The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motions Without Notice

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I call the orders of the day, I want to, by leave, move a notice of motion. I move that Susie Chant replace Mable Elmore as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Minister of Energy.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating the estimates of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

The Chair: Thank you very much. To the member….

I beg your pardon, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My apologies, Chair. I want to just start by welcoming…. Right now we have 31 students from Sutherland Secondary School that have just arrived here in the gallery. On behalf of the MLA for your area, the Minister of Infrastructure, I want to welcome you all to this place.

We are now debating the budget of Ministry of Housing, so you’ll be hearing an exchange back and forth about infrastructure and housing. This is an important process that we all go through in government to ensure that the dollars are being spent and that there’s accountability of where the dollars are going.

Welcome to the House today, and I hope you enjoy the debate.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Indeed, welcome to everyone joining us today, and we’ll turn it over to the member for Fraser-Nicola.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that.

Just a little preamble before we get into some questions here. This is around one of our favourite topics in the province right now, infrastructure. The provincial government’s blanket upzoning policy, Bill 44, mandates increased density across municipalities without adequately considering local infrastructure capacity.

Smaller cities and towns across British Columbia already face enormous pressure due to spiralling inflation, soaring infrastructure costs and ever-increasing regulatory burdens imposed by senior levels of government. These communities are now struggling to provide even basic core services, with property tax bases insufficient to support essential infrastructure investments in these communities.

Municipalities such as North Cowichan starkly illustrate these challenges, currently facing an unprecedented backlog of 370 building applications totalling approximately 10,100 new homes. Yet local water and sewer infrastructure can only handle roughly 4,200, less than half. Such a scenario highlights the provincial government’s lack of practical planning and support, casting severe doubts on Bill 44’s viability without significant provincial infrastructure funding.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, otherwise known as UBCM, has repeatedly urged the province to address these escalating costs, calling for a more diversified and flexible municipal financing framework. With a current infrastructure deficit provincewide estimated at approximately $25 billion — that’s right, folks; that’s with a “b” — the promised municipal infrastructure fund, provincial property tax waivers for purpose-built rental projects and expanded middle-income housing on public lands have yet to materialize.

Critics argue that this government’s approach, mandating higher density without meaningful provincial support, endangers the fiscal health and very sustainability of many of the smaller rural communities in this province.

Given your government’s imposition of Bill 44’s blanket upzoning, how exactly do you propose smaller communities manage the unprecedented strain on their infrastructure capabilities, particularly in towns like North Cowichan, Merritt, Lillooet and little communities like that North Cowichan where 10,100 new homes have been proposed but local water and sewer systems can only handle fewer than half of those?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the first question in our exchanges.

First off, I’d have to respectfully disagree with the member’s statement in the beginning. The member is actually not correct. Communities that didn’t have infrastructure didn’t have to bring on Bill 44. We’ve had a lot of communities that had an independent engineering report that highlighted that parts of their community didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to have that housing and in fact have extensions multiple years down the road for them to be able to build out that infrastructure.

It’s important to note that communities under the size of 5,000 did not have the same level of requirements as other communities. We understand that those communities have unique challenges. Communities that are operating on septic, for example, did not have to incorporate the changes.

I appreciate the member raising North Cowichan. We provided North Cowichan $7.8 million last year to invest in infrastructure. Of course, I’m sure North Cowichan used those dollars for critically important infrastructure like water, like sewer. I’m sure the member knows that they’ve got those dollars as well.

Tony Luck: So what we’re to understand is that smaller communities have been left off this list needing the infrastructure change.Somehow, when I go travelling around my riding and that, they feel the same pressure as larger communities as well. Here nor there, their infrastructure is still failing.

Lillooet — $100 million in infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Merritt — $120 million in infrastructure replacement. Terrace, Prince Rupert — all these communities around the province want to be part of housing because they want to do development in these communities, but they can’t do it. What we have is a tremendous downloading of requirements on these cities without the available infrastructure money to pay for them.

Given that little bit of an explanation, and given the UBCM’s repeated calls for provincial support to address spiralling infrastructure deficits and the challenges smaller communities face, will your government commit today to immediately implementing the proposed municipal infrastructure fund, which has so far failed to materialize despite clear campaign pledges? If so, where would it fall in these estimates votes and processes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I want to emphasize the point I made earlier, which is that communities that clearly could show, through an independent engineering report, that they lacked the infrastructure to see this type of housing could move the requirement until such time that they have the infrastructure. I just want to emphasize that.

It’s important for the member to know — and I know the member is new to this side but has local government experience — that we provided $1 billion to local governments to invest directly. It’s the largest direct investment in local governments for their infrastructure, certainly in my lifetime.

The member’s question around future infrastructure dollars…. I would say that one of the important pieces that we were waiting for was for the federal election to end. The reason why was that it’s important that we not create a program with no connection to what the federal government is doing. If we end up creating a program that has different criteria than the federal government’s…. We’ve heard from local governments. Having multiple processes, trying to link one application to two different programs are just unnecessary additional hurdles for local government.

So now that the federal election is over, almost officially, we’ll be able to now engage with the federal government on what future infrastructure dollars can flow to local governments. The member follows politics as closely as I and will know that there were strong commitments for building Canada and making infrastructure investments to unlock housing. We look forward to those conversations and will be able to share that when those conversations have concluded.

Tony Luck: Let’s go back to North Cowichan for a minute here. Their infrastructure gap is a lot larger than the $7.8 million that you funded them. There are still going to be gaps in there that need to be done — sewer upgrades, water upgrades. Is there additional funding coming to North Cowichan so that they’ll be able to fully build out the infrastructure that they need to accomplish your goals that are laid out in Bill 44?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that those infrastructure needs were not because of the legislation that we brought in. Those infrastructure needs in the communities existed previously. Many communities have infrastructure needs that are well beyond the changes that we have brought.

[1:45 p.m.]

That being said, local governments have the ability to collect fees for building infrastructure. Local governments use those fees to be able to build the infrastructure. I expect that to continue. Of course, we’re going to continue to support local governments with infrastructure like we have been, like I’ve highlighted with the $1 billion, like I’ve highlighted with the other infrastructure programs that we’ve had in alignment with the federal government.

Tony Luck: To the minister: municipalities across British Columbia are currently facing an infrastructure deficit, as we’ve talked about, estimated at $25 billion. It’s probably more than that as we stand here, with inflation the way it is. But what specific new financing mechanisms or funding formulas is your government actively developing with UBCM to help communities address this staggering shortfall?

Even though we talk about how we’ve funded so much, we know that aging infrastructure around the whole province is failing everywhere. We need to find some way of doing it. I know you’ve been sitting down with the UBCM to work out, maybe, a new funding formula. Could you talk to us about that, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that those conversations with UBCM are ongoing. It’s a joint process between us, the Ministry of Finance and UBCM.

I can share with the member that North Cowichan, over the last several years, has received $14.6 million for five different projects.

I can also share that we’re not aware if…. Actually, from our understanding, North Cowichan did not apply for the community housing infrastructure fund, which is a fund that’s available, for infrastructure, from the federal government.

Tony Luck: Seeing how this is pretty critical in the province right now with the funding, and you say you’re in ongoing conversation with UBCM, can we get a firm timeline for when these conversations will end and actions will be put into place, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I can’t give a firm timeline, but I appreciate the attempt from the member.

We are having these conversations and, of course, the federal government is going to be an important player in this. They’ve got the majority of dollars available to build the infrastructure, and we want to be good partners.

I have said to UBCM that we’ll continue to work with them in our joint collaborative approach to getting the federal government at the table and aligning our programs. I think there is an understanding from the UBCM table that that’s an important step that we have to take.

I can share with the member that I met with the Minister of Housing in late January, and our number one ask to the federal government was infrastructure and some consistent flow of dollars so that we can build the critical infrastructure that we need.

Tony Luck: Your government, some time ago, promised to waive provincial property taxes for new purpose-built rental projects. Has this commitment been abandoned, or will you announce today when municipalities can finally expect relief through this essential tax measure for them?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a Ministry of Finance piece. Any tax measure, any measure that requires spending outside of what’s in our portfolio, has to be directed to Ministry of Finance.

Tony Luck: Well, I don’t like that answer. You can’t tell me that you’re running the Municipal Affairs portfolio and that you don’t know costing of some of these programs you decide to implement. You can’t just be plucking projects out of the air and just throwing to Finance to figure out costs for that. You must know.

Could we please get a little bit better answer on that one? You must know what some of these programs are costing.

[1:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, just to remind you that all questions must come through the Chair, please. Thank you very much.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member never asked that in the first question. The member never asked: “What is the cost measure?” The member asked whether the plan is proceeding, and my point is that that’s a measure that comes from the Ministry of Finance.

I can speak to what’s in the allocation that I have, the 1.5 billion-and-something dollars. I can answer those questions. But anything that might come in the future requires the Ministry of Finance, and it’s a question better suited to them.

Tony Luck: To the minister: UBCM has clearly requested a flexible, diversified blueprint for municipal financing. Is your government seriously considering revenue-sharing models involving instruments such as the property transfer tax or provincial sales tax? If so, what specific progress has been made on those discussions?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I won’t be able to share an announcement today with the member, but there have been lots of different proposals from UBCM of where the money can come from.

I think it’s important for us to ensure (a) that we continue to support local governments with infrastructure dollars and (b) that we have a strong partner with the federal government and that whatever we do is aligned. This call from UBCM is no different than FCM’s calls across the country, and we want to make sure that we’re aligning best we can to get the same outcomes that everybody wants.

Tony Luck: Do we have a timeline for getting close to maybe making some announcements on a thing like that? Because I know that the communities that I visit in my particular riding are really struggling for this infrastructure piece. I know one of the communities basically stopped developing because they cannot afford to fix their infrastructure at this particular time.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The federal election ended less than 24 hours ago. I look forward to hearing the new cabinet and the new Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and we’re going to have those conversations. We’ll have a better sense when we have those initial meetings.

I can share with the member that at the last FPT meeting, the federal-provincial-territorial meeting, this was one of the biggest topics across the country, so it is vitally important that we align now.

I would say that not only in our time in government but even in the time of the previous government, there has been good alignment with the federal government in aligning our programs. I think that’s been a success for British Columbia that we want to make sure we continue going forward.

Tony Luck: As we talked about infrastructure…. Of course, this section is about infrastructure. For example, the costs of a fire truck or road construction largely cost identical compared to a small community or a large community, in rural communities as in large urban centres.

Minister, what practical solutions for our funding format is your government implementing to ensure that small towns are not disproportionately burdened compared to large, wealthy cities?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we have a $60 million regional district and small community grant program that is available to communities. I can also share with the member, on the specific example that the member shared, that in the previous government, in the previous term, we expanded the eligibility under DCCs to include public safety measures. Also, we’ve introduced an ACC tool for critically important amenities that communities want to build. That is the reason why. That was a request from local governments, and we expanded both of those.

Tony Luck: Will your government undertake a comprehensive review, in collaboration with UBCM, to analyze the cumulative impacts of provincial downloading regulatory burden and upzoning on municipalities and publicly release a clear, actionable plan to relieve these unprecedented local infrastructure and financial pressures on these smaller communities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, the communities that had challenges with infrastructure and could not enable this type of housing just had to get an independent engineering report showing that. Richmond is an example. Parts of Richmond didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to support this type of housing. They have an extension for multiple years, and they are building out a plan to build that infrastructure. So that exists.

As I mentioned to the member…. Actually, I should also mention that Metro Vancouver in fact released a report within the last two years that highlighted that small-scale multi-unit housing is actually the best way of getting more housing with less dollars impacting their infrastructure. That was within Metro Vancouver’s own reporting.

What we’re trying to do is address both challenges, which are: we know we need more supply of housing, but we also want to limit impact on infrastructure. That’s also why we kept our housing requirements within regional growth strategies. We didn’t want to encourage sprawl outside of communities, because we know that type of infrastructure is particularly expensive for the type of housing that we want to see.

Tony Luck: Before we recognize how much money we need to throw at a problem and those kinds of things, we need to understand how big the problem is.

Has your ministry ever done a needs assessment for the entire province? Or do you provide funding to local communities so they can make those assessments and so we have a much clearer and more defined understanding of exactly what the total bill for infrastructure spending in the province would be?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide money through Asset Management B.C. to support local governments to do an assessment of their needs. It’s hard to put an exact number because they change so often — you know, a community decides they need a new rec centre or they decide they don’t need a new rec centre or they decide they need something else. These things are always moving.

We do engage with local governments who come forward and say: “This is our need.” In fact, I’ve had meetings with some local governments where the need started at a certain number. It changed over time because there were different needs and different priorities from a local government — election changes and those priorities get completely wiped out and something new comes in. So it’s hard to have one number. But we do engage with local governments often, and they share whatever specific challenges that they’re trying to deal with.

Again, $1 billion to local governments. We didn’t ask them to…. The only ask was to tell us where the money is going. We didn’t say to them: “You have to invest in project A, project B, project C.” We put faith that they knew where they wanted those dollars to go.

They also have access to the MFA. I don’t know if the member knows that. They have access to that to be able to borrow to invest in critically important infrastructure. We’ll continue to have a conversation with the federal government about what future programs could look like.

[2:00 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Finally, on this particular topic, for now, and I reserve the right to ask more questions in the future: what accountability and transparency measures will your government introduce to assure municipalities and taxpayers that provincial promises such as infrastructure funds, middle-income housing development on public land and tax relief are fully honoured rather than continually delayed or ignored?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There were multiple things in there. I’ll just say that we’re pretty public about government lands and where the projects are going around BC Builds. That’s on the websites. It’s available to people. Happy to talk about that, because I think it’s a huge success.

And hats off to B.C. Housing. That program was put together…. And I recall being in the city of North Vancouver a year ago announcing the first project, and shovels went in the ground. That’s a remarkable time and speed for a project that size.

We do share that information. If the member has something specific, I can certainly try to get that to the member.

Tony Luck: I’ll start with a preamble on this one. We’re going to talk about some of the cities’ favourite topics: DCCs, CACs and ACCs. Nice acronyms, but we’ll get to that part.

So the current state of development cost charges, DCCs, and community amenity contributions, CACs, in British Columbia, is characterized by a lack of transparency, consistency and predictability, significantly impacting housing affordability and market viability. We hear from contractors all the time how confusing it is in the DCCs, moving from different communities and things like that. CACs are certainly something that developers don’t like, but yet they can work with them.

But developers frequently face unpredictable municipal requirements, including arbitrary increases in CACs and the imposition of stringent social housing mandates, leading to considerable project uncertainty and inflated housing costs. Regularizing and legalizing uniform processes of DCCs and CACs could eliminate these uncertainties, streamline approval processes, enhance transparency and ultimately improve housing supply and affordability.

The B.C. government has introduced the ACC, amenity cost charges — I believe that is to replace the current process we have of CACs — and are seeing many municipalities overly allowing higher density, but including onerous poison pill regulations, such as requirements for social or deeply discounted housing. Removing these is essential to restoring confidence and predictability in the development community.

So first question is: while the move towards regularizing the CAC process into ACC is commendable, why has the ministry opted to introduce a 60-page policy document full of bureaucratic guidelines instead of simply setting out standardized dollar amounts or a clear rate per square foot for ACC areas across British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I really appreciate the member’s preamble. I actually wish the member had been here last term because we addressed this very thing. I’m sure if he was here then, he would have encouraged his colleagues to actually support the bill, because this is the very thing we were trying to address.

If I can just maybe rephrase or capture what the member has highlighted, which is a challenge that we hear as well. Imagine trying to build an affordable housing project for seniors and having it come close to the finish line and then all of a sudden getting a phone call that your DCCs are increased, your CACs are going to be increased, as well as the parking requirements are going up. That’s an expensive venture when you’re already far along in the project.

We’ve actually had the situation where we’ve had to go to communities and say: “We actually have to cancel this affordable housing project in your community because of these new measures that you’ve introduced.”

The purpose of the new ACC tool was to try to address this specific challenge. The changes we’ve made in the last year move local governments to plan where they want their housing every five years. Go and engage the community, figure out where you want the housing, make sure it aligns with where your housing needs are. And by doing that and not having public hearings — because the community’s already engaged on where they want the housing and how it should look — we’re going to see less public hearings. When you see less public hearings, there’s less opportunity for the negotiation of CACs.

[2:05 p.m.]

I hear all the time, from not-for-profits and the private sector, that that process can take a year to two years. It’s not done in a public, transparent way. It’s not good for the local elected officials either. There are accusations always made about local government officials that somehow, they’re giving somebody a favour compared to somebody else, because there’s no rhyme or reason for the formula.

What we did was that we brought in this ACC tool. The point of the tool is to build more transparency into the process. So now local governments can identify, with their community, what amenities they need. They put, into their bylaw, what amenities they want. The cost is at the front, people know what the cost is, and that cost goes towards building the important amenities they need. Local governments are happy because they’re going to get dollars for their amenities.

Now, it’s important to note — I hope the member would support this notion — that the ACC tool can only be charged to net new. So if you’re replacing ten units with ten units, well, you can make the argument that you need a brand-new community rec centre for the same amount of units. But if you’re building above and beyond that, you can charge the ACC tool to that.

The reason why it’s getting good response from communities is because it ensures that local governments can still get the amenities that they need. There’s a requirement that they do an analysis, so that whatever cost structure they put in does not deter development. They have to do an analysis to see what levels they’re setting.

The member also mentioned.... I think inclusionary zoning was the member’s point. Even with the tool for inclusionary zoning, the reason why we don’t do a blanket is because what can be done in Vancouver will be different than Surrey, Maple Ridge or Kamloops. Each community now will have to look at their own opportunities in their community and identify how much inclusionary zoning, if at all, they want to have.

We’ve now provided them the tools that, I think, will help decisions to be made in a more transparent way. It’ll protect local government officials from accusations that, quite frankly, are mostly unwarranted, and it ensures that those that are building homes have a greater level of transparency.

Because this is just rolling out — it’s going to still take a little bit of time — it’s not as clear to local governments, but those that have a good understanding of what we’re trying to do appreciate the direction we’re heading to.

Tony Luck: Thank you to the minister. How does the ministry plan to monitor and enforce compliance with any standardized approaches to ACCs and DCCs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any DCC bylaws go through the inspector of municipalities. For ACCs, we’ve built in a requirement that when it comes to development of the ACC bylaw there must be some form of consultation with the public, with homebuilders, etc.

There are rules around how the local government can set charge amounts, including whether charges that are being charged would deter development — so some important measures there. There are public economy measures around rules on how the funds can be used and the reporting requirements. It has to be made public, and of course we have, within the legislation, regulation-making authority. So the province can set additional requirements, if needed.

Tony Luck: What proximate timelines for introducing legislation or regulatory amendments to eliminate the potential of municipalities to include restrictive poison pills in that, such as excessive social housing requirements in development areas? Do we have a timeline thing? Have you got anything around that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, there are many forms of poison pills, I’ve learned, in the housing space. It can be anything from communities putting limits on height, limits around an extensive amount of parking and not allowing setbacks.

[2:10 p.m.]

You know, we can talk. I’m happy to talk about any of those pieces if the member would like, but specifically when it comes to ACCs, there are pretty clear guidelines and rules that are in place for when it can be used. Now, I think the member is aware that it’s an ongoing conversation, and I’ll use Metro Vancouver’s DCC increase.

You hear, from those in the development community, some serious concerns about the cost and the implications for them when they’re trying to build housing. I know we’re not supposed to speak about legislation in the House, but I will say that there are measures in front of the House that will help address some of that.

There are processes in place for DCCs and ACCs to have guardrails to ensure that the rules are being followed. It’s my expectation that we continue to have that, with the understanding, on the flip side, that local governments do need access to dollars to build the infrastructure. I think we’ve struck a good balance, but we’ll continue to work with local governments as we go forward.

Tony Luck: I think you’ve kind of covered a little bit about what steps are being considered to ensure developers can accurately assess the financial viability of projects without facing uncertain and changing municipal requirements.

Is there any look around at putting in things like KPIs and that? These communities and the developers, which are always complaining that things change and timelines change…. This is the first I’ve heard where cities can actually change things halfway through or at 90 percent of the project, which doesn’t even make sense.

Is there any way of measuring some of these things, putting in place, so that the transparency is very clear to the developers that, often, are looking at these projects?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve got a document that might be helpful to the member. It is available publicly, but the reason why I want to share it with the member is that there’s guidance for elected officials on how to use the tools in a fair way. This was just issued within the last few weeks. It may help answer some of the questions. I’ll add the cover page, just so the member knows which document it is and where they can find it.

But the second page, page 7, has all the information I think the member is looking for.

Tony Luck: I’ll move on from there, but I reserve the right to come back and ask a few questions around that.

Now I’d like to speak to the Auditor General for Local Government. In 2020, the B.C. NDP government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government, significantly weakening oversight, transparency and fiscal responsibility at the municipal level.

Since the role’s termination, numerous questionable decisions by municipal councils and regional districts have underscored the urgent need for an independent auditor with meaningful oversight and authority. Recent controversies, including exorbitant salary increases for various Lower Mainland mayors and egregious mismanagement of infrastructure projects such as the North Shore wastewater treatment plant, highlight how taxpayers are left vulnerable when municipalities lack independent oversight.

[2:15 p.m.]

Similarly, revelations that the city of Vancouver sold an asset like a garbage truck significantly below market value only for it to be immediately resold at an immense profit by the person that bought it demonstrate clear disregard for fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The reinstatement of a robust and empowered auditor general for municipalities would provide crucial financial oversight, conduct pre-emptive reviews of municipal decisions and help prevent wasteful spending and fiscal mismanagement before taxpayer dollars are squandered.

To the minister: your government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government several years ago, significantly reducing accountability and oversight for municipalities. Can you clearly explain the rationale behind removing critical mechanisms that safeguard taxpayers’ interests?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s always fascinating to get into this conversation, because the conversation is usually two things. One: “Why do you get into so much local government business? Let them be. They’re elected officials.” Then the flip side is: “Well, why don’t you have more oversight of them to make sure you keep an eye on them?” It’s always a challenge between the two.

That being said, I think the concern that the member raised around Metro Vancouver has obviously been canvassed in the public. There is a review happening at this time.

All of the documents for local governments…. They have to have financial statements audited, made public, available. And at the end of the day, all of these elected officials have to represent their community and have to stand up for the decisions that they’ve made. For local governments, that’s coming very soon. That is, I think, a great accountability measure that we all have to go through as elected officials.

Tony Luck: Well, yes, we always have accountability when it comes time at the ballot box and that kind of thing, but in the meantime, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are out billions of dollars.

In the meantime, could the ministry not agree that maybe we have to have some kind of oversight within government to be able to have a body that municipalities could go to and ask for help? I’m thinking of… Especially for us who are in smaller rural communities that don’t have the financial resources to be able to hire streams of accountants and things like that….

Do you think the ministry could be looking at re-implementing the Auditor General for Local Government to help those municipalities that struggle to make sure that their projects will come in on time and on budget?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this topic is not in the budget, but I think we can have a little bit of latitude to have a discussion about it.

[2:20 p.m.]

Some of the questions are: “UBCM–elected officials are asking for this; why won’t you do it?” In this case, UBCM was the one saying that it was unnecessary and that they were autonomous and should be able to make decisions. I think that’s the paradox of the questions that we get.

Now, I share the concern around Metro and some of the decisions and some of the challenges they’re dealing with, with their infrastructure projects. Again, there’s a full review happening right now, and we certainly will be keeping an eye on it and making whatever information that can be made public, public.

Tony Luck: We talk about a full review going on with Metro Vancouver, but we know that’s an internal review set up by their own individuals and that. Under the Local Government Act, the government has the ability to call for a completely, totally independent review. Why would this ministry not do that to protect the integrity of the taxpayers in that community?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve highlighted with Metro, we have an independent observer that’s watching the process. If it comes to a point where we believe additional steps are needed, that’s something we’ll consider at that time. But, at this point, the people that they’ve put forward are reputable individuals.

In no way…. The member is not doing it; I’m certainly not raising concerns about who these individuals are and the work that they do. So we have to have faith that the process will happen. Our independent observer will be watching. If there are issues, then certainly we’ll take additional steps.

Tony Luck: Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to ask further questions from this section in the future.

Could we take a five-minute recess as my colleague will get resettled for her next line of questioning as she gets reseated? Is that okay?

Or does she need five minutes? Can she just...? Just a couple of minutes.

The Chair: I think we’ve got time to wait.

Are we good to go? Perfect. There you go.

Thank you, Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for recognizing me. Just before I get on to my next set of questions, I would put through you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding Bill 44 and whether or not the ministry has determined…. If people were to accommodate the densification that the ministry is suggesting, has the ministry also acknowledged what the contributions would need to be from the province relative to hospitals, highways and schools?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is probably just staying up so that she doesn’t have to go up and down. I apologize. I was waiting.

I would say that we have people in our communities that are underhoused — people already in our communities. I think there’s a misunderstanding sometimes with some of the pieces we’re bringing forward that this is about bringing a lot more people to our communities. This is about making sure the people that are in our communities have housing.

We have individuals…. I raised this in the debate of the bill last year: 12 people were living in a single-family house — students all crashed into a three-bedroom place. There was a lack of housing.

Now, that’s increasing. We’re setting records for housing starts. The federal government has made some decisions to slow down some of the immigration numbers, and so that will have an impact. But, certainly, the social infrastructure needs to continue to be expanded.

The member is aware that south of the Fraser, we’ve got new transit, we’ve got new hospitals, and we’ve got new schools. We can debate all day long whether it’s enough, if it’s coming fast enough; but it’s coming. It is being done in communities, and we’re going to need to do that in communities around the province.

[2:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Well, I acknowledge the minister’s comments, and he is certainly right that we could debate that all day long and where the deficits are and continue to be. But I think the more critical question around Bill 44 is that there is a large expectation of local governments to provide this housing, to make sure that they have the roadways that are going to accommodate more vehicles, that are going to accommodate garbage trucks and that could have four to five or six houses on a lot now.

To that end, you also have to have the corresponding provincial requirements of: do we have enough hospitals to care for those expanded uses? Do we have enough schools to prepare for those students? And yes, we have…. When we’re growing this province as quickly as we are, I think that is an analysis that should be made relative to the Bill 44 requirement.

I’ll leave it at that, and I thank the minister for his response. But I still believe there is a lot to be done relative to that, and I reserve the right to query more.

I would like to now move on to what I’m going to call, likely not happily to the minister, the hidden carbon tax on housing, which I will call the step code. The step code regulations have emerged as a significant tax on new housing, substantially escalating costs, intensifying bureaucracy and hampering the province’s already strained housing market.

Intended to progressively increase energy efficiency in new construction, the step code imposes stringent guidelines on insulation quality, on thermal loss mitigation, on window sizes, on lighting and overall design specifications. Industry professionals have estimated compliance costs as adding 10 to 20 percent to new home prices, exacerbating affordability concerns in the middle of a severe housing crisis.

These regulatory layers not only inflate housing costs but introduce unnecessary complexity and delays in permitting and project execution, leading directly to fewer homes being built. This is exactly the red tape that strangles new home-building.

Given the complexity and bureaucratic nature of step code compliance, has the ministry calculated the exact cost burden, both direct compliance costs and indirect permitting delays, borne now by builders and, ultimately, homeowners in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a couple of pieces, a couple of questions within the question from the member.

I know that we’re moving on from topics. I did just want to make one comment on the last piece, which is that we also need nurses, we also need teachers, and we also need trades folks, and they need housing.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg. We need to have the housing to have the people to be able to support the social infrastructure we need, but we’ll have lots of time. We’re here for a while, so I suspect we’ll come back to this.

On the building code piece, I think it’s important for folks, those that are watching at home, to understand that, with any code changes, we try to give time for the home-building community, for industry, to adjust to the changes that are coming.

The member’s question was: “What’s the cost?” It’s very difficult to come up with a number, given that design choices can change from building to building. So it depends on what your design choices are. It depends on market of supply. We do look at all these things.

I just met, within the last few weeks, with folks within this industry that supply goods, to discuss how we’re changing technologically, how we’re adapting. In fact, what I heard from them was that the technology exists; the technology is not the challenge. How do we skill people up and train them up to be able to install and do these different changes that we need to do to be able to get there?

I do acknowledge that there are often potential costs associated with building code changes, and the accessibility piece was one. We brought in some changes to accessibility. Given that there were some serious concerns around supply of building supplies — the fact that 40 to 60 percent of our building supplies come from the U.S., and the uncertainty of cost pressures — we have now made some changes to that accessibility code requirement so that we can build more predictability in costs.

That’s a tough thing to do because anyone that’s been advocating for accessibility in housing will tell you that these changes are long overdue. I think of Stephanie Cadieux, who was a minister here and who is now the national advocate in this space. They want to see it move forward.

We’re trying to find a balance between wanting to move forward on important measures but at the same time ensuring that we can still get housing built. We do that with the energy code as well.

Susie Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant: Thank you so very much.

Earlier in the day on the precinct was Sutherland Secondary School from North Vancouver. It was their global perspectives program, which was designed to enrich students’ understanding of global affairs by fostering engagement in the interconnectivity of economic, political, environmental and social systems. The global issues curriculum is interwoven through four courses, with an emphasis on field studies to ensure students’ learning extends beyond the classroom.

The class group, grade 11s and 12s from Sutherland, spent their time in the Legislature. They met with Minister Ma, and they’ve been touring through the building.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get here fast enough, and they’re off the precinct now. But I hope that the House can warmly welcome them at this time, so that we can show it to them on Hansard.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner: I don’t think I got an answer relative to the costing and the cost burden of compliance to the step code. But I’ll help answer that question, if I may, because the people I’ve been meeting with within the industry tell me that it adds 10 to 20 percent to the hard costs of a project.

How can you justify to British Columbians why their government chooses to impose a step code — essentially, a hidden carbon tax that raises home prices by that kind of a percentage — all in the midst of an unprecedented housing affordability crisis?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member must acknowledge that operating those buildings will be cheaper. Yes, there may be a cost for the developer. They may not make the profit margins that they want, but those that are living in those units will be able to operate in a more cost-effective way — lower bills, lower heating bills, etc. Those buildings that are rentals will have better cash flows.

There are other benefits. I know the member knows the climate benefits of it, but there are other benefits beyond that as well, which I think are important. I’ll leave it there, and I’ll come back to it after.

Linda Hepner: I don’t think we got an answer that the public would consider to be significantly useful to their pocketbooks when we’re talking about a 10 or 20 percent increase in housing and an onerous red-tape scenario.

With housing plummeting by 59 percent in Vancouver alone, can the minister confirm how many approved housing projects have been halted or cancelled, specifically due to the step code–related escalations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of a single project that has been cancelled because of just the step code. If the member has a project that was cancelled just because of the step code, I’m happy to hear it.

I can share with the member that there is research that was released in 2022. There was a construction cost analysis of high-performance, multi-unit residential buildings in B.C., and it showed that the cost was 3 percent or less for housing types under step 3.

There are a lot of factors in projects. The biggest one I hear, by far, is the time it takes to get approvals. So we’ve been taking those steps. Again, this research showed a 3 percent cost, and it doesn’t show the savings for individuals that move into those units. Both are important.

Linda Hepner: Has the government conducted any rigorous economic or social-impact analysis measuring whether the marginal energy efficiency gains — I think he said 3 percent — justify the substantial deterioration in affordability, livability and market viability? If so, could we have those analyses made available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this research showed that there was a 3 percent or less cost. The ongoing savings were around 20 percent. That’s significant for those that are living in the unit after — the savings.

Now, the member wants the research. I’m happy to share the research with the member. It’s a report that’s from a few years ago. If it’s easier for the member, maybe we’ll have someone email the link to the research so that the member can have it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not they have met with industry and gone through a pro forma of a building project and been able to determine through various agencies, as I have, that those numbers no longer work for viability in the marketplace.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I meet with industry on an ongoing basis. I think it’s not fair to characterize the step code as their challenge that they can’t get housing on. There are a lot of challenges.

There were interest rate challenges; there were labour shortage challenges. There is the fact that rents are coming down and that home prices are coming down, and a lot of pro formas don’t work right now. There is trade uncertainty around building supplies. Those are the topics that I discuss with industry all the time. That’s not a new thing.

The changes to the step code were not something we did this year. This was multiple years ago. We built in the predictability so that people knew it was coming, so that it gave a market signal to industry to be able to adapt.

I just met two weeks ago with some industry stakeholders that provide products that support us to be able to meet our goals. They said: “Technology moves quick.” Technology is moving quick. They said: “We still need support for training people up so that they have the skill sets to be able to install and make sure that these buildings can continue to operate.”

There are a lot of advancements happening in Europe. We’re seeing the price of a lot of the products coming down. That’s what happens when you give the signal: you see the market react and start to produce the products we need to be able to achieve the goals that we want. Over time, those costs will continue to come down.

Linda Hepner: I think it would be very advantageous for both the minister and the critic for the ministry to meet with the same players. We’re hearing different stories from what I just heard now from the minister. That is certainly not what I’m hearing, both in the community I live in and in the various agencies with which I’ve met.

I would like to ask whether it is the ministry’s position.... Could the minister define what measurable environmental outcomes have been directly attributed to the step code regulations, and whether they merit the harm attached to housing affordability and availability?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I didn’t want the people at home to be confused that all of a sudden there was something brand-new being introduced this year. The energy step code was introduced in 2017. The member is asking for research and data that was done at that time. I don’t have anything new that I can share, other than the research that I’ve committed to share with the member.

If the member has questions about the climate change roadmap, that’s a question for the Ministry of Energy, which is actually in estimates right now. I suggest that’s a better place for that question.

Linda Hepner: Considering that the industry reports that the step code compliance results in darker, less comfortable and aesthetically compromised home interiors, how does the ministry defend sacrificing that quality of life for the marginal energy efficiency?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It depends on design choices. It’s a vague question. It’s hard to answer the question. It just depends on how projects are being designed, and they’re all being designed differently. Many projects are starting to use more natural airflow, etc.

I don’t know exactly how to…. I don’t want to avoid the question, but I just don’t know how to answer the question because it’s a little vague.

Linda Hepner: I did not mean to be vague, but can I build a big window? A big one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member can, if the member chooses to, have a big window. I encourage a big window. Of course, it depends on the manufacturer and their ability to produce it. But there are homes that can meet that step code with larger windows, so yes.

Linda Hepner: I’m very glad to hear the minister say that, because that is not what I’m hearing from the builders. I’ll be sure to pass that on, that we can have as big a window as we would like under the step code.

What evidence, if any, does the ministry have that British Columbians support these regulations that significantly raise housing prices and lower home quality, except for the big window, merely for marginal improvements?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the fact that we have a majority government, the fact that we ran on a commitment to make some progress when it comes to addressing climate change…. Building envelopes are an important piece, an important measure on that.

I appreciate that in every election, there are people who campaign who say: “Don’t do anything.” We campaigned to say that this is an important step to move in that direction. I think that’s an important measure of support.

Again, I think our numbers…. We disagree on the numbers of the impact of the step code. This was introduced in 2017. A lot has happened in that time. A lot of innovation has come online, and we’re going to continue to see that. Anytime a marker is set and the market is given some time to adjust, you see the market adjust. We’re starting to see that here as well.

Linda Hepner: I’m surprised the market has to adjust if we can have big windows. In fact, I’m rather surprised that all the new buildings that you see have long, narrow, dark windows. I would suggest that perhaps the ministry needs to make their design options much clearer to the marketplace, because I don’t think the marketplace as yet understands that they can build as big a window as they like.

Finally, Minister, in this topic, given the significant social harm and economic harm caused by the step code, and the documented decline in housing starts, will you reconsider and repeal these regulations so that we can restore some affordability and some attractiveness to British Columbia’s new housing market?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to, maybe, put in context that the work to have a step code didn’t just happen under our government. In fact, this idea started when Rich Coleman was the Minister of Housing and Christy Clark was the Premier. That’s when the work started. That government understood that you need to make progress, and you need to move the dial. We just carried that work on when we came into government.

[2:50 p.m.]

At this point, the member is asking if I’m prepared to cancel regulations. The next step code is, I think, projected for 2030, and at this point, I’m not considering changing any of those regulations.

Linda Hepner: I hear what the good minister is saying about previous folk sitting here in the House, but I think it’s fair to suggest that under what is considered to be a housing crisis, we should all be looking for solutions to how we resolve a crisis, not how we are going to continue. What you’re suggesting is somebody else’s idea, and we’re just going along with it.

I’m not impressed with the ministry’s response to that regulation, because I believe that in a crisis, we all need to be swimming in the same direction, saying: what is it we need to do? This minister likes to suggest that there are all sorts of positive things happening in housing, when some of the very things that could easily help the cost of housing and home ownership are to simply get rid of some of the barriers we have within our own government regulations.

I’ll move on to the building code accessibility requirements and the cost impacts and the consultations under that particular subject.

I understand that the ministry is undergoing those consultations related to universal design, accessibility and adaptable housing. These may align or relax accessibility-related design standards, including those inspired by the accessible design for the built environment, CSA B651, and similar to federal or ADA-equivalent models.

Stakeholders in the development industry have raised concerns about the cost impact of requiring a majority of units in new buildings to be accessible and adaptable. Developers suggest that full compliance would add another 8 to 12 percent to the construction cost per unit, particularly in a multi-storey residential building, due to wider corridors, turning radius, additional elevator space, reinforced walls for grab bars and plumbing modifications.

At the same time, advocates for universal design point to demographic data. As to the most recent surveys, approximately 4 or 5 percent of British Columbians would rely on wheelchair or mobility aids, and that number is expected to rise, obviously, with an aging population. I can tell you, right here, I’ve got my cane. So for a short period of time, I’ll be among that 4 to 5 percent.

Questions please, Mr. Minister. Can you confirm whether or not your ministry has provided input into the accessibility and adaptability policy development as it relates to the B.C. building code?

The Chair: Once again, just a reminder that questions will come through the Chair, Member. Thank you very much.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, for keeping us disciplined. I appreciate that. I will do so.

When I first got elected, my first task as an MLA was to bring back a Human Rights Commission to British Columbia. So I travelled to talk to folks about human rights and met with the accessibility community.

I heard many stories of people that couldn’t visit a family member because although they had units in the building that were accessible, the unit that their family member lived in was not. Doors weren’t wide enough, and so the entire family would go up to visit the family, and that one individual in a wheelchair would just wait outside.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is an important conversation from a human rights perspective, which I take seriously. I reflect on the former minister, Stephanie Cadieux, who was in here, who has now got the job to be advocating for more progress at a national level.

I think it is important for the member to know a couple of things. We have moved the percentage requirement to 20 percent. We did that in consultation with industry.

We committed that we’ll continue to follow the national process. The member has asked if we provided some feedback at that process. I can confirm that we have a team that is engaged with the national process. It’s moving slow, but the conversations are happening at a national level.

Linda Hepner: I agree with the minister’s comments about how important accessibility and adaptability are. But to the degree that they’re doing consultation and that there is an expectation of a significantly larger percentage of design of the built environment being accessible into the now unaffordable….

Well, I’ll just ask the question this way: what is the estimated construction cost increase per unit associated with making a typical apartment fully accessible versus adaptable only? And has the ministry commissioned any third-party costing studies on this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have done costing on adaptability, not on accessibility. If the member would like a copy of that report on adaptability, I am happy to share it with the member.

Linda Hepner: Thank you. I would like that, and I appreciate the minister providing that to me.

I wonder if the ministry has an understanding of what percentage of British Columbians currently require mobility aids or wheelchairs, and if there has been a housing demographic forecast of what that would look like over the next ten or 20 years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team doesn’t have a number right now. But we’re here for a couple of days, I think, so we’ll make sure we get that to you.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that. Thank you.

Does the ministry plan to mandate accessibility in 100 percent of new units, or did I hear the minister suggest that only a portion of suites — up to 20 percent…? On what basis is this policy being set?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: At this point, we are only at 20 percent adaptability. We are not in a position to expand that or announce any expansions of that. It is not something that is being considered at this time.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask for the full cost-benefit analysis, stakeholder feedback and any implementation plan for these code changes to be made public before any final recommendations or regulations are adopted.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think I have answered this question. We have a space-and-cost impact report based on adaptable changes, and I’m happy to share that with the member. My team was just going to email something over so that the member has it.

Linda Hepner: Does that include an implementation plan?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think perhaps we’re talking about two different things. Our plan is to go to 20 percent. At this point, we don’t have a plan to go beyond that.

The federal government is contemplating further changes. We’re engaged with them at that table, but we don’t have a final report or a final plan. I assume the federal government will have a full cost-benefit analysis done with whatever end result they come with, but we’re not there yet.

Linda Hepner: I’m hearing the minister suggest that they’re talking adaptability, not full-on accessible. If I’m correct in that, then I believe my question…. If the minister provides me with the information that has been suggested, that would satisfy me.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct, 20 percent adaptability. That’s as far as we’re going at this stage, and we’ll wait for the federal process. I commit to the member that I’ll get that report. It also includes some of the analysis around earthquake code.

I’ll make a comment just to say that at a national level there was research done around soil and impacts from potential earthquakes. In fact, I would say the bigger concern from industry is how we adjust the building code to meet those earthquake requirements — less on the energy, less on the accessibility, because of our changes recently, and more on the earthquake pieces.

I’m sure the member would fully agree with me that if the research is clear that there’s a risk because of potential earthquakes, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure that we mitigate the best we can any of those concerns in the building code. That work is happening as well.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, we’re talking 20 percent adaptability, not 100 percent adaptability.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct. Twenty percent adaptability, not 100 percent accessibility.

Linda Hepner: If I could ask for a break to bring in a couple of other people that would like to speak….

The Chair: Looks like we’re going to be okay with that. I think we’re going to recognize one of the members right now.

Scott McInnis: I’m okay to continue if the minister and his staff are okay with that as well.

Thank you, Minister, for those questions. I want to shift gears a little bit and just talk about some of the unique housing challenges we face in regard to resort municipalities and some of the short-term rental regulations that are coming up in the next couple of days for those that want to be part of the new registry system.

Just to start off, if I could just get a brief outline as to what the stated goal is with the Ministry of Housing when it comes to this new short-term-rental registry application process and fee for small municipalities that are allowed to have short-term rentals.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Nice to have an exchange with the member. We haven’t had a chance yet, so I appreciate the question.

The changes we’ve done around STR, or short-term rentals, were to ensure that we are prioritizing housing opportunities for people in our communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Prior to the member being elected, UBCM in fact had a resolution asking for the province to step in this space, in particular, because local governments were trying to create their own licensing system. But often they did not get cooperation from the platforms. So you could set up something and then you were finding out through house parties where the short-term rentals were as opposed to where they actually were.

The city of Vancouver had an agreement to share data, but even they struggled to actually get the data of where short-term rentals were. So we took the first steps last year, and the registry now is…. People are registering their properties, and we are starting to see some good progress. We’re starting to see the numbers coming up, and now that data will be shared with local governments.

Local governments now will be able to compare what they think is happening in their communities to what is actually happening in their communities. That was a big, big ask from local governments because there was a major blind spot when it comes to that.

Now, I think I know where the member is going, because I’ve seen some correspondence from the member. It’s important to note that when we set the system up, we want to make sure that we’re recovering costs to set up the system and operate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see local governments moving away from having their own systems, because the province has created one that has more teeth than they can possibly do.

I mean, the reality was local governments were not able to compel anything from platforms. Now, of course, with our system, that information will be transparent, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see local governments moving away, because our system now does all the things that they wanted to see, and it will help them better mitigate challenges in their communities.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I think the minister will agree that resort municipalities are unique. These are small communities that have huge tourism influxes in peak seasons, but they don’t necessarily have the hotel capacity to house these tourists when they come to town.

I appreciate that the minister is stating that perhaps some of these municipalities will be moving away from their local registry systems and fee-collection pieces, but as of right now, they’re not. That’s somewhat of a stream of important revenue for local resort municipalities as they exist today.

I completely understand that not all resort municipalities are one and the same. I’m sure there will be resort municipalities that find that perhaps this short-term registry and the additional fee are a deterrent to providing more stable and long-term housing for specific communities.

I’m just wondering if, before this came into existence for resort municipalities specifically…. Did the ministry do any canvassing among the 14 resort municipalities in the province to see what their individual needs were?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When we were building this out, there was extensive engagement done with communities. We exempted some regional districts. We exempted tourism-dependent communities from the principal residence requirements for that reason. We know that they often depend on that for tourism activity. The member will know that there are tourism-dependent communities that have wanted to opt in because they see the benefit of it. Osoyoos is an example.

Likely the member is also interested in the fact that we require everyone to register, whether they’re a tourism-dependent community or not, because the tools that we have in place allow us to do a level of enforcement. If we don’t know where the homes are in communities, whether they’re tourism-dependent or not…. If we don’t have a system in place, we can’t have an enforcement process.

There are many short-term rentals. Maybe I’ll just use Whistler as an example. It’s not a real example, but an example. You could have a whole host of short-term rentals in that community, and it’d be great. But you could have a few that are owned by somebody who doesn’t live in town, and it’s a major problem. Having everyone registered allows the local government now to use their licensing to say: “We would like that one shut down for whatever reason, because of non-compliance, etc.”

Now our registry provides them the tool to actually have the enforcement. Before that, it would be goodwill. You could ask, but the platforms may not respond.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Again, I think the issue here is specifically for resort municipalities. My question originally was: did the ministry actually canvass the 14 resort municipalities to see what their unique housing needs were? Again, I have five of the 14 resort municipalities in my riding.

I’ve shared with the ministry a lot of concerns, because of some of the unintended consequences with a second registry and a second fee that the province has brought in, that a lot of these small-time STR operators are now choosing to close their doors because they’re paying in excess of $1,000 per door for the registry plus a lengthy process — and one that the municipalities already have in place.

They’re extremely frustrated, and the result being that people are cancelling bookings. That’s very devastating for some of these local, small resort municipalities within Columbia River–Revelstoke specifically.

I just want to see if I can get an answer out of the ministry as to whether they canvassed, specifically, resort municipalities to see what kind of existing systems they already had in place, and would this registry be helpful for them? The feedback I’m receiving is that it is not, and the unintended consequence is that people are closing their short-term rentals.

Just as a footnote, these are not big corporate entities that are owning these short-term rentals. These are small-time people within the community that maybe have a second property that they’ve saved up a lot of money and time to be able to afford, or perhaps they’ve renovated their existing primary residence to have a secondary suite within there. It’s not these big corporate real estate investment trusts or things like that. These are local folks.

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, I think the result is that yes, they’re pulling their short-term rental off the market. Yes, that does provide housing locally for people that need it, because we still do have a crunch, but the unintended consequence is that people are cancelling bookings to these resort municipalities.

I just want to ask the ministry if they canvassed specifically, through a questionnaire, through a town hall, with the resort municipalities. Were they asked what their specific needs were, based on the tourism and fluxes that they see every season?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can tell the member that we specifically engaged with Revelstoke in 2023 when we were preparing to make the legislation. If the member is asking specifically about the fee, the fee is again important because if Revelstoke wants us to use the powers we’ve created, in order to actually enforce the rules that they have in place for them, then it’s important for them to register.

I appreciate that for somebody who’s renovated a place, an additional $100 is $100. I get it. But it’s important that we also have a measure for cost recovery so that if we’re investing in infrastructure, a system, an opportunity for people to check, we’re able to recover some of those costs. I just think that the cost-recovery piece was an important piece for us as we move forward.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

Beyond Revelstoke.... I have five resort municipalities in my riding — Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, Radium Hot Springs and Kimberley — and they’re all very unique. Not all of those communities disagree necessarily with the short-term-rental registry policy that’s in place, but several of them do, Kimberley specifically. I know Tourism Kimberley has written the ministry, asking them to reconsider this policy, and they were sent a message that said: “Well, maybe you should consider locally reducing your fees.”

I just want to again double-check to see if all the resort municipalities were canvassed to see what their unique, specific needs related to short-term rentals are.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We sent notices to Golden, Revelstoke, Rossland, Ucluelet, Tofino, Kimberley and Radium Hot Springs, and the teams met with Revelstoke, Golden and Rossland. We didn’t hear back from some of the others.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Sending a notice sounds like sending something that’s “This is what’s coming,” not kind of an engaged, back-and-forth dialogue with those communities potentially.

I do appreciate that he did speak with a couple of communities, Golden, Revelstoke — and Rossland, which is outside of my riding but nevertheless still a resort municipality.

As I’m wrapping up this line of questioning here, will the minister agree with me that having a secondary set of fees in place, on top of the local municipal fees and a second set of application fees, is not redundant, and that asking municipalities to remove their fees and their application system, which is working in some of the resort municipalities, is not taking money away from local governments and putting it directly into the coffers of the province?

This is extremely frustrating for resort municipalities. At times, they kind of feel like they’re treated like an ATM in this province, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and not seeing a lot of return on investment.

Just to summarize that question: does the ministry not see — because we still have both fees and application processes on the table as we sit here today — that they’re taking away local revenue for municipalities and bringing it here to Victoria?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A couple things. First, I’ll say that the notices to those communities were notices to engage with us. We don’t send them a notice saying: “It’s happening.” We say: “We’re thinking about moving this direction, and we’d like to engage with you.” UBCM sent us this recommendation to do it. UBCM did their own engagement with all the communities, so that’s an important piece.

Lastly, I’ll say to the member that local governments wanted the ability to be able to enforce the rules. Right now you can have…. I’ll give Burnaby as an example. Burnaby had their own licensing agreement. They had people say to them, literally…. Bylaw would go there, and they’d say to the bylaw officer’s face: “Thank you for coming. I’m not doing anything you’re asking me to do. You have no power to be able to do any of this.” That was what they heard.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know that recently, Surrey decided to start their own bylaws because of the challenge. But the problem fundamentally still exists, which is if these communities want to actually take some action, they need the ability for our registry and our legislation to be able to enforce those rules.

I appreciate the additional $100. It is a cost; I get that. But it allows the local government to have a level of enforcement that they were not able to have previously. I know with any level of enforcement, it’s a challenge. But again, this was something the UBCM felt really strongly. There were motions passed on this topic, and we’re seeing the benefit.

We’re seeing now, because of the registry, actually an increase in registries at local government level. Local governments — when we started sharing the preliminary data with them, their numbers were small compared to how many short-term rentals were in their community. By requiring them to go through our process, now local governments are actually seeing an increase in registrations with them because the people that are operating short-term rentals realize that the only way they can operate is if they actually follow the city’s rules.

Cities are seeing a benefit, a significant increase in registries, as well, which brings them additional revenues for the important things that they do.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I totally understand that bylaw officers sometimes feel a little bit, no pun intended, handcuffed with their role in enforcing the rules. What additional enforcement strategies is the province going to use from here in Victoria in order to ensure that there’s compliance with their provincial short-term registration process that’s new here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: So two parts I’ll just share with the member. In Revelstoke, they’ve seen a 14 percent increase in compliance with local government rules, with local government licensing, because of the registry already. That is in seven months. So that’s something.

In the enforcement piece, there are two mechanisms. A local government can use our new portal to send a direct message to anyone that’s got a unit, with a notice to say, you know: “We believe you’re out of compliance” or “You’re not following the rules.” And then they have another tool available to them to notify directly to the platform to remove the listing.

That is a powerful tool for local governments that they didn’t have before, because before, it was, again, begging and hoping and wishing. Now the data portal allows them to send a notice, and then the platform has a certain amount of time in order for them to remove it. They’re required to remove it. If they don’t remove it, then there’s a fine associated with not doing that, so it’s in their interest to do that.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I just have one more question, and then I’ll pass it off to my colleague from Kelowna Centre.

Again, I’m hearing from people on the ground who operate short-term rentals in the resort municipalities, specifically in Columbia River–Revelstoke, that there is some friction, some tension and some unhappiness with the new registry system.

Will the minister today commit to revisiting and perhaps canvassing, again, resort municipalities after six months or a year, just to see, you know, how the new registry is playing out within these communities? It’s extremely important in these small resort municipalities that are under a population of 10,000 people that short-term rentals are available for the tourism seasons.

[3:25 p.m.]

It would be great today if I could get a commitment from the ministry that they will review this in six months or a year to see if compliance rates are working and the consequences and the outcomes of this new registration policy are, in fact, working.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t commit to the member that in six months, there will be a review. But I can commit to the member that we’ll continue to engage with communities as we go forward. We will share the compliance level that we see over time. If the member is interested, after a period of time, we can check in. I can share what numbers we are seeing for compliance. We are continuously engaging with local governments on how we move forward, but I can’t commit to a specific time.

The need for folks to register through our system is vitally important. It’s not only important for this. It’s also important because we are able to share this data with the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance has registries created to ensure compliance around money laundering, etc. So there’s another level of importance for us to have this registry that is beyond just short-term rentals. But we’re happy to share with the member after six months or so what kind of progress we’re seeing in the community, and the member can come to me anytime to engage on it.

Kristina Loewen: In Kelowna, the municipality is now allowing business licences for short-term rentals in suites and carriage homes. While this loosening of rules and expansion of short-term rentals is welcome to many, the dates do not coincide well with the provincial requirements. The province requires a registration number as of this Thursday, in just two days, but the municipality says to expect two to five weeks’ wait for a licence.

At this point, the risk is put on the shoulders of the homeowner, the mom-and-pop, the small-time entrepreneur who’s expected to pay $450 for a carriage home registration number. These are people who own a second property and have really struggled or have a second suite in their primary that they’ve not been able to utilize for the past year and a half.

My question to the minister is: will he consider waiving the fee or making it payable upon final approval? Will he extend the provincial date by a month or two, or will he consider some kind of support for citizens who are trying to do the right thing but are caught between two levels of government?

The Chair: This feels like a great time to remind members to have their electronic devices on silent mode.

Not you, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Good, I thought I was not hearing something.

I appreciate the member raising this concern. I’ll explore with my team if we can put in some sort of provision to allow individuals to provide proof that they are making the application. So we’ll explore that, and maybe I can get back to the member by tomorrow on whether we can accommodate that. I’ll try. I can’t commit to it, but I’ll try.

The fee is required to be part of it. We can’t waive the fee, but we will do what we can to ensure that that gap in time is covered so that people who are doing it in good faith can continue to operate. We’ll follow up with you as soon as we can.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. My constituent will really appreciate that.

I have just one more question for the minister. A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from a realtor and a builder in Kelowna. They cited a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 per new build in Kelowna to add the province’s new seismic requirements. We’re in an affordability crisis; we’re in a housing crisis.

[3:30 p.m.]

What is the rationale in extending costly seismic requirements to the entire province when most of the province doesn’t have the same risk of seismic events?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team has let me know that we will provide Kelowna the ability to have proof of application, so that they are covered for the two weeks. We’ll share a link with the member on that so that you can see that and share that with your constituents.

I appreciate the member raising the question about seismic code changes. We were just canvassing this, before the member arrived, with the critic, the member for Surrey–Serpentine River. It’s a challenge. I fully acknowledge that it’s a challenge. When you have research from the federal level come down, which says that under certain soil conditions there are greater risks of seismic issues connected with buildings, we can’t turn a blind eye to it.

In my meetings with industry, I have always said the same thing, “Do you refute the data and research?” and they say no. Then I say: “Now it’s our responsibility to build housing that is safe for people, because god forbid that we have this data and builders are not building housing properly on that soil, and then we have a big one. How do we respond to the public?”

Beyond that, even if industry or someone were to come in and say, “You know what? We’re going to disregard that,” the insurance industry has come to us and said: “It doesn’t matter if you change the code or not. We know the soil sample. We are going to ensure that we price — or not provide any — insurance to anyone on that soil if you don’t do the proper mitigation to protect from that.” That’s the challenge we’re in; I fully acknowledge it. There’s no easy solution.

I can share with the member that we have a partnership that we’re forming with industry to look at how we can mitigate costs, what we can do in the design, in the engineering, to be able to continue to build this housing, but to do it in the most cost-effective way. That work has started, and that will help inform what we do as we go forward. It’s a significant impact on the coast in some communities.

It’s not us imposing it community-wide. It really depends on the soil. It could be something that impacts one project somewhere, but it could be a few blocks away are not impacted. I’m pretty open about the challenge that we have here, but I’m resolute and clear that I, as the minister responsible, will not put any lives at risk by not making the changes when the evidence is clear.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for your answer, Minister.

Just as you were answering, I was thinking about the common sense in this reality. The reality is that I lived 22 years on the coast. Yes, we had earthquake drills; yes, we talked about earthquakes in schools.

I have now lived in Kelowna Centre for 27 years. We never speak of earthquakes; it’s not a thing there. So it defies common sense to apply this logic.

Furthermore, I got to sit today at lunch with the hon. Speaker and with some scientists, one of whom is an engineer and works for a research team. He was asking: “Where are we getting these codes from? Who’s doing the research? Who’s doing the engineering? This doesn’t make sense to me.”

We were actually talking about seismic code at lunch. That’s anecdotal; that’s one engineer. But I would like to see where these reports are coming from, what the science is, and who’s putting these forward, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.

Thank you for your answer. If we could get more information on where the science and research is coming from, I would love that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member.

The research is done by the National Research Council. I assume that’s as reputable as it gets for research in this space.

Seismic is an issue. The member may be talking about seismic in her community, but there may be other wind elements that are also an impact. If the member has specifics and writes me, I’ll try to get information on if it’s wind-related or if it’s soil- and seismic-related.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll go back to my original comment, which is: actually, at this point it doesn’t even matter if we make a change or not. No insurer is going to insure, knowing the National Research Council has done this research. No one is refuting the research. The information is in front of us. Even if somebody wanted to build and we didn’t change it, it’s going to have a major impact on them because they’re not going to find somebody to insure it, because that research exists, and there’s a huge liability that’s out there.

I hear the member. I can assure the member that every question the member is thinking about, in every way of avoiding this, I have asked my team and considered because I know there’s an impact. But unfortunately, the research is pretty clear.

Now, there is some hope, because some of the discussions we’re having with the engineering community, in particular, and some home builders…. There are some innovative solutions that are coming forward, and I’m hoping that this work that we do together, which will be made public, will help us mitigate a lot of these concerns.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Bryan Tepper: I have a question about a certain property, and I’m hoping we can get an update on it: 5625 Ladner Trunk Road. I am to understand that’s going to be a project going forward for below-market housing — 5625 Ladner Trunk.

I’ll just ask, first of all, is there any information on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is going to work through that.

Does the member have something specific around…? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange while the team looks it up, if there are some specific concerns about that. It’s in Delta, so I have a sense of what it might be, but I’m happy to hear from the member on it.

Bryan Tepper: I’ve had this brought to my attention a couple of times by people in the area. It’s a townhouse complex on 1½ acres. It was set for redevelopment, but people have been out of the townhouse for several years now. It’s been empty and apparently going downhill. It should be for redevelopment, but at this point, nobody’s living in it. It hasn’t been made use of. Wondering if we can get a time frame on what’s going on there.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When the member gave the address, it took me a second to get the memory back, but we did canvass this. The member from Delta and I canvassed this last year. This one has got a long history. I think it was in front of council in 2022, and it was rejected. Then it went back to council just recently, and it’s going through the process.

My understanding from the team is that we’re expecting construction to start this fall. If something changes, I’ll certainly get back to the member. But we finally got the approval from local government, and it seems like we’re proceeding in a good direction.

It has had a long history in Delta. The member for Delta South will remember this, because it was on, and then it was off. The community was upset. We had to change the design. I think we’re in a better place now and hoping to proceed soon.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, the question around that would be, then…. The permits. It sounds like it’s a city issue that has been holding us up. Do we have a time frame on the completion date of it? I think the completion date was supposed to be this year at some point. But do we have a completion date or a length of time, depending on when we get the permits, that the project will take?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we expect construction to start this fall. It’s 150 units, so it’s a pretty big project. It’ll probably take about two years for construction.

Bryan Tepper: Could you repeat the number again?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s 150 units.

Bryan Tepper: As this was a previous project, do you know if this is budgeted out of previous moneys, or is it this year’s budget? Do we have an idea of where it’s being funded from?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is part of our CHF budget currently.

[3:45 p.m.]

Again, it was announced some time ago, and then council rejected the proposal, and we had to go back to the drawing board and start again. But we’re starting, which is a good thing.

Bryan Tepper: Back to short-term rentals — hopefully I’m correct, and if I can just use the terminology short-term rental or Airbnb ban…. With the short-term rental ban on people using their hard-earned property as they see fit, how many of the housing units came available for long-term rent in Kelowna? Do we have any estimates on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to know the exact number because there was no baseline in the beginning, but I can give the member a number that kind of blew my mind, which was…. The vacancy rate in 2023 in Kelowna was one percent. In 2024, after short-term rental rules jumped in, it jumped up to 3.7 percent. That’s a significant shift in one year, from one percent to 3.7 percent.

Bryan Tepper: I’ve brought this up several times. There was at least one housing project scheduled for 360 units for Kelowna cancelled with the short-term rental ban when the pre-sales started falling through. Do you know if we could have replaced those 360 units? Would that be completing fairly soon here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The investors in that property had an option that’s available to others, which was to continue their project and operate as a strata hotel. The requirements are very simple — just having somebody at the front desk, some cleaning services, which they would, I suspect, require anyways. But they made a decision, and I can’t control the decisions others make. I can share that that option was available to them, and in fact it’s an option considered by others.

Bryan Tepper: Well, I appreciate the 1 percent to 3.7 percent, but I think we could have expected an initial surge in rental listings to be a significant number.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think we’ve had reports from experts saying this would be a short-term effect, and I’m kind of curious about that. UBC Housing Research Collaborative noted that strong demand and low vacancy rates mean the influx of new listings is likely temporary. With long-term rent trajectories decimated due to structural supply issues, the regulations do not address the need for new housing construction, which experts argue is critical to resolving the issues.

Is there anything in the budget to actually address this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m going to try to extrapolate from what the member is saying. The member is saying: “Yes, you may have short-term impacts, but the long-term solution is still more supply,” and I agree with that. We still need more long-term supply. We have been seeing historically high levels of supply come on the market here in British Columbia, some of the highest in the country, and we’re certainly going to need more supply.

A whole host of measures that we’re doing around small-scale multi-unit and around transit-oriented development is meant to help facilitate that increase in supply. But you can do both. You can address the short-term challenges.

I mentioned from Kelowna, the 1 percent vacancy rate to 3.7 percent is significant, especially for those who are desperately looking for a rental in the community. But yeah, we have to continue our work for increasing housing supply as well.

Bryan Tepper: Just to follow up on the 1 to 3.7 percent, over what period was that? Is it expected to increase or level out there? What are our projections on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share another important data point for the member, which is that the asking rent has decreased in Kelowna in that same time period. Every year CMHC releases data. It was between 2023 and then 2024 when they released the data. That’s the increase in vacancy rate. Rent has come down for new units — for a one-bedroom, by 7.7 percent, and for a two-bedroom, by 9 percent in Kelowna — some of the largest decreases in new-unit rents in the country.

It’s an important provision to note that if a community has a vacancy rate of 3 percent or above — which is CMHC’s definition of a healthy vacancy rate — for two years, then they have the ability to opt out of the short-term rental principal residence requirement if they choose so. West Kelowna, for example, is a community that had that vacancy rate, and so they chose to opt out. That’s allowed within the legislation.

Bryan Tepper: Critics of this, including B.C. Real Estate Association’s chief economist, have argued that the regulation’s impact on housing supply is small and that it’s more on broader factors, like population growth.

Simon Fraser University also noted that the rent and condo price declines may be influenced more by interest rates and economic conditions, or again, population immigration changes, than the short-term rental rules.

What’s in the budget to help with the economic conditions that we’re going through right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would just say that I read the BCREA’s information, and I would say that there wasn’t evidence to back that. That was the chief economist making a statement that he presumed. I did ask the team to look to see what data was being used to make that statement, and there was no concrete data.

[3:55 p.m.]

As to the assumption of reduction of newcomers, immigration numbers, those changes were well past when the changes to the short-term rentals were introduced in the province. So you can’t connect the two. If the economist was suggesting that having a lower number of international newcomers will have an impact on the housing market, that would be correct, I suspect, but the two can’t be linked together.

Bryan Tepper: Just to follow up on that, do we have population data for Kelowna over the past two years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Stats has the information, by community, on their website. I don’t have it on me. If the member needs us to get that, we can, but it’s pretty accessible on B.C. Stats’ website.

Bryan Tepper: Airbnb has claimed that the listings they have represent less than 1 percent of B.C.’s dwellings, which would suggest that the return to short-term rentals is going to have a smaller effect and not have a significant impact on our housing shortage. Then again, in 2023 the Conference Board of Canada found that there was no statistically significant link between Airbnb activity and rent prices.

What evidence do we have that a ban on the use of people’s personal property has affected rent prices?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the evidence we have is what’s in front of us, which is that from when we brought the legislation in to a year later, we saw the vacancy rate increase from 1 percent to 3.7 percent in Kelowna and rents come down about 9 percent for two-bedroom units.

It might not be the only factor, if that’s what the member is suggesting, but it’s an important factor. From the changes around population that the federal government made, those numbers will really not be seen until ’25, ’26, ’27. We may see a greater decline because of less people coming, but that’ll be in the out years, not in the year that it was announced. We’ll continue to monitor that.

As far as getting new housing supply online, yeah, there’s a whole host of work that we’re doing — you know, trying to find ways to make the decision process more streamlined, to create more certainty of costs. Prior to the member being here, we had a good exchange with his colleague the critic for Infrastructure around certainty of costs. How do we ensure that those that are building housing can do so with some level of certainty? There’s a whole host of work that’s happened over that.

Of course, we have more work to do because there’s a lot of uncertainty with potential tariffs and building supplies. There are estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the building supplies come from the U.S., so that may have an impact. There’s a whole host of things.

The member asked what we are doing to help address some of the cost pieces. I can share with the member that our recent agreement with the federal government is just an example, where the federal government agreed to provide Metro Vancouver with $250 million for their Iona wastewater facility, on the condition that there be two-year in-stream protection for projects and that they move their payment structure to completion.

That offsets the costs. It helps the home-building community with direct costs. It ensures that Metro Vancouver has the money they need. We’re looking for those types of relationships with the federal government now that the election is over.

Bryan Tepper: It just worries me that we’re dealing with correlation and causation on some of that with the price, with no real evidence as to whether this is causing our prices to level or stabilize so that things can be affordable.

We’ll move on. We have a tourism-heavy area; this is why I brought up Kelowna. A lot of people in my riding, and throughout Surrey, have worked hard throughout their lives to get a second property, which they have used with the hopes of renting it out while they’re not using it.

[4:00 p.m.]

This has made it unreasonable for them to actually be able to continue owning a property like that, which then brings us to realtors now reporting that we’re a saturated market in Kelowna. Condos and vacation homes are sitting, waiting for sale, due to these regulations.

The low sales rate suggests these units may not quickly convert to long-term rentals or affordable ownership for that matter. What do we offer these people that are now stuck with a property they can’t sell due to this regulation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This conversation on housing has moved quite a bit.

I’ll share with the member that when I first became the Minister of Housing, I was told by the home building community: “This is not about investors; we’re trying to build homes for people in our communities who desperately need it.”

When we brought in the short-term rental rules, we had similar home builders come back to us and say: “This was about investors; we need more housing for investment opportunities.” I appreciate in an environment where rents are coming down that a lot of pro formas, a lot of proposals for homes, they’re not pencilling.

What we hear is that we need to help address the cost, and I get that. We’re working on ways to do that, but if the model was just to build housing, not for people in our communities who desperately need housing, but just because there was a lot of investors with deep pockets that want to buy it, that’s a challenge. That’s a challenge for us in all of our communities.

Surrey showed some leadership in bringing a registry for short-term rentals. They did it because they realize it’s a problem in their community. They’re hearing from people who are struggling, and they want to make sure housing is being prioritized.

[Interruption.]

Okay, that was a little bit weird. Siri on my phone decided to jump in. I don’t think I said anything but, weird. Google and Apple are listening to everything we’re saying.

I don’t even know where I was with the comment. Just to say that we understand that there are some cost pressures, especially in an environment where the price of new homes is going down and rents are declining. It’s good for renters. It’s good for potential future homebuyers that the price is coming down, but it does create new dynamics and new challenges.

Lastly, I’ll just say the member, again, reiterated that there was no clear data. I just shared with the member that data from ’23 to ’24, that vacancy rates went from 1 percent to 3.7 percent. Now, maybe the member is suggesting that all of a sudden, a lot of people just left town. It’s unlikely because we would have noticed. Kelowna is a popular place. People continue to go there. It’s more likely that the amount of housing became available on the market for people to rent.

Obviously, we have more work to do. We have more work to do to increase the availability of housing in our community.

Chair, could I suggest we take one more question and then we take a short recess? My voice is starting to break on me.

Bryan Tepper: I was going to try and get to a last question here as well, anyway, so that works out well.

It wasn’t so much that 1 to 3.7 percent wasn’t a proper statistic, it was the others — how do we know the rents have come down and everything else?

I will quickly go through this. Property owners who purchased units specifically for short-term rentals, especially in zoned areas like Kelowna’s, feel blindsided. Some face significant financial losses and must pivot to long-term rentals, which may yield lower returns. Is there any support in the budget to assist these people?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member, in the question, has actually touched on a core issue, which was that folks were buying not one or two but multiple properties, because they wanted to maximize profits. That’s fine, but people in the community couldn’t get access to that housing. That had some real challenges for people who were, quite frankly, struggling — struggling with rents. When the supply of housing is being purchased up to run mini hotels, it makes it more challenging for young families to be able to get into the market.

So the message we’re sending here is that homes are for people in our communities. We need to prioritize those homes.

[4:05 p.m.]

We struck a balance, I believe. If you look at New York, they went to an extreme level, just saying: no more short-term rentals. That was something that we had to look at, what New York was doing. But they also have new challenges, which is that now it’s going underground. So having a balance of having short-term rentals available, as well as prioritizing housing for communities, I think, is a balanced approach.

Now, I shared with the member that new asking rents are coming down in Kelowna. I can share with the member that it’s similar in many communities, especially communities where we saw a lot of investments in short-term rentals.

When we brought our changes in, we’re seeing in Vancouver rents for one-bedrooms, they’re down 11.4 percent; down for two-bedrooms, 8.9 percent; North Van, 8.7 percent; and 10.6 percent for two-bedrooms. I’ve got a list of communities where we’re seeing it.

Again, leadership from Surrey. They decided that they knew it was a problem. They brought in some changes themselves. They’ve seen rents down 8.8 percent for one-bedrooms and 5.7 percent for two-bedrooms. So it is having an impact.

You could make the argument, I guess, that all these communities just lost people, but I think that’s hard to believe. I think we have to acknowledge that these actions are making an impact. I appreciate the member’s point that maybe it might not solve the problems well into the future. I would agree with the member that we need to increase housing supply in all of our communities as a more structural change, but this is having an impact. It is helping people in the short term.

The Chair: The committee shall take a short ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to my colleague the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine for allowing me some time here in our estimates.

This could be really quick. The strata electrical planning report — does that exist within the Ministry of Housing, or is that within the scope of the Minister of Energy, through CleanBC?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we can answer those questions.

Trevor Halford: We’ve obviously seen a little bit of moving the goalposts and things like that in terms of EVs. Even today, we saw some announcements regarding rebates and such.

Obviously, we are in the middle of an affordability crisis. People are feeling strapped. I know in my area, there are a number of seniors that are living in stratas. I’ve had a meeting with a few of them, such as some of my colleagues, regarding some of the pricing that’s been put on for stratas for EV charging stations.

Does the minister still stand beside the targets that are listed — I guess it’s between December 31, 2026 — to have these implemented in these stratas?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve done a lot of work in order to put this in place. I think it’s important to note that we worked with B.C. Hydro, the Condominium Home Owners Association, Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association to make sure that we had plain language guidelines for stratas.

It’s also important to note the costs associated with this, as the member raised. We’re looking at approximately, for 40 strata homes, about $6,000, so it’s $150 a unit. Obviously, for the larger stratas, it’s about $12,000, which on average is around $30 per unit. It’s important for the stratas to do this work, and so we are continuing to proceed. The requirement is for this work to be done by the end of next year.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister for his answer.

The minister is right, to some degree, in terms of the numbers that he just cited. But I’ll give him an example of how that might not add up in some certain locations. If you look at 530 Martin Street in White Rock…. It is a complex, a small building, 18 units, all seniors, older building. They have to pay this. That’s $6,000 for them. I guarantee you the majority, if not all, of those seniors are on fixed incomes.

I know the numbers that the minister just cited. By the way, none of these seniors have electric cars. I’ve gone and met with them in this strata complex. But they are now having to get organized and save money for this, all while we are facing high uncertainty whether or not the province is going to move their EV targets.

My question to the minister: is an 18 unit or smaller…. They’re still going to be on the hook for the $6,000 that the minister just mentioned. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I thank the member for raising the example. I think there’s also a flip side to that. If there are energy needs, upgrades need to be done. Similar to depreciation reports, it’s important for the strata to have a sense of where they’re at, what their challenges might be with the building so they’re not caught by surprise on bigger cost items later. So it’s both, I understand, but it is an important measure, I think, for stratas as they go forward.

Trevor Halford: In this, was there any consideration in terms of rebates for seniors, anything like that? Have they looked at that, in particular in some of these older units, where these upgrades are going to be required? Are there rebates available for low-income earners that are existing within that strata?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are no rebates at this time. I think the member knows that, but I’ll just say that. I can’t commit to something future because I’ve got to go through a very, very tough Minister of Finance. We’re certainly going to keep an eye on it as we go forward.

Trevor Halford: I get the minister about the future, but we are asking these residents on low incomes that are trying to make ends meet in their strata, trying to get their bills paid, to make this commitment now.

My question is, and it’s probably going to be a difficult one to answer, if it can be answered at all, is: if the province changes those EV targets, is this still going to be enforceable? A lot of these stratas are making these financial decisions now or have already made them. So my question to the minister is: are they going to be reimbursed?

[4:25 p.m.]

What happens if there is a change to the EV targets? Is this all still having to be done by December 31, 2026, keeping in mind that a lot of these stratas are already making that financial commitment right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member knows I can’t get into a hypothetical of: what if? What if? What might happen if this happens? But I can share with the member that that’s something that we will keep an eye on as those discussions go forward.

Trevor Halford: Again, we’re looking at these older buildings that all have to be retrofitted for this stuff, and it is a sizeable…. If you look at some of these units that are under 18 units in there, this is a large financial commitment. I know the minister talked about $150 here or $200 there. It’s much more in some of these units.

The government is backing off on rebates today. We are hearing that they’re hedging, in terms of where they’re going with EV vehicles, but they are still mandating all these areas to comply with their legislation that exists within this minister’s portfolio, at a time where affordability is an absolute crisis right now.

Has the minister contemplated pausing this, or is this going to be mandated for all stratas? And are they going to adhere to this December 31, 2026, timeline?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is talking about just EVs, but this is more than EVs. A lot of older buildings get upgrades for heat pumps, for air conditioners, for a whole host of things, and these reports are important for them to get an assessment of what the load is and what can be done with those buildings.

Maybe the individuals, right now, don’t want to do those things, but if it’s an older building, they’re likely going to do some renovations to those buildings. So this is still a necessary piece to be done on that, and there are rebate programs for the other items. There are rebate programs for heat pumps, etc. So it’s not just the EVs, as the member has highlighted. It’s much broader than that.

Trevor Halford: I do thank the minister for the answer.

I guess my final point on this is if the province is going to adjust or change the goalposts…. Sometimes we understand that’s necessary. They did that today, and they may do that again tomorrow and, at some point, they may do that in the future regarding EV targets. But they’re able to adjust and modify to the climate that they’re in. They have that power to do that. But they also have the power to enforce and make sure that these strata units comply. And this was all done at the same time that these targets and rebates were put in place.

I guess my question is that…. They’re okay to move the goalposts, but when it comes to actually trying to help people in an affordability crisis comply with this piece of legislation, it doesn’t seem to work.

I’ll leave that with the minister — that I do hope that this is monitored. Because there are a lot of people in these units where it’s below…. It could be ten units, 12 units, six units, eight units. The minister is right. Sometimes it could be 50 units. It’s a flat $6,000. I get that. But in some of those smaller complexes, especially right now, this is a lot of money.

And at times that we are hearing…. It’s not this minister’s estimates; it’s the one down the hall. But we can’t get an actual answer in terms of whether or not they’re going to stick with their EV targets. It depends on what minister, when the Premier’s talking to media that day. But we’re expecting these seniors all to pay.

I can tell you that in this building that I just referenced here, they are tight on money. But they have to do this because this government has ordered for them to do it. They’re hearing in the media quite often, and they’re going to hear again today, that things are changing. I’ll leave that with the minister.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know that some of my other colleagues have questions, and I’ve got other questions on housing that I’ll pop back in for. I just think that we’ve got to be very cognizant of some of the situations that people are in, the oldness of the building.

I get that it’s not just for EV vehicles; I get that. But this was done with the intention of those targets in mind.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks again to the member for raising the concern on behalf of his constituents. Again, I just want to say that it’s not just about EVs. It’s heat pumps; it’s air conditioners. There’s a whole host of things. but I note his concern, and we’ll consider that as we go forward.

Misty Van Popta: Up until two weeks after the provincial election, I was building houses, boots on the ground.

It’s said in our industry that the ability to build housing, by both contractors and developers, is eroding like death by a thousand paper cuts. I had the experience on my last project of having half of my houses under the old building code and the last half of the houses under the new building code in 2024. And one of those paper cuts was an item that caught us all off guard, actually — not even the architect caught it at first — and that is radon mitigation.

The cost differential between my first set of houses and the second set of houses, just on material costs alone, was $10,000 in material costs. It’s partly due to the fact that the material required for radon mitigation is proprietary, and there’s only one wholesaler that sells it in all of Canada.

My question for right now is: what reports or research was used as the basis of determining the need for radon mitigation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This change was brought in, in 2024. It was a national response. It was a response to the National Research Council’s research as well as Health Canada’s recommendation for changes, and so it’s aligned with the national changes. It’s not just a B.C. change.

[4:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister please drill down a bit into what the effects of radon are and the incidence of radon-specific illnesses are in British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this was research done by the National Research Council, which we are happy to share with the member, as well as information provided by Health Canada as an important safety measure. I mean, it’s available online, but if the member would like, we can send that to the member.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, so taking that information, that it’s a national recommendation, can I ask why, if radon is so dangerous, the requirement is only that radon mitigation is a rough-in? It’s not even required. At least on my last project, we only had to rough it in.

The Chair: Recognizing the member. There is no eating in the chamber.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair. Very strict.

The rough-in is a requirement of the national code.

Misty Van Popta: It’s a part of the national code?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s correct. It’s part of the national code, which B.C. adopts.

Macklin McCall: I’m just going to ask a few questions here regarding my riding, West Kelowna–Peachland, and specifically in the community of West Kelowna.

The Ministry of Housing purchased the property at 2570 Bartley Road for $3.7 million in October of 2023. What are the ministry’s plans for this property, and when can the community expect to see development or services initiated on site?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Does the member have the address, by any chance? Could he say the address one more time?

Macklin McCall: It’s 2570 Bartley Road in West Kelowna.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Now, 2515 is also owned by B.C. Housing; that’s where the temporary shelter is. This site has been purchased by B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing is in conversations with the city, in concept design planning at this stage, to identify what can be possibly done on that site.

Macklin McCall: Okay. I appreciate the answer there. With that facility being in the planning stage and whatnot, I know the city has some concerns with wraparound services associated with the housing.

I have a question relating to that. Given the increasing demand for mental health services in West Kelowna, what steps are the ministry taking to enhance access to mental health and addiction support in the region?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re going into a bit of the Health conversation, but I can maybe speak generally. Just on the other side of the water, with Kelowna, we’ve got 90 units of temporary supportive housing that have opened, and an additional, I believe, around 40 that are coming online in the last eight months. They come with inreach supports from the health authority. There are wraparound supports that are provided to individuals, and we are seeing some success.

[4:45 p.m.]

In fact, I just got a note from the city that in the first nine months of those units, 56 percent of the people that have moved in have already found themselves either into employment, into market rent or connected with family. So the supports seem to be working. Of course, it would depend on what goes on that site, and we’re not there yet. This is just what’s happened at other sites.

Macklin McCall: The proposed Westside resource hygiene centre at 2545 Churchill Road has faced delays and community concerns. What is the ministry’s position on this project, and how does it plan to address the community’s feedback?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just hoping the member can clarify. My understanding of the address he’s given us…. It was a temporary shelter, and we’re now using 2570 Bartley Road for that. Is there something very current or very recent that the member is raising concerns about?

Macklin McCall: No, that’s a separate facility, the separate location. Just to confirm, from your perspective, from the ministry’s perspective, this program is no longer happening as per your ministry? Is that a done project now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. My understanding is that that site that the member referred to is no longer operating. It was a temporary winter shelter, so they’re usually temporary in nature.

If there’s a new development, I certainly will have my team follow up, maybe in writing, with you.

[4:50 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: My next question, then. West Kelowna has been assigned a target of 2,266 new homes over the next five years. What support is the ministry providing to the city to meet these targets, particularly concerning infrastructure and land acquisition?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we provided West Kelowna $10.2 million for infrastructure, part of the growing community fund. My understanding is that it’s just being held in reserve, that they may not have allocated those dollars yet for infrastructure. As far as land acquisition, I’m not entirely sure what land the city might be contemplating. Perhaps the member can share with me if there’s a specific parcel of land that he’s referring to.

Macklin McCall: Nothing specific. I’m just seeing if there was any assistance from this government for West Kelowna meeting this target. You said that there are funds that were allocated for the city of West Kelowna. Was that for infrastructure development, then?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it was $10.2 million, part of our growing community fund last year. We require local governments to provide us updates when they’ve allocated those dollars. My understanding is that those are held in reserve for infrastructure: water, sewer, etc. I’m not entirely sure how they’re going to allocate that, but I certainly hope that they use those dollars for infrastructure that is needed. Of course, there’s also the Rose Valley drinking water project. We provided $41.2 million for that.

As far as housing goes, a lot of those units are, obviously, housing that’s in the pipeline for approval. I know that there was a high-profile project proposal that was in front of West Kelowna just recently. They faced some opposition and decided to decline it, but I’m sure they’re considering other housing opportunities, and we continue to look for ways to partner for more housing.

We will have a community housing fund intake, which will be happening soon. If the member has a not-for-profit partner in the community that is interested in directly having affordable housing, they should prepare for that intake, because it will be coming soon.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate that.

I now just want to go back to the target of 2,266 new homes. The money, which was indicated as being held by the city of West Kelowna, hasn’t been used, to the best of the minister’s knowledge. I’m just wondering if that money was set aside before the target was applied to the city of West Kelowna. There are quite a lot of rumblings and concerns in my community about this specific target.

[4:55 p.m.]

As the minister is probably aware, the city of West Kelowna is very rapidly developing, but the infrastructure is quite behind. My concern is: were these targeted 2,266 new homes put on the city after the $10 million was set aside?

If the city of West Kelowna were to indicate that the money that might be held, as the minister is saying currently, is inadequate to allow for this growth.... Is the minister willing to commit to providing more assistance to the city of West Kelowna, to actually meet these targeted housing numbers, if it is the case that the money set aside isn’t adequate to develop the infrastructure to get these houses built?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The $10.2 million was roughly around the same time, within a few months. Again, it’s held in reserve. I can’t comment on where or when they’re going to allocate those dollars. That’s probably a better question for the mayor and council. The $10.2 million will certainly help with infrastructure.

I’m not aware if they have applied for the Canada housing infrastructure fund, which is a federal fund. If they haven’t, this would be a good opportunity to do so.

The target for West Kelowna for this upcoming year is 289 homes. I believe it’s achievable for West Kelowna. They had a proposal just recently for 120 townhouses. I know that council rejected it. That was a tough council meeting, I suspect, but they do have other proposals that are coming forward, and it’s going to require some tough decisions on where they want housing.

As was discussed earlier, we are excited that the federal election is over because we need to have a conversation with our federal counterparts on what an infrastructure program can look like for local governments going forward. It was important for us to ensure, whoever wins federally, that our programs aligned.

We in B.C. are unique in that for over 20 years we’ve had a good history — our government as well as previous governments — on aligning our infrastructure programs with the federal government so that we can maximize our dollars and ensure that people are not applying twice.

That is something that we’ll be undertaking in the coming months, once we know who the Minister of Infrastructure, federally, will be.

Macklin McCall: Now, given the ongoing challenges in addressing homelessness and mental health issues, as a result, in West Kelowna, how does the ministry plan to maintain open communication with local officials and residents moving forward?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are in conversations with the mayor and the team around the need for supports for vulnerable individuals. It’s always important to have that open line of communication. It’s also important to come to an agreement on where and how we want to support people.

If the member has feedback, I am open to hear it, but we are just in the early days of trying to figure out what type of housing is needed. The positive news is that we’ve acquired land. The next step is the concept and the design and identifying what can possibly go there. That will require some engagement, certainly, with the local government and the public as well.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister. Those are all my questions.

[5:00 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Thank you to my colleague for giving me some of her time today. I appreciate it.

My staff has a few times reached out to the ministry to request meetings and some help with a few constituent issues that we haven’t received responses on. I’m hoping I can get through some of those today and get some answers.

First, I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with how many supportive housing units there are currently in my riding, and how many of those are specifically designated for individuals that are recovering from addiction.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, I want to thank the member for the excellent statement you made around Trey today. He was a remarkable individual. I had the opportunity to meet him on multiple occasions. He gave me a tour of SROs and some of the supportive housing sites in the Downtown Eastside. He was a man of very few words, but when he spoke, he meant it, and people listened. I just want to thank her for making those lovely remarks about his legacy.

On supportive housing, we have 71 units in Skeena — 52, I believe, on one site, and the remaining on an alternative site.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the ministry can then possibly provide me in writing, at some point, a list of the supportive housing units that are available throughout the province and kind of a breakdown, since obviously that data is available. I’d be interested just to see where they’re located and that sort of thing. So at another time, by email or something, would be great. Thank you.

Is there any funding allocated for transitional recovery housing to support people that are exiting treatment in northern B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we can get the member something in writing around the supportive housing around the province.

The step-down recovery homes…. It’s not with our ministry. It’s Ministry of Health that leads that.

Claire Rattée: In a general sense, I’d like to just understand how this ministry is coordinating with Health to address the intersection of homelessness and addiction in the overdose prevention strategies and similar. I’d like to have a really clear understanding of what the responsibilities are like between each ministry and where the ministries are working together on that.

Obviously, with my critic portfolio, housing is something that’s quite important and intersects a lot. So I’d just like to better understand what that looks like and how that’s structured.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Within each health authority, we work on projects within those communities. So there’s a connection with health authorities regionally, with the B.C. Housing team, with local government. Also, almost monthly I meet with the Ministry of Health, the Minister of SDPR and the minister for…. Well, those ministers for sure, and sometimes others join as well. And we also have a cabinet committee on public safety.

All those places are where we coordinate to try to break down silos and identify issues that may be arising in communities, to be able to address them. So they’re multiple ways.

[5:10 p.m.]

Of course, the level of involvement is slightly different with every health authority, but we have been working really hard to break those silos down. Our previous Minister of Mental Health and Addictions did a lot of work to break those silos down, and that has actually helped us quite a bit to get to the point we’re at now.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the minister might be able to provide me with what data the minister uses to actually assess the housing needs of people that have been discharged either from detox or treatment in northern communities or, in a general sense, across the province.

Since we know, currently, that many people that access withdrawal management, detox services are typically are released back onto the street, more often than not, until there’s a bed available for them within treatment, I’m wondering at what point the ministry — how they intervene to assess whether or not somebody might be able to qualify for housing, how we can approach that to ensure that people that have gone through these services aren’t then being released to the street.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just take a step back. The member probably knows this, but I’ll just say it anyway for the record.

We learned a lot from, actually, some of the experiences from the previous government, when Rich Coleman was the Minister of Housing. There was an encampment at the city of Victoria, and the decision at that time — I think it was the correct decision — was to just get people into housing as quick as we can. There was a motel purchased, and everybody moved into that motel.

What we learned from that experience is that you can’t just put everybody into one place, because everyone’s got different needs and different challenges. The Johnson Street site — we still have challenges because that’s a legacy of that time. Again, this is not to blame anyone. There was a decision made to try to address something really quickly.

Since then, we’ve moved towards community access tables. We have community access tables throughout the province. There is an opportunity for multiple not-for-profits to be at the table, health officials to be at the table, our ministry staff, B.C. Housing staff.

Frankly speaking — my team will probably chuckle — I find it sometimes challenging, because when I see someone and I see a space open, I always say: “Let’s just move people in.” They always remind me that it’s important for that table to exist because you want to make sure that the right individual is going to the right place with the right types of supports for them, and you want it to work. That’s probably the closest thing to what the member is describing.

Now with our HEARTH…. We have HEART and HEARTH, which we’ve been deploying in communities. We have some HEARTH communities, and we are doing a lot of work to enhance that level of coordination.

I’ll also add that we provided money last year to the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. They’ve got this really innovative initiative that they’re launching across the country, which helps us correlate all the contact points for people to identify what resources they’re accessing, what is working for them, what is not. It allows for not-for-profits to provide input into it as well.

The goal is to get to functional zero of homelessness. It was launched by the federal government. It’s deployed only in a handful of communities across the country, and it has had huge success. We’re trying to deploy that, to support that community access table model so that we are making sure that people are getting to the right resources and also identifying where there may be barriers, where the supports that people need are not fully there, so we can address that as well.

Claire Rattée: I think that it’s certainly a great point to talk about. You can’t just warehouse people, essentially, that are struggling with mental health and addictions problems. I do think that is part of the issue that we’ve seen previously — that people have been essentially warehoused rather than placed in areas that are going to be well suited to their needs.

Regardless of that, I think we still have a huge problem of people falling through the gaps. So the reason I was asking specifically about withdrawal management and detox is because in my opinion, those would be people that would be particularly high-acuity need of housing because, as we’ve seen play out, if they go through detox and then they are put back out onto the street until a bed is available for them in treatment, the likelihood is that they relapse, and the likelihood is that they overdose and die.

[5:15 p.m.]

That’s why I was asking about that specifically, because I would like to see that there is some kind of strategy in place to be able to fix that gap. It doesn’t seem like we’ve got a strategy in place, currently, to fix the problem of people having to wait to access treatment, if we’ve got an average of 31 days to wait.

I would like to see the government put something forward to be able to ensure that people that have gone through detox are going to be supported during that gap that they’re seeing. That’s where I do think this becomes a Ministry of Housing issue — to ensure that there is some way to bridge that gap and to ensure that people are being supported during that time. I would just like to hear if there is any plan in place currently or any work being undertaken to address that issue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is correct. I agree with the member that those periods of transition of care are critically important. That’s the work we do with the community access table. We’ve got health care professionals and the community integration specialists at the table. They understand unique needs for people and will be able to identify what the best locations are for people. We do have recovery-based supportive housing sites throughout the province.

I know the member understands this space well. I’ll just comment, though, to say that we don’t identify supportive housing, during the zoning hearing, as wet or dry. The reason why is that it shouldn’t matter; if a person is struggling, we should be able to approve housing for them regardless.

You get into that discussion where everyone says: “We just want dry. We don’t want anybody else that does drugs. We don’t want anybody....” That’s a real challenge when, in a community, the data will show that maybe that’s the need. What we do is: we go to community, we say we need supportive housing, and we get the zoning done.

Then we sit down with our partners and say: “What’s the data? What are we seeing? There are people coming out of detox. Where’s the need?”

In some communities you’ll see a supportive housing site that is dry, and you’ve got another one that’s wet. There’s a holistic option, but it’s based on the data; it’s not based on just what people are saying they want in the community. That community access table is where all those discussions happen.

Claire Rattée: Interesting. I think you knew where I was going to be going with this. I was going to talk about wet versus dry housing next, and supportive housing. The reason I want to talk about it is because I don’t entirely agree with that assessment.

[5:20 p.m.]

For example, I’ve gone and done some outreach work on Pandora Avenue here in Victoria. From the people that I’ve spoken with, one of the biggest concerns I hear is that they do not want to go into wet supportive housing, yet there’s nothing else available to them.

I’m not sure if maybe the minister can provide me with a breakdown of that wet versus dry supportive housing and where that lands throughout the province and how many units there are available.

That’s a common issue I hear about, that in the wet buildings, people feel unsafe. They don’t want to be there. They tend to be areas that have a lot more problems with things like, for example, bedbugs, body lice, the housing just generally being very run down and feeling unsafe, issues with crime, theft — it goes on and on. Not to mention the fact that it then becomes very difficult if you’re somebody that is trying to stop using substances when you’re surrounded by it daily.

I don’t entirely agree with that categorization because I think somebody that has recently left detox obviously has the intention of wanting to not use substances anymore, so throwing them into a situation where they are then surrounded by people using substances again is not really conducive to supporting the efforts of recovery.

So I am curious if the minister is able to provide me with some of that data. I understand that that might be a little bit difficult to get right now, so maybe we can follow up on that. If I could receive it through email or something…. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I want to talk a little bit about some specific things for my riding in this regard, one of which is, as I’m sure the minister knows, that my riding is very cold, and it’s farther north, so we do struggle significantly with people being exposed to the elements. When I first got to Kitimat and I first started on city council, it actually took a while to help explain to people that we had a significant homelessness problem in the riding because it wasn’t as visible homelessness because of the weather.

It took a while, but we eventually got approval for a temporary extreme weather shelter in Kitimat. The issue is that we are only able to operate it from November 1 to March 31. I know that the community is begging for this to change. We’ve got people that are sleeping in tents in absolutely frigid, cold weather. We’ve got a number of individuals that are sleeping in the bank vestibules. By March 31, it’s still cold in my riding, and it’s cold before November 1.

We’ve got a significant need in Kitimat to be able to operate the shelter year-round. The community has been begging for it. We have the people available. The space is there. I would like to understand why B.C. Housing isn’t approving that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, there are some standardized contracts, and how that works throughout communities…. I would say to the member that when there are unique circumstances on the ground, then we try to be flexible. In the case of the member’s community, if there is an issue identified where it’s needed a little bit longer, we would work to do that. We don’t want to move people outside into the cold if we can find a way to extend it.

[5:25 p.m.]

Sometimes we are able to extend it. Sometimes, for other reasons, we’re not able to. But we do try to standardize it. We’ve got the emergency weather shelters that are based on temperature. They come on once a certain temperature has hit. Then they open up. But the temporary shelters are usually time-allocated just because of the staffing and other requirements that are put in place.

It might not be the full answer, but just to say that if those situations arise, we try to be as flexible as we can. We’ve seen communities where we needed it for a few more weeks, and we’ve been able to try to work to make that happen.

Claire Rattée: I think the issue here is that, from what I’ve heard from different community groups and from different officials in the community, they have asked B.C. Housing to be able to operate the shelter longer, and they’ve been denied. The problem is we don’t have a permanent shelter and, concurrently with that, we do not have appropriate housing up north for many of the people that need it that have significant challenges.

For example, one of the women I’m thinking of in particular frequently sleeps in the hospital, even though she’s not supposed to, but they feel horrible because they don’t want her sleeping in a bank vestibule or falling asleep outside. She has a significant traumatic brain injury concurrently with a number of other issues, such as substance abuse problems that have come from that brain injury. We don’t have any facilities to accommodate people like her.

Realistically, we don’t have facilities in this entire province to accommodate people like her and give her the standard of living and the quality of life that she deserves — we certainly don’t have them up north — so that shelter is really her only place to sleep comfortably, and she can only access it a few months out of the year. Again, she’s frequently sleeping in a bank vestibule.

I would like to know if the minister is willing to commit to working either with myself or with other elected officials in Kitimat on this to ensure that that shelter is open and available to the people that need it. It is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion, that there are people that would love to utilize a shelter, if it was available, that are sleeping in tents right now or sleeping in bank vestibules, or whatever it is, simply because we aren’t approving them to operate this year-round.

I think that it’s unacceptable, and we need to make sure that there is something available for the people that are struggling up there with homelessness.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll say two things. One, we have been moving away from temporary shelters to permanent shelters. In the last two years, we’ve doubled the amount of permanent shelters in the province. In 2022, there were 2,350, and we’re at 4,666.

Okay, you have the exact number of spaces. It’s the amount of spaces.

If the member is suggesting that the member wants to work with us and her community to identify a location and explore what options would be in the community, the answer is yes. I’m happy to do that with the member. Maybe a follow-up step would be a discussion — first, a discussion with the city just to say: “Where are the potential locations?”

Quite frankly, that’s been the biggest challenge in all communities. It’s identifying a location for that to happen. I know other colleagues have been working to try to figure that out, and it’s not an easy conversation in community. But if there is a location identified, then that’s an important conversation to have. So, yeah, happy to have that.

Claire Rattée: The minister will be happy to know I have already done that legwork, so we are good to go. We already feel pretty confident that we can operate that year-round. I was one of the people that started that shelter in Kitimat, and I do understand that there can be significant challenges, especially in small towns like that, with finding locations that the general public is comfortable having them in and stuff.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I feel pretty confident that everybody in Kitimat would be supportive of us trying to ensure that people aren’t sleeping outside in cold temperatures.

Another housing project in Kitimat that I had the pleasure of spearheading is Douglas Place. I’m hoping that the minister is familiar with Douglas Place in Kitimat, because that’s a pretty significant one for us, as far as actually providing rental housing to people that are on income assistance. It’s actually the income assistance rent portion of their cheque. It makes it very reasonable and affordable. It helps people get back on their feet. It’s been a great program.

[5:30 p.m.]

Currently in that facility, there’s something called salon A that’s operating. I do know that the government gave a start-up grant to the community to be able to launch this program, but now it has become the district of Kitimat’s responsibility to continue with funding. It costs the district about $150,000 a year. This is essentially a daytime shelter with programming and a food-share program that’s being run out of Douglas Place.

What I’m wondering is if the ministry would be willing to look at providing some further funding for that or some kind of partnership funding for that to ensure that Kitimat can maintain access to this important program with the daytime shelter and all of the associated programs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just checking with my team. They don’t have that information right now. We’re here for the next couple of days, so perhaps I can get that information and read something back into the record. We don’t have access to it right now.

Claire Rattée: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Another project that I wanted to talk about in my riding is the Tamitik Status of Women’s building that should have been open already. I understand that this ministry has a significant role to play in that building. As I hope the minister is already aware, it’s essentially going to be offices, housing, a women’s shelter, a daycare facility.

It’s a beautiful building, and it’s been sitting there for quite a while now, completely built, because there were issues with the plumbing that was done. I guess they super-chlorinated the pipes and didn’t drain them. They turned on the plumbing, and someone got burned. Now this building is sitting empty.

I am wondering if the minister is able to give me an update on where that project is at so that I can relay that back to the people in my community.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we’re aware of the challenges. The not-for-profit had an issue with the contractor, and then they had to sue the contractor, and it became quite the ordeal. We are expecting to have that open early in the new year.

Claire Rattée: I was wondering if I could also maybe get an update on the dementia care facility in Kitimat. I understand that this would not be something that would solely fall under this ministry, but I do believe there is some crossover there. Again, that is a project that is desperately needed in my community and seems to be incredibly delayed, so if I could get an update on that, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think that project would be under health care. It’s not under ours. So it might be a better question over there.

Claire Rattée: That’s fair. Sorry, I was hoping that maybe there would be some crossover there.

Another thing I wanted to talk about, just on the topic of seniors in general and especially in my riding. In Terrace, we have, essentially, effectively about a 1 percent to zero percent vacancy rate, and we have very little for seniors housing, even just market seniors housing. There are plenty of seniors there that could very comfortably afford to purchase something else that would be better suited to their needs, but there is just nothing available for them.

We’ve run into an issue in that community where if there was new seniors housing built that was purpose-built for that, it would open up a lot of the homes in Terrace that could then be bought by young families and so on. It’s created a real issue around vacancy, simply because we don’t have anywhere for seniors to transition to.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with an update on what kind of investments they’re looking at making in the community of Terrace to try and alleviate that strain.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is probably aware of a project for seniors that’s under construction right now in her community. It’s at 3221 Eby Street, no connection to the Premier. That’s targeted for seniors.

Now, there’s also a community housing fund intake coming. So if the member is aware of not-for-profits that are interested in the space in their community, it would be a good time to give them a heads-up that there’s an intake coming.

We changed the format for how the community housing fund intake happens. We’ve learned over the years that it became a challenge for some providers in smaller communities to compete against big communities. Now we’ve allocated units per region, so you only compete against your region.

We’ve also made a change this time — we haven’t announced it yet, but it’s coming soon. Instead of having one intake, we’re going to have a bit of a rolling intake. If you put an application in and you were close but didn’t get it, you still have an opportunity to get into the intake of the year. Also, it gives time for those that haven’t done the pre-work to still have space to be able to do it to get into the intake.

The community housing fund will be opening in the coming months, so there’s an opportunity for more senior housing in the community.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, it’s kind of a difficult one. The main two communities in my riding actually have very significant challenges when it comes to housing, yet they’re incredibly different communities and different needs.

On the one hand, you have Kitimat, which has a very high vacancy rate, which has precluded it from much of the funding through B.C. Housing. The problem is that most of that housing is not appropriate for seniors. We have very few apartment buildings that have elevators or access. It’s just completely unrealistic to expect seniors to live in the majority of the housing that’s available in Kitimat.

Then, like I said, in Terrace we’ve got essentially a zero vacancy rate and one of the highest and most disturbing rates of homelessness in the province. From the last homelessness count, one in 83 people in Terrace was homeless.

So I’m curious as to what criteria B.C. Housing is using right now to determine funding for rural and remote communities, and if my communities are actually being fairly equated into that. It seems that we have a significant issue, like I mentioned previously, with hidden homelessness, which isn’t even accounted for in those numbers.

We know particularly of young women, especially in Indigenous communities, that are couch-surfing and things like that. That hidden homelessness is really not being addressed effectively. Like I said, a number of seniors are living in increasingly unsafe living conditions, because they’re living in split-level homes — much of the housing up there is — or in houses that are far too big for them, and they have no other options.

I’d like to better understand what the criteria are and if we’re actually being fairly calculated into that, because of the significant challenges that my communities are facing.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: On the second question of assessment, I can share with the member the document that guides our decision-making, and how points are scored, etc. We can share that with the member so that you have a sense of how decisions are made. It’s a pretty transparent process from B.C. Housing, and I’m so happy to do that.

I can share with the member that in Terrace, we have opened 47 units of Indigenous housing, 22 of women’s transition housing, and 45 just defined as “other rental.” Then we’ve got, in progress, 82 units for the community housing fund and 22 Indigenous housing units. That’s in Terrace.

For Kitimat, I don’t have the exact numbers. I can share that with the member, as I said, in writing.

Claire Rattée: One more question for right now, and then I’m going to pass it off to one of my colleagues. It’s around B.C. Housing not being tied to the rental increase caps that every other landlord in British Columbia is tied to. I believe that this year the annual rent increase is about 5 percent.

I don’t understand why B.C. Housing, which houses some of the most vulnerable citizens, is exempt from those protections. I’ve got a number of constituents right now that are facing those challenges. One just had their rent increased by 35 percent, and they’re being told from B.C. Housing that they basically signed away their rights to that when they signed their lease.

Again, we’ve got people with significant concurrent brain injuries and mental health issues and that don’t understand what it is that they’re signing off on. So now this person, for example, is facing eviction. This is a story I’ve heard numerous times in my riding.

I’d like to better understand why B.C. Housing can increase the rent more than what every other landlord in British Columbia is allowed to.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It would be great if the member could share specific examples — not in this setting, but maybe offline. There was a little bit of confusion on our side, given that B.C. Housing, for example — all the supportive housing and anything that’s directly managed by B.C. Housing — is at the shelter rate.

If it’s, say, for example, rent-geared-to-income, maybe that was the case, but if it’s something else, then perhaps you can share it, or we can talk offline.

Claire Rattée: As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, my office has tried to contact the ministry a few times now and has not received a response.

The only thing keeping this man from being evicted right now is the fact that we have started that process to appeal it, but they are basically saying that he is going to be evicted regardless. I can share that it is the Willows building in Terrace. I’d be happy to speak with the minister privately about the specific constituent, because I would really like to get them some assistance.

With that, I will hand it off to my colleague.

Misty Van Popta: I just have one more question I want to circle back on, in regard to the building code change regarding radon. Yes, radon was in the National Building Code in 2010. The B.C. building code brought in a regional approach to radon mitigation in 2018, mainly east of the Coast Mountains, and it was a toughened requirement.

[5:50 p.m.]

Then the 2020 National Building Code, the current one we’re using, has the following note, A-5.4.1.1, which says the following: “In addition to an air barrier system, other measures may be required in certain regions of Canada to reduce radon concentration to a level below the guidelines.”

The B.C. building code 2024 introduced passive sub-slab depressurization in all of B.C. So we went from a regional approach, a city-by-city approach. In the 2018 building code, there was an actual list of each city and whether it’s required or not. In 2024, we changed it to every new house not only needs to do radon mitigation but also do an increase — gone beyond what is called rough-in and gone to a passive sub-slab depressurization system.

To the minister, I just want to ask: why, if the current national code doesn’t say that rough-in is required everywhere, did B.C. change from a city-by-city approach to an all-province approach, and not only rough-in but a passive slab depressurization assembly system?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to confirm. Is the member referring to an info bulletin No. B24-03, March 8, 2024?

[5:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: It’s the government of Canada website, actually. Sorry. If you can clarify at what point I’m referring to what bulletin.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It may be helpful to the member as well. There’s a bulletin that lays out the rationale and the decisions from the province. I’ll get that to the member. We have lots of time, so we can come back to this topic if the member wants. Does that work? Okay, so we’ll get the team to print off a version for the member.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, without her electronic device.

Misty Van Popta: Sorry. I was looking at the bulletin.

But yes, sorry. I have read the building code bulletin that came out from the province outlining the changes. My question has more to do with why we’ve moved away from a regional approach to an all-province approach.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not allowed to read off electronic devices, but there is a section in this document that actually answers the member’s question. Perhaps I can print it and get somebody to bring it in for you. Then if the member still wants to discuss it, we can do that.

Rosalyn Bird: We’re going to switch topics here for a little while. Some similar questions were answered earlier, so we’re going to go back to SROs for a little while. I have a number of questions. The first one is: how many SRO buildings has the province, through B.C. Housing, purchased since 2019, and how many total rooms do those buildings contain?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We don’t have the information right now by year. I can share with the member that B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 SRO rooms, and I can share that the city of Vancouver also owns ten buildings and 770 rooms.

[6:00 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Can you specify if those buildings include hotels? Or are hotels separate?

The Chair: Just a reminder to ask your questions through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just pulling it up. So we can maybe keep going, and then once we have the answer, I’ll provide it to the member.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the minister: could you repeat the first numbers that you gave me on the first question? So the buildings and the rooms, and then you had separated it. You had said buildings and rooms, and then you specified Vancouver.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms, and I was just talking about that the city of Vancouver owns additional buildings and units. If that’s not important to the member, then that’s fine. But the first number is B.C. Housing’s number.

Rosalyn Bird: The buildings in Vancouver — I’m curious why there’s a separation there. The 36 buildings that you’re talking about outside of Vancouver, that’s over the remainder of the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, I may have confused the topic.

B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms. That’s in Vancouver. The other number was what the city of Vancouver owns, which is separate. So that’s where I may have confused the member.

The member’s question was: “What does B.C. Housing own in Vancouver?” The answer is 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms.

Rosalyn Bird: Actually, the question specifically was: how many SROs do we have across the province, not just Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member, the team is just pulling up the numbers for outside of Vancouver. It will take a few moments, but I’m happy to take other questions while we’re waiting.

Rosalyn Bird: As of now, how many SRO hotels/rooms does the provincial government own and operate directly through B.C. Housing in Vancouver and across B.C.? And are any of those buildings…? Are there subcontracts to those buildings, or does B.C. Housing operate all of those?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of them are operated by not-for-profits. B.C. Housing doesn’t operate them directly.

[6:05 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Can you explain the process of how those organizations are determined?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They all go through an RFP process. They are reviewed, and decisions are made by B.C. Housing.

Rosalyn Bird: Are the reviews done on those organizations and those housing units yearly to determine how many people have moved in or have moved out? Is there any oversight on their policies and their practices?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are clear expectations laid out in all of the contracts. We do an operation review every three years and a financial review every year.

Rosalyn Bird: What is the total amount of money spent in 2019 on acquiring SRO properties provincially? Under which budget programs or line items were these purchases funded?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m happy to answer questions about the document here. But asking questions about a budget in 2019? The team doesn’t have that information. It’s way outside of the scope of what we’re doing in estimates today.

Rosalyn Bird: I will revise the question. Can you tell us the amount of money that you have spent in the past fiscal year on acquiring SRO properties provincially and under which budget programs or line items they were purchased?

The Chair: Again, Member, just a reminder to ask those questions through me.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the rephrase, but we’re talking about the fiscal year that we have here now, so that’s the information I have available for the member.

Rosalyn Bird: Through to the minister, can you specify, then, in your current budget for the upcoming year, how much money has been designated to SRO purchases and/or hotel purchases and the amount of the contracts for those facilities to be operated?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s no budget specifically to buy SRO buildings. We have a supportive housing fund which is $85 million in operating and $170 million in capital. It’s possible that that fund could be used for a purchase, but there’s no specific pot for buying buildings.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: could you explain that a little bit more? I’m a bit confused about that.

You must have something that you have laid out for the next fiscal year to determine how many more SROs, or those types of buildings, you may need to acquire in order to address the housing shortage, particularly with communities that have individuals that are significantly disadvantaged.

Could you explain how that process works through the ministry and whether or not it is in conjunction, possibly, with the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the reason why we’re all chatting here is that we actually are moving away from SROs. As a province, we’ve been moving away from SROs. We think that having self-contained units is a better way than SROs.

This is the budget for supportive housing. The member is asking: “What’s the specific line item for us to go out and purchase?” There’s no specific budget. This is the budget that’s available. We are actively looking for opportunities to construct supportive housing sites. On the rare occasion, if there’s a purchase that becomes available, this is what would be the fund. But there’s no specific line item for that.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to clarify, it is B.C.’s housing plan to actually move away from the SRO model completely? Is that over the period of the next year or next few years?

I’ll do a follow-up question with that one. If you are moving away from that model, what will be done with those buildings that are currently being operated as SROs?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the confusion might be that the member’s definition of SRO might be different than what we’re thinking about. SRO is a structure. There are SROs mostly in Vancouver, the odd building outside.

Perhaps I’m just a little confused on the member’s definition on that, because I want to provide the right information. So if the member can share the understanding of what is being referred to, then we’ll be able to provide different answers.

Rosalyn Bird: My understanding, or one of the understandings many people in the province have, around SROs is, for example, there have been a number of hotels that have been purchased by the current and previous governments. They are considered to be single resident occupants because they are individual hotel rooms.

However, it has always been my understanding that those types of housing complexes, whether it’s a hotel or an older dormitory-type building, are used as a temporary housing with the intent to move them into a permanent rental and/or ownership situation as they better themselves in life.

We’re trying to determine how many of those types of housing units are being currently used by the province and if there’s an intention to continue purchasing or using that type of housing in the future.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, that helps us, because the definition of “SRO” for us, from the Ministry of Housing, are units that don’t have a washroom, don’t have a kitchenette. It’s just the room. So that’s, I think, where some of our confusion was.

Let us try to get some more information on the hotel purchases, because they often…. They can have a kitchenette. They often have a washroom. And so they’re distinctly different than SROs. But that being said, let us try to get some information for the member.

Rosalyn Bird: I would appreciate that. Actually, that information would be very helpful.

If we could actually sort of reframe the questions that I asked earlier. We are looking for information specifically around hotels not just in Vancouver but across the province: how many rooms are currently occupied; how many of those buildings we actually own where there are vacancies; and if, in fact, this is also included in the model that the ministry has mentioned they may or may not be moving away from.

So if you could specify that also — whether or not you will continue to be purchasing hotels and using them for individuals that are struggling and trying to better themselves.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Since 2020, 41 buildings have been purchased, or hotels, and that’s 2,004 rooms. I should share that those dollars come from, essentially, HEART and HEARTH, some emergency use. So you’re able to purchase something because there’s an urgent necessity in a community.

[6:20 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: You had indicated earlier that the SROs are just single rooms, that they often don’t have a kitchenette or even a bathroom facility. The 36 buildings that you were referring to at the beginning, when I first started to ask questions, as well as the buildings in Vancouver…. Those actual individual rooms — I just want to clarify — do not actually have bathrooms or any type of kitchen facilities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The SRO definition for the city of Vancouver is what we follow. There may be the odd occasion where there’s a washroom in the units, but most often it’s shared washrooms, shared facilities amongst all the residents that live there.

Rosalyn Bird: How many people generally are in these types of buildings? Are the numbers similar to hotels? I’m trying to figure out what the difference between those buildings are. And like you said, you are purchasing hotels, which are usually used in emergent….

I know up in Prince George, there have been at least three hotels that have been purchased. My understanding was all three of those hotels were being managed through B.C. Housing.

Could you describe to me what the average size of those buildings is in Vancouver, and why and/or in what circumstances would you purchase a hotel over one of those types of buildings?

Is the ministry intending to purpose-build accommodations for the individuals currently residing in these types of residences in the future, in order to move away from either model?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The SROs that we have, in particular in Vancouver, were, for the most part, units that people already lived in, but they were privately held. Multiple governments have purchased them to protect the people, renovated them and then kept that affordable housing available for the public. That’s the difference between, let’s say, the purchases of hotels, which were largely done post-COVID just to get people indoors.

Prior to the member coming in, we were talking about a Johnson Street hotel being purchased by Rich Coleman when he was the Minister of Housing. It was an urgent matter. There was an encampment in the city of Victoria. They purchased the Johnson Street hotel and moved everybody indoors. The purchase of hotels is done to be able to get people indoors real quickly.

The member’s question was around redevelopment. There are the SROs in Vancouver. Yes, we are committed to working with the city of Vancouver and the federal government on a redevelopment plan, moving folks into more self-contained units and then redeveloping those sites.

In other parts of the province, hotels that we purchased could be considered for redevelopment of different housing — community-housing-fund-related, affordable housing for seniors, etc. I hope that answers the member’s questions.

Rosalyn Bird: Could you help us understand, then, what the process will be to move people, particularly in communities like mine, Prince George? We do not have, that I’m aware of, an SRO that you would find in Vancouver.

[6:30 p.m.]

There is a lack of affordable housing for lower-income people in Prince George — in the North, in general, actually. Can the minister please explain or help us understand what the transition plan is from hotels to permanent housing.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We went through this previously, and I’m happy to talk about it again.

We have a community coordination table where we’ve got folks from the city, I believe, at the table. We’ve got not-for-profit providers, Indigenous community leadership, community-integrated specialists, all at one table where they identify multiple things. They identify individuals that are, say, at Moccasin Flats or at an encampment and identify what type of housing is appropriate for individuals to move them in.

We also use similar tables to identify individuals that are in supportive housing that are ready to move out in different types of housing. The way we do it is two ways. One is through community housing fund investments in community to build out units and then to create a flow. The other one is rent supplements. We have rent supplements that are available for individuals that are able to be able to live on their own. That table uses rent supplements to get people into market housing.

I can share with the member that in Prince George, through the community housing fund, we’ve built 57 units. We’ve got, through the Indigenous housing fund, 50 open, and we’ve got 119 units that are in process right now. We’ve got 89 women’s transition housing fund units that have opened. And we have a community housing fund that will be doing an intake for more housing units in the coming months.

If the member is interested or perhaps knows of a not-for-profit that would be interested in…. Or maybe the city would be interested in partnering with a not-for-profit. This is an opportune time to be able to get in an application so that we can get more housing online in the community.

Rosalyn Bird: Prince George is an interesting city in that it’s a fabulous place to live, but it is not without our challenges in regards to the community and the individuals that are currently using those types of properties.

I was wondering if you can help explain or help me or people in the province better understand where those funds…. You said initially that those hotels are purchased through emergency-type funds because you need something right away to move people in. Moccasin Flats is an excellent example. It is almost empty thanks to these types of projects.

However, I would be curious to know where the funding comes from to continuously maintain properties like the North Star hotel that has a large number of units and is currently under mass renovation and, without an actual plan of knowing how long people are going to be there or how long it’s going to take to build purpose-built housing, where that funding is going to continuously come from to make those units livable.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I thank the member for the question. There are multiple pieces there.

I first want to give a shout-out to the city of Prince George. I’ve had an up-and-down relationship with the mayor and council. It started up, and then it went down, and now it’s fantastic. It’s, I think, an example of what you can do when everyone works together in that community.

I want to give a shout out to Shirley Bond as well, who did some great work, asked similar questions to the member, some tough questions. We were able to bring partners to the table. Indigenous community was also at the table, and we signed an MOU, as the member knows, to be able to commit a lot of resources to the community to address, in particular, the challenge of Moccasin Flats.

I’ve been to Prince George a ton. The member is right. It’s a fantastic community. The fact that we were able to deploy so many units to get people out of the streets, out of Moccasin Flats, get them indoors…. I believe we’re at six people on site. All of them are being offered housing often. Certainly hoping that all of them take that opportunity to move indoors.

We also know that there’s a disproportionate amount of people that are in the encampments that are Indigenous. So that’s why 119 Indigenous-led homes is a significant number for a community, and it’s done with the planning and the thinking that when we bring these units on we’ll be able to get a lot of the Indigenous community members into culturally appropriate safe housing.

That’s part of our flow, but there are more needs than that. That’s why the community housing fund is important.

The member also asked a question about some of the older buildings and upkeep. We have a capital renewal fund, so there’s a fund that is available for our own buildings but also one fund that’s available for not-for-profit-owned buildings so that they can do upkeep and some of the renovations that are needed on their sites.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you also help us have a better understanding or explain to us how the insurance works for these particular types of buildings and/or residents? If it’s a third party that is operating a program or the housing at a hotel, do they pay that insurance, or does that insurance come out of the housing budget?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If it is a building that is owned by B.C. Housing, we have our own insurance, internally, to be able to provide insurance. If it’s a building that’s owned by not-for-profits, then part of their operating subsidy includes the amount for the insurance. Those are the two pieces.

Not-for-profits that operate out of B.C. Housing buildings often get their own operating insurance for just operating. Those are the three different ways insurance can be covered.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: is it possible for you to provide an average cost? If you are using a hotel to house approximately 100 people…. I believe the North Star, when it’s finished, will hold approximately 100, possibly more units there, but 100 for sure.

What is the cost of insurance on a building like that annually and how those insurance rates…? Or are you aware of them fluctuating, depending on whether or not it is either a wet or a dry living facility and how that would impact the budget?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is probably referring to some operators who are concerned about their insurance rates being a little higher or going up. In response to that, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association has launched their own insurance. There is a good opportunity for some of the not-for-profit providers to be able to use that insurance. That was designed to mitigate.

Again, for our own buildings, we just do our own insurance, so it’s hard to give the member a number on that. I’m happy to provide something; it’s difficult when it’s our buildings.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to turn my questions over to my colleague. She has a couple of follow-up questions regarding the same topic. Then I’ll reserve to come back.

Claire Rattée: On the topic of insurance…. Specifically, I’m thinking of one example that was given to me recently of one of these sites that was operating on Johnson Street here in Victoria. I had a woman approach me; her husband had been living in one of them. It was a wet facility, and he had overdosed, tragically, and passed away in this facility.

On the topic of insurance, she was told from people that worked there that his body had been dragged from his room out into the hallway because there were concerns around him passing away in his room privately without anyone around, and how that impacted the insurance.

Apparently, this is a common practice. Many of the workers there will actually pull bodies, when somebody has an overdose and passes away, so that they’re in a common area, because there is an impact to the insurance in some form. People are supposed to be monitored; that is, I would assume, the issue.

I’m wondering if the minister could speak to that, please.

The Chair: Minister, just a quick reminder to our members about their electronic devices in the silent mode.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, we’re rocking in here.

The Chair: That’s right. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m trying to figure out which one of the members it is, but I won’t name names. I won’t name names.

The Chair: We don’t use names, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, we definitely do not, but we can use ridings. They’re all smiling, so I can’t tell you which one it is.

To the member’s question…. I know the member heard from somebody else, and it’s awful. That’s an awful situation to have happened. It’s not something that we’ve heard is common.

That said, it’s certainly a question of operating insurance for each operator. This is, again, why the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association has launched our own insurance, so that the not-for-profits that feel like they’re in a vulnerable situation have an option to go to.

Claire Rattée: Again, this is secondhand information, but I think that it speaks to a broader issue that we’re seeing with some of these facilities and the way that they’re operating and maybe a lack of oversight or clear guidelines.

I’m curious if the ministry is willing to start to do some investigation into how these buildings are being operated. This is not an uncommon story. I’ve heard it many times. Also, as somebody that utilized this type of housing when I was in that position many years ago, I do know that there are significant challenges with them in the way that they’re being operated.

[6:45 p.m.]

I’ve heard a number of stories about people that are using these types of facilities and that will be kicked out partway through the month, after paying their rent, which comes off of their income assistance cheque, and then those same rooms will be rented again to someone else. It seems to be a cycle of almost looking for a profit and not allowing people to stay there for the full month. I would hope that the ministry, now that they’re aware of this issue, would be willing to look into it.

Another thing that I wanted to talk about, because this is again a very common issue, it seems, throughout British Columbia, is that there are organizations that are operating shelters — what are being considered as shelters — and charging $500 a month that comes off that person’s income assistance cheque. There’s one specifically here in Victoria, again, that is operating right now where they will have potential clients, I guess we’ll call them, sign an intent-to-rent form.

I don’t know how they can get away with this when it’s basically either a mat on the floor or a cot to sleep in, but people are being expected to pay $500 a month for staying in these units. They’re not units; it’s really just a large room with a mat on the floor or a cot.

I have seen proof of this, so I know this isn’t anecdotal. There have been a number of situations where this one particularly has had people sign these intent-to-rent forms. They’ve been approved. The ministry has then started to put that $500 a month towards this group, and the person, the client, was never informed.

I know people that had this money taken off their income assistance cheque multiple months in a row, and they’d never set foot in the building other than to sign that intent to rent.

Again, I’m curious if the ministry is willing to start actually doing a proper investigation into what’s going on and look at having a set of standards for these types of facilities, so that people that are very vulnerable aren’t being taken advantage of.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would say that perhaps the member can share the specifics with me offline, and we’ll have the team look into it.

I’ll just caveat that with two things. One is that the placements of people is done through the community coordination table, so there is a distance, there is a space, between the not-for-profit operator and the people deciding who goes in. I think that’s an important piece for that.

If the member has something specific, then we definitely will look into it. But it’s probably not an appropriate place for that.

Rosalyn Bird: I have also heard the same issue, just so you are aware, in Prince George, Kamloops and other communities up North, where you have operators that are, in fact, collecting multiple rents on a single unit, due to some of these individuals being very challenged. They will move from a location because they’ve had a challenge with somebody in that location and moved in somewhere new, but it has not been tracked.

So that money continues to come into the operator, even though that person has left, and there is a new person in that residence. I just wanted to reiterate what my colleague was saying: that is in fact an issue that has been in many places in the province.

I do have a question, though, specifically regarding municipalities and/or cities. Can the minister please help us better understand: for these types of units, particularly the hotels — that’s a big thing with Prince George — is the municipality or the regional district going to be asked to fund, sometime in the future, the continued maintenance upgrade and any repairs that need to be done on those buildings as proper housing comes online for these individuals to transition to?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Can the member maybe share an example of the concern the member has? If it’s our building, then I don’t know why we would have the city take any of those things on.

Often when we’re redeveloping and we’re looking to build affordable housing, we ask the local government to waive DCCs or different things to help keep the costs low and the rents there. But if the member has concerns of other costs, perhaps an example would be helpful.

Rosalyn Bird: If I use the Northstar as an example…. They are currently taking out the sliding patio doors because they want less people coming and going, and they want better control of that actual housing unit. Those types of expenses, I understand, would remain under your umbrella, because it is your building and you’re going to maintain it.

But if you have somebody that destroys a unit, if there is a new fire code or requirement that comes into place either through the city or the province, whether it be mandatory sprinkler systems or those types of things….

Municipalities and cities, communities across the province are struggling. And there’s been a lot of push down from the provincial government to local municipalities and regional districts to take up costs. So I’m looking for a commitment that these buildings, if we’re going to continue to use them until you have created an exit strategy, are going to be maintained and upgraded by the Ministry of Housing and that cost won’t be pushed on to cities or regional districts.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any time we’ve asked local governments to do that. We have a capital renewal fund that allows us to do those investments in our own buildings, and we have one for not-for-profits. I suppose a local government could sign an agreement with B.C. Housing on a condition that they would do specific things, but I’m not aware of any that exist.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you also explain what model Housing is using currently to determine the success of these types of housing projects? Is it a reduction of numbers of people that are living in a community like Moccasin Flats?

Some people would argue that that is or it isn’t a community, but it is very much a community. People moving into jobs? How are you tracking the individuals that are using these types of housing facilities or programs or units to see what their success rate has been?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are multiple ways to assess what we believe is success. One is to ensure that if someone is homeless, that stay is as minimal time as possible, because we know that if someone is homeless for a long time, it becomes a lot more challenging for us to support them.

We also try to create flow between shelter, supportive housing, housing that’s got some sort of supports and market. That one’s a little bit more challenging because not everyone’s story is linear. People move. They’re doing well, and then they’re struggling.

There are some metrics that we track. SDPR tracks no-fixed-address cases to see how many cases there are as one measure, to see if we’re moving the dial. I know that in Prince George, year over year, we have seen a 9.4 percent decrease. Surely it’s connected to the fact that we’re getting more people into housing and there’s more stability in their lives.

Of course, we track the amount of folks that are homeless and the point-in-time counts. All of these things help feed how we’re doing or how not well we’re doing in communities and where we need to scale up opportunities in a quick way.

Rosalyn Bird: Those are some interesting ways.

I’m trying to determine, and lots of people are trying to determine…. If there’s an exit plan from SROs or even hotel-type residences in the province, how and what are you going to be looking at in order to determine what housing you need, when you need it and how to budget for that if you don’t have specific metrics, especially when you’re operating housing units that have varying codes of conduct?

If you look at a wet facility compared to a dry facility, it’s unlikely that individuals that are using that housing are going to be able to transition to the next level of housing without actually getting the supports and the assistance that they need to move up the ladder.

Could you explain to us how you may or may not be working with the Ministry of Health to make sure and/or encourage those types of support so people can actually process or transition to the next level of housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member also acknowledging that it’s not linear. It’s not just 1, 2, 3. Folks bounce. The challenge is that some people need more time in a specific place. This is something….

I mean, I was asked about this a couple of weeks ago in our transition housing. When people are in a transition house and they stay well beyond that, there are a lot of variables. Kids are finally adjusting to the community, school. So we’re flexible. We don’t want to be saying: “Sorry, it’s one year. You’ve got to go.” It really depends on where individuals are on their journey.

We track a lot of different things from our providers. I can share a Kelowna example. The data they’re collecting.... They have identified goals, for every individual, that are in sight. You have to do small goals to achieve where you want to be.

[7:00 p.m.]

So 94 goals were achieved for personal development to obtain ID, connect to services, attend regular programming around budgeting, time management and problem-solving; 89 goals were achieved for financial well-being, completing taxes, applying for and obtaining appropriate supportive funding, paying off any fines, and obtaining bank account information; 74 goals were achieved for mental health and substance use to connect to Interior Health services. That means people are attending some detox-related treatment services. We track that.

I know that in Kelowna — just because I’m on Kelowna — over 50 percent of individuals that have moved into those units have either connected with employment, moved on to market housing or connected again with family. That’s a big success. That’s a goal I think we all aspire to in every site. It’s not necessarily as successful, but we do track a whole host of things for individuals.

I suspect that’s what the member is getting at. How do we create flow? How do we ensure that people are still having an opportunity to be able to ladder out? Those are the things that we’re building out. Support people as quickly as we can, because we want their time of being homeless to be as little as possible. Support them the best way in the place that’s most appropriate to them, and then find ways for them to ladder. But be patient in that laddering so that you’re not pushing people to cause more harm along the way.

Rosalyn Bird: In the past there has been some precedent set where, if there is a large-scale, world-popular event coming to a particular area of the province, they have relocated people to other geographical locations in the province.

This is something that the Prince George area and the northern regions have been challenged with. Prince George, in particular, is considered to be a hub of various services, and so we have had numbers of people relocate to Prince George for a variety of issues. Sometimes it can be a natural disaster, but other times it can be communities and/or larger centres moving people into these areas.

Does the minister have any mechanism to look at that by region to determine how and what can be done in order to stop the fluctuation of numbers of people that are requiring these houses that they can’t actually predict?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I guess the question…. There are a couple things. There’s a whole bunch of things in there that I don’t know if the member was asking specifically, but I’ll try to just touch on them. You know, I do hear a lot from communities that say that the folks who are homeless in our community are from elsewhere. They’re not people from here; they came from somewhere else. When the data shows that, usually the majority of the people have lived there for a long time. Nobody goes to a specific community to be homeless.

[7:05 p.m.]

Now, there is, in cases of major hubs, a little bit of that — where folks come from outside because there are services available. I know, for example, of cases in Nanaimo, where there are a lot of recovery homes. People go for recovery homes, and then maybe they relapse, or they get kicked out, and then they’re homeless. In Nanaimo, we’ve seen cases like that as well.

The second piece is around relocating people for major events. There are no plans to relocate anyone for any major event.

I was chuckling because I was in the Olympics in 2008 in Beijing. I remember walking down the street and thinking, “This is great. Everyone said there’s so much population here. I don’t see anybody,” then, hearing a noise behind a giant billboard, realizing that the people were just there. They’d just billboarded all around them so that people wouldn’t see them.

The member is correct; in some places in the world, there is a bit of that. But if the question was, “Are we intending to do that here?” the answer is no.

Rosalyn Bird: To go back to that subject just for a minute, B.C. Housing owns a number of buildings across the province. I’m assuming that they aren’t actually designated for regions. It’s actually a question I have.

If, say, in Prince George and/or Kitimat, Williams Lake or Smithers, B.C. Housing purchases a hotel, would that hotel or those rooms be specified or designated to individuals living in that particular region, or will they move somebody from somewhere else in the province into that housing unit?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, I’m hoping that after this question, we can take a short time for my team to get dinner, if that’s okay with everyone.

The question around.... Maybe I’ll just use an example. Let’s say there’s a supportive housing building in Prince George. We wouldn’t just move people from Quesnel to Prince George to be at the supportive housing site.

If an individual that was in Quesnel said, “Hey, I’m actually from Prince George, I’ve got family there, and I’d be more successful if I were closer to my family and my community,” then of course we would use the community access table to identify the individual and say: “Their family is from here. This is their community. Their parents are there, and having them closer to their parents will mean a higher likelihood of success.”

In that case, we would do that, but it’s not a common occurrence to move people from one community to another community just because there’s a bed available.

I hope that answers the member’s question. We can canvass this more at greater length, but Chair, if you can allow us a short break for food, it would be great.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. That is a good suggestion. It has been a while since a break. We’ll stand in recess until 20 minutes after.

The committee recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:26 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are contemplating the estimates of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m just going to ask one last question, and then I’m going to reserve some time for tomorrow and switch subjects for tomorrow. This is a bit of an odd question for the minister: can you help us better understand the relationship with B.C. Housing and Community Living B.C.?

If Community Living B.C. has a building or purpose-builds a building for individuals that are challenged, but generally different challenges than the ones we’ve been talking about for the past hour or so, where does B.C. Housing fit into that? Is that a relationship that you share with the Ministry of Health? I just don’t understand who those buildings belong to. There are more questions around those types of housing.

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

The relationship between B.C. Housing and CLBC is if an operator would like to purchase a property, they’ll use the services of B.C. Housing to, essentially, do the transaction. B.C. Housing will help purchase, will help facilitate that whole transfer, the purchase and transfer. And in many cases, B.C. Housing also will do just the property management for the CLBC clients, but it’s limited to that space. Most of it is sent through SDPR.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to continue asking questions around B.C. Housing and NGO partners. The management of B.C. Housing partnerships, particularly with non-governmental organizations and charities, has raised serious transparency, efficiency and equity concerns. High-profile controversies, most notably involving Atira Women’s Resource Society, have exposed troubling oversight failures.

[7:30 p.m.]

To the minister: in light of recent controversies involving B.C. Housing partners like Atira, will you immediately table a comprehensive and transparent flow chart outlining every NGO, politically connected charity or private entity currently receiving public funds through B.C. Housing, along with the details of those financial arrangements? It’s really hard to determine how it all flows, and that kind of a chart would certainly assist us, if the minister could do that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m happy to provide some information, but the member said in the question “organizations that are politically connected.” I’m not entirely sure what the member is referring to, and perhaps we can get clarity on that before we proceed.

Linda Hepner: Yes, let’s just use all non-governmental agencies, NGOs, and charities as the parameter for a flow chart and where those funds are allocated and the amount of public moneys going through that B.C. Housing, along with those financial statements.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are over 800 not-for-profits operating in this space. Perhaps if the member has got something specific or a specific contract the member wants information on, we can try to provide it, but providing 800 organizations and information…. That’s a bit much here.

Linda Hepner: I think that a flow chart that would recognize what the names of those charities are and some accountability in terms of the financial contracts through those charities with B.C. Housing would be very useful. We would be more than happy to accept a binder, even though I accept that 800 is a lot.

I think for the purposes of clarity, when I’m trying to understand what does B.C. Housing exactly do and to whom are they contracting or subcontracting…. It is incredibly difficult for flowing. So a flow chart of at least their majority of contractors would be very useful. I would think that the minister could provide that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Eight hundred different not-for-profits — it’s a bit of a challenge.

The member wants to know flow. Perhaps the member can clarify what the member is referring to when there is talk of flow.

Linda Hepner: Well, each of those entities have contracted through B.C. Housing, and so the interests that we have are who are the charities and what are their contractual obligations and a better understanding of exactly what B.C. Housing is doing.

When you see the amount of money that B.C. Housing gets from the government ministry, it is fundamentally the most significant money. So how that flows is incredibly important.

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a few things there. First off, there is a lot of financial oversight. It’s important to note, and I shared this answer earlier, that there are yearly reviews done. There’s an every-three-years operating review that’s done. There’s a check and a requirement that everyone is operating under the Societies Act.

The members refer to NGOs and charities. We only deal with not-for-profits. I think that’s an important distinction I just wanted to put out there. I can share with the member the 800-plus organizations that get support from the province. They provide all of their audited financial statements, publicly available, online.

Linda Hepner: I think, since B.C. Housing is getting funding from government and these are public funds, that it is only fitting that the minister can provide the names and the financial arrangements that have been made by B.C. Housing, for us to better understand the flow of those moneys. Am I to understand that the answer was that we’ll get some of that information but the rest of it is minutiae that you don’t want to share?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t provide it at this moment, but if the member wants to know which not-for-profits B.C. Housing works with and how much money goes to them, then we’ll get that to the member.

Linda Hepner: That would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Given the Atira controversy, can the minister outline what, exactly, oversight and accountability measures have since been taken to ensure the public funds and assets transferred to NGOs and private entities are safeguarded?

That was, really, part of the first question of: let’s know, first of all, who they are. Then secondly, can you tell us what measures have now been implemented since the Atira issue?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Obviously, we’ve taken some steps with Atira. It’s a very unique situation. It’s not something that you see in other not-for-profits.

There are three things in particular that I’ll highlight. One, we have an independent observer that attends meetings now, board meetings, with Atira. Second, they are working on a remediation plan on all the items that were identified in part of the review that was done about Atira. We’ve also ended our operating agreements with Atira on five properties that are owned by the provincial rental housing corporations. Those contracts have been assigned to other not-for-profits.

So we’ve taken some considerable steps with Atira, and we’re going to continue to monitor it.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that response, Mr. Minister.

I do have a question now that is relative to my community. Surrey’s B.C. Housing registry wait-list has grown over 208 percent in the last decade. Yet your current budget identifies no urgent or major projects for British Columbia’s probably now largest city.

Minister, can you explain precisely how parity or geographic equity is determined when your ministry allocates housing projects, particularly given the stark disparities evidenced by Vancouver’s concentration of housing and below-market housing project units compared to the significant shortfalls that we now see in Surrey?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First I want to make sure the member knows it’s not a wait-list; it’s a registry. People on that…. It doesn’t mean necessarily that they’re all still waiting for housing. Often people find themselves appropriate housing, but they leave their name on the registry. So that’s an important distinction between the two things.

That said, certainly I think there’s a significant need of more investment in affordable housing south of the Fraser. I can share with the member that since 2017, we’ve already completed 1,500 homes. That’s more homes south of the Fraser than more than 30 years before that. That’s significant — in the last seven years.

I can also share with the member that there are 644 units that are underway right now in Surrey. There is Harmony. That is 91 units under construction. We expect that to be complete in spring 2027.

[7:45 p.m.]

There are 60 units under construction on 13559 Bentley Road. We expect that to be complete this fall. We have another 85 units that are under construction with Metro Vancouver, with the housing corporation. We expect that to be complete very soon.

Then we’ve got a whole host of projects that are in development phase. Kekinow Native Housing Society — 106 units. The member is aware of PICS and some of the investments we’re making there. We’ve got another 62 units with Kekinow Housing Society and another 50 units for Kekinow Housing Society — these are all Indigenous housing projects — and one 65-unit project that’s with the Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre.

On top of that, we are in active conversation with the city of Surrey on a whole host of additional projects that we think we can bring online.

So there has been a significant investment in affordable housing that’s been needed, and we have a lot more coming.

Linda Hepner: I recognize the Indigenous housing and the Aboriginal housing units that you have described. I’m curious to hear: are the other housing projects you have described Metro Housing or are they being built by B.C. Housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is only one project that’s with the Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., and we have provided support for that. The rest are all not-for-profits or Indigenous housing projects in the community.

Linda Hepner: I wonder. Your recent budget identified approximately $1 billion for 1,570 units, resulting in a staggering, by the way, average cost of about $636,000 per unit. Can you explicitly confirm how the remaining approximately $1.8 billion of your total $2.8 billion housing budget is allocated? How many units will it create, and how much is earmarked for direct housing construction versus social services within housing units? That difference.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The next round of the community housing fund, I think, is what the member is referring to. It’s likely that Surrey will see a significant amount of housing as part of that fund, but there’s still work to do. The fund will be opening up in the coming months.

Linda Hepner: No, I think what I’m referring to is that in the current budget allocation of $2.8 billion, $1.8 billion is already allocated. Are you suggesting that the extra $1 billion is next phase?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Is it possible for the member to refer us to which line item the member is sharing with us?

Linda Hepner: How many units will the $2.8 billion housing budget that has been allocated…? How many more units will it create, and how much is earmarked for direct housing construction versus social services within housing units within the existing budget?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We were trying to find an answer, but it’s challenging because I think the $2.8 billion refers to the entirety of the dollars that B.C. Housing gets. That’s operating; it’s everything. So I’m not entirely sure of the member’s question.

I will say that the funding portfolio includes projects that are under construction, so dollars get booked year over year. It also includes the next round of community housing fund, which we’re going to be launching, which will be more than 6,000 additional units. So there’s just a lot included in that number.

If the member is asking the amount of new units that we can expect in the budget for just the community housing fund, it’s more than 6,000 new additional units.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, did the minister say 6,000 units? What I was trying to get to is if we’re now spending $1.8 billion to create, at $636,000 a unit…. We’re spending $1.8 billion. We have $2.8 billion. Are we spending the rest making $636,000 units, or are we spending part of that money to provide social services within those units? That’s basically where I was going, if that clarifies it at all.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I apologize to the member. We’re just a little bit struggling with kind of the frame of the question.

The member refers to the complete budget. There are just so many things that go to that. Yes, there are units. There are operating subsidies. There are a whole host of other things that happen.

We’re happy to go through individual items, because that might be more to where the member is going. But just the general number, it’s difficult to provide an answer. I just don’t understand the premise of the question.

Linda Hepner: It’s on page 38 of the budget and fiscal plan. I’ll move on to another question. You could take a look and see if that better clarifies for you. Does that help? Okay.

In the meantime, I’ll ask the question of the minister: how specifically can we fulfil the minister’s promise of reducing construction costs through lower government borrowing rates in light of the government’s recent fourth credit downgrade?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Maybe the member is trying to be edgy and political on it, but the premise of the question, I believe — and the member can clarify — is: how do we help projects lower costs?

The way you do it is by creating more certainty, by ensuring that decisions can be made faster so that builders are not sitting years waiting for basic approval. They understand the rules. They understand what their cost structures are going to be. The cost structures are transparent, and there’s no behind-the-scenes negotiating. So those are the elements.

Now, there are a lot of projects, a purpose-built rental for example, that use government financing to be able to be advanced. We have provided in the past, through HousingHub, some loans to projects for market rentals.

But what we heard and we know is that the federal program is the one that’s the most popular. A lot of people access that. We’ll see what the federal government does in the coming weeks and months ahead. If there’s an opportunity to leverage some of the low-cost financing for private sector projects, that’ll be a great thing.

Linda Hepner: Given that the federal government is not really in play at the moment, for you to be able to answer this question with any degree of certainty…. But I would reserve the right to, at some point, better understand how that financing would flow through to the provincial government and whether or not those funds would be provided to lower the rates given to local governments in any applications for assistance.

In the meantime, I wonder if any housing projects at all have subsequently seen Crown land transferred to private operators or any NGOs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There was a program under the previous government where publicly owned land was sold off to not-for-profits. That program ended some time ago. So if the member is asking if we have, I guess, passed on any title of Crown land, I’m not aware of, at this time, any projects of that kind.

[8:00 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, no housing projects that have been developed by either B.C. Housing or any of the NGOs contracted by B.C. Housing have received Crown land. Have those projects that they are now operating received any Crown land transferred to their name?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to get a clarification. Is the member referring to Crown land as in provincial, government-owned land owned by the Crown or referring to B.C. Housing land as a Crown corporation? I’m just trying to understand where the member is trying to go with this question.

Linda Hepner: I’m referring to projects that B.C. Housing undertakes and provides supportive housing units on land that is Crown land or land that is really provincially-owned land and that, in the efforts of providing the support services and providing the housing units, the operator, B.C. Housing, transfers that land over, into their name, from Crown land.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks for the clarification from the member. All supportive housing projects…. Part of the program is there’s a requirement that it has to be PRHC-owned land. I think that answers the question.

Linda Hepner: So that answer is no.

Okay, thank you. I saw a nod.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the answer is the answer. I don’t know if the member is referring to something else. All I can say is the member asked about supportive housing, and all supportive housing has to be on PRHC land. That’s one of the requirements of the program.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to ask you one more question in this particular category. That is around long-term lease arrangements and whether or not we have any long-term lease arrangements with our contractors and our suppliers.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have long-term leases on our own land. Often there are 60-year agreements for the land for operating.

Linda Hepner: That’s why the flow chart would actually help us better understand what goes on with respect to B.C. Housing and some of the NGOs. Did I hear the minister say that the long-term lease is as long or as short as 16 years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sixty.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister. I thought 16 was a rather short time to have a housing lease. Boy, you really almost set me up for some great questions there. I defer that, and say thank you for that.

[8:05 p.m.]

I’m now going to turn it over to one of my colleagues.

Gavin Dew: One of the issues that I recognize has been canvassed a bit during prior conversation is around short-term rental. I know that there have been a number of questions that have been asked in that regard. I do want to just layer a few on top in that regard that are specific to issues affecting my riding.

The minister was distracted for a moment, so I’ll just mention I’m picking back up on short-term rentals, a couple of issues affecting Kelowna and my riding specifically. I’d like to better understand….

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:06 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:06 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I call continued estimates for Ministry of Housing in the main chamber and the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in the Douglas Fir Room.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 8:08 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, and we’ll ask the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

Gavin Dew: Picking up where I left off, I am going to circle back to canvass a couple of questions with regard to short-term rental. I recognize that short-term rental was discussed previously. I hope to ask some new questions here.

What I would like to start by understanding is what economic impact analysis was undertaken by the Ministry of Housing with regard to the effect of short-term rental regulations on tourism, both prior to and after implementation.

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There was an extensive analysis undertaken at the time to determine what areas should be exempt from the principal residence requirement.

The analysis included prevalence and concentration of dedicated, year-round, short-term rentals as a proportion of all dwellings in 2022-2023; tourism income dependency; proportion of MRDT from STR platforms versus hotel operators. The analysis was done also on the size of communities in different regions, for determining population cutoff for the application of the principal residence requirement for rural areas.

Gavin Dew: I found myself confused in Tourism estimates when I asked the Minister of Tourism what input tourism had had into analyzing this very question. The minister and his staff appeared to be completely unaware of any studies undertaken.

I’m just hoping the minister could maybe expand a little bit on whether there was any discussion between the two ministries that would help to provide a more nuanced understanding of exactly how decisions were made and will continue to be made, going forward, between those two ministries.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I understand why. It’s a new Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture and a new Deputy Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We did engage with the Ministry of Tourism and the team of folks that were there. Of course, as we move forward, we’re going to continue to monitor impacts, both on supply of housing, rents, etc., and on potential impacts on tourism.

Gavin Dew: I hope the minister will indulge me in asking one or two more questions that relate to the tourism implications of STR, despite it being dubious, in terms of the scope of the ministry. I am struck by the fact.... I have conversations regularly, in my riding, about the expectation that we are, hopefully, in a moment of patriotic tourism.

Certainly, with the call to action from the Premier, I think the expectation from a good number of tourism operators, including in communities like Kelowna, is that British Columbians, and Canadians more broadly, will make the choice to do their tourism here at home. I expect that that will likely create upward pressure on demand for tourism facilities, housing, short-term rentals and hotels — a whole litany of different areas.

I’d like to understand whether any work has been undertaken by the Ministry of Housing or, by extension, by Tourism, to understand what the implications of that summer of patriotic tourism are likely to look like.

Might it consequently be time to move just a little bit faster on addressing short-term rental regulations, particularly in jurisdictions like Kelowna — which, for example, as of October 2024, had a 3.8 percent vacancy rate but is still some time away from meeting the requirement of a 3 percent vacancy rate for more than two consecutive years, as laid out by the ministry, around STR regulations?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m sure the member is aware of the report that the city released, so I won’t go too much into the details. Some of the information the member is referring to is in that report.

Of course, we continue to monitor this. We were following the numbers in line with what the report from the city highlighted last year. Of course, there were additional challenges. I think there was a feeling amongst many that people were worried about wildfires, etc., and that had an impact in the entire region.

To the member’s question about if we will be monitoring and doing analysis, going forward, of course. Do we expect an increase in people wanting to travel across B.C.? Likely. We’ll see how it goes through the summer. We’re in fact encouraging people to travel throughout the summer.

We did have still vacancy available in hotel capacities in the region, and we’ll certainly monitor what happens this summer as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer from the minister. What I’d like to better understand. Obviously, we currently have a significant amount of housing capacity that should be coming on stream soon in Kelowna. As the minister is aware, we’re currently standing somewhere in the range of a 3.8 percent vacancy rate.

The question of whether or not we have the opportunity to unlock greater capacity and to unlock people’s ability to do what they wish with their property for this summer tourist season is a decision that, I would argue, probably should have been made sometime in Q1 of this year in order to enable that to actually be absorbed by the marketplace. People make decisions around tourism and where they’re going to go sometime in advance.

People make decisions about the disposition of what they’re going to do around things like short-term rentals sometime in advance. It seems as though…. If the answer is that the ministry will be monitoring it over the summer, it strikes me that that means that that’s a no to the opportunity to make changes for this upcoming tourism season, which will be underway very soon.

Recognizing that fact…. Recognizing the 3.8 percent vacancy rate and what appears to be a trend toward a higher vacancy rate, recognizing, as well, that the way that the regulations are structured to allow municipalities to apply for an exemption to STR legislation if they establish a 3 percent vacancy rate for more than two consecutive years, I wonder if a municipality such as the city of Kelowna, which demonstrably has a rising vacancy rate and demonstrably has tourism impacts….

I fully recognize the minister’s statement around concerns around wildfires, soft economy, upward rate pressures. All those things are also variables contributing to a soft tourism season last year, but all these factors are in place.

If the city of Kelowna were to come to the minister and ask for an earlier exemption, on the basis of the market factors that are in place today, now to unlock the ability to make those changes for this summer tourism season, would the minister and the ministry take that request in good faith? Or would they force the municipality to abide by the letter of the law in terms of the regulation and legislation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member knows the answer is that it’s a two-year average, and we would need to see the average above 3 percent for two years. Maybe a contrary opinion to that would be….

[8:20 p.m.]

I’m certainly not hoping to see people vacate units because they see an opportunity to see increased short-term rentals. We are seeing rents come down. It’s good for people in the community. If Kelowna continues to see the vacancy rate as the member has suggested, that’ll be something we could consider next year, but the city of Kelowna has not reached out to me for this request. At this point, it’s a hypothetical conversation.

That said, I would want to stick with the two years, because I think it’s important. It was in the legislation. We want to make sure that it’s not a blip and that it’s something that’s consistent so that people in the community see a benefit from it as well.

Gavin Dew: I recognize that there are hypothetical aspects to the question, but there’s also a very non-hypothetical aspect to the question that does not have anything to do with vacating units. That is the example of purpose-built developments.

In my riding, there is a development called Aqua that I’m sure the minister is familiar with. Over the course of approximately 14 years of development and go-to-market there, it was always clearly understood that that particular development was, in fact, purpose-zoned and purpose-built for short-term rental.

I have a number of constituents who purchased units in that building and who are facing the very non-hypothetical situation that they are going to be paying $5,000-a-month mortgages and will not be able to rent their properties out for anything approaching the ability to pay that mortgage. A typical spread we’re talking about is a $5,000-a-month mortgage with possibly that unit being rented out for $3,000.

That is an individual who has invested in good faith in a unit with an understanding of what the rules were and what the law was at that time and who is now going to be on the hook for $2,000 a month in subsidizing that unit because, to quote them, their “property rights have been taken away from them by this government.”

There has not been what you would typically expect in terms of grandfathering purpose-built STR developments like this.

I get calls in my constituency office every week. I get emails every week from people who are facing the very non-hypothetical situation that they have to figure out what to do when they take possession of these units that, to reiterate, they’re paying $5,000 a month for. If they are so fortunate as to find a long-term tenant, the rent is likely to be on the order of $3,000 a month.

Will the minister acknowledge that this is a pretty serious issue that folks who have bought into these developments are facing and that the lack of grandfathering is pretty impactful for, in some cases, the retirement savings of individual retail investors? I had several of those in my constituency office this month for whom this was a significant part of their retirement savings.

Again, their retirement savings are now going to be drained, and they’ll be left with the choice of either subsidizing rent by $2,000 a month or selling a unit at a loss, which they purchased in good faith with the understanding that laws and regulations would be stable and predictable and forward-looking.

Could the minister just speak to that specific challenge, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for advocating for his constituents.

I can share with a member that our team met with the developer in 2024 to talk through their challenge and provided them an option to move to a strata hotel. That information was made available to the developer, the steps to do that, so that people could operate in a way that allows them to have some flexibility, like, in fact, happens in other communities.

[8:25 p.m.]

If the strata council decides to change to comply with strata hotel exemption criteria, they can do so. That option is available. It was shared with the developer, and it wasn’t taken up. But that option is still available for the strata council if they choose to do so, and we can circle back if they want to have further conversations.

Gavin Dew: I’m certainly aware of the strata hotel conversation. I won’t profess to be a lawyer, but I have had conversations with a number of owners who are aware of the strata hotel issue and who expressed a significant amount of concern or a belief that the ministry was misunderstanding the nature of real estate and real estate finance with that suggestion.

The challenge is that…. Again, their understanding of the situation is that you cannot simply take a development that has been pre-sold years in advance, go back in time and restructure the nature of the development. There are not only complexities to the nature of change in the development, the equity structure, the legal structure, the contract structure, questions and challenges around how many owners would have to be on board with that kind of a change….

While I understand that it may seem like an elegant solution from a superficial perspective, the amount of complexity and, indeed, the amount of cost required to pull that off by individual unit owners, who are already taking a bath financially both on a month-by-month cost basis and also on a long-term equity basis, may be out of reach. So I would submit that that is not, in fact, a workable solution in the eyes of the individual unit owners who are being directly affected by this.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, I was multitasking, but I didn’t hear a question. I think it was just a general statement from the member, unless there’s a specific question.

Gavin Dew: My question, I suppose, would be: will the minister acknowledge that offering a solution in the form of conversion to a strata hotel — which, according to the owners of units, who have taken legal counsel on the matter, is unworkable, would be significantly expensive and would be complex in terms of unwinding the structure of the development, the structure of contracts, effectively undoing agreements that have been made — not only is unworkable and expensive, but is also, frankly, a terrible precedent in terms of basic jurisprudence and policy in this province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Let’s say that the developer couldn’t do that at the time. My point is that the strata council coming in can still do that. That option is available for them, and if they would like to meet with our team to discuss that, we’re happy to do that.

Gavin Dew: Again, I fail to understand why the burden should be placed on individual investors who’ve entered contracts in good faith. The general sentiment among individuals I’ve spoken with around the matter is that they feel as if their basic property rights and the rule of law have been disrespected in this process.

I suppose the broader question.... It’s a time when we desperately need housing supply, with the recognition that a significant amount of the capital stock that goes into building rental housing in this province comes from individual retail investors.

Will the minister acknowledge that creating this kind of uncertainty, denying grandfathering that would be typical and taking a, frankly, flippant attitude toward the property rights of these individuals is quite likely proving a disincentive to retail investment into the development of the very rental properties that we need in this province in order to provide affordable housing for people?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We continue to see record investments in rentals, purposeful rentals. There are headwinds, but we continue to see that here in British Columbia. I expect that we’ll continue to see that into the future as well.

Gavin Dew: I would be curious as to whether the ministry has any significant breakdown of the investments that are being made and whether those investments are being made primarily on an institutional basis or on a retail basis by individual mom-and-pop investors.

[8:30 p.m.]

Further, has been a reduction in rental stock being made available in the marketplace — particularly secondary rental stock, basement suites, those kinds of property types?

Again, I hear on a regular basis, in my riding and elsewhere, significant concern from people who either are the types of individual retail investors that would typically, say, buy an apartment while their child’s going to university and then put that onto the market. or who might put their basement suite onto the market.

Over and over again from those individuals, what I hear is concern that the dramatically changing rules, the uncertainty around rules and the instability of the rules are a significant disincentive to them either investing on a retail basis into rental units or making their individual existing basement suites, secondary suites, things of that nature available on the marketplace.

Is the minister saying that there has actually been robust analysis undertaken of that kind of activity in the marketplace and that he or his ministry has found that there has not been any effect on undermining investment and undermining units being put to market? Or has there simply been no study?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: What I’m saying is that the member is describing a doom-and-gloom situation in the province that we have not seen at this point. We continue to see investments being made in purpose-built rentals. We continue to see people building fourplexes, looking to build sixplexes, with the landlord being in one of the units and renting the other units. And we’ll continue to monitor that as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: I think that a number of my constituents would be quite shocked to hear their regular, everyday coffee shop conversations being described as doom-and-gloom situations. I think that, quite honestly, it’s insulting to individual property owners and investors to characterize their rational concern about the stability of the marketplace and about the investment conditions for building or freeing up rental stock in this province as being doom and gloom. I think that’s quite unfortunate as a characterization.

I’ll just go back to my prior question because it wasn’t answered. Has the ministry actually undertaken any robust analysis of the effect of their STR and other policies on creating a lesser appetite for investment in rental stock from retail investors, or for individual property owners opening up secondary basement suites, things of the like?

Has any actual work been undertaken in that regard, or is the ministry simply uninterested in hearing what I’ve heard from a number of constituents, and others have had too — that the changing policies have actually resulted in units being taken off the market or not being put on the market that could be contributing to our overall supply?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share that we’ve seen a dramatic increase in purpose-built registrations since 2017. We have averaged 13,051 registrations per year from 2017 to 2024, compared to 2,400 the years before. I just want to say that again into the record. We have seen an average of 13,051 registrations per year between 2017 and 2024, compared to 2,400 per year between 2002 and 2016.

We have seen, in the past four years, some of the highest total housing starts since the information started to be tracked in 1955. We are seeing, when it comes to small-scale multi-unit, which is more mom-and-pop, a 155 percent increase compared to the previous year. Infill development units — we’re seeing a 190 percent increase compared to the previous year.

I appreciate that the member says he’s got some friends who are investors who are concerned. I understand what he is saying. What I am saying is that we are seeing the numbers and we are still continuing to see investments in this space and we will continue to monitor into the future.

[8:35 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I really reject the minister’s insinuation that “friends who are investors” are concerned. I think this constant drumbeat of ideological framing around every small business owner and every individual small-scale mom-and-pop property owner somehow being demonized by this government so casually is really quite grating.

I think a lot of these folks who, again, are the individuals who own, say, an underutilized single-family property in a neighbourhood where they’re interested in unlocking a basement suite, making housing available…. When they hear that kind of rhetoric and see these kinds of market signals coming from the Housing Minister, I really do think it’s a deterrent to those individuals participating in providing housing stock.

I would ask the minister again: does he really think that that kind of rhetorical framing is helpful to trying to stabilize the housing market and get people to free up units that could be made available to house people and families?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve shared facts with the member. The member says that there’s a doom-and-gloom situation. I’m not referring to the people that came to him. I’m referring to his comments. What I’ve shared with the member is real data about where we’re at and what we’re seeing. That’s what I’m sharing with the member.

To his comments about monitoring, of course we’re going to monitor this as we go forward. We have people investing in housing right now. We have people investing in rentals right now — record pace. Record pace. And so I don’t know what the member….

Maybe the member’s trying to put on a performance here on the camera, and that’s fine. It’s politics. But I’m giving the member some solid data on where we’re at with housing starts because the member suggested that all of a sudden, no one is investing in rentals. That’s just not proving out in the data that we have, and we’ll monitor that as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: Since the minister is committed to providing data, I assume that he will then undertake a study that will look into whether or not the material and unpredictable changes that have been made to housing policy under this government have, in fact, led to secondary units not being put onto the market.

I think that this back-and-forth gamesmanship is silly. At the end of the day, I believe I’m asking a very reasonable question about whether analysis has been undertaken about a significant market dynamic. And that market dynamic is that the exact kind of rhetoric that this minister is using. The exact kind of aversion to any facts or data points or analysis other than what he’s got in front of him is somehow unhelpful or hostile.

But I’ll leave that, and I suppose I’ll go back to short-term rental for a moment because I find myself rather confused.

I spent a considerable portion of the election this fall going to debates and engaging with NDP candidates in Kelowna. Universally, every one of them stood up on stage after stage and were quoted in articles, and they said repeatedly that they were supportive of a made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental. They indicated that they had had discussions with the Premier with regard to that made-in-Kelowna solution and that there was an openness to that made-in-Kelowna solution.

I’ve seen those words never appear ever again after the election. So I’m just wondering. Is the Minister of Housing aware of discussions around a “made-in-Kelowna solution” that was advanced by his fellow candidates repeatedly to the public in Kelowna, in an attempt to mollify local concerns about the one-size-fits-all sledgehammer policies that he’d brought to Kelowna, or were those just election-time nuances that should be written off because they didn’t mean anything?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Candidates represent their ridings. That’s what all candidates do. If a candidate runs and wants to advocate for a specific issue in their community, they have the right to do so. If the member wants to talk to a candidate, they can. What I’m sharing with the member is the position that we have right now, as a government, and we’ll continue to analyze that as we go forward.

What I can share with the member, which I’m sure is important to the member, is that we’ve seen an over 9 percent decrease in rents for people that live in this community — over 9 percent, some of the largest decreases in rents for new units in the entire province.

That’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to make sure that there’s more vacancy of housing, more units available for housing for people in the community, and we’re trying to stabilize rents. We’re going to continue to prioritize the people in the communities who need housing, who need more affordable housing.

[8:40 p.m.]

The member talks about some folks that have raised concerns. I get tons of emails from people in Kelowna who share their situations of finally getting a place to rent for their family and what that means. During a housing crisis, I think that we all could agree that that should be a priority for all of us.

Gavin Dew: I noted the conspicuous absence of an answer to the question which was, again, about what exactly was the made-in-Kelowna solution to short-term rental that every NDP candidate in Kelowna was advancing. Has that moved forward? Is there any discussion? Or should Coun. Loyal Woolridge, in the city of Kelowna, assume that he was duped by the party that he was running with, who gave him false hope that he would actually have influence on housing policy?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think that as I mentioned before, candidates have the right to advocate for what they believe is in the community. I believe they said if they were elected, they would bring that here, and they would advocate and take positions. I think that’s appropriate for candidates.

The councillor he’s referring to is well-respected and liked and is from Kelowna and has a unique perspective of what he wanted to bring forward. He was unfortunately unsuccessful. If he as a councillor or mayor and council want to bring different positions forward, they have the right to do so in their capacities.

I think it’s important to note that there were a lot of candidates that ran last election for the B.C. Conservative Party who had some pretty extreme views. Does that mean that those are the views that you’re going to be bringing forward to this House? People had the right to raise their concerns and bring their voice to the table, and when they get here as elected officials, they have the right to do the advocacy they want on behalf of their constituents.

Again we can spend hours — I’ve got hours — for the member to keep asking the same question and me to give similar answers. But fundamentally, the reason why we brought these changes in is because we’re in a housing crisis, and people are struggling to afford housing in our communities.

When they see the housing stock continue to be bought by investors, and they don’t see an opportunity to be getting into the market, when they see housing being made just available as mini hotels, and they’re struggling to be able to afford rent, they want action. And they got action.

What we’re seeing from that are some of the largest decreases in rents year over year in the province, and Kelowna’s got some of the highest. I think that people that are desperately looking for more affordable housing are happy about that and sharing that.

At the same time, we’re seeing record numbers of housing starts. We continue to be leaders in the country. If there are new data points that come forward that raise concerns, we’ll explore that at that time.

Gavin Dew: What I am hearing is that, effectively, the political voices and advocacy raised by an NDP candidate in their own riding was always going to fall on deaf ears, and that’s awfully disappointing because, again, that was a position that was held by every NDP candidate locally. I think that the people of Kelowna have certainly heard how much the NDP care about them.

If we’re talking about politics, advocacy and advocating for positions taken during the election, I just hope that the minister will indulge me in asking him to explain a letter that went out on October 7 in the middle of the election to residents of Predator Ridge. It was addressed to the member for Vernon-Lumby, as well as various folks in the community.

It thanked the member for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents as well as to Brad Pelletier and the mayor of Vernon “for helping bring this unique situation to our attention.” And “I agree the resort nature of Predator Ridge means it should have an exemption to B.C.’s speculation and vacancy tax, similar to Big White and other resort communities.

“I’m looking forward to working with you after the election to fix this and ensure we can create strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge while preserving homes in the city of Vernon for families.” It’s signed by the Premier.

What I’m seeing here is a letter distributed during the election which attempts to curry political favour by making decisions around the speculation and vacancy tax, seemingly subject to the outcome of the election.

[8:45 p.m.]

Effectively, what I’m trying to understand here is I’m being told by the minister that those candidates in Kelowna who wanted a made-in-Kelowna solution really never had a shot in influencing policy. But when there was a swing riding in play, the Premier had no problem signing his name to a letter that appeared to promise a policy outcome in exchange for re-electing his government.

Could the minister maybe just help me understand the rationale behind the decision to send that letter out in the middle of the election?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t comment on the specific letter. I don’t have the specific letter, but I can share with the member that Predator Ridge was able to operate as a strata hotel. It’s similar to — and the member wasn’t here — an issue that was in Parksville with several strata hotels that had unique ways of operating. That option is available for folks that the member mentioned here as well.

Gavin Dew: I assume the minister will have no problem in responding in depth to the letter if I provide it to him?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just responded. Predator Ridge was able to operate as a strata hotel, similar to Parksville. If the member wants to go back into Hansard and see the extensive debate around the short-term rental legislation, he’ll see that this was canvassed at great lengths. If Aqua wants to operate as a similar format under strata hotel, they, too, would be exempt.

Gavin Dew: The letter references speculation and vacancy tax as well. Will the minister care to comment on the promise to review the speculation and vacancy tax at Predator Ridge as outlined in the letter?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Speculation and vacancy tax is with the Ministry of Finance, and the member is free to raise that there

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I’ll certainly raise that with the Ministry of Finance and inquire as to what the Ministry of Finance thinks about the Premier promising tax changes in a swing riding in the middle of an election. That strikes me as being rather problematic.

Just to help me understand the way this government operates: am I correct in understanding that, in the riding of Vernon-Lumby, the Premier was happy to sign his name to a promise to make a material tax and housing change in a swing riding? Perhaps we should be looking as to how that has progressed since the election.

Just to reiterate the minister’s answer, it sounds as though that’s in the riding of Vernon-Lumby, where the NDP was elected. I’m curious to understand, would the made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental have been moved forward if the NDP had elected an MLA in Kelowna?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Quite frankly, it’s a ridiculous line of questioning, because there were changes made to ensure that strata hotels were exempt. I don’t understand what this member is not understanding. Predator Ridge fell under that, and same with a whole host of strata hotels in Parksville.

I appreciate the member wasn’t there, but those that were here will know this was a big deal. This was canvassed in the House at great lengths. We worked with opposition MLAs to ensure that strata hotels were exempt. If this particular property wants to operate as a strata hotel, like Predator Ridge, like the ones in Parksville, they can. That exemption is there.

[8:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Again, the letter specifically is referring to the speculation and vacancy tax and makes specific reference to making those changes to support tourism jobs.

The exact argument, advanced by NDP candidates in Kelowna during the election, was that a made-in-Kelowna solution to short-term rental was needed, in large measure, to support tourism jobs. I’m really struggling to understand the incongruity here and the minister’s discomfort with providing an honest answer. I’m very, very confused here. Could the minister please just help me understand? Perhaps he can illuminate for me....

This is a very important matter around housing in Predator Ridge. He’s the Minister of Housing. I wonder if he can just let me know what decision process would have led to the Premier making a written commitment to make a change to housing policy, in a swing riding in the middle of an election, and publicizing it via a letter to residents of that area.

Would that have been a cabinet-level decision? Would the Minister of Housing have been involved in that decision? Help walk me through the specific policy basis for that promise made. Or was that just pure politicking?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member wants me to help him understand. I don’t think there’s anything I can say to help this member understand any of the things I’m saying. I’ve shared on multiple occasions with the member that the property of Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel. Maybe the member needs this in writing. I can give the member in writing: the Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel.

There are rules under the legislation that say that strata hotels have a definition. If you’re operating in those rules, in legislation, you are a strata hotel, and you are exempt. It’s similar to what was happening in Parksville with multiple sites. So it’s difficult to help walk the member through. I’m trying to walk the member through as slowly as I can, but the member seems to be struggling to understand that.

I’ll say it again: Predator Ridge had an exemption because they were under “strata hotel,” similar to the hotels in Parksville. I’m happy to repeat this multiple times so that the member can get it.

Interjection.

The Chair: Kelowna-Mission, one more attempt at this.

Gavin Dew: Let me just try this one more time, really slowly, for the minister. The issue at hand is the speculation and vacancy tax.

The question I’m asking is: what was the policy discussion undertaken by this government that led to the Premier making a written commitment, which the Minister of Housing says he was unaware of — a written commitment, made in the middle of an election, promising a change to the spec tax treatment of a jurisdiction within that swing riding?

I’m really struggling to understand what the policy basis would be for a government to be issuing promises of changes to housing policy, in writing, in one riding — those are apparently promises that will be kept — but simultaneously to have multiple, credible NDP candidates promising housing policy changes in another riding, which the minister now says weren’t worth the paper they were written on or the videos they were spoken on.

I’m just really struggling to understand: was there a housing policy symposium convened? Was there a cabinet meeting at which cabinet decided how they would treat these things? How did the minister come to be unaware of a written promise, made by the Premier in a swing riding during an election, to change housing and tax policy? Just help me understand that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Clearly, the member is struggling to understand. I don’t think there’s anything I can do to help this member understand at this point.

Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel, so they were exempt. If the member is unclear on what I’m saying, perhaps the member can go back into Hansard later this evening and see me repeat this answer to him seven times. It’s similar to Parksville, which had hotels. Now, maybe it was six. I apologize; it was many times.

[8:55 p.m.]

The member asked about speculation and vacancy tax. I’ve said, multiple times, that the speculation and vacancy tax is with the Ministry of Finance, and the member can canvass it there.

I just don’t understand how the member is struggling to understand that during an election, candidates were advocating for specific policies. Candidates are free to advocate for policies that they think are important for them. And I’m not sure, in particular, what the member….

You know what? We have another 14 or 12 hours, and I’m happy to continue this lovely exchange tomorrow. But for the sake of everyone else….

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:56 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks to leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.