Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 20, First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act.

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

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 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with the estimates for the Ministry of Housing.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to start by just sharing with the member. The member asked me a question last time. We were discussing estimates around the rental protection fund. It was a question that was a little bit towards the Ministry of Finance, but I committed that I would try to get an answer.

When we discussed the rental protection fund, in particular, the question was around the impact for the property transfer tax and how much would be coming back to the province and not available for acquisitions.

The team did have a chance to connect with the RPF and can share the following. Of the 27 properties currently approved for acquisition, 24 of them are exempt from the property transfer tax. This exemption resulted in savings of $13.8 million in property transfer tax. Yeah, I believe that’s what the member’s question was.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and thank you to the staff for that follow-up. It’s much appreciated.

Lots to cover in a little bit of time here. You’ll be happy to know I don’t have a headache today, so we are going to go…. I’m going to be much tougher than I was last week.

There was a modelling report that was released in December of 2023. It was written by my friends at the Sauder School at UBC and Terra Housing. It was a modelling report. I’ve got a couple questions with respect to that.

It did show the housing prices set to rise and housing starts reducing over time. That was through the Finance Ministry projections as well. The modelling report’s mid-line estimate for how many new homes in the next five years, out of the 250,000 that have been talked about, is 49,000. That means that 80 percent of the 254,000 homes won’t be completed until after 2028, which is the end of the NDP’s ten-year housing plan.

Specific questions: can the minister confirm that the purported reduction in housing prices is only a reduction in future increases and not a decrease in prices overall?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The team is just pulling the stuff from the report. They’ll be doing that, and we can canvass the report at greater length over time.

I will share with the member that the report did say that it would lead to from 216,000 to 293,000 additional net new housing units for British Columbia over the next ten years.

The report did highlight that without the important interventions, the prices for housing would continue to go up, given that we have more people than housing available. The report also did highlight that with these measures, with the increase in housing supply, prices would stabilize for rents, and prices would stabilize for the ability for people to buy homes.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

May I clarify with the minister the beginning of what the minister said. Does the minister need time to pull that report so that I can continue to ask questions on it? Should I move to another part, and come back to that report? Would that be the preference of the minister? Okay.

If the Chair can indulge for a moment, I just need to reorganize here for a moment.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, that would be greatly appreciated. That way, the team that’s working on that can cue up. If the member has the general frame of which topics we want to discuss, then we can just have everybody prepare accordingly. I know that these things move, and that’s fine. But any insight on that would be, I think, helpful for the limited time we have.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

o

It’s a pretty key document, in terms of the implementation and the impact of legislation that has been coming down the road. There’ll be a number of things: the ACC impact, land lift costs. There are a few key pieces in there. I hope that is directive enough.

If I might, Chair, I will then move to asking some questions specifically about the main estimates documents. I will start with this. There has been a dramatic reduction of over $20 million in the housing and land use policy piece of the budget. It’s the largest cut in the ministry’s budget this year.

If I can ask the minister: how would he plan to ensure that affordability and availability of housing will move forward without these critical funds? Isn’t this move counterproductive to addressing the housing crisis?

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to start by welcoming students from Pacific Christian School, I believe, that are here today.

I see head nods. I want to welcome them to the chamber. There are 20 grade 10 students that are here.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to welcome you to the chamber today on behalf of my colleague the MLA for Saanich South. She’s not here right now. We’re debating the housing estimates, the Ministry of Housing, and we’re having an exchange about all the things related to housing in the province.

Welcome. I hope you enjoy the proceedings.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the question, it’s actually not a decrease. What’s happened is that we had some dollars for DAPR, the development approval process review, and we moved that sooner. The dollars got out quicker than they were. It’s not a massive….

I’ll read this: “The $20.123 million funding decrease is primarily a result of accelerated payments in fiscal ’23-24 for development approval process review funding.”

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. I have to ponder that for a moment to see where to go from that answer. I may come back for some clarification.

The ministry’s budget reflects a substantial $7.5 million increase in salary and benefits. How does the ministry justify such a significant increase in administrative costs? Doesn’t this again show a misalignment of priorities during a housing affordability crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The number referred to by the member is broken down in different initiatives that we committed to as part of our Homes for People plan. Some of these things were in contingencies before, and now they’ve just been put into the budget.

For short-term rentals, it’s $1.7 million. We’ve launched a new digital permitting tool. We haven’t launched it, but we will be launching it soon, and $1.3 million is for the team that’s working on that. We’ve got housing innovation resources, strategy, governments and accountability, housing supply. We’ve got different pieces of the housing strategy that are now coming into the base budget when most of those were in contingencies previously.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m really interested in the housing innovations division. There is a $2 million estimate provided for that, maintained into the next year. Can the minister describe what kinds of innovative solutions the ministry is expecting to be funded?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: That team is doing exciting work. First, they’re working on digital permitting.

I can share with the member that the digital permitting team is working on a new digital building permit tool which will enable community proponents to submit building permits digitally so that there could be automatic code compliance checks on the building code side and will also do a complete check for completion of applications to ensure that it meets the local government’s needs. That work is happening right now.

We think that’s going to have significant impact in communities, and we want to expand that over the years. It’s starting as a basic tool. We have signalled that we will digitize the building code to PDF initially, but we are moving to BIM-enabled over time so that an application that is created in BIM, in a digital model, will be able to be submitted in a digital format and be automatically checked for code compliance. That’s where that team is heading, and we’re working with 14 communities on that.

Then the team is also working on opportunities for modular going forward. In particular, they’re also working on mass timber and advancing mass timber use in B.C.

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

The digital building permits part of that is being funded under the $7.5 million increase in benefits. Another piece is coming out of the housing innovations division. I understand the minister said they’re working with 14 commun­ities. Is the digital building permits technology something that’s expected to be rolled out and then customized to municipalities across B.C. once it’s finalized?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a front-facing tool that will be rolled out initially with the communities that have agreed to pilot with it. More details will come soon. If it is successful, I suspect that communities around the province would be wanting to be part of it, but there’s work for us still to do on that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m very interested in that. I think that is certainly the way of the future.

Can I ask then, with the $2 million for the housing innovations division and the various things going on there, how will the investment directly impact the housing market, and what measures is the ministry putting in place to determine the effectiveness of the new projects that the innovation fund is funding?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t give the full impact at this point, other than to say that the team is working. We have a working group: UDI, ULI, local government representation, architects, engineers and the Building Officials Association. We’ve got a whole table of professionals who work in this space that are at the table helping design and guide it.

We have got the folks at Digital on it. We have got folks from B.C. Tech on it. Really, pretty much everybody that touches that type of work is at the table helping guide the process.

There’s a lot of excitement about the potential around this. This may be a surprise, but the federal government is interested in something that B.C. is doing. They’re interested in this initiative in particular. The reason why everyone is excited is because they see the potential impact this could make, to address both time and uncertainty.

[1:55 p.m.]

Also, there is potential in the future for this tool to have the ability for information-sharing between different entities, different authorities. That is an important piece, I think, for us. That is, again, future work.

I can share with the member kind of where we’re at now. We think that this team will have major impact, whether it’s on the digital permitting side or on work they’re doing around the building code on mass timber. It’s a small but mighty team. I think, as the member has highlighted, that this is the future, and the team is leading that work.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Back on the digital permitting, which I think is quite interesting, certainly this is a good idea. What I have found with this government is that sometimes the execution on things doesn’t go quite as smoothly as initially intended. Can the minister explain when this project will be completed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will have to disagree on the characterization of the work. I would highlight that almost every single initiative that we have brought forward when it comes to housing is being adopted across the country. We are leading the way when it comes to new policy, new tools, new technologies. I’m really proud of the folks sitting around me, because they’re leading this work across the country.

There’s no end goal, necessarily, of this work. Digitizing our processes is ongoing. So I can’t put an end date. I can say that in the coming months, we’ll have phase 1 of the digital tool made available to the public, to homebuilders. Part of the work, the scope of the work, is: what would phase 1 look like? This is what we’re in now.

Then, with that advisory group, we’re talking about what phase 2 looks like, what phase 3 looks like. It will be multiple years to roll out this work. I know I’ve met with housing advocates, homebuilding organizations, from Ontario, that are trying to get the Ontario government to do this work. We’re hoping that we can set a model which then can be taken across the country.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’ll move on, but just two things. I know we’re making statements here prior to answering questions. I may disagree with the minister that the plans and the work that are being done on housing are being adopted across the country.

I think there certainly is a curiosity as to how things are rolling out here. I am concerned — with such a significant investment, such as software, in the development of what could potentially be a real game-changer, in a significant, complicated project — that there’s not a specific scope in timelines for when it’s going to be completed and how that work is going to be done.

A question to the minister, again on the financials. The strategic governance and accountability allocation sees a significant rise of $536,000. Can you explain the necessity behind this increase? How does bolstering governance and accountability translate into tangible benefits to those who are struggling with housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member and I can probably agree that governance and accountability are critically im­portant. That’s the process we’re going through right now. I can share with the member that this team works with the FPT tables. This is one of its responsibilities.

[2:00 p.m.]

There are a lot of initiatives that we’re doing that now require us to work better, in better collaboration, with the federal government, whether that’s BC Builds, or their version, Canada Builds, or whether this is…. Now some of the conversations they’re having are around infrastructure, housing targets, all these things. That’s partly the work this team is doing.

Also, a new Indigenous unit that we’ve started there…. More Indigenous communities are very active in construction and projects. We see a need for a team to be able to support that work, to support communities, but also support housing across the province. It’s actually a modest amount, considering the work that the team is doing.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m going to talk a bit about the cost pressure grants and some of the issues happening with construction overspends on projects. The cost of construction has gone up significantly under this government, and the government had to expend $154 million on overbudgeting housing projects, and that’s nearly $4 million per project. I have about three pages’ worth of projects here that have overruns.

We have seen the cost of construction soar, leading to that $154 million in cost pressure grants being poured into the over-budget housing projects. How does the minister justify nearly $4 million per project in overruns to taxpayers who are already burdened with some of the highest cost-of-living increases we’ve ever had?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member referred to this government, but I think the member can easily say governments across North America, across the world are dealing with global inflation. Certainly, in Canada, my counterparts across the country are seeing cost pressures on housing, infrastructure, all types of projects. And that’s no different than the private sector. There are a lot of projects that are private sector projects that are dealing with major cost pressures.

What I would say is that there is a deficit of affordable housing. There is, we believe, decades of underinvestment in affordable housing. And when you have projects that are going, it’s vitally important that they get built, because they’re supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community. We acknowledge that there are cost pressures on housing, on infrastructure, across the board, across Canada. What we’re doing here is we’re stepping up to deal with it.

We also are looking at supporting federal government projects. The federal government, at one point, decided that they were going to go directly to local governments to support housing projects. Some of those projects had cost overruns and stalled those projects. We’ve been trying to find ways to ensure that even those types of housing units continue to get built, because we know what it means for people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

It’s easy to say that everybody else is having the same problem, and everybody else is having the same results, but that is not necessarily true. When there are anticipated cost overruns, when you’re managing a project, you have to make decisions along the way that are going to make that project affordable. The ability to simply write a cheque at the end of the day and not actually be really managing the budgets on these projects and making decisions to manage those costs is concerning.

I know my colleague from Kamloops last week was asking the minister about a B.C. Housing project that had been purchased. Money hadn’t gone into it to make sure that…. I shouldn’t say that money hadn’t gone into it. There was no thought to maybe turn off the water during the winter so all the pipes didn’t burst. You’ve got a building sitting there empty that should have people in it. So it’s hard to take the explanation for the cost overruns on “it’s just something that happens,” because we know that bad management is certainly a contributor to those cost overruns.

Given the table from the B.C. Housing FOI that we re­ceived, indicating numerous projects across various communities, it’s clear that the cost overruns are widespread. So realizing now that this is happening, what specific measures is the ministry taking to ensure more accurate budget forecasting and control over public funds?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it is true and fair to say that cost pressures are being felt across the country. I know this because I talk to colleagues across the country. We’re talking about our not-for-profit partners, who are the ones who are dealing with these cost pressures. No one is trying to make extra money here. These are real cost pressures — because of global inflation, interest rates — that are being felt.

I think the member knows that it’s the same with our local government partners. It’s the same with the federal government. It’s the same with our private sector partners. All of them are facing real cost pressures that are putting challenges on their projects.

We’re doing an analysis to ensure that it’s real cost pressures, tying it to things that are actually impacting the housing to be built. The accountability measures are in place to do that. In the end, it’s vitally important that when a community knows there are 40 units of housing coming in their community, we find a way to make sure those 40 get built so people can get indoors.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There is considerable financial impact when budgets, obviously, are overrun. I’m curious about the accountability measures within B.C. Housing. What kind of oversight is there to make sure that these budgets are being managed as best as they can be?

I’ll take what the minister says. I mean, I know we’re in a high inflationary period of time. There are cost pressures, but we have to manage those cost pressures. Again, I’ll…. You know, the Kamloops reference…. There’s money being spent on things where you’re not actually getting benefit, and those are taxpayer dollars being spent.

What accountability mechanisms are in place when projects exceed their budget forecasts? Is there a risk of systemic inefficiency within the current approach to housing development?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The accountability measures that are in place…. All related cost overruns for new projects get verified through a third-party cost consultant. If the variance is above 10 percent, it automatically has to go back to the board. If there’s a variance of over 15 percent, it has to come to the province as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Who is the third-party cost consultant?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are many consultants out there. An example would be Altus. Altus is a well-known company that does this work. But there are many that B.C. Housing works with.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

May I ask the minister if we can now move back to the December 7 modelling report? Okay. I’ll start questions on that. Let me just see. Did I ask a question on this, or did we stop before I started? Yeah. Okay.

Is the information in the modelling report baked into the ministry’s budget? Does it inform the housing starts and the supply projections?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The report was a third party doing an economic analysis of the impacts of the legislation that we brought forward. The data has been shared with the Ministry of Finance. It has been shared with our local government partners. It may guide communities in some of their decision-making. It was important to see the impacts, potentially, of the work. That’s why they were consulted to provide us this information.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The question was based on the data that’s in this report. These are people that this government relies heavily on for data that is meant to inform policy decisions.

Was the data in that report considered in the government’s budget in terms of estimates on housing starts and supply projections?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The data that’s presented reinforces that the legislation we brought in was important to address the challenge we have. I would not say it was used for creating the B.C. Housing Ministry’s budget. The projections are for private sector, mostly, housing that’s going to be built. We, obviously, use the data internally. We use the data for what could possibly happen, but it did not impact the size of our housing budget in the ministry.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m sure that the minister and the ministry are alive to some of the comments and analysis of policies that this government has brought in and the view that there will be negligible impacts in many areas from the legislation that is being brought in.

How does government respond to concerns that the majority of the new homes which are promised under the current plan won’t be available until after the end of the NDP’s ten-year housing plan in 2028? I know that the minister said these homes will be ready in ten years. The date I’m referencing is actually the end of the NDP’s ten-year housing plan, and the majority of these homes won’t yet be completed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a few things. The projections from this third party are in addition to the targets that we had set. It’s in addition to the targets that we had set. That’s the first important thing.

The member refers to studies that show that the policies we’ve brought forward won’t have a big impact. I’m happy to talk about those studies that the member is referring to. I can’t point to specifically which policy the member is referring to.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. This is just, again, from the research that was done out of UBC and Terra. The modelling report suggests that the new amenity cost charges could actually significantly and negatively impact housing growth, particularly in Vancouver.

[2:15 p.m.]

Why, then, is the NDP allowing Metro Vancouver to triple the taxes on new housing in the region?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member’s question is conflating two different issues into one. Amenity cost charges are an important tool because not only do we want housing, but we also want to ensure we have viable, livable communities that have amenities. I don’t know if that’s a position of the official opposition, not to support amenities in our communities.

The tool, as we debated at great lengths, comes with checks and balances for local governments. They have to clearly put in their bylaws what amenities they’re prioritizing, what part of their community. It comes with some certainty on costs. It comes with some requirements to have analysis done on the impacts it would have for housing.

I think that it’s important that communities be able to build those amenities, and that’s what the amenity cost charge is: moving away from a model of negotiations or discussions that are not in the public to a very transparent public form of funding critically important amenities.

We believe we can have both. We believe we can have housing but also ensure that local governments have dollars to build important amenities to support growth in communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Well, it was quite the leap to suppose that by my asking about the negative impact of amenity cost charges, there was any suggestion whatsoever that the official opposition doesn’t believe in community amenities. I mean, livability is foundational in terms of the housing plan that we’re talking about on this side of the House.

The question is that this is modelling that is done that is showing that the introduction and the use of amenity cost charges could significantly, negatively impact housing growth. May I ask what the minister has as a response to that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It would help us, in this exchange, if the member were able to point to a page number on the report or what section the member’s referring to when referring to amenity cost charges.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that. I’ve got page numbers on some of these, but I’m sure that my folks behind the computer here will provide a page number in a moment that I can share with you.

I will move on to the next question then. Can the minister elaborate on the modelling report’s caution about the potential for rezoning to mainly benefit the incumbent property owners?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was trying to find where the member is referring to in the question, and I can’t find the reference. I will say that to suggest that the impacts or the effects of this legislation won’t have impacts on people that are renters or others in the housing market is incorrect.

If the member is referring to the report, on page 17, it says: “The primary effect of small-scale, multi-unit and TOA legislation on renters is to reduce rents by existing rental homes through supply effects.” It also says: “We show that in most cases, new higher-density housing would be built closer to city centres, with potential benefits in reducing commuting, congestion and associated carbon emissions.”

Throughout the report, it talks about the impact of the changes and what that means to communities. So let’s say I respectfully disagree with the member’s characterization of what the report says.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

To go back to the amenity cost charges, although I won’t debate those again, there is a table entitled “Impact of ACC charges on TOA development,” and that’s located on page 126. That is where it shows that there could well be a negative impact on housing starts because of the ACCs.

I’m going to, if the minister is okay, move along with similar questioning, but we don’t need to necessarily connect it directly to the report. Though I will provide, when I have those details, what pages and what areas in the report we’re referencing.

As when the member of the Third Party and myself were talking about some of this new legislation and asking the minister questions as we went through, there was a concern about wealth inequalities from Bill 44 and the value uplift in properties. That is supported in the modelling report.

Does the minister, at this point, in hindsight, or with information that’s coming in…? Could he respond to concerns that gains from rezoning would exacerbate wealth inequalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is like déjà vu of the fall session. The member for Parksville-Qualicum is laughing because we spent hours talking about these topics, and the information was in front of us when we had that conversation.

The housing system we have right now is not working. Income inequality and the spread between those who have and those who do not is growing with the system, prior to any changes. It’s happening. Those that have access to housing, homes, multiple homes have greater wealth than those that don’t have access to it. The reforms are about increasing the housing supply, in­creasing the ability for people to get into the market in housing that is affordable to them.

[2:25 p.m.]

I spent, I think, five or six hours talking about this topic. I’m happy, for the last four or whatever hours we have, to continue to talk about the legislation in the fall, but I think that time might be better used for us to spend on the estimates at hand.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

With respect, we may have been talking about things, but in the interim period of time, this report has come out, and there has been other information that supports what some of our concerns were.

There is also, in this report, a recommendation for value capture mechanisms to tax the land lift in these properties. Coun. Christine Boyle has advocated for a land value capture tax to deal with this.

Has the minister had any communications with Councillor Boyle regarding this type of tax?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have not, and I’m not aware of any conversations happening around this.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Because there seems to be a disconnect between the ministry and the information I’ve got with respect to the modelling, I’m going to move on to some other topics at this point.

Surprise, surprise. I am going to ask the minister about compensation for homelessness costs. This is starting with the invoice from the city of Victoria to the ministry. They have decided to invoice the province for $100,000 to cover the operational costs of Our Place’s storage facility and community centre.

I’ve got a couple quotes here from a few different mayors.

Marianne Alto in Victoria: “This council has done yeoman’s work well above its usual capacity…in stepping into spaces that have been traditional responsibilities of the provincial and sometimes the federal governments.”

Mayor Leonard Krog from Nanaimo: “Should local residents taxpayers be paying for what’s essentially the delivery of medical services?”

Again, UBCM president Trish Mandewo: “We are footing the bill, and it’s getting increasingly difficult for local governments to balance the budgets. This issue is not going away.”

A question to the minister. Will the Minister of Housing be paying the invoice submitted by the city of Victoria? Is that a yes or a no?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member has the invoice, I’d like to see it. We’re not aware of any invoice that the city of Victoria has shared with us.

I will say that in this case, the city of Victoria made a decision in 2018 to provide funding for an initiative. The province wasn’t consulted. They made that decision, and they’ve been funding it for six years. I am not aware of any invoice that has been sent to us. If the member has information about that invoice, I’m happy to see it.

Beyond that, I can say that we have been working with communities, providing an unprecedented amount of investments and funding for these measures in particular. I’ll highlight a couple.

Just today I met with the councillors and staff from Prince George, where we are bringing online 100 affordable housing units, supportive housing units to get vulnerable people out of encampments and into homes.

Crab Park — I mentioned that. We had over 100 people at Crab Park. We’ve been working, building relationships, getting people into housing. We have 16 people, and our goal is to get them into housing. It’s the same story in Nanaimo.

Just in Abbotsford, on Friday: 221 housing units that we’re funding in Abbotsford. Lonzo park site is opening this week. We’ve got people moving in. We identified new shelter locations. The list goes on, and it’s important work.

I’m keen to work with our local government partners to support the efforts that they’re making. I think all the mayors you’ve mentioned — Mayor Alto, Mayor Krog, Mayor Yu in Prince George, Mayor Siemens in Abbotsford — will tell you that the historic amount of dollars we’re investing is needed, and we’ve been doing it in partnership with them.

[2:30 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I don’t think there’s any debate that these investments are important and that we need to provide shelter housing in these communities.

The concern from these municipalities is that it does put additional pressure and additional costs because of the nature of the housing that’s going into the communities, and that is pushed down to the municipalities to have to pay. Whatever has happened with Victoria covering costs in the past, the issue is today and how those increased costs are being managed.

Given the city of Victoria’s recent action to invoice the province…. I appreciate that the minister has said he has not seen that invoice yet. But he has certainly heard about that invoice in the media, and we are certainly aware that that invoice is coming. So given the recent action of the city, what is the Ministry of Housing’s stance on such claims from local governments that these costs are now being downloaded to them that should traditionally have been the cost borne by the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that dealing with homelessness is a real challenge. I appreciate the pressures that local governments face, the province faces, the federal government faces, First Nations communities face. But I want to make sure that it’s on the record that this discussion of local governments not believing the province is funding enough is not something that’s new to our government now.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

If you go back to Hansard to 2002, 2004, 2008, you will hear the same conversation happening. Whether it’s infrastructure or whether it’s other matters, local governments are always making the case that the province and the federal government provide more dollars. All for good reasons, all for good causes.

My goal in our ministry is to work with our partners to address the challenges around housing. My door is always open to mayors. I spoke to Mayor Krog just a couple of weeks ago. We’re making some real good progress when it comes to getting vulnerable people off streets and into housing. Mayor Alto, similarly. Mayor Siemens — I met with him on Friday. The list goes on.

Again, we can go into this “the local government’s wanting more dollars” question, but it is something that is, I think, a historic piece that local governments have raised that we’re going to have to just work together on.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just so the minister is aware, and whoever has sent this to me, Victoria has actually sent the invoice. I’m not sure why the minister has not seen that invoice, but it has been sent, unless I am being given wrong information.

I hear what the minister is saying with respect to the kinds of requests for municipalities that have been historical in terms of asking for increased supports. But we are talking about issues that are traditionally, and should be, covered by the province, which are unique to the times that we are in today.

Additional homelessness, public disorder, decriminalization, conversion of motels into supportive housing units: all of these things actually add to the burden of a municipality in terms of the costs they have to pay. The costs are related primarily in terms of homelessness and shelters that the municipalities are flagging and that the city is talking about.

Again, what does the minister have to say to those municipalities on those specific issues that are unique today that are causing financial hardship? There’s only so much that a municipality can do, only so many tools that it has in order to be able to balance its budget.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have knowledge that homelessness is a challenge. I think it’s two things. I think it’s important to acknowledge that homelessness didn’t just start. We’ve had a homelessness challenge for a long time.

We went at great lengths when we were discussing homelessness when the previous government was on this side, on the government side, and were dealing with homeless encampments in the city of Victoria and communities across the province. Those were real challenges that communities have been dealing with for a long time.

Again, for the city of Victoria, I’m not aware of any invoice. But again, if a local government comes forward with some information, and they want to have a conversation, we can certainly have that.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think it’s important for the record to note that Victoria decided they were going to fund this in 2018, six years ago. It wasn’t a conversation with the province. They decided they wanted to do it. Then for them to turn around and say: “We want you to pay for it now.” I think if there’s true collaboration, we should be working together on that. And that’s my expectation with all communities that we work with in the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I think that we’re talking about two different things in terms of what the city of Victoria has agreed to fund previously and the nature of their request today. But as the minister has not seen the invoice or the correspondence from the city of Victoria, I’ll move on, although to note that this is an issue that is not just city of Victoria. I believe other invoices will be in the mail to this ministry in the future.

UBCM has been here recently, advocating for some of the key issues that municipalities have. With respect to housing, there were several requests of this minister. As we’ve seen in the last few years, there’s been a lot of conversation about what’s happening with B.C. Housing. So one of the questions that UBCM had was: how does this government intend to improve B.C. Housing operations that will minimize delays in affordable housing projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would first start by saying that there are a lot of improvements happening at B.C. Housing. I’m not saying that because the CEO is behind me, but I am saying that because the CEO is behind me. He’s been doing a fantastic job in his role in making the changes that I think are necessary at B.C. Housing.

When it comes to projects, I think there’s always a desire for projects to move faster. Sometimes it’s procurement challenges. Sometimes it’s challenges related to local governments and their permitting and change of use and additional requirements that get put on in the last minute. I’ve seen it all. It’s a combination. Sometimes we can do better; sometimes local governments can do better. We are committed to continue to work with them, especially in this time.

It’s one conversation to say we have limited funding for housing, and because there’s limited funding the issues are limited, and the scale is limited. But we are investing in dollars that we have not seen in B.C. when it comes to social housing or affordable housing. With that increased capacity, it puts pressure on local governments. It puts pressure on us. So we continue to work through that.

I met with the UBCM and the executive members that were here. We talked about a whole host of topics that get raised about housing. Then I mentioned the projects that are happening in communities that have opened, that are opening right now. There is generally a real excitement.

I think from a UBCM perspective…. Certainly what I heard from them is that they are pleased to finally see the investments that are needed. They would always like to see more. The other topics we discussed around infrastructure and all those pieces, I think those are things we have to work together on as we go forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure that I would describe the reaction to much of the changes in housing policy as being pleased. I know that there are a lot of concerns that municipalities have.

I’m going to ask a couple more questions on B.C. Housing, very mindful that Vincent is sitting in the House here. There have consistently been concerns from housing providers that the bureaucracy at B.C. Housing is challenging. The turnaround times are challenging. It’s very difficult to get an invoice approved or to get something that’s rela­tively critical so that you can move on and a housing provider can pay for something.

After everything that happened with Atira and B.C. Housing, and I know there have been changes, there is a recognition of an inefficiency in the processes at B.C. Housing. Can I ask what has been done to review that? Are there recommendations just in terms of increasing the efficiency of how the organization works?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s been a lot of work happening around streamlining processes between the requirements from treasury, from B.C. Housing, from our not-for-profit partners. We’re also doing a lot of work with our not-for-profit partners. I think that there are ways for that interaction between our not-for-profits and B.C. Housing to be much more efficient. We’re looking at digital tools to make sure that information can be going back and forth, so it’s less labour-intensive. There are efficiencies, definitely, that we can achieve, but that work is actually happening right now.

My team, B.C. Housing meet with CEOs from not-for-profits. There’s a bit of a working group, and those are places where all these discussions are happening right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Are contract renewals with the housing providers being done in a timely manner, or are they actually exceeding the dates when the initial contracts are expiring?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

I think it’s important to note first that there’s never a gap in service. If an operating agreement hasn’t been renewed, the service continues, and there are provisions built into the operating agreement for that.

There is work to do there. We are doing a lot of work in that space. It’s an important conversation we’re having with our not-for-profit partners. How do we streamline? How do we find efficiencies? How do we do this in a better way? The working group I mentioned to the member is a place where these conversations are happening.

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

The concern I have heard is that there are often services being provided prior to even having a contract in place with B.C. Housing. That happens…. The most obvious examples, I think, or the easiest examples are winter shelter and some of those things that seem to be left to the last minute to be able to develop and sign contracts with the housing providers.

What I would like to do now…. I’m going to move on to some different questioning, but I am going to turn the floor over to my colleague from Surrey–White Rock for some questions.

T. Halford: I thank the minister and his staff, and I do thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano for giving me this important time here on the Housing estimates.

[2:45 p.m.]

The minister and I have canvassed this in the chamber, I think, definitely outside, regarding the warming shelters in White Rock. Specifically, this winter, obviously, we saw record temperatures, at least where I am, of freezing.

White Rock itself is a fairly small community, with just over 20,000 individuals. But also, in terms of our population that’s unhoused, a lot of those individuals come from Surrey as well, or other parts of the province. But White Rock has been on the hook — specifically, we’ll talk about this year — for the warming shelter, where they approved, through council, $360,000 to fund it.

I’ll be honest; it was kind of done at the last minute, because they were trying to get support. It’s a much smaller tax base. They did have a request in for emergency B.C. or $75,000 last season. They can only apply for those funds if the temperature drops below zero. But now with their tax base to absorb that and not have any support, where they’re having to house people from other municipalities….

I know the minister was on record with CBC, following the mayor’s comments, that he would look into ways that he could assist White Rock in terms of their funding.

White Rock has a bill here for a substantial amount of money. They stepped up, and they did the right thing. And we always want to make sure….

I’ll keep in mind that that warming shelter was only in place until 10 p.m. Okay? So after 10 p.m., these people had to leave. Where did they go? A lot of them went behind the movie theatres, the Rialto. A lot of them slept in alleyways, businesses, abandoned homes.

So my question to the minister is, one, is he still willing to help White Rock with the bill that they have for the previous winter? Also, two, how do we find a way where we can actually get people that aren’t getting put back onto our streets when it is the coldest? After 10 p.m., it’s much colder than it is at four o’clock when they’re checking into the shelter.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member. The member has spoken to me about this topic.

I think it’s important to note that my comments on radio were about a conversation with the city about a permanent shelter. My comment was that if the city can help us find a location for a shelter, where people can be in­doors, they have a place to sleep at nighttime, that is a conversation we’re willing to happen.

I don’t think at any point I said that we would fund a new operation that they started without talking to us about what that looks like. If White Rock is interested in having something that is available for people for overnight sheltering, not just day space but overnight sheltering, we’re keen to have that conversation.

The Chair: I had a brief request for a five…. I had a request for a biology break, but I’m going to go back to the member from White Rock, and then we will take that break, so they can get those questions done.

T. Halford: Biology breaks are important, so I will be brief.

Anyways, I want to thank the minister for that answer, but my point is this, and I’ll ask the minister this question: did the minister, or through the ministry, have conversations with the city of White Rock and with the city of Surrey specific to funding a warming shelter or an overnight shelter in the either White Rock area or South Surrey area prior to council approving this $360,000 which had the warming centre in operation from November 20 to March 15?

We, in my area, have relied primarily on faith-based communities to do this housing. I know that this has been a very important topic for those, to make sure that we have something.

Then my second question would be: is the minister in talks with just White Rock proper in terms of finding a permanent facility for daytime and overnight? Is that just White Rock, or are those conversations also including Surrey, specifically in the region of South Surrey?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There may have been conversations with B.C. Housing staff, in the local staff, with White Rock. I’ll get that information. I’ll read into the record for the member once we reach the person that’s the lead on that.

[2:50 p.m.]

I will say to the member that B.C. Housing doesn’t fund warming centres. If there is a request for funding for when the temperatures rise, it’s done through EMCR.

I can say that there were lots of conversations with the city of Surrey around supportive housing and shelters. I know that for a fact. We’ll just have to verify what conversations have happened with White Rock.

Again, communities coming forward and saying, “Hey, we have a location; we want to put a shelter in place,” is music to my ears. Those are really difficult conversations to happen in communities.

I do appreciate the member’s understanding and agreement that there’s a need for this type of housing in communities. I will get that information for the member and read it into the record so that he has it.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I’ll ask that we take a recess for ten minutes. That means be back here at three o’clock so we can get going at three. A request to all members. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:51 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. It’s just about three o’clock. I’d like to start things early, if I can.

We are here with the committee for the Ministry of Housing estimates.

First, I recognize the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

S. Robinson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

S. Robinson: Up in the gallery today, we have several guests. Leo Facio is here joining us. He’s a city councillor from the burgeoning town of Harrison Hot Springs. He is a former mayor. He has been a really good friend of mine. A lovely gentleman. He’s no longer the mayor. He’s now a city councillor.

He is here with his family: Alja Facio, Matthew Facio, Danica Facio, Caleb Facio and Mikayla Facio.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is their first trip to the Legislature. I’ve taken them on a bit of a tour. I think some of the highlights for them, besides the library and this lovely chamber…. I think it was meeting Keith Baldrey out in the hallway.

Can everyone please welcome the Facio family to the House.

The Chair: Welcome to anyone else as well.

Welcome to the Facio family.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On a good day, it’s nice to see Keith Baldrey in the hallway. On a bad day, it’s probably not as nice for us to see him in the hallway.

I’m glad you got a chance to have a tour and see the library. The library is my favourite spot.

Nice to see you again. Thank you for being here.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Kahlon: My colleague from White Rock, the MLA from White Rock, asked a question prior to the break. Our team has connected with White Rock. They have connected with the staff.

Now, the challenge they found, in the conversation, was the location. Location was the big challenge. There was, I guess, a round table with B.C. Housing and others in the community that existed to talk about how to address this challenge. There was a leadership change, and under the new leadership, there isn’t that table yet. I think there might be value in bringing that table together again to talk about how we address these challenging issues.

I’m certainly hoping my friend from across the way sees this comment and maybe reaches out to me. We can figure out how to start that process again.

With that, I’ll pass it back to the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: On behalf of the member for Surrey–​White Rock, I thank the minister for that answer.

I’d like to talk about the impact of some of the policies that have come in, in the last few years, in terms of how they’re impacting the work that we’re doing with real estate today. The homebuyer rescission period, HBRP, was brought in with a goal of cooling the market and dealing with the multiple offer issues. Has the ministry gone back and reviewed if that tool has been successful in doing what it was intended to do?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that we’re talking housing. This is a piece that was the Ministry of Finance. Those estimates are coming up in the other chamber. This question may be better suited there.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the response that this is a Ministry of Finance question.

It certainly has an impact on housing. It’s got to be connected to housing plans and policies and behavioural modification, which is being attempted with this kind of work.

Has the minister…? Who would be monitoring whether this tool is actually working? Is that something that someone in Housing looks at, or is that something that somebody in the Ministry of Finance would look at?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. This is, again, the Ministry of Finance.

The challenge we have is they’re in estimates right now in another chamber. I wouldn’t be able to get any information from the Ministry of Finance. But it is something that is better suited to ask the Minister of Finance.

K. Kirkpatrick: I agree with the minister. The challenge is the Ministry of Finance is in estimates in a different room, and I’m not able to ask that question right now. I am certainly hoping I will be able to do that. I do think there are some challenges with the implementation of that.

Another question on behalf of BCREA and, I believe, on behalf of most British Columbians who are dealing with the housing market right now. There has been an escalation of policies and legislation. There’s a lot going on in British Columbia right now with respect to housing and changes in housing. BCREA has been asking this government for a permanent provincial housing round table.

I would like to ask the minister: is that something that’s being considered, and if not, why not?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll give the member the same answer that I gave BCREA when they were all here, at their conference, in front of all their members. We value the input that they could provide to this conversation. In fact, we have BCREA sitting at various tables on various topics. But when it comes to housing, limiting the conversation to one table is a real challenge.

[3:05 p.m.]

We have a lot of local governments. We have different bodies representing local governments. We have BCREA. We have engineers. We have architects. We have commun­ity planners. We have the Urban Development Institute, the UDI. The list is actually quite large. There are local organizations in each community.

My message to BCREA is that, yes, we should all get together and have conversations about how we move housing together. But to limit it to one table becomes challenging. It’s hard to have one table where you can be productive to have the conversation, but at the same time, who doesn’t get a chance to come on the table is a challenge.

Again, I think they have good input. They have actually shared a lot of input, and I know from my last meeting with them that they’re big fans of the reforms we’re bringing forward. We’ll continue to work with them and all the other partners in the housing space.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. With all due respect, I think saying “big fans” might be a bit of an overstep in terms of their reaction to some of this housing legislation.

If I might just clarify as well. What they’re asking for is not simply a BCREA ability to meet with government and have input into policy and legislation. They’re asking federal, provincial, municipal, regional, Indigenous governance authorities, market and non-market developers, builders, real estate professionals, civil society organizations.

I mean, there are a lot of people that need to be at the table, and then there is ability to have subcommittees or different groups that can look at something in a more specific area. It is something that I know has been asked of the minister, and I reiterate that I think that’s important.

I’m going to move on to something else, which I think is actually an example of perhaps not getting enough feedback, clarification and consultation when coming out with legislation. I have a couple of things I’d like to address, as tomorrow is May 1. We know what happens on May 1. It’s when the STR bill, Bill 35, comes into effect in terms of limiting short-term rentals.

We did a lot of work on Resort Drive in Parksville and in Qualicum. That was, admittedly by this government, an oversight in terms of looking at the impact on a particular community with the overreach of this STR legislation and the impact that it would have had on Parksville. I know that Parksville appreciates that the minister heard and has addressed this issue. Now, he could not have not heard this because of the 100 people that came into the Legislature and the introduction of the amendment of this act by B.C. United.

But I have another example that I would like to share and would ask if the minister could explain why this particular project and property would be included in the STR ban. This is a resort community called Aqua resort. It’s a 300-plus unit, 380-degree waterfront, multiphase, concrete highrise. It is in the process of being developed. Presales have been made. It’s on the shore of Lake Okanagan’s Lower Mission resort drive.

It was purpose-built for short-term rentals, distinct in every way from its zoning. So it’s got commercial zoning, its OCP designation, waterfront and hotel tourism–specific districts next to hotels — a hotel on each side of it. It has a private boat launch, state-of-the-art indoor boat club with crane-assisted rack storage and boat valet service, waterfront boardwalk with beach and waterfront restaurant, multiple swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, concierge, central air conditioning, yoga studio, golf simulator, fire pits and more hotel-style amenities.

To me and to anyone that would look at this, it’s clear that this is a resort community. This was built as a resort community. The people who have done the presales and purchased in here paid for something that they believed was legal and was within the OCP. Can the minister please explain to me and to the owners in Aqua resort why this would be considered under the short-term rental legislation?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It sounds amazing, but your description, I think, has put it out of my price range. I can pretty much guarantee.

I would say that, first off, I would strongly disagree with the characterization from my friend across the way. At no point did I say it was incorrect or an oversight. From day one, we said that strata hotels would be able to continue to operate. But because of the complexity of strata hotels, given the complexity of the different economic models that all of them operate on, we wanted to have the time to bring that in. We said we would bring that in through regulation, and that’s exactly what we did.

I want to recognize the member for Parksville-Qual­icum because he also brought lots of different types of scenarios to us, which helped inform the policy.

To the specific property, the member knows that we’ve laid out clearly what is required for new strata hotels to be considered strata hotels. That’s laid out clearly. If the member doesn’t have the three different definitions of that, I can certainly share that with the member. Anyone that wants to come into this space needs to ensure that they’ve got that.

If they’ve got a concierge, that’s one important step. One of the items is “staffed at the front desk.” It sounds like they’ve got that.

One or more employees or contractors that provide housekeeping services for overnight accommodation. It sounds, from the description…. You had me sold. It does sound like that’s there.

A platform providing platform services available exclusively for the owners offering short-term rentals of the property. Those are important pieces that they have to have in order to be considered a strata hotel.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I clarify that the significant difference between whether this is ex­empted from the legislation or not would be whether there is one central management company that is managing the short-term rentals, as opposed to individual owners who are managing those rentals on their own?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll read this into the record. “Before December 8, 2023, accommodation was provided in a manner similar to the hotel and motel — a staffed front desk on site, one or more contractors that provide housekeeping services for the overnight accommodation, a platform providing platform services available exclusively for the use of owners offering short-term rentals of the property.”

These are the elements that have to be in place for anything that’s coming in the future.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I clarify, then, that the property had to be operating prior to December 28, 2023? That is my understanding of what the minister has just said.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wanted to make sure I had the right language here. I think it’s important to note that this is all on the website already, available to the public. If the member would like it to be in writing, I can get that in writing for the member as well.

The following services have to be provided that are similar to a hotel or motel. They have to have a staffed front desk on site. One or more employees or contrac­tors are providing housekeeping services. Overnight accommodation, a dedicated online reservation platform and the strata lot and the property are not able to be used as a principal residence by anyone due to legal use restriction, including zoning, rental management agreement between a manager and an owner of a strata lot, and then a restrictive covenant or a covenant under section 219 of the Land Title Act.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That opens up some opportunities, maybe, here.

If I could clarify. I didn’t understand when I heard…. Maybe I didn’t hear that date, and I heard something else. But the date of May 28, 2023 — was that something in there as a requirement for something to have been operating already, or did I take that out of context?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The description I’ve laid out is going forward. The description that I’ve laid out is for strata hotels that want to come online in the future. They have to have those requirements they must follow. Again, I can get this in writing for the member. The information is on the website for everyone right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: I was just confused about that date, so I’ll look on the website to find the date.

My concern here is that we’ve got a building that isn’t operating yet. It’s still under construction. I would like to read a paragraph to the minister. This is from a real estate development professional who is in Kelowna: “I am not aware of any similar punitive change to a development, completed or under construction, in the history of the province of British Columbia where the intended use for a purpose-built, OCP-designated, neighbourhood-planned, zoning-applicable project has been stripped of its permissible use rights without grandfathering or compensation.”

[3:20 p.m.]

Now, when this legislation was being drafted, can I under­stand, please, from the minister why, at the very least, those units who were legally operating designated short-term rentals were not grandfathered?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The information we’ve laid out on the website makes it clear, for these proponents, what they need to do to ensure they can operate like a strata hotel. Certainly, the member verified two of the three things in the description of the amazingness of this new property.

The third is that it seems reasonable for them, as a site that wants to operate as a strata hotel, to follow, so we made the information available for them. I appreciate it. It may mean that some units may not be as easily sold by this salesperson. That could come as a challenge; I appreciate that.

We wanted to make sure that the rules were clear, in that people that were coming forward in the future would know how they could operate in a strata hotel. It does mean they can. It just may mean they perhaps won’t be able to sell the units as expensively as they wanted, or maybe they have a smaller pool of people that are interested in buying.

Those things I can’t control, but I can control the fact that this is important work that we did, in partnership with a lot of folks, to make sure that strata hotels that are operating like hotels can continue to do that and that those that want to come in the future can operate this way as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

This is cold comfort for a lot of people, people who are owners in the Janion, for example. I’m still really struggling with how we can look at a building like the Janion…. It is sold as strata units, zoned specifically as tourism short-term rental, legally operating commercial licences, owned by those individual strata owners. Why are we making this distinction, between the Janion and what the minister is now describing as strata hotels, in the ability to operate?

I don’t understand why the good people who own in a building like the Janion — who were operating legally, who purchased on the absolute understanding that it was zoned appropriately, and who were following the rules, without any expectation that these types of short-term rentals would be caught up in Bill 35 — had the rug pulled out from under them.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is a conversation we’ve had at great lengths. Again, I’ll say that I appreciate that investors have bought homes and want to use them for short-term rentals. What we’re saying is that when you’re losing the percentage of homes towards short-term rentals, it’s putting a huge strain on families and people in our communities. People are not able to access housing. We’ve seen studies that show rents have gone up because of this.

We can spend the next four hours going on with this, but we’ve canvassed this multiple times. Those are housing units that we believe should be made available for people, either for long-term rental or, in some cases — if a person says, “I don’t want to be doing long-term rental” — then sold.

We have seen both. We have seen people sell the units. We have also seen that people say: “You know what? I’m just going to put it on the long-term market.”

This is the reason why we’re going in this direction. It’s a balanced approach that ensures that we can have short-term rentals available in communities to support tourism but also that we can prioritize these complete homes and make them available for people who are struggling for housing in our communities.

[3:25 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I feel that when I ask these questions and the minister says that we’ve canvassed this already, that is disingenuous. We have not even begun to have these conversations. Every time I ask a question about this, the minister dictates what to me sounds like a press release. That is the answer we get over and over.

The minister knows — I think this entire House knows, as I break into tears in here from time to time — that I take people’s issues, concerns and impacts to their lives very seriously. I would hope that the minister and this ministry would as well.

There are terrible consequences to people who have purchased these units. They are incorrectly painted with a brush, from the other side of the House, that these are evil investors. This government has destroyed people financially and emotionally because of Bill 35 applying to these units that it simply would not apply to. The minister can say over and over that this is needed for short-term housing. This is a limited number of units. These are not these investor-owned condos that were built for people to live in.

The people that are being impacted and hurt in these legal short-term rentals agree with the majority of Bill 35. They agree with it. They are saying: “Yes, we need to put some guardrails on here. We need to make sure that there are not…. Those units in condominiums that were meant for people to live in, to rent in and to buy — they should not have short-term rentals in them.”

That is not what this is. The minister is not hearing that. He’s not listening to people, and he is not reacting to the actual, real-life impacts to people. To say that we have canvassed this…. We have not even begun to canvass this. It’s important today, because tomorrow is May 1. This is going to have, and already has had, unbelievably negative impact on British Columbians.

I would just like to…. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment, I have got a couple of quotes and some information on the people and their families that have invested in the Janion and these other legally operating short-term-rental buildings.

Here’s one headed “Pension plan gone wrong”: “I have been in a state of shock and under extreme stress since the announcement of this legislation. My financial well-being has just evaporated. Sixteen years ago my partner and I, professional musicians with two young children, realized we needed to get serious about our financial planning in order to make sure we could provide for ourselves and never be a burden to our children, while we were able to pursue our musical careers.”

Now I will jump to the end, but after they have lived frugally — never going out to restaurants, never getting babysitters, never having a new car — they were able to come up with a down payment to make an investment in a hotel-zoned condo in Victoria. This ends with: “I’m now 62, still self-employed, having pivoted career-wise a few times to pay the bills. I am very tired of the years of hustling and working extremely long hours. I was planning to retire in three years, but now I can’t.”

That is the evil investor that this government is going after, but that is only one.

A young family with a new baby:

“You mischaracterize who short-term-rental owners are. We’re not wealthy people from out of town. We’re not corporations. I’m from greater Victoria, born in ’86, starting out in elementary school in Sidney, working hard. I have a Hungarian grandfather who left Romania in the ’50s when his property was expropriated.

“Please understand that most short-term-rental owners have been messaging you that they believe in 95 percent of Bill 35. I’m sending you a photo of my family. We’re not privileged out-of-town investor speculators that you imagine. We are collateral damage to this legislation.”

I’m going to just do one more here, a senior with a disability. This is part of a transcript from a call.

“I apologize. I own in the Astoria, but I’m legally blind, so it’s hard for me to participate in this call. This situation shouldn’t have anything to do with Airbnbs. This is strictly about the provincial government breaking a law that has been in place since my parents were children in Vancouver.

[3:30 p.m.]

“The government told us we could do things the right way, the legal way, to have vacation rentals. It was expensive for us to do this, expensive to buy into these buildings, costly for our taxes, but we are not lawbreakers. We did what the government told us was the proper thing to do. Many seniors, like ourselves, will be facing bankruptcy, as we have to sell at a loss. If we’re lucky, we’ll be left with a few dollars in the bank.”

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

So when this minister says that all of these investors are taking these suites out of the market, I would like him to please speak directly to the people that I have just read this from, to the other people who have been financially devastated by Bill 35, so unfairly pushed on people without consultation, without the ability to grandfather and without any heart from this government hearing and understanding what you have done to British Columbians.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say a couple things here.

We have canvassed this at great lengths. The member may feel like we need to do more, and that’s okay. This is the member’s time. I have no problem talking about this further.

I think what the member doesn’t often talk about in this place is the people in our communities who are struggling for that housing, who need that housing. We’re not saying to these folks that you have to sell. We’re saying: “You can rent it. You can rent it in the market.” In fact, the majority of the sales that have happened in these buildings have been sold at a profit — some, considerable profits. That’s for those who sell it. I know many folks that are actually renting these buildings.

What we’re saying is we need housing for long-term renters in our communities. I appreciate these are challenging topics to discuss. But I have to say to the member that we are seeing record numbers of investors buying homes and then putting them into the short-term rental space while we have families who are struggling in our communities.

Now, the member talked about Victoria. I grew up in this town, born and raised here. My dad was involved in the tourism community when he was alive. Drove a taxi. My mom owned a restaurant in town. I understand tourism is important in this community. I get it. Grew up here.

But when I have friends I grew up with who can’t live in our community anymore and can’t raise their kids in our communities because we’re losing more and more housing stock towards people wanting to buy investment properties for short-term rentals, it puts a real strain on our community. I appreciate the member is passionate about it. I’m passionate from a different perspective, which is the people who really need to access this housing.

The member read some stories. I’ve got stories of people who, now, have actually got into housing that were short-term rentals. A woman in Vancouver reached out to me, who now not only has a home for her family but is running a daycare out of it. We have so many examples of people who are like: “We actually have access to housing now, which we didn’t have access to.”

Our goal with this is to ensure that we have housing available for people, housing units that were meant for housing available for people. And when they’re operating like strata hotels, then they’re able to do that. That’s the differentiation that we made with this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The minister said that housing that was meant for housing is being used for housing. The point of what I was saying is that these were never meant for housing. These were never built for housing. They were built…. And the minister knows this.

To tell us that these people have actually been able to sell for a profit…. We know that the market value of those strata hotels, although, that’s not how you refer to them…. Those strata-specific buildings for short-term rentals…. Their market value dropped 30 percent overnight with no warning for those people. So other than the Premier of British Columbia actually being able to make a profit from selling a short-term rental unit, other British Columbians have not.

The minister talks about families who are struggling financially. You have created 600 families who are now struggling financially with this bill. The minister is not hearing me and is comparing apples to oranges. The woman who has found a place in Vancouver where she can now have a child care facility — fabulous. That doesn’t sound to me like it was a 250-square-foot, purpose-built, short-term rental that she has moved into.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would ask that the minister continue or begin to give consideration for, at the least, providing grandfathering for these people.

I understand — and I know it’s before the courts, so the minister will not speak about this — there is a group of people who have found themselves in this position where they are being devastated and have now brought a lawsuit forward to the province of British Columbia, asking for this to be paused and ultimately asking for compensation. That’s what this government has done.

Are we…? Okay. Well, I can move on to a whole other section. Or it looks like you need to read something.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just reply. The member knows that I can’t talk about anything that’s in front of the courts. One case was brought forward, and it was thrown out. There’s one in front of the courts right now, and I can’t comment on that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:36 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 20 — FIRST NATIONS MANDATED
POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTES ACT

Bill 20, First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act.

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 3:38 p.m.

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

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

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to move on from Bill 35, because my blood pressure is hard to manage. I am going to ask a final…. This is a favour — actually not a favour but a question to the minister.

If I can have somebody from the Aqua resort in Kelowna reach out to somebody in the ministry…. I understand the information is on the website. I think there are some unique issues with respect to this particular project. If I might ask that you can, perhaps later, provide me with a contact, and we can have these folks connect, because maybe there is a solution that we can find for them, which I think everybody would be better off with.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, certainly. Right after we rise today, we’ll get you information and then make that contact.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much to the minister.

I’m going to ask some questions now with respect to the seniors advocate, seniors housing and SAFER. We know, according to the seniors advocates, that seniors are being left behind in British Columbia. Housing is unaffordable for them. They’re being impacted even more than general British Columbians.

[3:40 p.m.]

Wait-lists have grown, and SAFER isn’t reflecting the cost of living. Even with the increase of $110 per month which was recently provided, it just simply isn’t enough in order to be able to help seniors truly live with dignity and live safely.

Questions with respect to this. When will the minister share the outcome of the NDP’s review of the SAFER program?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the announcement was well received, but there’s always more that needs to be done. I can share with the member the changes.

We increased the income limit for eligibility for SAFER from $33,000 to $37,240. So more seniors are now eligible. We increased the minimum benefit from $25 to $50 a month or $600 a year. We established the ability to revise the rent ceiling annually. Obviously, we’ve also, as part of it, launched a public awareness campaign so people are aware that this financial support is available to them.

This is what was highlighted to us as an important step. I appreciate the member’s point that more is always needed to support our seniors.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Rents have gone up $500 a month, at least, for most of these seniors. In doing an analysis of what was required, and I appreciate the minister has said that there have been changes, why is the SAFER subsidy increase only a fifth of that in the long term?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s point. We can always do more to support seniors.

What we’re saying here is…. These changes are significant. We made a significant increase to this program in 2018. We increased the budget by 48 percent. Now we’re taking another step to advance this, not only to ensure that seniors that currently are in the system get supports.

That number the member refers to is an average. Those that have lower incomes get more, and of course, those that have higher incomes get a little bit less. But it does make a significant impact. Not only that, we’re also including…. Just under 5,000 more people that didn’t get access to supports before are getting access to this.

We’re going to continue to monitor this as we go forward, continue to meet with the seniors advocate and continue to also build more affordable housing that’s accessible to seniors. We know that’s needed in conjunction with these dollars.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will that one-time payment of $430 through SAFER result in a CRA 2500 slip being issued and having seniors benefits clawed back through other programs like the GST tax credit?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our understanding is no. We always preface that with…. People need to get their own tax ad­vice and should reach out to a professional to get that advice from them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Reach out to get tax advice. I’m not sure if the minister appreciates who we’re actually speaking with now. Senior citizens, who are on very small incomes, are not going to be reaching out to their tax professionals to get information on this.

Would receiving a SAFER boost reduce eligibility for carbon tax rebates? Government has the ability to make these determinations.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is taking me into the Ministry of Finance unwillingly. This is something the Minister of Finance is better situated to answer.

K. Kirkpatrick: It must be nice to be able to say that. “You’ll have to ask somebody else. Even though it’s related to my ministry, you’ll have to ask somebody else.” Okay.

With only 20,000 of the originally targeted 45,000 seniors in the service plan receiving SAFER benefits, can the minister explain the math behind this shortfall, or is this another example of creative accounting?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to remind the member we’re in the estimates for the Ministry of Housing. If there are items that are not in the Ministry of Housing, I have no choice but to refer the member to that. I think the member knows that.

I appreciate that this is an opportunity to try to get digs in. We’re just trying to give answers for things that are within our estimates. If you’re asking about carbon tax, that is something that is done by a different ministry.

Now, the member referred to something. If she can point us to what exactly is referred to in the documents, it would be easier for us to answer the question.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe that’s 45,000 seniors — this is in the ministry’s service plan — being targeted for the SAFER benefits, whereas only 20,000 have received them.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve got in front of me the B.C. Housing service plan. It says for ’23-24, 30,000; for ’24-25, 35,000; for ’25-26, 36,000; and for ’26-27, 38,000. I’m not sure where the member’s number is coming from.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and I will have to validate where that number came from and pro­vide that back to you.

I’m going to move on now from questions that I believe will be sent to the Minister of Finance and focus specifically on seniors issues that fall into the Ministry of Housing.

Does the minister believe it is acceptable for seniors to be on wait-lists of over five years for housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s unacceptable that for two decades, we had governments that didn’t want to invest in affordable housing. They decided that they were going to just leave it to the private forces to figure out and that it would just all work out. It’s an unfortunate situation that we’re in. We’re so far behind on investing in affordable housing that we’re trying to make up for lost time.

So yes, every day we get up in our ministry, and we try to figure out how we can get more housing built through affordable housing or not. I can share lots of examples of affordable housing units that we’ve just opened because of our investments and a lot more that are coming through recent CHF announcements.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

At some point, I feel I should ask the question as to when the minister will stop blaming policies from previous governments for the inability to actually deal with issues and address issues today. The minister does tend to start many of the answers to my questions with the blame game of almost a decade ago or 20 years ago, even, sometimes.

The question that I asked is: is it acceptable for seniors to be on wait-lists for over five years? Can the minister explain specifically what is being done to target that wait-list for seniors to help make sure that they can get into safe and affordable housing sooner?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member gets sensitive when I talk about the lack of investments in affordable housing over the last two decades, but it’s a fact. The member attends not-for-profit association round tables, attends many events. This is well understood.

It’s always a challenge to say, “How come there’s no affordable housing available for seniors who are on wait-lists?” and then at the same time say, “Well, when we were in government, we didn’t build it.” I have to highlight that point.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, when it comes to seniors housing, I can tell you that the way you get at it is building it.

In kʷikʷəƛ̓əm, 14 new affordable homes just opened up for First Nations Elders.

In Kaslo, ten opened up for seniors in the community.

In Kelowna, 68 rentals for seniors and people with low and moderate incomes.

In Merritt, 75 new affordable rental apartments for families and seniors.

In Mission, 61 just opened up.

In Nanaimo, 53 just opened up. Another project in Nanaimo, 62. Another project in Nanaimo, 74 units.

I’ve got pages and pages of the units that are opening up from the investments that we’ve directly made since we’ve formed government, and there’s much more to come. In fact, it’s well recognized across Canada that we are investing the most in affordable housing, per capita, from any province in the country. We have the most amount of new units coming online.

We appreciate that there’s much more that needs to be done. We have much more work to do. We are starting at a deficit. All the work we’re doing in our ministry and B.C. Housing is to try to ensure that there’s housing available for people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’ll remind the minister that when he references the last two decades, this NDP government has been here for almost one of those decades at this point.

A question. When we’re talking about the five-year waiting list for seniors housing…. Can the minister confirm, actually, what that waiting list is right now for seniors housing and what that was five years ago for seniors housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I think it’s important to say that this is a registry for people that need housing. People are placed by need. The teams try to assess who has the greatest needs. We try to get them into the housing as it opens up.

The member asked a pretty detailed question. The team at B.C. Housing is going to try to get that number. We can continue to have conversations, and I’ll put it on the record once I have it.

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

Does the minister plan to address what we see as a drastic underutilization of the SAFER program by seniors in rural communities?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. One, I said earlier, when we announced the additional expansion of the program, that part of the initiatives will be around public awareness, making sure people are aware that this is available to them. That’s important. We also share that information with the seniors advocate. They’ve got regional groups. They’ve got advocates in communities throughout the province. So using those agencies to try to ensure that everyone is aware that they have access to this funding, if they qualify within the brackets of what the program has.

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

A couple questions I’m going to move on to with respect to the upzoning, be it Bill 44, the transit-oriented development. We recently met with a group that, I believe, has been in touch with the ministry called the Tri-Cities Urban Forest Working Group. They’ve raised significant concerns about the loss of urban green space due to the mass upzoning.

Enhancing urban density should be balanced with green infrastructure planning to prevent future heat domes. When you look at the information that they provided us with — and they map it against the heat domes and where the majority of the fatalities and health issues took place — those areas with strong tree canopies were actually the safest place for people to have been.

The concern is that while we aim to create new homes, which we need to do, the legislation seems to lack measures to ensure environmental protections, and this simply raises concerns about sustainable development amidst the climate crisis.

A couple of questions on this: how does the government plan to balance the increased housing density mandated by the need to preserve and expand urban forest cover, especially in light of the exacerbating effects of reduced greenery and urban heat islands?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry, we’re just changing staff over.

Staff have just shared with me that they actually met with urban tree canopy groups today, in fact, and it was a good conversation. We shared with them similar answers that I’ve shared here in this place already, which is that we know that green space is incredibly important for communities’ health and for climate resiliency. Part of the work that local governments are doing right now is planning for parks, planning for green spaces.

Of course, we know at the same time that as we increase housing supply, which we desperately need to, doing it in existing developed urban areas is critical to preserving green space overall. So build housing where we’ve already said we’re going to build housing will protect green spaces in other areas.

We did canvass this when the bill was in front of the House here, and we continue to meet with those advocacy groups on this topic.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I am glad to hear that the minister has met with this group.

There are a number of communities and organizations that have similar concerns, so there are a few threads that come out of that. I’m going to anticipate the minister’s answer on this, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it might be different than it always is.

I recently had a tour around Brentwood. There’s a community group there. I know that their local MLA came and toured around and took a look at their community. I’m not sure if the minister has been in contact with them. I think it’s representative of some challenges and concerns that many communities have.

Burnaby, I think, is again punching above its weight in terms of densification. If you look at the amazing Brentwood Mall and all of the development around there, it’s significant. It’s had significant impact on the community and has been a great provider of additional housing for people within Burnaby.

But if you look at that 400-metre…. You draw that circle around the transit there, and you come across a single-family community with people living in houses built there in 1965. There’s been very little redevelopment in the community. These houses are 900 to 1,200 square feet. They are very modest. It’s a very family-friendly community. The majority of the homes already have secondary suites in them.

There is a concern about livability. I think just having one-size-fits-all legislation, where you’ve got your 400-​metre circle drawn around the SkyTrain station there, can have serious consequences on the livability in communities. And this community is very concerned.

When I have spoken to a number of planners — and I can assure the minister, and he’s probably not surprised, I have been speaking to many planning departments in municipalities around British Columbia — there are a lot of concerns. The one that is not getting spoken about maybe as much, or highlighted as much, is the concern about livability: ground-floor living for people with mobility issues; the fact that it’s much healthier for children to be able to have access to the outside from ground floor.

Then there are communities, like Brentwood and other ones, who really have a character that I think we need to be aware of.

[4:10 p.m.]

We can’t get rid of all of these small, older, single-family communities where we can actually point to other pieces of property and other government-owned property and other places where it makes much more sense to have that density.

In my long ramble, the question really is: can the minister explain to the people in the Brentwood area why they would be included in this 400-metre, transit-oriented development without consideration for the livability and the existing community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My colleague from Burnaby North has spoken to me about this. We all agree that the livability is important. We talked about ACCs, amenity cost charges, and what that means, what those amenities mean for the community, whether it’s park space or whether it’s community centres, etc., and why it’s important. I think small-scale multi-units help also in communities to build that type of housing.

I think it’s important to note that B.C. United, the B.C. Greens, supported the transit-oriented development legislation with the understanding that we need to build more housing near the billions of dollars that we invest in transit, and understanding that, as our communities grow, people want to live closer to transit because it makes it easier for them. Sometimes people don’t need the cars because they’re able to just commute on transit. So that is a good place to have housing.

I mean, that similar argument can be made pretty much anywhere where there’s transit. I think what’s important for us is: how do we want our communities to grow? Where do we want that housing to be? I think we can all agree that if there’s a place where we should have housing, it’s near transit. That actually enhances the livability of communities.

Now, it’s important to know, for Burnaby…. In Burnaby, the towers they approve are significantly higher than anything that’s in the transit-oriented development policies. Local governments have the ability to go ahead and do that. What we’re saying is we want to see density of housing near transit because we believe that leads to healthier communities, a healthier province.

Burnaby, of course, can go and do much more, which they are in their community.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That was the answer I was anticipating.

It is density regardless of impact on community and on livability. That’s what I’m hearing. The minister himself said that Burnaby has gone above and beyond with the work that they’ve done and the towers that they’ve put around the amazing Brentwood Mall. That is the actual name of it, which is why I’m calling it that.

Can there not be consideration given to the fact that there is more density within that 400-metre area than is required? Can we not have some flexibility that communities can have to make rational decisions about what makes sense in a community?

Yes, absolutely, B.C. United supports transit-oriented development. It was part of our housing platform long ago. It’s been something that we’ve been fans of. It makes sense. Everything the minister said with respect to the value of having housing densified around transit zones makes complete sense.

Applying it with a heavy hand without the consideration for the impact on communities feels shortsighted. Yes, we are not going to be living in a single-family world anymore, single-family-lot world anymore, and I understand that.

We also do have to have different types of communities, and we have to value history in certain areas. There are other ways to increase density. In a community like this, fourplexes might make sense. That can be done through a secondary suite and coach houses. I mean, there are different ways for gentle densification rather than to kind of shock a community into having single-family homes and huge highrises in the same community. It’s not good urban planning. It’s not good for the health of the community.

[4:15 p.m.]

An issue that will also occur is you’re going to have conflict in communities. Rather than creating a cohesive community where people can say, “Yeah, I can get on board with this. I’m happy to have these other neighbours in my community and the coach houses,” this is going to cause a lot of stress to people. It’s going to cause the fabric of communities to really be torn.

As I will always say — and I’m constantly misquoted, regardless — we agree that we have to upzone. We agree in the spirit of what is being done, but God help us, can we please have some flexibility and be rational about how we’re applying this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I said previously, three major parties in this place supported this transit-oriented development legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken at great lengths about why housing should happen around transit. In fact, other housing was opposed by the opposition, but this one was supported.

I appreciate the member is trying to have the cake and eat it too, to say, “We support transit-oriented development, support this, and we need to do it,” at the same time as saying: “Oh, maybe we shouldn’t do it.” It would be great to hear where the clear position on that is.

The member did talk about history and heritage, and the member knows that there are protections in place for that. There are communities where there’s transit, but there are heritage sites. All those things were built into the legislation. I think it’s important to note that transit-oriented development has been happening over time.

In fact, I was just talking to someone at a not-for-profit who was telling us about how they were landing into Vancouver. They could see the SkyTrain route and see where the housing was being built, by being able to tell where the SkyTrain was and the stations were. That is actually best practice. If you look at planning across the globe and you see housing, when it comes to transit, the best practice is to have housing close to transit.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve taken best practice and brought this forward, because we know that this is a good place to have housing. It’s going to happen gradually. It’s not going to happen instantly.

People think there are going to be towers everywhere. It’s not going to happen that way. Transit-oriented development happens gradually, but it’s important that we move in that direction so that we have more sustainable growth. We get best use of our infrastructure, and it creates more livable communities for everybody in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: That is what I had anticipated, and I just would like to clarify again, because it seems to be an art form on the other side of the House to be able to kind of flip what I said and make it sound like something else.

B.C. United supported transit-oriented development. The majority of how that’s going to work is within regulations. Regulations — you know, how this is working and the details of this — were not put in front of the House. It needs to be done in a rational way.

When the minister talks about transit-oriented development, yes, that is how we should be developing, but there’s also a difference between new development and when you’re going into a community where you have existing development.

The example I’m giving with Brentwood is that that’s an existing community. If you were an urban planner and you were starting with a blank slate, you’re going to say: “Okay, well, we’re going to put transit in here. These are new communities. We’re going to start to build out this way.” But you’re dealing with people who already exist, homes that already exist and communities that already exist. It has to be more sensitive to that.

This government likes to point to anybody who has a single-family home…. I believe most people appreciate they’re very fortunate to have a single-family home. There are many renters that have a single-family home. They’re not bad people because they have this. There need to be different kinds of housing stock, and there needs to be a sensitivity to how we are implementing. This is a really big hammer that is being used.

[4:20 p.m.]

We have to give some voice to the communities. Brentwood is a community where they already had done a lot of work to put restrictive covenants on those lots so that even the homes that are coming in are limited in their size, because they didn’t want a community that was full of big monster homes.

They wanted a community that was more true to the 1960s and those homes that were originally built. They don’t want a bunch of redevelopment, but not for the wrong reasons. It’s not because they don’t want people coming into the community, but because that community has a flavour and style.

It’s hard. I wish I could articulate this in a way that really frames the concerns that people in communities are having: that urban planning needs to look at livability. It needs to look at where the density make the most sense. You can say: “Yes, it makes sense to be around transit-oriented development.” We agree, but there also has to be a reasonable application that has some sensitivity to the way that that community was originally developed.

A question — not to this, we’ll move on — is…. Actually, I will ask. This is related to all of the upzoning. Let’s say that a municipality has an application for a fourplex on a single-family lot, that it’s the appropriate size under this legislation and that the fourplex should be allowed, but the fourplex’s upzoning is denied by the municipality for concerns that it’s too close to a school field, that there’s some issue with trees, or whatever the issue is.

Who is going to be the arbiter of why a municipality can turn down an upzoning application? I understand that government can come in, and they can just approve it if the municipality hasn’t approved it. Who’s the arbiter? What is that mechanism for overriding the decision of a municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wanted to correct a couple of things.

I don’t recall…. The member can let me know if she’s ever heard me call people who live in single-family homes bad people. I don’t recall anyone on our side of the House ever saying a person who owns a single-family home is a bad person. I want to clarify that on the record.

When we brought the transit-oriented development legislation forward, we said this was what we were expecting within 200 metres, 400 metres, 800 metres, and we had support from all the parties in this place. I want to make sure those two things are on the record.

Now, we’ve switched to the small-scale multi-unit, and I’ll just say that local governments are required to pre-zone the three or four units in their communities. That is expected in June. So it will be clear for people as to what they are able to do on their parcel of land and what they’re not able to do.

K. Kirkpatrick: Forgive me where I’m not understanding this. That was probably not the best example to give.

In an example where a developer, say, wants to upzone to put in whatever the development is that they want to put in, and it fits in with Bill 44, on what basis can a municipality turn down an application?

If I’m understanding this, and the minister can tell me if I’m not understanding this, I believe that the province has the ability to come in and override a decision that the planning department in a municipality has made. Under what circumstances would they be able to override that? Am I correct that they can override that decision?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just clarify for the member. It’s not a one-by-one case. It’s not going to be like one proponent comes forward with one home and then the province is overriding it. This is around communities doing their zoning planning as one community.

[4:25 p.m.]

We’re not going to be going in one by one. We’re asking communities, by June, to update their zoning bylaws to reflect our legislation and the site standards document. That’s what we’re expecting.

It won’t be us going one by one, overriding across the province. That would be, I think, difficult for anybody that wanted to do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Targets. I know I asked about targets last week because, of course, it was fresh on the target being introduced to the city of North Vancouver.

Can the minister describe how targets work and interact with Bill 44? I understand that the targets provide different types of housing in terms of what’s affordable, what’s family, what’s not. If I’m incorrect in what those targets set out, the minister can correct me.

How is that not something that should have been addressed by Bill 44? It seems there are a lot of competing requirements for communities, and the targets are just one more layer of something that their planning department has to worry about.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Bill 44 and the targets actually go together. We don’t see them competing. One enables the other one to be done in a more efficient way. I’m not sure where the member is going with it, but we just don’t see them as two competing things. We see them as two things that go together.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m going to change channels for a few minutes here.

I would like to ask about a specific affordable housing project, the Mission affordable housing project, which was denied funding by this government. The decision to deny this has sparked some criticism from local council members and the project developer.

A question to the Minister of Housing. I don’t know if he needs more information about the specifics. I believe the minister would understand what the specific Mission affordable housing project was. Given the provincial em­phasis on affordable housing, why was the funding application for the Mission affordable housing tower rejected, especially when the project aligns closely with government’s objectives?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We shared this through our MLAs and publicly as well that this project in particular was being built without any government funding. In fact, it was almost complete, and the proponent wanted us to buy that from them. Now, as you can imagine, there are a lot of projects that would just say: “Hey, we’re going to build it. We’re just going to sell it to you, and we’ll try to make some money from it.”

We have to do assessments, just like we do everything else, assessments on affordability of the units compared to what we buy, look at the operating of it. How will we operate that in an efficient way for the partner that will be operating it?

It’s got to go through the same criteria, so we’re not picking and choosing projects. Certainly, I’m not picking and choosing projects at all. It goes through the same criteria as every single other community housing fund project. The assessment is done through B.C. Housing. They share with me the successful proponents. And then we follow up with proponents that weren’t successful if that’s of interest to them.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m actually going to ask the Chair’s indulgence in a five-minute break.

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

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

K. Kirkpatrick: We’re wrapping up here. I’ve just got a couple more housekeeping kind of questions.

For the minister. Government recently announced an increase in the exemption for first-time homebuyers from $500,000 to $835,000. I just wanted to clarify with the minister that, although the exemption has moved from houses that are $500,000 to houses that are $835,000, the exemption is still only on the first $500,000 of the first-time-buyers exemption.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member asked a specific question. It is Ministry of Finance. I know the member is going to say it’s Housing, but it’s a tax measure, so it’s Ministry of Finance.

[4:40 p.m.]

I can get the member the answer from the Ministry of Finance, in writing. Or the Minister of Finance is in estimates for the next two days, probably until Thursday, so this question can be raised there as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I have to assume that the Minister of Finance doesn’t wake up in the morning and go, “I have a great idea for housing,” and come up with that without consultation with the Ministry of Housing. But I guess I will see if I can ask that question directly to the minister.

Here’s a new question, because things are changing quickly out in the world right now. Are tent cities going to continue to qualify as lawful residences for the purpose of the decriminalization revision introduced on Friday?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re not consulted on tax measures.

K. Kirkpatrick: That’s really concerning.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, well, information is always made available through Ministry of Housing, but they don’t inform us of tax measures. This is, I think, the history of all Finance Ministers and every budget as far back as I’m aware of. But that being said, I’m supportive of the measure. I think it’s a good measure to help first-time home buyers.

Now, the member has asked a question. I don’t support or agree with the characterization or the framing of the question. We have seen, coming out of the pandemic, multiple things. We’ve seen people being displaced. We’ve seen mental health challenges. We’ve seen a significant increase in population in Canada, but in British Columbia in particular. The amount of housing has not kept up to that pace.

When there’s a limited housing availability…. What that means is those with means have access to the housing, and it pushes everybody else further into challenging situations. That has led to challenges of homelessness in some communities.

This is not a B.C. thing. This is North America–wide. Every community is dealing with it. You know, meeting with communities through PNWER…. If you look at Seattle; Portland; California; Austin, Texas; New York — everywhere, this is a challenge communities are dealing with.

What we’re doing is taking action to address that. That’s what I was doing with the MOU with the city of Abbotsford on Friday, 221 units. We announced shelter spaces. We announced opening of supportive housing, affordable housing. That’s what we’re doing with the city of Nanaimo, with our MOU there. We just opened up a brand-new supportive housing site.

We’ve got other projects that are in the works, but we’ve committed significant dollars to scale up the capacity so people can get indoors. That’s what I met with Prince George councillors this morning about. We’ve got an encampment there of 30-something, I think 36, people. We’ve got 100 units right now that are coming online. I would say by the end of summer, we’ll have all 100 open. So that means we can get people indoors and not have them in encampments.

Similar discussions in Kamloops, similar discussions, of course, in Vancouver — I’ve shared with the member — around Crab Park, where we had over 100 people at one point. We’ve been able to build the relationships and get people in. I think 16 people are remaining there.

Our team spends a lot of time on dealing with these issues community by community, trying to get housing options available so we can get people indoors.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the minister and to the minister’s staff for the time. I am concluding my questions, and I will be passing it over to the member for Saanich North and the Islands. But I would like to say I appreciate the time.

We don’t agree on certain things. I think we agree on the overriding vision of providing housing for people in British Columbia.

I would like to just leave with the request that this government be open to listening to the true stories of people who are being impacted by housing policy and that one-size-fits-all, or one paintbrush. There are many unique circumstances and issues that should be considered.

And then one final thing is: Go Canucks!

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have to note, for the record, the strategic timing of this ending and the “Go Canucks!”

I just want to say that I really respect the member across the way. She comes at this work with all of her heart. Every exchange we’ve had has been a thoughtful one. I think it’s a real shame for that community not to have you as their representative. I want to thank you for the work you’ve done as my critic. You’ve made our team better in the work you’ve done. So thank you as well.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Okay. I agree with your comments, by the way.

I disagree with the comments from the member who spoke before me — or, at least, the hockey team. Anyway, we’ll leave that for another place.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: There have been articles written about it. Yeah. Go for it. Just google it.

Now back to the business here about housing, very im­portant business about housing.

The minister earlier talked about the tree canopy. I’m just wondering if there can be some clarity. This was in a question directed by the official opposition’s Housing critic just around green space being preserved elsewhere. The places where we’ve developed are where the housing is going to go.

While I recognize that densification need happen, there are actions that this government could take and that local governments do take or were able to take previously to be able to protect the urban tree canopy. In fact, there are many initiatives, as the member talked about, and residential neighbourhoods and community groups that work very hard to ensure that there is a tree canopy within their communities.

As we saw in the heat dome…. Indeed, that tree canopy was the only place that many residents were able to get refuge. We don’t have the standards within our building code that require air conditioning in every unit, as an example.

I’m just wondering if the minister can maybe respond to this. It seemed like there was a position taken…. The urban tree canopy is at threat. Basically, it was…. The effort is to preserve green space elsewhere.

I’m wondering if maybe the minister wants to reflect on whether or not there will be any measures put in place, from the densification project last fall, that protect the urban tree canopy in the areas that are already developed, if there are any measures to encourage development to happen adjacent to that tree canopy, etc.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I had answered to my critic from the official opposition that the reason why the amenity cost charge is important, the tool, was that it would provide a means for local governments to be able to collect dollars to build parks and to build green space. So that’s what I was referring to in my answer to the member.

Now, there is flexibility in the small-scale, multi-unit legislation for local governments to make some adjustments, but it can’t be unreasonable. We know in some local governments, they want to protect a tree. They want to adjust the setbacks in order to have the housing being built. That flexibility is there, but it can’t be seen as unreasonable in the measures that they’re taking.

A. Olsen: I guess I want to draw the distinction and perhaps my colleague was wanting to draw the distinction between building new parks and planting new trees and the fully old trees, the actual cover that an old tree provides that a young tree won’t be able to provide for at least 60, 70, 80 years, in some cases. The clarity in this…. I appreciate the minister, I think, drawing more clarity in the response, that there is space for trees to be protected as long as it’s not unreasonable. I guess my fear is the default. The default is towards the housing being built on the property.

To what extent can local governments…? I guess a little bit more clarity on how the ministry will see unreasonable behaviour of local governments and just where that line is. I hope the minister accepts that the push here is to really understand, because this tree canopy is critical for the health and well-being of our communities.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s important. The way the commun­ities go about the work they’re doing is through the site standards document. There’s a lot of attention paid to the site standards document. I can share with the member that we brought in a lot of experts in this space.

In fact, a gentleman, Mark Holland, who is…. He’s won awards. He was named B.C. Planner of the Year. He is a Queen Diamond Jubilee winner because of his work around sustainability and sustainable building. He’s from Vancouver Island University. We brought in professionals like that that helped us create the site standards document so we can address all the nuances that come with planning and ensuring that we have sustainable communities.

The site standards document is the guiding document that we’ve given to communities that has the flexibility in there for them to be able to make the decisions on the ground.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that. I thank the minister for the further information, as we’ve asked these questions. I think it’s important for community groups to understand there are built-in mechanisms that local governments can look at and utilize for a potential threat to the tree canopy.

I’m going to switch gears here a little bit just to real estate investors or real estate investment trusts and, specifically, with respect to what it is that the provincial government is doing to insulate ourselves and our housing from the huge investment power that real estate investment trusts have.

According to data released by the Bank of Canada, investors were responsible for 30 percent of home purchases in the first three months this year, up from 28 percent in the first quarter of last year and 22 percent in the same period of 2020. Investors also acquired 49 percent of condos that have been completed over the past five years. It’s nearly 50 percent, nearly half.

What is the ministry doing to combat investors, specifically the real estate investment trusts, from buying up market housing before first-time homebuyers are able to get their foot the door?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a fantastic topic, an important topic. I’ll start with the rental protection fund. As the member will know, the rental protection fund has started to acquire purpose-built buildings.

In Langley, a few weeks ago, we purchased two purpose-built rental buildings from REITs. What was fascinating in that purchase by the rental protection fund was a conversation that some of the members from the rental protection fund and I were having with the CEO of this major REIT that flew in from Ontario for this. He made it clear that their interest was no longer going to be in buying older buildings in British Columbia.

Now, some would argue it’s because tenants, advocacy groups and others have made it really challenging for them to be able to do what some had been doing, where they were coming in, displacing people. I would also say that, perhaps, the rules that we’ve put in place to ensure that people just can’t be evicted anymore have made it more challenging for that model to work in British Columbia.

What was made clear to us at that point was that they were interested in British Columbia, but it was investing in new purpose-built rentals. So they were shifting their model in British Columbia to building more purpose-built rentals as opposed to getting into the space of older rental buildings.

I would say that better protections for tenants have discouraged that type of investment of buying older buildings, doing some minor fix-ups and displacing people. But also having an entity like the rental protection fund, which is able to go in and purchase these older buildings, has also helped us to be able to retain these units, protect the tenants but also grow the non-market space at the same time.

A. Olsen: I think the experience that we’re seeing, at least in parts of my riding, is that the real estate investment trusts are coming in. They are building new buildings, and they’re being celebrated. The rental units are being celebrated, but they’re also being marketed as luxury rentals.

[5:00 p.m.]

The challenges that have been raised by the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, for an example, with respect to workforce housing: those units that are being built on the Saanich Peninsula are not being marketed to the workforce housing needs on the Saanich Peninsula. They’re being marketed to an out-of-province market or a luxury rental market.

We’ve got a scenario where…. It is true that they are also in the building of new buildings. They have bought up, as I pointed out, a huge number of units already and are starting to buy a huge number of condo units as well.

The Perspectives journal: “The fact that investors are buying up such a large share of recently built housing raises serious doubts about the extent to which policies focused on spurring market-rate housing supply can be expected to make that housing ‘attainable.’ In the absence of major policy changes, the evidence suggests much of this housing will ultimately be attained by wealthy Canadians trying to grow portfolios, rather than ordinary Canadians trying to buy a home” — or the real estate in­vestment trusts.

Are there any policy measures, other than the anecdotal evidence that the minister gave, that the government is willing to put into place to ensure that new product that is being built in the market is going to be attainable by people and not by real estate investment trusts?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t speak to the specific project in the member’s riding. I will comment that he lives in one of the more beautiful ridings in the province, if not the country.

It may be that some purpose-built rentals are being built and being marketed as luxury. It’s difficult to control the private sector when they want to build housing and market it to different audiences.

What I would say is…. We do need an increase in purpose-built rentals. It’s not going to be necessarily indivi­duals that are investing in that. It’s going to be either investment companies or not-for-profits.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We believe that we need to grow the non-market space. That’s why we have the rental protection fund to acquire. That’s why we’re making the investments to expand.

BC Builds is part of that solution as well, the ability to use government-owned lands — federal, provincial, local government and First Nations lands — to build housing that targets that middle-income family group that needs that housing. I think the reason why BC Builds has gone from B.C. now across the country…. I’m meeting with Housing Ministers from different provinces in the coming days to talk about how we’re doing it.

Not only do we need to hit that market…. The private sector can’t reach it. Even our not-for-profits struggle without governments being involved. Not only is it im­portant for that reason; it’s also important because with interest rates and global inflation, there are some developments that are not going forward. It’s just a challenging time.

We are able to capture the availability of a labour pool to build these projects. It’s a good opportunity for First Nations and a good opportunity for local government. So that’s another initiative.

If the member is asking if we’re bringing policies to discourage purpose-built rentals from being built by the private sector, we’re not. Purpose-built rentals are purpose-built rentals. We need to increase that supply through­out the region.

That’s why the federal government has taken the steps they’ve taken as well. Removing GST for the next three years. A whole host of measures that they’re making, as well, to encourage that type.

We’re supporting not-for-profits to get in that space. We’re using our resources. We need the private sector to continue to build those purpose-built rentals as well.

A. Olsen: What I’m asking the minister is: what measures are being taken to limit or to contain the financialization of those units by large, powerful investment vehicles that are primarily built for the profiteering off of housing rather than for the affordability of housing? What measures are being taken to contain those large investment vehicles — from their ability to turn housing from a need that people have and availability at an unattainable rate — and to contain the profits of these real estate investment trusts?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m trying to understand where the member is going with this.

I’ll say that we are trying to encourage both not-for-profits and for-profit homebuilders to build purpose-built rentals. We’re trying to encourage that. Whether it’s an investment company or whether it’s a local investor, we’re trying to encourage purpose-built rentals to be built. We’re not trying to discourage it.

A. Olsen: We’ve heard from people who are in the rental market that the rental market…. The cost of market rent is unsustainable for people.

What is the government doing to address the gap be­tween the incomes that people are making in our communities and the cost of market rent, specifically in Victoria and Vancouver but across the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re trying to expand non-market housing. We know non-market housing, over time, has shown to be more affordable than for-profit. We’re acquiring buildings that go on sale to shift into the non-market space and protect renters at the same time. We’re trying to increase the availability of housing over time. We’re providing supports to renters. We’re doing a whole host of measures.

We have more people than housing right now. That’s the challenge we’re dealing with.

The debate about private sector purpose-built rentals and not-for-profit…. Which is better is a debate that you can have when you have the luxury of a lot of housing availability. We don’t have a lot of housing availability right now. So we need to encourage the increase in housing supply of purpose-built rentals in communities throughout the province.

A. Olsen: That’s a debate the minister is having with himself. That is not the line of questioning I am having.

I am not having a debate between purpose-built and non-market. I’m asking about how it is that we are dealing with the urgent need that British Columbian renters have, more than 1.5 million renters who are today and tomorrow and at the end of the month dealing with a rental market that is far outpacing the local wages.

I have heard the minister’s responses. The reality is that the gap is today, not sometime in the future.

I was asking what policy measures are being taken. The minister has now mentioned the rental protection fund a couple of times.

There was a building in Sidney that was brought to the minister’s attention last year — deeply affordable rental units. We raised this issue. This building was for sale. The rental protection fund was being announced. It was very exciting that this building could be protected. Now this building has not been.

Why is it that this building, which has been…? If this is the solution, why do we now have a situation where…?

The minister highlights Sidney as being on the list of the next ten communities that are going to have to deliver housing for their residents. It has been brought to the ministry’s attention. Here’s a potential place to save deeply affordable…. There is no place for these residents to go from here. They’re going to be displaced. The building has now been sold. The opportunity was missed.

Here’s the incongruency. The minister responds that the rental protection fund…. Why did the rental protection fund fail the residents, in deeply affordable housing, in Sidney?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sure the member knows this. The rental protection fund is outside of government. I’m sure the member knows this, but if he doesn’t, I’m happy to share that information.

If the member has concerns about why this building wasn’t purchased, he should go to the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the co-op association, who run the rental protection fund, and ask them why that acquisition wasn’t made. We trust our partners in British Columbia. That’s why the entity was created. That’s why we provided them the dollars. He may be able to get a better answer for why it didn’t work in that case through them.

How do we address the challenge? This is the central question that we grapple with. We put measures in place that encourage more housing supply, purpose-built rentals. We know that’s a measure that will help — both not-for-profit or other. Do not put in policies that will discourage it, but put in policies that will encourage more opportunities there.

[5:10 p.m.]

We’ve got caps on rents in British Columbia. We’ve got things like the speculation and vacancy tax. People are investing in homes and leaving them empty. We’re saying: “No, we need that housing back.” We’re taking action when it comes to short-term rentals and saying we need that housing available for renters in British Columbia.

There’s a whole host of measures we’re taking to try to address this challenge, but fundamentally, we have more people than housing available. It’s going to take time, but all the measures we’ve brought forward are to address this very question.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that the fund and the decisions are being made elsewhere. The minister has used the rental protection fund several times now as a way to respond to the issue that we’re facing: deeply unaffordable housing, specifically for certain demographics who simply cannot afford to have their rents go up at all or to be displaced at all.

As I said in my housing speeches earlier in this session, we are facing a large displacement, from the housing policies that have happened. There will be a massive displacement of people who can ill afford to have their rent go up $1. They can’t afford the rent that is existing in their communities today, never mind to be displaced. We have this situation where it feels like the minister wants to have it both ways. He wants to point to the rental protection fund as the solution to protecting the deeply affordable housing.

The market is going to be solving the problem by build­ing more units, but as I pointed out, in my riding — the minister is right; it’s a very nice riding — because we don’t have those projects being built, where there are the non-market solutions that the minister also points to, those deeply affordable units that the rental protection fund would have been primed to save are going to go on the market as market rentals, above the price that people can afford.

The minister wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that the government has put this fund in place to save people from being displaced from their housing, yet when asked the question why it is that this fund failed to do that, it’s now somebody else’s decision point, somebody else’s problem.

In an environment where we’ve got $500 million set aside for the rental protection fund and these massively capitalized real estate investment trusts building luxury market rentals, I’ll agree with the minister. We need market rentals. We need as many rentals as we can — except that the residents in my riding that will be displaced from this have nowhere to go.

Where do they go, Minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t understand why the rental protection fund, in the member’s view, can’t be part of the solution. We’re not saying it’s the entirety of the solution, but we’re saying it’s an important part of the solution. If he feels discouraged about it, he should talk to the people who have seen the fund already work, the people that were saved in Coquitlam, the people who were saved in Esquimalt, the women that I was talking to in Langley when their building was saved.

It doesn’t solve the problem of every single renter, but it solves the issues for some that are under distress, and it’s an important fund for that reason. It’s not only we that think it’s a good idea. The federal government just said, “Hey, we like that idea. We’re putting $2 billion towards it as well,” which expands the opportunity for us here in British Columbia.

What we need, along with all the measures that I’ve highlighted, is the increase in non-market housing and the increase in market housing, both at the same time. I’m not entirely sure of what I’m really debating with the member about, because it’s not really clear in his question.

What I thought I heard was: “What measures are you taking to make life easier for renters?” What I’m saying is everything we’ve been doing is about getting more housing available: non-market expansion, supporting private sector housing to be built and protecting older rental stock. There are so many measures.

I appreciate that housing isn’t something that’s a switch, where you can flick the switch, and then it solves itself. It’s something that does take time.

[5:15 p.m.]

We’re putting better protections in for renters: protection around personal-use evictions, protections against renovictions, and just today we announced better protections for those that are in manufactured home parks — all things that were recommended by a rental task force, which the member was part of.

All of these things combined are moving this thing forward, but if the member is asking me if one initiative will solve the entire housing crisis, I’ve said, on many occasions, that one won’t. All of them, together, move us in the direction that we desperately need to go as a province.

A. Olsen: No. I’m not suggesting that one measure is going to solve the problem at all. In fact, I’m arguing the opposite of that.

I asked the minister where the people who are displaced from the deeply affordable housing that will be knocked down…. New buildings will be put up that will end up being either market rental or market purchase. Where will the seniors — who are being displaced from that building, who can barely afford their rent now and who will be now pushed out and displaced from that — go? Where is their next place to find a home that they can…?

I’m just suggesting that the minister has put the rental protection fund…. And I think that actually the federal government invested $2 billion in BC Builds, not the rental protection fund, which I….

But either way, the question remains: where are my constituents who are displaced from the housing market that the minister has been relying heavily on? Where do they go from here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to clarify that the federal government has also put money towards the rental protection fund, not directly to our fund but to a fund that will support our rental protection fund. It’s also $2 billion.

What I would say to the member is that’s why we’ve opened 137 affordable rentals in Sidney. This is why we’ve opened 132 affordable rental units in Central Saanich. This is why we’re making the investments we’re making, whether it’s through the community housing fund, in which we just announced another round, whether it’s the Indigenous housing fund, which is closing May 15, or providing PDF funding for Indigenous-led projects so that they can do the work in advance.

Again, I feel like we are spinning our wheels here. It’s certainly a challenging time, but that’s why we’re increasing protections for renters through the RTB changes there. That’s why we’re increasing non-market housing — bringing some in, building some up. That’s why we’re encouraging the private sector. Everyone will have a role. The private sector will meet the need for some parts of our population. The not-for-profits, through the funding from B.C. Housing, hit certain demographics. The initiative of BC Builds hits a different demographic. We’re trying to increase housing in all of those markets at the same time.

A. Olsen: We may, in here, be spinning our wheels on these issues. The constituents I’ve talked to that are about to be displaced — their heads are spinning, because they don’t see where they will land. The units that the minister talked about are in no way equal in terms of the cost to live in them. They are far, far higher than the deeply affordable units that people are being displaced from.

To simply say there are affordable units…. We could spend the rest of my time talking about what the government’s definition of affordable is, but the market right now is deeply unaffordable for the vast majority of people who are renting in it or who are trying to purchase in it.

I have to switch gears here, as I’ve only got a couple of minutes left, and just ask some questions about…. I’ve asked the minister in a couple of different ways over the last little bit about what the plan is for the southern Gulf Islands. I’ve talked about workforce housing issues. The Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce has got a fairly robust campaign right now on dealing with the fact that the businesses on the Saanich Peninsula….

[5:20 p.m.]

The volume of housing that’s being built is not, as they put it, meeting the needs of the community that’s there or the immediate needs of the community. To an even, I think, probably more magnified extent, the types of housing that are being made available on the southern Gulf Islands are also having a similar impact on the workforces there.

The minister and I have talked a lot about the Islands Trust Act, a lot about the rural communities. I think that we both understand the deep challenges that are there from a governance perspective, in terms of being able to provide housing for people, but the communities there need to have solutions that fit the community.

How is the minister going to be working to solve…? It’s all scale and scope. It’s a smaller scale on the southern Gulf Islands, but the scope of the problem is magnified because a few people on the southern Gulf Islands is equivalent to many thousands of people in more urban areas.

Part of the challenge is that B.C. Housing and the ministry don’t do small numbers very well. They like to do large numbers. The CRD likes to build large numbers. What is the solution for communities, specifically the southern Gulf Islands but communities like the southern Gulf Islands?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do appreciate the member coming to me multiple times to talk about the housing challenges in this community. I think we’ve had some good conversations about that, I would say.

Since he’s mentioned all three different parts of his community, I’ll start with the fact that with the recent housing targets announcement, the inclusion of Sidney and North Saanich to be part of that, I think, is important. North Saanich, I would say respectfully, has not allowed enough housing in the community to be part in playing a role to support the challenges we’re dealing with. I’ve said that on multiple occasions.

I’m hoping, through this, that they will understand that they need to support it. Companies like Viking Air and all these companies that are there that pay good-paying jobs…. Even with the good-paying jobs, they can’t attract people because they don’t want to be commuting from Mill Bay or from wherever they have to come from.

It’s a real challenge. I worry that we will lose some very strong companies to other jurisdictions because they don’t have the housing locally to support the workforce that they need. I’m actually really worried about that. I started this conversation with the local chambers when I was the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, so it’s timely that it carries over here.

Sidney’s part of that as well, and I am confident that Sidney will continue to play an important role in the housing discussion. The challenges of Salt Spring are real. I will say to the member that I wouldn’t necessarily agree with his characterization that B.C. Housing doesn’t do smaller projects.

[5:25 p.m.]

I was sharing earlier that we just did, I think, ten units in Kaslo. We’ve just opened up 14 in Valemount. It just does vary, community to community. We did Paisley Place, 24 units on Gabriola. Every community….

The Gulf Islands can apply for CHF funding. That is available to them, if partners were able to find a good parcel of land to do that.

The other thing I’ll add is…. If these local governments identify lands that they have and that they want for workforce housing, there is the opportunity with BC Builds for them to come forward. Some good strong local First Nations partners, I think, are a good opportunity as well, through the Indigenous housing fund.

For some community organizations that struggle be­cause they don’t have the resources to do the work to prepare for an application, it’s a good time now to partner with First Nations communities. We provide PDF funding, project development funding for projects if they’re partnering with First Nations or Indigenous partners. You can get money to do the pre-planning work, which enables you to be able to apply for the housing.

We are trying to find creative solutions. I know the member and I have talked about trying to find creative solutions for his community. We’re working on a few other initiatives that I can’t speak about now because we’ve not finalized them yet which will help us get housing into smaller and, maybe, more rural parts of our communities in easier ways.

A. Olsen: The minister is right. We’ve got a 32- or 34-​something unit building at Drake Road on Salt Spring, which is an example of a smaller building.

I do acknowledge there are…. Perhaps I should have characterized it…. There are, especially on Gulf Island communities, unique circumstances that may require B.C. Housing to think outside of what the model is or the formula that B.C. Housing uses in order to determine what a viable project is. What’s a viable project in the capital regional district…. Even though Salt Spring and Mayne and Galiano….

We’ve got a situation on Galiano. We’ve had multiple local community groups working tirelessly to try to get a few units built. They’ve got everything, but now they have to build a road.

The affordability of these projects is very, very challenging. Even as experienced as local community groups get building housing, it’s very, very challenging. They’re not professional developers.

I want to continue to use every space that I have here to acknowledge the challenge that’s faced, even for just a small number of units, on Pender Island, Galiano, Mayne, Saturna, Salt Spring. It means a big deal for the communities in order to be able to get that.

I’ll just ask one final question before I hand it over to my colleague here. It’s around the staffing of buildings.

One of the concerns that I’ve consistently heard was…. The commitment that was made by B.C. Housing and in the contracts to fully staff sites at Kings Lane, for example, and at Prosser Road in Central Saanich…. The level of staffing commitments that were made to the communities…. They were going to be fully staffed 24-7. That’s just simply not the case at those two sites specifically.

Can the minister talk to why it’s acceptable for the ministry to claim that there are going to be fully staffed buildings and then for those buildings to not be staffed to the levels that the ministry made the commitment to?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Part of the operating agreement with the not-for-profit partners and the funding that goes to them is with the commitment that they have two staff, two FTEs, 24-7. Usually that’s six to eight staff that they need for that.

If the member is suggesting he has information that our not-for-profit partners in those two sites are not providing that service, then that’s something that we’ll follow up with through B.C. Housing, and I’ll get back to the member on it.

A. Walker: Our city council in Parksville recently had the opportunity to have B.C. Housing present to them. The council asked some really good questions, and one of the questions that was asked was: how many people in Oceanside are on the B.C. Housing wait-list? The council was assured that they would get that back to them in writing, and they have yet to see that.

My first question is: how many people in Oceanside are currently on a wait-list for B.C. Housing housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can commit to the member that I will do my best, through B.C. Housing, to get the member the number. If we wait on that question, the 15 minutes will be up. If I can follow up with the member, I would appreciate that.

A. Walker: Certainly. There are follow-up questions that will come from that, so if it does pop up in the next short while, that would be appreciated.

One of the commitments that B.C. Housing made in 2019, following some court settlement related to a site on Corfield, was that B.C. Housing would lead an initiative to find a place for a shelter in our community. When I was elected in 2020, one of the first things that I got was a phone call saying: “Hey, it’s really cold out, and there’s no plan for a shelter.”

It was unusual to deal with local volunteers and a church and to literally just start phoning B.C. Housing until we got the funding and a shelter opened. The following years, we ran a shelter out of some churches that stepped up. We had one organized shelter, one year, that had some issues in the community.

The question is: what is the plan right now? What plan does B.C. Housing have to provide a shelter service in the Oceanside region, recognizing that last year, we had no shelter and we had to rely on EMCR funding to make sure that people didn’t freeze to death?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows this, but it’s more for the record, which is…. We tried a year and a half ago. We had a site, and the temporary-use permit was denied. I know the challenge, between the two communities, of shelter and where it goes. We’re still committed to try to find a location for that, but I’m not aware of a location that’s been identified yet.

A. Walker: The challenges with the temporary-use permit, I think, was not so much the idea of an emergency shelter. It was to ensure that there was stability for some folks that were previously in another building that had lit on fire. Then they were housed, temporarily, in a community space. Then they were at another, the VIP.

Shifting to similar conversation but for the city of Nanaimo, today we have our cold weather shelter closing. April 30, their contract is closed. Seventeen people that rely on that shelter are today, for the first time, being not welcomed back into that place. These are 17 individuals that do not have tents, do not have other supplies.

[5:35 p.m.]

B.C. Housing has identified that there are other shelters in the community: the New Hope — Salvation Army operates this; Unitarian Shelter; as well as Samaritan Place. But these spaces do not have openings available right now for these 17 individuals. In fact, Unitarian Shelter is actually trying to move some folks along to the Risebridge-operated shelter.

I recognize there have been some significant investments in Nanaimo. It’s very much appreciated. Chatting with the minister, who represents the central downtown core, she always talks about how 1,000 units of affordable housing have been funded. But we’ve got — according to the mayor, according to people downtown, according to the RCMP — more than 1,000 unhoused individuals.

The question is: in light of the fact that we have a desperate need to ensure that people have a safe place to go, will the minister consider looking at extending this shelter that’s closing today to ensure that these 17 individuals, as well as others, have a safe place to stay?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member acknowledging the Unitarian Shelter. That was winter, and it was temporary, but we extended that now to make it year-round.

We just opened up supportive housing last week. I think 51 units. That means that people from the Terminal site can move in, some people from shelter. There’s renovation happening at the Terminal site, almost complete, which will move people from shelters into supportive housing and open up more capacity at the shelter.

We are also in conversations right now with the city of Nanaimo on a couple of important other initiatives to get more housing online, which I believe will relieve a lot of this pressure. But we’re not in a position yet where we can make that public.

A. Walker: I appreciate that. I guess the concern is this shelter that’s closed right now would normally be opening in a couple of hours. There are 17 individuals. They’re not going to be getting into Newcastle or Terminal or any of these other facilities. They are now being added to the populace that is on the street in downtown Nanaimo.

So the question was: will the minister take the action to work with Risebridge to do what they can to keep that shelter open, to ensure that people have a safe place to go at night?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The temporary shelter is not a new model. It’s been here for a long time. It’s there for difficult weather conditions.

That being said, part of the recent MOU we signed with the city of Nanaimo was an additional site at 1300 Island Highway South, prefabricated transitional support housing for 50 people. We are just finishing renovations on 50 temporary spaces at the 2050 Terminal site. We just opened, last week, the 51 permanent supportive housing units. We’re moving people from shelters into the supportive housing. That’s the pathway we take. We have a couple of other initiatives that we’re working on with the city of Nanaimo.

We do have what’s called community access tables and a HEARTH team on the ground that are trying to find people places that are more permanent. I won’t be able to get to the team at this moment. Just to say that we know there’s a need in Nanaimo, and we’re dramatically trying to increase both permanent and temporary locations for people to come inside.

A. Walker: Yeah, it’s 250 Terminal.

I guess the challenge is just that some of these sites aren’t open yet. So we’ve got these people that are being kicked out, and I understand that it’s a funding stream that ends at the end of April. It did open late. The challenge is that Unitarian Shelter has actually been referring people to the Risebridge facility, because they have their own challenges within their own facility.

Jumping back to Parksville with the shelter situation there, the minister mentioned that a temporary use permit was denied, recognizing that was a slightly different property. Is there any work happening right now to prepare for this next winter season? And if not, what can be done to bring local governments together, to bring service providers together to try to have one conversation in one place about finding a solution this early in the process?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What I thought I heard — maybe I have selective hearing — was that the member wanted to help bring communities together to identify a permanent shelter spot within the communities. If that’s what the member is offering as something that he would like to advance, then we’ll ensure B.C. Housing is part of that conversation.

A. Walker: That would be appreciated. Whether it’s permanent or temporary, it’s about planning now so that come October we’re not scrambling like we do every year. Of course being an election year, that will create a completely different scramble.

Yeah, we want to make sure that there is some predictability there. It’s not just for those that need the help. We saw that through the emergency shelter earlier this year. We had a senior in there whose electricity had cut out. She had a home, but she lost heating in that home and she needed a place to go. We had Ukrainian refugees that had come and used the emergency shelter.

It’s also for the fact that these service providers, the people doing the work in the community, deserve to know what the plan is. It’s really difficult talking to them about the compassion they have to ensure people have the dignity of having a place to stay and the safety of having a place to stay and having no control over being able to offer that.

[5:45 p.m.]

As we talk about the wait-list for Oceanside, I recognize that number still hasn’t come yet, which is fine. Is this information available publicly? Council has asked B.C. Housing. This was many months ago. They haven’t heard back. Is there some place that local government can understand what the need is in their community so that they can take that accountability?

Whether it’s number of seniors…. As we heard from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, that number has increased dramatically. I think that local governments, if they had that information, would probably have more ownership in the fact that they need to be a part of leading the solution.

Not just with seniors but just more broadly, the number of people on the B.C. Housing wait-list — how is it that local governments can have access to that information on a regular basis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The research team at B.C. Housing is actually trying to pull that number for the member right now. If I don’t get it before the end of the day, I’ll definitely try to get the member of the number tomorrow. I’m not entirely sure who committed to council and who didn’t, but we’ll follow up on that and make sure that that number is available.

I can guarantee the member, and the member already knows this, there is a need in the community. The member also knows I was with him in the community celebrating some units being opened up, and there’s a real desire from our side, from B.C. Housing, from the ministry, to find more solutions for affordable housing in his community.

A. Walker: I appreciate that the minister has been very open and accessible with this concern.

The question was: how can local governments have ac­cess to the B.C. Housing wait-list data so that they can make informed decisions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Right now, when communities ask, we do provide them information for their community. That’s why I’m trying to get the member the number he needs. We do have communities ask, and we share that information. Media ask, and we share that with the media as well.

A. Walker: Is there any consideration for proactively disclosing that on a regular basis?

One of the things, talking to some of the members of Parksville council, is that they didn’t have the number. But they also don’t know what this looks like relative to other similar communities around this province. So, I guess, is there any consideration of making that proactively regularly available to the public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Through B.C. Housing, through several reports, we share lots of information about needs in communities. We do point-in-time counts.

The federal government has a process now, almost some alignment, but they also share data of needs.

Again, there are a lot of things that we’re trying to get across the line. That is something that maybe we can get to when our websites are updated and everything. Right now, it is, essentially, when media or local governments ask, that we provide that information.

A. Walker: Then, I guess, that’s an opportunity.

The minister mentioned that, I believe, there are intakes right now for the CHF. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The CHF, instead of being one every, say, three years, now we have a call that’s happening almost every year so that communities that are not available for one fund, they can apply for the next. We expect it to be likely very, very early in the new year for the next CHF fund.

The Indigenous housing fund is closing May 15, and that’s open right now.

A. Walker: I’m just looking at the website. The Indigenous housing fund, I think, on the website says it closes a slightly different date. Just pointing back to the website. Yeah, I would certainly encourage the minister, if that data could be released on monthly basis.

The PiT Count is a good reference point to understand those that are homeless, but as the minister knows from his own constituency office, there are many, many more people than the PiT Count represents. We’ve got seniors coming through that are living in their cars that have been missed in the PiT Count. People are living on couches waiting, people who are living very precariously.

To have that data released on a regular basis would provide a benchmark for communities, especially the local elected officials, to not only compare themselves to other communities, but to be able to go to their own community and say, “we are achieving success,” or “we’re going in the wrong direction.”

[5:50 p.m.]

Without that data, relying on local governments to ask for it — and this local government has asked for it, and they haven’t seen it yet — or for the media to make that request, I would certainly encourage the minister, if possible, to take that on. I understand the minister has got lots of other initiatives, and they are very important.

One of the things in my community — I know it’s not all that different in others that rely on the private market for a lot of rental home units — is the challenge when a house is up for sale. We have many homes in our community that are rented, especially to seniors, that have been rented for a long time. These rents are substantially below market rental. There’s no rental protection fund to ensure that these homes remain in the rental market.

When a home like this sells, the tenant, often a senior in my community, comes to my office with an eviction notice, and they have no plan. The challenge is that there is no solution for this other than to put them on the B.C. Housing wait-list. Is there any consideration or any work being done right now to try to protect the existing private market rentals that exist, whether making those public or otherwise, to ensure that we don’t continue to lose private rentals in our communities, whether it’s a home or an apartment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know the member’s aware of the rental protection fund for bigger projects, multiple units. At this point, we don’t have a program for an individual home. I understand the challenge the member is raising.

In some, especially smaller, communities, that one home is like the equivalent of a multi-unit building. It is something we are having conversations with the rental protection fund on, how they can have some flexibility for rural communities. It’s not a building with 60 units, because in some communities that just won’t be the case. But in smaller communities, it may be a couple of homes.

That is something that they’re considering, but I can’t give the member any information on something that’s, say, concrete on that yet.

A. Walker: I appreciate that, and I was just hoping, really, to raise that as an issue. It’s troubling, because in communities like Qualicum Beach and Parksville, where we don’t have predominantly apartment-style living, the rental market is these single-family homes.

When the landlord or the property owner has to dispose of that property for whatever reason, it is not being bought by someone else to continue that tenancy. So it creates a situation where we are actively losing, every year, these important rental properties.

As we chat with landlords in our constituency office, one of the things that they continue to raise with me is the challenges with the residential tenancy branch. I recognize there’s been significant investment to streamline that process. Could the minister provide an update as to where we’re at right now as far as streamlining the wait times, how long it takes for these things to be adjudicated and whether the minister is satisfied with the current progress?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m very pleased with the reduction in wait times across the board at the RTB. That’s a culmination of additional investments that we’ve made to bring more staff on and also the legislation that passed last fall.

[5:55 p.m.]

This allowed us to build in some efficiencies, oral hearings, and have some adjudication powers between tenants about how bookings happen. I’ve shared publicly some of the data, but since we announced the funding, in November 2022, we’ve seen a 57.4 percent reduction in average wait times for hearings. We’ve seen a significant number delayed.

We have wait times for hearings where unpaid rent was an issue. With a new fast-track process, a 67 percent reduction. At the same time, we are seeing increases in cases. That’s pretty remarkable how much in efficiencies and how much time-saving we’ve got. We still have more work to do. Calls answered within 20 minutes: the service standard is 90 percent. That’s the standard we set, and we’re at 93 percent. We’re above that.

Average wait times to speak to an agent — the service standard that had been set across the province was 12 minutes. We’re at seven minutes and 24 seconds. Number of calls dropped — we’re doing well there. Across the board, hearing times have come down dramatically. We’re at 2.6 weeks for emergency hearings. For regular hearings, we’re at 8.3 weeks; for monetary hearings, 13.6 weeks. The service standard for monetary hearings is 12 weeks, so we’re getting close to that. The standard for regular hearings was six weeks, and we’re at 8.3. So we’re making good improvement there.

Across the board, the times are reducing. We still have more work to do. When somebody’s in distress or dealing with something urgent, it’s never fast enough, but by the investments in the reforms and cutting the red tape, we’ve reduced the time significantly.

A. Walker: I’m not sure if folks are coming in. Just on that same question, the minister mentioned a level of satisfaction with that. Is the minister going to continue to increase pressure and to ensure that those wait times continue to be reduced?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, we have more work to do. The goal isn’t to just get to the standard. I’d like to get below. I’m pushing the team here, but they’re doing great work, I have to say.

I will also share with the member that the number for Parksville is 155, and for Qualicum, it’s 71, on the registry.

A. Walker: One of the other concerns that I often hear from constituents that are on the B.C. Housing wait-list is the fact that they are unable to find housing that allows for a pet. What work is being done right now to ensure that? Whether it’s new construction of B.C. Housing projects or retrofitting existing ones, recognizing that some tenants cannot live on a floor or near a pet, what work is being done to ensure that some of these seniors that are living alone have access to units that allow for pets?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It really varies. It really depends on the provider that’s bringing the application forward. We have some buildings that are coming and that are pet-friendly, and we have some buildings that have some units that are pet-friendly. It is dependent on the provider that’s bringing the application forward.

A. Walker: I guess one of the challenges is that as a landlord, which is what these non-profit providers are, there’s an incentive not to have pets. There’s a risk there. There’s a cost there. The pet deposit often doesn’t cover the cost of remediating a unit if the pet has created some harm.

Is there any pressure that the minister is putting on these operators to try to incentivize them to allow for some units to have pets? The reason I ask is especially for seniors that are living alone — having access to a unit that has a pet space, especially when they have a pet already. We have people coming through our office that are refusing housing and that continue to live in their cars because they don’t want to get rid of their companion animal.

Is there any pressure that is being borne by the ministry on some of these operators — or any incentives, ideally — to try to encourage this type of activity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wouldn’t say pressure, but I would say that many of our not-for-profit partners are hearing the same thing the member is.

[6:00 p.m.]

It is something that, I would say, most are considering, because in the end, their goal is to serve the needs of the people in the community. When they hear this, most are very responsive to try to make that happen.

A. Walker: Chair, I know I only have 15 minutes. It feels like the longest 15 minutes. I’m just going to keep going until the minister gives me a nod.

Interjection.

A. Walker: The minister says the nod was a long time ago. I missed the nod; I apologize for that. This will be my last question, I guess.

We were there together when the 87 units in Parksville opened up. That was a great day. The challenge is they had a wait-list of, I believe, 400 people that they were weeding through. As an operator, they do want to serve their clients, but they also have a choice when we have such a massive wait-list. As the minister pointed out, the wait-list in Oceanside, rough math in my head, is around 200 or so.

My last question, I guess. Through some of the housing legislation last fall with the small-scale, multi-family units, we are now seeing local governments move through this rezoning process. The minister is very likely aware that the district of Lantzville is having some hesitancy about going through this process. I recognize the ministry and the province did fund some of the consultation and planning processes.

What advice does the minister have to communities, like the district of Lantzville, which are really facing some challenges from their constituents, from their voters, from their ratepayers, as far as this new change they have to bring in by June?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are going to have to do a staff change. I’ll do a high-level message for the member, which is, overall, I’m very pleased at where we’re at with communities. We are seeing communities that are moving forward, getting changes done. My community of Delta is heading to fourth reading, which is probably the furthest ahead of any community. Those discussions and conversations are happening, at my doorstep.

I understand that for some local councils that it’s a little bit more challenging than perhaps others, but the legislation is pretty clear. The site standards document is pretty clear, and it’s my expectation that local governments will do what is needed to ensure that those units get built in the community.

I do thank the member for his questions and again thank him for his advocacy and, really, his sharing of information from his community around short-term ren­tals as well. I want to recognize the work he has done there.

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

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:03 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS ACT

Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act.

Division has been called.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.]

Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 49
Chandra Herbert	Parmar	A. Singh
Babchuk	Coulter	Lore
Chow	Beare	Kang
Heyman	Osborne	Cullen
Bains	Malcolmson	Bailey
Brar	Russell	Starchuk
Phillip	Yao	Leonard
R. Singh	Whiteside	Farnworth
Kahlon	Eby	Conroy
Sharma	Dix	Fleming
Dean	Rankin	Ralston
Alexis	Sims	Simons
Elmore	Glumac	Routley
Furstenau	D’Eith	Donnelly
Greene	Anderson	Chant
Dykeman	Paddon	Begg
	Walker
NAYS — 23
de Jong	Doerkson	Milobar
Stone	Bond	Ross
Oakes	Bernier	Davies
Banman	Morris	Kyllo
Shypitka	Sturko	Merrifield
Wat	Lee	Kirkpatrick
Stewart	Ashton	Sturdy
Letnick		Tegart

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.