Orders of the Day

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

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 17, Police Amendment Act.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING

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

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,033,255,000.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have some opening comments. I look forward to the exchange.

The opposition critic and I were just chuckling about the critic coming here and me having an entire team being with me, but I am fortunate to have an entire team with me doing some amazing work. And there are others that are watching right now from another room or in different offices.

I want to start by saying a big thank-you to all of them for the work that they do to ensure that people have housing. It’s not easy work; it’s difficult work. I’m really grateful to have so many amazing people supporting the work we’re doing, whether they be in our ministry or at B.C. Housing.

I’ve got with me my deputy minister, Teri Collins. I’ve got Tracy Campbell, the Master of Coin, sitting beside me. Vincent Tong, the CEO of B.C. Housing, is here with me; Meghan Will, my assistant deputy minister for homelessness; and Bindi Sawchuk, the assistant deputy minister for housing policy.

I want to thank them for the amazing work they do every single day, and I look forward to the exchange.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I may make a few opening remarks as well. I would like to thank the ministry staff. I know this is hard work. You never know what’s going to be asked, so you’ve got to be prepared for everything, so I appreciate the time.

I’d like to thank my team on this side of the House as well. I say that with jest because I actually do have a phenomenal group of researchers that help and support me and do their best to try and make me look smart, like I know what I’m talking about, and I really appreciate that.

I know both government and B.C. United, the opposition, want the same things. We want to get to that same place where British Columbians have affordable housing, quality housing, where we’re going to be able to have people come and live and stay here and be able to afford to have a nice, good life, as so many of us have had the honour of having for so many years here in British Columbia.

We have different ways to get there, different roads, and we may take a different direction, but I do know that ultimately, we are trying to get to the same place. We really have a focus on reducing barriers, reducing costs, reducing transaction fees, reducing all those things that are going to make it easier for all of us to get housing built and to provide clarity to British Columbians, to developers, to municipalities in terms of what we need to do and how we need to do it.

I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions, and I will hop into the first question.

What does the minister think of CMHC’s report last year that over 600,000 homes must be built by 2030 to make sure that B.C. is affordable, has affordable housing? Is it a reasonable number, and how on earth is it achievable for us?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, we pay close attention to any report that comes, whether it’s CMHC or elsewhere, and certainly, the numbers that have been highlighted from CMHC are ambitious. I think the member is very astute when it comes to this topic and understands that not only do we have a challenge ahead of us of how much housing we need; we also are dealing with global inflation, rising interest rates, a whole host of pressures, all at this time. It’s a bit of a perfect storm.

My general view of the targets is that they’re ambitious, and our goal is to ensure, as the member said, shared goals to ensure people have access to housing. So we’re monitoring that report. And of course, there’s a whole host of measures that we brought forward to get us on the path of ensuring we have enough housing for people.

K. Kirkpatrick: We’re going to be asking specific questions in a moment about where we are on each one of the targets that government had set.

A question in terms of trying to find information so that we could ask some of these questions is…. There used to be an affordable housing quarterly that was published. It does not seem to be published anymore. I’m just wondering why that had stopped. It’s the affordable housing quarterly progress reports.

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There were changes being made to the website so that we can make that information available. But for the member, we are going to print a copy from the service plan that has all the details laid out.

My staff will print off a copy and bring that over to you.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Was that a replacement for the affordable housing: quar­terly progress reports? Are they not going to be…? You’re giving me information that’s in the service plan as opposed to what B.C. Housing was providing previously?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, the intention is to be having that posted on the site. The information the member is looking for — we’ll get that to you shortly. But the intention is to have it up on the website so people can have access to it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m now going to ask the minister for how the ministry is doing on a set number of targets under the B.C. Housing programs. In previous times that we have met and had these conversations, I believe the minister got back to me in writing afterwards just to make sure I had those right numbers. But I’m very patient today, so I would actually hope that…. I’m very happy to wait to actually get these numbers.

If the minister can provide…. If you’d like me to go through one at a time, or if you’d like me to read the list of the different programs. You already know, I’m sure, what the programs are. If I can look to the minister and he can tell me how I would….

Thank you, through the Chair.

Affordable rental housing, rapid response to homelessness, deepening affordability, community housing fund, women’s transition housing fund, supportive housing fund, Indigenous housing fund, homelessness action plan and the HousingHub.

To clarify, I’d also like these numbers to be what is completed. It’s not what’s in progress, but what is actually completed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: For affordable rental housing, I can tell the member that there are 1,300 units in progress, 679 are complete, and 416 are in active construction.

Rapid response for homelessness, there are 1,894 in progress and 1,894 complete.

The community housing fund, there are 8,957 in progress, 2,585 are complete, and just under 4,000 are under construction.

Women’s transition house funding, there are 1,058 in progress, and 459 are complete.

The Indigenous housing fund, 1,559 are in progress, 623 are complete, and just shy of 600 are under construction right now.

[1:15 p.m.]

I think the member asked for the HousingHub provincial rental supply as well. There are 5,877 in progress, and 3,679 of them are complete.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Did the minister give me the supportive housing fund numbers? I don’t think I got those.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thought I did, but I’ll say it again. For the supportive housing fund, there are 4,454 in progress, 2,272 are complete, and just shy of 1,200 are under construction right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’d like to clarify that for the rapid response to homelessness, there are 1,894 complete, which is the exact same number as in last year’s estimates, 1,894 complete.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Correct. That program was completed at that time.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister and staff for that.

According to the Homes for B.C. plan, can the minister explain the methodology behind counting units as underway and how this aligns with physical construction progress actually happening on the ground?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To the member’s question, some are under construction, and some are just in the development phase. So that’s the difference there.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify the difference be­tween underway and the development phase. Is underway that shovels are in the ground? What is the minister counting in terms of progress? Is something 25 percent done? Are we coming up on completion? Underway can be a very broad way to describe something.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We use “completed,” “under construction” and “in progress” in the document, if the member is asking about that.

K. Kirkpatrick: How many of the 77,000 units included in the government’s figure are currently complete and habitable? How does this number compare to the total number of units promised, now that we’re 70 percent of the way through, or even more than 70 percent of the way through, the government’s ten-year housing plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that we are still on target. I can share with the member that 77,918 would be either complete or under progress, and 47,695 of those are available right now. With the trend line that we’re going on, we will hit our target.

K. Kirkpatrick: The inclusion of units subject to the speculation and vacancy tax in Metro Van and ban on strata rental restrictions in the total figures have been perceived as inflating the actual number of new homes created. I would say it’s inflating it, but certainly the media has flagged it as inflating the numbers. Could the minister itemize which units are newly built versus those made available through policy changes and reclassification of units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have been clear. I feel like we are in Groundhog Day, because this is the same conversation we had last year. We had made it clear that our housing plan at that time that was launched was through direct builds, through policy changes, and bringing housing back to the market. We were clear. In fact, the critic at the time from the opposition also verified that in estimates debates, which I believe, last year, I shared with the member.

[1:20 p.m.]

It’s always been the same, and we continue to remind people that it’s always been the same.

Now, these were targets that were set many years ago. If you look at the new initiatives, whether that’s small-scale, multi-unit, transit-oriented development, the whole host of changes that we debated at great length last session, we will greatly surpass the goals that were set out in that strategy.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will say to the minister that yes, you may get the same questions, because there is, perceivably, progress going forward and some of the answers may be changing over time. You may hear the same questions.

I will also just remind the minister that in 2017, it was: “We will build 114,000 affordable rental, non-profit, co-op and owner-purchase housing units through partnerships over ten years.” So there has been a difference between the word “build” and now including those units that have been really reclassified.

On the number that have been reclassified, can I just ask the minister, how is the ministry validating those numbers that are being given in the progress on housing targets? The ban on strata rental restrictions, for example…. I’ve got the number 2,000 here; I don’t know if that’s still the remaining number. How is the ministry actually tracking that, and what level of assurance can they give British Columbians that those numbers are actually accurate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I actually went back to our exchange from last year, and the question was the same and the answer was the same. Almost word for word, actually.

I did share with the member then, and I’ll re-emphasize it now, that when we launched the strategy, it was clear that it was new builds, as well as policy changes to bring housing back online. In fact, the critic at that time confirmed in estimates that that was the case, and I did share with the member the Hansard exchange. But I can, again, if it’s needed for the record, read that back into the record.

The question the member had around strata…. If the member can just kind of extrapolate what the member was referring to, that would be great.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’ll leave that first part alone, because we can go back and forth about what “build” means versus these other things. That was probably my colleague here as well.

In the number of the 77,000 — or what I’ve got is just under 75,000, but let’s say it’s 77,000 — I’ve got the number 2,000 as having actually been created as part of that number from the ban on rental restrictions or the removal of the ban on rental restrictions.

What I’m trying to understand is: how are those numbers legitimate? That’s what we were talking about previously. We’re not sure that those numbers are necessarily legitimate and should be included in the success of what government has created, because I don’t understand the metrics or way that that number is come up with — if that number is kind of a guesstimate of what might happen, or if there are hard facts that 2,000 units were actually created from that policy.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was actually reading our estimates exchange from last year. This question came up. I shared with the member…. The information from the Ministry of Finance was available to us. Approximately 2,900 units were captured by the speculation and vacancy tax because they were not able, at that time, to rent to other people. We had estimated, at that point, around 2,000 of those units.

That’s where the data came from. The answer is still the same as last year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I was asking about the lifting of the ban on rentals. That was the speculation tax. I’ll move on from that.

The reason for asking these questions is…. I just think it’s very difficult to poke at the numbers that government gives in terms of what they’ve actually created because there’s nothing there that you can specifically point to. People rent for all kinds of different reasons, or they don’t rent their units for all kinds of different reasons. If something has the spec tax, it doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is going to rent it out.

I also, as the minister knows…. I probably said last year. He can tell me if it’s in the estimates last year. There were a significant number of condominiums that moved from not having an age restriction to 55 plus. Where there may be 2,000 units…. If that is, in fact, the number that was created, I would like to know.

[1:30 p.m.]

I’m not asking him the question. I’m just making the statement that it could actually mean that there was a reduction in rental units that were available for people who were under 55. Again, it’s just really hard to put a pin in how those numbers all came to be.

I’m going to ask some questions on supportive housing. There are a few different themes here. I’m going to ask a question. Interestingly, this question was provided to me by a provider of supportive housing for government. The question is: can the minister please describe what supportive housing is?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Supportive housing is 24-seven supports and services for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

I suspect the member is going to RTA and RTA changes, which many in the sector are talking about. The courts have said to us to put a more clear definition of “transitional housing.” That is work that we’re going to do with the sector so that we’ve got clear definitions on that part. There’s more clarity for the courts and more clarity for the sector.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I wasn’t going to ask about the RTA. Since the minister has brought that up, I’ve got other questions with respect to this.

My understanding is that many supportive housing providers have actually come to government and asked for an exclusion for supportive housing from the RTA. One step that was taken, which is a good step, is…. The requirements for notice to enter a suite have been removed so that supportive housing providers can keep people safer and can, probably, save lives. They can have access to the suites to check on people.

What does the minister say to the question about removing supportive housing from the RTA so that housing providers can have a little bit more control, with the sole purpose of that being to keep people safe?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question.

I appreciate the recognition of the importance of ensuring that supportive housing providers can do wellness checks and have guest policies to ensure that people in the building that work there and that live there have a measure of safety. So safety for everyone — for the community, for the people who live there.

This change came directly…. In 2018, the Rental Housing Task Force made a recommendation — our Chair was on that committee — that this be done. We worked with the sector to make this change.

Now, we continue to have conversations with the sector on what more we can do to ensure that there are protections for people living in the sites and protections for people that work there, staff. It’s important to know there need to be some tenant protections for people. We need to ensure that the tenants have some rights. It’s always finding a balance between ensuring the safety of everybody in the community and the workers and also ensuring that these are human beings living in this building who deserve to have a level of rights available to them.

It is a conversation that is ongoing. We felt that these two changes were important for safety, and it was highlighted to us as an important change that needed to be made by the rental task force.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister.

I’m going to go back to my question about the definition of supportive housing and the minister’s response that it is housing that’s got 24-seven supports.

There are so many complexities in terms of the kinds of needs that people have in supportive housing. I would like the minister to explain the level of care that people in supportive housing require. What, if any, barriers are there to accessing housing in supportive housing for someone?

Please describe what supports are. “Supports” is a very vague reference to something. It could be somebody at a front desk as opposed to a medical professional who’s there to help someone.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to put on the record, for the record to show, that Vincent, our CEO of B.C. Housing, has amazing writing. I have to say. Well done.

Examples of support services available are room decluttering, life skills, community information, social programs, education, employment, life skills, case planning, resident needs assessments, assistance with ID and income assistance benefits, two meals per day, 24-hour staffing coverage.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will note the handwriting and congratulate….

I would like a little bit more on the staffing piece. That’s really where I was pressing. So 24-seven staffing does not answer the question in terms of what is supportive. You may have somebody who is overdosing at two o’clock in the morning, who is psychotic and becoming violent. There are a whole number of things that can happen. They are actually more apt to happen overnight than they are during the day. May I have a breakdown of what those supports are from a human resources perspective?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I recall that we had this conversation last year as well. I believe the MLA for Surrey South asked this question.

We have two FTEs available throughout the day.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister please explain to me what those FTEs are? Is that a social worker? Is it somebody at the front desk? What is the role and function of that staff?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Two FTEs is about six to eight employees. It varies. The skill sets can vary. It can be a social worker. It can be different types of staff. There’s a mix in the building.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That is not clear enough in terms of what supportive housing really is. There are so many different levels of support that people need. When we talk about two FTEs, for how many residents is that?

I still would really like to understand. There’s got to be kind of one model that government looks at or B.C. Housing looks at in terms of best practices, the kinds of supports that people need. Who needs to be there with what skill set at two o’clock in the morning? Your ministry’s contracts with the housing providers must detail and set out what these skill sets are.

I really want to understand, and maybe I’m not asking it the right way. But I want to have a picture in my mind in terms of somebody in a supportive housing project contract facility. What are they getting 24-seven in terms of supports? What are the skills that someone has?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It varies from site to site. It varies be­cause, in some areas, the needs…. At some sites, there’s the need, and the complexity is higher. At some sites, it’s less. So that’s why there’s a variance there. That’s why it’s not an exact piece, a cookie-cutter approach to every single site.

All the services that are laid out are what’s available to residents at all our sites. Health care services are available to all people in supportive housing. Those services come in from the Ministry of Health.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that there was a list provided to me in terms of what the supports are, but helping somebody with…. I don’t know if it’s résumé writing or a job search, some of these different things. That’s not what I’m looking for. I’m looking for when people are in crisis and it’s two o’clock in the morning. Who is it that is there to help and support them? Can it be…?

Actually, perhaps I will give an example. As the minister knows, I have brought up, and will probably read out of last year’s Hansard, the Travelodge in North Vancouver. Let’s just use the Travelodge in North Vancouver as a specific example so I can hear the minister describe what the staffing supports are at the Travelodge contract in North Vancouver.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is right. We did have this conversation last year.

The site would have someone at the front desk, and then it could be someone with different skill sets. It could be a social worker. It could be somebody that’s building maintenance. It could be someone else, but we always have two people.

The member asked specifically about the Travelodge, and I’ll provide an update to the member shortly. The team is just pulling up how many people are still there. As the member knows, we’re transitioning people out of that site. I know we’ve been trying to find homes for people, and certainly the new site that has just gone through council…. Hopefully that will have some ability for some people from that site to go as well.

We’ll get you that information in a couple of minutes.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that. I will look forward to that information, because I do think it’s going to be…. It’s easier for me to kind of understand what “supportive” means. Having a maintenance person and a front-desk person doesn’t give me confidence that somebody who has a critical health emergency or issue is going to be able to be appropriately supported. That is the reason for my question.

It has been pointed out to me that there are two numbers that I did not get with our previous questioning on the housing numbers update. So if I may just ask the minister and staff to go back. Two things that I don’t believe were said: the deepening affordability fund, where we’re at with that right now, and the homelessness action plan.

Hon. R. Kahlon: With the homelessness action plan, 542 are in progress, and 480 are complete. The deepening affordability, which is…. So 2,097 are in progress, and 2,023 of those are complete.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.

We know that the Victoria police chief has talked about criminals infiltrating social housing — a concern. This was a concern I raised last year to the minister, in terms of preying on vulnerable people. We were talking about the fact that there was no controlled access to the Travelodge in North Vancouver and the concern that you’ve got particular women, vulnerable women, who are being housed in these places where they can be trafficked, taken advantage of.

Those were some of the concerns I raised last year, but now the police chief is confirming that there are serious issues and poses safety issues to vulnerable people in supportive housing.

[1:50 p.m.]

Does the minister believe that the practice of buying up unsuitable hotels has contributed to the inability of the ministry to manage rampant crime in B.C. Housing sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The chief was referring to a specific site which was in fact purchased by the B.C. Liberal government when they were decamping people from the city of Victoria. I recall having had this exchange with my friend across the way. I think that at the time the government was trying to do the right thing. They had people in an encampment, and they were trying to get them indoors as fast as possible. I met with Chief Manak multiple times about this topic.

Courts had ruled that they were not able to put guest policies and wellness checks policies in place, which led to some challenges in the community. That’s why, when we made the policy changes to the RTA to ensure that the providers can do the wellness checks and have guest policies to control the flow of people coming in and out, it was to help support the safety not only of the people that worked there but of the people that were residing there.

The member will know that Chief Manak provided a quote in the release. When we first met, he had highlighted that this was a particular challenge. I know he was pleased to see that concern reflected in the change that we made. It’s a sad reality that we’ve got people who try to exploit the most vulnerable people in our society. It’s awful, and it’s unfortunate, but it does happen. By putting these policies in place, we believe we’ve made supportive housing sites much safer across the province.

It’s also important to note…. I was clear with my conversation with Chief Manak: where would we rather have people? Would we have people sleeping in a park, in city hall on the front lawn, or would we rather have them in supportive housing? We both clearly agreed that having people in housing, having the supports around them, was vitally important.

I do appreciate the concern that Chief Manak raised, or that any police chief raises, around sites. It’s our work and responsibility not to throw out all supportive housing, not to throw out all housing options for vulnerable people but to address the specific challenges.

We had another challenge in Prince George with an individual who was, I guess, using one of the units to hide their stuff. In that case, in many cases, our not-for-profit providers actually work really closely with police. This is not us versus them. This is a collaborative effort, and police are able to move in to make sure that the residents are safe and that the community is safe as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Chief Manak, in an April 17 article, said that most of the B.C. Housing supportive housing sites have embedded criminals in them. Can the minister explain why that is different than what he has just told me, about the chief referring only to one site?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, Chief Manak will have to speak to the comments that Chief Manak made. I can tell the member that when I’ve spoken to him, I think he would share what he shared with me: there are sites that have challenges, but it would not be fair to characterize every single supportive housing site with criminal activity. I know the member has done this work and has supported vulnerable people. I think the member would agree with me that the last thing we want to do is stigmatize vulnerable people more than they already are stigmatized.

This narrative that every single person who has had a tough time in their life and doesn’t have a home is a criminal is something that I reject strongly. Where there are challenges, that’s where we have to step in and make sure that we take action.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s unfortunate. There are people out there that are trying to exploit our most vulnerable people, and we need to continue to have partnerships with our not-for-profits, local government partners and police at the table. We have those tables set up in many communities around the province, and they’ve been really helpful for us to be able to address challenges as they come up.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, I wonder how it is that the police chief can say something and it’s quoted, and the minister is telling me that that’s not either what the reality is or what the police chief said. I can assure the minister — I appreciate he recognizes some of the work that I’ve done previously — that no one on this side of the House is saying that people in supportive housing are all criminals. The concern isn’t the people who are living in the supportive housing. It’s the people who are preying on them and the criminals that are preying on them.

I certainly can understand why someone who is homeless, who is unhoused, who is in a park, may feel safer staying there in a tent than they would moving into a supportive housing project site, because they don’t feel safe in that site. I’ve heard it from different housing providers.

Can I ask the minister, then: what is being done now that the ministry, presumably and hopefully, has been made aware that these kinds of things have been going on? What is the ministry doing now to assess all of the housing sites and make a determination as to whether criminal activity has actually infiltrated and even replaced some of the residents?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ll leave it to Chief Manak to explain his comments. I can just share with the member the conversations that he and I have had.

Chief Manak has also made it clear, on the record, that they have a good partnership with our not-for-profit partners. There are discussions happening all the time about how we can ensure that people are safe. I would say, to the member’s question about what has been done around Victoria, the wellness checks and the guest policies are what have been done. That has made a substantial difference. The guest-policy piece was the number one ask from Chief Manak. He believed that having that ability to know who’s coming in and going out is very important.

In the site that I mentioned earlier where there were particular challenges, fencing ensures that people are not coming in from multiple doors and going out from multiple doors. They’re coming in from one door and out from one door, so staff have a better line of sight. That was an important step that we had to take.

We have been responding to where there are challenges. For this one in particular, the chief was on the news release with us, praising this important step.

I thank him for bringing information to us about where there are challenges so we can work together to address them.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand that there’ll be changes so that we know who’s going in and out, and on guest management. What about those sites that don’t have controlled access? I’ll use the Travelodge as an example. I know that there are other B.C. Housing sites that don’t have fences around them and don’t have one door for access. There are the old kinds of motels that you could just walk in and out of the doors. What is happening with respect to initiatives there to make sure that people are staying safe?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, on the purpose-built sites, because they’re purpose-built, it’s easier to have all those pieces in, but they also take time. On many of the sites where we know there are going to be people there for a longer period of time, B.C. Housing goes in, does assessments and puts in pieces to ensure that the safety measures are there.

The site, the Travelodge, was temporary in nature. As I mentioned already, people are already being transitioned out and moved to another location. But we do…. B.C. Housing does go in on assessments, puts fencing, makes changes to the building structure, wherever it’s possible, to ensure that there’s a good line of sight of who’s coming in and who’s going out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The temporary nature of the Travelodge has been…. I think we’re coming up on three years now, but we don’t need to debate what temporary is.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I have spoken to housing providers who have said that they have challenges with B.C. Housing in getting health, safety and security funding, which is quite significant, particularly in some of the areas where these sites are oper­ating. My understanding is that in the Downtown Eastside area, when staff will call for VPD support, there is a hesitancy for police to respond to a supportive housing site unless they have ten or 12 officers with them.

Is this, to B.C. Housing’s knowledge and to the minister’s knowledge, a realistic challenge that is happening right now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve been down to the Downtown Eastside a lot, visiting supportive housing. I’ve seen police arrive on site. I’ve never seen them arrive with ten or 12 officers.

I am not quite sure what this particular person had shared with the member, but from my conversations with Vancouver police department officers, that’s the last thing that they want to do: to show up with that many officers. That is escalating situations. That actually makes it more problematic, more challenging for them to control the site. So I’m not particularly sure about what this individual, perhaps, had shared with the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the minister’s response to that. It’s difficult when one isn’t given a specific example.

It was clear, however, that there are concerns, with the providers, that they’re not being funded enough for security gates, and they’re not being funded enough for security. There has been a change in the nature of supportive housing and drug use, and there have been a number of social issues that have really changed how these sites are operating and the safety of these sites and the level of violence of some of the residents and people going into the sites.

I would ask if B.C. Housing is aware there have been requests for health, safety and security, as part of the contracts, which have not been addressed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by disagreeing with the person who shared this information with the member, that B.C. Housing doesn’t provide supports for health and safety. B.C. Housing does provide supports.

[2:05 p.m.]

But I think it’s not a surprise to anyone that works in this space or, quite frankly, any other space where not-for-profits are operating, that there’s always a need for more money. There’s always a need for more dollars. We are providing a significant amount of dollars to support supportive housing.

B.C. Housing, myself…. We really value our partners and the work they do. It’s important work. It’s hard work. These folks that work there care deeply about providing supports for the most vulnerable.

We have created the table. We’ve been working with our partners to find out what challenges they have, where there could be additional dollars and, also, from us, from a government perspective, how we can get greater clarity about where dollars are going. I think for this process, for the public…. Everybody needs to know. It’s a conversation that’s going on right now. We’re committed. We’re at the table, and we’re going to continue to work with them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The minister and I may disagree in terms of how rampant the embedded crime is in the different supportive housing sites. We do know that it is happening.

How is the ministry enhancing protocols for reporting and responding to criminal activities within supportive housing, especially considering the fear of retribution that may prevent residents from coming forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Many of our supportive housing sites…. We have tables where we’ve got community — often police, not-for-profit, local government officials — where these conversations happen. I think it’s fair to say, in some cases, individual tenants may be afraid to speak up or to say things. But when you build those relationships over time and that trust is built, that’s when things happen.

I won’t name a specific site, but I will say…. I was talking to a police chief within the last six months about a major, I guess, move that they made into a supportive housing site. It was done because of the people that lived there, the people that work at the site and the not-for-profit provider working together. So these conversations happen.

How do we ensure that those relationships are built? Well, it’s by having the people in the homes, having the staff there, constantly providing them supports. There’s enough trust built so that this information can be shared. That’s the work that happens every single day.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I have heard stories, again talking to some of the housing providers, and I’ve seen this firsthand. In a supportive housing site, you have a single woman who is in a unit. You have another unit where there may be a man who is quite aggressive or has psychotic outbursts. They’re in an active addiction. How do you make sure that those vulnerable residents, when they’re all mixed together…? People have different requirements and different needs. How do you keep those residents safe?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have community access tables, tables with providers and outreach workers, where they discuss individuals that are living in supportive housing or sometimes individuals that are in shelters trying to get into supportive housing.

[2:10 p.m.]

If those types of incidents arise, often what happens is that when a new spot opens up at that table, they discuss moving this individual to another place. Not only does that table help create a mix of residents in a building, so that it’s not too many people with too many challenges overloading one particular site, but they also have the ability to move people out to something that is more appropriate for them. Those shifts between locations are happening often.

It’s also important to note that if you’ve got an encampment or you’ve got people living there, we offer locations. We offer them an opportunity to go and look at the supportive housing site or the shelter location that they can potentially move into. But we want them to feel comfortable. Sometimes it takes a week or two weeks for people to say, “Yeah, I accept this place,” but it’s an important step, so that they’re not going into it and then saying, “Hey, forget this,” and then going back out.

K. Kirkpatrick: That just made another question come to mind. I had a supportive seniors project have this challenge with one of the residents. If you do have that scenario that I described previously, if the ministry has that scenario, is the RTA a barrier for actually moving people between different sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If an individual is disruptive and is putting the health and safety of others at risk, there are provisions within the RTA for action to be taken. They’re also often our not-for-profit providers. If they do identify someone, they try to find a better fit for that individual. At the end of the day, if you’re in a shelter or supportive housing, yes, you may have some challenging individuals, but if you kick them out, then they’re just on the street.

Our partners work the best they can to try to find a situation that is a better fit for that individual.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I think people that are working in supportive housing are saints. They have one of the most difficult jobs I can possibly imagine, and the kindness, care and compassion that I have seen from staff of these various housing providers are breathtaking. I appreciate that they are doing the best that they can and that there are very difficult, challenging issues that they have to deal with.

When there is a rapid movement, when there’s decamping or you are moving people from street living quickly into shelter, I have always wondered how it was determined who went where. When there was a big decampment in Vancouver, there were two housing projects that were developed by the Cambie Street Bridge. I don’t know the exact address, but I think you know where I mean — across from BCH head office.

How is it determined? What are the procedures to thoroughly vet individuals before they’re placed in different supportive housing sites, particularly during those rapid transitions? I know that we want to protect those who need low-barrier access to housing, but what kind of vetting is done to try and reduce the challenges that we were just talking about?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s an interesting question. I think many British Columbians would probably want to know how it happens. The answer is a little bit complex, but I will go into it a little bit.

When you have individuals, let’s say, that are in an encampment, what we want to do is to ensure that people are being moved to shelters, where there are assessments done, so that we can identify the needs of individuals, get to know the person, see what barriers and challenges they have, what kind of level of support they need. Shelters provide an opportunity for us to triage, to be able to see…. The individual, in some cases, may just need a rent supplement to be able to get into market housing.

When I first became the Minister of Housing, I was at an announcement, probably two weeks in, with Mayor Sim, with the Premier and with Melanie Mark, who was an MLA here. There was an individual, who came over to the event, who wanted to talk to me and the mayor and the Premier. He described exactly what we’re trying to do.

He said: “Well, I was living here on this corner. I got into that shelter over there,” and he pointed it out. He got into the supportive housing, which is literally next to the supportive housing that we were announcing that day. Then he was describing to us his new rental apartment that he had moved into.

That is what we want to see in an ideal way, but it’s not necessarily always that way. I think, in a perfect world, you’d have that flow happen. But this is a continuum, and sometimes people go back to the beginning. Sometimes they need to go back to supportive housing.

The community access tables are vitally important for us, because they build those relationships on the ground. We have folks doing that in Prince George. We have folks doing that in Abbotsford right now. We have folks doing that in Nanaimo, where they’re on the ground building relationships, trying to understand the needs of individuals. The greater challenge comes when people don’t want to go into shelters. Those are the complexities that we deal with from community to community. It is really trying to get an understanding of people.

I think I shared this last year with the member: when that situation happened, when there was an encampment in the city of Victoria under the previous government, I do think that the decision to move everybody into a hotel was the best decision that could have been made at the time. You want to make sure people have housing, so there was a hotel purchased, and it was moving people inside.

What we’ve learned from that process is that although it might feel like the fastest thing to do just to get people inside, we need to have a process of where we can build the relationship and get an understanding of who’s who. So not to asperse anything against what decision was made — I think it was made with the information that was had at the time — but it has implications in the long term.

Those are the conversations we have with local governments, where somebody might say: “Well, you’ve got ten people here. Just move everybody in.” Well, we can’t necessarily do it that way because we don’t want to have long-term problems. We want to identify people’s unique challenges and try to get the best fit, because that means long-term success.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I love the story of this person who had success. I agree with the minister that that’s what we’re looking for. We want to support people.

I do think when it’s not successful, we have to look back at what supports are in place in the shelters, the supportive housing and along the continuum. I’m just not seeing, in the supportive housing sites that I’ve been to and in the answers I’m getting from the minister, that we truly, truly understand what supports are required and that we have those proper supports there.

I’m going to move on to another issue. We’re still going to stay on supportive housing.

[2:20 p.m.]

There has been recently — this is not going to be a surprise to you, with the conversations about nurses and hospitals — fentanyl contamination in the air at supportive housing facilities, which poses serious issues to both residents and staff. The Victoria Cool Aid Society discovered that it had concerning levels of fentanyl in the air at one of their housing sites, and it was exceeding occupational safety limits. It was identified through air quality testing that had been initiated, and it had been initiated because there were a number of illnesses with their staff — vomiting, headaches, something that was out of the ordinary for times in past.

It’s a non-smoking building, so it’s suspected increased smoking of drugs is the cause, and that’s compounded by poor ventilation in the old motel structure. Interim safety measures are mandatory masks for people and restricted access to the site.

Can the minister provide data on the number of complaints related to airborne fentanyl exposure in supportive housing in the last five years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t have data for WorkSafe, but I can share with the member that there were two sites, at Tally Ho and the Queens Manor, where issues arose.

Important for the record, the not-for-profits reached out to us, and the challenge was different, slightly, at each. Queens Manor — just poor circulation in the building. No-smoking policies, of course, exist, and the challenge is there are sometimes people that do.

The decision to wear PPEs, masks, is when an individual goes to knock on a door where they suspect somebody is smoking. It’s out of protection for the person working. Those are the protocols we put in place. Again, if they suspect somebody is smoking, of any kind, we ask them to wear that just out of safety, especially in those buildings where there was poor circulation.

Now, at Queens Manor, the shift is happening, people moving from that location. And the Tally Ho not only has the policy to ensure that if a worker feels that there might be a risk, that they have equipment there, but it’s also…. They implemented a whole host of policies. They actually have, now, a no-visitor policy. No one is allowed visiting that site, because that’s what they found was happening, where people would come, and then that is when it happened. We took other action like building fencing around the site and a whole bunch of measures.

In the end, worker safety is our priority when a not-for-profit comes forward and says: “Hey, this building is old. We have poor circulation. We’re worried. We want to make sure that people are protected.” But in the end, we have policies that say you’re not allowed smoking inside. You’re not supposed to be smoking in any rooms. The challenge is they have individuals who do still do that. We’ll continue to work with our partners to reinforce the rules of buildings to ensure that everybody is safe.

[2:25 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’d just like to clarify, as I was thinking about it when the minister was speaking. If it is a non-smoking building, and when it was originally determined to be a non-smoking building, does that non-smoking include the smoking of drugs on site, or is the non-smoking just related to cigarettes and maybe cannabis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No smoking of anything. No smoking of anything in the units. That’s the policy. And again, in cases like this, where a not-for-profit proactively comes to us and says, you know, “we’ve got an issue; individuals continue to break these rules, and we’re worried about safety of our staff,” it’s incumbent on all of us to ensure that everybody that works in this space is safe.

The member said earlier that people who do this work are saints; I agree 100 percent. So for us, it was to ensure that there were policies in place to make sure people are safe. The policy is if they knock on a door where they suspect somebody is smoking, out of abun­dance of caution…. It doesn’t matter what they’re smoking. Out of an abundance of caution, we just want the protection to be there for the workers.

K. Kirkpatrick: Has the problem escalated since the introduction of decriminalization?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re not aware of any escalation. I would say this is a challenge that’s been, whether it’s SROs or supportive housing, for as long back as I can remember. This is a topic that’s been top of mind with fire officials, when you talk to folks in Vancouver and Victoria. So no, there hasn’t been.

Now, I don’t know if we want to get into this conversation, but I’ll touch on it briefly, which is to say that everyone knows that fentanyl is killing people. We have seen an increase in the toxicity of the drugs that are on our streets since the pandemic. It was during a time when the ports were shut down. Everything was shut down. Things weren’t moving. Quite frankly, drug dealers, etc., have found new ways of making drugs that are so much more toxic than they’ve ever been. And this is not just in Vancouver; this is a North America challenge.

That being said, when it comes to supportive housing, there hasn’t been anything different than what we’ve been seeing, unfortunately, for a long time.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

With COVID, we became acutely aware of the challenges with proper ventilation in our schools, in particular. So when I hear about, you know…. We’re looking at hospitals, but when we’re looking at supportive housing, these are older buildings, and there are going to be challenges with air circulation, filtration.

I am wondering if B.C. Housing is looking at investment in current sites in order to recognize the reality that we have this increased indoor smoking of fentanyl and other drugs that are toxic and get into the air system. Is B.C. Housing looking at any changes to its re­quirements for appropriateness of facilities to accommodate these new issues?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing does assessments of all of their buildings of where there might be challenges.

We spent some time talking about the Tally Ho, for example, where there is poor circulation of air through the premises. That’s why, right behind it, we’re building a new building so that we can move people into something that’s more safe and that meets the needs and what we’ve learned since the pandemic.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Are all supportive housing facilities required to have drug consumption spaces? Are they inhalation spaces or solely for injection?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s no requirement for supportive housing to have this.

I think that the challenge is…. The member will recognize…. In many supportive housing sites, you will have people who have addictions issues. When there are individuals with addictions issues…. Many of our providers will try to have a place for supervised, I guess, forms of consumption, but there’s no requirement for it.

In the end, it’s about trying to save lives. I think the reason why so many people support that concept is…. It’s better to have someone there with a health professional so that they’re not overdosing and dying alone in one of the rooms. But it’s not a requirement.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I very much care about the safety of the people who are living in the supportive housing sites. I also care very much about these heroic employees who are working in these sites as well. That’s where these questions are coming from.

Do I understand from the minister, then…? Does the housing provider have a choice as to whether…? Do they make a determination in terms of whether they need to provide this space, or is it something that’s actually set out in the contract, where it is required?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our contracts require the not-for-profit to have some form of harm reduction supports, but we don’t specify, necessarily, what that should be. Each of the not-for-profits, especially the not-for-profits who operate multiple sites, have a good understanding of the needs of the individuals.

The member said that she cares deeply about not only the residents but also the people who work there. I certainly share that view as well.

[2:35 p.m.]

The member asked a question earlier. I want to touch on one other thing.

When we were talking about how people move from an encampment into housing…. I think it’s important to share with the member. Since last year’s discussion…. At Crab Park, we had over 130 people at one point. We have been actively working to try to get individuals indoors, building those relationships, creating spaces. We’re at 16. Now, 16 is still too many for many people.

People who do this work understand that moving individuals one by one, trying to find the right fit for them, is quite the challenge. So I want to take my hat off to folks at B.C. Housing, to our partners in the city of Vancouver and to the not-for-profit partners for the work they’ve been doing. Still much more work to do.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will say…. Many of us fly over to Victoria. We go over Crab Park. I have seen a reduction in the size there. That certainly is what we want to see: the ability to have the time to actually move people into the kind of housing that’s going to be appropriate.

What I’ve heard the minister say in our conversation here is…. There hasn’t been a significant increase in the rates of employees who are dealing with fentanyl issues and toxic drug supply or toxic drug ventilation and inhaling. That hasn’t been an increase. But we know that it’s happening. What resources are being provided to support housing staff who might be affected by such exposures?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that it’s, again, important to emphasize…. People who have addictions issues are going to find the drug one way or another. What’s important for us is…. How do we find ways to build relationships, build trust with individuals, ensure that they’re safe and then bridge them to supports and, ideally, get them to a place where we can get them into treatment and away from the challenges?

The member referred to the perspective of individuals that are working on these sites. When not-for-profits or their workforce come forward and say, “Hey, there’s a challenge; we have some concerns,” then we take steps like we did at the Tally Ho and the Queens Manor.

Protocols get put in place. If you’re knocking on a door where you suspect somebody is smoking, there’s equipment there for you, just to be safe, just to make sure that you’re protected. It could be a cigarette, but it could be something worse. We want to make sure that people have the protection for when they do knock on the door.

Those are the pieces that I highlighted, protocols that can be put in place. Those are the two sites where this issue came forward, in particular, because of circulation issues in older buildings. We’re doing the assessments of our buildings to make sure, when the situation arrives like the Tally Ho…. We start building a plan to demolish that building and build something that is more purpose-built and, perhaps, has better circulation and all the pieces that we want to see when we’re supporting some of the more vulnerable people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

A question just occurred to me. I think I know the answer based on what was said previously. This is not a supportive housing question.

In strata bylaws, where you have strata bylaws that have smoking restrictions in them…. Those smoking restrictions would also, then, be expanded to include the smok­ing of illicit drugs. I’m just clarifying. I believe, based on the previous answer, that’s the case.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff are not aware of a definition of what you’re smoking. Well, not what you are smoking but what a person is smoking. The act is just saying smoking in general. So it could be any product.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I thought that was the case. It had just occurred to me.

I am going to go back and ask yet another question on the housing progress. Then after I ask that question and it’s answered, I would like to ask for a short break, if we may.

The question that I have is…. The number…. Oh, my heavens. If you can bear with me for a second.

The numbers that have been given for 2024, based on our earlier conversations, are 14,702 new units. Now, that’s lower than the Homes for People backgrounder says have been created.

If you will bear with me, I do actually have the number. I’m sure you have the number over there in terms of what…. I do not have that number. I have a Thursday afternoon kind of head here, so I will get that.

Thank you. That was a partial question.

The Chair: We’ll take a short, five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

K. Kirkpatrick: I will try and ask my question in a more articulate manner this time. It is Thursday afternoon.

My question was…. The numbers the minister gave me previously, when we started our conversation today, add up to 14,702, yet under the B.C. Housing Homes for People backgrounder, it gives the number as 15,703. I’m wondering if the minister can explain the discrepancy.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Welcome to the guests that are in the chamber today to watch the proceedings. We’re discussing the Ministry of Housing and our budgets and everything within the Ministry of Housing. So thank you for being here.

To the member, I think the member is referring to the in-progress number. I think it’s just important to note that the in-progress number can shift, because when things complete they go to the completed section, and the new project is funded…. The number changes all the time. So that’s what we think the member is referring to, and that’s why there would be different numbers at different times.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I think that’s what I was referring to as well. I’ll clarify that.

We have had some concerns with overdoses in supportive housing. Again, I spoke to the minister and wrote a letter about the Travelodge. I’m not going to talk specifically about the Travelodge here.

[2:50 p.m.]

Despite government pouring hundreds of millions into converting hotels into supportive housing, the coroner’s report reveals there’s a glaring rise in indoor unregulated drug deaths, especially in supportive housing. Why has the ministry failed to equip these expensive conversions with the necessary health and mental health supports? That seems to be disregarding this escalating crisis.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the public certainly would understand and I think the member understands that when you have got a population that perhaps have been homeless for some time and that individual struggles with mental health or addiction challenges and they’re using drugs, it’s a real challenge. So when you move them into housing, it doesn’t mean that they’re dying because they’re in housing. It means that there’s a really toxic drug supply out there right now that is killing individuals, and many, unfortunately, are dying alone.

We try, our not-for-profit providers try, to create spaces where there are staff available to be able to respond quickly if an individual is dealing with addictions. I mentioned already that we changed the RTA so that staff within the supportive housing can go and do wellness checks when they’re needed to make sure people are safe.

We had cases of parents who came to us urging us to make this change because in this one particular case, the son of the individual passed away, but the staff were not allowed to do a wellness check. It’s heartbreaking.

I think the change to a wellness check is an important measure, but it’s a real challenge when you have a toxic drug supply out there and fentanyl. Unfortunately, we’re seeing people die. What we’re trying to do is bring people indoors so that there are supports, relationships are built. In some cases, ensuring that people have access to something that is not lethal, that won’t kill them, just so that we can get them to a point of stability and we can get them towards addiction treatment.

That’s what we’re trying to do, whether it’s within supportive housing or complex care or even in our shelter systems.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister explain to me where that intersection is between Housing and Mental Health and Addictions, working with that ministry in terms of…? We’ll come back to what we talked about at the beginning here, which is providing the appropriate supports. A 5 percent spike in unregulated drug deaths indoors is concerning. We’re going in the wrong direction.

When looking at the supportive housing, what input does the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions have in developing those contracts?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that individuals that are unfortunately passing away from overdose are not passing away because they’re in supportive housing. They’re passing away because we’ve got a fentanyl crisis and we’ve got people who are struggling with addictions. If they didn’t have access to the housing, they may be in a park. They may be in a community centre.

I know the member’s not necessarily implying that, but I just wanted to have it for the record that people understood that people are not dying because they’re in supportive housing. They’re dying because of a toxic drug supply. If they weren’t in supportive housing, unfortunately, people would be in parks and other places.

When it comes to complex care beds, we work closely with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. It’s a partnership. They identify where there are opportunities for complex care beds in partnership with us. We try now to find ways, in particular where there’s capital, to make sure that there’s a partnership in how those are built out.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’m happy to go into more details if there’s something specific the member has. I should also share with the member that we just recently provided the B.C. not-for-profit association with $1 million to help housing societies to install overdose prevention devices in supportive housing buildings and emergency shelters around B.C. That just happened recently.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m certainly not suggesting that being in supportive housing is what causes drug overdoses, but the minister’s response to me sounded like people would die of these drug overdoses if they weren’t in supportive housing, which I don’t think is the case. I do think, from an improperly developed system, that the actual supportive housing itself can actually contribute to an increased likelihood of overdose.

The question I’m really…. I’ve asked this in a few different ways, and I’m not feeling that I’m getting the answer. Are we providing the right supports to people in supportive housing to ensure that they have access to medical supports, access to detox, access to recovery? Are they dying in supportive housing because they don’t have supports?

I’m looking at the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and I’m thinking, well, they are the ones that are developing and providing programs that should be able to recognize what people need to get better. So where is the overlap between the contracts that B.C. Housing has with the housing providers and identifying what those supports are and putting those supports in place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just disagree with the member. I think the member did imply that people are dying in supportive housing because they don’t have support. People are dying, unfortunately, because we’ve got a fentanyl crisis. We’ve got a drug crisis. We’ve got just really toxic drugs like we’ve never seen before.

As I mentioned to the member, all supportive housing is required to have some programming in place, some supports in place. It varies from site to site, depending on the need and complexity. But our supportive housing providers understand. This is not something they just started doing. Dealing with people with mental health and addictions isn’t something that just started a year ago or two years ago. This has been years of challenges. The only thing that’s changed since the pandemic is the toxicity of the drugs.

I will just say this again. During the pandemic, when things were shut down…. We have now seen drug dealers, unfortunately, go to creating a new drug supply that is way more toxic than it has ever been. That’s the challenge that is being dealt with across North America.

The member is asking about complex care and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions and the Ministry of Health. My answer is the same, unless there is something specific the member is getting at, which is yes, we are working closely together. Supportive housing sites have health care services that come on site to support individuals that need it. That’s the case in most of our supportive housing sites. So if there’s something specific the member is looking for, I’m happy to provide that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Is the minister able to…? Does the ministry track how many deaths there have been in supportive housing in the last year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is data that’s collected by the coroner’s office. The team is trying to get some numbers for the member. If we can go on to questions the member has, then we’ll get that number once we have it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

I think that’s important information for B.C. Housing to be looking at. You would then be able to identify if there were discrepancies or anomalies between some of these sites and to take a look and see if there are some supports lacking in some of them that should be there.

A moment ago the minister mentioned $1 million in overdose prevention funds that were given to B.C. Non-Profit Housing. Can the minister explain what that looks like? Are these prevention devices? What are they? How are they meant to work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: These new devices, which immediately alert staff to potential overdoses — combined with existing staff support, safe consumption spaces and peer observation programs — will help the not-for-profits respond more quickly to overdose incidents and, obviously, help save lives.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’ve got some questions, then — this won’t be a surprise to the minister or the ministry — on the Winters Hotel fire. This fire resulted in the deaths of two vulnerable individuals. It looks like, based on the report, there was mismanagement and lack of oversight by B.C. Housing.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

A few questions I have on here. With the inquest highlighting systemic failures leading to the Winters Hotel fire, what review of B.C. Housing’s operational procedures is the ministry conducting to ensure such a tragedy is not repeated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was certainly tragic to see these two individuals lose their lives to the fire. I think there’s understanding, and the member knows that we had a lot of discussion about this last year, that it’s an important topic to discuss: the challenge that we have around single-room-occupancies, or SROs, in the Downtown Eastside. Many of these buildings are very old. They have some really serious challenges to them. There are multiple things.

When it comes to the inquest, we participated fully. In fact, we called. We wrote and said we wanted to make sure this happened so we could get all the information. There has been a whole host of recommendations that have been provided to us. B.C. Housing is going through all the recommendations. Some of them are moving a little bit quicker. Some of them are longer challenges that we have to address. But we are committed to advancing the recommendations that came from the inquest.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There has been a lot of change at Atira since this hap­pened. I know that there has been new management, new systems, new processes. They’ve just hired a new CEO. I just wanted to preface that by saying that I know Atira has made some changes.

How does the Ministry of Housing plan to increase transparency and accountability in its dealings with operators like Atira, ensuring that those providers are meeting all safety and operational standards without exception?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two things. B.C. Housing has launched a partner hub. It’s a new tool that works with our partners and that allows for collaboration, for information-sharing back and forth. Also coming out of the inquest, we’re forming a working group with not-for-profit partners, with fire, others — so that we’re working as a team to ensure that we’re addressing issues within our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister explain the process when a housing provider, for example, comes to B.C. Housing and is looking for a replacement of some equipment — fire equipment, something that’s not working? They need to get pre-approval in order to be able to spend those funds. What does that process look like with B.C. Housing, and how long does that take?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It slightly varies, depending on the dollar amounts. There is a threshold for not-for-profits, if it’s a life-and-death emergency, to be able to make that investment. Then there’s a process for checks and balances after, and then if it passes a certain threshold, they have to go through a process to, I guess, apply for the dollars. But if it’s life or death, there is a threshold for the not-for-profit to be able to go ahead and spend that money, and then we can deal with that after.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

So if Atira or Lookout or whoever it is had a request for a new fire extinguisher, something like that, that is something that they could act on themselves? They wouldn’t have to worry about that being approved?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Correct. A fire extinguisher is a small expenditure, and they could just go ahead and do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, in light of the reports that a deaf resident had been requesting an adaptive fire alarm…. That request had gone from the provider to B.C. Housing, but that wasn’t provided for that resident. Knowing this, what steps is the ministry taking to ensure that the specific needs of all residents in B.C. Housing facilities are adequately met, regardless of what that mobility or hearing issue might be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s the not-for-profit’s responsibility to ensure the accommodations meet the needs of the individuals that are on site. If they need financial support to do that, they would just contact B.C. Housing.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I understood from the report that there had been a request made to B.C. Housing and that the request was unanswered. If that’s not the case, I will go back and take a look at this. If I can find that direct information, I’ll come back on Monday to ask.

[3:15 p.m.]

Testimonies revealed that fire exits were chained shut at the Winters Hotel, which is obviously a clear violation of safety standards. How does the ministry plan to prevent these kinds of dangerous practices in the future?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re taking the steps to action the recommendations. We’re meeting with our not-for-profit providers to make sure that they understand. We’re working with fire officials to make sure that things are moving in the direction that we want them to move.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The chaining of the fire doors…. Was this at all related to the ingress of banned people, such as drug dealers, from actually coming back into the building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t comment on that. I’m not sure.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Considering the inquest’s recommendations for a higher standard of fire safety and a 24-seven resource team for critical incident support, what concrete actions has the ministry undertaken to implement these suggestions, and when can we expect full compliance across all of the B.C. Housing sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just going through this, doing the work right now. Our response to the coroner is due in May, and work is happening to make that response.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Will that work be made public when it’s completed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It would be my understanding that the response would be made public.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide a detailed account of the budget allocations made specifically for improving safety standards at B.C. Housing facilities since the Winters Hotel fire and how these funds are being utilized to protect these vulnerable populations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Work is underway right now, again, to respond to the recommendations from the coroner, and the information will be released to the coroner in May.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

[3:20 p.m.]

How will the minister personally ensure that the families of the victims and those affected by the Winters Hotel fire get justice and meaningful change and that the ministry’s actions reflect a genuine commitment to safety, oversight and accountability, moving forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s very detailed information that the coroner has brought forward. Our intention is to action this, and that’ll be laid out in the response to the coroner.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I am going to pass to my colleague from Peace River North.

The Chair: Yes, it is Peace River North.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister and his staff for taking these questions today.

I’ve just got a couple of questions. Of course, over the last while, we’ve engaged a lot with B.C. Housing up in the northeast, a number of clients we’ve been working with, and potential future clients.

The one thing that we’ve been seeing, certainly in Fort St. John, is the state of some of the B.C. Housing inventory. I could, after, share pictures that I’ve been shared with, and my CA actually went over to look at another one of these units. We’re just hearing this theme getting more and more about the level of these houses — you know, holes in the wall, bathtubs ready to fall through floors.

I’m wondering if, through B.C. Housing, there is a plan to create a bit of an inventory around the housing that’s in Fort St. John and area, as well as a bit of a maintenance schedule to get these homes back. These are government assets. These are assets that the province owns, and it’s like they’re just planning to run them into the ground. If the minister can give us a bit of an update on that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. I know in particular areas where climate is maybe harder on the buildings, there is a challenge. If the member shares what he has with me, I can certainly find out about that particular building.

I also can share, and the member knows this, we just opened, in the last two years, 42 new homes with supports for people that were at risk of homelessness in Fort St. John. We’re committed to find ways to continue to make investments to not only create new spaces, but we do have a fund also to address buildings that need more repairs. I’m happy to get B.C. Housing staff to get more information for the member if he likes.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister. I do appreciate that we do have a good working relationship with the staff of B.C. Housing. I know my constituency assistants have reached out, and it’s a good relationship to get that information. But we can certainly tabulate a number of the homes and units and such that are in need of some significant repairs. We have passed this on to the Prince George office, as well, and let them know. I do want to, obviously, thank the Prince George staff.

I know that we’ve actually got some maintenance people up in Fort St. John just recently as well. I’m hoping that maybe this is a move toward these units being brought up to a better standard.

[3:25 p.m.]

My next question is…. If the minister can maybe give us an update. Of course, Site C is finishing up. B.C. Hydro currently has a building, I believe, that is being turned over to B.C. Housing, a fairly large complex. I know there are already some B.C. Housing units in there, but there are also a bunch of B.C. Hydro employees staying there. I know that there’s a plan to transition that solely over to B.C. Housing. I’m just wondering if we can get a bit of an update on what that looks like.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:26 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 17, Police Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call ministry estimates for the Ministry of Housing.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 22.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3:28 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,033,255,000 (continued).

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ll just need one moment to get the answer for the member.

[3:30 p.m.]

In the interest of time, I can take your questions. The Prince George team is just getting that information for us. If there is another question while we’re waiting for that answer….

Okay. So if it’s okay with the member, I can put that on the record once the information comes in.

Thank you so much.

S. Bond: I want to begin by thanking my colleague for providing me with some of her time. I know it is limited, and I will attempt not to take too much from what I know is a very significant portfolio for her to manage.

I want to ask some questions about my community, the city of Prince George. I want to begin by just asking the minister if he could confirm for me that he and his staff have received a letter and a package of information from Mr. Eduard Hausot.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. I can confirm to the member that a letter was received from a constituent from the member’s community, and a response is being drafted right now.

S. Bond: I wanted to spend some time just reflecting on the letter that was sent not just to the Minister of Housing, but Health, Environment, B.C. Housing, actually to the Premier and also federal representatives as well. The reason that it is important is because it speaks to the issues that residents who live above the Lower Patricia encampment in Prince George are facing.

One of the most significant issues is air quality. The package provided to me in a briefing from a number of the residents in my community, and I’ve had a number of them over the years, speaks to the issue of PM 2.5. The letter lays out very clearly the impacts of wood smoke and other air pollution for Millar Addition residents. In fact, it looks at last year’s wildfire index and looks at the air monitors across our city over a period of time. The purple air monitor that is right above the Lower Patricia encampment exceeds the worst days of wildfire smoke experienced last summer.

I’d like the minister and his staff to indicate to me the fact that the information provided has been considered, is being considered, will be considered when we think about the actions that are being taken.

I’m also going to speak to the…. I’m going to ask some questions about the temporary housing units that are going to be built and placed in that area.

Can the minister just provide me some assurance that his staff — B.C. Housing, someone — are aware of the significant air quality issues that not only residents who live in single-family homes, and some of them for decades…? But also, there is an elementary school. There are several daycare programs. There is a new child care centre where 75 children, ages toddler and up, are in the vicinity of the purple air monitor that demonstrates that the air quality in that particular part of our city is consistently above that when there is a wildfire in British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

Have the minister and his staff looked at the information that’s been provided? How does B.C. Housing — how does the ministry, how does anyone on the government bench — review the air quality that is impacting residents who live above the Lower Patricia encampment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we are aware of the letter. B.C. Housing will review it. Certainly, we’ll be responding to the member’s constituent. Usually, it’s public health that does the air-monitoring pieces. It’s not something that B.C. Housing does.

That being said, I think the concerns that are being raised about the encampment are concerns that are shared by, certainly, me and, I know, by council and many others.

We believe that it’s much safer, for the residents that are living in the encampment as well as the community, for people to be in the housing. Encampments are not safe. They’re not safe for the residents that are staying there. It’s not safe for the community.

We saw not too long ago a company from Alberta bringing a couple of tiny homes in without the proper building code pieces in place, and we saw both of them go up in flames and people’s lives being put at risk. This is a top-of-mind issue for us — what’s happening, especially in Prince George, with that encampment.

We will respond to this, Member, with the information that we can.

S. Bond: I’ll make the assumption that since I, as their MLA, was copied on the letter, I will be copied on the response that comes from, I would assume, a number of ministries or at least from B.C. Housing or someone.

I want to also make sure that I indicate on the record that the residents of Millar Addition have been patient and respectful. This is not that people don’t care. Unhoused people obviously need to be appropriately cared for in our community. I want to thank them for that, because they have been very respectful about this process, yet they are being deeply impacted. It’s not just air quality; it’s quality of life as well.

There have been many, many presentations made about the impacts. I would urge the minister to personally review the document that was sent to him. It will lay out the air quality index for approximately 25 air monitors. And I can tell him that the one with the absolute highest readings — in fact, it is maroon — is considered hazardous. It is a health warning of emergency conditions. That air monitor sits directly above the Patricia encampment. I think the residents of Millar Addition have laid out the circumstances. They’ve included photographs.

I know my time is not endless, so I will simply ask that the minister personally review the information that’s been provided by the residents. And I am very appreciative of the approach that they’ve taken, but they certainly do want to see some actions.

From there, I’d like to…. Well, perhaps I’ll ask a single question, and then I’ll come back to the issue of the temporary housing. Can the minister tell me whether there is an encampment management plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member bringing concerns from her constituents to me here. We will respond, and we will ensure that the MLA is responded to, as well, in that response. We, just in the last couple of weeks, have had some correspondence with the city of Prince George around additional housing units that we can advance in the community. We will work with them to ensure that we get individuals from the encampments indoors, into shelters, into housing.

Again, just to re-emphasize that we do believe that the encampment is not safe for both the individuals living there now and the community at large.

S. Bond: I do have some questions about the temporary housing. I know that very recently a temporary use permit was agreed to by the city, and I’m also aware of the minister’s letter that was provided. But I don’t think I heard the answer. Is there an encampment management plan?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm we don’t have a finalized plan, but we are working with the city on a plan.

S. Bond: Well, thank you to the minister for that re­sponse. I’m a bit surprised by that, considering the Lower Patricia encampment has been there for a very long period of time, and there have been significant concerns ex­pressed in my community about safety, about a number of issues.

I will ask the minister if, when the plan is complete, he would be prepared to share it with me as the MLA representing that specific part of my community.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Often these plans are not made public. There are a lot of operational pieces around that. But I do appreciate the member has got an interest in something that’s happening in her community, so when the plan is finalized, we’ll work with our teams in the city of Prince George to share with the member the information around what’s going to happen.

S. Bond: I’m very appreciative of the minister’s willingness to do that.

I want to move on to the temporary housing that’s being provided. As I understand it, there are 43 units that will be considered transitional housing. As the minister’s letter points out, that is in addition to other HEARTH beds that will be provided at the Knights Inn and the North Star Inn.

I want to begin by asking if the minister can describe for me…. I will also just note that one of the things that matters the most to me is that in order to ensure there is a community approach to solving these problems, there needs to be adequate, appropriate consultation with people who live in the neighbourhoods. I will tell you that the people who live above the North Star, for example…. Many of them are seniors who have invested their lives in their homes above that facility.

Change is challenging. We are going to have a significant number of residents in a building right below their homes. You can literally look out their back doors, and they overlook the balcony of the new housing units. Again, those people were respectful and thoughtful, but they have a right to express their views. And there is a lot of concern about the process that led to the North Star being selected.

However, today, I’m just respecting my colleague and the time she has. I do want to be on the record, though, about the concerns that our community has. It is not about not caring for people who are unhoused. Everyone who has met with me has said that right off the top.

[3:45 p.m.]

They also want to make sure that their neighbourhoods remain safe, that their homes still have the value that these people have invested their lives in. I met with many seniors who live above the North Star, for example, who are very concerned and felt unheard through this process. Their views matter as well.

I’d like to ask specifically about the staffing and the qualifications of the people that will be engaged. One of the things in the consultation process B.C. Housing had…. In fact it was called the community engagement. Obviously, one of the things that people were very concerned about was ensuring that there were adequate and experienced and qualified staff on site. The minister’s letter speaks to the fact that there will be a minimum of three staff members on site 24-seven, experienced in supporting vulnerable populations.

Can the minister describe…? Are these mental health and addictions counsellors? Are they specific health care professionals? We know there are people with complex needs, and there needs to be an appropriate staffing complement to help support people with complex needs. Could the minister or staff provide me with the qualifications, the nature of the people that will comprise the staff at the transitional housing site?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member a couple of things.

There are two FTEs on site all the time. That’s about six to eight staff that will be allocated to that site. The skill sets vary, from social workers to outreach workers to different forms of support. The Ministry of Health comes in to provide additional supports depending on the needs of the residents. They’re doing that right now at the encampments, but they would be able to provide supports for individuals on site.

Other services that are provided to individuals on site are life skills, community- and social-related programs, education, employment programming. There are other supports like having people be able to get their IDs and get on other supports that might be available, two meals a day…. That’s 24-seven coverage for supports. That’s what we’re expecting at this site.

S. Bond: Thank you for the response.

The letter goes on to state that staffing levels may need to be adjusted at the discretion of B.C. Housing. I’m assuming that would be increased staff, not decreased.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we have an interest in the success of this site. This is what we provide funding for. Now there’s always the odd occasion where a staff person is not available. They can hire somebody. But our expectation is this, and in cases where Health needs to come in, the resources are additional to what we provide there.

S. Bond: I appreciate that. I won’t pursue that further other than to say that people with complex needs need 24-seven wraparound services. That means there need to be people properly qualified to deal with issues as complex as mental health and addictions.

I do have one final question. In the event that there is a violent incident or some sort of behaviour that requires additional support, is there an expectation that the police would be the people to respond?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It really depends. It’s hard to say exactly what the incident might be. I will say that given the amount of units that we’re investing in all at once: the North Star, the Knights, these units, through the HEARTH unit…. The team that we have on the ground, the community access table, which will have the not-for-profit providers that are providing the housing…. It will have local government representatives, different representatives there. There will be an assessment done of every individual. There will be….

[3:50 p.m.]

Certainly a lot of efforts are being taken so that we’re not putting too many individuals that have additional challenges, in one location. A mix between the sites so that the staff are able to manage that. I think that’s the one benefit, certainly, that will be available in Prince George, given the amount of units coming online all at once. That perhaps isn’t always the same for communities where they’re just behind the units you need.

A lot of this assessment has already been happening. Our priority always is to get people that are in shelters, who already have assessments done, who are there regularly, as the first ones that will get access to these sites, making room in the shelters for those from the encampments to come into the shelters. That’s always been what we are trying to do, and that’s what we expect here as well.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I do want to confirm that there will be a full fence, cameras, lighting, all of the things that would help to secure the site. The part of the letter that concerned me, candidly, was: “with necessary revisions at the discretion of B.C. Housing, based on operational requirements.”

Obviously, having appropriate security and fencing, lighting, all of those things…. I’m assuming there isn’t a lot of discretion there. There are expectations, particularly about ensuring that there is safety for everyone who shares that neighbourhood. Can the minister explain what that paragraph means?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member listed a whole host of things, and that is correct. That’s what we’ve put in writing to the city.

The reason why that line is in there is because there’s nothing on the site now. If, for example, we can’t drill into the ground to get the fencing in, we have to make alternatives to have different types of fencing. So there needs to be some flexibility to how we provide these additional measures, but lighting, controlling the parking — all of these are pieces that we intend to advance at the site.

S. Bond: I certainly appreciate that, as long as the intent is to fulfil the description that has been provided to the to the city of Prince George and, ultimately, to us, as residents there.

Perhaps one of the most important questions for me and for the residents of Millar Addition and the people of the city of Prince George is: what work has been done to look at this project? It is considered transitional, temporary supportive housing, meaning that, obviously, there is a transition to permanent housing at some point down the road. In fact, in the B.C. Housing document, on page 8, it talks about B.C. Housing now actively pursuing permanent housing solutions with 50 purpose-built supportive units already planned, etc.

What I want to be assured of is that this temporary use permit, and thus, the temporary supportive housing that’s being put in place, meets the test that the courts have determined — that residents who are currently in the Patricia encampment need to be housed in order to actually close the encampment. So I would like some reassurance from the minister that this, which is, as I understand it, planned for three years, despite it being called temporary….

My concern is we have a temporary supportive housing number of units, 43. B.C. Housing is now actively looking for permanent housing solutions. We have an encampment that cannot be altered until residents there, of which I believe the latest RCMP number, and maybe the minister can confirm for me, is about 35 people.

From my perspective, the math works, if there are 43 temporary units and there are 35 residents. Has work been done to ensure that this solution meets the test that the city needs to meet in terms of the court decision?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry for taking a little longer.

I can’t presume what the court will say. But I do believe that shelter and this housing we’re providing is adequate for people to move indoors. That’s always a challenge. The member was the AG and understands the challenges with how courts would interpret this, but it is our belief that that meets the test.

Now, I would add that we have right now 57 affordable units under construction, and we are always looking for more sites so that we can get people stabilized and into different forms of housing. That’s our intention. So 57 are already there. We’ve got some women’s transition housing going, as well, that may work for some of the residents, and we’re continuing to look for more opportunities.

There are two, I think, important opportunities. One, we have an Indigenous housing fund that’s open till May 15. I know that in Prince George in particular, there are a lot of Indigenous partners who are wanting to be active in building housing. We’re providing nations or First Nations organizations that don’t have dollars PDF funding so that they can prepare for the next call if they’re not prepared for this. That’s one way I think that is going to be able to address it.

Then CHF projects, a new fund, will be opening end of the year, early new year, for any other projects that could be built in the community to get people indoors.

S. Bond: I very much appreciate that response and the fact that the minister does believe that this should meet the test. Yes, as a former Attorney General, I certainly understand the independence of the courts and not intending to challenge that today. But I think there is a way to demonstrate to the court that — in fact, in the decision, the word was “shelter” — this is transitional housing with supports in place.

I am very hopeful on a number of fronts that is indeed the case because, as I’ve said repeatedly, this is not about an us-or-them situation in Prince George. People have been incredibly patient and understanding. They want to see everyone have a home, but they also want to make sure that our neighbourhoods and communities are safe.

Breathing clean air is a pretty important part of that. Again, I want to urge the minister to take very seriously the presentation that was sent to him regarding air quality. It links also, in my view, to an issue of an encampment management plan, the issue of what is burned, when it is burnt, all of those kinds of things. There is significant evidence to say that air quality is a major issue.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m so grateful. I will now just make my last comments, perhaps question. I guess I feel discouraged. I am elected by the people of Prince George–Valemount, I care deeply about my community, and I want to ensure, as the person who brings those voices to Victoria, that I have an opportunity to understand and be provided with information.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Meetings with B.C. Housing should be regular between city council, between elected MLAs. We live there. We actually know the circumstances on the ground, probably better than most people.

I am asking the minister…. I recently requested the opportunity, in my own community, to visit a B.C. Housing site. I was told I had to have permission from the minister to do that. I have to tell you that as an elected official in my community, I want to know what’s going on. I want to understand what the circumstances are.

I certainly understand protocol and wouldn’t be showing up at a site at inappropriate times. I understand there needs to be a process. But I would like assurance from the minister that he has given direction, or will, to B.C. Housing to work constructively with locally elected officials, including the MLA and city council, and also that at the appropriate time, we have the opportunity to visit sites that impact people who live in my community.

I would like the minister’s assurance that those things will happen.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can assure the member that no policy, since the member was on this side of the House, has changed. So whatever protocols were in place when they were here on this side are the same protocols. We have been having exchanges with my critic, who has visited supportive housing sites. If the member wants to visit a supportive housing site — and I do appreciate her comment on not just showing up, but a scheduled time — I don’t see why that’s a problem. I appreciate the questions, and I’m not aware of people being told they’re not able to go.

That being said, if I can just add two responses to previous questions. My critic had asked me about coroner’s reports and deaths. In 2023, there were 2,299 deaths across B.C. Three hundred were at B.C. Housing supportive sites.

My colleague from Peace River North asked about a specific site, a B.C. Housing building near Site C. To him, there are about 25 units there. The lease ends in September. We are having conversations with Hydro about their expectations. If, for some reason, they decide that they don’t want to continue with those sites, they will be made as affordable rental units within the community.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. Welcome to the chair.

Thank you to the minister.

I also would like to thank the member for Prince George–​Valemount, because many of the questions that she asked I really think kind of narrowed down and were more specific in terms of the broader questions I was asking about supportive housing earlier. I found that was quite helpful for me just to understand more.

If I can just clarify the answer that the minister just gave me in terms of deaths in supportive housing. The numbers 2,299 and then 300 were in B.C. Housing supportive housing. I didn’t understand what the 2,299 number was.

Hon. R. Kahlon: What we are told from the coroner’s report is in 2023, there were 2,299 overdose deaths. Three hundred of those were at B.C. Housing supportive sites.

[4:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The question wasn’t specific to overdose deaths, so that’s why I was confused about what that number was. It was deaths within…. So deaths regardless of reason within B.C. Housing’s supportive housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If there is an overdose, the coroner’s office records that. If someone passes away of old age in a supportive housing site, that’s not something that is tracked by the coroner’s office.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Well, with respect to the overdose deaths, then, the 300 in B.C. Housing in the previous year…. How does that compare to years prior to that? Is that kind of a consistent number?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re going to have to reach out. This information is not Ministry of Housing information.

We’re trying to get information from the coroner’s office for the member. If it’s okay, we’ll continue, and we’ll try to reach out to see what information we can get for the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I appreciate that there are many different groups involved in these kinds of numbers, although I would say that this is Ministry of Housing information that should be had because it is happening within B.C. Housing supportive housing sites.

I’m going to ask a few questions on BC Builds. Then I’m going to turn it over to another of my colleagues for some questions.

We were really excited about finding out what BC Builds was all about. It was really touted as being kind of this big solution to our housing crisis.

Considering Lisa Helps’ assertion that B.C. Housing is neither affordable, supportive nor subsidized housing…. Can the minister clarify for whom exactly the housing is designed, especially given the acute nature of our need for affordable housing in B.C.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I won’t comment on the comment. I’m not sure what context or where that came from.

I’ll just say…. We came up with the BC Builds concept. The member is aware…. The federal government has seen the concept and now is expanding it across the country. I know Quebec and Ontario are creating something similar.

This is another piece, another tool for us to address the challenge we have in housing. Just this week, Delta council had a briefing on BC Builds. Communities are getting briefings all the time.

The idea is to be able to use lands, whether it’s municipal, provincial, federal, faith-based groups, to build housing for middle-income earners — 30 percent rent to the people’s incomes for middle-income earners — so that we can attract the health care workers, the teachers, all the important employments that we need, the workers that we need in our community. So that’s the target.

Of course, this is an additional piece to what we already do. We’ve been talking about shelter, supportive housing, low-income housing, Indigenous housing. This takes B.C. Housing into an expanded space.

It’s a partnership. We’re going to have not-for-profits partnering with us. We’re going to have the private sector partnering with us. It’s a model that clearly has caught interest across the country.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Considering that many British Columbians are spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on their housing costs…. Why does BC Builds just target to only build 4,000 rental apartments over five years? How is that sufficient to this housing crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: At no point have I said that government will be the only one building housing to address the housing crisis. I have always said, from the beginning, that we’re going to need the private sector. We’re going to need not-for-profits. We need government involved in the housing business to ensure that we have the housing we need.

This was a new concept. The targets we’ve set were based on the fact that this is a new concept. We can expand. We can grow as we move forward.

[4:10 p.m.]

If the member is asking me if BC Builds alone will solve the housing crisis, I will say that BC Builds is an important part of the different types of housing that we need in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Now, the Premier has criticized the previous government’s reliance on the private sector for housing solutions. Yet under the NDP, rents and home prices have continued to rise.

How does BC Builds materially differ in its approach to curbing these trends?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re going to stray into some politics here. I can tell.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Weird. Exactly.

I will say…. Just today I was asked by the media about Little Mountain. I won’t go too much into it. I’ll just say that there are examples of what we don’t want to see.

What this does is…. It ensures that the lands that are publicly owned stay publicly owned and that we’re able to build affordable housing for people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The program aims at middle-class individuals, with eligible households earning between $131,000 up to $191,910 annually. How does the ministry reconcile this approach to increasing housing with the needs of low-income British Columbians who are facing the brunt of the affordability crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are already investing in that space as well. This is in addition to those investments. This housing doesn’t require ongoing operational subsidies.

Individuals earning less than what is in this program…. That is the type of housing that B.C. Housing is already investing in and already building. This expands that into housing opportunities for people beyond that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

It’s not clear there are clearly set out operational plans for BC Builds. How does the minister ensure that there will be transparency and accountability in the allocation of the $2 billion funding, particularly in light of concerns over the program’s vagueness?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re going to be making the full program framework public.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, it’s already on the website. We can send the member the link.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide specifics — perhaps this is in what we just referenced — on how the eligibility and income verification processes for BC Builds are going to ensure that we’ve got fair access to housing? Again, that’s especially for those in dire need.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The not-for-profit partner or, maybe, a First Nations partner that will be operating the building will be responsible for that. It’s a similar framework that we have for the other incremental projects that are within B.C. Housing’s purview.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Some of my questions may be in this document. I haven’t had time to read it, so I’m just going to ask.

Actually, if I just might ask the minister, to start with…. When was this document available, and where would peo­ple have been able to have access to it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This was posted on B.C. Housing’s website, I believe, on February 13. It is available online. Either a Google search or…. If the member needs the link, we can try to get the link to the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m pretty good at Google. I’ll find that and take a closer look at the electronic version.

Does BC Builds plan to prioritize local residents in areas with a high demand for housing, considering…? The details so far have been vague on prioritization and how we focus on the critical pieces of the communities.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is some flexibility within the parameters for whichever entity owns the land.

For example, the city of North Vancouver, which was the first project we announced…. There’s an interest from the city to ensure that its housing is available for Royal Columbian, for the folks who work at the port, for people who are working within the city.

There’s flexibility within the program for the landowner to have those provisions that target specific populations within their communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer.

Given the uncertainty surrounding targeted market rents and potential subsidies within BC Builds…. Can the minister explain how the program will remain accessible to its intended middle-class audience without becoming an inflated market rate housing option?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be program agreements, as well, on title elements. It’s not like you can move somebody out and charge market rents. There will be both provisions put in place.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I can just confirm with the minister also, what we were looking for was kind of a detailed operational plan. Just at first blush, this is a very light framework, as opposed to something that has got a lot of detail in it. Is this considered the operational strategy? What other documents can be provided to help people understand how the program works?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Perhaps the member could share what kind of detail the member is looking for. Then it’ll be easier for me to answer.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, I would need to understand the program in greater detail to know specifically what detail I’m looking for. If I might come back to that when we continue on Monday, then I will have had the opportunity to read through this more thoroughly.

If at this time I could pass the floor to my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, he has a few questions to ask.

P. Milobar: I was surprised by my colleague earlier when she said not to bring politics, and I really think the minister said not to bring politics into this. Either way, I’m going to bring politics into it, because last I checked, that’s what we’re here for.

No, in all seriousness, just a couple of different projects in Kamloops that I have some specific questions around, mainly pertaining to B.C. Housing — the first one being in what’s commonly known as the government precinct.

It’s behind our courthouse, and there are some other government buildings there. The far eastern corner would be where the old highways works yard was. It abuts the hospital in the very back. Just before Peterson Creek Park, there’s what is called Glenfair Seniors Housing, which has been around for as long as I can remember. I have been there since the early ’70s, and I think it predates that. That’s for seniors that have been living in there month to month for years.

My understanding is B.C. Housing has now acquired a portion of the government lands, and the conversation in Kamloops over the last little while has been that indications are that this will be a B.C. Housing complex for short-term housing, not longer-term residency. I’m trying to get clarification if indeed B.C. Housing has a site behind the courthouse in the government precinct area. That’s referred to in Kamloops terms.

If it’s for short-term housing, what will be the clientele, and how many units will it be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing has been having conversations about housing. We’re not at a point yet where we’re prepared to make anything official or public, but we certainly will when that point comes.

P. Milobar: Well, in the backdrop of a housing crisis, my understanding is that the first discussions on this date back possibly even to 2020. Certainly, by 2021 there was an acknowledgment that B.C. Housing was working on something back there.

Here we are in mid-2024 and no clear timeline or definition of what is going to happen. On a backdrop where BC Builds purports to be looking to provide government land to build housing, this seems to be a site that is government land and has been in talks for 3½ years now, and nothing further to report. What is the actual timeline on something actually being built, then, on that site?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that we’ve been making investments in Kamloops to get housing online for people. When we have more information about the specific site, we certainly will make that public.

P. Milobar: I guess part of the problem and part of the issue in Kamloops, frankly, with B.C. Housing projects over the last while is that the Fortune Motel was bought without an operator in mind, without a clientele identified to the public. It turned into a “just trust us” exercise with the community. I had to meet with community members on that. They were fine if it was, say, going to be for low-income seniors but not necessarily if it was for people that were newly released from incarceration and that type of thing.

Then the project sat. Pipes burst. Extra costs had to be dealt with because the building was sitting dormant through a winter period and wasn’t properly winterized, while B.C. Housing was trying to figure out what it was going to do with this property. That’s in the same timeline as this Glenfair property, which has been the subject of discussion around planning tables of the city, publicly talking about it, yet the minister is unable to provide, over three years later, any clarification on what is moving forward.

The Glenfair area itself is owned by B.C. Housing. Those are the areas I was talking about previously. They’re one and two storeys high. They were built between 1958 and 1982. Those have been providing stable housing for low-income seniors for all that time, which is great. I think everyone wants to know what the actual plan by the government and B.C. Housing is to support those tenants long term, and what this type of housing is going to be.

Is the minister saying that despite repeated open houses and feedback from the city…? We have Coun. Bill Sarai, back as far as 2021, saying that he was going to be pressing the government for more action on this, and here we are in 2024 with no action taken.

Is there nothing in this budget to start moving that project forward with B.C. Housing, or is it just still a plan for the future? I mean, the minister talks about Little Mountain today. This seems to be a chunk of government land that, literally, the government hasn’t taken action on to get building with.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I did have a chance to meet with Councillor Sarai and a few councillors a couple of months ago when they were all here for a housing conference led by UBCM. They have expressed a desire to have more housing built in the community. I also spoke to the mayor, as well, there, and we talked about housing.

[4:30 p.m.]

What I’m saying to the member is that when we have information around what’s going to happen on that site, we’ll certainly be making it public.

I think it’s also important to note we have opened 506 housing units in Kamloops. We have about 300 under de­velopment, and we’re prepared to commit more resources to Kamloops to ensure there are more housing options available in the community. It’s something that we’re prioritizing.

Kamloops plays an important role not only because of its location but also how it supports the smaller communities in the region. That’s why we’ve been making considerable investments in the community, and there are more to come.

Hon. H. Bains: I seek leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery today are really good friends and very important people. They represent unions in the building trades.

They are here led by Brynn Bourke from B.C. Building Trades; Phil Venoit, IBEW 230; Darryl Schmidt, IBEW 993; Jim Lofty, IBEW 213; Orfeo Pagliacci, DC38; Doug Parton, Ironworkers 97; Paul Beacom, Ironworkers 97; Jim Noon, UA 324; Paul Way, Teamsters 213; Brandon Dyck, IBEW; and Brady Carter, LiUNA 1611.

I want to say on their behalf and behalf of their members, these are the people who build this province. Their members do tremendous work out there during COVID, since and after.

I want to say thank you on behalf of British Columbians for the work that you do: build roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, you name it. I just want to say thank you on behalf of everybody.

Please help me give them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

P. Milobar: Well, the problem is that B.C. Housing, on their own website, actually has information about this project. It’s more information than the minister is actually willing to give today. I’m not quite sure what the point of having budget estimates is if we can’t even get information that B.C. Housing has actually got on a public website to be acknowledged by the minister.

It makes it very clear. There’s going to be a central courtyard area that’s been expanded, a larger residential garden that was created. A second dog activity area was added. The revised development concept continues to plan for 340 new rental homes across four buildings, each building with six storeys. Sounds like a fair amount of detail is already public.

The revised development concept will form the basis of a future development application. B.C. Housing will continue to work with the city of Kamloops to revise the existing property lines, and in 2024 a complete development application will be prepared for presentation to the community and to the Glenfair tenants for future consideration by the city. This is from the B.C. Housing website. No wonder people are wondering what the heck is going on with the Minister of Housing and B.C. Housing when we can’t get just straight answers around timelines.

When in 2024 will the public be re-engaged on this process, this project, so they’ll actually know what is being proposed and the timeline for construction of what, by B.C. Housing’s admission, are buildings that would amass up to 340 housing units in that area?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, too, want to welcome, first, Building Trades to the House. I appreciate the work that they and their members do. It’s nice to see them all here today.

The member asked me a question about details and then gave me the answer that we made public on the website. So you can’t say that we’re not transparent and not giving information and, at the same time, go into detail of all the information that we shared publicly.

Now, the member is more specific in a second question. He wants to know when we’ll come to the public, and I said to the member that very soon that will come forward. That information will be in the public at that time. I don’t understand what about that answer is difficult for this member to fully understand. We have made a lot of information on the website already, and when there’s more information we’ll be bringing it to council and making it public.

[4:35 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Again, the very first question was whether this would be used for short-term housing, and that is what the minister refused to answer right from the hop. That is really the concern that is starting to percolate in the community: whether or not the usage is changing or the number of units is changing.

Has the intention of B.C. Housing changed, and are they now in discussions to create short-term housing on this area, versus what the community was perceiving to be much more stable, longer-term type housing like they have seen with the seniors housing that currently exists in and around that area?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again I’ll say to the member that the plan for the area will be brought to council. When it’s ready, we’ll bring it forward. When it’s ready to bring forward, I’ll bring it to the member as well, so the member can have the details that he likes.

P. Milobar: Well, I’ve been around long enough in poli­tics to know that when the government doesn’t want to answer a fairly straightforward question, we probably know what the actual answer is then. That would be that it’s sounding like what people are starting to hear locally, that in fact it is going to have some component of it being short-term housing with a yet-named potential operator. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, but transparency is what’s actually needed.

I referenced the Fortune Motel. Let’s just go a few blocks away from there with the Cherry Avenue apartments, which is another stellar purchase by B.C. Housing. That was bought for over three times assessed value. I questioned the minister about it at length last year. The minister assured us that due diligence had been done and that the repairs that were going to be done would be done by the person they were purchasing the dilapidated building from and that people would actually be moving, by September to October last year, into the 42 empty housing units.

Well, guess what happened. Winter came. No one was living in it. Pipes froze. Major damage. Does that sound like the Fortune Motel at all, literally a few blocks away? This is like a rinse and repeat of failed housing projects. Now, apparently the seller didn’t actually follow through on the repairs. No shock to anyone in Kamloops, despite the minister assuring everyone that due diligence had been done. The repairs are now more expensive, especially when you add in the frozen pipe water damage. We have 42 housing units that are still sitting empty that were purchased this time a year ago and no actual move-in date.

In fact, the best the minister can come up with in his answer in local media recently was: “Well, it should be sometime in September or October. We’re sticking to our timeline.” Well, that was the timeline last year. What is the new actual timeline that people can expect to be moving into Cherry Avenue apartments, and what is the total cost of all the work that needs to be done to make that building habitable, now that we’ve had the broken pipes and the failed purchase of a building that everyone in Kamloops could have told you was a teardown in the first place?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Just for the record, the property was going to be listed for 11.5. It was purchased for 11.2. We did canvass this last year, so it’s in Hansard — that appraisals were done, independent of government, by a firm. I believe it was from Kelowna.

And yeah, it is unfortunate for us, for everybody in the community, that the proponent that we bought this from didn’t live up to their obligation. The member is frustrated by that. I’m frustrated by it as well.

Now, that being said, our goal is to get this project fixed up and get people indoors. We had some challenges. It’s true there was a delay. There are challenges getting trades into that building. There were challenges, yes, when the contractor didn’t live up to their part and put some additional pressures on an entire project. We have teams in right now, B.C. Housing does, with contractors both doing the assessment of the additional work that needs to be done and giving us a clearer timeline. Our hope is to have people in by the end of the year but, in fact, may be in the new year.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister was warned all this was going to happen, in fact, right from the get-go, when it was made public. It was assessed at, I believe, $4.6 million, yet we topped out at closer to $12 million when all was said and done. There were a few hundred thousand dollars extra that….

The seller was supposed to self-do renovations, even though he left a building empty for two years after a fire and hadn’t done any of the work. Yet he was going to magically be trusted by this government to actually, with much haste, get the work done. I’m assuming the sale went through without that work actually finished. B.C. Housing actually has title to the land now.

Was there more of a holdback than the repair money, given the extra costs that the taxpayers are now going to have to pay to actually bring this building back up to be habitable? The minister said due diligence was done. I’m just wondering. If the proper due diligence was done, the taxpayer should have actually been protected by all these deficiencies and lack of work being done and not have to pay extra.

Was there any additional holdback from the purchase price, or did the vendor get their full value except for that couple hundred thousand dollars that was earmarked for repairs?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, I can share with the member that the holdback amount was $250,000.

P. Milobar: Sorry, $250,000 is what was supposed to be used for repairs in the first place, and the repairs are going to be much more significant than $250,000.

I guess I’ll just…. This is, I think, my time for my last question, so I’ll give the minister a two-parter, with his indulgence, both relating to B.C. Housing. How much are all the repairs actually slated to be to make this building habitable after the pipes have frozen and everything else and an over one-year delay to get people living in that building?

Secondly, just down the road from that, on 8th Street, we had a proposal from CSI, who has had other B.C. Housing projects in Kamloops, with great success. That was turned down for funding just recently, which would have seen a significant increase to affordable seniors housing on a flat, walkable area of the north shore. Why was that project rejected for funding as well?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t get the information for the member right now on why CSI…. I assume it was that the community housing fund was not successful. I can share that any proponents that were not successful have been having meetings with B.C. Housing to get an understanding of that. I will be able to share with the member whatever information that is possible publicly about why that project wasn’t made available on this fund.

I can say that the fund, which is extremely larger than it has ever been in British Columbia, tries to make sure there is an equal balance of projects throughout the province — a certain amount of units in the Interior, a certain amount of units in the North, some certain on the Island and then in Metro Vancouver. So they are competing against other projects in the region.

The team is on site right now doing an assessment, and soon we’ll have information about what that additional cost is.

I. Paton: We’re getting late in the day.

There’s a conversation that just doesn’t seem to take place, but it’s a very important conversation when it comes to housing. That is the fact that we have 612 million hectares of farmland in British Columbia with bona fide farm families making a living on their farm, with the next generation of children coming along on their farms that are being restricted about housing.

My question is: where is the disconnect or the conversations that don’t seem to take place between the Ministry of Housing, the Agricultural Land Commission and municipal planning departments on housing for farm families and farm staff? The biggest joke going in the agriculture community now is with the legislation by the NDP that’s been put through, many bills in the last few weeks — that you can have more houses now on a city lot anywhere in British Columbia than you can have on a 200-acre farm in British Columbia.

My first question is: do you have conversations with the Agricultural Land Commission and their policies on housing on farmland in B.C.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Surely the member understands that having more housing on land that was dedicated for housing than housing on agricultural land is a good thing. I know he’s an advocate for agriculture. I think he would understand. I mean, the way he framed his question was: why is there so much housing being built when it’s not being built on agricultural land? I don’t understand the premise of that.

Now, the member also knows this space really well and knows that the work we do in our housing is not something that we step into when it comes to agricultural land. That is the Ministry of Agriculture. And no, my ministry does not go to the Agricultural Land Commission to direct them or be involved in decisions made on agricultural land. That is done specifically by them and the Ministry of Agriculture. Our space is on developable land that was always intended for housing.

I. Paton: I want to be absolutely clear on my statement. I’m not suggesting in any way that the fact that I mentioned how many acres or hectares of farmland there is in B.C…. I’m suggesting that if you’re a bona fide farm family with an original farm home plate….

[4:50 p.m.]

I don’t want to see any new housing built on black dirt soil, but we have original farm home plates that were built maybe 100 years ago with farm families that have room where barns used to be at one time to put a second or third home. Currently the maximum house size on an agricultural farm property is roughly 500 metres squared. If a farmer asked for a second home on the farm, it would be 90 metres squared, which is 970 square feet.

If you have a farm family on a bona fide farm, with children that have come along that have now grown up and have families of their own, do you feel that 970 square feet is an ample size for a family with two or three children as the second home on a dairy farm or a vegetable farm?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I will repeat that anything to do with agricultural land is not within our ministry.

I will make a comment, though. My friend across the way was on council in Delta. I am aware of many projects of building housing on agricultural land that came to council at that time, and many were rejected. Surely, the member would appreciate — and I know he does, in fact — that decisions on agricultural land are much more complicated than on lands that are meant for housing.

I will repeat the main point again — that agriculture land and housing on agricultural land is a different ministry. Our ministry focuses on housing on lands that were intended to have housing on it, and that’s the separation between the two.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I guess my question would be, as the Agriculture critic, how would I go through to the Ministry of Agriculture or the Agricultural Land Commission to create change where we could see a second or third home on a bona fide farm with farm family members or farm workers that need to work and live on that farm?

I’ll give you an example of a dairy farm in Smithers, B.C., where children on that farm, with children of their own that are grown now, are living in an apartment in downtown Smithers and commuting 20 kilometres to the dairy farm in Smithers because they are not allowed a third home on the farm for farm family members.

So my question is, what channels would I go through to see a change in the number of homes that are allowed on a bona fide farm in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member wants to advocate for more housing on agricultural land, he certainly can raise these questions in estimates with the Ministry of Agriculture, can take the conversation to the Ministry of Agriculture and, of course, can always write to the Agricultural Land Commission directly.

Again, if the member wants to see a lot more housing on agricultural land, that’s fine. That’s a great position, but that’s the avenue he should take that. Our ministry doesn’t focus on agricultural land.

I. Paton: I’ll wrap by just saying I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not asking for more houses on agricultural land. I’m asking for bona fide farm families that have an existing farm home plate that’s already been covered with gravel or fill material with barns and houses on it, from maybe a hundred years ago…. That’s where I’m asking for more farmhouses to be able to go for bona fide farm families in this province.

I have an example of a farm family that I met from Chilliwack that actually have a farm. They’re bona fide dairy farmers with a 20-acre farm, and they would like to put a second house on the farm for the next generation to come along. They’ve been told that they cannot ask for a variance — I’ll use the term variance — to 970 square feet.

I’m asking the minister. Would you consider…? How would I go about looking for a variance to a farm family, with the next generation, with children of their own, being able to ask for a house that is bigger than the 970 square feet? They’re actually only asking for about 1,400 square feet for a house.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, if the member wants to advo­cate for more housing options on agricultural land, this is not the place. I don’t know how many times I can repeat the same answer.

Our ministry focuses on housing on lands that were already dedicated for housing. If the member wants to see more housing on agricultural land, he can take that advocacy public. I guess he is. He can take it to the Agricultural Land Commission. He can raise these questions with the Ministry of Agriculture.

[4:55 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I’ll just ask one or two more questions on Cherry Avenue. The minister indicated a $250,000 holdback. Does the minister feel that…? That works out to about $5,000 a unit for units, some of which have been burned and need massive repairs done to them. Does the minister feel that the repair work on this building, with frozen pipes and everything else, will be accomplished for $5,000 a unit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What I said to the member was the same thing I said now. B.C. Housing is doing an assessment of what the needs will be. When that is available, our priority will be to try to get these units up and ready and get people inside, because we know the need for the housing is desperate in the community.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I’m just trying to get the timeline then. The pipes burst. First off, people were supposed to be living in there in September or October, originally. The building wasn’t ready, so no one moved in.

B.C. Housing didn’t maintain the building properly through the winter, so the pipes burst — B.C. Housing are the owners — despite the same experience happening just a few blocks away with a different building, over the same time frames, a couple of years earlier. No lessons were learned from Fortune Motel, I guess.

So the pipes burst. Spring comes. Everyone knows that the pipes had already burst and the damage has been done. We’re sitting here almost at the end of April, and there has been no proper assessment done by B.C. Housing at this point as to what scope and magnitude of work needs to be done to move people in. The minister is saying that the hope is that people will be living there in the next six to seven months, while also recognizing there’s a shortage of trades and everything else.

I’m just wondering how any of this timeline actually matches up to anything other than at least another year before people are living in there, and how B.C. Housing, six months after pipes burst, still does not have a handle on scope and scale and cost to actually get 42 empty housing units having people living in them, in the middle of a housing crisis.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it is unfortunate that the proponent did not live up to their responsibility. I’ve already said that on the record. Not happy about that.

Again, our goal is to have people into this housing as soon as possible. It may be the end of the year; it may be into the new year. But we know there’s a need for housing. That’s why we’re making investments in the community. We’re going to continue to do that, make important investments in Kamloops and communities throughout the province.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:58 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

The Speaker: Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct, so please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel:  

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024

Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024

Budget Measures Implementation (Residential Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax) Act, 2024

Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Police Amendment Act, 2024

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024

Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

As always, it’s so wonderful to be among you this afternoon. I see we have a special guest here in the Legislature today, and I just have to say she’s absolutely gorgeous. So thank you.

I wanted, actually, to thank you. I was very pleased to co-host the Science Meets Parliament on Tuesday with the Hon. Raj Chouhan. Thank you so much for sharing that honour with me.

I wanted to thank all of you who participated in those meetings, who took time to actually speak to young scien­tists about their work and about how the policy sausage is made within government. Taking time for them to understand that, I think, was really a valuable thing to do. I know it has been an incredibly busy week for you.

I will say as well that in these scientists, you have an amazing resource at your disposal, and I would like to encourage you to use it and to take the opportunity to build those relationships with them, to learn about their work. I do feel it will be invaluable to you in the really important work that you do.

Take care. I shall see you again soon, and all the very best, as always.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Before I ask the Government House Leader to continue, I would again remind all the members not to wear any pins of any nature or parties or any symbols. Please be careful. Thank you.

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

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 5:13 p.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,033,255,000 (continued).

K. Kirkpatrick: Rather than starting into another large chunk here, I’m just going to ask some one-off questions that, perhaps, the minister can help me with.

I’m curious. With the $500 million set aside for the rental protection fund and the requirement for non-profits to still be paying the property transfer tax on their purchases, how much of that $500 million is actually going to come back to government in the form of the property purchase tax?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that the $500 million is not in government. The $500 million went to the rental protection fund.

For those that maybe are watching…. Maybe somebody is watching. I think it’s important to note that the rental protection fund has three entities: the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, the not-for-profit association as well as the B.C. co-op association.

They are now the entity that runs the $300 million. Each project independently would go through them. So we wouldn’t have that data available to us.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

[5:15 p.m.]

My understanding, though…. I mean, $500 million was set aside by this government and provided to the govern­ance of these three different organizations. But ultimately, because these non-profits are still going to have to pay a property transfer tax when they purchase this property using the money from the funds, regardless of who is administering the money…. How much of that $500 million would come back to government in the form of property transfer tax?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate where the member is going with it. It’s just information that we don’t have. This is something the Ministry of Finance would maybe have, but again, they would need to go through each individual property that the rental protection fund has acquired and then do calculations. It’s information we simply don’t have.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I appreciate that. I do think it highlights a point, though, that in programs like this and the need to support non-profits, it’s a bit…. The word’s not “misleading,” but with respect to having provided $500 million and then receiving…. It’s about $30 million, I anticipate, that government would get back in those taxes. It’s not $500 million, then, that has been provided for the purchase of properties.

I’m going to jump to Bill 44, a question on Bill 44. How many of the municipalities have either asked for extensions or are you aware of that there are going to be extensions required to meet the June deadline for adopting their zoning bylaws?

Hon. R. Kahlon: At this point, we’re not aware of any community requesting that request.

K. Kirkpatrick: What happens in communities where they’re simply not able to meet that June 30 deadline?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There is a process for areas and communities if their infrastructure doesn’t meet that need. There is a process for that. My conversations with many communities, most of them…. My expectation is that they will get their OCPs and bylaws done.

I met with Campbell River this morning. They told me they are en route. Delta just passed their third reading. Kelowna is well ahead of things. Vancouver just had a big public hearing about their changes. So far, most communities are making good progress on aligning their rules to Bill 44.

K. Kirkpatrick: All of the communities that the minister just mentioned were fairly large communities or communities that have got capacity or likely have capacity within their planning departments. I’ve been hearing from a number of smaller communities that capacity is a significant issue here — capacity and also experience. One community where their CAO is taking on this project right now….

What does the minister say to these communities that are having real challenges and very legitimate challenges in having capacity to be able to do this work in the time frame that has been required.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve provided a pretty comprehensive site-centred document to ease some of the load from local governments. I’m not sure the size of communities the member is referring to when the member says she that has spoken to some communities. I mean, Campbell River is not the biggest community, but their team shared with me this morning that they have no issues meeting their timelines.

[5:20 p.m.]

We have provided resources. The way we distributed dollars — we did scale it slightly higher for smaller communities so that they can bring in contractors if they need it. Most communities will bring some consultant in.

We have also encouraged local governments to pool resources. I know Metro Vancouver is leading some of the conversations for the cities in Metro Vancouver. We are encouraging the CRD to do that as well, because the rules should be fairly similar amongst all those jurisdictions. We have provided dollars to communities. So far, we’re seeing that communities are moving forward with the changes needed.

K. Kirkpatrick: In moving forward with Bills 44, 46, 49 and all the new housing legislation which is going to impact planning departments and the way that they’re operating, does the minister anticipate that there are going to be staffing shortages within planning departments and communities?

There are a limited number of planners. There is a lot more work that is going to be expected of them, particularly in a short period of time. Right now in conversations with UBCM, it looks like the only places they can find planners are in other communities, who are then going to be losing them. Has that been anticipated? What might be done to help that staff shortage?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Labour shortage challenges, whether on the planning side or on the trade side, is a major issue that we’re dealing with Canada-wide, North America–​wide. I think part of why the pieces of legislation we brought forward are important is that it’s about streamlining processes.

We’re also doing other work. We’ve got an initiative right now with 14 pilot communities and one First Nation, where we’re moving to digitize a lot of the building permit process. We’ll be making that very public soon in the communities and launching a new platform that allows for a proponent to submit their application in a digital form and checks the application for completion. It has the ability to do automatic code compliance checks and then route it to the local government or local authorities that need to see it.

Our goal, over the years, is to scale that up so that proponents are able to actually see comments that are being made by staff. Why that’s important and why digitizing is going to be important is that that’s one tool to create efficiencies in the process. It also creates more transparency and certainty for the construction industry. We have a table with architects, engineers, UDI, ULI, local government partners. All of them are at the table, helping design what this tool can look like. That’s just one way that we’re looking to address the future challenges we may see.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I know the minister follows me on Twitter, as I follow the minister on Twitter, and I made some posts yesterday with respect to the targets, particularly in the city of North Vancouver, being imposed on a city that is really punching above its weight as far as most communities would consider.

Can the minister explain the rationale? I will ask on the city of North Vancouver specifically. Generally, how are these targets being selected in these particular commun­ities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s certainly not me picking and choosing. I know some communities have said: “Well, we’re friends. Why are you doing this?” It’s not about friendship. It’s about the data. And the data is showing which commun­ities need to go through it. It’s a couple things, I’ll say.

What historically has happened with Canada when they look at infrastructure and grants is that they’ve created their own tools; we’ve had our own. They’ve got their own modelling; we’ve got our own modelling. What we’re trying to do with the housing targets is align all three levels of government. Now we have an understanding with CMHC. We’re the first province to align our target methodology with theirs. Now our local governments will be aligning. So all three levels will align.

[5:25 p.m.]

What Canada has indicated is that when they go to assess dollars for infrastructure for grants, and they’re associating it with housing, B.C. will be ahead of the game because we have already aligned everything. It’s reducing workload for our local governments when they make those applications, and it’s good for Canada as well. I think that’s one piece.

We have a comprehensive model that we’ve created. I’ll just say that North Vancouver is a good community. They’ve done some good work. I’ve said that on the record. I’ve said publicly that Kelowna has been doing some good work. In some communities, they need to build more housing. In some communities, they need to make different types of housing, produce different types of housing. Some need more three-bedroom units, some two-bedroom units. For some communities, they need more middle-​income housing.

In North Vancouver city, they need more middle-income housing, rentals in particular, in their community. That’s why BC Builds was so important for the community. We’re partnering with them to do that. I have all the confidence that the city of North Vancouver will reach any targets that are set. We’re going to do that work with them over the coming weeks.

I look forward to having more conversations about this next week with the member.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:26 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, April 29.

The House adjourned at 5:27 p.m.