Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can we have some order so we can hear what’s coming up next.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 41 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 41 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO
FINANCE COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 41 with respect to the membership on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, standing in my name on the order paper.

[That Henry Yao replace Brittny Anderson as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Motion approved.

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

In committee room A, I call continued debate in Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Transportation.

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

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess in order to get the appropriate people into the appropriate places.

The House recessed at 2:32 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 2:39 p.m.

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

I recognize the minister to move the vote.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Great to be back for another day.

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

[2:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the Chair, and thank you to the minister. Welcome back, and welcome back to your team. We were in the middle of speaking about co-op when things wrapped.

I do have a question just to revisit — a clarification. The minister said yesterday $1.36 billion over ten years was available for co-ops. This is to apply. So that was…. Just so I understand, it’s the whole basket of money for housing. So co-ops would then need to compete against other housing projects in order to be able to secure funds.

Can the minister confirm how much will be dedicated, and if any will be dedicated specifically, to revitalizing co-ops?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The dollar amount is available for not-for-profits and co-ops to apply. They’re competing against not-for-profits. I think I gave the number amount for how many years it’s available. Of course, we’ve funded co-op projects through that in the past and certainly hope to see good projects come forward again.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain to me how there can be a housing plan with goals attached to it if this global number of $1.36 billion doesn’t have any targets set with respect to different types of housing, such as co-op housing? I would anticipate that somewhere within ministry, there would be an indication or a target in terms of how much co-op dollars will be available.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sure the member is aware that the community housing fund is an application-based fund. So we have applications that come from co-ops and not-for-profits. When assessing which projects go through, we assess community needs. We assess the need to build housing in all parts of the province. As I highlighted yesterday, that part of our homes for people strategy is to have a strategy around co-ops specifically.

But right now the dollars are available. Co-ops have been funded in the past, and they can continue to apply for funds here as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: The NDP housing plan pledges to revitalize — I said this yesterday — co-op housing. There’s also a reference to growing the sector. The minister just referenced, again, a strategy with respect to co-op. I am somewhat perplexed not to have specific dollars actually dedicated to that. But perhaps it will help if the minister can define what is meant by revitalizing and growing the sector with respect to co-op housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll refer directly to the words in the strategy. “The province will work with co-op stakeholders and other partners to reinvigorate the co-op housing sector.” We didn’t say in the strategy that we have a plan today and that we’re going to announce it. We said we’re going to work with them, and that’s the work we’re going to do.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s going to require working with the federal government. A lot of the co-ops were built under the federal government. But we have to find a way to work together to move forward, and that’s the commitment in the strategy.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will take from that that it is still relatively vague and there is a lot of work to be done in order to be able to revitalize co-op as a viable option for affordable housing.

Yesterday we talked about the purchase of land near transit. We had discussed a number that was in table 1.2.2, “Investing in affordable and attainable housing.” I understand from the minister that the $83 million — I’m just dealing with the one year at this point — which is under the line item “Transit-oriented development” is specific for MOTI to be able to purchase land in those areas.

As there is a commitment in the plan saying that this money is to help deliver up to 10,000 units, can the minister explain to me where the dollars are for the actual housing on that land?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. Again, it will be no surprise to the member that I don’t agree with her summarizing what she thought I said. I prefer the record to show what I said, which is what’s in the actual housing plan, which says that the province will work with co-op stakeholders and other partners to reinvigorate the co-op housing sector, working with the federal government in particular. That’s to say that we already have co-ops being built.

On top of that, the member knows, because we talked about it yesterday, that we also have the rental acquisition fund, which is half a billion dollars that will go to a society that is built in partnership with the B.C. Co-op Association, the not-for-profit and the Aboriginal Management Housing Association. The Co-op Association, the reason why they’re excited — again, I don’t want to go into the quotes from them — is because they see an opportunity to reinvigorate and grow the co-op sector.

[2:50 p.m.]

That is part of it, but we know we have more work to do. That’s going to require conversation.

Now to the member’s question…. Again, the $395 million is to purchase land. It’s in MOTI. I suspect the member can ask those questions.

The member also knows that development takes years. Let’s say, for example, the money, the $83 million, is for this year. They’re going to go purchase it later this year. We could still not see development on it for four, five, six, seven years. So it’s hard to book dollars when just buying the land is important. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

For too long, our public lands were sold. I think there’s an understanding now that public lands should never be sold by government again — not to private developers, not to anyone — for many reasons. We have to build hospitals, and we have to build housing.

One of the things I want to clarify…. The member said 10,000 units. The strategy says 3,000 units within the next ten years. There was just a little mixup there. It is, over ten years, 3,000 units.

We expect these units to be booked in probably year 4, year 5, year 6. We still have to purchase the land. We still have to look at what the development opportunities are around it. In the meantime, if land gets purchased and there’s an opportunity….

There will be opportunities in, of course, the community housing fund, if we can move it much quicker than that. There will be opportunities in the existing HousingHub fund, which is there right now, if we can move things quicker. Of course, we’ve got build B.C., which we’ll have more details on later this year. It will also provide opportunities for us to build on government-owned lands.

There will be plenty of opportunity. Fundamentally, at the beginning, is the core need to buy land.

I shared this yesterday, but I’ll put it on the record again. For decades, we had legislation in place in British Columbia which precluded the government from buying land beyond what was needed just for a SkyTrain station. I think it was shortsighted. Looking back at it now, I can say that. I’m sure there was a reason for that thinking, originally, when they bought it. That means that we had SkyTrain lines built, and we couldn’t build housing around it. We couldn’t build health care around it. We couldn’t build child care around it.

We changed that law last year. That has now enabled us to use the $395 million, which we’ve dedicated for buying land, that is excess to the amount that’s needed for the actual SkyTrain line or the frequent transit area. It’s unlocking a new opportunity for us, which is great.

I do want to clarify that it was 3,000 units over the next ten years, starting this year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I do thank you for that clarification. I had switched those two numbers.

Yesterday we spoke about the strata age restrictions in Bill 44. We seemed to be at cross-purposes when we were talking about this. I’m not sure if we were just misunderstanding each other. I went away and broke this down into some more specific questions that I’m hoping will provide a bit more clarity in terms of what I’m looking for here.

In the past decade, it has been…. I think a good guess would be that one to two existing strata corporations converted to 55-plus every year. Now 230 stratas have converted in the past four months, which is the same amount of time since Bill 44 has been in effect.

Can the minister admit that this significant increase in conversions to 55-plus is a direct result of the introduction of Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t think yesterday was a failure for each of us to understand. I think it was more a failure to agree. We can go over this multiple times, and I’m happy to do that. The time is the member’s.

Fundamentally, if a building moves to 55 and over, and 230 out of 33,000 went in that direction…. What that means is that those units will still be available for rent but to people who are 55 and over. We spent the first day here in estimates talking about the need, especially with seniors, around housing.

[2:55 p.m.]

Our goal with the strategy around that legislation was to ensure that rentals will be available. There were a lot of rules precluding renters from being there.

I know some members of the opposition suggested fear around renters living near them. I won’t go to the quotes; I can bring them out. The idea was to ensure that rentals will be available in all buildings so that we can unlock all the potential we have.

Now, some strata corps thought by moving to 55-plus that somehow they could stop rentals in their building. That is false. If they go to 55-plus, it means there are still rentals available. It just means it has to be for 55 and over. The core reason why we ensured the 55-plus was because the seniors advocate advocated that it was an important piece.

Yesterday we had this exchange. We’ll have it again today. The suggestion that that is a problem is a suggestion that, perhaps, the 55-plus should be removed. The member shared with me yesterday that she didn’t think that was something that they agreed with, and that’s something the seniors advocate has made for us.

Again, it was not a…. In fairness to the member, it wasn’t because she wasn’t explaining her question well, and it wasn’t because I wasn’t giving the answer well. It’s just a fundamental disagreement on the premise of the question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The question that I just asked is if the minister believes that an increase from one or two per year, over the last few decades, of conversions to 55-plus versus 230 conversions to 55-plus in the last four months is a result of Bill 44.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Strata corps have the right, at any time, to move to 55-plus. It’s not my place to say if that’s right or wrong. Strata corps have that right to do so under the law right now. Again, that is more units that will be available to people who are 55-plus.

K. Kirkpatrick: Prior to Bill 44, many stratas without age restrictions — so these are stratas that didn’t have age restrictions — did allow minimum numbers of units to be rented. Sometimes it would be up to a maximum of 25 percent of the overall rentals in the building. These units would have been available for rent or for purchase for families and individuals of any age. Importantly, also, this is good affordable housing for young people to be able to purchase.

Because of the 230 strata conversions to 55…. I would like the minister to confirm that he understands and agrees that rental housing stock has been reduced for people under 55 because of this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm for the member that 2,800 owners of strata units claimed the speculation and vacancy tax exemption. So 2,800 units were not being rented, for whatever reason, in a strata building. And I can confirm for the member that the legislation where we made the change now makes all 2,800 of those units available for rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm that the average number of units in a strata is 30 and that 230 times 30 is 6,900, which is far in excess of the 2,800 units that the minister said Bill 44 was meant to create?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The 6,900 units the member mentions are all available for someone to rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe the minister does not understand what I am asking. The 6,900 units are now, whether they were available previously or not, no longer available as rental units for anyone under the age of 55.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m very aware of what the member said. I do understand.

What I’m saying is…. All those units are available for renters. I mean, we spent the first day talking about the need for seniors to have housing. There’s a growing demographic. I don’t understand what we’re debating here.

[3:00 p.m.]

I shared with the member that 2,800 strata unit owners claimed the speculation and vacancy tax. They owned a unit that was sitting empty, and they claimed an exemption because they were not allowed to rent it. Now what I’m saying is that every single unit under a strata corporation in this province must be available for renting. Some, yes, were for 55-plus and some for everyone else, but they’re all available for rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm, then, that the intent of Bill 44 was to create seniors housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The intent of the legislation was to ensure that every unit that is available be available for people to rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm that during committee stage on Bill 44, the opposition critic at the time, who has just joined me here, asked the Minister of Housing at the time if this legislation would cause a number of stratas to convert to 55-plus. The minister said no, that he was not concerned about this. It was too difficult for stratas to organize, and this wouldn’t happen.

Does the minister admit that this was actually a miscalculation and that the extraordinary number of stratas who, out of fear, are now converting to 55-plus, was not, in fact, anticipated or the intention of the legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Extraordinary amount: 230 out of 33,000. Two hundred and thirty. That’s only one zero. All those units are available for rental.

I think it’s important to go back again. We had 2,800 units. That’s billions of dollars, if we were trying to build that supply in the market right now. We had 2,800 units where people said: “I would love to rent my property. It’s empty. But I can’t because strata rules preclude me from renting it.” So there are more rental spaces now available for seniors, people who are 55-plus, but there are 2,800 — at least, minimum — units that are available for everyone.

Beyond that, there are also units now where people are living in them, and they can actually have a roommate. I know of someone who had that situation, where they were struggling, and they were able to bring a roommate in. The member is asking if I think this policy is a failure. There are 2,800 additional units on the market for rent. I think that’s a success.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understood that the minister has just said that those 2,800 units that are back on the market are available for all people to rent, but I would like him to please confirm how many of those 2,800 are in 55-plus restricted buildings.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, that 55-plus people rent may be breaking news to people in this place, but yes, they do rent. Those units will be available, in some cases, to people who are 55-plus, and, in some cases, to everyone.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday the minister said that he had received legal advice on when and how the forensic audit for B.C. Housing could be released. As the audit has still not been released, could the minister give the specific legal reasons why it has not been released by this time?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The process for release of this information is stipulated by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The act includes a requirement that a public body must give sufficient notice to third parties before the release of information.

I confirmed for the member on day one that I met with the Privacy Commissioner, not only to share my initial thoughts of the release of the document, but also giving the commissioner an understanding of how we’re ensuring that this important piece is followed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister confirm, however, what the legal advice was that he was provided yesterday, confirming that legal counsel had provided advice on the release of this information, and on what basis has it not yet been released?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s that a public body must give sufficient notice to a third party before the release of the information.

K. Kirkpatrick: Interesting that the legal advice would simply be something read out of FOIPPA. Section 25 does allow discretion from government in terms of releasing information which is in the public’s best interest. There are no stipulated timelines, as the minister knows, in terms of what is sufficient.

Am I to understand that the legal advice which was provided to the minister was simply a paragraph out of FOIPPA?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Decisions of this sort are guided by FOIPPA. In this case, as I have repeated many times, it’s critically important that we follow FOIPPA. That includes a requirement that a public body must give sufficient notice to third parties before the release of information.

K. Kirkpatrick: We can stand here and debate what “sufficient” is and all of those other things, but I will leave that at this point.

I’m wondering if the minister will let us know who those third parties are that have been notified.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. I cannot at this time.

K. Kirkpatrick: There was, fairly recently, a large exodus of employees from B.C. Housing. It was significant. Actually, it wasn’t even through FOI documents. I believe it was public to find where the exit interviews of a number of people…. Morale has never been as low.

Will the minister allow that we can draw a conclusion that that large exodus of employees and the bad morale is related to the forensic audit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member certainly doesn’t need me to allow anyone in this place to draw whatever conclusions they want.

I would say that the nature of coming out of the pandemic has been such where it doesn’t matter if you’re talking to public sector, if you’re talking to private sector, if you’re talking to companies anywhere. People have moved. People have found opportunities. New people have come to B.C. Housing.

I think what’s key is that the people that we have at B.C. Housing are phenomenal. I have had the opportunity of meeting so many amazing people at B.C. Housing. The work they do, their commitment to ensuring that people have housing…. I mean, every MLA in this House has been in a situation where somebody needed something quick — somebody needed to be housed — and they’ve been in contact with B.C. Housing to be able to best support people. That’s the work these people do.

Yes, some people leave. Yes, some great people come. That’s the nature of employers and employment relationships.

I would say that the new chair and the board have been doing fantastic work, working with the team to ensure that we continue to deliver but also address the issues that were highlighted in the first Ernst and Young report. They have been enacting all those pieces. Those key themes were important because we want to make sure that B.C. Housing can continue to build the housing that we need, but do it in a better way.

That’s why the information the member has is made public, because we make these things public. Transparency is an important thing for everyone.

Again, with this report, when we have gone through the due diligence, it will be made public as well.

[3:10 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: There was nowhere in that exit interview where there was reference made to the pandemic. There were many references made to things not being organized, not having resources, mixed messaging and not having appropriate access to HR. There were a whole number of things. I believe that it is inappropriate or perhaps naive for the minister to describe that as kind of a natural workforce turnover.

I also know a number of amazing people at B.C. Housing. I completely agree with the minister that there are fabulous people there doing great work. They need to be supported, and they need to be supported with the right tools in order to be able to do that work. I’ve worked with a number of those folks before. There are some great folks there.

B.C. NDP right now is standing in the way of permitting tiny homes. Why did the province not endorse the UBCM resolution NR21, calling for action on permitting tiny homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I notice that the member, in her question, said the B.C. NDP specifically. Well, I want to share with the member that the B.C. Liberal — United, whatever the names are going to be — did a review of this in 2016, a comprehensive review of barriers to tiny homes. It was completed with the national building code.

At the time, the province said that there wasn’t enough. They recommended not to make any amendments to the building code. I think if the question is: “Can we find ways to enable this?” I’m happy to have that conversation. If the suggestion is that somehow the B.C. NDP didn’t do it, I think that that would be false.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand, thank you, what the minister is saying.

Times have changed. We now have a request from UBCM. Does not providing support contradict the B.C. Housing research centre’s white paper Tiny Homes — An Alternative to Conventional Housing? Does government not want to support that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I mentioned, in 2016, a review was done. Of course, whenever requests come from local governments, we continue to find ways to look to see how we can accommodate them. But I think the member could agree that safety is going to be number one. The B.C. building code establishes minimum life-safety measures, such as structural integrity, smoke alarms, means of egress, ventilation, health measures and plumbing. Reducing or removing these measures for any building type compromises health and safety for British Columbians.

I appreciate the member’s advocacy. I appreciate the advocacy from some local governments. We are doing a review of it. But there was a reason why the previous government in 2016 didn’t do it. I suspect it was around safety, because those are the concerns that come up now. If we can find a way to ensure public safety and have tiny homes, of course, it would be a great thing. But that work has to happen. A lot of our work happens at a national level. We work with our national partners on the building code and where research is at.

[3:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Tiny homes and manufactured homes are built to the highest quality and standard. Safety issues and concerns — there have been so many advancements in the manufacture of tiny homes. I think it would be short-sighted to not consider these as a viable option for addressing affordable housing.

Will the minister consider designating tiny homes as an allowable dwelling unit and a viable topology to address the missing middle, which can assist in delivering affordable home ownership and increase rental options across B.C.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have to say that I do find it a little ironic that the opposition won’t support small-scale multi-unit homes but are encouraging us to build tiny homes. I’ll leave that aside for now.

I will say to the member that the B.C. building code establishes minimum life-safety measures such as structural integrity, smoke alarms, means of egress and ventilation, and health measures like plumbing. Reducing or removing these measures compromises health and safety of the building occupants.

Now, it’s important to note the building code has no limit on how small a house can be built, provided that it meets the minimum standards for protection of people and protection of the environment. It’s important to note that several manufacturers in B.C. have actually successfully designed and installed tiny homes that meet the safety standards of the B.C. building code.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain the comment about not supporting small-scale multi-unit homes? Perhaps that was something prior to my being here, but I certainly have never had this discussion with anyone.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the record, the Leader of the Opposition has said that our changes to allow single-family homes to go to three and up to four units is not something that he supports. If the member wants articles where the leader is quoted, I certainly can pass that along.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t understand how the minister could draw that conclusion in order to be able to say something as clear as: “Our party doesn’t support small-scale multi-unit homes.”

The example given is our asking questions about the upzoning to fourplexes on single-family lots. This has nothing to do with that. It is simply looking at making sure that everything is being considered, the impacts are being considered.

I would actually ask, and I’ll have to look for the Chair’s guidance on this, that the minister withdraw that. I believe that to be a misleading statement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s on the record, multiple times, where the Leader of the Opposition has said that he doesn’t support the direction the province is going on small-scale multi-units. He’s said it on radio. He’s said it on TV. If the member wants me to get my staff to pull articles where he’s raising issues around this, I certainly can share that.

[3:20 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I can assure the minister that I have staff looking that up right now, and we’ll return to that.

Over a year ago, the Premier promised to address the issue of rent increases for families with newborns. He was the Housing Minister, and he was asked about the Nanaimo resident Patrick Marston receiving a $100 rent increase notice due to the birth of his second child. The Premier responded to the situation, calling it bizarre, and promised amendments to the law but has failed to deliver those amendments now. Victoria Walsh and her partner have now had a 20 percent rent increase because their baby was considered an additional tenant.

If the minister can explain why this was not followed up on, though promised, to address the concern. This has been a year after the Premier calling this bizarre.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I certainly will get that for the member.

I want to share with the member that, at the UBCM speech, the Leader of the Opposition said: “If you’re going to upzone every single-family lot across the province to four units on every single-family lot, well, that’s just problematic policy, on so many levels.”

I’ll get the other answer for the member as well.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay. Let’s get back to estimates, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can the member give me details of what timeline she’s referring to or if there’s an article or a specific…. Perhaps the member can pass me something with the person’s name on it so that we can better answer that question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Absolutely. I also know that these were questions posed in question period at the time. Patrick Marston and Victoria Walsh were the names of the Nanaimo residents. The Premier was asked in response to their story, at which time he said it was bizarre, and he promised amendments to the law.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If this dispute is in front of the RTB right now, unfortunately, I can’t really provide comments on the specifics. I will say that I can see how this would be so frustrating for that family, when they signed a private contract with the understanding that if another person moved in, their rent would go up. I’m sure their assumption would be the same as many others: that by “another person,” it would mean another adult, not a new child. So it’s certainly frustrating.

We’ve come across these kinds of challenges, both with agreements and with people’s understanding of them. I don’t have a solution for the member today, but I can certainly say that we’re looking at not only this but a whole host of other challenges, such as people being precluded from being in buildings because of having a baby and other things. We are looking at all those pieces, but I can’t provide any details to the member today.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That did answer my question in a general way. There were 15,000 British Columbians who had signed the petition to protect B.C. tenants having children. What I understood the minister to say is that that is something that they are alive to and are looking at resolving. Thank you to the minister for that.

I’d like to talk about the homelessness strategy and tent cities at this point. The Premier promised to take quick action on homelessness and lead the charge in the Downtown Eastside, yet the homelessness strategy has continued to be delayed. The Premier promised that all the housing announced during his first 100 days would be ready in time for the decampment of the Downtown Eastside. Why were the sites at Main and Ash Streets delayed?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member suggested that the homelessness strategy wasn’t released. I think, maybe, there was a misunderstanding there because it has been released. I just want to clarify that. It has been released.

I think that all the 330 units that we expect to be, by the end of summer…. It would have been ideal to have all those up before any action would be taken from the city. But I think it’s important to note that the city made a decision because of safety. They have to enforce the bylaws. They have to ensure that both people living in the camps are safe; they also have to ensure that the community is safe. With the escalation of fires, the escalation of crime issues that they were dealing with and the serious concerns, very valid concerns from the fire chief, the city made a decision to move.

Now that being said, I’ve said in this House many times that we have 330 units coming online by the end of the summer. Now we have an additional 110, because we just bought the Chalmers Lodge, which is fantastic.

We had some specific issues around the site the member mentioned. One of the issues we had was that on the work that was happening on site, crews were notified that concrete and asphalt needed to be tested for asbestos because there could be some unknown surprises there. So the city hazmat teams had to go on site, collect samples and help mitigate any foreseen issues.

We also had another issue. For example, we had supply chain issues. Some of the supplies that we were wanting to get on site were delayed. That being said, the member will know the construction is ongoing.

We had said that we would open around 100 units every month. I can share that we have occupancy permit on the first 95, and B.C. Housing is working right now to start moving people — in many cases, out of the shelters — into these units. We expect more units to come online in the coming weeks and then, every month, additional units to come on. We also have extended funding for extreme weather shelters in the city.

We’re doing all the things we can, working with our partners to find additional shelter spaces for those that need them. We continue to urge those that are looking for shelter spaces to take some of the shelter spaces. But all that work is happening simultaneously.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Did the province provide any advice to the city of Vancouver on whether or not they should move ahead with the decampment on the Downtown Eastside at the time they did? I understand the minister cited that there were safety concerns, but what advice did the province provide?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I’m not in a place to give the mayor of the city of Vancouver advice. The mayor’s responsibility is public safety. We have said from the beginning, and I have said many times on record, the encampments are not safe. They’re not safe for the people living in them. They’re not safe for the community at large. So the mayor and I are in alignment on that important piece, and certainly the Premier has said it several times.

Of course, we want as much housing online as possible, but the mayor has a decision to make when it comes to safety, and given the facts in front of the mayor, the mayor had to make a decision. Our job, from the province, is to ensure that we can get enough shelter space available to people, and then get these units online as fast as we can.

These units, that I mention, are the ones that are coming. I think it’s important to note that since the Premier committed to playing a leadership role on the Downtown Eastside, over 139 units have already opened up. It’s significant resources we’re putting in place to get units available for people to get them housed.

[3:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I just clarify that? I know it’s not the minister’s place to kind of give advice or direct the mayor of the city of Vancouver. But with respect to the timing, was this decision made in consultation between the province and the city, so that everyone knew what was happening at the same time and there was mutual support there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was constant conversations, for the last 4½ months, with the mayor. The mayor, on several occasions in the two months before they took action, shared with me his serious concerns around fire.

I’ve had a chance to meet with the police chief, the deputy police chief, the fire chief. Everyone stressed the importance — or the challenge of escalation — of fires and crime-related issues.

That was known to us. They made it clear to us on several occasions when we met, but it was always understood that the decision on when to go is the city’s decision. Our decision is around how we get enough shelter spaces and more supportive housing units available for people when they need them.

K. Kirkpatrick: The media was reporting that the province seemed to be unprepared to offer housing support for the campers when this happened. Why was the minister so unprepared?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I think it’s fair to say that when a de-encampment of that size happens, it’s a really challenging situation on the ground, and it’ll come as no surprise to anyone here that the first day was certainly challenging.

That being said, everyone that said that they wanted shelter was provided shelter, and not only on that day, because that day certainly was challenging, but the days going forward and, in fact, for months leading up to that.

It’s important to note that we had over 90 people that we were already able to house the few months before because staff, people, agencies are on the ground meeting with people one-on-one and saying: “Do you need shelter? Do you need shelter? We have shelter space available.” We were successful in finding shelter for 90 people. That’s very positive.

On the day, again, it was just a challenging situation on the ground, which makes making sure that everyone has everything they need a challenge. Yet staff were able to make sure that shelter spaces were available, or the not-for-profits were able to step up and make sure that there was support available for people.

But the first day, no doubt, was a challenge, and days after that, things were able to get more smooth.

K. Kirkpatrick: My understanding is on the first day, only eight people had accepted housing. I know there was a small number perhaps the next day. This was a number according to the mayor. I’ve heard that all people who wanted shelter got shelter, but what does the minister think of the number eight in terms of those seeking shelter?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the day 1, when the city took action on the encampment, 67 structures were taken down. We estimate around 36 people were impacted. Forty-nine propane tanks were removed. The amount of people who took offers of shelter that day was nine. So nine of the 36 estimated people on the first day accepted shelter.

On the following day, the estimate is around…. The structures were around 27 that were taken down, and there was an estimate that about 20 people were impacted. Nine people on that day took the offer of shelter. Staff continue to be on the ground with anyone that is needing shelter, to assure them that there will be shelter spaces available for them.

K. Kirkpatrick: As the minister knows, and I certainly know, this is a very complicated situation. You’re dealing with mental health issues. You’re dealing with health issues, a sense of community. You have so many people who are at different stages of life, with different issues and challenges which have led them to the Downtown Eastside or have led them into homelessness in general.

I’d like to ask about the Main and Ash Street residences. Who is going to be transitioned into those homes, and what will the process look like for getting people into those homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a great question. Thanks to the member for that question. The first step is always shelters. It’s important for staff to be able to do assessments on the needs of people, whether they need supportive housing, whether they need something more complex, whether they just need some rental supports to get into rent. So that assessment happens at shelters.

Then there’s what’s called the coordinated access table, which has a lot of not-for-profits on it. B.C. Housing participates. What they do is go individual by individual and identify what their needs are and who is a good fit for the unit. Then they are offered space. Sometimes it takes time for people to make their decision. Then they’re scheduled, and then that transition happens.

It’s vitally important for us to be on the record to say that the shelters are the first place where we prefer to do all the assessments. Then we have a better sense of the needs of the individual. In the end, we don’t want to put them somewhere where they won’t be successful. It won’t be good for them. It won’t be good for the community at large. So that’s where that work happens.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain, with respect to both Main and Ash, are they high barrier or low barrier? Are they for specific…? Women? Men? What is the anticipated population?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I laid out the process of how people are given opportunities into different types of housing. These particular sites are supportive housing. Whenever decisions are made about who goes into a site, it’s always a balance that is struck. It is low barrier, but the teams that have the discussion….

[3:45 p.m.]

The value of having everybody at the table is that they get to assess people’s needs. They try to ensure that…. There are some that have maybe more needs that go, but they also try to balance it with people who have less other needs, social support needs. They try to find that balance to make sure that it can be a good fit for the community. It’s important to note that seniors and Indigenous communities are prioritized to get these spaces.

I believe that’s the only question the member asked.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain what supported services will be available at each of these housing projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s 24-hour staffing, 24-7 staffing, meals. There are on-site health supports, overdose protection services, mental health supports, wound care supports. So quite comprehensive supports at the building.

K. Kirkpatrick: With the 24-7 staffing, what is the staffing ratio to have on-site staff 24-7? Does that ratio change in the evening versus the daytime?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The number fluctuates during the day. It depends on the operator. It depends on the needs of the people being served at that particular site. At no point will there be less than two people on site, but it can be a lot more, depending on the needs of individuals at that particular site.

You have mental health support services. You have other health-care-related workers there, so the numbers can be much higher, depending on the need. It’s operator by operator, and it’s an agreement that goes through with operators.

[3:50 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: With the operators, there would be a contract set out. I don’t know now if it would be with BCH or who it would be for supportive housing.

Am I to understand now that there is not yet a contract which outlines the actual programs that will run? When I talk about programs, I mean the kind of housing and the kind of supports that are going to be provided. Is that still yet to be determined on those two sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A contractor has been identified for the Ash Street site. Staff are just trying to get information on whether everything has been finalized with them or not. An RFP is underway for the Main Street site.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to go back, then. I’m spending a lot of time on this because it’s of particular interest to me and, I think, to all people.

The minister said, previously, when I asked who is going to be housed in these units, what kinds of supports they are going to have…. I understood that we’re still trying to kind of figure that out. But if a contract has already been awarded to a housing provider and there’s an RFP out right now, that RFP would, presumably, include all of the services and supports. It would identify the type of individuals that would be living there.

Is that the case that there are specifics in terms of who will be living there and what the supports will be?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I highlighted how individuals are chosen to go on site. As I said, the staff are just trying to get the information about whether the contracts have been signed and finalized. If we have that information, I’ll share that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I guess I can also look in the RFP if there is one out there and available. I am surprised, if these buildings were already supposed to be open, if we don’t have confirmed contractors in them, but I will be interested to find that out.

This is probably my last question on this but, again, just very interested, because I think that Main and Ash are going to be models of other ways that some of these encampments can be supported.

Are these…? It goes back. I guess, maybe, this is an RFP question now. I don’t know. Is the intent that these will be, as the minister said, low barrier? Would residents be able to be in active addiction, or would they need to be clean or not using prior to being residents in the facilities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I highlighted, the coordinated tables will help identify who goes in. These are low barriers. I mean, at the end of the day, our goal here is to bring people indoors, get them out of encampments, out of parks, off the street and indoors to provide them the supports that they need. It’s not always one thing. I know the member knows this better than many in this chamber. People have very different needs. Some will have more needs, and some will have less. But our main goal here is to get people off the street and get them the supports.

In some cases, it’s people who need mental health supports. In those cases, it’s hard to get people even the meds that they need. It’s hard to get any stability in their lives when they’re in encampments in the street. So it’s about bringing them in, giving some stability and then opening the door for other things, whether it’s mental health supports, whether it’s taking steps towards detox. All these things happen once people have that stability in their life.

K. Kirkpatrick: I certainly hope this goes well. I’m certainly hoping that vulnerable people who need that support are getting that support. So I am hopeful. I thank staff for doing what they can do in order to keep people safe there. I would ask that perhaps the minister indulge me with a tour or something of the properties when they’re at a point that that would be appropriate.

I’m going to change tack a little bit here, though I’m still…. We’re kind of in the social housing area here. Housing sites and the homeless encampments — as we know, and as the minister has said — have been challenging. They’ve been the site of increased violence, including some pretty scary weapons-related incidences. This suggests that the government is perhaps tolerant of B.C. Housing sites becoming flashpoints for crime.

[4:00 p.m.]

What has the minster done to address the infiltration of guns, drugs and gangs into B.C. Housing locations like this year’s recent seizures from Johnson Street housing?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The question was around 844 Johnson Street. I think it’s important for some context of that site.

That site was put up in 2016. At that time, it was associated with the encampment that was at city hall. At that time, folks were shifted, but they didn’t have that coordinated access table that we have now. Folks were just moved in. Part of the contract, and the way it was structured at the time, has led to some challenges around how people can go in or out, how operations can happen there. The building operator is PHS. They have the ability to monitor and ban specific people from entering into common areas.

The B.C. court has ruled that tenants also have the right to private enjoyment of their homes or units. This can make it really challenging when there are criminals who are preying on vulnerable people.

I met just about a month ago with the mayor of the city of Victoria, the police chief, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of State for Child Care and staff, where we had a conversation about what we can do to ensure more safety on the site, given that the courts have made their decision. Numerous things that came out of that we’ve enacted, such as more fencing around the area, so people can only go in and out one door. That’s made a big difference. More security on site has made a difference as well.

Then there are some things, obviously, that we’re still challenged with, around who’s going into units, etc. — something that we don’t necessarily have challenges on in other sites.

K. Kirkpatrick: What message does it send to communities about supportive housing when there is rampant crime happening within and around these supportive housing units? Not all of them, of course, but there are many that are. What does the minister say to those communities that are experiencing some of the impact of that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I appreciate the member’s question. I think it’s important to note that this one was in 2016.

When we talk about supportive housing, I think it’s incumbent on both sides of the House to ensure that people know that this is vitally important — to ensure that people get stability in their lives so they can get the supports that they need. Just having people on the streets means that these challenges are going to be happening in encampments and parks and elsewhere. It’s better to get shelter and get the supports they need.

Now, I really appreciate the member saying that it’s understood that it’s not everywhere, that some sites have particular challenges. This one in particular has challenges because, at the time, there was no coordinated table. There was no understanding of: can we get a mix of folks into the site so that it doesn’t add additional challenges to the operators?

[4:10 p.m.]

The decision at that time was made just to say: “Okay, everybody, go on in.” I’m not blaming folks, because we’re dealing with encampments. I know how challenging and complex it can be. But I think we’ve learned from that experience.

Working closely with local governments…. I’ll give an example. I was in Vernon recently, and the supportive housing built there has been a game-changer for the community. The mayor was highlighting for me that they saw a 67 percent reduction in calls to bylaw from local businesses because of the supportive housing.

I met a woman there, who was working there, who pulled me aside to tell me that she was sleeping in an encampment a few years ago, got herself into a shelter, then was in supportive housing and got herself into, now, rental housing, and they provided her skills to do peer-to-peer support and is working on site.

So this works, but the path for every individual is not a straight one. It’s our responsibility to continue to engage with folks to make sure that we are making this safe for the community but also providing space for people to get the support. Many of our supportive housing units have tables where community is at the table, where they can identify issues so that we can proactively deal with them in advance. That has also been a success for us in many communities.

Just when I was in Vernon, I met this woman who said: “I was against this housing in my neighbourhood, and now I’m grateful that it’s there.” That’s what we want to be hearing in more communities, because I think, deep down, everyone is compassionate, everyone understands that everyone deserves a chance to make it.

We need to keep reminding people that this kind of action, the work we’re doing, is giving people hope — and there is hope.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The minister points out that Johnson Street was a 2016 project, but I would just like to point out that it is under this government where caches of weapons are being found and seized. The minister well knows my appreciation for supportive housing and that we can’t paint every project and every person in a certain light, because we really do need to make sure we’re taking care of those who are vulnerable. But clearly, crime associated with B.C. Housing sites — whether they’re hotels, SROs, what have it — is significant.

I’ll just read the Victoria police chief’s comments: “Many of those supportive housing locations are simply not safe” and “We are seeing a trend that we need to address.” So what would you say to the police chief in terms of what is being done to address safety issues at supportive housing sites?

The minister had listed some things that were happening with Johnson Street, but we’re not seeing the success of what is being tried. So what would he say to the police chief?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll share with the member not what I would say. I can share with the member what I did say to the police chief, which is: “Let’s start at the first basis, which is, can we agree that people in housing are better, that we’re better able to serve them and the community is safer than when they are in encampments and parks?” We started with an agreement there. That was a good first step. Then we said: “Okay. How do we ensure that we have the housing but we’re also making sure that people in the community are safe?”

I appreciate the member saying: “Well, 2016 was…. It’s happening now.” What I’m saying is that the basis of the contract at the time is the reason why we’re limited in some important things, such as who can go in and out. Like other supportive sites, it’s coming through one door. You can have different rules in place to ensure safety. Because of the court’s adjudication on how the contract was structured at the time, we’re limited by that.

I just want the member to be clear: I’m not blaming anybody here. I’m just saying I appreciate the challenge at the time. You’ve got people in encampments, and you’re trying to get people into housing, and the decision was made. I’m saying that we’ve learned from that process.

[4:15 p.m.]

On that particular site, we’re still dealing with a challenge on how that contract was structured at the time. We’ve taken steps, after the conversation with the mayor and the police chief, to make it safer. The police chief wanted to be more engaged about how the police can be more engaged with our not-for-profits.

By the way, the police chief, on record, has said multiple times that they’ve got a great relationship with the providers. In fact, one of the large arrests that was made on site was because of that partnership. That, I think, is vitally important.

The mayor wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to do some of that work early. We agreed. Some of that is happening already. I think it’s important that in order for us to be successful, we’re going to need to continue to have tables where we’re having those discussions.

I have to give the chief credit. He came to the table. He understood what we were saying. We fully understood what he was saying. The mayor highlighted how important safety was for the community. We’ve taken some steps that actually have worked. But we have more work to do.

K. Kirkpatrick: We can absolutely agree that we need to get people a roof over their head. We need to keep them safe. But following along that thread, when someone is vulnerable and they go into supportive housing and they are then in danger in that supportive housing, that is certainly not the solution that we’re looking for.

I was down Hastings-Cordova area a few weeks ago, meeting with a housing provider, and they expressed to me an increase that they’ve seen — and this has always been an issue — in sexual assaults on women in shelters. In some of these supportive housing units, women are particularly vulnerable. There are criminals that prey on women in particular.

What does the minister say to this issue? Is it being recognized? How are we going to keep people within these shelters safe from those in the shelters who are not safe?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess I’ll start by agreeing with the member on this that it’s horrifying to think people would prey on already the most vulnerable people. It’s appalling. The member has heard stories. I’ve heard stories. It’s just a sad reality, which is being faced by so many people in B.C., Canada and the world. We can agree on that. We’re always aware of individuals and organized crimes that are trying to take advantage. In fact, I would say to those who have concerns around encampments and others that there was organized crime actively involved in some of the encampments as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

Our goal is to ensure that we can get people into housing so that we can provide that safety and then the more supportive and long-term housing. Again, I think it’s important to note that we’ve seen success. We’ve actually helped people. I’ve been fortunate enough to meet many of them. But we have a lot more people that we need to help, certainly coming out of the pandemic.

It’s a conversation that I’ve had with colleagues around the country, who have all seen significant increases in people being homeless coming out of the pandemic, seen a significant increase in people dealing with mental health challenges out of the pandemic. So it’s important to note this is not only a challenge in B.C.

If you look to Seattle, Portland down in the Bay Area, Arizona, across the country — that’s why reports are being written about this topic across the country. The federal government is talking about more encampment responses. So it’s a real challenge.

One of the things that we had talked to the Victoria police about, in particular, was looking at ways…. It was suggested to us that perhaps the police can be involved in identifying who goes into supportive housing, and who doesn’t. But that is problematic in the sense that under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, because of the legislation, tenant and applicant information cannot be shared with anyone outside of B.C. Housing without the tenant’s or applicant’s express permission.

The coordinated access tables — they do the best they can to ensure that they’re selecting people for the right type of accommodation. We do a lot of work with security. Our not-for-profit providers work closely with police. And again, the 844 Johnson site, in particular — the fact that there was a major arrest, a major bust that happened, is because of that close collaboration.

That work happens. It’s ongoing. We’re going to continue to work with communities through that process, but also through these tables that we create in communities, where people from the community get to actually be part of the conversation and actually get a chance to highlight concerns that they have so that we can proactively address them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. After B.C. Housing paid $500,000 per key to buy a 110-room hotel at 1176 Granville Street to shelter former residents of an Oppenheimer Park homeless encampment in 2022, police have been called to that site 2,494 times, including 751 calls last year, according to the VPD. What is being done to ensure that this stops being the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, the particular site…. I know the Vancouver police released some data on that. Actually, what was discovered was that, in fact, it was one resident that was under distress that was calling the police, like, 12 times per day.

[4:25 p.m.]

What we were able to do — working with the police and, of course, with mental health support — was to be able to…. I can’t talk specifically about the case, but just to say we were able to find additional supports for that individual so that the call amounts weren’t there anymore. That was a particular challenge we had to deal with.

Broadly speaking, in some of the supportive housing — not all of them — and some of the SRO spaces, we deal with challenges. Sometimes people are under distress, duress. They’ve got mental health challenges. When you have people living in this kind of space, you’re going to get additional calls.

We have people who unfortunately smoke in the rooms. They’re smoking in the rooms when they’re not allowed, the fire alarms go off, and then fire gets called. I find it frustrating, as the Minister of Housing, but what is the alternative? People who are dealing with trauma, who need to smoke — do I kick them out of the unit? That just causes big issues.

We’ve been working really closely with grassroots organizations around educating a lot of the residents about fire safety and other things that need to happen. So that’s on the fire side. And on that specific site, as I mentioned, unfortunately we had one person who was under distress and who just felt like they needed to call the police a lot, for many days in a row.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure if the minister is suggesting that 2,494 calls to this property were made by one person. There’s significant activity at this building regardless of that one person.

What mental health supports — addiction, detox, recovery supports — are being offered to the residents of that building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not suggesting that every single call came from that individual. What I’m saying is that we had a challenge with a unique individual. When we were able to find that individual additional supports, the concern from the city of Vancouver, the police, was dramatically less. Yes, calls come for a whole host of reasons, and I’m sure many of those calls were for other reasons, but there was a particular challenge with that individual.

That supportive housing site has people providing life skills training for individuals, connections to health care, mental health, substance abuse services. Again, staff there 24-7 to support tenants. In particular, on that site, Vancouver Coastal has what they call the intensive housing outreach team, which has additional clinical-related supports for individuals. So that site has additional supports for individuals that need it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I confirm, then, that those supports are available, that they’re actually on site? How many FTEs are on site, and who holds the contract for operating that building?

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just trying to get…. The member wants specifics of that site, so we’re just having to do that. If the member wants to ask other questions, and then we’ll just come right back to it while they’re pulling it, for the interests of time….

Also, I just wanted to seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I look up there and I see president Jen Ford and Trish Mandewo, who’s the vice president of UBCM and was a city councillor at the city of Coquitlam. I want to welcome them here to the House.

Debate Continued

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll ask about another specific example as well. In my own riding in the district of North Vancouver, there is a Travelodge which B.C. Housing leased during the pandemic for shelter. That lease is to be renewed, I think, towards the end of this year.

We get a number of concerns brought to our office — doorbells being ripped off, open drug use, theft — and it is connected to residents of the Travelodge. I’d like to understand what kind of supports are being provided at that Travelodge location. Is B.C. Housing aware that there are some significant issues of personal property destruction with the townhomes directly around it?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I hope the member appreciates that this type of question, around the previous one — we have hundreds of sites and staff all over. We’re trying to get that information for you.

The one the member mentioned around her riding, it’s managed by Lookout Society. In that site, they prioritize Indigenous folks, in particular from Squamish Nation. They’ve got meals, 24-7 supports and other supports I’ve named for the other housing units. At this point, I can’t share with you that I have any information about specific cases linked to people living at that site. I’m not saying there may not be issues. I’m just saying I can’t at this point confirm that for the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand those comments.

There was a promise by the NDP government to phase out SROs, but now — I’m going to have to ask for a break after this question — in the most recent housing plan, there is a commitment to put money in to refurbish some of these SROs. Are SROs going to be part of the housing plan moving forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m surprised there wasn’t a round of applause for the member suggesting a quick five-minute break, but it’s, perhaps, they’re all…. [Applause.]

Yeah, there we go. I was thinking, perhaps, that we put them to sleep, but they’re awake and alive and smiling, which is lovely.

[4:45 p.m.]

The SROs are an important part of our housing stock right now. There is a clear understanding that in the long run, the SROs are not the way to house people over the long term, but currently, we have a huge housing crisis, and we need to ensure that all of our housing sites and units are operating in a way that’s safe for the public.

Some of the units that we’re bringing online are newly renovated SRO sites because in some cases…. It’s important to note this when we think of SROs. Sometimes the media portrays all SROs as just awful. The reality is that there are some that are, but there are really three tiers. Even the housing advocates in the Downtown Eastside tell us — they’ve told me — that SROs have a role to play in housing our population, and not all SROs are just awful.

We do have some that are run-down. Some, in fact, that are privately held. But we also have SROs, some of them that have been newly renovated, that are quite adequate. Some are just so old that when their time comes in the near future, they’re going to have to go, and something else is going to be done. We’ve been engaging with the city of Vancouver and CMHC on what that is. What does that future look like for SROs? Certainly, for those that are in really bad shape?

The housing strategy refers to that, but that will be over time. I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that by the next three years, SROs will be gone. They continue to play an important role. We continue to find ways to renovate the ones that can be renovated, just to improve the quality of life of the individuals that are living there. But there are some that are more problematic.

Because of some of them being older, we sometimes have issues with elevators and other things that come with that. But we’re working through all those sites to identify what can be fixed up, what can be renovated and then, of course, identifying what the future plan will look like. That will happen over time.

The Chair: I’ll just call a 7½-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the Committee of Supply (Section B) back to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member had asked earlier about a site. It’s operated by Terra. It’s 110 units.

I can share with the member that, over the last year, B.C. Housing has significantly increased security on the site. So it’s already been there for a year. B.C. Housing and Terra, in particular, are working with a lot of the businesses that are impacted from there. In fact, with the increased security and the engagements, they’ve seen a significant improvement not only in the building but the area around it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer. How does government square a previous commitment to phasing out SROs with the current…? What I’m hearing from the minister now is they are part of the current housing plan. That is a real turnaround from when the Premier had initially committed to getting rid of SROs.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wouldn’t say it’s a turnaround. The Premier has been pretty consistent. We’ve been pretty consistent. In fact, in the budget, we have $1.2 million over the coming three years to have a table with CMHC Canada and Vancouver to start strategizing around SROs.

I think it’s important to note that there are 95 buildings that are private and 62 buildings that are non-market ownership. The work we’ll be doing over the coming years is to identify the sites that need us to act first and then building a plan over time to continue to address the challenges that we have at SROs.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister had committed to a review of SRO contracts. Has that review being awarded? What’s the timeline for that happening?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that the contract has been awarded for the work to be done, and we expect a report later this year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is the minister aware that his own government has already done a review on SRO renovations and found that they provided a net benefit?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, I have heard from a lot of advocates around concerns, in particular around the P3 model SROs. It’s hard to know whether those complaints are real or not, so that’s why the review is happening by an independent firm to give us a sense of if there are issues or not and to address those concerns.

The initial B.C. Housing study that was done by the research centre at B.C. Housing just looked at components of SROs like heritage restoration, tenant relocation, practices like hazmat-related issues. That was published in 2018. It was done by the B.C. Housing research centre.

The current study is, of course, being done by an independent firm. It focuses on maintenance standards and practices and operations of the P3 SRO models.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just a clarification. On the SRO contracts, who has the contract being awarded to for the review?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Deloitte has been contracted. A small, small company called Deloitte.

K. Kirkpatrick: I may have heard of them before. That’s great.

The minister, a moment ago, was talking about the report, which I believe was the November 2018 report on the rehabilitation of the P3s.

I just want to clarify that that was the report and that what I heard the minister say is that there was not disagreement — that’s too strong a word — but maybe a lack of confidence that the information contained in that was correct. I may have misunderstood that. I’m just looking for confirmation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to. I’ll just say that it was a case study done by the research centre at B.C. Housing. This is being done by an independent firm, and it’s looking at a much broader issues than the first case study was looking at.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ve heard this minister talk about P3s and talk about them in a way that would indicate that they’re not successful, that they haven’t been successful and are not something that wants to be repeated by this government.

I will go back to that November 2018 report, and I’m just going to read a couple of quotes out of that report directly: “Renovated buildings are easier and more functional to work in with more appropriate space for on-site supports.” And: “Many interviewees felt the SRO renovations would not have gone ahead if the P3 model had not been pursued…. The number of subsidized units increased because two of the buildings that temporarily housed residents while units were being renovated were later renovated and now are operated by non-profit societies as subsidized housing.”

Does the minister feel that these renovations and additional units would have happened without the P3 relationship?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The case study the member is referring to, which was done by B.C. Housing research centre, was much more narrow than the independent review that is being done by Deloitte. I think when that study comes out, it will give us information, and then we’ll go from there.

[5:20 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify with the minister that these two…. I did not believe that these two contracts were looking at the same thing. The 2018 review was more of the rehabilitation of the existing buildings, and the current one that’s been awarded to Deloitte is looking at the actual contracts with the private and the not-for-profit providers.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The case study that was done in 2018 by the research centre at B.C. Housing looked at heritage restoration, tenant relocation practices and hazmat issues. The current study, which is being completed by an independent firm, Deloitte, is focusing on maintenance standards and practices.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. How is the B.C. government ensuring that SROs are safe and healthy living environments for their residents?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Considerable investments go into continuing to make sure that the SRO spaces are maintained and are being repaired. So $19.5 million just last year was invested. We’ve got $5.9 million in this fiscal plan to continue to renovate some of our existing SRO sites that are within the scope of B.C. Housing.

M. Bernier: I want to thank my colleague, the critic for Housing. I’m going to be filling in for a few moments here.

I have some specific questions but also some provincial, general ones. I thank the minister for his time and candidness, as well, as we move through these. Congratulations to him — I haven’t officially said it on the record — for his role, even though he’s had it now for a little while.

One of the biggest issues that we’re facing right now, as we transition into a different line of questioning, is around the pressures on local governments, specifically around the pressures that we’re seeing when it comes to market housing, the pressures and the needs around that and the timelines that it’s taking. When we look at it right now, taxes and fees seem to be a huge issue. I think the minister would be well aware of this, when we look at some of the cost pressures and the affordability issues.

What’s this government doing…? Since we know that they brought in increases of taxes and fees that are being passed on to homebuyers, what’s their plan over this budget cycle, the next 12 months, to eliminate and reduce some of those taxes and fees to help lower the cost, making housing more affordable?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Nice to see the member across the way asking questions. I think this is going to be an enjoyable time for both of us.

I appreciate that the opposition has got issues with the speculation and vacancy tax. Again, over 20,000 units have come back onto the market, available to people to rent.

[5:25 p.m.]

I appreciate that for the Leader of the Official Opposition…. He said: “These are just good homeowners who just have multiple properties, and they shouldn’t be additionally taxed.” If they have empty homes, additional homes, and they’re sitting empty, they should either rent them or there’s going to be a tax on them. That’s what the speculation and vacancy tax is about.

If the member is asking me whether I think that was a good thing or not, I would say 100 percent it was a good thing, because it brought 20,000 units online. We have, as part of the Homes for People plan, a flipping tax that we’ve said we’re going to introduce. It was nice to hear the Leader of the Opposition say he supports that concept.

M. Bernier: I smirk because I see how the next half hour, hour or the rest of the day might go now, with myself and this minister. That was not actually what my line of questioning was about. If he wants to try to deviate from that, I guess it’s his freedom to do so as the minister.

Cost pressures are hitting young families, or even anyone trying to get into the marketplace right now, because of tax pressures. I wasn’t specifically speaking of one. If the minister wants to try to deflect, that’s his choice. But is the minister saying, then, that the cost pressures that people are feeling right now…?

I’ll use Vancouver as an example, which happens to have the highest rents and the highest cost of building in North America. Is the minister saying that government-imposed fees or taxes play no role in that at all?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s nice to hear the member wasn’t referring to the speculation tax. Perhaps he can share with me what fee he’s concerned about.

M. Bernier: Well, if the minister wants me to do his job for him, I guess we could actually switch roles. The next election is going to be coming up pretty soon, and he’ll have more of an opportunity to be on this side of the House and ask questions of me when I’m over there, if that’s what he chooses.

Maybe the minister could do that, then, for me. Can he explain all of the taxes that government has that actually are transferred, either through to a developer or through a local government, that can be purposely transferred, then, to the housing market when somebody chooses to get into it?

Now, it sounds like the minister is going to try to say that there are no taxes in British Columbia, if he’s asking me to tell him. Is he unaware, as the minister, that there are taxes imposed on people when they build a property in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: He’s had his chance over here. He’s not going to get another chance over here. I’m sorry to say that to the member.

We continue to find ways to support families, support the ability for more housing to be built in this province. It’s easy for the members to make assertions, but essentially what I’m asking of the member is: is he talking about the speculation and vacancy tax? Because if he is, I can tell him that I think that has been helpful to get more housing back into the market.

Again, the member can specify which specific piece he’s referring to, and I’m happy to talk to him about it.

M. Bernier: Very easy question to the minister: what is he doing to lower the property of homes in the market housing or in the rental housing stock? The minister doesn’t seem to want to answer what taxes this government — or any government, for that matter…. There are about 20 of them. I’m not going to sit here and waste this House’s time by reading about 20 taxes into the record.

Maybe the minister can enlighten us what his goals and plans are to lower some of the cost pressures for market housing when it’s going to be built here in the province of British Columbia. We all know that as housing development costs go up, as taxes go up, as fees go up, those get passed on to anybody who is trying to get into the housing market.

I don’t think I have to remind the minister again that we have probably the most expensive place to live in North America. We’ve talked about that for about the last five or six years, how it’s only gotten worse in B.C. What I’m asking the minister is: what is he doing to change that trajectory so British Columbia will no longer be the highest-cost jurisdiction to build or to own a property in this country?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I assume from that answer that the member doesn’t want to say a specific one, because he wants to do his general, 20 taxes, and just talk about high-level things without getting into details. But if he does want to raise a specific piece that he’s concerned about, I’m happy to engage with him on it.

Core to our Homes for People strategy is the need to get more housing that people can afford. That’s core to the strategy. That’s why things like the small-scale multi-unit proposal is going to be vital because we know that when we talk about affordability…. When a single dwelling home gets torn down and another single-family dwelling gets built, it’s simply unaffordable for many British Columbians.

What we’re saying is we want to ensure that there are options available for the builder or developer, so that the units can be, in many cases, more affordable for people. “Let the market decide,” is essentially what we’re saying. Those are the type of measures that we’re putting in place to ensure there’s more affordable housing.

There’s a whole host of things in the strategy that are focused on this and we know that time costs money. We know that the process has to be faster. We’re taking steps to ensure that the speed of approvals within our provincial control are done faster. We’ve taken the step to create a one-stop shop, so that all housing-related permits come to one place, with a team dedicated to moving that process faster — not only with people, but also reform.

We know part of the strategy, what we’re focusing on, is around digital reform. That digital reform will be key to getting the approval process moving faster. We have heard from both the not-for-profit and the private sector around the times that you have to wait for permit approvals. It’s expensive waiting for that.

There’s a lot of things, when it comes to affordability, as the member will know because he was a critic for this file, that the government can’t control. We can’t control the immigration numbers. That’s something that the federal government controls. We can’t control interest rates, which have a very important role on when house prices go up or down.

What we can do is we can use forms of taxation to get more housing back on the market, which we’ve done. We brought the speculation and vacancy tax in, which brought 20,000 homes back into the market. Perhaps the member is talking about people who own homes that are more than $3 million having to pay an additional tax to help support many of the services in communities. Maybe he’s talking about that. Maybe he’s talking about the flipping tax, which I think the Leader of the Opposition has said that he supports.

The member can talk about specifics, but part of our housing strategy is a whole host of initiatives to create more opportunities in the market for housing to be built, units that are more affordable to people. We know that time and speed is important to ensure that projects can be delivered in a more affordable way.

We passed the Housing Supply Act, which will allow us to work with eight to ten communities, to not do spot-zoning but do up-zoning in large areas, which we know will lead to housing being built in a quicker, more affordable way and, certainly hoping, more around transit. So there’s a whole host of measures we’re doing to ensure that there’s more affordable housing available to people in British Columbia.

M. Bernier: I find it interesting just with, like, rhetorical — I guess — comments that’ll come. But I think when we look at the fact that nobody wants to argue that we have the highest-cost jurisdiction in North America…. The minister is not going to stand up and say that’s not true because all the reports show that it is.

We know the pressures that people are faced with right now in the province of British Columbia. Most of the taxes that the minister, again, trying to deflect away from the issue…. I’m talking about market housing, new build, new development. So maybe I’ll ask him this then, since he wants to keep going back to that: how many new homes have been built in the last 12 months, in the Lower Mainland only, because of the speculation and vacancy tax?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Here’s a headline of a report that says the top five most expensive rental markets: No. 1, Vancouver; No. 2, Toronto; No. 3, Victoria; No. 4, Montreal; No. 5, Calgary, Alberta — Canada rent report, 2016.

The member is hopefully not suggesting that rents have been high in Vancouver under just the NDP. They were high under the opposition as well. We have a desirable place to live. People are coming here. We have a constrained amount of supply being built, often because it’s hard for local governments to make decisions to approve additional density because of challenges in the community. There’s a whole host of reasons.

I know the member knows there’s a whole host of things that at the provincial level, we can’t control, such as interest rates, such as the amount of people that choose to migrate to British Columbia, which adds more pressure. What we can do is use things like the speculation and vacancy tax to free up more units, to make more units available to people.

I’ve had the chance to meet with people who now…. For example, there are five folks in the Premier’s riding, five students who are living in a mansion that was empty before. So we know this is having an impact. We know this is helping people to get into the housing market. We need to increase the supply. We’ve taken measures to address demand. We’re going to continue do that. We’re taking measures to address supply. It’s very important.

That’s how you get at it, and that’s why, when we released our strategy, many economists that are in this space applauded it. They understood that we found a balance of moving forward to ensure that we get not only housing but the right type of housing.

M. Bernier: What does this government think is the right type of housing? We see that they want to try to impose their views on local governments. Is that what we see going forward — that this government will be deciding for communities what the right type of housing is? Is that their objective?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important for us to build housing to meet the rate of growth of our population. What we’re trying to do is show decisive action on ensuring that the types of homes people need can be built in British Columbia. We’re trying to do it in a way where communities don’t feel like it’s just them that are taking on growth, that we’re in this collectively. In many cases, it’s working directly with local governments to make it happen.

Now, I know the member will…. The member is different than the Leader of the Opposition. I know the member came from local government. But to suggest that somehow we’re running over local governments…. We’re working with local governments to ensure that we can get the housing we need for the population.

The member should know that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was actually running for leadership, on the leadership stage, he said: “I think almost a decade in the private sector with a front-row seat seeing how incompetently local governments handle things like, for example, housing supply is going to be awful helpful for us as we go forward.” So to suggest that in any way the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition is going to be friendlier to local government when they have a leader that says these things is false.

What we’re going to do is continue to do the work we’re doing, work with local government to build the housing supply we need. We’re going to ensure that there are more types of options of housing being built that is more affordable to young people. That’s why overwhelmingly I hear from young people about the small-scale multi-unit initiative we’re bringing forward and why they’re happy with it. Again, I know the member knows this, and my quarrel is not with the member across the way, but this is the frank reality of what we’re dealing with here.

M. Bernier: For my time here, I’d actually appreciate some actually honest and frank answers to come from the minister rather than him trying to deflect away and make this all political. I’m actually trying to get to the point. What are we doing to solve a crisis? What are we doing to solve a problem here in the province of British Columbia? The minister wants to waste time trying to deflect and trying to blame everybody else. That’s not the objective I’m trying to get here. I want to figure out what we’re doing to solve a problem.

We talked about my question around local government. Again to the minister, what is the plan, then, for the ministry? The minister and the Premier have come out with announcements around upzoning. It’s my understanding, talking as a former mayor and talking to many mayors and other local governments around the province, that this came as pretty much a big shock to them because they were not consulted. Was local government consulted before the government did this upzoning announcement, and, if not, when are they planning on doing it?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve been in estimates for nine hours, and it’s been a very thoughtful exchange. Maybe this member is bringing a different side out of both of us.

The member wants to know about local governments. I can share with him that we’ve been in conversation with local governments for a long time about how we get more housing built. Certainly, I think it would be fair that many in the public have expressed frustration at the pace and at the speed of housing being approved in communities, and sometimes, the uncertainty around the process.

What we’ve been talking to local governments on is that when there’s spot zoning happening — when one individual property gets upzoned to allow, let’s say, up to four homes on the site — yeah, it’s true there’s a lift in value in that site. But what we’re trying to do is do it over a large area, because we believe we can get more supply online, and at the same time, we can do it so the prices are not going up in a specific area.

All over the province, everyone has a responsibility to be part of it, so we’ve been working with local governments quite a bit. Last year we had $20 million partnering with local governments through UBCM to ensure they can do the policy work to be able to approve housing faster and create more certainty. We’ve got $50 million in the budget here to support local governments to do the policy work that’s related to this. Right now we have signalled our intention of where we’re going, and we’re engaging with local governments. I just finished a meeting with UBCM a couple of hours ago, talking about this very issue.

We appreciate that some smaller communities will have different needs and challenges, and some larger communities will have different ones, so we’re having those conversations. I think what I do hear, not from this member but in the debates I’ve been having, is two things. I hear: “Well, why is the legislation not here?” Then I also hear: “Why is the legislation taking so long?” Our intention was to say: “Here’s where we’re going, so everyone understands, and come to us work and with us on how we can make it happen.”

There are a million reasons to say no for housing, and we hear them all the time. What we’re trying to say is: how do we get to yes? How do we get to a point where we can go to local governments to say: “This is the type of housing we want to build, and how can we make that happen?” So that’s the conversation we’re having.

The member may hear from some communities who say this is the end of the world. I certainly haven’t heard that. I’ve been hearing from local governments, saying: “Well, how can we make this work?” Then I’ve also heard from local governments, saying: “This is fantastic. This is the type of thing we need to do.”

So we’re going to continue to work with them. If the member has suggestions and ideas, my ears are always open to hear his thoughts as someone who has been in local government.

M. Bernier: I can help the minister out right away. How come the legislation is not here? How come it’s taking so long? There. Now I’m like everybody else.

In all seriousness, nobody’s arguing the fact that we have a housing crisis, a housing shortage, and that local governments play a major role in trying to bridge that and solve this issue, but the minister used terminology like he’s working collectively with local governments. The announcement the minister said aside, going forward, working collectively with local governments, there can be huge pressures, financial implications, to local governments if there is upzoning imposed on them that they’re not ready for, in order to deal with.

If the minister and his government are working collectively with local governments and if this pressure is going to happen, what are they doing to help alleviate some of the financial pressures on local governments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the question of $57 million partnering with UBC — that helps alleviate some of the pressures around policy work that local governments need to do. We’ve been doing this work, such as supporting them financially so they can do policy work to shorten their permit times, to create more certainty for proponents when they bring projects forward and to create digital reforms in their system so they can better serve the public as well as the proponents who want to bring housing projects forward.

[5:45 p.m.]

Dollars to help them with policy-related work to find ways to streamline their processes so we can get more housing online, $1 billion that we’ve distributed to communities to invest in their infrastructure. We know there’s going to be more that needs to be done. We’re building schools. We’re building hospitals. We’re making major investments in communities, but people are here, and they don’t have housing. The challenge for us is: how do we get more housing online faster to meet that demand?

The truth is B.C. is a desirable place to be. We have one of the strongest economies in the country, and we’ve had that for multiple years. We have historic-level investments coming to this province all the time. With that economic opportunity, people will be coming. The truth is, and I know the member will agree with me, we welcome people to British Columbia. We want people to come to British Columbia, but we want to make sure they’re successful when they get here. We want to make sure people that live here already have the housing and supports they need.

There’s a whole host of things we’re doing to support local governments. In Metro Vancouver, we help cover the 911 emergency costs, which was going to be a big burden on them. We helped alleviate pressures on TransLink, with costs that they were looking to….

We are making direct investments to help alleviate pressures local governments are facing throughout the province, and we’ll continue to do that. To the core, what I think the member and I can agree on is that we want to find opportunities for young families to continue to stay here, grow here, raise their kids in the same neighbourhoods that they grew up in. That is at the core of what we’re trying to do.

What we need to do is to be able to have more housing units come online. The small-scale multi-unit is an example, and we’re not the only jurisdiction in the world that’s done this. We know New Zealand was a leader. New Zealand saw a significant increase in housing come online. While every other jurisdiction is seeing rents go up, home prices go up, they’ve actually seen a flattening. We know that California is going in this direction. We know Oregon’s going in this direction. We know Washington’s heading in this direction. Arlington, and even Ontario, moved in this direction. We are doing all these pieces, and that’s all part of the housing strategy.

We’re also supporting with infrastructure needs and other needs that make sure that communities continue to be livable and vibrant. Success for us, on this side of the House, is when communities have kids again, because too many communities have become so expensive and out of reach for young families that there are no kids anymore. That’s a real challenge. That’s a challenge for our society. I think a sign of success is when we start having kids in communities that have become more and more places for people who have a great deal of wealth and not available to people who don’t.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I agree with a lot of what the minister is saying. We want to have British Columbia as a place, a choice, for people to move in. It is, by far, the most beautiful province. Nobody is going to argue that here in this House, but we also have to ensure that as those people come, as the minister rightfully acknowledged, we have the housing for them. We don’t right now, and we want to welcome more.

As a father of five children, I want to also see those opportunities, if my children so choose, to get into the housing that they desire — hopefully close to me, if I have grandkids, but not necessarily, because they’ll make those choices. The cost pressures are real. Maybe I’ll ask the minister this way, as well, because he did talk about the money that government is putting forward, let’s say, for policy.

Policy is only a small, small piece of what’s needed, because you can have all the best policy in the world, but if you don’t have the right economic opportunities for people to want to build, or the certainty to be able to build, especially for cost recovery in an affordable way….

That’s what we’re faced with right now. As somebody who knows a little bit about this, if it costs a lot to build something, you want to pass those on to at least recoup your costs. That is making housing very unaffordable right now in the province of British Columbia for a lot of different reasons.

When we talk about the upzoning, back to that, which the minister and I are somewhat talking about…. Okay. Maybe I’ll put it this way. The confusion I’m hearing from many.… When the government came out and talked about the upzoning, it made it sound like it was blanket to every municipality in every corner on every lot. Is the minister saying maybe that was misinterpreted or not the actual direction they’re going for?

[5:50 p.m.]

Obviously, I am going to agree with him that we need more housing. We need more diversification around that housing in different areas of the province. Is the minister willing to tell this House they’re going to be reconsidering, as they go forward, that it might not work as a blanket in every community in every place, and that’s why we have to do further consultation to decide?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a few things the member raised.

I think I should clarify that we’re not only providing them financial supports for policy work. We’re also providing supports for a complete digital reform. I mean, we have local governments that are making decisions on paper. Imagine that: 30 or 40 teams at a local community. All of them receiving paper copies of a project. All of them making decisions individually. Many of them having veto power. It’s just not a way we’re going to continue to be able to roll if we want to see more housing come online.

We’re actually helping them with not just…. When I say digital reform, I don’t mean going from paperless to PDF. I’m talking about getting to a point where, if a project is designed digitally, with 3D modelling, then…. It’s being submitted that way so that we can get to a point where we can get automated checks done on the projects so that we can have less people reviewing the files. That will alleviate some pressure. It’s going to move the time frame up.

I’m talking about automating the building code so that proponents can check automatically, within seconds, if their project fits within the building code. That type of reform is about changing the way they operate, not just the policy but changing how decisions are made, how the system is making decisions.

What we’ll find is…. When we get to jurisdictions like Singapore and Finland, where they’re at four or five months to approve highrises…. I mean, we’re at sometimes four, five, six, seven, eight years. Through digital reform, we can make that time much faster. So we’re supporting them in that as well.

A second point the member made, I think, is an important one and a good question around local government finance.

Now, I agree with the member. When communities pay DCCs, they go to important things in the community. I get it. The challenge that we have to address, and something that’s part of our strategy to address, is…. We need more cost certainty in the process. We can’t have negotiations, after a proponent has gone through all the steps, on additional parking, on additional CACs. That is hurting projects. We’re getting hurt by…. We have projects….

Imagine building affordable housing projects in communities. We have approval from council, and then we’re told we have to pay more DCCs and add more parking. I mean, if we’re facing that with affordable housing, I can guarantee you there are a billion horror stories from the private sector.

We have to build more certainty up front about the cost of projects. With our digital forms, the goal is to build more certainty on the time.

Now, there are a lot of things we can’t control, such as interest rates and all those things that have impacts on how housing can be built, how fast and how affordable. This is what we’re fundamentally talking about here.

The small-scale multi-unit…. We have said, from the beginning, that it’s going to be up to four units on larger lots and three on smaller.

What we’re doing right now, working with local government, is saying: “This is the intention. How do we make this work?” It’s not: “Do you want to make it work, or do you not? Do you think this is a good idea or not?” We’re saying: “We need housing. We need everyone to participate. How can we make it work?”

Yes, there’ll be issues. Sometimes the soil quality won’t be great, and we can’t build housing on that. Yes, there’ll be some unique issues. A septic tank can’t handle multiple houses. Of course, we’re going to…. That’s what we’re listening to local governments on. What kinds of pieces are the challenge that we need to address as we move forward?

We’re asking communities to be genuine with us and to say: “We want to get this built. How do we get this built?”

We’ve seen, from examples in California…. California went in a direction. Then local government said…. Many of them, who understood, were like: “Okay. Let’s do this.” But some of them used many things, like heights and setbacks and parking, as barriers to getting housing developed.

What we’re saying is: “Let’s do it in a way that continues to keep communities vibrant. We can have young families and kids come back to them again. Let’s do it in a way that has the amenities there. But let’s do it.” That’s what we’re saying. “Let’s do it. Let’s get this housing built. Let’s make it easier.”

[5:55 p.m.]

Instead of somebody having to apply and go through a lengthy process to rezone from a single dwelling to multiple units, let’s just say that you can do that, and then leave it to the market to decide what the product will look like on the site. That’s what we’re saying here.

M. Bernier: What the minister is saying, then, is: “Leave it to the market.” I’m a market person. I kind of get that.

Also, in that answer to my question, what I heard…. Upzoning everywhere. The minister said, basically, yes, it sounds like. This is not going to be a partnership with local government. The minister basically said that we’re not asking local governments if they agree or disagree. We’re telling local governments that we’re going to do this. Let’s talk about the pressures, I guess, and where this government is going to fit in.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Did I hear the minister correctly? I’m going to look at a place like Dawson Creek, which I know well, as the former mayor. Is the minister now telling me that I’m going back and telling the mayor and council in Dawson Creek that it doesn’t matter whether they agree or disagree? This government is going to be putting those unilateral changes and pressures on local governments, whether it’s something they support or not.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member can go to mayor and council and tell them that we need everybody as part of the housing solution. We need to find ways, creatively, to get more housing on the market. Everyone will play a role in ensuring we have the housing for people as we go forward.

That’s the message I’ve been sharing with mayors. I shared that with UBCM today. I’ve also shared with them that, collectively, we are moving too slowly. This crisis is only going to get bigger if we don’t move quicker. We need to remove barriers along the way.

This example is one of those. Giving the opportunity for people to build up to three or four units on a single-family lot is going to help housing get built faster as well. Now they don’t have to sit through a long zoning process in order to get that. They’ll be able to do it as a right.

Now, there’ll be unique challenges. I’m happy to hear from local governments what those are. We’re going to work our best to make sure we address all of those challenges before legislation comes. That’s why we signalled our intent and where we’re going.

The member is asking me what my message to local governments is. My message is this. We’ve got to get to yes. We’ve got to get to building housing. We’ve got to get it built faster. We are behind. We are decades of investment in housing behind. We can talk about that all day long, but it won’t help us today. We need to get to work. That’s the message he can share with the mayor. I’m happy to call the mayor myself.

M. Bernier: My question to the minister is: is this going to be a cookie-cutter approach? There is no argument from me or anybody on this side of the House that we need more housing. What I’m trying to ascertain and understand is the role that this government is trying to put themselves in to supersede and control local government.

Again, as somebody who understands local government…. I used to be on the UBCM executive as well. I understand the role that local government plays, the work that they do and how they’re duly elected to make decisions in their communities. I also understand that there are some good stories out there of local governments that are helping alleviate the pressures where they can. There are some that are maybe not as successful and need a bit of a push or the supports that are needed. No argument from me on that.

What I’m asking the minister to acknowledge is…. Is this policy he’s talking about, which they’ve already announced, about upzoning for four or three for smaller lots…? If a small rural community in northern B.C. turns around and says: “This does not match up with what we feel is how we want to see our community grow….” Does this mean that this government is now telling them…? It sounds like the minister is saying: “Yes, we all want to be partners. Yes, we all want to be working together. Yes, we have to solve the problem.”

What the minister is saying, though, is…. It’s working together and solving the problem by this government’s decisions only. Am I understanding the minister correctly? Or will the community be able to come back and say: “That does not work for our official community plan. We don’t agree with this government, and we’re not going to allow that to happen in our community”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say…. For some small rural communities, there’ll be unique challenges that we’ll have conversations with them on. I can appreciate that some small rural communities will have different challenges than communities anywhere near a major centre. That’s what we’re engaging with those communities on.

My message and the Premier’s message have been pretty clear. We can’t delay anymore. We’re just at a point where we can’t delay anymore. We need to create more certainty in the process. We need faster decision-making. We need more housing units coming online.

[6:00 p.m.]

If the member is picking up urgency from me, then it would be correct. If the member is suggesting that this is too big of an action for the challenge we’re facing, then that’s his opinion. But I would say that, overwhelmingly, young people, whenever I talk to them, they are feeling this urgency. They’re feeling this fear of: “Will I ever be able to buy a home in my community?”

I hear from some communities who say: “You know what? It’s a working-class neighbourhood, and it’s been like this for 40 years, and we don’t want it to change.” Well, a lot of these communities, over time, have changed, and people are not seeing that change. The structures may not be changing, but who can afford to live in that community is changing.

We need to make sure that we can continue to have opportunities for young people. I hope, through this policy change, that the member is able to build units to have his kids nearby or family members nearby. I hope that’s a success.

We have a woman in my community, Kathleen Higgins, who got her property rezoned. She now tore her house down and built four units, and all of her kids are living there on her property with her. We celebrate that like that’s a big success. My question is: why can it be a success for her and not for others? Why do we have to celebrate her victory as a one-off? Why can’t that be considered for others as well?

To my friend across the way, I will say: we’re trying to build options for people so they don’t have to buy an expensive single-family home. But if they choose to, they can still build it.

M. Bernier: The example the minister just presented in this House, interestingly, was able to happen absent of this government. That was because of a relationship and zoning with local government, I assume, because their policies are not in place yet. Which kind of goes to my point that….

What does this minister say…? I’m taking this broadly, if the minister will indulge me, from a rural perspective right now. I understand the pressures intimately, as well, in the Lower Mainland. But when I look at rural British Columbia, it’s different. It’s unique. Are there pressures? Yes — and I think the minister would agree with me — on a different scale.

In a small community, if they build 30 houses, that’s an amazing success that year to alleviate some of the pressures. But here’s my concern I’m hearing from a lot of smaller communities that have spent a lot of time and a lot of money working with their community to put together an official community plan.

Now, those official community plans that local governments put together…. Again, speaking, if the minister will follow me here, on rural British Columbia. I don’t want him to go back to some of the pressures that urban is facing.

I’ll look at a local government — again, I’ll use Dawson Creek as an example, only as that’s a lot of my knowledge base there specifically — that may spend half a million dollars redoing an OCP, countless and countless hours of meeting with community members, developers, architects, engineers to determine: where is the best location to build a subdivision? Where’s the best place to have densification? Where’s the best place to allow for parks and for schools and for growth the way that community has chosen to grow?

This here, maybe the minister can say, is going to work great to help in some of these really pressured areas in the Lower Mainland, but it won’t necessarily match up for what the desires and needs are in smaller communities.

My only question was: will they have a chance to opt out? Will they have a chance to say: “Thank you, Minister. Thank you, NDP government. We acknowledge that we need more housing. We don’t agree with the way you’re imposing this on our zoning that we spent countless years and dollars to put an OCP together, to design our community the way we want.” Again, I’m acknowledging smaller rural communities that have different pressures on their growth than urban.

To the minister, nobody is arguing that we have to work on this all hands on deck, because there’s a huge pressure, and it’s only getting worse. I’m asking: what is that relationship going to look like for smaller local governments that I’m hearing from that don’t necessarily agree with the direction that this minister and government want to go in?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member across the way. I’ll read again from the housing strategy: “This fall we will introduce legislation that will apply to many areas of the province.” So if he’s talking about small rural communities….

I’ve said it multiple times. I appreciate some small rural communities have particular challenges. That’s why we’re engaging with communities on what they might be and what may preclude them from participating in that. If he’s wondering if there is space for some small rural communities, I’m saying yes, there is some space in the policy we bring forward.

The member said that that success of four units was because of the local relationship. That was like five years ago, six years ago. No other units have been built like that. You know, we still see in our….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It wasn’t even under…. I wish we could celebrate that as a success of the previous government, my friend, but it was a local government. It was a local government decision. In fact, one of my friends in this chamber may have been on council at that time.

The question fundamentally is: why just that one person? Why that one family? Why were they lucky? Why do we have to celebrate them as a success? Why is it that many others tried and just couldn’t get through the process? That is fundamentally what we’re talking about.

It’s great to hear from the member, from his experience, where OCPs were done and developed and up to date. That’s not the case in many communities, so it’s great to hear that’s the case in the member’s community. He’ll know that we brought in legislation last year to allow communities that have already done their OCP to not have additional decisions go to council. We know that will speed up housing when it doesn’t need to go to council because the community has already done their OCP. The community’s already been engaged on what it will look like, so projects can move faster.

I know my mayor and council have moved in that direction. I think it’s a great move. I’ve had some people come to me and say: “Why are they doing that?” And I say: “They’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do.” If you do the work up front and you get the community understanding the plan, then it should move the process faster.

There are far too many communities where OCPs haven’t been updated. Maybe small portions of the community have, but not in a large way. But it’s great to hear that that’s the case in the member’s riding.

Fundamentally, I’ll go back to the original point — and hopefully that answers the member’s question — which is: we understand the unique challenges for some small rural communities. We will be engaging with them on what they think they can do and what the possibilities are, and we’ll consider, obviously, that work in the legislation that will come this fall.

M. Bernier: I’m only bringing these forward because…. I think the minister has heard this from me, and from others too. One of the biggest issues we hear collectively with such a large, diverse province is the cookie-cutter approach — that an announcement or a piece of legislation or a policy or regulation from Victoria comes out with a blanket that says: “This is what’s going to happen in British Columbia.” The intention might have merit, but the outcomes don’t necessarily always meet that because of the diversity we have in the province.

The reason why I’m flagging this is because I want the minister to be attuned to the fact that there are different pressures in different parts of the province. There are communities….

While I’ve got the soapbox, I’ll thank the staff in the communities in my region. I know when I was mayor, we had a policy that, because we were updating our OCPs and our zoning, if a developer or a proponent came in with a plan that met the municipality’s zoning requirements, it was a 30-day turnaround If there wasn’t a lot of consultation required, there weren’t a lot of decisions required, it already met the zoning, it already met the official community plan of what we wanted: thirty-day turnaround.

I think if we’re going to be doing anything, the support needs to go to local governments to get more of those OCPs up to date, the partnerships with the communities so the local residents can decide and see how they want their community to grow. I understand the pressure this government’s under because they’re having a hard time getting this built to the pace that we need. I understand that. I want the minister to also be….

I’m not saying this condescendingly. I’m pretty sure he does understand that you cannot impose, necessarily, an upzone in a brand-new subdivision. The reason why I say that is….

[6:10 p.m.]

I’ll look at one right by my house, a brand-new subdivision built with about 300 homes in it over the last…. Well, they haven’t built anything in about six years. That wasn’t a political dig; that’s just a reality. But before that, it was about 300 homes that were built.

As a former person who also worked for many, many years managing and running a utility company, I also realize that infrastructure, underground utilities, water and sewer, gas, power, telephone, Shaw — all sized based on the development and the proponent that brings something in.

In the example that I’m giving to the minister, these are why I’m hearing pressures from some of these communities. They say, “Okay, we built and sized everything for these 300 homes.” If, all of a sudden, they could have 1,200 homes there, there’s no parking, there are going to be brownouts because there’s not enough power. It was never sized for that. There’s not enough gas to heat the homes. Good luck on having your Internet, because if it didn’t have fibre optics in there, you’re probably going to have slow Internet as well.

Anyway, I’m only flagging that because I want the minister to be aware that they cannot just put this blanket upzoning requirement without understanding the implications that that would have on local governments.

In the example I just gave, if the government came out and said, “Yes, you can go four zoning,” and people decide to put carriage homes or build, they’re not going to…. I think the minister and I are both not naive enough to understand they’re not going to tear down a brand-new house and put a fourplex, but they might look at other opportunities on that property that’s going to put pressure and strain on the infrastructure.

How does that local government deal with that, when they’ve already collected DCCs up front for the known pressures? And now developers have left. We have single-family homes. There could be huge pressures now on the infrastructure. What is the local government going to do about that, and where does this government play a role, then, in assisting or helping alleviate some of those financial pressures to be able to up all of the utilities that they will be required to have?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m glad that homes that were built six years ago aren’t going to get torn down. I think we both can agree on that. That’s a good thing.

I think, again, when we’re talking about some small rural communities, I appreciate the member’s comments that there will be some unique challenges. I’m not disagreeing. I think I’ve said a couple of times already that we acknowledge there will be some rural communities that will have unique challenges, which is why we’re having conversations with them about what it is that is possible.

I’ll say this again. We want to start the conversations with “How do we get to yes? How do we get to the possible? How do we get to the ‘We can make this happen’” as opposed to “We don’t want people in our neighbourhood”? We do hear that a lot. If the member’s not hearing it in his community, that’s fantastic. But I can tell you, we hear it a lot in every other community.

Where there are unique challenges, of course, that is something we’re going to try to reflect in the legislation we bring forward, especially around small rural communities. But the notion that we don’t want those people here, whether those people are young people, whether those people are renters, whether those people are, I don’t know, whoever, that’s just not acceptable in this day and age given the crisis we’re in. We need people that come to the table for those solutions.

I agree with the member that there will be some challenges in small rural communities, and that’s why we’ll be engaging with communities. If the member has unique insights from some of the communities he represents — more than welcome to sit down with him and talk about it.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the response from the minister.

Here’s another challenge that’s faced in rural British Columbia. I’m interested in the minister’s thoughts on this, because it’s not just in the incorporated areas where we have the pressure. It’s in our rural areas as well, outside incorporated municipalities. Here is one that I find very interesting. I’m curious about the minister’s thoughts on this and what he’s doing to advocate for change.

In an area like mine, I’ve got more ALR in the South Peace than any other riding in the province. I’ve got more farmland for the size of my riding than probably any other riding in this province. Maybe the member for Peace River North, who I should acknowledge, has some of the same pressures.

[6:15 p.m.]

My question, I guess, to the minister is: is this only going to affect incorporated areas, or is it going to affect farmland as well? I’m not going to try to be coy with this. The minister knows where I’m going with this thought process. I’ve got farmers in my area, up in the Peace region, who own 1,000 acres. Some, I know, have 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 acres. What are they going to be allowed? This isn’t just a 66 by 150 lot that this government is saying you can build a fourplex on. This is 1,000 acres with one house. Are they now going to be able to start building multiple homes on their farmland?

Is this new announcement of upzoning going to also include ALR land and opportunities for our farmers? Because, as the minister knows — and he’s even seen it in his area — the more you can build on the farm to keep the people on the farm and the next generation, the more beneficial it is. It’ll actually alleviate some of the pressures in our municipalities if people can start building homes on the farm that they have, to keep the next generation on the farm, so the retiring people don’t have to move out of their house to allow the next generation to move in.

Again, a bit of a long-winded way to ask the minister: is this announcement also going to affect ALR land and people who are hoping to build more homes on their property to keep family on the farm?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member. This applies to single-family lots. It’s not ALR zoning. It is our belief that ALR land is for food. I think it’s a simple answer for the member. This is focused on the single-family lots zoning.

M. Bernier: So we’ll have a 1,000-acre chunk of land with one house on it. All I’m trying to say is if we’re really trying to fix this problem that…. We all acknowledge that we have a housing crisis in B.C. Has the minister spoken with the Minister of Agriculture to say: “Here’s a great idea. Why don’t we allow farmers to have more properties so they can keep the families close to the farm?” Is the minister saying this is only for municipalities? I think there’s a win-win here if we can solve this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member thinks this is a win-win, they can propose it in the next election and we’ll have that discussion then.

M. Bernier: That’s an interesting answer. Is the minister saying that he doesn’t feel that farmers should be allowed to have multiple residences and keep the family on the farm? Is that what he’s saying? Are we going to turn this into a political debate at the next election?

I thought we were trying to solve the problem of a housing crisis here in the province of British Columbia. One of the ways we can solve it is for allowing more densification, properly done, on large agricultural land. I’m not using an example of a large home on a small ten-acre farm. I’m using the example of a small home on a 1,000-acre farm that could build one or two more, maybe even put in a modular home, something like that.

All I’m asking the minister…. I mean, if he wants to make this a debate at the next election, that’s unfortunate. We’ve already lost six years of trying to build housing for people. If he wants to waste another year and a half, that’s fine. But what I’m trying to say is I think we have an opportunity in front of us. Is the minister actually considering talking to the Minister of Agriculture, since he is the Housing Minister? To me, housing is not exclusive for municipality. Housing is housing, and there’s an opportunity here we should be looking at. Can you look at that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member the Homes for People strategy, and currently that is not part of it.

M. Bernier: Well, that’s interesting. I mean, we will have to canvass that one at a later date, because I do find it really…. We do have lots of time and I can go for days on this, if the minister chooses. He knows that I’m never shy or short of words on an issue — on any issue, for that matter, unfortunately.

I just wanted to flag that because it is unfortunate, the answer, as we just heard from the minister, when it sounds like…. You know, he says: “Here, we’re open to ideas.” He actually just said to me a few moments ago: “If the member has any ideas that will help, bring them forward.” Well, I just did. Here’s an answer to the problem that we have in front of us. Huge opportunities for rural British Columbia, which would help alleviate the pressures.

[6:20 p.m.]

I’m not going to ask another question on that, because I think we’ve heard from the minister that he doesn’t want to answer that one or talk about it. He’d rather make it a political debate a year and a half from now, or sooner. You never know when that may or may not come.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, I do appreciate that the minister is now speaking for the Premier. He has that right.

Okay. I’m actually going to sit for a moment, if you don’t mind, after that monologue, where I was going with a good question. But I do have a member that wants to ask one.

I. Paton: I’ll be short and sweet, but I thought I’d jump up, since this is something I pushed for, for many years, about more residences on farms for the next generation to be able to stay on the farm rather than commute 28 kilometres in Smithers to an apartment when they have to get to their parents’ dairy farm in Smithers.

My question is simply this. My colleague is suggesting a 1,000-acre farm in the Peace country. But right in the Fraser Valley, in Delta alone, there are parcels in the ALR that are half an acre, an acre or maybe two acres in size. My question: what is the difference between an 11,000-square-foot lot in Shaughnessy versus a single-family home on a one-acre lot in Delta? Why wouldn’t the one-acre lot in Delta have the same rights to rezoning or upzoning with a fourplex by tearing down an older farmhouse on that one acre versus a big 11,000-foot lot in downtown Vancouver?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. I know the member was….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, I was going to say it looks like it’s a comfortable seat over there that he’s in. But it’s okay.

What I will say is that I know the member was on council for a long time, so maybe I’ll flip the question back to him and say: how many large homes did they approve when he was on council for farmers that were looking to have multigenerational families on it? I say this not as a disparaging thing, but I’ve had many people that have owned farms in Delta come to me frustrated because Delta would not allow them to build more homes. I can actually share with the member offline some of those builders, some of those farmers that have had concerns.

What we’re talking about here is not ALR land. I appreciate the member’s advocacy for this, but I can share with him that there has been considerable concern being raised by farmers, in particular in Delta, about the need and desire to build larger homes for multigeneration. People felt that they weren’t heard.

The question isn’t: was the decision right or wrong? The decision was made by the council of the time. They considered all the things in front of them. But fundamentally, I believe the decision was made because there’s a deep understanding that, yes, we can have multigenerational families live in the home. I have cousins who have three families living in one house on a farm in Richmond. That’s okay. But what we’re talking about here with the housing strategy is not ALR land.

Certainly, if the member wants to advocate around ALR land and homes being built on ALR land, of course it’s in his purview. He can do so, but that would be with the Ministry of Agriculture.

M. Bernier: Apologies from this side of the House for the question being asked not from the seat. We know the rules, and that was a slip on our part. It’s important to acknowledge when a mistake was made. I’m looking forward to the minister, for all his mistakes, acknowledging them someday.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m not even going to touch that one from the minister.

I think one more, one last question just on this train of thought, not so much from the agriculture, just on the whole talk, then, of the cost pressures on municipalities. I talked about OCPs. I talked about a little bit of the DCCs as well.

What I’m curious about, to the minister: as they’re looking at imposing some of this upzoning, is there any plan from this government through that on reforming the development cost charges or community amenity contributions that are required to maybe help minimize some of the cost pressures that are then downloaded onto homebuyers or renters?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are consulting with local governments right now on how we can build more certainty. We appreciate that local governments need access to resources to be able to build community amenities and build infrastructure. We also know there’s a need for more certainty around formulas and how we charge these things and more certainty around it on the front end, so that when a proponent comes through the door, they know upfront what that cost will be. Then they can proceed knowing the cost.

We think that certainty will help more projects come through the back end in a good way.

M. Bernier: I just want to go on a different tangent now for a moment. Some of it’s specific to my region, but I think we can talk about it in generalities, as well, for a lot of areas. This is back to some of the conversation a little earlier.

The minister is well aware of some of the pressures that I’m faced with in a community like mine, like Tumbler Ridge, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, places where we have a shortage of affordable housing. And by that, I mean government affordable housing, so through B.C. Housing units.

The minister is aware that the community of Tumbler Ridge is having a lot of pressure right now. I know I’ve brought it up here in question period. I’m not going to go to that angle. But I’m just curious if the minister can help me out on what the plan will be for the community of Tumbler Ridge specifically and if his staff can help them with that information. We are hearing that B.C. Housing wants to — due to cost pressures, I’m hearing — tear down or eliminate or stop using some of the B.C. Housing units, which is of obviously huge concern to a small community like Tumbler Ridge.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. There’s a site, Chamberlain Place — it’s actually empty right now. There’s actually nobody living in the building. For a long time there was a desire to move people in there, but it’s just not in good condition. So B.C. Housing is assessing what can happen on that site, given that it’s now empty. We have a Hartford site there as well, which has some vacancies, but it continues to operate.

If the member, at a later point, wants to come to me about more specifics of which building besides those two… I know that I’ll be meeting with the mayor soon, so perhaps I can give an update after that.

M. Bernier: I should acknowledge on the record, too, and thank the minister for willing to meet with mayor and council. I think it’s an important thing to do, because we get caught up sometimes with too many rumours of what may or may not be happening, or misunderstanding through different agencies of what the intentions are. So of course, from a local government perspective and a community perspective, in absence of all the information or at least information that they have readily available, it brings grave concerns.

The minister can appreciate I’m hearing not only from local government but I’ve got quite a few young, single mothers — dads, in some cases, too — who are looking, in trying times, for affordable housing units. Typically in our small communities, the majority of the smaller affordable housing units tend to be B.C. Housing. They tend to be your small apartments or small fourplexes. So it’s a concern if we have vacancy when we know there is a need.

I don’t want to pre-empt, I guess, the meeting that the minister is going to have with mayor and council from Tumbler Ridge that I know are coming — and thank him, again, for that — but from a general standpoint, when we look at the communities in rural British Columbia, and I know this from being the former Housing critic, there are a lot of B.C. Housing units in our smaller communities that are vacant.

When I looked into it and talked to people, a lot of them tend to require, for different reasons, a fair bit of maintenance, a fair bit of cleaning, upgrading, supports to make them properly inhabitable for a young family or single individual who’s looking for B.C. Housing supports.

Can the minister explain: how does that process work when it comes to the maintenance aspect, when it comes to B.C. Housing? We talk about the capital a lot, of building more infrastructure, but how would it work in these communities?

Tumbler Ridge, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd. Again, I’m going to speak specifically to mine, but it’s other areas as well. If a place is vacant…. Yes, it costs sometimes a lot of money, and those costs are only going up. Is the plan to renovate these to get them back in the market, or is the government hold on them and let them sit vacant to look at what the other opportunities are for that property?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Hartford site in Tumbler Ridge is for seniors, and they have vacancies. I know we’ll have a further conversation with the mayor, but there may be opportunities for individuals, where there’s one person working and the other one not, to support individuals with RAP funding just to make sure that they have housing. But we’ll look at the individual’s solutions as we move forward and as the member brings them forward.

The question around facility conditions. B.C. Housing monitors the physical condition of the social housing stock through a facility condition index. The FCI is an indication of the condition of the building in which lower value corresponds to a better building condition. B.C. Housing set for 2023-24 an overall target at 16 to 21 percent for the condition of provincial social housing stock. This target is calculated using a five-year projected average of the condition of social housing stock, and this is an industry standard approach. As of March 31, 2022, the facilities condition index of the housing portfolio was at 19 percent, so better than the target.

Without investment through the capital renewal fund in FCI, we reached 23 percent by the end of the year. I can share with the member that in 2018, the capital renewal fund is a ten-year, $2 billion investment. That goes towards renovating our stock over time.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I understand how the FCIs and everything work on a lot of government infrastructure — how we do that process.

I guess the ask and the acknowledgment as well is that especially when we have the impacts in smaller communities…. The impacts are everywhere. I’m not taking away from that, but for a small community like Chetwynd or Tumbler Ridge, which might only have six units, let’s say, to lose one or two units that require renovation, that’s a huge impact to our communities. If you wanted to quantify it on a ratio, it would be like Vancouver overnight losing 100,000 units in one night. That’s the kind of impact that it has on a small community.

I’m only flagging that because I think it’s important that we acknowledge that it might only be one or two units, but those are important. I appreciate the acknowledgment and then thank the minister, again, for his willingness and candidness to meet with the mayor and council to try to work on that.

When we talk about some of the other issues around homelessness…. I kind of bridge to that a little bit, because when we have people who are having a hard time finding affordable housing, it kind of takes us into an avenue of the very unfortunate situation of homelessness. This hits, again, every community on a different scale.

I want to ask the minister, though, if he’s able to share this with me…. There was a facility that was built a few years back in Dawson Creek. This one was flagged for me, and I was asked to ask about this, because there are a lot of community questions that I cannot get straight answers on.

We have a property that this government came in and worked with….I think “worked with” is probably loosely used, because they kind of told the local government that they wanted to bring in a modular housing complex. It’s on 105th Avenue in Dawson Creek, if your staff is wondering, but I’m sure they’re aware of it. It’s, I think, the only one that’s built in the last few years in Dawson Creek.

The concept and idea was well received, in the sense of how it was told and sold to the local community. This was going to be a transition home with full services to help people who are in a temporary situation of requiring housing while that bridges them into another opportunity to get into either a rental…. Typically rental, not necessarily market housing right away.

It could be somebody fleeing domestic violence. It could be a young person who’s struggling with addictions issues and mental health issues that was couch-surfing, and it gave them an opportunity not to be doing that in a bit of a transition into a better pathway.

[6:40 p.m.]

Where I’m going with this is this has now turned into the number one place in our community that the RCMP and community members tell me where most of the violence is happening, most of the drug use is happening and most of the drug sales are happening. This is right across the street, in downtown Dawson Creek, from our community daycare and youth arts centre.

I think the minister can appreciate the pressure that local governments and myself and others are faced with. That’s not what this process was supposed to be, and we have quickly lost support from the community now for this facility, which is unfortunate, because I think most would argue the facility could have some need there.

What is this government doing to try to get things like this back on track? What are they doing to look at a facility to make sure the supports are there, that the people that are using the facility are actually using it for the intended purpose and that those that really require the need are getting it so that we don’t have people having open drug use, falling asleep on the streets, and the open violence that we’re seeing now — and I wish I was exaggerating when I say — 20 feet from the door of the youth daycare that we have in our community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re trying to get a hold of local staff that are in the region working on it, and we’re having a little challenge getting to them. But maybe I can follow up with the member on more specifics. I can just share that I know that there was a town hall. There were concerns raised, I think, last year.

[6:45 p.m.]

Some of the work that has been happening is that we’ve set up a community advisory committee there so that local businesses and the not-for-profit that’s operating them have a place for concerns to be raised so they can try to address them. Some of the challenges may be people that live there, but I understand that some of the challenges could be also others that are homeless coming to the site.

Again, I can’t really provide the details, because we were trying to find the local person to give us information, and they’re not available right now. Maybe I can follow up with the member on more details.

M. Bernier: Actually, an easy way would be if the minister would give that local person permission to reach out to me instead of using the minister as a middleman.

The only reason why I flagged that is whether that’s with….

I would really appreciate the opportunity, at a local level, for the local mayor and council, myself, the service provider and people that have the local knowledge to actually…. This can be done when session is finished, if the minister agreed.

I think this would really go a long way to try to alleviate some of the confusion, hopefully misunderstanding, that we have in the region.

Also, it would help acknowledge, maybe, some of the pressures that people can address. I wish my community was unique, but it’s not. We’re hearing this in a lot of communities all around the province where the intention was good. The outcomes have not met the intention.

I will tell you, as a local MLA, that local mayors, everybody on this side of the House, want those intentions to work. They want it to be successful because they’re our communities, but it’s not working.

I’ll share with the minister just one of the concerns that comes with this as well, and he quickly kind of acknowledged it in his comments — people who are coming in who are homeless.

One of the biggest issues some of our smaller communities are facing is the very quick conversation that takes place, I hate to say, on social media and other areas, though, where people see open drug use, open homelessness, in our communities that we’ve never seen before.

They point the finger at the facility because they say that’s what’s brought this in. They also point the finger at buses that are coming to our community from other communities and people getting off who appear to be homeless. They’re not local residents, but we don’t have the facilities for them either, which is just compounding the issue.

Depending on who you ask in my community, some will say it’s 100 percent local people. These are people that were couch-surfing before, and now they’ve got a place to go.

There are people that were struggling with mental health addictions, and now they have a facility to go to. That’s not matching up with what we’re seeing in the community. I want to put those rumours to rest.

The minister can take that more as a comment so when we talk to a local person, they understand what those pressures are that we’re facing.

The only other thing I’ll say to that is the minister will acknowledge, hopefully…. Are we looking at more supports to try to alleviate some of these pressures in these small communities?

Are we going to have local providers get the direction and the financial supports, even for staffing, to meet these issues that we’re facing?

Again, we’re seeing this all around the province where we get these facilities. We’re warehousing people, and then we’re trying to figure out how to deal with all of the issues that are coming because they don’t have the supports.

Small communities see it just like big communities. It’s not just the Downtown Eastside. It can be downtown Prince George, Dawson Creek, Kamloops, everywhere.

What are we doing to ensure that it’s not just a ribbon cutting of a building like this, that it’s also making sure the full supports are there and that when something is recognized that it’s not there, we’re fixing that gap, plugging that hole and putting in the supports?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple things.

The member was asking for, I guess, a briefing from B.C. Housing.

My office will work with B.C. Housing, with yourself, the mayor, if you like, and council to have a round table for a conversation. That’s no problem.

[6:50 p.m.]

I have to say, though, I reject this notion of warehousing. I know it’s part of the message box, and it’s being said often, over and over again.

We were talking earlier about Johnson Street in Victoria in 2016. When the government at the time — I think you were here — moved folks from the encampment into Johnson Street, was it thought of as warehousing then? No, it wasn’t. It was considered moving people into shelter to get supports.

I just reject that notion that it’s warehousing now and that it wasn’t warehousing then. What it was…. It was trying to get people out of encampments into housing — that’s what we’re trying to do — and give them supports.

That’s why we have mental health supports and other pieces there, 24-hour supports for people, so that they can get the supports they need. Now, I appreciate that the need is great. This is not just B.C. This is across the country — across North America, in fact.

The last question the member had was specifically around what supports we’re providing. B.C. Housing works with each partner to understand what the unique needs are, and we provide resources for them to do so.

I think when you have that conversation at that table, you’ll get a better sense of what work has been happening from B.C. Housing, from not-for-profit providers.

There may be some good ideas that come from that, and that’s a good thing. I think that’s good for the community. Certainly, it’ll be good for the member and for the mayor and council as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague for stepping in.

I don’t know if we’re noting the time quite yet or, if I’m going to start on a bit of a different set of questions, I’m only going to get the first one or two. Okay.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert 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 resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Coulter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, everyone. We will see you tomorrow morning bright and early, at ten o’clock.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.