determine which is most effective.

The focus is on delivering additional services that will be accessed by residents in many existing buildings in different communities. The size of a building and a program is important around complex care. These are people with very serious challenges. Building a 50-unit building, for example, is a challenging thing to do. The focus is more that there would be a floor of an existing building or that there would be some units or some scattered housing — different approaches to delivering this housing in a way that we can evaluate which is most successful in addressing the needs of this particularly challenging population.

There have been proposals around a group home model. There have been proposals around floors of existing buildings. There have been proposals around scattered housing, where there are individual apartments that are serviced in this way.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’m happy to advise the member that we have a very good relationship with the mayor of Kelowna, co-chair of the Urban Mayors Caucus. He has worked hard in his community to deliver significant supportive housing to respond to the homelessness crisis in Kelowna. We will continue our work with the city of Kelowna and Interior Health on delivering these services in that community.

I can also advise the member that ongoing work is happening within the ministry about the delivery of the system, but I would assume she would know that already — but just to put it on the record, to ensure that as we deliver these services, they’re being evaluated for their impact on the community and on the residents who receive these services.

R. Merrifield: My understanding, and through reading the white paper that was delivered by the Urban Mayors Caucus and in knowing how much work the city of Kelowna has put into this…. One of the very specific asks and one of the specific needs, as well, within the white paper was actually to have complex care that was facilitated in a structure, in a building. You would assume that the efficiencies would also be there in terms of delivery of care.

If the $165 million of the Ministry of Mental Health dollars is specific only to delivering the care and not the actual capital, you’re looking at over almost $100,000 per individual of cost per year in operating and in delivery of services without any capital spending. Surely there should be some efficiencies that would be located.

I’ll ask the minister…. Would the minister reconsider and direct B.C. Housing to reposition funding dollars for this complex care housing, specifically in response to what the Urban Mayors Caucus has asked for and what the white paper was specific to asking for as well?

Hon. D. Eby: Since 2017, government has built 790 units of affordable housing, including supportive housing in Kelowna. We have 270 additional units underway. The idea of complex care is to actually take advantage of the efficiencies in supportive housing, to layer in additional medicalized services that grew out of this recognition that 10 to 15 percent of people in supportive housing were either being evicted or were really struggling in the building, causing disruptions in either a surrounding neighbourhood or in the building itself, and that layering in additional services will help respond to the needs of those residents.

When that happens in that way, it actually takes advantage of significant efficiencies in funding of supports that were already in the supportive housing — meals, essential life skills, support for daily living — so it builds on the structure that we have. It is intended to operate in that way. There will be different models that are deployed in different communities, but one of the benefits of this is that it can take advantage of existing supportive housing units and build on top of those supports.

It also gives the opportunity for flow. So someone who is in supportive housing, not showing any signs of needing additional services, and suddenly decompensates for some reason can receive complex care housing where they are. They don’t have to move. Then if they restabilize, the complex care supports can be provided to somebody else, so that you’re able to deliver those services where people are rather than moving them over to a specialized building and causing that kind of disruption. That flow is important in and out of the different steps of levels of support that we provide.

[2:15 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer and the understanding of the layering of services.

I’m going to ask, though, a curious question, because I’m not understanding how this would actually address the needs of people who are not in social housing but have severe and layered mental health and addictions challenges. Who is going to be responsible for outreach and intake for those individuals, and how is that accomplished if there are no services already in place right now for those individuals who are not in a B.C. Housing or supportive housing site?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There are two audiences for complex care. One is to help people in supportive housing stay housed and minimize the disruptions and challenges that they present in housing when they don’t have adequate supports. The other audience is people who are living outside and who are homeless and who are sick out in the streets.

The method of access of complex care is and will be, for communities where it’s not yet open, through regional coordinated access tables, which are also sometimes called situation tables. These are tables where there are local non-profit organizations that provide housing around the table, B.C. Housing around the table, the health authority around the table, as well as social service ministry caseworkers. In many communities, police also sit on these tables.

The table helps identify people who are struggling in community. Typically individuals are on wait-lists of some kind to get into housing, but they may be identified through the coordinated access table itself, through the situation table. That is how they’ll be referred into this kind of housing.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that there is only a distributed model that is somewhat different in all of these different communities and that there are no actual complex care facilities that will be provided by the province, there will be communities, then, that are forced to rely on distributed market housing.

The minister has indicated that there are regional situation tables. So to the minister, how and where are these regional situation tables located, and how would someone with mental health issues access one of these tables to seek out complex care?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the participants in these coordinated access tables that I forgot to mention is typically the local municipality. The city or cities are involved as well.

Due to the nature of the individuals and the groups who are around the table, they have a tendency to know the people in the community who are homeless and who are really struggling. They have relationships with them.

[2:20 p.m.]

The idea of the tables is a discussion around the table around who needs additional supports and which non-profit and which service agency, which housing is available that would best meet the needs of that person. It could be complex care. It could be housing that responds to the particular needs of a community, like an Indigenous-based housing service provider for someone who is of Indigenous heritage.

These regional coordinated access tables, the situation tables, are funded by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. That ministry could provide a full list of supported tables, but they are in communities like Quesnel, so smaller centres as well as much larger centres where there may be much larger coordinated access tables.

Typically, it’s not an individual seeking out the table and making a presentation about why they would make a good candidate for supportive housing. It’s that they’re identified by the group around the table as someone who is struggling in community and needs that support, who is homeless, and a discussion about how best to support that person coming inside.

R. Merrifield: So we have a scattered complex care model that started out as a complex care campus, where supportive services came around the individual, but that this was a dedicated space. We have the Urban Mayors Caucus that has specifically asked for dedicated space and new spaces, and what we’ve been hearing through the course of these estimates is that now it’s scattered care that is going to cost over $100,000 per individual, that is going to be called upon or called for through regional tables, but we’re not even sure if that would apply to someone who is outside of a supportive housing unit, etc.

My question is: how does this system of scattered care actually interrupt the cycle of prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve obviously done a poor job explaining. I’ll try to do it again. I listened to the member’s question. I don’t know how she got there from what I said, but I’ll try again. I think it might be helpful for the member if I could walk through some of the complex care beds announced to date, with more to come, the nature of the sites and the nature of the beds.

In Surrey, the Foxglove facility has 39 beds in a much larger facility that are complex care beds. It’s a very large building, but a portion of it provides the additional complex care beds in it. It’s a newer facility that just recently opened.

In Abbotsford, the Red Lion Inn, which was a motel that was purchased by B.C. Housing during the pandemic, eight complex care beds are open. Those services were layered into this motel, where it was a front-line response for people who were homeless, to get the people inside.

Vancouver, Jim Green building — 44 beds are open. This is a building that’s been around for a while. Additional services were layered into 44 beds in that building to provide additional supports. In Vancouver, as well, Naomi Place — 12 beds are complex care beds in that building, which are open and operating.

In Langley, there is a proposal that has been supported by government and will be funded for 25 spaces. They’re distributed in the community. We anticipate the beds will be open by fall of 2022.

In Bella Coola, there is an Indigenous service provider that is providing 12 spaces. The beds will be open by late 2022 in a newer facility. Powell River, Tla’amin Nation, 20 spaces in a facility of beds by late 2022. Victoria, 100 distributed spaces open by spring 2023.

Fraser south, forensic services supporting, distributed 25 beds, opening by spring, summer 2023, and we continue our work with health authorities across the province to open additional beds.

As the member can see from that list, some are new facilities. Some are existing buildings where services are being layered in. Some are distributed sites.

[2:25 p.m.]

The idea is to measure and determine which are the most effective ways of approaching this, both from an economic perspective and from an outcomes perspective, in terms of the stability and the health outcomes of the individuals who receive the services, and community impacts.

I wanted to take that step back to explain the program a little better than I obviously did.

Layered on top of that was a question about prolific offenders. It’s my opinion…. We’ll see the data, I suspect, that indicates the nature of prolific offending that people are seeing in downtown corridors across the province. But it is my impression, based on the stories that are being shared with us from police, mayors and community members, that there are a number of people struggling with serious mental health and addiction issues. They are individuals who are committing crimes that are closely linked with the fact that they are either homeless or the services that they’re receiving are inadequate for their particular health needs.

The court and other agencies — the Prosecution Service, defence counsel, and so on — aren’t able to access services that would be able to interrupt the cycle of offending. We have two experts — one an expert in policing, a former chief of police with lots of experience with front-line policing; another an expert in mental health and corrections — advising us on the best way for the provincial government to interrupt cycles of offending.

It’s my belief, based on the results out of Vernon, for example, that providing this kind of housing reduces crime in communities that’s associated with living your life outside — crimes of poverty, desperation and illness. But we also know that there are probably prolific offenders who are motivated by other things, so it’s not a straightforward issue, by any stretch.

I do believe that this kind of support is going to have a significant impact on people’s feelings of safety. When you see someone who’s really struggling with mental health and addiction issues on the sidewalk in your downtown core, it’s not something that really makes you feel: “Wow, the community’s working well. Everything seems to be going well here.” It makes you say: “Well, there’s something very wrong here. What’s going on in our downtown?”

For that individual, who is sick in public and needs support…. Getting that individual inside and providing the health care resources that they need supports that person with the challenge that they face. It supports the broader community with greater feelings of community safety and that things are going the way that they should be. And, for some individuals, it may interrupt a cycle of offending that’s motivated by the fact that they’re living outside, that they’re ill, that they have challenges in their lives that make them make decisions that cause problems for other people, that cause havoc in communities.

That’s how I believe that this program could potentially have an impact on prolific offenders, but I also think this program is not sufficient. Complex care beds are voluntary beds, and there are individuals who will not choose to come inside, will not choose to take up those services, even if they’re offered repeatedly. For those individuals, we need other solutions, which is why I’ve asked for this work to be done.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. In his attempt to explain complex care and give me a litany of the distributed beds that are scattered throughout communities…. Some of these communities are new, because I didn’t see them listed in the top nine priorities that the Urban Mayors Caucus had stated.

So I’ll ask this question: what exactly is complex care, then? Is it simply a menu that is given to each of these beds that was listed, or is it something different than that?

My second question is: with that actual definition of complex care, then, what are the outcomes that will be measured? The example given of a feeling of being safe seems somewhat less quantitative than what I would hope we would see.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: For complex care, it’s additional medicalized services that are delivered to individuals who need those additional supports to be successful in housing.

In addition to the various health, personal, social and job supports provided in supportive housing…. Those enhanced complex care services include things like physical, mental health and substance use care; psychosocial rehabilitation supports; social, emotional and community supports; personal care and personal living supports; Indigenous cultural supports; and coordination and navigation services for people who have trouble navigating their way through different services that they need to access in order to be well.

If I were to put it all together, I would say that these are wraparound services that respond to the particular needs of this individual, whether they’re physical, mental health, disability-based or so on, in order to help them be successful in their housing — very tailored to the individual.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member asked about specific metrics and evaluation. The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is leading this work. They are preparing an evaluation framework. It is not based on a qualitative feeling of community safety. I think that’ll be one of the positive effects of the housing, as I said. However, the evaluation framework will be very much based on evaluating the impact on the individual in terms of their own health; interactions with the criminal justice system, for example; any interaction in broader community; as well as the delivery of the services, whether they’re delivered effectively and efficiently in the best way possible.

I refer the member to the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions for details about that evaluation framework. That work is still underway.

R. Merrifield: For lack of a better word, I’ll call it a complex care concierge of sorts. What I’m hearing is that the outcomes are not actually specified at this point, but that seems to be in contradiction to what the minister had indicated earlier.

He talked about how he was really hopeful that this will help interrupt the cycle for a number of people: “We’re going to be monitoring the data very closely in terms of the payback to the public — have reduced offending, reduced emergency room use, reduced emergency services use generally — because a lot of the data we have indicates that there’s a very significant expense in terms of property damage and disruption to local economies as well as emergency health care and prison use.”

Are these aspects that will be part of the data set collected to determine whether or not the complex care concierge or scattered outcome is successful?

Hon. D. Eby: Some sites will be scattered sites; some sites are concentrated in a single building. I don’t understand why she keeps describing these as scattered sites or as concierge services. I didn’t use that word. I don’t know why she’s using that word.

I’m trying really hard to explain what this is. These are additional health care services layered in for people who need them. There is an evaluation framework that is being worked on by Mental Health and Addictions.

I tried to give the member a broad picture of the metrics that are being looked at — health care outcomes, criminal justice outcomes, and so on. That work is still underway. I believe strongly that those health care outcomes will include things like emergency room contacts, police contacts, and so on. I’m sure that the member could think of similar metrics.

The goal is to determine whether this kind of housing, this kind of support, is having positive impacts on the person’s ability to stay in housing, be less disruptive in community, to have better health outcomes. That will be the aim of these metrics, the work of which is happening in another ministry.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Basically, there is no data set, there is no data collection at this point, and we are simply trying to create it as we go along. When I referred to scattered, the list that I was given from Surrey, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Langley, Bella Coola, Powell River, Victoria and Fraser South — that’s very much so scattered. It’s not collected into complex care facilities that would have that.

My next question is: how many of the new FTEs of these complex care wraparound services that I am referring to as the concierge service have actually been fulfilled within these different facilities across B.C.?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, I guess the confusion was on my part, about the use of the word “scattered.”

Scattered sites have a very specific meaning in the housing space when you’re talking about delivering services to people with complex care. A scattered site is where you fund 44 beds, but those beds are in different apartment buildings all over the geographic area where it’s funded. So the distributed sites in Victoria, the 100 spaces, will be in all different places in the city of Victoria. They won’t be in one building.

That definition of a scattered site is one example of the way in which complex care sites are being delivered. In others, it’s a floor of a building or a couple floors of a building. They are scattered geographically. The member is right. The goal is to open complex care beds across the province in different communities.

I’m not sure, but I think underlying the question around complex care facilities — I’m just trying to understand the member’s perspective about what this is and isn’t — maybe it is more of an institutional, involuntary mental health care model, more in the nature of the Red Fish Centre that we opened at the səmiq̓ʷəʔelə, the Riverview site. That is not this. This is voluntary. These are additional services that are delivered to people in supportive housing or who are homeless, who are coming inside, who were not successful in supportive housing because of their challenges.

On the issue of scattered housing, I’d recommend to the member some research around the At Home/Chez Soi federal program that was targeted at a very similar population as complex care beds are — with very detailed research about responding to the challenges faced by this group of people who need those additional supports, led by Dr. Julian Somers out of SFU but nationally implemented.

The results were, in cities across Canada, that scattered-site housing — this is where the beds are all in different places, in different apartments, as opposed to in a single building — was at least as successful, and in some cases more successful, than congregate housing, in that it provides choice and autonomy and, for some people, less stigmatization in dealing with their health and addiction issues. There’s some very good research about why it’s a good idea to explore and offer these models and why that informed the government’s decision to deliver this.

On the very specific question the member had about the number of employees who are delivering this service through health authorities, I recommend she direct that question to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, who is doing that work and would be able to provide that data.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think what I’m looking for is some accountability and some measurement or means or mechanism to actually determine whether or not this is successful, as this is a deviation from some of the white papers and some of the asks of our communities and our municipalities, which seem to be pretty much on the front lines of understanding some of what the mental health needs of their communities are.

When we’re spending over $100,000 per person to deliver just the care, not the actual facility, that number is actually quite alarming. I’m looking for what forms the accountability. How are we actually going to — as the minister had said — monitor the data? What data are we going to monitor? Lastly, how does this actually offer the solution, or part of the solution at least, for prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I did walk through how I am hopeful that this will have an impact on people who are repeatedly in contact with police because of the circumstances of being ill in public and having those interactions and having challenges that cause them to be involved in criminal activity that’s very disruptive and problematic in communities. If the member wishes, I can go over it again. I think the core of the member’s question is: what are the metrics? How will you know this is successful? It’s a significant public investment.

[2:40 p.m.]

I am confident in advising the member that there is a detailed framework and a set of metrics that are being prepared by the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to evaluate the success, or the lack of success, of different models of delivering this program. The goal of this project is to determine the best way of delivering these services.

There are a number of different sizes of sites. There are a number of different methods of delivering it, scattered in a particular building. That will help us determine next steps, in terms of building on those models that are successful and abandoning those that are not successful.

I have met with nothing but support and enthusiasm from mayors for complex care supports. They, if anything, quite urgently want these services deployed in their communities.

I don’t agree with the member’s contention that this is a departure from what mayors are looking for in their communities or what they believe they need. Additional supports in supportive housing for the most ill members, who have the most disruption in the community or are most at risk, are exactly what they’re asking for, and we’re very pleased to deliver that. This comes out of cooperative engagement and discussions with the mayors about what they were seeing in communities.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister.

I have been working for different mayors for almost ten or 11 years now, I guess, on some of the hardest-to-house within the communities. I would argue…. I have never heard a single one of the 13 different municipalities within B.C. that I’ve worked within ever mention having scattered units within different housing models being used for complex care. In fact, the urgency and the ask have always been on complex care facilities where these mentally ill can actually find solace. I think it is a huge deviation from what they’ve been asking for.

I would ask that we have some metrics that can actually be measured against, which are in process, I am hearing from the minister. I look forward to seeing those when they are finally released.

It feels to me like we’re describing somewhat of an experiment. We have these different types of housing with different types and models of care being offered in different places, and we’re going to see which one works. That’s like building the house without a blueprint and hoping that the rooms fit the individual person. With all due respect, hopefully, the Housing Minister would have a better handle on this aspect.

My next question to the minister is this. If these are not additional new beds, then what are we doing to increase the number of beds that are taken out, with the complex care system?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to have to provide some substantiation for her repeated allegation that the mayors are opposed to this model, that they don’t support it, that they wanted something else.

I was at a press conference with the chairs of the Urban Mayors, who celebrated the complex care announcement with me and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. They have talked repeatedly about how it is a model of us working together to respond to issues in community.

I struggle to know on what basis she is making that allegation, which, frankly, I think is absurd, given the conversations I’ve had with mayors about how excited they are, how much they want the service in their community. The big urgency they have is: how quickly can we get these beds in our community? How quickly can we get this deployed? We need this urgently, including in her own home community of Kelowna. I couldn’t leave that unaddressed.

Happily, I have good news for the member. We have a significant housing program to open a number of different types of housing across the province. We have overachieved our target for housing for people who are at risk of homelessness. We have exceeded our target on supportive housing. Part of that was as a result of the pandemic, where we purchased a number of motels and hotels to get people inside and to avoid the spread of COVID-19 and to support people who were COVID positive.

[2:45 p.m.]

A legacy of that are things like the Red Lion. We are delivering now complex care supports inside that motel.

We’re also building new. A number of those hotels, where the site was purchased, were purchased with an eye to redevelopment. There’s a parking lot. There’s additional space for redevelopment into permanent supportive housing and, frankly, more appropriate long-term supportive housing.

We have 3,786 supportive housing units completed, under construction or in development. The numbers break down as 1,584 completed, 1,275 under construction, 89 in development and 838 initiated. These are the types of beds that can have layered into them additional complex care supports, or it can simply be additional supportive housing. So good news that we are continuing that work and layering additional supports into the units that we do have.

R. Merrifield: I’ll ask for forgiveness for agitating the minister. That was not my intention whatsoever. The minister and I have actually sat on the same phone calls in the same meetings with mayors begging for an actual facility with new beds. So with all due respect…. I appreciate the admonishment from the minister.

My last question is this. He’ll be relieved, hopefully, to see that it’s my last. Is the minster prepared to, if the model is not successful, adjust the B.C. Housing funding model to actually to give cities the ability to apply for new beds for complex care facilities?

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to just separate two things. One is…. I like the member’s questions. She’s asking important questions about important issues in communities. So I’m not relieved that this is her last question.

What I find agitating is when she repeats and says things that are just demonstrably incorrect — that the mayors are not supportive of complex care, that they’re not trying to get those beds in their community, that they want something different than what we’re delivering. It’s just not true, and that is what is agitating. I tried to correct it a couple of times, and then it keeps getting repeated. So just for the member, I’m glad for her questions, and I think she should keep asking them.

Now, with respect to the beds, we’re going to keep building supportive housing beds. We’re going to keep building the housing to respond to the homelessness crisis that we face across the province. So 1,275 beds under construction right now. Others tied up — as the member, I think, may empathize with — in various municipal approvals processes across the province. I hope cities expedite the approval of these sites to get them open and running.

Those are the kinds of beds that can have complex care layered in. We are not doing complex care as a government and abandoning building those additional affordable housing units and those beds to respond to homelessness and supports for people who are living outside to get them inside. That work is all happening at the same time.

Cities should continue to prepare and support non-profit organizations in bringing forward applications for additional housing to respond to homelessness, to prevent homelessness. We are going to continue to put out calls for funding for the supportive housing fund, for the community housing fund, for the Indigenous housing fund and a rapid response to homelessness. That work should continue. So there won’t need to be a change in policy to have cities apply for those kinds of beds, which can have complex care layered in. That work will continue.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister and staff for all the answers today.

The Chair: Minister…. Not minister. Member. Sorry, Freudian slip. Member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Appreciate that. Used to be and hope to be again, Chair.

I also want to thank my colleagues who stood up. As the minister acknowledged, these are important questions that we are asking. I think it’s also important to acknowledge, through those questions…. There are different perspectives, and there are also different ways of looking at this, depending on where you are in the province, obviously.

[2:50 p.m.]

To my colleague before that was speaking, when you talk about whether…. You know, different types of layered housing to help in a crisis, around the province, can be seen differently, depending on what municipality you’re at, depending on how they work with the different not-for-profits, as the minister has said.

There is a huge amount of frustration that I have heard as well, even through my short time as the Housing critic, on that specific file, because sometimes housing complexes are built…. I’ll look at Dawson Creek as an example. One will be built around trying to help people get off the streets. But then the frustration that we hear…. Not just from mayors, but we’re talking from people who are offering the supports: from RCMP, from ambulance attendants, who are now saying that the amount of calls they get, the amount of crime they now see — that’s different, because of the lack of services.

I think, to my colleague that spoke before me, it’s just to address that, again, to the ministry. Although the ministry and government, all of the different partners, have the right intentions, there’s still a lot of work to be done. I think that’s what was trying to be addressed there.

I want to go back to where we were before lunch and to move on with some of the questions that we were canvassing, I guess, at that point, originally talking about the 114,000 units that the government has announced, promised, that they’ll have in place by 2027. The minister did confirm for me what we thought, which was that a portion — a good portion, maybe — of those are going to be in municipalities, possibly brought on by the private sector through partnership, regulation, zoning, whatever tools will be, I guess, at a local government level, to facilitate that.

The minister did acknowledge and reference, for instance, for this House, that we had Bill 16, which was a tool that was brought in here through a transportation bill, talking about what can happen through present transportation corridors and the future build-outs that will happen around trying to bring in some of that affordable housing. I guess maybe I’ll start, again, back on that.

What tools is government going to put in place to ensure that…? There is a local government aspect. But, obviously, we now have the provincial government’s responsibility brought in with that bill. What tools — or, I guess, sticks — might be in place to work with developers? I assume this might be private developers we’re talking about now that will acquire land through a partnership, maybe with the province. I’m foreshadowing what may or may not happen.

But to ensure that there is that affordability aspect brought into a housing development…. I’ll use an example of maybe a 20-storey housing complex that might be developed over top of a SkyTrain corridor, we’ll say. What do we see, then, possibly happening — again, the minister knows where I’m going with this, I’m sure — to ensure that we have some of that affordable housing?

Then, with that, are we talking affordable rent units? Are we talking about affordable market housing? Those are two different things. How do we quantify what affordability really is?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: Above us in the gallery is a group of students from Talmud Torah school in my constituency. I had a great conversation with them outside. They’re very interested in watching the proceedings today, so I hope you’ll all make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of different fronts that I’m working on that may be of interest to the member, in coordination with my colleagues across government and with B.C. Housing.

First, we are working with First Nations — as an example, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh — and one of the largest developers in the Metro Vancouver area, both independently and as a group, finding ways to support them in economic development and their ongoing projects but also to deliver affordability within those projects that they are developing.

Bill 16, which we discussed — it passed this session — allows the Ministry of Transportation to buy land, not just immediately the footprint of the rapid transit station, rapid bus or SkyTrain but, in fact, a larger perimeter around the transit station that enables the development of actually affordable housing on top of and in close proximity to a transit station. This way, people who are more likely to use transit will be able to live closer to that transit because the housing will be more affordable. I anticipate there will be a significant partnership with private developers in developing sites that are purchased in that way, but those decisions have not been made yet.

Housing approval processes for municipalities have been an ongoing discussion, both inside and outside government. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is working closely with municipalities under what is the development approvals process review work that was done. There was a report and a review of development approvals at the municipal level — how authorities could be given to municipalities to expedite those processes.

One of the things that increases the cost of housing is the length of time of approvals. The landholding costs, as well as the costs of labour and supplies, tend to go up over time, and certainly, now, that’s the case. So the lengthier the municipal approval process is, the greater the costs and the less affordable the final housing product.

That is not just a private sector developer issue; that’s also a public sector developer issue. Both non-profits and B.C. Housing face this challenge of cost escalation due to extended municipal approvals processes. The DAPR report outlines the work that is happening within Municipal Affairs in partnership with municipalities to expedite those processes.

We’re doing work internally within the province to expedite provincial approvals. There are a couple of areas in particular that have been the focus of attention. The Ministry of Environment, around contaminated sites approvals processes, got backed up quite dramatically by the flooding in the Fraser Valley. The officials responsible for determining whether sites have been appropriately remediated and are ready for housing were deployed to determine whether farmers could plant — whether their fields were contaminated by the flooding or whether they would be able to go ahead with the farming season. So there was some backup in contaminated sites.

Also there was, at the same time, an increase in the number of contaminated sites — formerly contaminated sites — remediated and coming forward for approval. Because of the housing market being what it is, sites that previously were uneconomic to develop now have become economic to develop and require that provincial approval. That’s one example.

Archaeology approvals, as well — archaeological evaluation of sites by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, as it then was, now the Ministry of Forests. Work has taken place to reduce the backlog in archaeology reviews as well, and there has been some success on that project. So, broadly, the heading for that category of work is housing approvals processes.

The HousingHub program will continue. That’s a $2 billion construction financing fund for private developers, which includes non-profit organizations, community organizations as well as private developers, to build more affordable rental housing or more affordable housing for purchase.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a construction financing program where a loan is made to the developer or the community agency to complete the construction. Once construction is completed, that loan is paid back to the province, because the province can borrow money at a much lower rate than a private developer can for construction. The difference between those interest rates is converted to commitments for increased affordability at the site for rentals, a ten-year commitment for ownership, a commitment that is contained within a participating mortgage held by government so that the affordability can be passed on to future owners.

There is a lot of work in the ministry around advocacy with municipalities on major development discussions, rezoning discussions — for example, in the city of Vancouver, the Broadway plan. That is a planning process taking place in relation to the massive investment by the province and the federal government in a new SkyTrain for that city and the need for two pieces.

One is affordable housing and rental housing along that SkyTrain line to be prioritized through that planning process. The other is for the protection of renters who are living in buildings along those sites that may be redeveloped — to ensure that they’re able to return, as affordable rents, to the new buildings once they’re constructed. I’ve been advocating and supporting the work of the city of Vancouver to move that plan ahead and to approve it.

Similarly, in the city of Victoria, there’s the Missing Middle initiative, where they are proposing to allow expedited approvals processes for duplexes, triplexes and houseplexes such that they can be built in the same way that a single family home could without city council having to approve each development. I’m very much in favour of that proposal and have been supporting and advocating for Victoria to push that along as well.

I would categorize those under the moral suasion. I’ve written letters across the province to municipalities around affordable housing initiatives and initiatives like this to expedite the approval of affordable housing.

We also have the speculation and vacancy tax, which is not this ministry but was an important housing initiative that brought 18,000 units of previously vacant condos and homes held by investors back onto the rental market. This tax is only paid if the home is held vacant in a speculation and vacancy tax area, which are high-demand, low-vacancy areas, and you don’t pay it if you rent it out. So the goal of that tax is not to tax people but to encourage them to rent out previously vacant homes, and it has been successful in that regard. We’re going to continue that work.

Also, the member will be familiar with the rental housing zoning that was made available to municipalities. It was, unfortunately, subject to a judicial review out of, I believe, the city of New Westminster. And with that court case concluded, we hope that more municipalities will be looking at rental-only zoning uses as part of their toolbox around housing approvals.

M. Bernier: Thank you, I think, to the minister for that answer. Maybe I should back it up, even just a little bit, for a question for the minister, because it does tie into what we’re talking about. It’s different for every group, every person, every family. As I see our students are leaving, it’s important to them, as well, as the next generation, who we hope will have the opportunity to get into housing.

Some of the challenges…. Can the minister explain to me: what does he or his ministry use as a benchmark when we talk about affordability? What is an affordable rent? What is affordable housing? I think he would agree that that’s different for every person, for every municipality. Yet we stereotypically, I guess, easily use that terminology for all. When we are talking about affordability and affordable housing, what does that mean to the minister?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The strategy that government is deploying in relation to housing looks at a continuum of different types of rent and housing structures to respond to the urgency in the community around affordable housing, providing what used to be called deep core need housing. That housing that’s affordable and available to people who are living on social assistance or disability assistance is critically important as a homelessness response. It’s often a category that people most associate with government and public housing programs. The reason for that is the market is just not going to build the housing for that group of people, and it’s up to government to provide that housing and support.

Building up from that deep core need housing, that most-affordable housing, our government has shifted to providing increased affordability to groups that typically would not have been thought to need to have government intervention to deliver housing for them — middle-income people across the province. We have a $2 billion commitment through the HousingHub, and that program provides housing for people with household incomes of up to $175,000 annually, which is, obviously, a remarkable thing — that a government program would be out there encouraging the construction of housing for that particular population.

These programs vary from the shelter rate of social assistance all the way up to housing income levels approaching $200,000 annually. On that continuum, between those points, we have a number of different price points for different units, because the need is so diverse and so broad.

The traditional definition of affordability for housing is the CMHC definition of 30 percent. B.C. Housing uses that for rent-geared-to-income and for determining affordability for different income levels. But it’s really important, I think, to have government delivering that full spectrum of affordability to ensure that those needs are met.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has compelled municipalities to do what’s called a housing needs study to look into what the housing needs are in their community — different income levels, different types of housing, family housing, housing for singles, and so on — as an education tool for municipalities to understand where they should be focusing their energies to encourage development in certain areas to respond to the needs in their community.

It’s not just the price; it’s also the type of housing, the number of bedrooms, and so on, to respond to the needs in community.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate the minister acknowledging the fact that affordability, again, is different depending on what we’re talking about here. If we’re talking about…. A lot of times we reference “the great middle class.” Well, they’re not looking for government-subsidized housing. They’re looking for an opportunity just to get into market housing, which is near impossible for so many people right now. I’ll probably touch on that, and I’ll have some questions on that a little bit later.

Just one last question I wanted to ask the minister, since he brought it up. This was around the transportation corridors. As he acknowledged, there’s a wide swath outside that will be considered for the government to access around that corridor for affordable housing and market housing — an array, it sounds like.

One of the things I’m sure the minister has been hearing, though, as I have — and he acknowledged it in his previous answer — is of the people who are already presently living in those areas. They will be allowed, through some mechanism, to come back at a similar price point, I believe — I’m not trying to put words in the minister’s mouth; he used different terms — a similar rental price point of what they’re paying now when development takes place.

[3:10 p.m.]

The concern that I am hearing from people — and I know the minister is, as well — is that mid-point, though, of: where do they go? A big concern from a lot of not only developers but advocacy groups…. They’re saying that the government might acquire some land. There will be a transition period of what will happen with that land while development takes place. People will lose their homes. Many of them are in these areas where they classify as lower rental areas, maybe, at present.

It could be a year, two, three, four years of development, depending on what’s taking that place — that somebody will be losing their home, and they’re being told: “Don’t worry. You’ll be able to come back when the development is finished at a comparable rate, so not to worry.” Their concern, my concern — I’m assuming the minister would share it as well — is what would the plan be, though, in that 18 months, two, four years, whatever it might be?

We do know, and we have to acknowledge, that it can be many, many years while a development takes place. Where do the people go in that time? They’re not just going to be sitting around and waiting for four years to hopefully get back into the same neighbourhood where they have maybe lived for many, many, many years, if not their entire life. What is the plan in that mid-term if the province goes through with this plan?

Hon. D. Eby: The approach of B.C. Housing around redevelopment of any of their sites is a tenant-first relocation strategy, which focuses on ensuring that the tenant has another place to go, that they’re supported in the cost of hookups and disconnection and so on of services, and that they are not left outside with the idea that in four years they can return to a home.

This is, I think, best practice, and I want to be clear. When the tenant returns to B.C. Housing, it’s a return to rent-geared-to-income. So if the tenant’s income has changed during the time that they were outside, or the tenant’s income is such that they can afford more or less rent, they’ll be income testing on return to the unit. I think that I said they could return at the same rent, but I just want to be clear that it may vary depending what has happened to their income in the interim period.

Both Vancouver and Burnaby have tenant protection plans in place. They are slightly varied. Vancouver’s proposal is in relation to the Broadway corridor. Burnaby’s is in place, generally, for the redevelopment of housing. They deal with the transition period differently. Burnaby through tenant relocation plans and resources for tenants. Vancouver’s proposal, as I understand it, is that they are looking at the possibility of swing spaces being developed so that the tenants can move into the swing-space building, which would be a new-build rental building. Then, once the building is complete, they could move back into the new building, once it’s done. I understand these plans are still evolving within the city.

I can advise the member that, at the provincial level, we are having policy discussions about what we can do to provide support to tenants, because we know that we have aging rental housing stock that needs to be redeveloped. It’s particularly low density in a number of communities, and it provides a significant opportunity for redevelopment. But the big challenge around it is that the tenants have to be protected. Otherwise, our goal of reducing homelessness, of making life more affordable for British Columbians, is really undermined by the fact that these tenants are displaced and can’t afford to live in the community where they used to live.

I’m certainly very concerned about that, and I’m glad to know that the member shares that concern, because the displacement of tenants leads to homelessness and other unhappy outcomes. We need to do this redevelopment work, and at the same time, we need to protect tenants. It shouldn’t matter whether you live in Vancouver or Burnaby or some other municipality when this happens. I think there’s an opportunity for us at the provincial level to look at providing some minimum standards there, but that is very early-stage policy work.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Bernier: One of the things, obviously, when we have some of our partner groups, when we’re looking about affordable housing…. I looked recently at one of the comments that came from the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association where they publicly said that they had 10,000 affordable homes ready to be built, awaiting funding though, and were disappointed, I guess, in the B.C. government’s Budget 2022 for the lack of funding that was there for these 10,000 units that they say that they have ready to go.

Now, I know there are always some nuances with that, but I’m curious if the minister can give an update from the discussions I’m sure that he’s had with the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. Is there hope, then, that these 10,000 units are going to be funded? Are they now going to be partially funded? How is that process working? Looking through the present budget, it appears that that’s not the case right now. So what is the plan?

Hon. D. Eby: The background to the concern of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association is that they were aware of, as B.C. Housing and government was, 13,000 units in applications to B.C. Housing for funding through the community housing fund. In the budget envelope available, we were able to fund 2,800 of those units. In this year’s budget, there’s $100 million. Recognizing the gap between what was asked for, the 13,000, and the 2,800 that were funded, there was another $100 million that was brought forward into the 2022 financial year.

This is a ten-year housing plan, so that accelerated funding will allow, we believe, 850 additional units in 15 to 17 projects across the province, closing that gap a little bit more.

But it definitely underlines a couple of things. One is the capacity of the sector. The fact that we have so many non-profits who are able to put together credible development proposals for affordable housing is a very good sign of the health of the non-profit housing sector in the province.

The second is the scope of the demand. This is a massive, $7 billion housing program. B.C. Housing is one of the largest, if not the largest, residential housing developer in North America with 6,000 to 7,000 units under development as we speak, in construction. Yet there’s still a very significant demand for additional direct-funded government housing.

B.C. Housing is working with those project proponents to coordinate them with other potential funding streams. The first is federal government funding. We work closely with the federal government to coordinate funding with CMHC, their B.C. Housing arm. The close partnership between CMHC and B.C. Housing enables projects that are proposed for B.C. to be repurposed for federal funding streams that are available to British Columbia.

The member…. I encourage him when he’s interacting with our federal counterparts, Members of Parliament, to push them — that B.C. deserves a per-capita share of federal funding for housing. Something that we have yet to see, frankly, from the federal government, which is very disappointing.

[3:20 p.m.]

I have commitments from the federal minister that he is going to address that issue and support us in ensuring that we do see our fair per-capita share of federal housing funding, especially given the level of investment being put in by the province and especially in relation to Indigenous housing, which is a significant federal responsibility where there’s a lot of rooms for improvement.

The second opportunity for these applications, and where B.C. Housing is working with proponents, is to have discussions about using HousingHub funding for construction financing and then traditional mortgage takeout funding that enables affordable rental housing to be constructed — and sooner than the calls may go out for different affordable housing funds either at the provincial or federal level. So B.C. Housing works with funding proponents to repurpose their applications for different streams of funding.

In addition, we will have future years’ calls for funding for our different housing streams. Those applications, some of which will need additional work to get them into shape to be funded in those years…. B.C. Housing will work through project development funding and so on to get them into shape for funding in future calls.

M. Bernier: It sounds, by that answer, that obviously there are a lot of different components built into some of the challenges to get some of this affordability dealt with and housing built. But a lot of it seems to gravitate around funding or a lack of funding at certain times.

I don’t know if the minister will want to comment to this, but it just quickly pops to mind. I have to say that if $100 million is going to build about 10 percent of what’s needed for the 10,000 affordable homes through the not-for-profit society, imagine what $1 billion, instead of building a museum, would do.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the chuckle. I know the minister is at the cabinet table when decisions are being made. I don’t say this to be joking. It is, again, about priorities. But it is important to highlight the fact that if funding is an issue….

The minister has acknowledged it’s only one. We need the federal partnership. But it is important to also highlight again that government makes priorities where they see fit. I thought that would be my perfect window to get on the record again that affordability is important. It’s the crisis right now that’s facing so many people across the province.

When we talk about some of the housing units that are already built, I think it’s important to acknowledge some of the other challenges. I probably wasn’t going to go here. But in light of the unfortunate situation that just happened in North Vancouver at a B.C. Housing unit with a fire that just took place…. Of course, we’re also very hopeful. The RCMP and fire department have said, at this point, that they’re unsure if anybody was unfortunately trapped in the building. We all hope, obviously, that that is not the case.

What was highlighted through the media this morning, when I was just reading through it over lunch, was the lack of maintenance that takes place in B.C. Housing units, which puts people at risk. The commentary in the media today over lunch was that for ten years now — I’ll say ten years — there have been calls for additional funding from B.C. Housing for ongoing maintenance on a lot of their facilities provincewide.

What is the provincial role in ensuring that there’s adequate funding for B.C. Housing? Not just…. We’re talking about “to date” in today’s estimates. We’re talking about building new infrastructure. But what about the stuff that’s already there and maintaining it to a level that is suitable and safe for people to live in? Can the minister maybe break down what kind of funding there is for that and what the plan is, ongoing, with B.C. Housing to ensure that?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A number of components to the member’s question. First of all, in relation to North Vancouver, there was a fire in a building in North Vancouver which had B.C. Housing operating funding. Tragically, I understand…. I am advised that somebody lost their life. Obviously, our hearts and thoughts go out to the family and friends of that individual and to all of the people who lived in that building who have been displaced by this fire, tragically.

I’m also advised that this building had been identified for significant capital upgrades, including fire-related upgrades, where the technical work was underway. The fire has happened during this period. It was a building that was in need of repair, and that work was getting underway. So a very tragic and awful situation, and obviously we wish the best to everybody who was affected by that terrible fire.

Now, more broadly around the question of capital renewal of B.C. Housing buildings and non-profit buildings that receive operating funding from B.C. Housing, in 2018, there was a capital renewal fund established. In that fund, $298.18 million was committed for non-profit-owned projects for upgrades and maintenance, and $179.76 million was committed for provincially owned buildings, B.C. Housing buildings. As of March 31, 2022, there are 255 non-profit maintenance projects, renewal projects, in progress and 452 provincially owned projects in progress.

The total investment under the capital renewal fund is a ten-year, $1.36 billion investment. The reason for making this investment and supporting these 707 projects that are currently underway is recognition that the most affordable housing we have is the housing that’s already standing. Where we can preserve it and ensure that it’s safe and has a long service life, that’s good news for our response to the housing crisis more generally.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I hadn’t heard, so our hearts go out as well. I appreciate the minister acknowledging that in the House. Obviously, none of us want to see that. It’s unfortunate when you hear the situation that…. As the minister acknowledged, we’re trying to do the investment for maintenance on these facilities.

How does the government, I guess through B.C. Housing…? How do we audit these facilities, then, to determine that…? I’ll speak from past experience as a Minister of Education. The school districts would audit their facilities, and we’d be able to grade them based on requirements for upgrades, based on a facilities index.

[3:30 p.m.]

Does something similar take place with B.C. Housing? If we’re going to be spending the money, we’d determine that that money would be spent on a risk-analysis basis, I would hope, but also from a provincial perspective. Again, there are B.C. Housing units right across British Columbia in small rural communities as well.

How do we determine where that money will be spent — through an auditing process, I would assume — and how does that work through the ministry as we determine the accountability of who is going to administer that funding and the determination of how much and where?

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing monitors the physical condition of the social housing stock through something called a facility condition index, which I’ll refer to as FCI, as part of their asset management program. The FCI is an indication of the condition of the building, and the measurement is such that it’s like golf. A lower value corresponds to a better building condition.

B.C. Housing set the 2022-23 overall target at 16 to 21 percent for the condition of the provincial social housing stock. This target is calculated using a five-year projected average of the condition of the social housing stock. This approach is industry-standard around property management.

As of March 31, 2022, the portfolio FCI rating is 19 percent for the social housing stock, but at the start of 2021-22, the FCI of the housing portfolio was 20.9 percent. Without investment through the capital renewal fund, the FCI would have reached 22.7 percent by the end of the year, well out of target. As the member will note, we’re headed in the right direction on our FCI scores.

The buildings that score the worst on the facility condition index are the ones that are prioritized for funding for maintenance and renovations with the capital renewal fund.

M. Bernier: Do all B.C. Housing units get funding if they’re required, depending on the rating and the index? Where I’m going with that…. I’m going to use the community of Chetwynd as an example — something in my riding that I’m aware of — where, I am told, there are numerous B.C. Housing units that are sitting vacant because the government, through B.C. Housing, is not doing the necessary repairs to make them inhabitable.

For different reasons — obviously, when tenants left — the facility is no longer in the state that would allow a person or a family to move in, but I’m being told by local B.C. Housing staff that one of the struggles is getting the funding to bring it back up to the repair state needed for someone to live in it. I understand that that would be a struggle in many aspects, probably right around the province, but how do we determine that, then?

You’ll have a small community like Chetwynd that might only have — I don’t know the number — 15 or 20 B.C. Housing units. If they lose five or six of them because they’re in disrepair, that’s a huge loss to a community. How do we determine where that funding goes? Is it a responsibility of government or B.C. Housing or of a local MLA to advocate? Where does that responsibility lie, to bring these much-needed affordable housing units back into stock?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing has technical management teams, headed by the asset manager, and assigns priority, based on the FCI score of the building, for determining which buildings access the capital renewal fund for renovation.

Now, typically, when a unit is turned over and requires some renovation in order to be brought back online, it is the highest priority for B.C. Housing, because this is the opportunity to get somebody inside who may be out on the street, in a shelter, or otherwise in desperate need of housing.

I don’t know what’s happening in Chetwynd. I guess the member’s example of the local MLA drawing the issue to the attention of government is a good one. B.C. Housing will follow up on the member’s question about Chetwynd and what’s happening with those units. That is the process for determining renovation priority.

M. Bernier: Okay, I appreciate that response. As unfortunate as it is, sometimes it can be tens of thousands of dollars, maybe — that’s the numbers I’ve been told — to fix up some of these units to allow people to get back into them. It’s an unfortunate situation and a waste of dollars in so many ways, but in a lot of respects, it’s still cheaper than building a new facility. Obviously, with the stock that we have, to keep people in them would be a preference.

The minister referenced today, a few times, HousingHub. I just wanted to ask a few questions, maybe go back to that since the minister has referenced it. It’s my understanding — I believe the minister has even acknowledged this — that the HousingHub system is about $2 billion that we’re talking about. It used to be a grants process, it sounds like, that has now been switched to loans.

I’m just curious, then. Why is it that? Why have we switched the system to now…? I know the minister has acknowledged, and he might say again in his answer, that the government can borrow the money for cheaper interest rates than somebody else. But the system used to be, to my understanding, a grant for somebody who is going to be applying in order to build a facility. Why was it switched from a grant to a loan?

Hon. D. Eby: The HousingHub program, from inception, has been a construction financing program. The member is likely thinking of the many programs under Building B.C. that are grant-based — the Indigenous housing fund, the community housing fund, supportive housing, and so on, which are all grants. They are not loans.

The reason why HousingHub is structured as a loan program is that it’s a program that’s targeted at middle-income people in the province. The member will know — he has previously sat around cabinet tables — that there are not unlimited resources in government. So when deciding where to allocate housing grant dollars, assigning those to the populations that are most desperately in need of housing or at risk of homelessness has been the priority of government.

But we didn’t want to fail to respond to the challenge faced by working people across the province to just find basic rental housing or affordable housing for purchase. Through this HousingHub program — because it is a construction financing program and benefits from that change in the interest rates between what government can get and the developer can get — we’re able to deliver increased affordability to middle-income people.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The fund doesn’t get used up. It gets paid back at the completion of construction and is able to go into facilitating the development of another affordable site.

Hon. Chair, welcome to the session. I might ask, with my colleagues’ consent, a five-minute recess.

The Chair: The Chair is happy to grant that request.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s bring it back, shall we.

We’re here for the estimates of the Ministry of Housing.

M. Bernier: We were just talking about the HousingHub. I’m curious, then, on this loans-based process. Can anybody apply? Obviously, when we’re talking about developers, is there a set of criteria that a developer would have to have some proven record of ability to do that?

If so, depending on how the minister will answer that, he can also add how it is decided, then, on that loan. Is it on a case-by-case basis, or is there a set of criteria depending on the number of units or how it’s going to be built? Could the minister just maybe explain that a bit more wholesomely?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll give a high-level answer, and then if the member wants to drill down on any of these, I’m happy to go into detail.

B.C. Housing has an underwriting department, just like any bank would, in relation to loans. They use typical evaluation tools used by banks to determine the appropriateness of any given construction loan. This involves an assessment of the builders’ ability to complete the project, as well as personal or corporate guarantees, often both, where the loan is guaranteed by the personal assets of both the developer and the developer’s company.

In addition, the loan is secured by a mortgage guarantee that puts B.C. Housing’s repayment ahead of developer equity. In other words, the developer is required to put equity into the project, and the equity could be accessed by B.C. Housing to recover the loan in order to ensure that taxpayers are kept whole. This collection of guarantees ensures that construction loans that are provided will be returned to government.

[3:50 p.m.]

In exchange for the construction financing, projects are evaluated on their ability to deliver affordable housing for purchase or for rental housing — that there is a ten-year commitment to meeting income levels in the purpose-built rental building. In other words, this is a building that is built for rental, and for ten years, rents need to be at a level that the income levels that have been guaranteed by B.C. Housing and can be met. In other words, when a tenant moves out of the building and the unit is turned over, the tenant that’s coming in within that ten-year period will benefit from the more affordable rents as well.

At the end of the ten-year period, those tenancies continue with those rents until the tenant moves out. They’re only subject to market rents at the point of those tenants moving out, who were in the units, at the nine-year, 364th day, essentially. They’re protected by the residential tenancy branch rent control increases over time, as long as the same tenant is in the unit.

M. Bernier: Just trying to not necessarily drill down but to understand the process a little more. There is a $2 billion pot that B.C. Housing has. This is not, obviously — as the minister is acknowledging, so we understand — $2 billion a year. There’s a $2 billion pot that gets drawn down but repaid. That comes back as the loan repayment. That money will just be a continuation — in-out process, I guess — through an application, and then payback process, as loans usually are.

So there’s a cap of the $2 billion. Do we see, maybe presently, how much of that is going out? Do we see that $2 billion being drawn down? Then, obviously, there’d be no money until money starts rolling back in. Or is there a top-up from government, a continuation, to ensure that there’s more money coming in? If so, then that’s more than $2 billion, or is the $2 billion the cap?

If it completely gets drawn down, then there is no money left until developers, through the process of completion and payback, top up that pot, back to B.C. Housing for reissuance, I guess, for future projects. Do I understand the process correctly?

Hon. D. Eby: This program has been operational for less than a year, and already, it has been taken up by a significant number of projects. We have $330 million in loans that are currently out, funding construction across the province.

In order to carefully manage this fund, the best way to think about it is as a revolving line of credit. B.C. Housing and the Ministry of Attorney General maintain an accurate forecast and schedule of the loans — when repayments are anticipated, when requests for draw downs are happening — to ensure that we stay within that $2 billion limit.

[3:55 p.m.]

There are not additional top-ups. The trend line of loans is that they are increasing, so this $330 million figure will be increasing over time as construction continues. Then, as those projects complete, it will come down, but our anticipation is that number will continue to grow.

M. Bernier: I guess the question around this would be…. This isn’t “I gotcha” stuff. This is just trying to understand the process.

Has Treasury Board, through the ministry’s application through Treasury Board, I guess, approved the $2 billion? Has that $2 billion already been allocated and is now sitting with B.C. Housing? If so, do they get to invest that and recoup any interest accumulated while it’s sitting and if there is only $300 million plus that’s gone out?

If that is the answer, that’s one thing. But if not, then what is the oversight through the ministry on the application process? Not to take away from the expertise that B.C. Housing has, as the minister acknowledged there — the process. I’m just trying to understand if they already have the money. If not, how does that process work?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just trying to think about how I would ask for that $2 billion to be allocated to B.C. Housing to use the interest. That would be enthusiastically received at Treasury Board, I’m sure.

The money is not sitting with B.C. Housing. It’s drawn down as needed from TB. The commitment from government to B.C. Housing is that the drawdown can be up to $2 billion, but it can only be drawn down as projects are approved.

The approval process is as follows. Under $25 million: if the project is under $25 million, B.C. Housing has the authority to make the decision around the loan directly. For $25 million to $50 million, there is a risk screen of the project that is done by both the Ministry of Attorney General and Treasury Board staff. Over $50 million: projects that are over $50 million go to a full Treasury Board submission. So there is an increased degree of scrutiny the higher the value of the project.

M. Bernier: I was hoping and assumed, knowing my time at Treasury Board, that that was the answer. I also acknowledged, while I was asking the question, the nice smirks from the staff in the back who were probably thinking: “Wow. It would have been nice to have just had that $2 billion and allow us to do that.” But I appreciate the answer.

My next question was going to be around — just ensuring from the transparency aspect but also the scrutiny — the application process, responsibility and accountability back to government. The minister, through that answer, acknowledged what I was hoping that the answer was, because I think that’s an important part of the process.

One little bit different train of thought that I want to go to is really around just housing supply in general now. The latest February 2022 figures, survey of employment for payroll and hours, showed that B.C. is the only major province that’s experiencing a decline in employment at hospitals.

Now, the Minister of Health, when asked about this, identified that one of the biggest challenges around recruitment and retention…. Specifically, I would acknowledge — and, I would say, for different reasons in rural British Columbia — a lot of the lack of housing supply that’s there and affordable housing supply, in a lot of aspects, is a barrier to filling a lot of these vacancies.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m curious what this minister’s role is when it comes to talking about that gap in our housing supply. I look at…. The CEO from Royal Inland Foundation in Kamloops has said that they’re in a situation now…. We’ve heard, and I won’t have to go into some of the discussion we’ve already had through question period and other areas here in this House — about the problems that that hospital, as well as others, is having.

They’re wanting to bring in and trying to bring in travel nurses. Some are coming in for up to a year. We’re seeing that in a lot of places — whether it’s Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert — because of the shortages of nurses. Almost every single one of them acknowledged that one of the largest challenges is housing and making sure that that housing stock is available at an affordable rate to recruit and retain nurses and doctors into those communities.

Back to, I guess, where I was going in…. My question that I had was: where does this Minister of Housing fit in to that discussion with the Minister of Health? Is there a plan in place? Is there a program they’re looking at, or is this still going to be market-driven and we’ll let the communities take care of that?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to correct the record, government has added 30,000 health care workers since forming government.

I know this is an issue. It’s been canvassed in some detail in question period. It’s not accurate to suggest that there’s been a decline in the number of employees at a hospital. It is accurate to suggest that housing is a serious issue around recruitment and retention of not just health care employees but also employees of many different and vital sectors across the province — everything from tourism, government services, retail, manufacturing. You name it.

It’s the reason for government’s establishment of the HousingHub program — to ensure that and to do our best to deliver more affordable rental housing and housing for purchase. It’s sometimes described as workforce housing, if only because I can’t think of a better name, really. This is the housing for the people who make our cities and communities go. This construction financing is meant to facilitate and encourage the development of that kind of housing.

As for specific housing for health care employees, usually, I’m advised by B.C. Housing, that work would be done by the health authority. Any particular housing program…. Most universities, for example, for recruitment and retention of staff, also have housing programs internally to support their staff around finding appropriate housing. Health authorities have similar kinds of initiatives around relocation of staff and housing for staff.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I’m not expecting this minister…. We’re not reliving a question period here, by any means. Of course, when I look at a lot of the different data and the nuances on the wording…. I mean, we’re talking about doctors and nurses, not health care workers in hospitals. It could be a multitude of different areas.

Issues in rural British Columbia. We’re talking specifically doctors and nurses. In my travels around northern B.C., housing is the number one issue. The minister just acknowledged, if I understood his answer correctly, that a lot of that responsibility is looking at the Ministry of Health and from the health authorities themselves.

When I talk to a lot of people on the boards of health authorities, their comment to me is: “We’re not in housing; we’re in health. Our job is to ensure that we have health care and good health outcomes. There have to be other areas that deal with the housing.”

That’s why my question was…. As the Minister of Housing, I would assume, or think, that there’d be some responsibility there for this minister to look at ways to incentivize or support housing development.

Now, he referenced the HousingHub. I would only ask, then, to the minister: what does the minister or ministry do around — I guess “advertising” might not be the right word — supporting the message around the HousingHub initiative?

[4:05 p.m.]

I can almost guarantee that a small community…. I think the minister even referenced earlier a place like Prince Rupert. It’ll have similar issues. Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, McBride — I could list a whole bunch of communities that don’t necessarily have the capacity to be applying to the hub and to be building these facilities that the minister is acknowledging that the health authorities and the communities need.

I guess my question is more of…. Is the minister saying that this is the only option — this HousingHub — and that’s what we’re going to deflect to? Or are there other things that are being looked at, which maybe I’m not aware of or the communities aren’t aware of, where we can partner to deal with this housing shortage specifically to support health care workers in communities that desperately need it?

Hon. D. Eby: In the earlier set of questions, I discussed a review of the Building B.C. program to ensure that it corresponds to the needs in the province. One of the issues that we’ve identified in the program — I’m not sure; I think I raised it in an earlier response but maybe not — is that some communities have a shortage of developers or non-profits, or both, to build housing that’s needed.

Prince Rupert’s a really good example, which I’ve spoken about on a number of occasions. Here’s a community that’s growing incredibly — economically, hundreds and hundreds of jobs added annually just at the port, all the services that the people who take these jobs at the port need — yet the municipality really is grappling with a shortage of developers to come and build the housing for people who are going to work at the port.

It’s not just a health care issue. If we’re talking about health care workers in Rupert, we’re also talking about port workers and other essential service workers in Rupert. I’m sure there are similar issues in Chetwynd and other smaller communities.

The HousingHub program is one that is likely most successful in an urban setting, where there are multifamily housing developers that are able to take advantage of this program. That said, there’s no bar to rural participation, but it does rely on a certain level of infrastructure. The same with the Building B.C. program. It relies on, often, non-profit operators to bring forward certain proposals. So that gap is one that we have identified. We’ll be looking at that as part of the overall review of the Building B.C. program.

Overall, in terms of housing, we have a 30-point plan, which we have been deploying since forming government to address housing speculation and vacancy, and so on, in different communities, to encourage the development of housing, to assist municipalities in expediting housing approvals, and so on. All of this work is contributing to building that workforce housing, and we’ve seen positive results in terms of our provincial numbers around housing starts, rental housing starts, multifamily housing.

That work needs to continue. It’s also not the full answer, which is why we’re doing that review of this program.

M. Bernier: Well, we talked about the review earlier. That’ll be, hopefully, sooner rather than later, acknowledging that the issues aren’t going away, and they’re just going to be compounding.

[4:10 p.m.]

As we’re talking about this…. I know the minister will be looking, then, at some of those challenges, which are unique in rural parts of British Columbia, that don’t fit the present model. I know many communities…. Members in this House will be looking forward, then, to that information coming out so we can share it in those regions to try to help solve some of these issues.

The minister just referenced the Building B.C. housing plan. Maybe I’ll ask a question there. In that plan, how many housing units are being specifically targeted in that plan just for seniors?

Hon. D. Eby: The data I have immediately at hand is seniors units completed, 31st of the fiscal year basis through to end of December 2021.

In our time in government, starting with the most recent three years, 2019-2020, 865 units of supportive seniors housing and 408 units of independent seniors housing, for a total of 1,273 units that year.

In 2020-21, 301 units of supportive seniors housing and 404 units of independent seniors housing, for a total of 705 units that year.

Then in 2021-2022 — this is a partial year, because this data is to the 31st of December 2021 — 417 supportive seniors units and 177 independent seniors units, for a total of 594 for that year.

We are averaging about just shy of 800 units a year of seniors housing. I’ll gather more up-to-date numbers for provision to the member. These are completed units, so they are currently available to be occupied.

M. Bernier: I guess one of the concerns that I just wanted to quickly raise there…. I was reading through the report from the seniors advocate. Of course, we talk about the census showing that we’ve now surpassed about one million people at the retirement age here in the province of British Columbia. A good portion of those people, for different personal reasons, are trying to access subsidized housing.

I was looking at some of the stats that the seniors advocate put out, and although the minister is acknowledging that there is some modest growth and buildout taking place, the seniors advocate says that seniors subsidized rental housing has actually decreased over the last five years. There’s also, during that same time period, during decreased subsidized rental housing, a 43 percent increase in applications.

[4:15 p.m.]

In her report, it says that there’s a two-year average wait time right now for seniors who are looking for subsidized housing in British Columbia to get in, with an actual 8,706 people, as of last year, at the time of this report…. So 8,700 people on a wait-list in the province of British Columbia, looking for some form of subsidized housing.

I acknowledge that is going to be a challenge for us here in British Columbia and for the minister. But the question would be, then…. He acknowledged some modest buildout that looks like it’s taking place. But with one million people at retirement age, what’s the plan in the next one, three and five years, I guess, within this Building B.C. housing plan? If he could let us know what his thoughts are to try to meet that gap so we don’t have a two-year waiting list of people who are requiring subsidized housing as seniors.

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to seniors housing, there are a number of initiatives underway. But one of the significant initiatives relates to the SAFER grant for seniors. This is a subsidy for seniors to assist them to cover rents in an environment where rents are going up. It’s an important subsidy for seniors.

In 2018, we expanded eligibility and increased monthly rental payment amounts by approximately 42 percent under the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters. That’s the SAFER program. It went from $187 to $265. The number of seniors supported by SAFER has increased in each of the past five years, likely due to that expanded eligibility.

The challenge with SAFER is that rents continue to escalate, and they’re not tied to inflation. So B.C. Housing is doing a review of both the SAFER and the rental assistance program, which is a separate subsidy program. Those findings will inform recommendations for government, moving forward, to ensure that the program continues to meet our goals of supporting housing affordability for seniors.

This is one of the reasons why I’m so enthusiastic about cities approving the rental housing that is in the queue for approvals through municipalities. We can’t subsidize the rent for seniors in rental housing that doesn’t exist.

I am a bit frustrated, occasionally, by the discussions about what the rents will be that take place, detached from the idea that government is willing and able to support seniors in getting into some of these units once they’re built. But putting the units off for a year or two years, waiting for increased affordability, doesn’t actually increase affordability, nor does it reduce pressure on renters like seniors.

With respect to some of the concerns raised by the office of the seniors advocate, there were two. One was that there was a decrease in rental housing units. This is due to operating agreements, which B.C. Housing had with some seniors buildings, expiring. The units don’t go away, but B.C. Housing stops tracking those units once the operating agreement is complete.

It doesn’t mean that the seniors aren’t still living there or that there are not still units for seniors. It just means that B.C. Housing no longer tracks them as government seniors housing. It sounds like a bit of a technical issue, but it is significant in that the units haven’t disappeared. They continue.

[4:20 p.m.]

There was a decrease in the value of SAFER subsidies paid by government that was raised by the seniors advocate. We suspect, although are still doing work, that this is likely due to an increase in senior incomes due to the federal CERB program. This is an income-dependent subsidy, so if your income goes up, your SAFER subsidy can be reduced. That is the likely source of that. People’s incomes went up, and therefore, their SAFER subsidies were reduced, even though the number of people receiving the subsidy increased.

M. Bernier: There’s no argument from me that, obviously, supply plays into issues. As the minister acknowledged, it’s hard to have something to rent if the supply is not there for people to rent.

I thought it was important also to canvass just the pressures that, especially, are facing our aging population, when I say that almost a million people now are at their retirement age. That support is very much needed. Again, this is felt right across the entire province, this challenge.

I know the minister was just waiting for this one, and I’m going to give him a chance. Since we talked about renters, I asked the minister a question here in this House about two months ago, February 15, right when the budget was being announced, the day before. The minister stood in this House and said, “Wait for it; we’re working on it,” the renters rebate, $400 to help the people in the province of British Columbia that this government has promised now for many years. But we did not see it in the budget, and the minister did acknowledge and say that we’re working on it; it’s coming.

Maybe the minister can enlighten this House today where we’re at on that promise.

Hon. D. Eby: That work is being done by the Ministry of Finance, and I understand it is underway.

M. Bernier: Well, we canvassed the Minister of Finance on that. It’s nowhere in the budget, and it seems to always be pushed around, that specific promise, because it always goes back to “this was a housing initiative,” and it’s the Minister for Housing’s promise on this to deliver.

The Premier made the promise publicly, so I know the pressure that puts on the minister to try to deliver. But has the minister, then, advocated for this? Has there been costing done on what this will amount to, to help renters? Because the minister himself has been on record supporting this initiative, I’m just curious where he’s at on trying to help deliver on it.

Hon. D. Eby: Responsibility for delivering different government commitments that were made during the election is assigned to different ministries. The renters rebate responsibility was assigned to the Minister of Finance. If the member has canvassed that with the Minister of Finance, that’s where he will find the best answers about where that is at. I’m absolutely supportive of a renters rebate and all of our government’s commitments made during the last campaign.

M. Bernier: I find that an interesting answer, because, again, it seems to be pushed around. The Minister of Finance has said that she’s really, it sounds like, not working on it.

It was a commitment from this government. Of course, it does fall, I would argue, financially, under the Ministry of Finance, but the commitment to deliver, you would assume, would be a housing commitment under this minister. So I’m quite surprised.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, yeah. The minister did say, “Stay tuned,” that it’s coming. I do acknowledge that the minister was trying to say it’s the Minister of Finance. I just want to say that this is one of those frustrations, though, because, as the Housing critic, I know I’m getting the calls. I would assume the Housing Minister is as well.

The minister’s also been on record — and he can correct me if I’m misstating this — saying that he does not necessarily support the homeowner’s grant. I’m just curious how that plays out. Is the minister…? Looking at the looks that I just got on his face, am I incorrect in that assumption? I know the minister has said: “It’s not fair that homeowners get a benefit through a homeowner’s grant when tenants don’t.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Through that, I would say that it makes it sound like he doesn’t support a homeowner’s grant, or he’s supporting a renters rebate that they haven’t received as well. So I’m just curious where the minister can square that one for me.

Hon. D. Eby: In the previous question, I said that I support the renters rebate. I support the commitment of government to address that unfairness. I do not know how he gets from that quote, that unfairness, that, by extension, then, I do not support this long-standing grant for homeowners.

I think it’s fair and appropriate that renters see a rebate as well. More and more families are renting and having to rent. It is a reflection of that. So I support the campaign commitment. That’s why I support the work of the Minister of Finance on this.

M. Bernier: I only bring that up because of, maybe, the perception. Words are important, and when the minister publicly says that it’s not fair that homeowners get a homeowner’s grant, that makes it sound like the minister thinks it’s not fair that homeowners get a homeowners grant. Those were his words.

I do understand the nuance that the minister is trying to say — that it’s not fair that they get a grant when the tenants don’t, and he’s trying to say that that’s supporting the tenants getting a rebate. It is unfortunate that it’s been, I guess, going on five, six years now that everybody in the government says they support it, but they’re unable to deliver on that promise.

Maybe I’ll switch, because I know the minister. I’ll just get the same answer from him every time on that topic.

The Residential Tenancy Act. I’m being advised that there is a huge wait-list right now for hearings at the residential tenancy branch. Can the minister maybe acknowledge where we’re at with wait times for that dispute resolution process? Is there still a large wait time? I know government has said that COVID played into that a little bit. I’m not sure if that’s still the case, but I’m being told there is quite a wait time. What is the wait time, and what’s the reasoning for it?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve seen a significant increase in call volumes since 2019. In March of 2022, of this year, the residential tenancy branch received 19,809 telephone calls. That’s an increase of 34½ percent over March 2019.

[4:30 p.m.]

In fiscal year ’21-22, the residential tenancy branch received 199,950 calls compared to 205,000 calls in ’20-21 and 183,000 calls in 2019-20. This represents a 9 percent increase in call volume between 2019-20 to 2021-22. In 2021-22, the average wait time was 14 minutes and 55 seconds versus six minutes and 56 seconds in the previous fiscal year, so a significant escalation in wait times.

As of April 2022, hearing wait times are now approximately 4.2 weeks to hear an emergency dispute, 15.3 weeks to hear standard disputes and 27.7 weeks to hear monetary disputes. The pre-pandemic average number of dispute applications was 1,550 per month. That has increased to 2,245 in September 2020.

The RTB received an average of 1,720 applications per month in the past 12 months and received 1,942 applications in March 2022. I think the explanation for this increased activity in the branch is likely the very low vacancy rate and the concern that tenants have in a dispute with the landlord — that it’s better to raise the dispute and resolve it through the residential tenancy branch than simply move to a different place. Because of the low vacancy rate, additional rental housing is not available.

To respond to this increase in demand, we are currently hiring for 16 positions that will assist with call volume. We have reached out to engage Business B.C. to provide additional support on calls to reduce that wait time for people, as they’re waiting on advice and assistance with their tenancy dispute. We are changing…. Pardon me. I said Business B.C., but I meant…. Not the magazine. I meant Service B.C. Business B.C. is not assisting us on this. It’s support from Service B.C. on calls.

We are changing business processes within the branch, using things like hearing verification to make sure the parties are actually going to show up for the hearing slots that are available and emphasizing early resolution to avoid the need for unnecessary hearings.

There is an issue, absolutely, with increased volume and demand at the branch, likely driven by vacancy rate decreases. Government is responding through reform to business processes and bringing additional staff on.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I actually really appreciate that answer because it kind of covers off a few things that I was going to canvass on that. I think I would agree with the minister when you look at the lack of supply out there, when somebody is presently renting…. I look at my kids, for instance, and some of the stories that I’ve heard from them, where I’ve encouraged them to not leave their place that they’re renting in fear of not being able to find a place and to take it up with the RTB instead.

I will acknowledge and agree with the minister that that might be a big portion of what’s happening within that agency and dealing with that.

A little concerned when I hear, from the monetary disputes, what sounds like up to like six months of a wait for a hearing — if I heard correctly, 20 some-odd weeks. That would be a bit of a concern. Obviously, there’s not much you can do about that from the number volume that’s coming in, from what the minister is saying.

What I’m curious about, though, too, is what I’m hearing, and I know that the minister would be hearing…. I’m not sure if or how the RTB would even fit into this. But a huge issue, especially with the lack of supply out there and the cost of units going way up, is landlords just disposing of and putting up for sale properties, whether it’s a house that’s being rented or a duplex, typically in that situation, where they put it up for sale, and somebody can be evicted now because of that.

Is that something that can go to the RTB, or is that actually outside of their scope of ability, of interference? Now we’re talking private sector, I guess, sale of an asset, where somebody can get evicted. But that compounds, I would argue, the issue of rental stock, and we are hearing of that happening a lot around the province. Is the minister hearing the same thing, and what can be done about that?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In a situation where a rental property is sold, whether it’s a home or a condo, the new owner, if they intend to occupy the space, can apply to the residential tenancy branch to evict the people who live in that home or in that unit for landlord use. It needs to be legitimate landlord use.

By that I mean that the landlord needs to physically move into the place and occupy it, because in a bad-faith eviction, where the landlord says, “I need this unit vacant,” and then they don’t move in and don’t occupy the unit, our government has increased the penalties for that kind of activity to 12 months of rent compensation for the tenant that was evicted illegally by the landlord who misrepresented their intention to use the property.

I am aware of this issue. This seems to be particularly an issue in smaller communities in the province where, during the pandemic, a number of people in larger centres who had the ability to work remotely wanted to be in a larger property, wanted to be in a more rural location and work remotely to their jobs. The real estate market in some of these small communities that had been very quiet for a long time…. Suddenly longtime homes that were used for rental were sold and the tenants evicted, and with very little development activity in these smaller communities and very limited replacement housing.

We did see an increase in homelessness in a number of different communities across the province during the pandemic, and I think this was one of the factors. I’m aware of that challenge.

I’m also aware of the challenge for first-time homebuyers that are competing for the purchase of homes. They’re in rental housing currently, and they’d like to buy a place to live, but they’re competing for those homes with people who are buying investment properties for the purpose of renting them out. It is a challenge. It’s good news that the rental housing is available but a challenge for the first-time homebuyer to be competing with somebody who is using the home as an investment, for these purposes.

There are some complex challenges in the housing market that we face, and the member has put his finger on one of them.

M. Bernier: One of the other challenges that…. Well, maybe I’ll just say this. We have acknowledged that supply is a huge issue in a lot of ways, but there are areas right now where we have supply, but in order to get more, there has to be some kind of understanding and acknowledgment that the private sector builds a good portion of the supply, especially if we’re talking market rent, market housing. This is the private sector’s job to do that.

I also know that for many — small-time might not be the accurate word — developers or investors or people who own rental stock, doors, depending what terminology you want to use as that landlord…. One of the huge issues they have and the reason why we’re seeing some of these properties being sold is because, right or wrong — I’ll put this on the record — when people have been renting for a long time, and their rent has been capped or their rent is lower than what market rent is, the developer or landlord still is required to make the capital improvements, investments and upkeep on that property.

[4:40 p.m.]

You need a new roof on a duplex. That can cost $15,000, $20,000. When they’re capped, maybe, at $800 a month rent, they can’t afford to do that investment. But they have to. A furnace breaks down. That can be a $10,000 fix for the heating apparatuses in a facility.

This is one of the challenges that we hear from a lot of people right now — their reluctance to get into the housing market as landlords. Yet it’s one of those weird nuances, because we need them. Even though sometimes this minister or others will try to criticize the fact that I or others support developers, we need to acknowledge that without them, we don’t have the stock.

We need to find that balance as well. Especially for the small-time — I think is the term I used — people that might only own a few or maybe a small, 12-unit apartment complex that would require hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe, in maintenance on it. But they can’t afford to do that, and they’re stuck. I’m hearing of many, through my circles, who are even being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy because of the trap that they are now in — that they require all of this capital outlay but can’t recoup it through rent.

We all acknowledge in those situations…. I’m not saying that it’s necessary that we have to find that rent has to increase, because that brings in that whole other debate around affordability. It is that weird nuance that we have to try to, I think, as government, acknowledge — that we need the developers, need the investors, because we need the supply and the stock. But we need to figure out how to make it affordable.

I’ll get to some questions in just a moment for the minister, as he’s acknowledged around how we try to do that and some of the challenges with local government permitting, development cost charges, etc. But before I leave that, I’m just curious.

With the commentary I just put forward, I assume the minister would be hearing the same thing. Are there any plans, or are there any supports or resources that I’m unaware of that maybe even some of these small-time landlords are aware of, where there are government supports to help them so they don’t go into bankruptcy or maybe don’t lose their rental stock…? Or even worse, it goes into such disrepair, and we’ve seen that happen, where it now becomes unlivable or unsafe for people to be in. I’m wondering if there are any programs out there for those kinds of landlords?

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, it’s a very paradoxical market, I would say — what’s happening in rental housing. I agree with the member. I’ve received correspondence from long-time, small-building landlords, challenged by rising expenses, advocating for the ability to increase rents to cover those expenses and quite committed to their tenants and to being good landlords.

That’s why government responded to recommendations made by the Rental Housing Task Force to allow rent increases beyond inflation. The member will recall that previously, before we formed government, the system was that you could increase rent by the level of inflation plus 2 percent. That applied across the board to all rental units. Our government removed the additional 2 percent, saying you could only increase rents by inflation. But we brought in a process called an additional rent increase process.

This is where…. The concerns are exactly what the member raises. If a building needs a capital expenditure, needs investment for maintenance, a landlord might be disinclined to do so if there’s no incentive for them to do so, and they can only increase rent to the level of inflation.

We created a process where landlords can apply to the residential tenancy branch for rent increases above inflation when they’ve completed necessary repairs to the rental unit or building.

[4:45 p.m.]

It encourages landlords to invest in the rental properties. It provides them with the ability to increase rents to 3 percent and amortizes the cost over ten years. Since most tenancies end before ten years, the rent increase is not decreased after a period of time. But we’re monitoring this new process and determining the impact on renters and on landlords to see how it works. But that is the intention behind the program.

I say it’s a bit of a paradoxical market because there are two activities that are taking place that are at odds with that understanding that the member appears to have of rental housing. The first is that we’re seeing a massive increase in the purpose-built rental housing registrations in the province. In 2021, we had 13,133 purpose-built rental registrations. That was a record. Just as a point of contrast, in 2012, 1,948 purpose-built rental registrations. In the first four months of this year, we saw 5,556 new purpose-built rental registrations. In all of 2012, there were 1,948.

We see large investors, particularly, building new rental housing that we desperately need — wanting to build it. I think those numbers would be even higher if we saw the municipal processes accelerate to get approvals for these buildings out faster and more were approved and they didn’t have five storeys just taken off arbitrarily during the public hearing process, which drives me absolutely bananas in the middle of a housing crisis, but that’s another story. So it’s interesting that we are seeing such a dramatic increase in purpose-built rentals.

I think we’re also seeing an increase in people buying condos for the purposes of renting them out as an investment for themselves, family members, and so on. As I said, this is a double-edged sword. When it introduces a rental housing unit, it doesn’t provide that security of a purpose-built rental unit. When the person decides they no longer want the investment and they want to sell it, the security of tenure of the tenant is very much at risk. It also is competition for scarce housing resources, with people who would like to own instead of renting, so first-time homebuyers competing with an investor that owns multiple condo units that they’re buying as investments.

No easy solutions to these challenges, but certainly a very interesting combination of factors taking place in the rental housing market. The bottom line is that with low vacancy rates across the province, we need more rental housing and as quickly as possible. That’s why I’m glad to see the increase in purpose-built rental buildings coming online in the province.

M. Bernier: Well, the minister just gave me a good transition at that point. But before I do that, also…. When I was formulating some of my questions around the RTB, one of them was originally around the recommendation around recording of arbitration hearings that was part of the task force. But the minister won’t need to comment, because I know the announcement was made not too long ago that that recommendation is now being implemented in the RTB.

I know there are quite a few people that will be happy about that for a multitude of different reasons of what was happening through some of those hearings, which we won’t have to get into here. But I just will acknowledge that the minister and government have, through the RTB, the residential tenancy branch, now followed through with that recommendation. So I will acknowledge that and thank the minister for that.

His last answer and comment…. You know, we talk about housing supply. I just was looking at the Opening Doors report, the MacPhail report, which actually talks a lot about the housing supply. I have to find it here when I flip through it, but I think it was one of the very first recommendations. It was around statutory time limits for developments and putting in a proper development process for the government to impose, I guess, statutory time limits.

Is that something that the minister has done, is looking at or will be happening?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, certainly. Even just in the last answer, I’ve expressed my frustration with municipal approvals processes and decisions that are occasionally made at the municipal level. I’ll say that on balance, though, there are a number of municipalities that have shown real leadership around housing. I’m very enthusiastic about what they’re doing. It’s not an easy area in which to make generalizations.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’ll also acknowledge that the provincial government has a role to play around our own approvals processes related to housing. That work is underway, as we’ve discussed earlier.

We are doing policy work. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Housing and I are working in partnership and in engagement with municipalities around how to support them in expediting approvals for new housing. I believe very firmly that we are in the middle of a significant structural challenge of a growing population and a housing supply that is not keeping up with it.

We added 100,000 people to our province last year, from other provinces and other countries, a 60-year high in in-migration. In the same year, we had the lowest level of listings on the MLS service in Metro Vancouver since that service began collecting data. So a very limited supply, a remarkable growth in population, and it wasn’t limited to Metro Vancouver. That was across the province.

We need municipalities on board to recognize housing as essential infrastructure for the growth of our economy, for the growth of our province, for the success of everybody and to continue to support our openness to new arrivals from other parts of the world and other provinces to come and help build our province together.

The work that we’re doing is informed by two significant reports: the Opening Doors report that the member cited — the chair was Joy MacPhail, with representatives of industry, economists and others hearing submissions about challenges related to delivering housing supply in British Columbia; and the DAPR report, the Development Approvals Review Process report, looking at how municipal governments approve housing and where opportunities are to support them in expediting those approvals.

There was an allocation of, I believe, about $15 million from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to municipalities to assist them in upgrading their processes, on pilot programs to increase the speed of their approvals. The federal government has come to the table with a $4 billion announced municipal accelerator fund that I’m encouraging local mayors to prepare themselves to put submissions in for.

It’s my understanding that as soon as the budget is approved, the Minister for Housing will be receiving applications from municipalities that are looking to bring their permitting systems to an electronic form, instead of a paper-based form, and that need additional staff to expedite approvals processes or may need capital investment within their municipality to deliver that additional housing supply. All governments are lining up to provide support on this.

The recommendation identified by the member is one of many made in that report — legislated timelines for approvals. There are a number of different models of supporting municipalities around additional housing, taken at the state or national level around the world, that are informing our discussions with municipalities. That’s certainly one of them. Ontario recently has taken that route.

There are other approaches. New Zealand is allowing certain density as of right on single-family lots and along high streets in that country. California has a target system where they outline certain housing targets for municipalities to hit. The Urban Mayors Caucus has written to me and said that they want enforceable housing targets, that they’re ready to meet that challenge of a growing population, and they’re looking for provincial and federal support in doing so.

There are a lot of policy options. The one thing that cannot continue is the status quo of multi-year approvals processes for housing that we need yesterday. Everybody appears to be onside for that, and we continue to do the policy work in that regard.

M. Bernier: Again, as I said earlier today, as a former mayor, I acknowledge the role that local government can play. The minister’s answer there was interesting. I don’t want to say, necessarily, that everything is voluntary right now, but there are huge issues, depending on the community, on the development that they maybe desire through their long-term plans, on the comprehensive development plans, and on what they would like to see within their communities.

As the minister rightfully acknowledged, there are some communities out there that understand their role in building a variety of housing stock. I would argue that those same communities understand the benefits of making sure that that housing stock comes in as their communities grow.

[4:55 p.m.]

In a lot of smaller communities, they don’t necessarily have that capacity. So we can’t necessarily just push it on those smaller communities as the right thing to do — “You have to do it” — when they don’t have the capacity, other than raising taxation on the existing housing stock, built in within their organization to move forward. I just want to go a little further on the minister’s answer there, on where the provincial government fits in around regulation, legislation, the carrot-and-stick approach.

One of the huge issues, I believe — that I know the minister knows about and would acknowledge — is the NIMBYism that we see around the province in certain areas. Everybody will acknowledge it: “Look, we need to have more densification.” But as soon as it comes to their backyard, everybody fights against it. It’s one of those weird conundrums that we have to face, as to where people fit in on being part of the solution.

I would argue, especially going into a municipal election, that we’re going to hear community groups speaking even more loudly around their support, or lack thereof, for the densification that’s required, especially in some of our larger municipal and urban cities that are facing this structural problem.

To the minister, then, just a little bit further on his comments that he has made around the provincial role…. Where does he see that, going forward, with municipalities that maybe don’t fulfil the greater-good obligation around trying to meet the demands? We’re all feeling this pressure, but the provincial government may have a role in incentivizing or legislatively controlling how that works.

I have seen some of the documentation. I’ve read through many of the reports and the recommendations. I’m curious, though, where the minister and the ministry feel that we need to go to try to make sure that local governments help fix this issue.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the opportunity is for us to work with municipal governments on a pretty straightforward issue. That’s the question of housing needing to be built. Municipalities have a vital role to play in facilitating the construction of that housing. I don’t think anyone in the provincial government is particularly interested in telling municipalities where the housing has to be, what it has to look like, or any of these kinds of things that are well within the domain of the local government.

The interest that we have is ensuring that adequate housing is built to respond to the population pressures that we’re seeing in the province and that are resulting in people living in their cars, increased homelessness, the desperation of first-time homebuyers and renters looking for a place to rent. It’s manifesting in quite a serious way in our province as people move here for the opportunities that are in this province.

Housing is essential infrastructure. Just like a municipality shouldn’t, in my opinion, and likely wouldn’t, refuse a community school or other essential infrastructure — a sewage system, a water system, an electrical system — housing is like that. It needs to be delivered. It’s up to the local government as to where and what it looks like, and so on.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

That’s why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs funded cities to do these housing needs studies so that they’re aware of what the demand and need are in their community and so that they can make plans in their official community plans to incorporate that housing. That’s why we’ve put in place processes where they can waive public hearings where proposed housing is consistent with their official community plan.

We think there’s more to do and more that we can do to support them in accelerating approvals, in partnership with the federal government. I think we’ll play a leadership role in supporting the federal government around their municipal accelerator program, leading the way for other provinces to follow around how we support municipalities in getting more housing built and approved where there’s a demand in communities. That policy work is ongoing.

I’m afraid that is the best I’ll be able to do for the member at this stage. Rest assured that I am very interested, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities are very interested — and certainly, British Columbians. That’s one piece. I just want to be clear.

[5:00 p.m.]

I believe that there is overwhelming public support for additional density, especially along transit lines and in downtown areas and high streets, and so on. The challenge faced by municipalities is, as the member says, the immediate neighbours coming out and saying, “I’m concerned about parking or shadowing,” or whatever the particular issue of the day is, and the grappling that a city council has to do with the fact that the people who are going to live there don’t live there yet and aren’t going to be able to vote and aren’t there saying: “Look, I need to move in.”

That is shifting a little bit. We moved to online hearings during the pandemic for many municipal processes, something that has been made permanent. Municipalities can continue their online processes. More and more people, because of the online hearing process, are able to call in from work and say: “I think this housing is important, and I’d like for it to go ahead.” Or if they’re looking after a kid, they’re able to come in on their phone and say: “This is important for me and my family. Please approve this housing.” It means that a wider variety of people are able to participate in these public hearings and share their views about the housing that needs to be built.

There’s a bit of a political movement, for lack of a better word, called the YIMBY movement, people supporting housing, organizing to support the construction of housing in their communities. I’m very supportive of people going out to these public hearings and advocating — and certainly during the upcoming municipal elections, to talk to candidates about the importance of approving housing, approving density and recognizing the housing crisis we’re in and the role municipalities play to get that housing built.

M. Bernier: Not to dissect completely the minister’s answer just then, but I do find it interesting when he says it’s not government’s role to tell a local municipality where densification would be when this House, just a few weeks ago, passed Bill 16, which was this government telling local governments where densification should be through a bill that gives them the authority to acquire land for densification. I say that not to challenge the minister but to acknowledge that they’re actually doing what…. The minister said they probably don’t have a place to interfere. Right or wrong, that is what’s happening.

The minister also, last year…. If I remember correctly, it was in the newspaper, during an interview. The minister said that if municipalities were not going to be helping with the supply issue…. His quote was that government would consider withholding funding for programs in that municipality if they refuse to work with the government on the supply challenges.

I’m curious if he still stands behind that comment that he said last year, especially in light of what I just heard from the minister about trying to incentivize, not threaten, local governments to work together.

Hon. D. Eby: Two pieces to the member’s question. One is in relation to Bill 16. I wouldn’t want my comments to be taken to be understood that government is not in favour of increased density along transit lines. In fact, government is working with municipalities where we’re delivering transit — high-speed transit, in particular — to get voluntary commitments from those municipalities around increased density near transit lines. It’s part of our environmental commitments. It’s part of livable communities — reducing traffic, reducing pollution. There are huge benefits to doing it.

In that case, though, it’s a voluntary process that we’re engaged in with municipalities, and to facilitate that work, Bill 16 allows government to buy properties adjacent to transit stations to deliver that additional density near transit stations. It’s a critical linkage between transit investments from the federal and provincial level and affordable housing, and municipalities understand the deal — that we work together on that. That is part of what I’m talking about.

The idea that government would have a multi-billion-dollar transit investment in a community that refuses to build necessary housing along that line is just completely inconsistent, because the transit is meant to transport people who will live in the housing near the transit. So why would the municipality that doesn’t want to build the housing get the transit investment? These are the kinds of discussions that have to happen with municipalities. The understanding….

It’s going to happen with the federal government, around the federal-municipal accelerator fund. If you have a plan for increasing approvals, expediting approvals and increasing housing in your community, you’re going to get funding from the federal government through this program, and it’s not a unique idea to either me or to the provincial government or otherwise.

[5:05 p.m.]

In fact, it’s the way, frankly, I think it should be — that municipalities that accept the growth, that accept their role, get supported with infrastructure funding and other vital funding to support that growth from the provincial government.

M. Bernier: Just going to give the minister an opportunity to clarify, maybe, some other comments, because, of course, as we know, when people make comments in the media, sometimes they can be taken out of context. This will give the minister an opportunity to clarify one of his comments again.

A few months ago the minister said that his government will likely be bringing in legislation revoking municipal development approval powers this October, in the fall sitting, after local government elections. Can the minister explain what he meant by that comment? What kind of legislation?

I know he won’t comment on specific legislation, but what’s the minister thinking of when he says that they will look at revoking municipal development approval powers through legislation? What’s his thought there? What is he thinking — that it should be brought in to government, now, to handle, or what is he hoping local governments will do?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t believe that the quote the member read is something that I said. However, I will openly acknowledge my frustration with the decision of some municipalities to refuse to approve necessary housing, whether it’s secondary suites or a B.C. Housing–funded project or a purpose-built rental building that’s desperately needed in the middle of the housing crisis.

There are authorities in other provinces for ministers to directly approve housing projects. I’m thinking of Ontario, specifically. We don’t have those authorities in B.C.

The interest that I have, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs has, is working together with municipalities to find ways to overcome the challenges that they face in approving this badly needed housing. We’re all hopeful for cooperative responses and policies that we can agree on that are going to deliver the housing that we need to work on in partnership.

Thank you to the member for giving me the opportunity to provide some context. I hope that assists him in understanding my perspective.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer. Just for the minister’s reference, I was quoting, actually, out of a Kelowna paper, from an interview they did with him in March of this year. If he wants to go look it up, he can see what his quotes were.

I also want to just ask the minister…. One of the challenges that we’ve been dealing with, and some would usually say this is a good challenge to have, is the influx and growth of population in the province of British Columbia and housing not keeping up with that demand.

I know UBCM came out with a report — I’m going to say about a month, two months ago — to not necessarily challenge the minister but to, on their case, say: “Look, local government’s doing our part. Local government is meeting the demand of growth.”

I know that the minister and government of the past have kind of almost blamed the growing immigration for the housing price. But immigration has been steady now for quite a few years. Housing prices continue to go up. Local governments say that they’re meeting those demands. It’s one of those weird, again, nuances, where everybody is pointing the finger, I think, at somebody else, when we need to address this.

From a provincial standpoint, does the minister think that we’re going to see that immigration declining anytime soon, and then we’ll be able to catch up with that housing stock? What does he foresee as some of the, I guess, future challenges that need to be addressed today, not tomorrow, around housing supply?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has suggested that immigration has been steady to British Columbia. That’s not entirely the case, and I’m happy to clarify for the member why I would say that.

We saw a 60-year high in immigration to British Columbia last year. In 60 years, we hadn’t seen this level of in-migration. We set a record in interprovincial migration, primarily people moving here from Alberta and Ontario. We set a record for people moving to British Columbia from other countries internationally, and we do not expect to see a decrease. In fact, we expect that to accelerate for two reasons.

One is the federal government is committed to…. I believe we’re on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 new Canadians a year. We can see, through historic patterns, the percentage of those new arrivals who chooses to live in British Columbia, and we can project a significant growth in population from that alone.

[5:10 p.m.]

That was before the war in Ukraine, where the federal government has indicated that they have had requests from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands Ukrainians for visas to come to Canada. We expect those Ukrainians to eventually, in fact, arrive in Canada and potentially choose to live in British Columbia.

I think that in-migration to British Columbia is one of the reasons for the challenges we’ve faced around housing. There are significantly more people, and our housing supply is growing. Iit’s not growing at the rate to keep pace both with the historic deficits we have faced around affordable housing due to lack of participation of senior levels of government for decades around providing affordable housing and, more generally, around increasingly restrictive municipal processes that make it harder and harder to build the housing that we need. So that is the challenge, as I see it.

The UBCM report I found very frustrating, because the suggestion, to literally anybody who is looking for a place to live or a place to rent, that there are enough of either of those in municipalities in British Columbia doesn’t pass even the most immediate scrutiny of real-life lived experience of people in community. I was frustrated with that report for a couple reasons. One is that it’s not an accurate representation of what’s happening in terms of the gap between the people who want to start a family and find a place to live or someone who wants to rent a place or someone who wants to be a first-time home buyer. It’s not a representative report of the experience of British Columbians looking for a house, a place to live, who are experiencing that scarcity.

More than that, I really felt like, up till that point, we were having a very good and constructive engagement with mayors about the need for more housing and the role that municipalities play and how the province could work with mayors in doing that. Then, to get that report that says, “Actually, we’ve built enough housing, and it’s not our job, and it’s not a problem,” was very frustrating to read, because it felt like a significant step backwards from where we were.

Happily, after that report, we received a letter from the urban mayors calling on us to work with them to establish housing targets — that they recognize the structural shortages of housing that exist in their communities and are wanting to partner with the provincial government. So there is some discussion happening, I would say, within the local government community about exactly what’s happening around housing.

My understanding of what’s happening in the housing market in this moment is that we have a significant number of people who are moving to this province. We need to have a significant amount of housing to respond to that. Not only that — a significant number of people are moving into that housing formation age, where they are getting married and they’re wanting to have kids and whatever. They’re looking for a place that’s appropriate — or even just moving out of their parents’ place, and they need a place to rent, and so on. They’re becoming adults. They’re forming families. That places demand, even if the population is static. That places increased pressure on housing and demand on housing in the province.

M. Bernier: When we talk about housing, obviously we have seen the present housing supply costs skyrocket month over month. We’re talking double-digit percentage increases around the Lower Mainland, different nuances in the Fraser Valley, etc. I won’t get into quoting, because we’ve had, in the past, different exact percentage increases of the housing supply.

But you look at some of the challenges just even to get into the housing market right now because of costs. Looking at some of the reports over the last couple of weeks, it does look like there’s a little bit of not quite flattening yet, but possibly, because of interest rate increases — not because of supply increase, but interest rate increases. We’re starting to see a little bit of the purchasing and listing numbers changing — not necessarily the cost of them, but the amount of stock being put on the market.

What does the minister foresee, then? Does he believe, then, that the increased cost to get into, through interest rates, is going to help lower the pricing as well?

[5:15 p.m.]

I’m just curious. We look at this right now, and a lot of people think…. Especially if you look at professionals, who know more than me on the costing and the projections around housing supply, they don’t see this changing anytime soon.

So I’m just curious what the minister’s thoughts are, because I’m assuming, through himself as the minister responsible and through his ministry, they must do projections of where they see things going. Does he see the price levelling off or going down anytime soon for housing?

Hon. D. Eby: There are some core demographic factors for British Columbia that are not going to reduce the demand for housing. What it does for particular types of housing, certain kinds of market housing, and so on, the prices…. What impact interest rates have on that is separate from this core issue, which is that there needs to be sufficient housing for the population of the province. There are people who would like to buy who suddenly find that they’re not able to buy because of rising interest rates. Those folks still need a place to rent, and that doesn’t take the pressure off of housing supply.

Unfortunately, rising interest rates have a significant impact on the pro formas or the business plans for the construction of purpose-built rental housing, because the financing for those projects is influenced often by interest rates. Even relatively small changes in interest rates can change the feasibility of long-term investments in purpose-built rental housing.

It presents significant challenges to us around housing, and it’s amplified by supply chain issues around the availability of key inputs into the construction process as well as labour challenges. The employment market is very hot. Employers are looking for people for jobs, and that includes in the construction industry.

When you put these factors together, the urgency around having quick approvals processes and predictable processes and predictable costs for the development of housing is really vital.

Happily, we have not yet seen a slowdown in the critical metrics that we look to around housing numbers and housing supply in the province because of those factors. We’ve seen very positive first-round numbers from this year from the new homes registry report that B.C. Housing prepares. So far in 2022, 5,556 purpose-built rental units were registered in B.C. Compared with the same period last year, that was a 55 percent increase in the number of purpose-built rental units registered. Overall, including rental, in the first four months of 2022, 20,757 new homes were registered in B.C. That’s up 17.4 percent from 2021, a lot of that driven by multi-unit homes.

The concern that I have is rising interest rates and rising supply costs and shortages in the labour market contributing to a slowdown in desperately needed housing supply.

Now, putting all of that aside, the core question the member asks is what I think is going to happen with home prices. I think if I were better at guessing that, maybe I’d have a different job.

The core issue, as Housing Minister, for me is around ensuring that we have adequate housing supply for the population, for the province — for the needs of the province — to address homelessness and housing scarcity and ensure that families are able to be successful in our province and that our province is able to thrive because people who live and work in our province have a safe, secure home and a base from which to do so.

M. Bernier: I would actually 100 percent agree that it’s this minister’s job to ensure that we have the housing that’s required, affordable housing and market housing, for the people of British Columbia. We’re not quite there yet, but I would acknowledge that he’s right: it’s his job to try to get there.

[5:20 p.m.]

I’m curious on that. What was the minister’s role when it came to the recent bill that came in the House here, Bill 12? I know that the Minister of Finance put forward Bill 12, which was the Property Law Amendment Act, referring to a cooling-off period. It was really about housing.

It was interesting. There was a lot of debate out there, in here and in the media of why it went through the Minister of Finance and not the Minister for Housing, being a housing kind of bill. But I’m just curious. What was the minister’s involvement on that, putting that bill forward and developing?

Hon. D. Eby: That was a bill put forward by the Ministry of Finance’s consumer protection legislation and within the responsibilities of that ministry. That ministry led the work — both the engagement as well as the implementation work.

M. Bernier: Well, I am aware of that. I guess, by that answer, I’m assuming that means this minister wasn’t involved at all. He had nothing to do or nothing to say when it came to it. It was the Minister of Finance.

The reason I say that, obviously, again…. Yes, it’s being sold as a consumer protection bill, but it is still around housing. That specific bill, Bill 12, brought a lot of discussion in the public, especially when it came to the 25,000 realtors in the province of British Columbia who were quite frustrated, I would say, with that bill because of their lack of consultation as, arguably, front-line people and experts within that sector, to the point where they….

We just acknowledged the UBCM putting forward a white paper, but in this situation…. I know it went to this minister as well as the Minister of Finance — the white paper from the B.C. Real Estate Association — with their own suggestions that if we’re going to be working on the housing issue, if we don’t need a cooling-off period, we could look at a pre-offer period or something that would also not only worry about the consumer protection aspect, which the Minister of Finance is selling the bill as, but also deal with the consumer pricing issue. There’s a lot of concern that bill is going to, through….

The means of that bill, however it comes out, will actually, possibly, accelerate or create further hardship and increase on the price of the present housing stock. So I’m a little surprised if the minister is saying that he had nothing to do with it and nothing to say about it. Does he now?

I know that now the bill has passed in the House, even though it’s going to be future regulation — because it was one piece of paper saying, “We’ll tell you later” — in itself, it’s creating a lot of angst in the housing sector. I’m just curious what the minister has to say about it now that it has already passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I support the Finance Minister’s initiative to protect consumers, giving consumers an opportunity to do a home inspection. To understand what it is that they’re buying is an important consumer protection initiative.

I know the member is saying that it was sold that way. I don’t fully understand what…. I mean, that’s what it is. That was the intent behind the bill, and that’s what is being implemented.

I think there were important fairness concerns that were raised by realtors, which certainly the Finance Minister is alive to — that someone could put in multiple offers on homes and then decide which one, at the last minute, they wanted to buy or so on. There are ways to approach that and deal with that issue. I know that the Finance Minister is engaged on those issues.

All work, to the best of my knowledge, was done within the Ministry of Finance on that initiative. The member will know, from his time, that any bill proposal goes through various cabinet committees. Those are covered by cabinet confidence in terms of discussions, approaches, prioritization of bills and all of those kind of things. I participated in those as a member of cabinet.

But the bill was a Ministry of Finance bill. It was the policy work developed by the Ministry of Finance. I support the bill, and I think it is a good way to give consumers a chance to avoid buying a house full of bats, which somebody did in our province, without knowing that the house was infested with bats.

It just gives people a chance. The housing market has been pretty crazy. Lots of people are putting in offers with no conditions, and so on. It’s just making sure that people know what they’re buying and avoid less scrupulous sellers that are concealing really serious deficiencies that could cost hundreds of thousands to remediate — hidden fuel tanks, infestation by animals, structural issues, and so on — to give them pause that someone will have a chance to do an inspection before purchasing.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Maybe what I’ll just say is…. With the answer that the minister just gave, most experts in housing are out there saying that this bill is not going to solve any of those issues unless, all of a sudden, there’s going to be some regulation.

The minister is acknowledging that it will be the Minister of Finance coming forward with it, later on this fall, I understand. But in the meantime, there are a lot of concerns that this is not going to help housing. It’s not going to help housing stock. It’s not going to help the consumers. It’s not going to help the sellers or the purchasers, which is why people are speaking out against this. Everybody is trying to fix the problem, but most people are saying that this won’t do it.

As the Housing Minister, I would argue that it’s his responsibility to also oversee, as bills like this have been passed, and they’ll be developed through regulation. He’s a part of that, because it is a housing issue. It could affect the housing stock and the housing prices.

That commentary doesn’t require an answer, unless the minister wishes. At this point, actually, I will just thank the minister. I could have gone on. I know — reading through so many reports, the work that’s being done and some of the stuff that’s not been done yet — that we could challenge.

I do appreciate the minister’s, I would say, candid responses to my questions and the support that his staff gave him today. It’s much appreciated, especially as my first time as the critic in this role, as we’re trying to move the needle, I guess, to help the people in the province of British Columbia on the affordability crisis that we’re facing right now.

With that, unless the minister gets up, I’m going to be turning things over to the Third Party.

The Chair: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Delightful to see you.

I’m going to ask just a question about Cowichan and then hand it over to my colleague, as we’re tag-teaming here a little bit.

Just to give some context — and I know the minister and his staff will be well aware of the conditions in Cowichan Valley — in the CVRD, Cowichan Valley renters have a median household income of $38,000. Renters in the lowest-income quartile are spending 52 percent of their income on rent and utilities, 64 percent if they have a two-bedroom. We expect this to be exacerbated by an estimated 14 percent growth in costs by 2025.

What’s considered affordable in Cowichan for a one-bedroom unit is between $1,000 and $1,895 a month, and that’s in subsidized housing. It is, as it is all over the province, a real crisis for people in Cowichan when it comes to housing. There is very little available, and there’s a very high need.

A couple of things that I want to cram into this question. One is that we have — led by the Cowichan Housing Association and the mayor of Duncan — the Village project, which has provided emergency housing for people. It’s been quite successful in addressing some of the most urgent needs for people who are without housing.

I really would like to hear from the minister on the, hopefully, ongoing support for that program in Cowichan, recognizing that it has really successfully addressed quite a dire need that we have there when it comes to providing housing for people without homes.

Secondly…. I asked about this last year. This is related to the SAFER program for seniors. One of the questions I asked about last year was that — and it continues today — if a person is on disability, they don’t qualify for SAFER.

I’m wondering. Last year what the minister said was: “With respect to this program, there’s a review taking place right now with a focus on exactly these kinds of issues.” I’d be curious to know what the review of SAFER has produced and whether we can see that program extended more broadly, just recognizing that for people living with disabilities and on a disability income, the housing costs are really crushing. Also for seniors, this is a really significant problem, and often these two intersect.

[5:30 p.m.]

So those two questions — the Village project in Duncan as well as what the minister can provide in terms of that review on SAFER and whether we can see an extension of that program, particularly for people with disabilities.

Hon. D. Eby: Staff are still following up on the request about the Village. Just in the interest of time, and knowing that there’s not a lot and that the Third Party likely has some more housing questions, what I’ll do is…. I’ll just provide that information as it comes in to staff.

With respect to the SAFER review, that review is ongoing. We’re expecting outcomes from that review in the next couple of months. I can advise the member, though, that in the 2022 budget, there are 3,000 rent supplements that will be delivered through the Canada Housing Benefit program. These come with wraparound services and will be rolling out shortly.

They are targeted at exactly the population the member describes, people living on disability assistance who are at risk of homelessness, and will provide not just the rent money but also services to help them stay in their housing. So some positive news there for the population the member is rightly advocating for, certainly a group very much at risk of homelessness and part of our overall homelessness prevention strategy.

A. Olsen: I have a couple of questions here to the minister. Nice to be here asking questions about housing. I’ve got a few questions here related to rent increases for folks.

In one instance, we’ve been contacted by some constituents of Esquimalt-Metchosin. In this case, they’re living in a large apartment complex. This is actually very similar to a housing community in my riding that is…. In the case of the constituents from Esquimalt-Metchosin, they’re living next to an Indian reserve. In my case, the housing community is on an Indian reserve.

[5:35 p.m.]

They’re owned by some large, I guess, investment organizations. They have been increasing rents. It’s largely a senior population in these communities. They’ve been increasing rents at a very unsustainable rate.

In one case, it’s, I think, due to the fact that it’s on a reserve. In the other case, in the case of Esquimalt-Metchosin, the rent increase exceeded the 2 percent that is allowed based on capital expenditures. The capital expenditures were justified due to increased mischief on the property.

For the sake of time, I’m trying to bring these two together, although they’re slightly different. The reality of it is that we’ve got a number of seniors here in the capital regional district whose rents have gone up over the 2 percent that this government has committed to. Largely, the excuse is the increased capital expenses that these investment firms and investment companies are having to maintain the property.

Can the minister clarify what the maximum allowable rent is that a landlord can charge? What investments are deemed capital expenditures, and how do we contain those expenses?

Hon. D. Eby: For the second question, a relatively straightforward formula. The current maximum rent increase for the province of B.C. is the rate of inflation. It’s set annually.

A landlord can apply to the residential tenancy branch to increase beyond the rate of inflation to a maximum of an additional up to 3 percent, depending on approval of the residential tenancy branch of the capital expenditures that have been made and the demonstration by the landlord of the cost of the capital expenditures and that the recovery of costs from the tenants is a reasonable reflection of the expenditure that’s been made.

This comes from the Rental Housing Task Force’s recommendation and concern that, with the elimination of the automatic increase of inflation plus 2 percent, getting rid of the 2 percent would cause landlords to disinvest in their properties, fail to maintain their properties, fail to do essential capital repairs on their properties. So this is a way to incent landlords to do those necessary repairs to maintain housing in a livable state.

Now, with respect to on-reserve housing, the only way that the Residential Tenancy Act applies is if the nation or governing body has designated that the Residential Tenancy Act should apply. That has happened in some communities but may or may not have happened, I don’t know, with respect to this particular building. It’s necessary for the governing body, in relation to the reserve, to voluntarily agree to have the application of the Residential Tenancy Act on reserve.

A. Olsen: To the second answer, would that residential tenancy branch authority on reserve extend…? Could it be limited to certain parts of the reserve, or once a nation requests it or a governing body requests it, is it applicable over the entire reserve lands?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not aware of any restriction on the ability of a governing body to designate either a portion of a reserve or a building or a set of units to have the Residential Tenancy Act apply.

[5:40 p.m.]

I would encourage the member to advise any nations to obtain advice on that particular point, or any tenants to obtain advice on that particular point, because it is a significant question of jurisdiction and legal authority that may have some nuance to it. But at first blush, we can’t think of any reason why the nation couldn’t designate a portion of reserve land for the act to apply.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the response, and I think in both of these cases…. I don’t know that you could characterize the ownership of these communities as real estate investment trusts. However, I’m going to transition slightly.

I asked the minister a question in question period a few weeks back about real estate investment trusts, also known as REITs, and there has been quite a bit of reporting that’s happening across the country and the impact that REITs are having, largely on buildings that were built 30, 40 years ago. These investment trusts are being sold as a product for people to invest in. The impact of that is that people who have been living in these buildings for a long period of time and have an affordable rent…. Their housing is vulnerable and put in jeopardy, in many respects.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a little bit of insight as to what the province of British Columbia can do, as real estate investment trusts are in B.C. as well — and what our province can do to limit the negative impact that these large financial companies have in impacting negatively the affordability of housing for people who right now have housing affordability.

Hon. D. Eby: Our response to the financialization of the rental housing market and the sort of accelerated growth and aggressiveness of REITs in this market has been focused on two points. One is around advocacy to the federal Housing Minister, and we understand that the federal government is looking at the tax structure of REITs to take away the tax advantages that these investment vehicles have and that are accelerating their, frankly, predatory behaviours and buying up rental housing and financializing that market.

The second component is around providing strong protections for renters against illegal renovictions, providing protections around displacement where the business model is to come in, buy a building where many people are enjoying more affordable rents, and then having, as part of that business model plan, to displace those tenants and increase those rents through whatever means necessary — very troubling developments in our housing market for a couple of reasons. One is obviously the impact on renters. The other is….

In my mandate letter, the Premier has asked me to work on an acquisition fund for housing to bring housing into the community housing sector through different vehicles that we have within B.C. Housing. We’ve been doing that work. We’ve been acquiring SROs and hotels and other types of housing, where appropriate, if possible. It means we’re competing with thousands and thousands of investors who are bidding up the cost of this housing that we need and that we need to secure affordability for.

I agree with the member. It’s a serious problem. I’ve been advocating at the federal level for taxation changes. The federal government has indicated that they are doing a review of the tax status of these REITs.

[5:45 p.m.]

For the provincial government, protection for tenants and acquiring vulnerable housing units and housing units that are available for us and properties that are available for public protection and long-term affordability is all part of our strategy.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the advocacy that the minister is doing with the federal government. Let’s hope that they put those tax measures in place. The longer they take, the more buildings and then more tenants become vulnerable to that predatory behaviour.

With respect to the HousingHub, the investment that the B.C. government has made in the HousingHub program to build what is, basically, market-rent buildings — new units, thousands of new units — is good. The problem, I think, for many that are looking at the rents that are being charged is that even marginally below-market rents are too expensive and outside of reach for a lot of people.

What is the ministry doing, with the capital that we are investing as a province into these buildings, to better align the market rent that people are paying with what people can afford in our society, based on wages and the cost of living?

One of the things that I often get in my inbox — people advocating to me about their housing situation — is that it’s fine that we’re investing this money to build these new buildings; however, when the product comes on the market, it’s out of reach. How do we align…? What is the ministry doing to better align those market rents with what people can afford to pay?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. The HousingHub program is designed for workforce housing and middle-income housing. The household incomes under the HousingHub program can get to a very high end for what governments typically look at financially supporting.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m going to take a step back and share with the member a little background about the program. I know the member knows this, but for those who are watching this question or reading this transcript separately, the way that the program works is that government can borrow at a lower rate than a developer can.

We use our low borrowing rate to provide construction financing like a bank would, a loan to the developer — it could be a non-profit organization; it could be a for-profit developer — in exchange for affordability commitments for purpose-built rental. Those are ten-year commitments. For affordable homes for purchase, there is often a participating mortgage for B.C. Housing to ensure affordability and the transfer of affordability to the next purchaser, and so on.

Now, this is the extent of the program. It is a supply-based incentive program, a supply-based program to encourage the construction of more rental housing to provide some additional affordability that wouldn’t otherwise be there. Often, we partner with municipalities where increases in density at the municipal level are paired up with our financing to deepen affordability where we’re able to provide a larger number of more affordable units.

The salary range for the HousingHub program begins at a household income of as much as $115,000 to $175,000 a year. So this is very much middle income. It is not affordable to everybody. The way to think about it, I think, is to look at the rental housing supply numbers that we have seen in the province that this program has helped to deliver. These rental housing units are very much in demand. These buildings rent up. They’re fully occupied.

When they are fully occupied by people with those income levels, those folks with those income levels are not, then, out in the community looking for rental housing among that remaining rental housing stock, bidding lower-income people out of the longer-standing, more affordable rental housing stock, incenting landlords to do renovictions and evict tenants in order to rent to higher-income tenants. Building this middle- and even upper-middle-income rental housing takes pressure off the bottom end of the rental housing market.

The way to think about it, in my opinion, is as part of a continuum of government programs. This is the higher-income end of the program. We also have very deep core-need housing programs, building thousands of units for people who are living on disability assistance, social assistance, and so on. It is a program that covers a much wider spectrum of incomes than governments have traditionally been involved in financing, but we believe it’s necessary because of the challenges of the housing market in British Columbia.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the detailed response.

With respect to the cost of land, there was a bill that was debated and passed earlier this session, brought forward by the Minister of Transportation, with respect to giving the Transportation Financing Authority the ability to purchase land in order to increase affordability, or create deeper affordability, in some of the units around, specifically, transit.

When it comes to communities like Mayne Island, for example, that’s been trying to work on, for the last four years, a very small community housing program; when it comes to communities like Saltspring, where there are not those transit corridors, necessarily — on Mayne — there’s not the ability for housing societies to have the support that, say, there would be in Vancouver or Victoria, with respect to purchasing and the cost of land.

[5:55 p.m.]

Now the cost of land, as I’ve learned from many of these developments, these smaller developments in more rural communities that I represent, is make-or-break for them. In fact, they’re finding it very, very difficult to deliver that affordable housing in the community for families, because they’re not able to afford the land up front. That makes it very difficult.

Has the government contemplated any way to support these housing societies and communities that are partnered, doing similar to what the HousingHub is trying to achieve, to help support with the cost of purchasing land in order to be able to get the project underway at the beginning?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the pieces of feedback that I’ve heard from especially smaller and more rural communities — Mayne Island would be a good example — is often they’re short in one of two critical categories to participate in our community housing fund grant program. Either they are short the non-profit organization to sponsor and bottom-line the development project or they’re short the land necessary, as the member said, or both. In some communities, they don’t even have a developer that’s able or that has capacity to take on the project in more rural and remote communities, necessitating approaches like modular housing.

We’re about to undertake a review of the Building B.C. program. We’re four, almost five years, into the program. There have been a number of significant changes in relation to the housing market since we started that program that may affect government’s decision about the balance between the different housing funds and the approach we take to different housing funds.

Also, one of the key issues that we’ve identified is this one that the member has raised as well, which is the challenge that some communities have in satisfying the prerequisites to be able to participate to get an application forward into the CHF program as well as other programs.

The HousingHub program is largely an urban housing program, not by necessity. It’s not a requirement, but it tends to be that the elements to bring together a successful HousingHub proposal are easier to put together in urban centres in the province, as opposed to more rural and remote communities.

I can advise the member that we’re aware of that challenge. That will be part of our review of the Building B.C. program. It happens to be, often, that some of these communities that face those challenges are the ones that face the most significant housing challenges exactly because they don’t have those resources that other communities have, so we want to be responsive to that need.

A. Olsen: Also a rural community, a slightly larger rural community than Mayne Island, is Saltspring Island. I know the minister is very well aware of Saltspring. We’ve had many conversations about Saltspring Island.

It’s not even to preface this question, but I just want to say to the minister that I’m very thankful for the attentiveness of B.C. Housing and to the work that B.C. Housing did, in coordination with our office, and in actually leading the work that’s being done on Saltspring. I just want to acknowledge that. It’s a challenging environment to be operating in, so I just wanted to acknowledge the work that B.C. Housing has done. Thank you for taking so much time and effort to support Saltspring’s building supported housing project. I just wanted to acknowledge that.

One of the challenges that has been brought to my attention for Saltspring is not necessarily the supported housing project that B.C. Housing is building but household income limits. I’ve raised this with the minister’s staff and been advised that the HILs, or household income limits, are set by the federal government, as I understand it. What those limits are determines whether or not people are eligible for certain types of housing, as I understand the program works.

[6:00 p.m.]

Where I think there might be a provincial aspect of this is that it’s how the communities are tied together. In this case, I’ll use Saltspring as an example. Saltspring as an example. Saltspring, because it’s part of the CRD…. This has been a regular issue for me as the MLA for Saltspring. It’s tied to the CRD, so it impacts the insurance rates that they pay for their vehicles. It impacts the funds that they get access to — previously, the funds that they got access to through ICET, as an example.

In this case, the household income limits tying it to the capital regional district mean that the income of the capital regional district is much higher than, say, Cowichan Valley. It’s been brought to my attention by a non-profit organization on Saltspring that it would be much more appropriate to connect Saltspring Island to the Cowichan Valley, as an example, because they’re much more aligned.

Are there policy decisions that could be made to tie the household income limits to a neighbouring regional district? How does that…? Is Saltspring locked into the household income limits that are set for the CRD? Maybe I can get a little bit of help in understanding how Saltspring could be better reflected, knowing that various communities have different household income limits.

Hon. D. Eby: There’s not an established process that staff are aware of for what the member is proposing, but it is an interesting suggestion. I think it might be best if the member let us take his suggestion away to evaluate what the process would be, if there is such a process available, to use a different regional district’s HILs level for Saltspring that might be more appropriate and what the implications of that would be. Then to get back to the member, perhaps in a direct briefing from B.C. Housing, might be the easiest way to move forward with that.

A. Olsen: Yeah, I appreciate that. I know that the minister’s assistants and staff are familiar. I’ve raised this, so I’d be happy to. I’m also taking it up with our MP, as well, because I think that there’s a CMHC aspect of this which also needs to be recognized.

It’s a particularly challenging geographic environment because there are, I think, fairly large disparities in the communities. I think we’re probably not unique in the country in that or in the province in that. There are neighbourhoods that are connected. I recognize the challenges that it might pose, but I appreciate the offer to connect.

[6:05 p.m.]

Just shifting gears here a little bit, the minister responded earlier saying that the HousingHub program was — I think I got this right — designed for workforce housing, higher-end workforce housing, I would say. There are really substantive challenges on the southern Gulf Islands for workforce housing that is probably in the demographic or the economic category below that one — front-line workers.

With respect to workforce housing for front-line workers, for service workers, what programs does the ministry have in place in that continuum of housing that can be used to support the development of workforce housing for those folks?

Hon. D. Eby: Our main and, really, only workforce housing program is the HousingHub program. Affordability really ranges, depending on what the proponents bring to the table. One of the things that can help reduce rents through HousingHub is when the land is held by a non-profit organization such as a church or a service organization, and they’re developing the site. In addition, local municipalities can offer additional density that increases affordability.

Very similar to the CHF program, some of the challenges around smaller municipalities restrict their ability to participate in HousingHub programming. In the unique situation of the islands, it would be important for anyone that’s interested in the HousingHub proposal — maybe there’s a community property, or maybe there’s a church property or a service organization property that could be redeveloped for more affordable rental housing — to contact B.C. Housing, to work through the HousingHub office. I’m happy to provide the member with contact information to figure out ways in which HousingHub may or may not be the response to those particular community needs.

In addition, one of the initiatives I’ve been asking mayors, regional districts and others to consider is secondary suites, enabling property owners to choose laneway houses. Also, we’ve received a submission from the UBCM around Airbnb and short-term rentals. I know that a lot of potential rental housing stock on the islands and areas like Sea to Sky, Tofino area, vacation areas can be used for short-term rentals rather than long-term rentals for service industry workers, as historically would have been the case.

We have taken that report from UBCM. We’re doing the policy work on supporting regional districts and municipalities to be able to enforce regulations to manage the supply of rental housing as well as short-term rental to avoid the erosion of necessary housing for workers, because historically, in smaller communities, that was where the housing was provided. It was in the basement suites. It was in the guest building on a property, and now many of those have gone to short-term rentals. So it is a serious issue that’s affecting a lot of communities.

There are initiatives underway. They may not all be construction and financing initiatives. They may be targeted more at addressing the erosion of rental housing supply in some communities. But I welcome suggestions the member can bring forward from the communities that he serves for different government programming.

M. Bernier: We noticed that there’s still a little bit of time. I didn’t want the minister to think he was getting off easy and didn’t have a few more questions asked of him to run out the day here, because obviously, there’s still a lot of important stuff that we can discuss. Thanks to my colleague from the Third Party, who had his questions that he brought forward as well.

I want to maybe, before we leave the housing portion, again, of the Attorney’s responsibilities in estimates here….

[6:10 p.m.]

One of the ones that I didn’t have time to cover off and wouldn’t mind getting an update on is…. It kind of encompasses a lot of what we talked about in the beginning of the estimates process, and that’s really around homelessness. We talked around a lot of different aspects that government is working on, but we know the homeless report that came out last year identified over 8,500 individuals that were experiencing homelessness.

I know one of the things that was really disturbing and troubling in that, and I know the minister would share those concerns with me, is the fact that there were 222 children identified under the age of 19 that were experiencing homelessness. Even worse than that, 38 percent of those children…. Their homelessness that they were experiencing was unsheltered — no homes. They were outside, sleeping outside.

I guess, first of all, my question around this…. I mean, there is no disputing those numbers in the report, I don’t think, because I believe this government has acknowledged that. One of the things, though, that is concerning is that number seems to be increasing. Can the minister maybe, I guess, first, acknowledge the numbers that I said — make sure I’m accurate — and, second, maybe explain why he feels that the numbers are increasing?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t have the demographic breakdown immediately in front of me. But just noting the time and the need for us to get this exchange — because it’s an important issue — on the record, there are two homeless counts the province does now.

One is physical. It’s called a point-in-time homeless count. The first point-in-time count was conducted in 2018. The second was conducted in 2020 and, because of the pandemic, extended over to 2021. This is where people physically go out, and volunteers count people. The 2020-21 count identified 8,665 individuals experiencing homelessness.

We expect that this is an undercount based on the limitations of this particular methodology. This showed an 11.5 percent average increase in homelessness across all communities that conducted counts. Some were lower; some were higher. There were some really surprising increases, in small communities especially, over the pandemic period.

The method that I’m particularly enthusiastic about in terms of trying to identify and get a sense of how we’re doing and what’s happening with homeless populations is the integrated data project that we’ve done in partnership with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. This is a data program that looks at things like shelter data and people with no fixed address on their social assistance payments, and so on.

Based on that data, we estimated that 23,000 people in B.C. experienced homelessness at some point in 2019, with nearly half experiencing chronic homelessness and, at any one point during a month, about 9,300 individuals experiencing homelessness.

[6:15 p.m.]

You can see the difference between the point-in-time count, which says there are about 8,600 people experiencing homelessness. The data project shows that there is a significant cycle of people in and out of homelessness, such that 23,000 people over the year will experience homelessness. At any one point in the month, the number is actually surprisingly close in terms of the integrated data project and the physical count that takes place in communities.

We have some prepublication data for 2012. It indicates very similar trends for the number of people who experienced homelessness in 2019, from the data project. That work continues as we move forward with that methodology.

The short answer is: I am very concerned about the growth in homelessness. One of the issues, I think, is that we’ve been very reactive to homelessness historically, in terms of the province’s approach. “You’re homeless. Let’s build a shelter.”

We need to get ahead of the curve. We need to go to the feeders into homelessness. We know what those feeders are. For the majority of our homeless population, it’s the youth-in-care program. The hospitals and the prisons of our province feed a lot of people into homelessness. They release a lot of people from those levels of high government intervention to low levels of government intervention. It’s where people really tend to experience homelessness.

The member will have seen in this budget a very significant initiative in the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support those youth becoming adults, who typically would have aged out of housing support, and to extend housing support well into young adulthood to address that feeder into homelessness.

Additional work on belonging in B.C., the homelessness strategy, is underway, which we’ll be releasing soon, to talk about an umbrella strategy to approach the prevention of homelessness and to go into those feeders into homelessness. Part of that work is the 3,000 Canada Housing Benefit wraparound service supplements that are in the budget so that we can intervene early if someone becomes homeless or intervene to prevent them from becoming homeless.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister acknowledging it’s probably an undercount, because I would agree with him on that. I’m interested. When he says “for those that conducted a count,” I’m curious what the minister meant by that. Does that mean it was only done in some communities, in some regions?

Obviously, I do understand that it’s really hard to get, maybe, an accurate, down-to-a-person count, for a multitude of different reasons. But I’m curious, when the minister says, “for those that conducted a survey or count,” what that means.

Maybe, before he answers…. The reason, again, that I’ll ask it this way is…. I’ll look at a lot of smaller, rural communities, especially in the North, that on paper could say that they don’t have a homelessness issue, because when it’s minus 40 outside, nobody is living outside in a tent. They’re couch-surfing; they’ve found somewhere else to reside. By the definitions that we use, they’re actually homeless, but they’ve found some form of shelter — I would assume temporarily. So how do we capture that?

Again, back to the point of that question, back to what I was saying: where do we do the counts? How do we get a more accurate number? When the minister said, again, that only some conducted it, what does he mean by that?

Hon. D. Eby: For a number of reasons, I’m enthusiastic about the integrated data count as providing a more accurate representation of not just the homeless population at any one point in time but also, over the course of the year, the number of people who go in and out of homelessness.

The point-in-time count suffers from a number of vulnerabilities. The member has zeroed in on one, which is that the data from these provincially funded counts was collected from 16 communities. It was combined with nine other counts funded by the federal government or other independent sources.

The most recent count comprised 25 communities. In Budget 2019, we funded 16 communities. In Budget 2022, we’re funding counts in 20 communities, so we’ll get a more and more complete picture. But again, it is dependent on the volunteers being present in community to do these counts, the agency being present to coordinate that kind of thing, and so on.

[6:20 p.m.]

For greater illustration, the 16 funded counts — which were over 2020-21, because of the pandemic year — were Comox Valley, Cranbrook, Duncan, Cowichan Valley, Fort St. John, Merritt, Quesnel, Sechelt, Gibsons, Williams Lake and then Campbell River, Parksville, Penticton, Port Alberni, Prince Rupert, Smithers, Squamish and Vernon. Federal and other funding was for Fraser Valley, greater Victoria, Kelowna, Metro Vancouver, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Prince George, Saltspring Island and Terrace. For the 2020-21 count, those were the communities that did counts.

The member will see that that is…. The major regions of the province are reflected there, but it’s not a complete count. So it’s more useful to point-in-time count for trends. I think the data project is going to provide us with a more consistent methodology and more consistent numbers over time and, frankly, a more accurate count.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’ll just ask one last question before we get to the votes that will be next. I appreciate that answer from the minister. What that answer actually highlighted, again, was that that was a good cross-section of across the province — of large, small and rural communities. I appreciate hearing that.

Quickly, how often do we see these counts taking place? When will the next one be? Is this something that we want to try to see on an annual basis, and then will it just be done in different communities, or will it be done in the same communities to see if there is a reversal in the trends? Obviously, I would assume we all share the same goal of trying to see fewer and fewer people on the homelessness counts, but we don’t know unless we have accurate data.

Maybe I’ll end. I won’t have another chance to get up. I’ll just thank the minister and his staff again for the time today.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. Planning is underway for a third provincial count in 2023. As I advised the member, data is being processed for 2020 on the integrated data project. It’s in prepublication, and we expect to be releasing that data this year.

I wanted to join the member in thanking staff from the Ministry of Attorney General and from B.C. Housing for assisting me in this and thank the member for his thoughtful questions, as well as the other members who asked questions. Very important issues canvassed, of importance to British Columbians. I appreciate the respectful tone and the thoughtful exchange we were able to have.

The Chair: Thank you to the minister and to the members asking questions.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call Vote 15.

Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000 — approved.

Vote 16: judiciary, $92,325,000 — approved.

Vote 17: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 18: independent investigations office, $9,093,000 — approved.

Vote 19: housing, $652,791,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 52: Electoral Boundaries Commission, $2,194,000 — approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.