Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Housing.

In committee room A, continued debate on Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. When that’s complete, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions will begin.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to get us into the appropriate places, and we’ll get this committee stage going.

We’re in recess.

The House recessed at 1:34 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of Supply, Section B, to order.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $884,436,000 (continued).

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to engage with the Minister of Housing.

Congratulations on your new role. It’s the first time, I think, we’ve had a chance to see each other in here. Anyways, we’ve seen each other probably quite a bit recently.

Just want to establish a baseline first with the minister. The speculation and vacancy tax has been…. We’ve been collecting data now for a few years. Municipalities have a good sense of their communities and the number of housing units that are there. Does the ministry have a number of housing units that exist in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Just a clarification question. Is the member asking how many units we have of housing in the province, total, not speculation tax–related?

You said speculation in the beginning. I wasn’t quite sure.

A. Olsen: Sorry for being unclear. I was just suggesting that through the data we’ve been collecting through the speculation and vacancy tax, we should have a pretty good understanding of the number of housing units that exist in the province — and just for further clarity, of all types.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We actually don’t have that data right now, but I commit to the member that we’ll get back to him with the number.

A. Olsen: Is that something the ministry generally collects? Just in general, does the ministry collect this information from the municipalities, collate that information with the speculation and vacancy tax filings that British Columbians make every year and have a good sense of the number of housing units in the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Ministry of Finance has that. They lead the forms that go to all households and then they correlate that information.

A. Olsen: Is that a number that the Minister of Housing receives from the Minister of Finance as a part of the decision-making processes for what kind of housing needs to be built, where — the types of housing that need to be built and where they need to be built in the province?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of questions that were in there. Yes, we have access to the numbers from the Ministry of Finance when we request them. That’s regarding the speculation and vacancy tax forms and the information that comes from that. We rely quite a bit on housing needs reports that local governments have been doing. Many of them publish them live on their website. We also look at population growth reports and a whole host of other information, some that’s available externally from external partners as well, and information that may be available from the federal government.

A. Olsen: I’m trying to get an understanding as to the decision-making and what’s informing the decision-making within the Ministry of Housing. Is it fair to say, then, that the Ministry of Housing staff will then collect all of the information from the housing needs assessments and from the Ministry of Finance’s filings to get a very clear understanding of the number of housing units, the kind of housing that exists, the number of bedrooms that are in those houses, where those units are that then can inform the decision-making about where funds go and where houses are needed, etc.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When projects come forward, B.C. Housing does assessments of what the needs are in the community, and decisions around how many bedrooms the units should be, etc., are made. For example, I was just in Courtenay, where units for women fleeing domestic violence were created. They have one bedroom, two bedrooms and three bedrooms in those because it was identified in the community that that need is there.

We hear a lot from our Indigenous partners who say that when we build housing on reserve or off reserve, but it’s focused with Indigenous communities, we need multiple rooms because you want to have a family be together. That’s an important piece.

It really depends on…. When a proponent comes forward, they do an assessment. B.C. Housing works with them to ensure that the types of units that are being built are reflective of the need in the community.

A. Olsen: I’m not getting the sense that the decision-making around the type of housing that’s being built is driven by the type of need that’s in the communities.

[1:45 p.m.]

If there was a direct correlation between understanding the housing stock we have in the provincial government, understanding what the population needs are, understanding the potential migration into the province, immigration from foreign countries, we would, then, be having these numbers very accessible to then be able to say: “We have a housing stock that looks like this. We have these needs, and then that’s what the supply is.” We hear a lot of rhetoric about housing supply, but it doesn’t seem like we understand what the current supply is. It makes it difficult for me to be confident the government then knows what supply is needed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of questions that the member had. One, we have data, obviously. I shared that. We also work with CMHC, who also puts out many reports. CMHC has said that we need 570,000 units by 2030 to restore levels of affordability.

We also know that when projects come from communities…. In 2019, we actually changed the rules to ensure that there’s a housing needs assessment done before that project comes forward. Part of that is looking at what the need is, what kind of units are needed.

When they come through the application process, B.C. Housing actually uses that information to help inform the decision, because often, actually in every case, if a not-for-profit is bringing the application forward, it’s some sort of partnership with the municipality and that work is done between them when they apply. That’s how the projects are assessed.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister.

We have a number, 570,000 units, that was just used. I think this provides a good example of what I’m trying to get at here. We have a lot of talk about the need for more supply. I’m not arguing that we don’t need more supply, but not all supply is created equally. Those housing needs assessments identify a range of housing in the housing spectrum — supported, below-market rent, all the way up to high-end custom homes — and the needs.

[1:50 p.m.]

Now, 570,000 units is a big number and identifies the overall need. That number has zero definition. I don’t know if that’s 570,000 units of below-market rental.

When we are talking about supply and demand, we need to understand the demand. We need to understand the housing stock that we have in our province right now. Then we also need to…. That will then inform the province of where to make targeted investments in order to be able to build the housing stock that we need.

What I’m trying to gain confidence of here is that there is a very surgical approach that’s happening here. Not just: “we need 570,000 units of housing.” They’re all different. When I take a look at some of the housing needs assessments and see the community has identified below-market rental units, for an example, but they’re building condos, or they’re building high-end market rent, then very clearly the housing needs assessment has been valuable in understanding what the needs in the community are, but it has not been valuable in ensuring the type of unit that’s needed in the community is the unit that’s being built.

I’m just wondering how the minister and the ministry is balancing a strong understanding of the housing stock in our province, the demand for housing that’s needed and the type of housing that then needs to be invested in. Does this reflect, the way that I’ve just painted this picture, how decisions are made in the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think there are a few things there, and I know the member knows many of them. I’m just going to share them for the record.

One is I often meet with local governments who say, “Hey, we need this type of housing. We need this many affordable units,” and what comes to them is not necessarily that. Because the majority of our housing projects get built by the market, by private sector, and they have to make sure that the projects work for them. They’re viable for them to do so.

I would agree with the member that we need certain types of affordable units. We need different types of units, amount of units in each building. And part of the housing needs assesses that. But when we depend quite a bit on the private sector, they are going to go to where they think projects are the most viable.

Now there are a lot of things that go into the assessment of the demand, and there are a lot of things we can’t control. We can’t control interest rates, which obviously have a big impact on what gets built and where it gets built and how fast it gets built.

We certainly can’t control immigration numbers. The demand has certainly increased over the last few years. We’ve had three years of record-breaking immigration. Again, we need people, so we welcome people. But I’ve said many times: we want to make sure that it’s in line with ensuring there’s housing for people here and then there’s adequate housing for those that are coming. We want them to be successful as well.

That’s why I’ve been advocating with the federal government that we look at tying our immigration to housing starts and affordable units, so that we can ensure that our investments are aligned. We can’t control many of the levers that are going to dictate where the demand will be. What we can do is look at the different type of housing that we need to address. That’s why the homes for people strategy addresses many of those pieces.

We’re looking at things like the speculation and vacancy tax and where it’s worked and what other jurisdictions may be considered for that. That’s in the plan. We’re also looking at how do we, as the member said…. Right now we’re building…. When a single-family home comes down, by law we’re required to build a single-family home or go through a very extensive process to build something different.

What we’re doing with the small-scale multi-unit is giving options for folks. If people want to buy a single-family home, and they can afford it, that option will be there for them. But if…. Many young families tell me that that’s not affordable for them. Now they can have multiple units in that building, which will provide that.

That’s why we’re…. That’s why there are initiatives in here that address many pieces of that kind of continuum, as the member, I think, was alluding to. Things like build B.C. I mean, to build truly affordable housing for people — certainly for low-income families, but also middle-income families…. We have families earning $120,000 a year that can’t afford rent in some communities. That’s a real challenge for us.

[1:55 p.m.]

The only way we’re going to build truly affordable housing is by looking at lands owned by government and partnering with the private sector to build that supply up, so that the rates can be affordable. The rents can be affordable. And the communities are more well rounded. It’s not just low-income housing, it’s not just high-end housing — it’s people living together. I think that’s a healthier way for society, and it’s a healthier way for communities.

I think, to step back, as the member has asked…. Yes, we have a sense of the challenge, but that can completely change according to things that we can’t control. So we’re looking at the policies that we can control, the type of housing we can bring on.

When we, in the budget, double the target for building housing for people fleeing domestic violence…. We’re doubling the amount of units we committed to when it comes to building housing both on reserve and off reserve. And again, on-reserve has not traditionally been within the realm of the province, but we can’t wait for the federal government anymore. We have to take action. That’s why the commitments are there, because we know the needs are there, but many of the levers we can’t control.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. There was a lot there, and I think that it is actually feeding right into the context of the question that I’m asking. Doubling the units of on-reserve housing. Is that enough? Should we be tripling them? Should we be quadrupling them?

So doubling the units anywhere…. When I hear the language, the words, “doubling the units” or…. What I’m trying to get at here by asking the question about understanding the housing stock that we have right now…. In a supply-and-demand economic framework, you understand what your supply is, you understand what you’re demand is, and then you make targeted decisions based on those factors.

We often hear numbers that are not in context. So 570,000 units of what? Of where? Is it enough? Is it too much? Is it sufficient for the uncontrollable factors of inflation and all of the things….

See, we can minimize the number of threats by understanding and putting the information all in one place. What I was hoping to get from the minister in the first question I asked was a response that says: “Yeah, here. There’s actually this spreadsheet that shows that we have been collecting all of the data, consolidating it in one place and making targeted decisions.”

The minister’s response talked a lot about the private sector, the market, the decisions that are made at local governments, and how all of it — most of it — is out of our control. I was on local government. I know exactly how that process works. We deal with the applications that come to us. That’s the market. That’s the housing market. When the provincial government is investing public money into a market, it needs to be targeting to achieve certain outcomes. And those certain outcomes are the below-market pieces to this. They’re all the pieces that the market isn’t providing.

Does the minister believe that housing is a human right?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are many pieces here. I would say that if you talk to ten economists about what the exact number is of how many units we need, you’ll have ten different answers. Because there are a lot of variables in predicting out that are difficult to predict out, and I laid out some of the variables.

The member asked earlier if we have the data from the speculation and vacancy tax of how many units there are. I said yes. I don’t have it with me now, but I’m happy to share that with the member.

I think the other thing that’s important for this context — I should have shared it with the last answer — is that if CMHC says we need 570,000 housing units by 2030, I would love to build 570,000 units this year. We have a capacity challenge also. We have a shortage of workers.

We’re dealing with a lot of pieces at the same time to get the amount of units that we would like to get built. That’s why we’re going to need more skilled trades, both developing skilled trades locally and also through immigration. We’re going to have to innovate to build housing in a different way. So those are first pieces.

[2:00 p.m.]

The member asked about human rights, and he knows that I worked on bringing back the Human Rights Commission to British Columbia. Obviously it’s critically important, and I would say that it is fundamental that we get people housing in not only to provide people with the basics in our society, but also, in many cases, to ensure that they have the stability to get other supports that they may need. Certainly, I can agree with the member that housing is vitally important, and that’s why we’re making the level of investment we’re doing.

The member also mentioned housing on-reserve. I think I’ll just emphasize again for the record that this is usually the federal government’s territory, and they have not been stepping up in this. So when I say we’re doubling Indigenous housing, that’s both housing on-reserve and it’s also housing off-reserve.

Again, the need is great. We’ve been saying to the federal government: “Fine. No other province is wanting to build on-reserve. We’re the only ones. At least match us. Let’s start as a matching conversation.” Now if you talk to the leadership at AHMA, the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, they’ll say that even the money that’s announced federally is nowhere adequate.

We’re leading in this space, yes. Could we do more? Certainly we could do more, but we need a willing partner that will come in and come to the table to help address that challenge.

A. Olsen: I certainly agree that the provincial government has been…. I wouldn’t suggest the provincial government has been left on their own for on-reserve housing. To a great extent, most of the housing stock that exists on all of the Indian reserves in our country has been built, historically, by the federal government. But that doesn’t mean that I won’t thank and congratulate the government for making the decision over the last number of years to also fund on-reserve housing.

There’s also no doubt that the housing shortage in our communities on Indian reserves in this province has had a dramatic impact on the need for Indigenous peoples’ housing in urban centres, away from the Indian reserve as well.

I’ll just say that one of the things that economists, I don’t think, will disagree on is the actual number of houses and housing units and maybe even bedrooms that exist in the province. That’s a number, and it’s going to go up every year or it’s going to fluctuate every year. That’s for sure.

But you’re not going to get ten different opinions. Just as the minister used the example: you ask ten economists about what the need is, you’re going to get ten different answers. If you ask ten different economists what the number of housing units are in the province, you’ll get a fairly stable, fairly similar response if they’re using the data that the provincial government should have.

That’s part of the reason why I’ve been asking, because we’re spending billions and billions of dollars of public money, and we’re putting it into a housing market that has been designed to commodify real estate as a wealth generator for people. Sometime after the Second World War, we made that decision as a country that was what was going to happen. Now public money is going into it, so the public should be able to expect that their money isn’t further inflating the housing market, that their money is building the housing that is needed by British Columbians now and that we’re doing the best that we can to understand what the potential need is in the future and constructing those units.

The minister didn’t answer my question directly. I agree that housing is fundamental, but I also agree that housing is a human right. Does the minister believe that housing is a human right?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I shared with the member that we’ll get him the stats. The Ministry of Finance holds the numbers of units. We’re trying to get that now. If not, we’ll get it for the member after so that he can get a sense of how many units we have.

I’ll say that I believe that people have the right to shelter in British Columbia. That’s why the work we’re doing, in particular around the homelessness strategy, is targeted to ensure that people have the ability to get housing so that they can get the supports that they need. That is central to the work we’re doing. That’s why we’re making the historic level of investments in housing in communities around the province, because not only has the challenge grown, but we know that with the new challenges that we’re seeing in communities, we have to ensure that we can bring on the adequate amount of housing and shelter that people need.

A. Olsen: I guess just for the record, and then I’ll move on here. I’ve got a few other topics that I’d like to cover, but I think that the record just needs…. The question was not that I need to know the exact number of units. I mean, I’d be happy to understand that number, but in the context of the question that I’m asking, it was not about the actual number.

[2:10 p.m.]

It was a demonstration that the decision-making within the Ministry of Housing is being driven by a deep understanding of the housing stock that we have in our province, the variety of housing that is available, or not, for people to live in, and then shelter as a right or housing as a human right. Then it would lead to believe that the government’s responsibility would then be to deeply understand the housing stock that we have and target the types of housing that are not being built by the market — the developers that come into the local councils. That has not been what was demonstrated this afternoon.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pretty distinct disconnect, maybe not with the philosophical belief that shelters are a right for people, but we’re in the process of building units for units, not targeting the building to any type of understanding of the numbers.

Shifting gears here a little bit, in question period on Wednesday of April 5, I asked the minister about the city of Vancouver scattering people living in the East Hastings encampments. I agree with the minister that the situation that had evolved on Hastings Street was very dangerous and that something needed to be done. The minister said: “The city…notified me this morning that they were going to move in and move on the encampment.”

During the B.C. NDP leadership event last year, the Premier noted this is an issue of political will. In fact, he was very clear on it last August. He suggested to British Columbians that he had the will to deal with the Downtown Eastside. The Premier stated unequivocally: “The crisis in the Downtown Eastside is well beyond what the city of Vancouver can take on, on their own. Ottawa is too far away…. The opportunity here is for the province to take a leadership role and say that we will take responsibility. We will coordinate this. We’ll work with the city. We’ll work with the feds. We’ll work with the large Indigenous population down there.”

I’ve heard that the minister knew, long before the police moved in on that encampment on April 5. I’m wondering what it is: is this a situation that the minister is being briefed on, in the morning that the Vancouver PD shut down the neighbourhood? Or is the minister working with the city, working with the feds, and taking the leadership role that the Premier said this government had the political will to do?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by saying something that the Premier has said many times: the encampments are not safe for the people living there, and they’re not safe for the community at large. Take from that what you would like to take from it, but we’ve said it many times. We continue to say that. Our goal was always to have shelter and housing available for people, so that they’re not in encampments. That isn’t breaking news to anyone, I hope; we’ve said it multiple times.

I’ve said multiple times that I’ve been working with the mayor and council for months — since the new mayor and council got in, in particular — because I was fairly closely aligned, when I became Minister of Housing, on working on how we can get housing built and how we can get more housing online.

Now, there were examples, such as a project on Commercial, where we had approved for, I believe, it was over 50 units. The council said: “Well, if you’re going to build it, why not get more density, get more units on there?” They were able to help us move that along. We’ve been able to work with them on finding ways to move the process quicker, to get more units, because we know it’s needed throughout the community.

I can share with the member that, since the Premier becoming Premier, just on the encampment response, 103 offers of housing were made to people, 97 confirmed moves and 160 people have accepted offers of shelter. B.C. has opened 130 new or newly renovated units of permanent indoor supportive housing spaces. We had a commitment, also, that we had 330 units coming on board. We got occupancy permits for 95 of them.

We, on top of that, purchased Chalmers Lodge, which is another 115 units, because we know that there is a need. We need to ensure, in that case, that seniors who are living in SROs have a safe place to go. This is why we’re making the investments, because we don’t believe that people should be living in encampments. We believe that they should get into shelters, be assessed and then get into housing.

[2:15 p.m.]

If those things that I’ve said are news to the member, well, then I’m happy to put it on the record. But I have been saying that for many months since I’ve been in this role. Certainly, the Premier has as well.

A. Olsen: No, it’s certainly not news. I’ve heard the minister repeat those numbers. I’ve heard the minister talk about taking leadership. I’ve just heard the minister say: “We know that there is a need.” Again, what my line of questioning has been about is understanding what the need is.

I do not want to diminish the units of housing that are being offered to people, and the numbers that have been put forward. I just have no idea about the context of that. That might be 1 percent of the total number of units needed. If that’s 1 percent — I’m using a very dramatically small number for a reason — of the housing units needed, then we would have exactly 99 percent to go in solving the problem.

This is the problem. When the number of units that have been opened is the only number that’s put on the record, in an effort to be answering a question, then without the context, it becomes very difficult for British Columbians, and for us in this place, to understand whether the question was answered or whether it was just a response.

The result of what happened a couple of weeks ago was that people were scattered across the city. There’s no way to really measure that — although, from the conversations I’ve had, that had a dramatic effect on all parts of the Lower Mainland.

The minister again suggested that the Premier and he had been working with the city of Vancouver. Yet on the morning of April 5 — the same day that there is a housing conference being held by the Union of B.C. Municipalities in downtown Vancouver — the mayor, Ken Sim; the fire and police chiefs; and Paul Mochrie are the only people available to the media to explain what’s going on. There’s no Minister of Housing, no Premier and no support from the provincial government.

In fact, the mayor didn’t even say it. He introduced everybody and then left it up to the city manager to answer all the questions. That was an administrative response that happened in that press conference. That was not the elected political leaders showing the leadership that, only a few months earlier, the Premier had committed to, that he was going to show.

The province, on that difficult day, when the police are scattering people in a very dangerous living environment, entirely agreed: no Minister of Housing, no Premier. How does that reflect leadership — in which the Premier specifically said only the provincial government can answer this question — when the Premier and the Minister of Housing leave it up to the city manager of Vancouver to answer the questions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things the member has highlighted. First, I’ll reiterate that the encampments were not safe. I’m sure the member knows that the fire chief had major concerns, given that there were fires every week and given that the incidences of violence that we saw were very high — a lot of cases.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member will also know that 50 women were interviewed by a not-for-profit, and all 50 reported having been sexually assaulted in the encampment. Hopefully, we can agree that the encampment was not safe and that shelter is a way safer option for those that were living in the encampments.

Now, I can’t speak to what happened when the mayor said what. Quite frankly, the mayor is not here in estimates. I can speak to what we’re doing. I can share with the member that the mayor’s job and the city’s job are ensuring the safety of the public. They made a decision that it was no longer safe and that they had to move in and do something. That’s for estimates with the city.

What I can share with the member is that we have been offering people in the Hastings encampments shelter for months. This didn’t start on the day the city decided to make a move. For months before that, we were offering people shelter opportunities. We knew we wanted to get people…. In fact, more than 90 people on Hastings Street — originally, it was well over 200 people — accepted the shelter opportunities to move from the Hastings encampment.

I can share with the member that since the fire chief’s orders, 139 units already opened up. I can share with the member, also, that we committed to have 330 by the end of the summer. So 95 of those just opened up. We’ve got the occupancy permit, and we’re trying to move people in.

The core point is…. We want to get people into housing. We want to get people into shelter. We want to get people off the streets and out of the encampments and to get them the supports they need. In order to do so, we need these units opened up as quick as we can.

The investments are coming. The units have been coming. They’ve been opening up. We’ve been moving people, but the challenge is great.

We’re not only doing that here. We’re doing that and addressing these challenges in communities throughout the province. The challenge of encampments is not a B.C.-only challenge. This is a challenge that is being faced by, certainly, all jurisdictions around the west coast, where there are warmer temperatures, Arizona and across the country. What’s different here is that we’re making the significant investments — to build, to expand capacity, to buy where we need to — to get people indoors.

A. Olsen: Yes, the mayor is not here to answer these questions. The mayor is not the one that answers these questions. The Minister of Housing is.

I think the point that I was making was that the Minister of Housing wasn’t at the press conference. There was no provincial representation at the press conference about an issue that the current Premier of British Columbia has said the provincial government will take full responsibility for.

This is absolutely right. The minister is absolutely right. This is not just a B.C. problem. The housing market…. The commodification of housing creates real estate for purposes other than housing. It creates it for wealth generation. That’s the way that the housing market is right across North America. So similar conditions are being faced, to lesser and greater extents, across the continent.

However, the Downtown Eastside is, according to the Premier’s words, only this government’s responsibility. The feds are too far away. The city doesn’t have the resources to do it. The Premier, on the campaign trail to become the new leader of the B.C. NDP, said very clearly — I already quoted it; I’m not going to put it on the record again — that only his government was in a position to be able to deal with it.

When the announcement was happening that the police were rolling in on the very difficult and, yes, very dangerous situation that has been occurring for months and months and months…. It’s what inspired the Premier’s comments and to say: “We’re going to take ownership of it.” But at that announcement, only the city was there. Then not only that. It was the city manager…. It was the highest-level bureaucrat in the city that was left to answer all of the questions.

[2:25 p.m.]

What that left the viewer to believe was that there was actually no political leadership on this particular issue. A demonstration of political leadership would be of the Premier following through on the words that he had said only a few months earlier or, in his stead, his Minister of Housing being there. There was a housing conference that was going on. B.C. politicians were moving in and out of the Lower Mainland for two full days, and there was an awful lot of opportunity.

I think, in connection to the question about finding people shelter, shelter as a human right…. There is a project that has been going on in Duncan for some time called the Village. This is providing shelter for people. If you talk to Mayor Michelle Staples, the city of Duncan, you find that the results of it have been quite remarkable.

Has the minister visited and witnessed what’s going on with this project that’s happening in Duncan called the Village?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to emphasize that the challenges we’re dealing with, in particular on East Hastings right now, are not something that started under our government. It has been a challenge for a long time. People that need support have found some support there, and many haven’t.

What’s different, though, is a Premier stepping up and saying: “You know what? It’s unacceptable for people to live that way. There’s got to be a better way.” That’s what’s different right now.

Yes, the Premier stepped up and said: “Better is possible. I’m going to get in there and try to find solutions to get people into housing.” Yes, he did. And you know what? Good on him.

I think that’s what British Columbians want. They want leadership to step up and say: “You know what? We’re going to step up. We know it’s going to be difficult. We know there’s no quick-button solution that will solve the problem. We know that six months or seven months after you say you’re going to do it, you’re going to have people standing up in this place asking you how come you haven’t fixed it yet.”

Knowing all that, he still stepped up and said: “This is important.” He worked there. He worked on the east side, and he understands how important it is for people to get the supports they need.

The member wants to talk about why we weren’t there, who was there. I’ve been answering questions on this from that day to now. I’m not shying away from any questions. Happy to answer the questions. Happy for the member to ask the questions. I know his heart is good, and he’s coming from a good place.

I’ll continue to say to the member…. Whenever questions come on this, we provide answers.

I can’t speak to why the mayor answered less questions and the city manager answered more questions. I mean, I saw the pictures. They were all there. I can’t explain to you who answered questions first and what that…. I can’t. I didn’t watch the whole press conference.

I can share with you that the city made a decision because they felt that the safety of the public and the safety of the people in the encampment was being compromised. That is their space. That is their jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is to get people into shelter and then into housing. I’ll leave that there now.

I know the member had another question, which is around tiny homes. Now, the member will probably know that we funded a tiny home project in Victoria. There’s a similar project…. We’ve also funded projects in Port Alberni, which is also kind of a tiny home style. I did meet with the mayor of Duncan here a few months ago when the mayor was here to talk about what they would like to see in their community.

We continue to meet with local leaders in communities that want to step up and find good, creative solutions to help address the challenges in their communities. Actually, I welcome that. When I hear a mayor say, “You know what? These are people who live in our community. They’re from our community, and we want to help them,” that fills me with joy. There are also local government leaders who say: “They’re not from here. They’re from elsewhere. We don’t want any part of this.”

[2:30 p.m.]

Yes, I have met the mayor of Duncan. I was planning to go there last week, again, to actually go on site, but for some scheduling reasons, I wasn’t able to. But certainly, I intend to come through that area and meet with the mayor of Duncan at the site.

A. Olsen: I’ll just say a couple of things. One, the minister has agreed that people should have a right to shelter. This village project that’s being undertaken by the mayor of Duncan is providing shelter for people in a much safer way than the shelter that those were seeking in the Downtown Eastside on Hastings, which both the minister and I agree was a dangerous situation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Unfortunately, we’ve heard…. Some of the narrative has been that…. Some of the challenges with getting funding for the village and other similar sites like this is that the housing is undignified. I think that what I’d like to put together here in this is a recognition that people have a right to shelter. People have a right to be dignified where they live. We have a responsibility to deliver that as the government. That’s the fundamental line of questioning that I’ve been undertaking here.

My hope is that the minister will do everything that they can to make sure that those tiny units that the people are living in, surrounded by supportive services, are dignified and not shut them down because members of B.C. Housing or members of the ministry or members of the — believe that it’s undignified. We need to find a way to ensure that those units can ensure the dignity of the people that are living in them.

What I’ve heard about the project is that just the fact that they have a place to sleep has returned at least a portion of their dignity. A safe place to sleep. That’s, in essence, what the minister has been talking about achieving for the people that were living in tents in a dangerous situation on the Downtown Eastside: safety, a place to lock the door so that you don’t get attacked while you’re trying to sleep. We’ve heard the impacts that a lack of sleep has had on people in one or two nights. You try to operate, and if that’s your entire life, looking for places to sleep….

I’ve got one final line of questioning, but I do want to kind of close down the bit around the Downtown Eastside and the decision-making that was there. I’m not in disagreement. I’ve never demanded or suggested this government didn’t inherit a terrible problem, a wicked problem. It’s an awful problem. I agree. I’m encouraged by the Premier taking responsibility for it vocally. That’s the first time we’ve seen that from a provincial government. I support that. I’ve never once in here said: “Why hasn’t it happened yet? Why haven’t we fixed the problem?” If the minister heard that, then I’m sorry. That’s not what my line of questioning is about.

My line of questioning is about…. When the Premier says that there’s going to be leadership and a significant police action is there to move people out of this dangerous situation and the city manager is left being the only one that is showing leadership to answer those questions…. I’m recognizing that the minister can’t answer the questions because the minister wasn’t there. That’s the criticism that I’m levelling.

The provincial government has said, through the Premier, that this is the only level of government that can handle the situation. Yet this was the level of government that was noticeably absent the day that Vancouver, apparently working in coordination with the province of B.C…. We’re nowhere to be seen.

I want to just put something on the record here with the southern Gulf Islands because this is a very challenging situation in my riding. I don’t see how any of the legislative tools that have been created, whether it be the Housing Supply Act or whether it be rezoning, are going to help the very specific and targeted problem that we have on the southern Gulf Islands.

[2:35 p.m.]

More supply, just generalized supply — back to the main questions that I was asking — is not the problem that is on the southern Gulf Islands. It is a very specific problem for finding workforce housing and supported housing for homeless people and people that are living in very marginal situations.

Part of the problem is the type of supply that’s been built, the custom home, the cabin that’s been turned into a 5,000- or 6,000-square-foot home has added pressure everywhere else in the housing market. There are really significant concerns. Because you can’t just create water out of thin air and you just can’t remove human waste to nowhere, actually, the supply narrative that has been embraced by the provincial government doesn’t solve the very targeted issue the southern Gulf Islands need in getting places for teachers and educational assistants and early childhood education professionals, professionals working in the health care system.

The now Premier and former Housing Minister was personally involved in the Seabreeze situation that has turned into lawsuits between the Lady Minto Hospital Foundation and others — a very chaotic situation on the southern Gulf Islands. And the Housing Supply Act and the other proposals that have been largely designed for communities that aren’t an island and have actually a carrying limit…. There’s actually a limit to the number of people that can live and be supplied with water and with all of the services that are needed on these islands.

Just supply for supply’s sake isn’t the solution. It’s got to be exceptionally targeted. The Islands Trust Act and the fact that the CRD does the servicing and the Islands Trust Act does the zoning and the land use has bifurcated the decision-making. None of these tools are making it easy — not for the southern Gulf Islands to just grow in an unfettered way, but for the southern Gulf Islands to be able to get the housing that they need for a very specific type of supply.

This is an issue that I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs needs to be seized with. It’s an issue that the Minister of Housing needs to be seized with. I’m just wondering how the minister intends to deal with this exceptionally unique scenario where there’s a very, very complex legislative and policy framework that has created the outcomes that we have today, meaning that teachers and health care professionals and early childhood educators and police officers can’t find a place to live in the community that they work in and just also on a geographic island that cannot just have unfettered growth, because it just can’t.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not answering quickly because I wanted to leave, just because I’ve got the answer ready for him. He’s smiling at me.

I’ll say again, I’ll remind the member that the city makes decisions around safety. They felt that the situation has gotten to a point where they needed to act.

At the core, the member’s saying, why weren’t we available to answer questions? I can say to the member, we have a lot of media in this place, and I was answering questions in this building. In fact, the member himself asked me a question. I think he was the only one who asked me questions about this topic, and maybe the critic across the way. That’s the accountability we have in this place. It’s to answer questions when members ask them. When we go in the hallways, the media asks us questions. In no way was I avoiding any questions. In fact, I answered them that day, every day, and any questions that come into the future.

The member also mentions a point that we don’t need supply; we just need housing for our workforce and other things. That is a form of supply of housing. I think I understand his core point, which is that you need housing that’s affordable and not just commodified for wealthy folks who want to come and move into the community and make it just for them and not for others.

[2:40 p.m.]

There’s got to be a way. That’s why we’re making investments in communities to help directly fund that.

The member has, for the record, advocated for his community around Seabreeze project. I appreciate having a meeting with him about it. I can share with the member, from our last conversation, that no services are being funded at Seabreeze right now. I appreciate that there are a couple of people still there, but no services are being funded from B.C. Housing. People were moved to Kings Lane, in a temporary space.

We expect late this year that we will have 28 units at the Drake site, fully ready to go, so that people have more permanent shelter than what they have now. I appreciate his advocacy for not only his community but for those 28 people as well.

A. Olsen: I’ll just end with this, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague. I want to just thank the minister for engaging me on these questions. I appreciate the update with respect to Seabreeze. Absolutely, there is a type of supply that’s needed.

However, if you track through this past hour just in terms of understanding the needs of the Southern Gulf Islands…. I’ll continue to engage the minister on this, because there is a very real capacity issue on the Southern Gulf Islands. In fact, on Saltspring, the north Saltspring water district has put a cap on all new hookups. So there’s not access to water, yet there is a need for nursing.

I think that there is this tension on Saltspring in particular, but on the Southern Gulf Islands in general, around: you can’t have unfettered growth, and how are we going to ensure that the housing is targeted to what the needs are in the community? That’s the tension that I’m constantly trying to manage and respect — that businesses need workers, health care needs workers, education needs workers, and there’s also a very real capacity and carrying issue in terms of an island with very limited resources.

I’ll just end with that. I really appreciate this engagement, and thank you to the minister. I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Vancouver.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague for those good questions.

I still want to talk a bit about the upzoning. There are many communities that are confused again about how that’s going to impact them and what, if any, decisions they’ll be able to make as municipalities in terms of how this is going to work.

A couple of things. Okay. Is there another jurisdiction….? I know New Zealand, Oregon, California — a model similar to this upzoning has been used in different places. Is the one we’re putting forward here in British Columbia modelled on any of those other existing frameworks?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re learning from all of them. Arlington, I think, is the most recent one. They keep coming. We have a model for success. We’re learning from Auckland, so we’re seeing what can work.

Maybe I’ll get ahead of the member’s next question, which is: we are right now engaging with local governments on how this could work. Of course, we’ll have more to say after some of that engagement happens.

The main point here is that we have to find a way for it to work. Again, I appreciate that for some, that may be a challenge. When we announced this policy, I had someone in my community say to me: “We’ve got a good working-class community. It’s been this way for 30-something years, and I don’t want to see it change.” My response to them was: “The community has changed. The building structures may not be changing, but who can live in them is changing.”

We want to make sure healthy communities are ones where there are kids. Right now young families can’t afford, when a single-family home comes down, to buy a single-family home. Our goal here is to ensure there are options — that those that want to have a single-family home have their option, and that for those young families who want to come together, a couple of them perhaps, and build something that can be separated for them, those options are there for them as well.

[2:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Oregon bases their model on city size. Will that be any consideration in terms of what we’re doing here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We certainly will be learning from other jurisdictions and seeing what they’re doing. As we engage with local governments, we’ll have a better sense of exactly how that will work. Of course, we’ll share that more publicly then.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister smiled when he asked that question. I believe the previous answer was, “We’re learning,” and then I asked a specific question about something that we were doing.

It concerns me though — perhaps I’m misunderstanding this — that this is a significant policy change that has been publicly announced. Am I understanding that the specifics are still not determined? So this is still a policy in process of being developed right now, and as you’re learning from other communities, do we not have a final drafted policy on how this upzoning is going to work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If we had a final policy, we would have been introducing it and debating it in this House. There’s always a debate whether, as in this instance, we should just do legislation, and then communities are surprised because we’ve announced legislation, or whether we should signal our intent and then engage them on how that will work.

We decided that we were going to signal our intent and engage with them, on the understanding that we want to make sure that this type of housing works. That engagement is happening. UBCM is a good partner. We’re also hearing from communities directly.

K. Kirkpatrick: So to clarify, because I have a lot of questions here that I’d like to ask the minister on specifics that people have provided to me from different….

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yes. We can do that now, and then I can start.

May we take a break at this point, Madam Chair?

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute break.

The committee recessed from 2:47 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for moving us along.

My question I was posing to the minister prior to the break — just trying to get my head around this — is that there was an announcement about a provincial upzoning plan to move single-family lots to fourplex lots. My hope here was to ask some specific questions about how that’s going to work.

I’m hearing that that is still…. It was an announcement that has now gone into consultation with communities, so there are no specifics yet, at this point, about how that’s going to work, where it’s going to be implemented. Is it fourplexes? Is that going to be based on the different communities? Can I just clarify? There are no details at this point.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we have signalled that we believe that larger lots will be able to go up to four units, and some smaller ones will be able to go up to three. I hope the member will appreciate that it’s a big province; lots of different perspectives on how this could work in their communities.

So that’s the conversation we’re having right now: how do we get to yes? There are a million reasons to say no to housing. We hear them, unfortunately, too much. What we’re saying is: how do we get to a place where we can say yes to get more housing online, so that we have that housing for not only the people now but our future generations?

The policy work is happening. I appreciate the member will probably ask this question in different ways, because she’s doing her job. But I can just share that at this point, we are doing a lot of engagement with local governments on how we can ensure that this type of housing can be built in communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am not going to ask specific questions on this. I remain somewhat perplexed on this having sounded like an announcement that had a policy attached to it, and it is a consultation. I may, once I kind of get my head around that, come back to some more questions on this, but at this point, I’m just going to move along.

To the minister…. Actually, I just want to check with a colleague. I’m going to just…. I’ll ask one more and then — okay.

The NDP are going to be providing forgivable loans for those who are wanting to put secondary suites in their homes for, I believe, up to 50 percent of the cost of the construction. Would the minister expect homeowners to prefer this option over a less restrictive type of financing, such as the home equity line of credit?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question on this topic. Again, it goes to one of the core pieces, which is that we want to get more supply online, all types of supply, and we’re willing to be innovative to try new ways to get it.

Certainly, I’ve heard from people in my community who say: “I’m property-rich but cash-poor. I don’t have the dollars to be able to renovate, or bring up to code, my rental suite. If I did, I would consider it.” I’ve heard that from a lot of seniors. The member is right: some folks could take a loan against their property. That is one way to do it, certainly. But the program we’re offering here is up to 50 percent loan from the government, which, over time, becomes zero if they rent a property at a lower rate than market.

It’s a win for the homeowner, because they’re able to leverage some B.C. dollars to be able to get the access to capital to build the unit. It’s a win for the person or the family that will go in and rent it, because they’ll get below-market rates. And over time, it will pay itself off. But it just, again, reflects our desire, part of the strategy, to find as many solutions as we can.

We expect around 3,000 units will initially go through the program in this way. It’s hard — hopefully, I’m not going ahead of the next question — to say exactly how many units, because it’ll depend on the community. We’ve said up to $40,000. In some communities, it will be less; in some communities, it will be more. In some communities, the rent will be higher. Those are details we’re working out. We’ll have more information — certainly for the member, for the community, for people that are interested — this fall.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I was involved in a project a number of years ago. It was an interesting approach to providing something that’s actually not dissimilar to what we’re talking about here.

[3:00 p.m.]

It was townhomes. I believe it was in Abbotsford. The townhomes were being given, by one of the credit unions, a preferred mortgage rate, but based on a lower unit being set aside specifically as an affordable rental unit. There was a lot of management of this process. There had to be a charge on the property. There were a lot of covenants and undertakings.

A question around this is there’s a complexity here for monitoring, so if there is a forgivable loan to a homeowner, how do we ensure that we don’t have Airbnbs in there, that, you know, it goes unrented or it’s rented only for a short period of time and then it’s vacant again? And meanwhile, the homeowners are at the expense, potentially, of government having an increased value in their home.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for that. I have similar concerns. And, you know, we want to ensure that the intention of this proposal is good, and we want to ensure that the intention of those who access it do so in a good way. But there are always a few bad apples out there that find ways to try to get around the system. And we know that across any program that any government puts forward.

So that’s some of the work that’s happening right now. We’re looking at exactly the pieces you’ve highlighted. How do we ensure that we’re able to follow up and check on the units and people staying in those units are part of the original agreement? How do we ensure that there’s accountability in that process over the, say, five years that that loan will be in place and slowly scaling down?

So that exactly is what we’re doing right now — that policy work to make sure that those protections are in place for this program. Again, that’s also why we’re starting with a smaller scale. I mean, 3,000 isn’t a massive number. But we know this is innovative. We know this is new, so part of that…. We want to see what works, learn. We’ll make adjustments as we go.

But the points the member raises are the very points that the team is, right now, going through to make sure that we have the policy pieces in place to address that.

D. Clovechok: I just want to say thank you to my colleague, the critic here, and to the minister and his staff. I’ve got a couple of regional questions that I’m going to throw by you.

To give you a bit of a narrative building up to those questions. Whether it be in business or in government, action creates reaction, and with that, comes unforeseen changes or unforeseen consequences to some extent. That’s what I really want to talk about in the next little bit, and the questions will be centred around that.

When the Residential Tenancy Act came into play…. And just to give you a bit of a background, I come from a riding that’s as big as the country of Switzerland, with multiple small communities. The biggest communities I have are 8,000 people, mostly, and lots of rural folk as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

But our population grows in the Columbia Valley, as an example, between 30,000 and 40,000 people between May and October because of tourism.

When the Residential Tenancy Act was brought in, it was brought in — certainly, understand that I’m a landlord, and I make sure that my tenants are well looked after, because they take care of me — to protect tenants, and rightfully so, because there are some bad apples. I’m glad to see that the minister is using: “How do we get to yes?” I remember Christy Clark used to say that all the time.

In any event, one of the consequences that has come about because of the Residential Tenancy Act is landlords feel that their rights are not being protected. As a result of that feeling, they have gotten out of the rental business. When those leases expired, they didn’t renew them, or they sold the houses to other people who have now turned them into Airbnbs.

Housing is based upon supply and demand. When you take any supply out of the market, that market drops. As a result of that, in the areas that I live in and represent, whether it’s from Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, all the way down to Kimberley, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in Airbnbs that used to be in rental stock. It’s taken that rental stock away from people who desperately need housing. It certainly is making it a lot more difficult for business owners to find places for their employees to live.

With that kind of set…. Also, with these Airbnbs, it has really changed the complexity and the dynamics of the neighbourhoods. As a matter of fact, Fairmont Hot Springs — I just live south of there — has one of the highest Airbnbs anywhere in British Columbia. It’s changed the dynamics of those neighbourhoods, where it used to be that you’d wave at your neighbour as you’re driving by. Well, now it’s not that way anymore.

I guess the first question I would have is: do you have a strategy that would deal with the continual growth of these Airbnbs that are taking that stock out of the market? Because people who need to have rental homes are not getting them, because they’re being turned into Airbnbs.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s nice to be getting a question from the member across the way. I was smiling at you because my dad passed away a few years ago, and he used to have the very same saying that you just used, which is: “For every action, there’s a reaction.” So it brought a smile on my face. Thank you for that.

Certainly, yeah, the member lives in one of the most beautiful parts of the province, and I can see the demand for tourism, in particular, in that region. The type of scenario that the member raised is a good one. I think it’s an accurate one and something that we’ve put a lot of thought into with the housing strategy.

There are a couple of parts to it. One is around…. Of course, the changes we make are to protect the landlords and renters. But we know in some cases, there are renters who choose not to pay rent knowing that the RTB wait times are long. Then often what happens is that it waits for four or five months for a decision, and then the landlord is out money in the meantime. It discourages some people from getting back into being a landlord, and we need every unit possible.

Part of that is reflected in the increased investment that we made in the RTB. We announced it in December, but it was in the housing strategy — $15.6 million over three years. That’s a 40 percent increase in staff. And why that’s important is that our goal is to do two things.

[3:10 p.m.]

One is to shorten the time of decisions, shorten the time that people have to wait before they can get the information they want. That comes from more people. But it also comes from reform of the system.

That work is happening. I shared with the member that some of the wait times have started dropping because of that investment. About 50 percent, I believe, of the staff that we have money allocated for are hired. As that goes, we will continue lower. So our hope is that by that investment, we’ll start getting decisions faster so that there’s less uncertainty for longer, which hopefully brings more predictability for landlords. Certainly we’re hoping it creates more certainty for tenants as well. As you highlighted, it can sometimes be a bad landlord. It can sometimes be a bad tenant.

One of the other things that we’re looking at, and the team started doing, is that we have a compliance enforcement unit, which now can be proactive. Because, before, everyone was so busy trying to deal with all the files coming, so it was hard to be proactive. We created this new unit as part of the funding.

What they’re able to do is that they’re able to say: “Okay, we know that when rent is not being paid, overwhelmingly, when the adjudication happens, it tends to go in the favour of the landlord, because it’s pretty straightforward. You haven’t paid the rent, and it’s part of the contract.” What the team has been starting to do now is proactively call when those cases come early so that the tenant can understand that this is the process. This is what you need to do. We’re starting to see some success where those issues are being dealt with quicker as opposed to having to go through the full process.

I would say that it’s a very small percentage of people who used the length of the wait times in their favour. Certainly, we know that if that discourages anyone from a suite, that is bad for the community. It’s bad for us as a province given the numbers we have.

Now the second part of the member’s question, again, is a good one. When the short-term rental conversation came up many years ago, I recall local government leaders saying: “You know what? This is going to be important for tourism in our community.” That was a big piece that I heard all the time.

The conversation has shifted. There are now more communities that are tourism-dependent coming to us and saying: “It’s gone too much. It’s gone too far. We don’t have, now, housing to have our tourism operators continue to operate.” So there’s got to be a better way. We need some tools to be able to better enforce rules, bylaws and regulations that we brought in place. That is something that’s in the housing strategy on page 27. I won’t read it into the record. The member can just look it up. If he wants, I can.

But the idea is for us to find ways to not only ensure that local governments have better tools to enforce but also find ways to get more of that housing stock back into the housing market, because we know that we desperately need it. I appreciate the member’s question, because too often this conversation becomes Vancouver. But it’s a reminder for those that are watching that this is a challenge faced by communities throughout the province, especially communities that are stunningly beautiful, because they’re seeing that impact more than others.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much for that answer, Minister. It’s refreshing to hear. Your father, although I wish you condolences on the loss, must have been a wise man.

I think you answered this next question for me. But one of the concerns that I hear from my municipal governments and my regional governments from the regional directors and the municipal mayors is that they’re responsible for the enforcement of this whole process, whether it be Revelstoke, which has passed bylaws or Golden, which has done the same. They’re doing different things to address the issue. But there’s a lack of enforcement. They feel that it’s been downloaded on them by the province. The province created this issue, yet they’re the ones that are dealing with it around enforcement.

Certainly when you get a house that has a capacity of 14 people and there’s a raging party going on, the RCMP doesn’t have time to attend those kinds of calls given the things that they do and the small detachments that we have. I’d just like to hear some solutions that the minister might have about how the province is going to deal with helping these municipalities deal with these issues, because they’re very real. They just don’t have the ability to enforce. Which, of course, creates even greater….

[3:15 p.m.]

The second part of that question is that I’d be really interested to see if you have any strategies about how to incentivize these folks that have gotten out of the long-term rental into the short-term rental because they’re cash cows. They’re making way more money than they ever would on a long-term rental. So what are we going to do to try to get them back into the market?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for the question. He was a wise man, and I guess that’s a quote that wise men use. I appreciate that. I certainly hope that regional director is not giving you a hard time up there because that would be problematic.

I concur with many of the things that the member raised around concerns that were heard from local government. I’ve been hearing similar ones. Actually, we provided some dollars to UBCM to do some of this work just recently, and we heard similar things from the report back from them.

We’re right now working on legislation and amendments to some of our legislation, as part of the housing strategy, to ensure that the platforms have more accountability as well as giving more tools to local governments to mitigate the effects of short-term rentals. That’s some of the work that we’re going to be working on that I’m hoping this fall we’ll be able to have as part of the housing strategy.

The points you made are very similar to communities around the province. We’re not the only ones also dealing with this challenge. Communities throughout the world, in fact, but closer to home, around North America — many of them are dealing with the same challenge. Again, we’re learning from some of those jurisdictions.

What the member has highlighted is something that I’ve been hearing more and more from communities and is reflected in the joint established group that the UBCM and B.C. created. It was a UBCM advisory group on short-term rentals that was co-chaired by us in the province and Mayor Jack Crompton from Whistler.

D. Clovechok: I think it needs to be read into the record that there is a market for Airbnbs and VRBOs in our communities. There’s no question about it. It’s certainly an accommodation that people have required and have acquired since the COVID thing was over, and it’s something that we need. We don’t want to see them all go away.

But I’m just wondering from a municipal perspective. You talked about… You’re looking at providing some tools. Are those tools still in discovery stage, or do you have some examples of the types of tools that you’ll be sharing in cooperation and collaboration with municipalities that are being built to help offset the struggles that they’re having?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re trying to get you the report, the what-we-heard report from UBCM. I can’t get it for you now, but maybe I’ll send you the link. It’s on the UBCM website, what they heard in those deliberations.

It’s really ensuring that there are regulatory frameworks in place to hold the platforms to account, but also the important need for sharing data. That’s one big thing we’ve heard from local governments is that the lack of access to data to be able to identify where those units are and then making sure that they’ve got, in some cases, business licences and they’re paying the local fee that’s being paid — all those things. So the data-sharing piece is a big thing.

Those are two things that I can share at this point. Again, closer to the fall, we’ll be able to share more publicly additional information.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for that. It’s encouraging.

Just one last thing I want to bring to your attention. You probably already do know that, because this is such a lucrative market where people are making an enormous amount of money, which…. I’m a capitalist. I have no problem with that.

But we’re now seeing in communities that I represent purpose-built houses that are for Airbnbs. We can’t regulate why people build houses, but is there any thought given to how that’s going to continually affect when someone is purposely building a house for an Airbnb knowing full well that they’ll recover their costs very quickly?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you for the member to share that. Again, similar concerns that I’ve heard from community. At this point, I can’t really give, I guess, a clear answer to the member about that challenge.

I can say that I’ve met with a lot of folks who are in the hotel business, for example, who say: “How is it fair that we’re paying X, Y, Z taxes to operate this hotel, yet X, Y, Z company basically makes their own hotel, but it’s just on residential land.”

There’s a real unfairness, I think, there that we have to navigate and find a solution for, because we’re going to get more tourism in the future. If we’re not going to be able to get the investments in that type of accommodation, the hotel-type of accommodation, because they’re worried their investment won’t be viable when it’s built, what we’re going to only see is an encouragement of more of our housing stock going into that space, which will make our challenge greater. I only say that because I think the member, who has spent so much of his life in the tourism industry as well, will fully understand this challenge.

Just to share with you that we’re very aware of that challenge right now, and certainly, I’ve been hearing that in communities as I’ve been travelling. Part of that feedback will be part of the deliberations we have on the policies we bring forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to follow the thread on Airbnb.

There was an NDP briefing note talking about some of the challenges that may come along with the forgivable loans and the secondary suites.

[3:25 p.m.]

It cites higher profitability of Airbnb’s may be a barrier to the program. So how does the program…? The program I’m referring to is the forgivable loans on the secondary suites. How has that been taken into consideration, or does that go back to what we were speaking about earlier, which is the measures and tests and various things that have to go along with this policy to make sure the suites are being used appropriately?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think part of the answer…. I’m not sure which report or document the member is referring to, so I can’t comment on the document specifically, unless the member wants to share it, and then I certainly can. But I get the essence of the question. It’s similar to our colleague across the way who asked the previous question.

I think part of that is going to be when we look at short-term rentals. The work that we’re going to do is to ensure that good data is being made available, both to us and to local governments. If we can get that data, that will help us, I think, better monitor any programs, whether it’s this program or other programs, as we go forward. That’s why the pieces are part of the strategy. They all kind of connect with each other.

As I said earlier, I think that there are always going to be people that try to find ways through systems, but we are trying to think through all those pieces in advance before the policy comes out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yeah, it is complicated. The briefing note…. I began reading my questions backwards, because I was trying to tag onto my colleague. A government briefing note on “Accessory Dwelling Units” was the briefing note. In this, it highlights that capital gains taxes may be a barrier to accessing the secondary suite program. Does the minister think that that is a concern?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve been going back and forth so fast. This one was a little longer. We’re just trying to get the document the member referred to. I will say that certainly, anyone that is wanting to participate in that program will have to do their own due diligence to see if it makes sense for them to do so to advance in this. Of course, it’ll depend on when someone sells a unit and depends on what their views are, if they want the cash flow.

Again, I use the example of the seniors in my community that raised it with me. The ability to have cash flow for the next many years is appealing to some, but it may be a concern for some and may discourage some from participating. But again, the challenge is so great that we are trying something innovative here. So far, we’ve heard a lot of interest, people wanting to find out when this is going to open up and when they can apply, which is a promising sign. But of course, we’re going to always encourage anyone that wants to participate to do so with the best information available to them.

I. Paton: I think the minister has been to Ladner a few times over the years. As you drive into the town of Ladner on Ladner Trunk Road, on the right hand side, you will see a 7-Eleven, an Esso station, lots of really nice townhomes and some condominium complexes, and then you come to a disgusting facility called the Ladner Willows. The Ladner Willows is a 40-unit complex I believe owned by B.C. Housing and managed by Red Door Housing. The address is 5625 Ladner Trunk Road.

Now, this complex, which is managed by Red Door Housing, was only built in 1988, so it’s certainly not a very old complex, but it was run down and let go by the management, with mould and leaky plumbing. It’s a complete disaster. Out of 40 units, we now have only, I think, seven or eight units that are actually occupied by low-income people — income-based. As you drive by, you’ll see boarded-up windows of plywood on this Ladner Willows facility.

The Red Door Housing Society has put forward a redevelopment plan to the city of Delta, but it’s all at a standstill. Nobody knows what’s going on with this Ladner Willows project. It’s disgusting. It’s boarded up. All but eight of the units, I think, are boarded up. As you drive by on Ladner Trunk Road, you look at particle board or plywood on the windows of this project. My question to the minister: what is happening with the Ladner Willows project and its redevelopment or possible destruction moving forward?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would agree with the member that that particular site is a challenge.

It’s important to note that that site is owned by the Red Door society, not by B.C. Housing. We are in the…. They’re in the initiated phase of their application. B.C. Housing has been trying to work with the provider to ensure that they have what’s needed to be able to, hopefully, get approval, but they’re not there yet. So I can say to the member that the team here will get us more information, and I commit to a follow-up with the member.

I. Paton: One more — perhaps a statement and then a question on this issue, and then we can move on.

[3:45 p.m.]

From the Ladner Optimist newspaper…. There’s article after article if you google Ladner Willows. From the June 29, 2022, Ladner Optimist newspaper:

“…tenant angrily accused the management of Red Door Housing Society of bullying as well as badly neglecting the complex, saying B.C. Housing had to be pressured to undertake mould remediation.… Saying other options should be considered, another area resident said Red Door Housing needs to be held accountable for the deterioration of Ladner Willows and the treatment of tenants. Another irate speaker said the current building is ‘disgusting and deplorable and this shouldn’t be allowed to happen again.’”

Finally, “Red Door Housing has a long ways to go to repair its reputation,” as one of the gentlemen said.

I guess my final question is…. We have a shortage of housing for people that go to a cold weather shelter, and we have many, many units that are boarded up. And it was only built in 1988. So my question is: couldn’t we go in and remediate some of these units, so rather than sending people to lie on a small cot at the cold weather shelter in Ladner, some of these units could be used for people that need temporary housing, rather than going to the cold weather shelter?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I appreciate the member highlighting the concerns in the local paper. I think the member may not know…. I’ll just share with the member that Red Door Society took a proposal to council last summer. It was rejected by council, not because of the project but because of concerns about Red Door Society. So that probably reflects the comments that, maybe, some of those folks in the paper made. When that didn’t proceed, B.C. Housing has been in conversation with the Red Door Society as, again, they own the land.

I appreciate the member suggesting that we could just swoop in and take some action on it. We do that when we own the building. It’s a little bit more complicated when we don’t. That being said, there are conversations happening. When I have a little bit more information, I will share with the member. But I really appreciate him raising concerns from the community in this forum.

K. Kirkpatrick: There was a pledge made by this government to spend $394 million to purchase land near transit. There was only $83 million allocated in the current budget. How many sites have been identified at this point for purchase this year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The funding is in MOTI, so they’ll be better positioned to answer the member’s questions.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister, perhaps, just walk me through this or explain this to me? The money is in MOTI because of where the land is being purchased, regardless…. So does the minister…? If we’re going to ask questions about how many units will be constructed using this funding, that kind of thing, are those not a questions for the Minister of Housing?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation was passed a couple of years ago — or it was last year; I can’t remember if it was last year or the year before — around the ability to purchase land beyond what is necessarily just on the transit location. This funding that has been allocated is an extension of that.

So MOTI, now — either when they’re planning a SkyTrain extension or in future planning — have the ability to buy land, in many cases, before the market drives the value up. The funding is very much in MOTI and, I understand, is their investment. So it might be that some questions are better posed to them about the sites, locations and how they see the money being spent.

K. Kirkpatrick: A question, then, for the minister…. The $83 million, I believe, was allocated in the minister’s housing budget, and this is referred to in the housing plan. Just clarifying: is it not in the minister’s budget, and is this not part of the housing plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a few things that are within the plan and that reside in other ministries. This program is one of them: to purchase land. We’re working very closely with MOTI. You’ll see in part of the housing strategy that we project about 3,000 units that we’ll be able to build through acquiring land, through that.

Questions about where the sites will be purchased are better positioned for MOTI, because they have been doing a lot of work on purchasing land for transit. They’ve now got the expertise on where the transit stations may come, and part of that gives them insights on where the ideal opportunities for housing will be. So their team is leading that work.

Our ministry is working very closely with them on it, but for the detailed questions the member wants to ask about, MOTI will be better positioned to answer that.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister just answered, I believe, one of the questions that I was going to ask, which was on the 3,000 units, if that was the response to how many housing units will be constructed using this funding. Oh, that was this year, so that is not going to be the answer.

I will just test that I understand this, and I will ask the minister one or two of the specific questions. If at that point the determination is made that it’s best at MOTI, then I will ask in those estimates.

The plan mentions a ten- to 15-year timeline. This is the housing plan, the construction time frame. This isn’t about where these are being built, but how many units, under this plan, will be operational before the next election?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wish that, with the money in this year’s budget, we’d have 3,000 next year. That’s my wish. I don’t know if anybody here can help me with that, but as the member knows, we’re going to have to purchase land and then go through the process to build them.

If the member is asking about the next election — which will be next fall, as per the Premier’s commitment — I can’t share that exact number, because the idea that we’d have a lot of units built on a new program next year would be very unrealistic. I can share with the member that we expect 3,000 to be complete by 2027-2028.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am going to move to another topic, but I will ask the minister for his indulgence if I come back to this. I do have to give some thought to how that works within the minister’s portfolio.

I’m going to ask some questions with respect to B.C. Builds. The B.C. Builds program has still not been released. Can the minister confirm that Lisa Helps’s contract is for the purpose of designing the B.C. Builds program? Or does it include additional other work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm that Ms. Helps is on a six-month contract. Obviously, she has significant on-the-ground experience for bringing affordable housing projects to communities. Her eight years of experience as mayor, I think, will serve her well in the work she has been doing.

I’m very excited about what B.C. Builds can be for the future. I think that B.C. Builds has the potential to build truly affordable housing for the middle class. Some of the work that’s happening right now, Ms. Helps is doing. She’s been actively engaging with local government leaders, the private sector, not-for-profits, talking to them about the opportunities about how we can build housing in a much faster way.

There’s work being done right now on establishing a central database that brings together land — whether that’s provincial, local government, school board, federal and Crown corporations — so that we have an inventory of lands. There’s a whole host of work happening right now. Certainly, we’ll be excited to be able to share B.C. Builds with the public this fall.

K. Kirkpatrick: What’s the hourly rate of this contract?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The cost for the six-month contract is $80,000.

K. Kirkpatrick: When will B.C. Builds be fully disclosed and public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our goal is to make it public this fall. As the member can see in our housing strategy, we’ve got a very ambitious goal, an ambitious agenda of housing-related policies that will be coming this fall. I’m optimistic that it will be fall.

[4:00 p.m.]

I do want to give a little bit of a grace period if it requires us to launch early in the new year. I’m certainly hoping that, before the next budget, this will be public, and the public will be able to see where we’re going with building affordable housing for the middle class.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will this be a redesign of an existing housing program? Will it replace current funds, or is it going to be in addition to them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, work is ongoing right now. If I had those answers, I’d be announcing this B.C. Builds right now. But some of that work is happening. Ms. Helps is doing some of that work. We’ve got some folks within our ministry that are working with her. When we have all that information as well as other information the member may ask, we will certainly be making that public.

K. Kirkpatrick: There are a lot of questions I’m asking the minister today that are not being answered because things aren’t completed, and they’re in process. It’s difficult when some of these things are laid out in the housing strategy and laid out in the budget, and then there are not details on things.

The minister had already suggested that this program will use government land. I understand the minister is saying that the whole cake isn’t baked yet at this point. But can the minister confirm what lands, if lands have been identified for development?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When we have all the information ready, we will make it public. As the member will know, and I’ve just said earlier, an inventory is being put together right now. Then there will be assessments of those parcels to see which ones makes the most sense, which parcels makes the most sense, and what are the most viable. So I can’t share at this point any specific site because I don’t have that information.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

With the assistance of those who know more than I do here, I would just like to go back on the hourly rate of the contract for Lisa Helps. Will the minister confirm that that’s a $250-an-hour hourly rate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm for the member that it’s an $80,000 contract.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will now move on to…. Actually, I do have a question. Back to a table that the minister and staff had looked at the beginning of yesterday from the budget. It’s table 1.2.2: “Investing in affordable attainable housing.” The question that I have on there…. I know it takes a few moments for the minister to get this information. There is a line in that budget, and that’s that this is a budget that, presumably, is directed and controlled by the Minister of Housing and is accessed by B.C. Housing.

The transit-oriented development — there is a number this year for $83 million. Can the minister please account for what that money is going to be spent on this year?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member, I assume, is referring to the line that says transit-oriented development. It’s $83 million, $133 million, $178 million, to total $394 million. That money is going towards buying land for attainable and affordable housing, but that line is with the Ministry of Transportation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. I just really wanted to make sure I understood that because of where it’s actually sitting in the budget.

I would like to ask some questions now on Bill 44 and the strata age restrictions. As you know, when that bill was being debated in this House and when it was in committee stage, the previous critic for Housing asked the previous Minister of Housing quite specifically about a concern that the implementation of the removal across all stratas of rental restrictions may create a run on strata developments actually applying to be designated as 55-plus.

We were told by the minister at that point that it was highly unlikely that that was going to be an issue. Yet it appears that it is a significant issue right now. Can the minister admit that government didn’t get it right on this strata legislation change and that it could have been done in a better way?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not directly part of the budget, but we can have a conversation about this.

[4:10 p.m.]

I will share with the member that I think the legislation that was brought forward and passed did what it was supposed to, which was to make more units available to people. That’s, in fact, what it has done.

I personally have spoken to people who have told me that they were now able to have a roommate in their complex. I’ve personally talked to people who said: “I was having to pay the speculation and vacancy tax, because I had no choice, but now I don’t have to.” I think that the policy helped create more spaces. That’s ultimately what we want to do.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate that this is not necessarily a budget item. But I also understand that estimates can take a broader tack, because they are all about what government is doing in terms of planning and moving forward. The questions are appropriate in that respect.

Tony Gioventu from CHOA, as I’m sure the minister knows, within six weeks of Bill 44 being in place, said that there are over 100 buildings now who’ve amended their bylaws to be 55 and over. It’s happening across the province. That was two months ago, now, already. Does the minister know at this point how many strata units and stratas — those are two different numbers — have changed to 55-plus since royal assent to Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that there are approxi­mately 33,000 stratas in B.C. A rough estimate is that around 230 of them went to 55-plus, out of the 33,000. I think it’s important, and I’ve heard from some stratas that did go in that direction, that they realized after that by going 55-plus, it didn’t mean that they could limit rentals. People who are 55-plus rent.

[4:15 p.m.]

Those spaces will still be available. Even though we’ve seen some move in that direction, they’re still being able to create rental spaces for people who are 55-plus. They’ll still serve a need of a population that we know has a need, as we canvassed yesterday. It’s a growing population.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe that the minister is significantly underestimating the impact that this is going to have and is having for rental availability for young people and for ownership for young people. When I say young people, I go all the way up to 55. Many people in this room are going to be impacted by an inability to not just rent in these buildings but an inability to now purchase more affordable housing in buildings like this.

Could the minister clarify for me: of the 200-plus — and I’m sorry, I didn’t get the exact number — strata corporations that have applied for the 55-plus designation, how many actual units does that represent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, 33,000 stratas. An estimated 230 of them moved to 55-plus. I think we’ve had this exchange in question period, so I hope the member doesn’t mind me saying the same thing I did at that time, which is that surely they’re not suggesting we not allow units to be 55-plus. It was recommended to us by the seniors advocate to ensure that seniors still had a place available for them. I’ve shared the number with the member on the stratas. I can’t give an exact number of the units, but 230 out of 33,000.

K. Kirkpatrick: I hope this is not being spun, because it sounds like there is perhaps a misunderstanding. The questions in question period and the questions I’m asking here today are in no way, shape or form a suggestion there would be a removal of the 55-plus restriction in buildings. It is recognizing, however, that there were likely thousands of units in buildings that were not previously 55-plus buildings. Now, because of a direct result of this legislation coming in, whether the minister believes that, for whatever reason — good, bad, whatever — these strata corporations chose to now become 55-plus, this has removed thousands of units from the market for young people.

When the minister…. And this has now been downgraded even in the budget, in the service plan. Originally, this scheme under Bill 44 was meant to release 2,900 units back into the rental market. An estimate is now 2,000 back into the rental market. I say that that 2,000 means absolutely nothing. That number is completely irrelevant if the minister does not know how many units have been lost at the same time as these potential 2,000 have come back onto the market.

I will just clarify that this was the answer to my question: 230 strata corporations have now become 55-plus. Some of those strata corporations could have 100 units. Some of those strata corporations could have ten units. We don’t know. If we do not know the total number of units that have now reclassified as 55-plus, then this minister and the ministry do not know what the net outcome is of this Bill 44. My belief is that this Bill 44 has resulted in less rentals available for average people to be able to access.

Can the minister confirm that he does not know the actual impact of rentals on the market because of Bill 44?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would remind the member that people that are 55-plus can also be average people. I can confirm for the member that zero rental spaces were lost, because buildings that went to 55-plus can still have rentals for people 55-plus. So I’ll go back to my earlier comment. Surely the member is not suggesting that we remove the 55-plus. If that’s the case, that’s fine, but the policy we brought in said you’re allowed rentals in all buildings.

Now the ones that go 55-plus must rent to 55-plus, but there’s a need there. The member knows that. We talked about this at great length. Aging population. We know the need is great there, but we know by changing that policy we had units that were sitting empty that now will be available for someone to rent.

So I’m not quite sure where the member is going, but I’ll repeat the answers to the question that the member had earlier, which is approximately 230 units moved to 55-plus from 33,000. I can confirm for the member that zero is the number for how many rental spaces are lost.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe the minister and I are at cross purposes here, either not understanding, but we’re not on the same page with this. I would just like to confirm a number that the minister just said. I think there was a misspeak or I misunderstood. The number 230 refers to the number of strata corporations. It doesn’t refer to the number of condominium units.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s correct. So 230 strata have moved to 55-plus out of the 33,000. Again, I’ll also confirm that zero rentals have been lost, because those that moved to 55-plus will have to rent to 55-plus. Again, there is a need there.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for clarifying that. So 230 strata corporations. We don’t know what that represents in terms of unit numbers. The miscommunication here between the minister and I…. I’m going to just try because clearly I’m not articulating this clearly enough then.

The issue is not the number of rentals. The issue is access to most British Columbians. There may be a rental that existed previously, and that rental still exists today, but it is now limited in terms of who has access to that rental. That rental may still be a rental unit, but if you want to kind of break this down and say how many rental units for a 35-year-old have been lost, perhaps that’s the better question.

So I will put that to the minister then. Do we know how many units previously which could be rented by a 35-year-old now are no longer able to be rented by a 35-year-old because a building has moved to the 55-plus as a direct result of Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I hear advocacy for getting rid of 55-plus. I hear that 55-plus is a limit to young families. Maybe we’re coming from different planets here on this exchange and maybe this is not going to go any further, but I can just share with the member, again, what I’ve said on multiple occasions, which is 230 strata corporations moved in this direction — 33,000 in the province. Zero rental units will be lost because now those that move to 55-plus will have to rent and cannot block rentals for people who are 55-plus.

[4:25 p.m.]

The need is great. We certainly know that there’s a lot of people who are 55-plus who will want to rent. Again, the member can maybe clarify if the suggestion here is that the 55-plus should be removed.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have said on multiple occasions, I do not believe there is an issue with having the ability to limit it to 5-plus. That is not what I’m talking about here.

I am talking about the impact of poorly thought-out legislation: Bill 44. The result is that the 55-plus, which…. I don’t believe it is a loophole, but it has been used out of fear by many strata corporations, because there was such surprise when Bill 44 came in. There was not consultation with CHOA or other folks that are going to be impacted by this.

The issue, for complete clarity, is, I believe, that there needs to be the ability for a limit of 55-plus, the age limit, to be on strata corporations. However, that was a very organic and natural kind of process previously. The number of these 55-plus buildings had been consistent and steady for years and years and years. It is only now that there has been this explosion of designations of 55-plus, and this comes as a direct result of Bill 44.

I’m very concerned that the minister is not recognizing, or aware, that the damage done for the ability of someone under 55 to have access to a rental…. It has actually done much more damage taking units away as rental opportunities for younger people than it has put units back into the market.

I’m anticipating that the minister will stand up again and say that I don’t like 55-plus, and is that what I’m suggesting we get rid of? I’m hoping that the minister can get up and say: “I understand what you’re talking about, and yes, there are now fewer rentals on the market available for young people to rent.”

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, you know, the member is saying: “Just agree with me. I’m right.” I’m saying I don’t agree with the member. I mean, we can go back and forth. I just don’t agree with the assertion that’s being made.

The suggestion that there was an explosion…. I’m saying 230 out of 33,000. Stratas have the ability to go to 55-plus, and 230 strata corps went in that direction. But rental units are not being lost. Rental units are still available in those buildings. That was the purpose: to say that you cannot preclude people from renting.

I guess we’ve got another nine hours, or whatever it is. We can keep doing this for as long as you like.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m not going to leave this alone. I am going to come back to it. I just am going to give some thought to how I can better articulate this, because I believe that the best of intentions on both sides here are that we’re trying to kind of understand and work through this. I do think that there is just a misconnect here on what, I believe, the actual issue or outcome is.

Okay, I am going to….

One of the reasons that people are upset about the Bill 44 changes is that there is a loss of control for strata councils over how they run their community. Will the minister look at better ways for strata councils to manage themselves without them simply converting to a 55-plus building?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will continue to work with strata corps to find ways to both ensure that they can continue to operate in a good way and that there’s a certainty in the rules.

Just in the last few weeks, I’ve been able to meet with numerous organizations that represent strata members. We’ve had great conversations about how we can work together as we go forward, and I’ll continue to do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: One more question. Then I’m going to turn to my colleague here.

There is, as the minister knows, a significant shortage of strata managers in the province, and this is putting further stress on strata corporations. What actions is the minister taking in order to address the critical shortage of strata managers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that those who suggest that the changes are the reason why there’s a shortage of property managers would be wrong. We know that the industry has had a shortage of property managers which predates this change. In fact, Chris Churchill, the president of FirstService Residential, said the first alarm bell was really sounded around 2015. So this is a challenge that has been going on for some time.

When I met with some of the strata organizations, we actually discussed the challenges — the centralization of a lot of these services to a handful of companies and a whole host of other reasons why there are challenges. Training challenges around the limited amount of coursework that they are doing when they are getting certified…. There’s a whole host of things that we’re exploring with stakeholders on how we can support them to see more property managers come on.

[4:35 p.m.]

E. Ross: Coachman Apartments in Terrace. I have an extensive history with housing from my previous job as chief and council. So I understand the issues related to substandard buildings and mould. Well, you name it. I was quite shocked to actually walk through this building during the Christmas holidays and to find the state of disrepair and the lack of maintenance.

I do understand the complications surrounding the estate. From what I can understand, the deceased owner was in the United States. We have a number of people that have been living in this building, knowing that they’re actually gambling with their health because of the mould, some actually incredibly dangerous forms of mould, to boot. I understand the minister has been up talking with the mayor about how to resolve this and about the legal complications as well.

I’ll start with a very simple question. Can the minister tell me how many residents are still living in the Coachman Apartments today?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just getting the most up-to-date information. It will be a couple more minutes.

The member from Saltspring Island asked a question earlier. I said I would read into the record some numbers for him, and I’m going to do that now. The question he had was around unit counts, so unit count info from the Ministry of Finance.

In B.C. in 2021, there were 2,211,694 private dwellings, according to the census. The definition of a dwelling is a set of living quarters that has a private entrance. Any additional information I’ll provide to him in person.

[4:40 p.m.]

The member is correct. It is a very challenging situation. Certainly, I’ve never heard of a situation quite like this.

For the record, I think I can share with the people who are viewing that maybe don’t have the background that this building wasn’t in great condition. It was privately held. They had pipes freeze, and then the building flooded. People were displaced when the situation happened. Everyone tried to contact the owner, who had passed away at a similar time.

What complicated the matter even more was…. Through our legal advice, it is illegal for B.C. Housing to expropriate the property. If the city would like to take possession, or seek possession of the building, they could do so and then contract B.C. Housing for repairs. But there were legal challenges, I think the mayor highlighted, for them to even do that. Of course, we consulted our own legal advice on that.

Now, the building is not in good shape. B.C. Housing staff have been urging people not to stay there. It’s not livable.

[4:45 p.m.]

I can share with the member…. It’s hard to know an exact number because it has been fluctuating. People have been going in. People have been going out. The last I had heard, there were a couple of people in there. It’s hard to know exactly how many there are today.

I can share that 12 households have secured more long-term housing, so that’s positive, from the work B.C. Housing is doing. I can share that we have about 19 households that are in hotels, which we’re covering the costs for right now. We are actively looking at working with the mayor and council to find other solutions that are more permanent than the hotel, and we’re making some progress.

Once I can confirm where we’re at, I’ll certainly call the member and share that news with him. A very, very challenging situation.

E. Ross: It’d be nice to be in the loop. Ever since the story broke, I’ve been out of the loop. I have no idea what’s happening.

I’m hearing a lot of stories about what might be taking place in that building, including a citizen that took it upon himself to go in and repair the plumbing. From what I can understand, he used a provision within the RTA to actually do it on behalf of the residents and then requested the city to turn the water back on since the plumbing was fixed.

Now, I understand the legalities underneath that. I also understand why these residents are so fearful. They didn’t even report this because they were afraid of renovictions. They were afraid of a landlord that would be vengeful. I understand why they didn’t report that, and I understand why they don’t want to leave, especially when we’re thinking about the discussion we have here in this Legislature about a lack of affordable housing, a lack of affordable rents. Terrace is no exception.

The minister mentioned getting legal advice. I can understand that. I can understand that from the municipality’s perspective as well.

I made a suggestion that, at some point, the province buy this building from the estate. I was thinking that the province could have some emergency powers, in the event of an emergency, especially when we’re considering and talking about housing as a crisis in B.C. We’ve got a number of residents here living in crisis mode.

Apart from purchasing the building…. I know that really can’t happen under expropriation powers, as explained by the minister. But was there any thought or investigation, legally, into the idea of placing liens on this to get this building up to standard as quickly as possible, to get the residents that are living there currently living in better living standards and to get the people that have been displaced back into their apartments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for the ideas. All ideas are welcome. I can share with the member that we certainly explored both the ideas that he suggested. The hotel is damaged to such a point…. I wish it was just the plumbing that needed fixing. The water damage has put the building in a really, really bad place.

The member suggested us going and buying it. The problem that we have, at hand, is that when the owner died…. It’s taking us time to find out who the heir is. It has to go through…. Anyone that wants to challenge a will…. It has just added to the complication of even wanting to buy the parcel.

I can share with the member that B.C. Housing acted quickly, not only to be able to house 12 households in more permanent long-term housing but to get hotel rooms so that people had that stability. We’re working very hard right now to find more long-term solutions for everybody that’s still displaced by that.

I can just assure the member that we’re literally working around the clock to find a solution, and we’re making some progress. When I do get that information, he’s got my commitment that I will reach out to him and share with him the plan.

[4:50 p.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you for that. I understand the legalities, especially when you talk about cross-border legalities in terms of the estate. But the question was liens.

The mayor of Terrace already considered this question as well. I’m not sure of the financial capability of the municipal council to actually do something on their own without the province’s support.

In an emergency situation and given the crisis prov­incewide in terms of affordable rent and affordable housing, are there any emergency powers that can be utilized by the province to exercise placing liens on repairs — so the people living currently in this apartment, in these substandard conditions, can actually look forward to a healthier future living where they currently are — and to consider this building to be a place for the people that have been displaced to move back to, and also for affordable housing for more people living in the Terrace area looking for affordable rent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We don’t have the legal authority to do that ourselves. What I did share with the mayor was that if the city would like to seek possession of the building, they could do so, and then B.C. Housing could go and do the work, and go with maybe the lien option, but we don’t have the power, the levers, to do that ourselves directly.

We advised the mayor and council that they themselves should get legal advice, because they may not have the power either. In fact, it’s highly likely that they don’t have the power, but we did advise them that we’re willing to…. The issue wasn’t us putting dollars in to fix the building. The issue was all the legal pieces around it to give us the ability to even go and do it.

The mayor did raise that with me. What I advised the mayor at that time was get your legal counsel, find out from your teams what is possible, and if you think it’s possible for you to go and do so, then let us know and we can find a solution. The fact that they haven’t come back to us probably means that they don’t have the legal powers to do it either.

I think that there are two questions here. I think the most important — for the member asking the question, for myself and the mayor — are the people who have been displaced. We were able to find housing for a whole host of them. We’ve got the rest of them in a hotel for now, and we are working actively on a longer-term solution for those folks. I can assure the member that until we have another solution, those families will still be able to stay at the hotel.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. Yeah, there’s a number of questions here. Ultimately, I’m thinking the timeline in terms of any solution is actually what I’m looking for here, especially for the people that refused to leave this apartment.

Any First Nation leader across Canada can tell you what it’s like to deal with mould. It’s a systemic problem for First Nations on reserve. I’m quite shocked that given all the parties that are a part of this issue in Terrace we can’t come up with one solution to actually fix this one property. It’s an emergency situation. Combined with the municipality’s powers, there’s got to be something that can be done.

Even the fire chief has said that this is not suitable for living and they won’t give their approval for anybody to actually live there and move back in. Meanwhile, these families are living in this apartment. These vulnerable people, seniors, are living in this apartment, because they’re fearful they will not have a place to go.

If they can be guaranteed a long-term solution to this, outside of this apartment, I’m sure that they’d actually jump at the chance to get out of this building. Nobody wants to see their health put at risk, especially First Nations who fully understand what it means to breathe in mould every day. I understand the legalities around the estate. I understand that fully.

[4:55 p.m.]

In terms of the residents still living in this apartment, in combination with the displaced people living outside the apartment, is the idea or the goal to find long-term housing for these residents, apart from a date given by the province that they’ll hold them in hotels until March 19 or until they themselves can find new places to live?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, the goal is to get them into a more stable, long-term housing. I’ve shared with the member that we have been able to get 12 households into long-term housing already with the work we’re doing. The solutions which are safer than that building right now are hotel rooms. We’ve got people in hotel rooms. There’s a handful of people that keep returning to the site, and we have spaces available for them. We’re encouraging them to take it.

It’s two separate pieces. There are the people we’ve been able to house in long-term housing, some. We’ve got people in hotels for the short term, and we’re working actively on a solution for those that don’t have long-term housing right now. Again, I’ll share with the member when things are more final and I can share with the member, but we’re working actively with the mayor on what that solution can look like, a quicker solution.

Then there’s the question of the building. I appreciate the member’s frustration that perhaps we can just go in and do something on the building, but I also appreciate the member has highlighted that he understands the legal challenges in doing so. I can just assure the member that we’re thinking about the people, and the fact that we’ve put those supports in place is to ensure that the supports are there. Those few people that continue to go back, we’re encouraging them to take up the hotel rooms, because it’s certainly safer than the condition that that building now is in.

K. Kirkpatrick: Mass timber. I’ve always been a big fan of mass timber building. I’ve seen just some amazing work done that way. I’m happy to see that part of this government’s housing plan is to look at that. A question to the minister: the mass timber action plan only commits to 2,300 new jobs by 2035. What does this small number say about the prospects of utilizing mass timber in housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Man, nine hours will fly quickly if we’re spending the next nine hours on mass timber. I am just as enthusiastic about it as the member across the way. I think there are a couple of important things to highlight. One is that the mass timber action plan, although close to my heart, is at JEDI, and they didn’t let me bring it over with me as much as I wanted to. So questions about where the plan is to now would be better directed to them.

I will say that my conversations with industry have shown that more and more developers are showing interest in going this way. One reason is around sustainability because they’re starting to hear more and more from local governments that local governments are paying attention to the materials that are being used in the construction process.

It’s a win for local governments because they’re seeing less disruption to local businesses because there’s less trucks coming in because a lot of it’s prefabricated. There’s less noise, so less complaints coming from residents that the site is loud. Third, and I think just as important as the sustainability side of it, is the ability to get some of these projects built in half the time than other products being built because it’s prefabricated; it’s brought on site and has been going up quickly.

[5:00 p.m.]

B.C. is leading North America in the amount of mass timber projects that we have coming online. I believe I saw a stat that said that B.C. has now more mass timber buildings built or under construction than the rest of the provinces and the U.S. combined, so we are seeing progress.

I can tell you that I’ve also heard from leaders in this space that have advised me that more and more, because of supply chain challenges, developers are choosing, even if there is an additional green premium with a product from B.C., to choose B.C., because of shortage of supply chains.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I’m very optimistic that we’ll continue to see advancements in this space. The mass timber action plan is moving quite well. We also as part of the strategy committed to looking at how we can enable more mass timber buildings within the building code. Certainly, I think most experts would share that there is a bias built into the way we build to certain products as opposed to wood, so we are looking at that and finding ways, with the National Research Council, to advance more safe ways for us to use mass timber in construction.

The Chair: Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Welcome back to the chair.

There’s a lot of places we can go, but I promise the minister it will not be nine hours on this. I apologize for that. We’ll try and find something else that we can talk about for a longer period of time.

What is the approximate dollar value per job that this government is expending in subsidies for mass timber homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the questions around that will be better positioned for JEDI, because the mass timber action plan is within them. We in our ministry just look at building code specifics, so I don’t want to give a specific number, although….

Yeah. I think it’s just better for them to answer, given that they’ve got this information.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is just to educate me on this, because the construction of mass timber is still relatively new. What will government need to do with respect to B.C. building codes? Are there amendments required that government would need to initiate in order to be able to move forward with mass timber as a housing strategy?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that in some jurisdictions, it’s fairly new, and in many jurisdictions, it’s been around for a long time. Many European countries have been building this way for a long time. Some of the work that our ministry will be doing around the building code is just looking to see where the research is at. For example, the international building code has mass timber buildings to be allowed to be built up to 18 stories and allow up to 12 stories with some of the wood exposed. That’s the international building code.

We don’t just base our decisions on the international building code. We do our own research. The National Research Council does a lot of research. Other provinces are doing a lot of research around fire testing and all those things. That’s more of the work that one of our divisions focuses on. Of course, that’s what they’ll be doing as they move forward — looking at where the research is at, partnering with other jurisdictions across Canada in particular and making sure that we bring in best practices, but with a safety lens, which is the most important.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the minister have an inventory of current mass timber projects this year and what comparison there may be to the previous year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, all that information will be within Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, so I can’t provide that information from our ministry.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’d just like to clarify that answer so I understand. When I’m talking about this, I’m actually talking about housing construction, so projects related specifically to housing. JEDI will be the ones to answer the questions about actual housing projects because they’re mass timber?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have got student housing being built through mass timber, and the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills would be better positioned to answer those units. If the member is asking about private sector projects, then JEDI will have that information, because they’ve got not only the mass timber, the division that advances the mass timber strategy…. They track all that information with FII, which is a Crown corp, so they have better information on that.

But is the member asking me about B.C. Housing projects that are mass timber? Because if that’s the question, I can get the team to try to find out the number.

K. Kirkpatrick: The answer is yes.

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:06 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have one project right now through B.C. Housing. It’s in Kelowna. It’s the national Society of Hope Apple Valley development. It’s 122 units. That was $12.9 million under the CHF program.

B.C. Housing is doing some research on mass timber and the economics of mass timber. I think I’ve said this in this House, and I’ll say it again. A lot of credit should go to Gordon Campbell. He was the first one to have a mass timber building built in British Columbia. It’s still fairly famous. The building is at UBC. It’s a student housing building. If you go anywhere where mass timber is being discussed, although it’s not the highest building anymore — there have been many that have passed — people still talk about that.

At that time, I’m sure it was a little scary. In fact, the construction of the building, at the time…. They put, I think, three times more gyproc than was needed in that building just to keep students safe. It took some courage to be the first jurisdiction to go there. I know that the previous government, the opposition, also built one in Prince George.

I think this is advancing what successive governments have seen, which is an opportunity to build sustainable buildings in the future and to use B.C.’s natural resources to their full potential. Now what we’re learning is that it can be done in a quicker way because of prefabrication. I think it’s a good success story for British Columbia.

A lot of research still has to happen. In some projects, there still is a green premium. I would also highlight…. I’ve heard from many private sector proponents who’ve said, in fact, the mass timber projects are coming under what the competitive equivalent would be. It just comes with experience and how often these projects are being done by certain developers. As they’re becoming more and more efficient, the price is starting to come down.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I’ll have some questions now about the commitment of $500 million for a rental protection fund. It’s evident that we need to protect our older rental stock. I understand 97,000 affordable housing units have been lost by the demolition and redevelopment of affordable housing stock. That is one of the reasons that this is important.

The minister knows Jill Atkey was speaking at their rent conference on Thursday and talked a little bit about how the rental protection fund is going to be set up. There still was not a lot of clarity there. So I would like to get a bit more clarity from the minister here today. Has the minister released the terms of reference and protocols for the rental protection fund?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, thank you for raising this question.

I know that the member heard the excitement that many not-for-profits have around this program in particular. It’s vitally important, as we build new affordable units, that we find ways to protect the existing ones as well.

I think, first off, it’s important to, again, remind this House that the funds came from year-end, so they’ve left government. All the information around the terms of reference, all those pieces, are up to the society now to release.

Now we did prepare the staff. I didn’t do it. The staff reached out to them in advance to get from them some information. I can share with you what they’ve shared: eligibility for grant funding, maintenance of not-for-profit status, no default on primary financing, proponent proposed affordability goals to be achieved, asset management plan to be implemented. These will be verified by a proponent annually through an auditor’s report and a certificate of compliance. Then it’s going to be done in stages.

Stage 1: they’re calling it the society-level approval process. A not-for-profit or co-op status — they are in good standing, track record of successfully managing housing properties, evidence that a portfolio has and follows and recognizes AMP, and capacity to absorb proposed acquisition. That’s kind of stage 1.

[5:25 p.m.]

Stage 2 is qualifying buildings — available for purchase, at-risk of development, redevelopment and/or significant rent increases; not currently owned by government, co-op, not-for-profit or under a government affordability agreement; and vendor asking price, current rents and number and type of units. That’s kind of the stage two.

Then stage three is underwriting. So appraisals, letters of intent from lenders, pro forma and 20-year cash flow demonstrating sustainability, costs, etc.

This is what the society shared with us proactively just so that we could have this exchange. But, again, the money is outside of government. Again, AHMA not-for-profit, B.C. not-for-profit association and B.C. co-op housing association together — that society.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Those are, all three, great groups to be looking after this. I understand that the governance and management of the fund is now with this new society. But I do have some questions with respect to government’s expectations in terms of how this $500 million will be used and managed by the society and what the ministry was anticipating when they came up with the $500 million number.

How will the minister avoid the fund competing with private buyers? Is there a concern that that may actually drive up the costs of these affordable rental buildings when they come on the market?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There were two questions. First, on the expectation that they will acquire buildings that are at risk of redevelopment or seeing significant rents going up. The second expectation is that minimum 2,000 units over the next three years. And then the second part of the question around risk of prices. I would say that they, again, are outside of government, but they will be getting independent appraisals and all the things that happen when you’re making a good decision about whether purchasing the property makes sense.

K. Kirkpatrick: There are some jurisdictions, I know, in the U.S. that have set up these, kind of similar, rental protection funds. But they have had to create registries, and do some other things, in order to be able to identify those properties existing that would qualify or that would have a requirement to actually give first right of refusal to non-profits to make a purchase.

Is the government anticipating some way, or is there some way that I’m unaware of, where, when these properties come to the market, they’re actually identified, and their rental protection fund group would have an opportunity to be made aware that that building was for sale?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think we’re considering that. I wouldn’t say that it’s a done deal, but we are considering it. The initial concern when we announced this fund was that, perhaps, this would compete with the private market and all that. And what would happen?

In fact, what’s happened since the announcement is the exact opposite. We’ve had people reach out to us and then we direct them back to the society. But many have reached out and said: “I have a building. I want to sell, but I don’t want the people that live there to be displaced because they’ve been living in this building for a long time and many feel like family.”

In fact, we had one of the largest REIT associations say this fund is great because we’re going to be able to find ways to work with them. I shared also…. I know the member was in the room when I shared that other provinces have also reached out to us to say: “Can you give us information because we want to replicate something similar?” Again, we direct them to the new society because, you know, the money has gone out. We have given them expectations, and we expect some of that work to happen.

K. Kirkpatrick: One of the concerns when I first heard about the rental protection fund was the inability for a non-profit to actually direct funds to building maintenance. I understand, but perhaps the minister can also clarify from what Jill was saying last week that funds can be used for operating purposes, but they still cannot be used for maintenance.

[5:35 p.m.]

How do we protect non-profits who are purchasing — these are older buildings — if they’re hit with unknown maintenance costs? I’m going to guess that for those potential sellers that are approaching the ministry or approaching the society, one reason that someone may want to part with an affordable rental building is because of the age of that building. There may be hidden maintenance issues which will need to be dealt with.

So that was a long-winded question to ask: what will happen if there are huge maintenance issues with some of these buildings once they’ve been purchased?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. Based on the estimates from B.C. Housing, annual funding of minor repairs and maintenance will be provided by the province to the rental protection fund of $1 million per year for every 400 units that are acquired.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. So there is an additional fund being provided that these non-profits would be able to draw on, which makes good sense. Okay.

To the minister: initially the criticism when this was first announced was that $500 million doesn’t go far enough when you’re taking a look at the cost to acquire certain buildings. But my understanding now is that these dollars are used to leverage a larger sale, so that money is not going…. You’re not spending $100 million on a $100 million purchase.

Can the minister explain? Is there a formula for that in terms of what the non-profit has to secure financing for on top of whatever is being provided through the rental protection fund?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct that when these properties are acquired, there will be an expectation of arranging financing for portions of it. It’s hard to say exact amount because it will depend on project by project to make sure the numbers work.

[5:40 p.m.]

When a society has their new CEO and VP hired, they’ll obviously be in a better position to be able to share those details. But our understanding is, our expectation is, that there will be financing arranged to make sure that the amount money can be leveraged in a fulsome way.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m having a difficult time understanding the process in terms of who identifies the property, who does what first. Let’s say I am a non-profit housing society. Either I’m contacted by somebody or somehow I become aware that there is an affordable rental building for sale. Do I then go to the new society and speak with them first, or do I go and approach the vendor and have a conversation there? What is that process? Part 1 of the question.

Part 2: how can you ensure that the non-profit housing society and our new rental protection fund society will be able to react quickly enough to actually be competitive in putting a bid in on property? Sorry. Those are two different questions there.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve got an amazing team. I think I should just recognize them here, and not only the team here but the others that are in the other room next door. I want to thank them for the work they do. They make my job much easier.

I will start by saying that we expect the intake to start this summer and then the first acquisitions to be kind of early fall. It’s important to note that not-for-profits are the ones purchasing this. The society won’t be purchasing it. They’re just facilitating the acquisition. Again, the process is going to go in three stages. I think there were two questions. One was: how will they manage the flow of all the applications coming? Perhaps that’s a question the society will be better positioned to answer.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’ll go through the stages again, of the process. Stage 1, it’s a society-level process. No. Okay, I see the member shaking her head on that. Maybe you can give me more clarity on the question, and we’ll try to get back to you.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much, Minister.

Sorry, I thought I would…. I knew the process. I just wanted to clarify what I’d said, and I knew I was rambling a bit. It’s towards the end of the day. I’ll clarify what my question was.

I understand the non-profit housing provider…. There are two things here. They are the ones who will purchase the property. It’s facilitated by what I’ll call the Rental Protection Fund Society. How does that non-profit society…? This is the process I’m asking about. Do they go out and identify a project, or do they…? Then if somebody contacts them — they’ve found a potential project — do they then go to the Rental Protection Fund Society?

There’s kind of a lot of moving pieces, and I’m not sure who’s on first. Who starts the process, and how long does it take?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s a good question. The intake process, from my understanding, will be not-for-profit led. So not-for-profits will identify an opportunity. They will go to the society and say, “We have an opportunity,” and then they go through the stages as I’ve laid out.

Now, I think it’s a good question around what happens if someone wants to sell and goes directly to the society. I don’t have that answer for you. Again, the society will be better positioned to answer. I’m trying to answer the best I can, given that they’re now outside of government, a separate entity. But certainly, I think it’s a question worth asking, you know, the not-for-profit AHMA. I’m sure they’re thinking it through. They haven’t provided that answer to us specifically.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer.

Just, from my perspective, flagging a concern that I think that the society are probably alive to, in a potential transaction, it’s the ability to be able to come and secure and make an offer if there’s a long-drawn-out process that must be gone through. I do have a legitimate concern, I think, that non-profits may be losing out on some of these opportunities simply because of process. I know that’s not…. I’m just saying that for the record because I know that that’s something that the society is going to have to work with.

May I confirm: is there the potential that this fund can be used to acquire SROs or other types of housing in the Downtown Eastside?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. That’s not the intent of this fund. So no, that’s not something that this fund can do.

K. Kirkpatrick: In the past, the Premier has criticized REITs as being predatory and driving up speculation for rental properties.

I just want to give you some examples of those who invest in REITs, and then I’ve got a question just in terms of this government’s position on the value of REITs in being a part of our real estate market.

[5:50 p.m.]

BCI owns QuadReal, which has $33.6 billion as a real estate portfolio. That’s WorkSafeBC, B.C. Hydro, a number of others, the public service pension plan. If you look at the UBC faculty pension plan, the IWA forestry plan, the Steelworkers pension plan, the Boilermakers, the pulp and paper industry pension plan…. These all have significant holdings in mortgages and investment in REITs.

I would just like to know if the Premier is telling these unions to stop investing in housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member is wanting questions to the Premier, I suspect that might be better in either question period or during the Premier’s estimates.

I can confirm that, yes, REITs invest in a lot of real estate. I can confirm that one of the largest associations that has REITs came out and said the rental protection fund is great and they look to partner with them. And I can confirm, for the member, that there are many people who will say that REITs are a problem. They’re a real challenge around housing but, in particular, buying buildings and displacing people and dramatically increasing rents to ensure high profitability. So there’s a lot of opinions.

If the member wants to hear from the Premier, I suspect that might be a better place.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the response. I guess we’ve probably got…. If I can just maybe clarify with the Chair, in terms of time. Is it about quarter after six that we will…? Okay.

I’ll ask some questions on co-op housing. The housing plan made a commitment to revitalize co-op housing, but it’s not particularly specific in terms of how that’s going to happen. Why hasn’t the province dispersed funding to the seven co-op projects in Vancouver that were announced back in 2018?

[5:55 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was trying to find the specific announcement the province made around that. I can share with the member that I think what the member is referring to is the city of Vancouver’s announcement.

The city of Vancouver made an announcement that they were going to put up seven sites for potential co-op housing. I believe that’s what the member is talking about. I can share with the member that three of the seven sites have got CHF funding. Three of those seven projects are advancing.

I think it’s important to note a couple of things. There may be potential opportunities for the other sites as we move forward. Certainly, with Build BC, we’ll be looking at sites, such as the ones that are available that are public-owned lands, to build affordable housing.

It’s also important to note, with our funding, that we need to ensure that housing is being built around the province. I appreciate some communities may say, “I’ve got seven,” and “I’ve got ten” and all that. But we want to make sure that it’s in communities throughout the province. Three of the seven, I can share, are advancing, and of course, if proposals come for the others, they would go through the similar process as everybody else does.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The minister acknowledged earlier that he’s got this great team of staff, and I just would like to acknowledge that I, too, have a great team of staff. It’s a smaller team, however.

That’s the precursor to my saying that my team suggested that I may want to reword a previous question to the minister. I am, if he will indulge me, going back to the real estate investment trust question, and I’m going to restate this question just a bit differently.

The Premier has attacked institutional real estate investors, like REITs, but many public and private sector union pension plans have significant real estate holdings. Is this Minister of Housing telling these unions to stop investing in real estate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I have met my obligation to the folks on the other side of this chat.

Okay. With respect, again — and if you can bear with me, because I have lost myself here — continuing to talk about co-op housing. Just to clarify the three of the seven, does this mean that the other four are not proceeding at this point?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just add a little bit more colour to the last answer. When investments are made, what’s important is that efforts are made not to displace people. Certainly, I’m hoping, whether it’s union or not, that decisions are being made to protect renters along the way.

[6:05 p.m.]

Now, I can’t speak for future projects. I can only tell the member that three of the seven sites have projects, and certainly, if proposals come through, they would be adjudicated in the same way and in the same process that other proposals are adjudicated.

K. Kirkpatrick: How much funding is in the budget this year for spending on co-op housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The CHF fund is where they would apply for co-op housing, and over the ten years, there’s $1.36 billion available for co-ops to apply for funding.

K. Kirkpatrick: B.C. Housing previously bought out the IUOE pension plan when it planned to sell and redevelop a co-op housing site. Is this going to be the same for all co-op housing near the end of their leases?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that when the federal government came, in a big way early on, to scale up a lot of co-ops, it was, at the time, very innovative. It helped secure a lot of affordable housing for people.

The point the member made around leases…. I think it’s important to note that that’s why we’ve got revitalization of the co-op housing as part of our strategy. We’ll be working on a strategy on how we can hopefully bring the federal government along, because I think they have responsibility as well, but how we can work with the co-op housing sector to ensure that we can leverage both our provincial and federal dollars when we have issues such as upcoming lease expirations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Creekview lodge is facing closure in False Creek. It has 350 residents who will be at risk. What is the minister’s plan to help them?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was just confirming that we haven’t been reached out to by the co-op. I would say that if the site is up for sale, then the new rental protection fund may be a good opportunity. But the latest understanding is that they’ve been working with the city of Vancouver on a renewal process. If the member has different information, I’m happy to hear it.

[6:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m just thinking about these seven co-op developments again and have just been reading a little bit more of the background here. The word “revitalize” in terms of co-op housing in the housing plan, meaning that there really is a commitment to making sure that co-op housing plays an important role, as it should, in the provision of affordable housing in British Columbia.

I’m just revisiting this three of seven. One is under construction. Another is about to begin construction. Three of the sites remain empty. My understanding…. This announcement in 2018 was to represent 1,000 units of co-op housing.

I’ve got a quote here from Thom Armstrong — I know you know him well — from CHF B.C. “These sites could all have been built out by now.” The issue was waiting for provincial and federal funding as of December 22, 2022.

I do want to just go back to my initial question. Based on this government’s commitment to co-op housing and the provision of co-op housing, why is it not taking more initiative in terms of making sure that these seven co-op projects, representing 1,000 units, are funded and are coming online?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that there’s clearly a need for housing to be built around the province. I mean, we’ve been talking about the housing crisis. I appreciate that there are a lot of units under construction in Vancouver right now. In fact, I’ll get the exact numbers of how many are in progress right now, but it’s significant.

But it’s important with the funding we have, which is historic level funding, to ensure that the dollars are going to leverage housing in communities around the province. We have some of these projects going already through the CHF. I appreciate the member mentioning the federal government. I’m not sure if the federal government is involved in funding these. We certainly are urging them to fund them in a bigger way because we know with their funding that we’re able to do a lot more.

The big focus for us is ensuring that we can continue to build housing around the province. Of course, if there are proposals that makes sense, the remaining sites should apply through CHF. I should note that Thom has been very happy with not only the housing strategy and the financial commitment that we have in the budget, but also the rental protection fund. I’ve actually got a bunch of quotes from him regarding it, but I know time is ticking. So I’m going to save everybody from that.

Other than to say that the Co-op Housing Federation, I think Thom and others, understand that this government is fully committed to supporting co-ops, supporting the not-for-profits, supporting the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, all our partners, to build affordable housing. I continue to advocate to the federal government to join us, because we’ll be able to do a lot more together. I think the province would benefit from that.

The Chair: Member, one last question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the minister’s response; however, I find it concerning in some ways. I believe that the minister, earlier, said $1.36 billion is going to be committed to co-ops over the ten-year plan. It sounds to me like there are some shovel-ready projects waiting today that some of that money could be going towards.

The minister has made a commitment to growing the sector. I think it’s such an important part of what we’re trying to do for affordable housing that it’s concerning that there doesn’t seem to be more of a sense of urgency in making sure that these projects move forward.

My final question, then, before we wrap until tomorrow: how many homes in the new housing plan will be co-op housing?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just touch on something. I know we have more time, and we can just pick up this question tomorrow. I’ll just say that we certainly have urgency.

I can assure this member that the dollars we have committed to housing will go to housing. I appreciate that people may say: “I have this project, and I have this project.” That’s great. We still have to do the assessments of the projects to make sure they’re viable, that they make sense financially and that all the processes are followed, and we’ll do that.

The dollars that we have allocated in the budget, a historic amount of dollars, will go to building affordable housing, not just in Vancouver but around the province. I look forward to continuing this discussion tomorrow with the member.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House will be adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

Thank you, Members. Have a good evening.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.