The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: Today, April 30, is Journey to Freedom Day, which marks the contributions of the Vietnamese-Canadian community

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: Today, April 30, is Journey to Freedom Day, which marks the contributions of the Vietnamese-Canadian community and the journey that many of the community took in dangerous circumstances to flee Vietnam and come to Canada in the wake of the Vietnam War, which ended 50 years ago today.

We had — and I want to thank members on all sides of the House for participating — a very moving event today in the Hall of Honour. It's my honour to welcome some of our many, many guests, our 100 guests, today.

That included Andy Pham, who's a Vietnamese community and industry leader who spoke today so eloquently; Edison Tran, who's a Vancouver entrepreneur and past vice-president of the Vietnamese Professional Association of B.C., who gave a guitar performance today; Ken Do of the Vietnamese Veterans Association.

Also Vieng Phavongkham, the president of the Laos Community Association of B.C., Nguyen Hanh Winnie Cao; Tammy Dao from the Lac Viet Public Education Society; Hop Van Phan from the Vietnamese association for cultural preservation; and Tri Duc Dung from the Vietnamese Air Force Association of B.C.

Thank you to all members for supporting this important day today. Please welcome all our guests from the Vietnamese-Canadian community, from the Laotian-Canadian community and from the Cambodian-Canadian community here to this House.

Rob Botterell: I am honoured to welcome to the House today a constituent from Salt Spring Island, Olivia Hayne. April is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month. Olivia is here today as a volunteer with B.C. Transplant.

When Olivia's brother, Alistair, tragically passed in 2017, his family knew that organ donation was the right thing to do, and he ended up saving the lives of five people. Since then Olivia and her parents have been dedicated volunteers with B.C. Transplant, sharing Alistair's story and encouraging others to consider registering as organ donors. B.C. Transplant will be in the library today between two and 3.30. I welcome and urge my colleagues to visit and meet with Olivia and other volunteers.

Thank you, Olivia and B.C. Transplant, for their important work.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Visiting the Legislature today are guests from the Barrick mining association. They are Christina Erling, vice-president of government affairs; Carrie Hermaty, mine manager; and Alison Brown, group director, reclamation and closure.

They’re here to watch the question period, particularly. That’s their key interest. The mining sector is usually quite…. They are kind of trained to see the high noises, so that will be okay with them.

Barrick mining association is a major global mining company. So I will ask the House to please make them welcome in this House.

Anna Kindy: I’ve got two introductions to do.

I’d like to introduce Rob McNeil, one of the program directors at Robron Centre, an alternative high school, as well as Christine Johnson, a teacher there, and Nicole Gerard, other staff members and nine students. Welcome.

I'd also like to welcome the BCPS, British Columbia Public Service Employees for Freedom; President Philip Davidson is now doing a law degree. As well, the United Health Care Workers of B.C. The president is Jed Ferguson.

Both are a registered, not-for-profit societies in B.C. They’re about informed consent, medical privacy and bodily autonomy. There are 14 of them today, including Terry Paripalkin, a health care worker who lost her job. Welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We've got representatives from the city of Prince George joining us in the House today: Councillor Garth Frizzell; Councillor Kyle Sampson; Councillor Susan Scott; their city manager, Walter Babicz; as well as senior advisor for intergovernmental relations.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ve got representatives from the city of Prince George joining us in the House today: Councillor Garth Frizzell, Councillor Kyle Sampson, Councillor Susan Scott, their city manager, Walter Babicz, as well as a senior advisor for intergovernmental relations, Catherine Sykob.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Prince George the last few months, and I’m really pleased to be able to meet with representatives from Prince George to talk about forestry. I know many members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to meet with these councillors and their team.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Kiel Giddens: The Minister of Forests just beat me to the punch, but I’d really like to welcome the delegation from the city of Prince George that was just named the northern capital. I want to thank all members and ministers who have met with them on their time here, and I want to thank them for the great meeting we had yesterday as well.

Could the House please give them one more round of thanks for all they do for the city of Prince George.

Jessie Sunner: It’s always a good day when you get to introduce friends in this House. Today I’m honoured to welcome my campaign manager extraordinaire, Jasmeet, who also works for the Minister of Labour, along with her partner Anmol and her mother Sharon, who this is her first time visiting this house. Maybe this is the visit that will make her finally get her Canadian citizenship after 32 years of being in this country, so that’s what we’re hoping.

If the House could please join us in making her feel very welcome.

Linda Hepner: I would like to acknowledge Ms. Walzer’s grade 5 class in my riding from the Surrey Christian School. They are learning about government, and the entire class has been doing a virtual tour of our building. Please join me in welcoming them to what government looks like on a daily basis.

Hon. Diana Gibson: As was mentioned, it’s a real privilege to be able to introduce friends and family to the House, and today I have with me three family members who I have the honour and privilege of introducing.

I’ll start with my father because it’s his 85th birthday.

Interjections.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I know. He’s been a real inspiration to me. He’s a professor of engineering management and taught me a lot in my life.

My mother is also here, who is also a professor in health and health science and a former nurse and also business owner/author.

My aunt, as well, Sheila Whittaker, who’s here, is another inspiring family member who was actually the first women CEO of a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Pete Davis: I just wanted to echo the Minister of Mines as well by welcoming Barrick Mining Corp., I guess Barrick Gold Corp. now.

I had a great meeting this morning. Thank you guys so much for coming, and we look forward on this side to making sure that mining stays a vital part of the economy here in B.C.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just wanted to bring the House’s attention to a new docuseries, which is atypical as an introduction in this House, but this is a docuseries that follows…. It’s called Wildfire, and it follows the B.C. Wildfire Service in a five-part series.

It was created by two of my constituents, actually, some people I grew up with — Simon Shave and Clay Mitchell — along with Kevin Eastwood. It showcases firefighters from my constituency but also from many of yours.

I hope that we all have time to be able to review this. It shows the bravery of our B.C. Wildfire Service firefighters. I am so grateful for their service and also for the documentary makers.

Will the House please give a round of applause for this documentary.

[1:45 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I don’t see them in the gallery today, but I would like to welcome to the precinct the executive of Tourmaline Corp., the largest natural gas producer in Canada. We had an excellent opportunity to exchange some great ideas and talk about some of the fantastic resources of the beautifully clean natural gas that we have in this province.

Tourmaline Corp., the largest natural gas producer in Canada. We had an excellent opportunity to exchange some great ideas and talk about some of the fantastic resources of the beautifully clean natural gas that we have in this province.

Susie Chant: I am very honoured to welcome the incredible staff and volunteers, as have already been referenced, from B.C. Transplant to the Legislature today.

As national Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month ends, we recognize the power of donation to save lives. In 2024, 481 British Columbians received a second chance thanks to 118 deceased donors and 90 living donors and the dedicated health care teams who make transplant possible. Some of the volunteers with us today are transplant recipients and donor family members, powerful advocates for the life-saving work that they do.

I invite all members to stop by the Legislative Library this afternoon, up until about 3:30, after question period, to learn more about the impact of organ donation in British Columbia.

As an aside, my husband was an organ donor for bone marrow a number of years ago to a young mother of two small children. Those children are now in college, and their mom is cheering them on. It’s really important.

Thank you for making them feel welcome.

Gavin Dew: I’d like to acknowledge someone who is not in the chamber today, and that is my wife, Erin. Today is our eighth wedding anniversary, and instead of taking her out for dinner, I’m going to be here in this House doing estimates and committee stage debate on Bill 7.

I just want to state for the record that I love you, I miss you, I’ll see you soon.

Darlene Rotchford: I would like to welcome a resident of View Royal, from part of my constituency, Steve Farmer. Steve was diagnosed with hepatitis C at the age of 46 and received a liver transplant on New Year’s Day, 2005. His transplant has given him time to be a dad to his two daughters, and the highlight has been being able to see them both grow and be married.

Steve has also competed in several Canadian Transplant Games and won many medals, including last summer in Ottawa. Steve has been a longtime volunteer with B.C. Transplant, sharing his story and inspiring people to register their decision on organ donation.

Can the House please welcome him.

Rohini Arora: I just want to welcome Daniel Heo, who is my new constituency adviser, and I was hoping to have a line of sight on him. He is absolutely amazing. I’ve known him since 2021. This man makes incredible bagels, fresh, and brought them into the campaign office regularly. Suffice it to say, I don’t know what I would do without him, bagels and all.

Jeremy Valeriote: Tens of thousands of people took part in Vancouver’s Sun Run on Sunday, among them my constituents the Lions Bay rainforest racers team, who are admittedly not in the building but are watching from home.

This year, 42 members came together to remember Barbara Enns, one of the founders of the team, and her husband, David. Barbara and David died tragically last December when their home was destroyed by a landslide.

I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to the Lions Bay rainforest racers team.

Paul Choi: I am excited to welcome my friend to the House today, Linda Li, and her two sons, Henry Wong and William Wong. She was a candidate with us for Richmond-Bridgeport, but more than that, she is a pillar of community in Richmond. She served with the Richmond Chinese Community Society and the Richmond Hospital Foundation, and she is a prominent business owner as well.

If I can just ask the whole House to give a very warm welcome to the three of them.

George Anderson: I would like to recognize someone very special in the Legislature today, and that is my friend Linda Campbell. Linda has dedicated her career to public service, bringing wisdom and compassion to everything that she does. Moreover, she has a remarkable ability to get things done. It’s a skill that I try to borrow whenever I can; unfortunately, it has mixed results.

[1:50 p.m.]

Her presence today is a reminder of the many unsung heroes who serve not for recognition but out of love for their community and country.

I hope that the House will give Linda the most warm welcome.

Thank you, Linda.

out of love for their community and country. I hope that the House will give Linda a most warm welcome. Thank you, Linda.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025

Hon. Adrian Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. Bill 14 would establish the B.C. Energy Regulator as the primary permitting agency for renewable energy projects and major transmission lines, allow the B.C. Energy Regulator to establish a new rigorous regulatory framework for renewable energy projects, and allow for the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for wind power projects and the North Coast transmission line.

I’d like to inform the House that the government considers this bill a matter of confidence. B.C. has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become a world leader in clean energy production, and we must take every action possible to see that all British Columbians benefit from this opportunity. Renewable energy projects are urgently needed to provide affordable, clean power, create jobs and diversify our economy, especially during this period of global market uncertainty. We need to build. We need to build to support our economy. We need to build to fight climate change. We need to build to secure our energy sovereignty. Bill 14 will assist us in this task.

I am proud to move first reading.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Principles and Values of
Sikh and Filipino Communities

Rohini Arora: It is the last day of Sikh Heritage Month, and I would like to wrap it up by lifting up the Sikh community and values and the connections with the Filipino community and how our communities have come together during the significant time of grief.

Both Filipino and Sikh values place a strong emphasis on community support and collective well-being. At the heart of both traditions is the idea that caring for others is not just a choice or a responsibility but a source of happiness. In Filipino culture, this is seen through the concept of bayanihan, where people come together to help one another, especially in times of need, whether it’s moving a house, responding to a natural disaster, or supporting a neighbour in crisis. Filipinos naturally unite in solidarity.

Similarly, in the Sikh community, the principle of seva, or selfless service, encourages individuals to help others without expecting anything in return. One of the most visible examples that we know of is the practice of langar, the free community kitchen found in every gurdwara, where anyone regardless of background is welcome to a hot meal. Both cultures also value hospitality, generosity and compassion, often sharing food and resources with neighbours and strangers alike. Beauty gatherings, religious events, and festivals often become opportunities to support those in need.

Another important similarity is how both cultures mobilize so quickly during emergencies. Whether through church groups, organizations like Filipino B.C. or Mabuhay House, barangays, or Sikh aid organizations, these responses are often grass roots and driven by a deep sense of duty and empathy.

After the tragedy at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival, the Sikh community rose to action to feed families, including Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen and Khalsa Aid, and stand behind them during a time of unimaginable grief. In both communities, the belief is clear. When one person struggles, the whole community must step in. This shared commitment to uplifting others is a powerful connection between the Filipino and Sikh way of life. What an honour, and what a way to honour Sikh Heritage Month than really, truly live our values.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to extend my most sincere condolences to everyone affected by the tragic events of Lapu-Lapu Day celebration. To the Filipino community: we stand with you, and we love you.

and what a way to honour Sikh Heritage Month than really truly live our values.

I want to extend my most sincere condolences to everyone affected by the tragic events of Lapu-Lapu Day celebration. To the Filipino community, we stand with you and we love you.

The Speaker: Members, try to keep your two-minute statements within two minutes’ time, please.

Asian Heritage Month and
Contributions of Asian Canadians

Hon Chan: I will try my best, hon. Speaker.

May marks Asian Heritage Month. As we step into May, it is a time to honour and celebrate the contributions of Canadians of Asian descent, those who have helped build this province and who continue to shape its future.

British Columbia is home to one of the most diverse populations in the country, with deep-rooted Asian communities whose presence dates back to more than 150 years ago. From early Chinese railway workers and Japanese fishermen to South Asian farmers and Filipino caregivers, Asian Canadians have long been the backbone of B.C.’s economic, cultural and social life. Their stories are one of resilience, sacrifice and strength. These communities have experienced exclusion, discrimination and hardship. However, they have stood strong and made this province better for everyone.

Today, Asian Canadians are leaders in every field. From education to business, from health care to public service, their impact is not only seen in our cities but also deeply felt in our neighbourhoods. I want to especially recognize the work of SUCCESS led by CEO Queenie Choo. This long-standing community organization has helped tens of thousands of newcomers build their lives here in B.C. Their tireless efforts over the past 50 years have empowered generations of Asian Canadians and have brought communities closer together.

I also want to highlight the enormous contribution of the Filipino community, one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia. From health care workers and caregivers to educators, business owners and artists, the Filipino community exemplifies compassion, dedication and service. Their presence has enriched every corner of our province.

Asian Heritage Month is more than a celebration. It is a recognition of the history, sacrifices, and leadership of Asian Canadians. It is a reminder that the story of British Columbia is not completed without them. Let us honour these contributions, not only in May, but each and every day of the year.

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Paul Choi: I rise today to recognize and celebrate the upcoming fifth world traditional Chinese medicine acupuncture culture week, starting on June 21, hosted by the Home of Canadian Traditional Chinese Medicine Society, founded by Dr. John Lee and Dr. Wongang Lee in partnership with the Canadian Community Service Association.

Traditional Chinese medicine, or TCM, has profoundly contributed to our society by treating diseases, combating pandemics, supporting rehabilitation and preserving health and well-being. Rooted deeply in the tradition of Eastern Asian philosophies and culture, TCM emphasizes health cultivation and life fulfilment.

This special week of celebration provides a meaningful opportunity for British Columbians to discover more about TCM’s immense value and engage in cultural exchanges to foster mutual understanding between diverse communities. Activities will include ceremonies, roundtable discussions highlighting B.C.’s accomplishments in TCM, educational programs on health preservation, cultivation lectures and engaging tai chi exercise led by his team, TCM masters and renowned scholars.

I invite all members of this House and the public to participate and learn about the remarkable wisdom and practices of traditional Chinese medicine during this important culture week. For more information, please go to wtcmaw.events.

Organ Donation

Á’a:líya Warbus: April is national Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month, and I want to take a moment to honour the life-changing gift that organ donors give to others. It’s an important and selfless act that has the power to transform lives. Organ donation is one of the impactful acts of humanity that simply cannot be measured.

In 2024, 481 people received organ transplants. Out of those transplants, 118 were made by deceased donors and 90 by living donors. Each of these people ensured that a loved one or a stranger could have another chance at living a full life.

[2:00 p.m.]

Joining us here today is one of my constituents from Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. Krista Winig is a volunteer with B.C. Transplant and has personal experience with organ donation. Her sister is an organ donor.

I, too, can relate on a personal level. My cousin

could have another chance at living a full life.

Joining us here today is one of my constituents from Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. Krista Winnig is a volunteer with B.C. Transplant and has personal experience with organ donation. Her sister is an organ donor. I too can relate on a personal level. My cousin donated a kidney to a close loved one, and this improved her standard of living and created an unbreakable bond between them.

Organ donation truly can have a life-altering effect on families across British Columbia and the country. Statistically, you are more likely to need a transplant than you are to become an organ donor. That’s what makes these acts of generosity so extraordinary. They offer hope when it’s needed most.

Today I want to thank those who’ve already made the decision to give. Your compassion has given others the chance to heal and continue to be with the ones that they love. As B.C. Transplant says: “It only takes two minutes to save a life, but the impact of that decision lasts a lifetime.”

This is work that deserves the continued support of all elected members in the House, and together as British Columbians, we must ensure organ donation continues to enrich and save lives.

To those who have passed but left a piece of themselves behind, your thoughtful acts have saved and improved the lives of so many. We honour your memory and sacrifice today.

Food Security in Burnaby

Janet Routledge: Burnaby is experiencing a food security crisis. Consider this. The number of people using the Burnaby food hubs, or what we used to call food banks, has more than doubled since 2021. An estimated 4,000 people are now using food hubs every week. Twenty-three percent of all the food collected by the Greater Vancouver Food Bank is distributed to Burnaby residents, and more and more recipients work full-time but can’t afford basic living expenses.

This pressure on the food hubs themselves is overwhelming. They each have to find their own supply of protein and fresh vegetables. While some hubs are run by a paid coordinator, others are run entirely by volunteers. It takes 40 to 60 volunteers at every location for a full day once a week to prepare and distribute food boxes.

While this crisis is unprecedented, so too has been the response. Last November the city of Burnaby adopted a food system strategy. Implementing the strategy is an advisory table composed of community food organizations like the Burnaby Neighbourhood House. City staff and food security experts are also at the table.

The strategy addresses the entire food system: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, distributing, preparing, marketing and consuming. The goal is to ensure that all people have food choice and access to culturally appropriate food, that food is grown and made locally, that food is affordable to produce and to purchase, that production is connected to local businesses, is sustainable and resilient, and is ethical and socially just.

Food brings us together, and so does this initiative.

Contributions of Rob McNeil
and Operation Pegasus

Anna Kindy: I want to introduce Rob McNeil. He’s a 25-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, an avid skydiver, jumpmaster, skydiving instructor. Rob is a selfless man. He has deep passion for helping people, including at-risk kids as well as veterans and first responders who suffer from PTSD and anxiety.

He runs the Operation Pegasus jump, an event that began in July 2022 aimed at supporting veterans and first responders dealing with PTSD and other mental health issues. The event uses skydiving, which serves as a platform for veterans to connect, challenge themselves and share their stories in a supportive environment. Recently a police officer involved in a shooting last year came to the program. He is now back at work. Ten officers from the Vancouver police force have now registered for Operation Pegasus.

In 2016, Rob was sought out to start a trades program. He started the program in his garage with 14 youth. These 14 youth were high-risk, struggling and not successful in the traditional school environment. Rob took these young people and started teaching industrial sewing.

[2:05 p.m.]

After six months, he was approached to run his program through Robron, an alternative school option offered in Campbell River. The program has grown and is well known in Campbell River. He offers the programs to all the schools and teaches sewing to as young as grade 4.

Along with sewing, his students have gained access to Rob’s vast knowledge and passion in skydiving, rigging and

option offered in Campbell River. The program has grown and is well known in Campbell River. He offers the programs to all the schools and teaches sewing to as young as grade four.

Along with sewing, his students have gained access to Rob’s vast knowledge and passion in skydiving, rigging, and parachute packing. DND in Comox hires Rob’s students to pack chutes. The students also pack chutes for Operation Pegasus. On his team of students, Rob has the youngest parachute packer in Canada that now has her own business. She also teaches at Rob’s program and mentors new students coming in.

Rob has opened the door for so many young people, and he supports them in every step of the way. He has managed to link at-risk kids with role models, for example, veterans, police, first responders with this Pegasus jump program.

Rob, thank you for caring so much and making a huge difference in so many lives.

Oral Questions

Call for Public Inquiry into
Mental Health Care System

Elenore Sturko: The mass murder of festival attendees in Vancouver over the weekend has had a profound impact on our province. But this is not the first time there have been serious injuries or deaths involving people with severe mental illness in our province. We heard multiple examples yesterday, and frankly, for years, of severely mentally ill people failed by this government who go on to cause harm, deaths, or who themselves become victims of violence.

We need an immediate public inquiry. If the Premier is concerned about tainting the future trial related to this weekend’s tragedy, the inquiry could focus on all those other incidents. As a province, we cannot wait.

My question to the Premier is: will the Premier do the right thing and announce a public inquiry into mental health care in B.C. today?

Hon. David Eby: There are a number of pieces in the member’s question I want to address. First of all, with respect to the incident at the Lapu Lapu Day Festival, the mass murder, it was just that. It was a mass murder by a man who decided to drive his vehicle through a crowd. We do not know why yet. It will be tested at the criminal trial and ultimately, perhaps, at a public inquiry, but we will get British Columbians those answers.

Vancouver Coastal Health tells us he was under active treatment. They tell us he was compliant with his medication. They tell us that there was no indication that he was violent. That will all be tested by cross-examination, perhaps twice. So I’ll ask the member and others to reserve judgment about what happened and let that process play out.

For mental health, broadly, in the province, do we really need an inquiry to tell us what we know we need to do, which is open more beds, provide more care, provide more interventions in communities? Because that’s what we’re doing — 140 more hospital beds across the province. We’re opening, across the province, intensive involuntary care beds for people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury, interventions in communities, additional ACT teams, working with experts in the field like Dr. Daniel Vigo.

There’s an aspect of the member’s question that I do want to address, the Mental Health Act itself. We announced today that we’ll do a review and modernization of the act to ensure it meets the expectations of British Columbians. We’ve held off on that because of a court challenge to the act and the forced treatment provisions. We’re defending the act; we think we need those forced treatment provisions. But the moment we’re in, we can’t wait. We need to act.

The Chair: Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko: Yesterday, the Premier stood on the steps of this place and said that if he didn’t get the answers from court, he would call a public inquiry. Now he stands in this place and says: “Why do a public inquiry if we already know what to do?” If the Premier knows what to do, why is he not doing it?

Yesterday I received an email from the parents of a young man who had mental illness. He was under the care of a mental health team, and he had been deteriorating for two months before he was murdered, stabbed to death in an altercation. His parents believe a lack of services and his deterioration contributed to the circumstances that led to his murder. His parents said the mental health team did not check in on their son with proper frequency, effectiveness or verify his medication.

[2:10 p.m.]

They said: “No one listened to us. Our son was miserably failed. His death could have been prevented.”

Will the Premier do the right thing by this family and countless other families that are impacted by the failures

No one listened to us. Our son was miserably failed. His death could have been prevented.”

Will the Premier do the right thing by this family and countless other families — families that are impacted by the failures of the mental health system under this Premier and this government — and call an inquiry into our system today?

Hon. David Eby: I’m sure the member didn’t do it intentionally, but she conflated my answer.

On the issue of the mass murder at the Lapu-Lapu festival, British Columbians deserve answers. Why did this happen? If they don’t get the answers from the criminal process, we will call a full public inquiry. I was very clear about that in my first answer and clear again now. We will get British Columbians the answers, because I want the answers. British Columbians want the answers. I know the member wants the answers too.

In terms of the broad array of issues, in terms of people struggling in our streets, in our communities, in terms of people needing additional supports, attending at hospitals…. And it’s not just mental health. It’s other aspects of health care too. Why we’re expanding hospitals, why we’re expanding beds across the province, why we’re expanding assertive care teams…. We know what to do there.

Now, the member has raised a very important issue today again, and in her private member’s bill, about the role of families. How can families be more involved in the care, in particular of adult children that are struggling with mental health and addiction? This is exactly the kind of issue that a review of the modernization of the Mental Health Act can address, and we’re doing that work.

Police Investigation of
Lapu-Lapu Festival Attack
and Comments by Premier

Steve Kooner: Yesterday, during the question period, the Premier commented about this past weekend’s horrific tragedy — and on the suspect. “He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.” Yesterday, at a press conference and in the House, the Premier said that he didn’t want to comment on the case because he didn’t want to interfere in the police investigation.

To the Attorney General, can she please confirm whether or not the Premier’s comments yesterday meet the definition of interference in a police investigation?

Hon. David Eby: The member is again doing what the first member did, and I’m sure unintentionally. He is conflating my very specific remarks about a public inquiry where we call people to testify, force them to testify about the incidents at the Lapu-Lapu festival. That could compromise the criminal investigation into that mass murder. We won’t do that.

My own opinion is that this man should be tried, should be prosecuted, should be sentenced for the rest of his life to prison for murdering children and seniors and others. That’s my opinion, and I’ll be blunt. I think that’s the opinion of British Columbians across the province. But it’s up to the criminal courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Members.

Hon. David Eby: It’s up to the courts. They will do that work, and we’ll let them do that work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, I did not refer to a public inquiry. I’ll read the quote again. “He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.”

While we hold strong opinions to what we want to happen to the perpetrator, we don’t want to interfere in a police investigation.

To the Attorney General, does she agree that the head of this government publicly declaring his own preference regarding guilt, innocence and sentencing before a police investigation is complete constitutes interference?

Hon. David Eby: I don’t know what to take from this. One member is completely willing to try and convict the care team that was following this individual…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let the Premier finish.

Hon. David Eby: …to speculate about what happened until the information is in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: I raised this yesterday. I think it’s critical that the facts have a chance to come out. The one person that it is unambiguous about what they did, the individual who drove a vehicle into a crowd of British Columbians…. The opposition can’t bring itself to say that is murder, he should be tried and convicted? Well, I’m sorry. That’s my opinion. And if the member wants me to apologize for that, I never will.

[2:15 p.m.]

Government Action on Climate
Change and Emissions Reduction

Jeremy Valeriote: The 2024 climate change accountability report was released yesterday. I’ll start by saying that I’m grateful for the transparency

Jeremy Valeriote: The 2024 Climate Change Accountability Report was released yesterday.

I’ll start by saying I’m grateful for the transparency. This caucus and many British Columbians are frustrated that we are not on track to meet our climate targets. It’s my job to convey the anguish and anxiety felt by my constituents on this.

A failure to meet legislative targets in any other area would bring harsh criticism, and this is no different. Climate inaction means British Columbians will pay a much steeper price than any carbon price can inflict: infrastructure damage, health consequences, societal insecurity.

This work is going to be hard, and I sadly acknowledge we’re in a lull on prioritizing this existential issue of our time. It’s difficult to lead the way when popular sentiment works against our long-term responsibilities.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. How can this House and this government inspire British Columbians to see climate stabilization as a populist collective effort and giving government of any stripe the support and authority to accelerate the energy transition we all know we need to make?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to the Leader of the Green Party for the question.

Just in this period since the election we’ve announced ten renewable energy projects and today introduced legislation to ensure and help ensure that those projects are built. We will be doing more on this question in the future — I think a singular and remarkable effort to respond to our economic development needs and our climate needs, to link them together and to build everywhere in British Columbia, and we’re going to do it.

Since the election, we’ve introduced new regulation on methane, where we’re leading Canada, indeed leading the world: a 43 percent reduction in methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. The industry deserves some credit for this as well, I would say. We are going to meet our targets for 2030.

Do we have more work to do? You bet we have more work to do. That’s why we’re reviewing CleanBC programs to ensure that we work towards reducing emissions in British Columbia — that we do that, we make it a priority, and we do it linked to the affordability of people in our province and linked to the clean economic growth we need to do to create jobs everywhere in B.C.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: One of the areas where we have a lot of work to do is emissions from transportation, which are up 18 percent since 2007. This figure is bound to go up with the repeal of the consumer carbon price.

The underlying reason is no mystery. In my riding, there’s no public transit between Whistler and Vancouver, despite it being a key commuter and tourist corridor. Commuters across B.C. spend too much of their days stuck in traffic for hours because public transit is inadequate or nonexistent.

I appreciate the effort on wind energy, but our concern is that this government is ramping up clean energy that fossil-fuel-export enterprises can use to greenwash their dirty operations. Every dollar of subsidy to polluting industries is a dollar not spent building public transit. A low-carbon economy that benefits British Columbians in the long term has a higher return on investment for these public dollars.

What is the minister’s plan to reduce emissions in the transportation sector?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just disagree with the characterization of the member, and this is a good debate to have. When you produce clean energy, and then you do it again and again and again, you build out on the extraordinary opportunity for clean energy — on projects, by the way, that are 51 percent owned by First Nations. You are making a transformational decision about the economy, and we have to continue to do that.

There is no other option to do that, and it benefits our economy, creates jobs and builds public support for action against climate change. You bet, we support this. I hope all members of the House will support this, and we’ll be testing that in a coming debate in the Legislature.

With respect to transportation initiatives, B.C. has the lead in Canada in transition to EVs. That’s because of the work of a lot of people, including new car dealers, including environmental leaders. We’ve got to continue to drive in that direction.

We have some of the most significant transit projects being built in Canada right now, under the leadership of my colleague the Minister of Transportation. We need more transit, you bet. We’re building more transit. We need new EVs on the road. We’re building it. It means the electricity we make in B.C. replaces the gasoline we import to B.C.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is good for our province. We support CleanBC, and we’re going to continue to act on climate change.

Brennan Day: Both sides of this House agree that mental health is in crisis

replaces the gasoline we import to B.C. This is good for our province. We support CleanBC, and we’re going to continue to act on climate change.

Involuntary Mental Health Care
and Conditions for Persons
in Corrections System

Brennan Day: Both sides of this House agree that mental health is in crisis in this province. Last week, this government proudly announced nine involuntary care beds at Surrey Pretrial and triumphantly declared that progress. Let’s be clear. Nine beds isn’t progress; it’s a band-aid.

Even Dr. Daniel Vigo said, “Prior to the beds opening, people who required involuntary care while in jail had to wait in segregation for weeks.” Weeks in solitary confinement, while in mental health distress — that’s not care; that’s cruelty.

Can the minister confirm that people elsewhere in this province are not being held in solitary confinement, awaiting mental health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, talking about the very important interventions and actions that this government is taking to support people who need a very special kind of care.

We have Dr. Vigo working with us as a chief scientific adviser. His work has helped us to identify a very small group of people who suffer from concurrent disorders — substance use; complex mental health challenges; often, acquired brain injury — and who need these supports. It is so important, whether this person is in a correctional facility or outside, that they get it.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment that we have. That’s why we’re building and have opened ten beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. That’s why, next month, approved homes at Alouette and Maple Ridge will open for people outside of the correctional centre.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment to continue to build out this system, so that people, rather than being held in solitary confinement, get the care that they need before they can be released back into the correctional facility population — or, if being released or out in the community, get the support that they need.

We know that more needs to be done. We’ve made the commitment. We’re acting, we’ve opened beds, and we’re going to do more.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: Respectfully, I don’t believe it’s a small number. That is not the experience in communities across British Columbia.

To the minister, how many people are concurrently being held in segregation while awaiting involuntary care? When will this minister commit to funding enough beds across the province to make this cruel practice obsolete?

Hon. Josie Osborne: One of the most important things, I think, that we are all seeing is how we have to approach this work with compassion and with dignity, ensuring that people are safe in our communities and that people who are experiencing these disorders are safe as well.

For too long, there has been a cycle of moving between the criminal justice system and out into communities, with people not getting the care that they need. The humane thing to do, the right thing to do, is to provide supports for these people.

That’s what we’re doing through involuntary treatment. That’s why we opened these ten beds at Surrey Pretrial. We’re going to continue this work. We, as a government, have recognized how important that is to do. That’s why we have Dr. Vigo working with us. We’re going to continue to do that. As I said, we’re going to expand this system of care, so that people get the compassionate, patient-centred care that they need.

Mental Health and Addiction Services
Facility Proposal for Okanagan Area

Gavin Dew: I think we can definitely all agree that it has been too long. For years, municipalities and community groups in the Okanagan have been forced to pick up the slack and take the blame for this government’s failed addiction and mental health policies.

There is a regional consensus around the need for a facility like the Red Fish Healing Centre, which is a proven model to provide mandatory compassionate care for people in need, but people in desperate need of help are still waiting, and our communities are still bearing the brunt of it.

Will the Premier commit today to fast-track this project?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. The Red Fish Healing Centre has presented an opportunity to give people the compassionate care that they need, under the very specialized guidance of teams of mental health professionals, of psychiatrists, of people who work with them to help recover from severe substance use addictions combined with mental health challenges.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity to visit the facility and see the incredible care that’s being delivered there. We’ve made that commitment to continue to expand those services and, more, to ensure that people get the care they need, not just that type of

recover from severe substance use addictions combined with mental health challenges. I’ve had the opportunity to visit the facility and see the incredible care that’s being delivered there.

We’ve made that commitment to continue to expand those services and more to ensure that people get the care they need, not just that type of specialized care but all through the continuum of care that is needed, from early intervention right through to the kinds of treatment and recovery services that are needed, the aftercare, so that people can return to their homes and return to their communities.

We are not shying away from this. We never will. We are going to continue, and we are going to continue to work hard at it.

Access to Mental Health and
Addiction Services in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée: Northern B.C. has the highest rates of suicide in the province, nearly double the national average and significantly more than any other health authority in British Columbia. Families are losing loved ones because basic mental health care simply does not exist in northern B.C. In my riding, a psychiatrist only comes a few times a year, and it is a long wait to see a counsellor.

Will the Health Minister commit to at least one full-time psychiatrist in Skeena by the end of 2025?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate the many opportunities that she and I have had to discuss the inequity of services for people who are living in the North and the need to expand those services to rural and remote communities.

I couldn’t agree more. We know that it’s very difficult for people to navigate the mental health system and that people who live in the North and live in smaller communities experience that to a greater degree. That’s why action is needed, and I completely agree.

It’s why we’ve been expanding crisis teams across B.C. It’s why we’ve established telephone lines for people to be able to get access. It’s why we have invested in crisis counselling and counselling supports, low-barrier counselling. In fact, last year over 29,000 people accessed our programs in counselling. Over half of them were accessing mental health supports for the very first time.

We are going to continue to invest in the mental health care system, and we are going to continue to expand access to those supports, including in the member’s own riding.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I’ll take that response as a no, then. We still don’t get access to a psychiatrist in Skeena. Clearly, this government doesn’t grasp the gravity of the situation in B.C.’s north.

Mental health challenges are the precursor to many of the problems that are devastating our communities, particularly addiction. Thousands of British Columbians have been seeking treatment voluntarily, and they cannot access it. It’s enough excuses, so I’m hoping the Minister of Environment, the only NDP MLA in the North, can talk to her colleagues down south and finally get some action for the people that are in need in northern B.C.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I welcome a conversation with any MLA from any riding to talk about the supports in their communities.

The member talks about the importance of being able to gain access to mental health supports early. I want to talk specifically about one particular program that this government has established and invested in, and that’s the early psychosis intervention program. This is so important for youth to be able to access. I’m going to tell a story about a young man, Cameron Webster.

Cameron Webster was a typical teenager. He was into sports. He was a competitive boxer. When he was 19 years old, he began to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoia. His parents took him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with psychosis. He became a client of Island Health’s early psychosis intervention program. A year later he was also diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder.

He says that the time he experienced in psychosis, with psychosis, marked the hardest part of his life, but it gave him a new direction in life and compassion for others. Now, today…. He went on to study mental health and addictions locally, at Camosun College. He works as a peer support worker in the same program that he used to attend.

That is a guiding light in the kinds of supports we need to continue to expand for youth, for teenagers, for adults, and it’s the work that this government is so deeply committed to doing. We are going to continue to do this work because we know that people need the care when they need it, where they need it and that is what we are going continue to do.

[2:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: We’ve just heard from the Minister of Health, but respectfully, my colleague is not from Vancouver Island. Yesterday the Premier told this House that the government is making very good progress on psychiatric care in northern B.C. Yet today, patients in crisis continue to be released prematurely

Kiel Giddens: We’ve just heard from the Minister of Health, but respectfully, my colleague is not from Vancouver Island.

Yesterday the Premier told this House that the government is making very good progress on psychiatric care in northern B.C., yet today patients in crisis continue to be released prematurely, directly risking community safety and safety to themselves. The only secure forensic care for a potentially dangerous patient in a community like Terrace is 12 hours away in Kamloops, if there’s a space even available.

The Premier talks about meetings and special advisers, but Northern Health needs more than promises. They need secure psychiatric care beds immediately.

The city of Prince George supports the petition for better psychiatric care in Northern Health. I'll ask the Premier again, while the city of Prince George delegation is here in this House today: when will the government move beyond meetings and platitudes and actually deliver secure psychiatric hospital beds that northern communities desperately deserve?

Hon. David Eby: I thank the member for his advocacy for his community. I suspect he's aware that our work there goes well beyond meetings and conversations. I look forward to being able to update him very soon.

We've been working closely with the city of Prince George, with Chief Dolleen Logan, with mental health specialists at the local hospital on adding additional beds. I look forward to sharing more information soon.

Overdose Prevention Site at
Langley Memorial Hospital

Harman Bhangu: This government talks about action, but every day, things in this province just get worse. Yesterday a constituent of mine sent me a video of a drug tent that is set up once again outside of Langley Memorial Hospital. This tent was set up 50 yards away from a long-term-care home for seniors.

I asked the minister in February to take care of this, and she said: "We expect health authorities, whose jurisdiction it is to enforce this policy, to do that work." She promised me it would be dealt with. Here we are over two months later, and this problem still persists.

When will this minister act and get rid of the drug tent outside of Langley Memorial Hospital, where families go to visit their loved ones?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member refers to Surrey Memorial Hospital, a place that has episodic....

Interjections.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member mentioned Surrey and mentioned Langley. I'll talk about Langley.

Overdose prevention services are an important part of the continuum of supports that are provided to people, that help separate them from the toxic drug supply, keep them alive and give them access to people to talk about the supports that they need.

I’ve spoken in this House many times before around the work that we’re doing on overdose prevention services, ensuring that we are working with health authorities under the policies that are provided but also updating that guidance and policies for health authorities to ensure that people are kept safe — staff and workers, volunteers at these services, the people around in communities as well.

I’ll have more to say about that soon.

Community Safety and Involuntary
Care for Mental Health Issues

Trevor Halford: The Premier today, yesterday…. He has talked about getting answers. The problem with that is that British Columbians have been looking for answers for years, not just since the tragic events that took place on Saturday. It’s been years.

We've seen Constable Yang lose her life. We've seen, in White Rock, somebody stabbed to death on the White Rock promenade. We've seen an elderly senior have their door kicked in at midnight and beaten half to death, and then hours later we've seen an RCMP officer almost have their firearm taken from them and have to have a physician choke that individual out.

These cases aren't new to this House. The problem is that the answers the Premier has been giving in this House aren't new either. The only legislation that we've got to deal with any of these issues has come from this side of the House. This side of the House has put that forward. We've had a Premier and a government campaign, not one election but two elections, in terms of involuntary care and involuntary treatment, and nothing.

[2:35 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is this. Will he stand up today and take responsibility for the utter failure that we are seeing in every corner of this province regarding mental health and regarding keeping our

and nothing.

My question to the Premier is this. Will he stand up today and take responsibility for the utter failure that we are seeing in every corner of this province regarding mental health and regarding keeping our communities safe? Will the Premier take the leadership and the responsibility that he has failed us to get this done?

Hon. David Eby: I appreciate the member’s passion about the issue. It’s important to have safe communities, but it’s important to be accurate as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: The government has put in place new directives for physicians and nurses across the province about involuntary care for people struggling with mental health and addiction. We have expanded ACT teams across the province. These are teams that go out and assertively provide mental health care in the community — 34 across the province, in communities right across British Columbia.

We have new crisis response teams that are a nurse and peers who go out to take the load off police, respond to mental health issues and provide care to people so police can focus on fighting crime.

We are building 140 additional mental health beds at hospitals. We opened ten new beds just the other day at Surrey Pretrial, the beginning of a series of beds targeted at people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury.

Members are asking serious questions. I am providing serious answers about the action the government is taking, and we’re not done. We’ve got more to do. The good news is that we’re seeing crime rates come down in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question was asked. Let’s hear the answer. There’s no need to interrupt. Please. The Premier will continue.

Hon. David Eby: We know we’ve got more to do, but we also know that these interventions are working. We’re going to keep working until every single British Columbian is safe in every community in this province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Elenore Sturko: I rise on a point of order. I’ve never in this place made a statement that I wanted to convict mental health care teams, such as was characterized by the Premier, and I’d ask him to withdraw.

Hon. David Eby: I was using a metaphor to refer to the member’s speculation about the teams, but I accept that she has not made that statement and withdraw it.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour to table two registrar of lobbyists reports: Determination Decision 24-03, Paul Rasmussen; and Reconsideration Decision 24-03, Paul Rasmussen.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 19 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 19, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which appoints a special committee to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

[That a Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act be appointed to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act (S.B.C. 2001, c. 42), pursuant to section 11.1 of the Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a.appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b.sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c.conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d.adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e.retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by May 4, 2026, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following members: Steve Morissette (Convener), Rosalyn Bird, Paul Choi, Kiel Giddens and Harwinder Sandhu.]

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 20 on the order paper.

I move Motion 20, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which rescinds the sessional order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, and replaces it with a new sessional order establishing Section A, Section B and Section C.

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, enabling concurrent proceedings of the House, be discharged.

And that, for the remainder of the current Session:

GENERAL

1. Certain proceedings of the House may be undertaken in three sections, designated Section A, Section B and Section C, to be subject to the rules that follow.

2. Section A and Section C sit in such committee room as may be designated from time to time, and Section B sit in the Legislative Chamber.

3. Section A, Section B and Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates, and for all purposes be deemed to be the Committee of Supply, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of Estimates in the Committee of Supply and to Committees of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings, save and except that, during proceedings in Committee of Supply in Section A and Section C, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

4. Section A, Section B and Section C be authorized to consider bills at committee stage after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole House, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of bills in a Committee of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings.

5. Estimates or bills may be considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader and may at any time be subsequently referred to another designated Section, as determined by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

6. The Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole or their designate preside in Section A and Section C.

7. Section A and Section C consist of 12 Members, not including the Chair, being six Members of the B.C. NDP Caucus, five Members of the Conservative Party of British Columbia Caucus and one Member of the B.C. Green Party Caucus.

8. The Members of Section A be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Rohini Arora, Hon. Ravi Parmar, Janet Routledge, Harwinder Sandhu, Amna Shah, Amelia Boultbee, Gavin Dew, Steve Kooner, Lawrence Mok, David Williams and Rob Botterell.

9. The Members of Section C be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Hon. Adrian Dix, Stephanie Higginson, Hon. Sheila Malcolmson, Steve Morissette, Hon. Niki Sharma, Heather Maahs, Macklin McCall, Larry Neufeld, Ian Paton, Donegal Wilson and Jeremy Valeriote.

10. Substitutions for Members of Section A and Section C be permitted with the consent of the Member’s Caucus Whip.

11. Section B be composed of all Members of the House.

DIVISIONS

12. When a division is requested in Section A, the division bells shall be rung four times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

13. When a division is requested in Section B, the division bells shall be rung three times, at which time proceedings in Section A and Section C shall be suspended, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

14. When a division is requested in Section C, the division bells shall be rung five times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

15. If a division is underway in Section A or Section C at the time that a division is requested in Section B, the division in Section B be suspended until the completion of the division in Section A or Section C.

REPORTING

16. At 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section C and Section C shall report to the House.]

The Speaker: You have heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the supply estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. When they finish, I will call, at this point, Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

And then in Section C, the Birch Room, I call a continued committee stage on Bill 7.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

[2:40 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The House met at 2:42 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, and we will call on the minister to read the vote.

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

The Chair: We’re contemplating questions, of course, today on the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to make an opening comment.

First, I wanted to recognize the students that are here from McRoberts Secondary. Hopefully, you’re enjoying your visit to Victoria and enjoying the travel around the Legislature. Your MLA that represents you is not in the chamber. I’m not supposed to say that, but he’s not, so I’ll do that. On everyone’s behalf, I want to welcome you.

We’re having a debate about the budget for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. We have an exchange, and people get to ask me any questions about our budget and where the money is going and what’s happening in different communities throughout the province.

I hope you enjoy the debate, and thank you for coming. Hopefully, one of you will be down here someday in the future as an elected official.

I also see Coun. Kyle Sampson here from Prince George. Nice to see you. We’ve done a lot of work, I think, between Prince George council and our ministry and our team to ensure that we have a lot of housing coming on pretty quick in Prince George.

I want to welcome him here and thank him for being here.

I look forward to the exchange today.

The Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the Legislature.

Tony Luck: I’ll just start off where we left off yesterday. I’m going to have some questions that weren’t asked yesterday, but we’ll just fly at it here.

For the first one, though…. We just had a bill presented yesterday, Bill 13, with a whole lot of changes to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. My question will go around that, especially in this time of challenging finances for the municipalities and everything. And maybe we need to look at…. My question to the minister is….

The Community Charter was last updated in 2003. In the meantime, there have been a lot of band-aids applied to it.

[2:45 p.m.]

The question would be: given the evolving needs of municipalities, when does the ministry plan to initiate a comprehensive review and update of the Community and Vancouver charters to better support local governments in addressing contemporary challenges that we’re experiencing today?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member not talking about the legislation, but I

the ministry plan to initiate a comprehensive review and update of the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter to better support local governments in addressing contemporary challenges that we’re experiencing today?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member not talking about the legislation, but I can say to the member that that’s something we do all the time. There’s…. Usually in each session — and not only in our time in government; you’ll see that in previous governments as well — there are constant changes happening to the Community Charter, constant changes happening to the Vancouver Charter. It is very much a living document, I guess you can say, because the needs change.

I would say that we engage regularly with UBCM, with different local governments to identify challenges to the city of Vancouver in particular with the Vancouver Charter. Where we can make those changes, we certainly bring them into the House. I appreciate the member noting that we have changes for those happening right now in the chamber at this time.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the answer on that minister and recognizing that. I think what I’m hearing out in the communities is that there are other communities — some of them are maybe surpassing the size of Vancouver and everything — looking for their own charters maybe somewhere down the road. We’re just wondering if there would be, some time in the future, recognizing some of the things that need to be done in modernizing it. I know we’re putting band-aids on it constantly, but what I’m hearing out there is that a complete rewrite or a complete sit-down to look at this would be really, really important as we move forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a couple of first general comments I’ll make. The Vancouver Charter has challenges. In fact, the work the city of Vancouver has been doing has actually been shifting to better align with the Community Charter because of the complexities. It comes with additional complexities because anyone that, for example, wants to build a home in Vancouver has to understand the Vancouver Charter. It’s a whole different animal, so to speak. What you end up seeing are home builders that will build in Vancouver but won’t build in other communities, or they build in other communities and they won’t build in Vancouver just because of that complexity.

We’ve been trying to do work to better align the two to ensure that there’s a balance. Something that was created uniquely for the city of Vancouver over time has been evolving to become something that is similar with the Community Charter. That’s ironic that that’s happening.

Now the member may be referring to Surrey because Surrey did say that they want to consider their own charter. I met with the mayor and their staff to discuss specific issues that they had that they thought would be better for them with their own charter. At that time, there weren’t the specifics. We’ve asked them to provide us some information of what they think that could be. My understanding is that they’ve just provided some preliminary information to us now. We’ll explore that.

But my view is that if there’s something that the community needs in Surrey or another major community, Burnaby, it may be something all communities need. And so we’ll look at that, we’ll analyze it, and then we’ll assess whether that’s something that’s unique or whether that’s something that we should consider for all communities.

Tony Luck: One last comment on that. We’re a party of efficiency over on this side of the thing. It certainly, after your comments, would make sense; let’s consolidate this and bring it in because it would take a lot of confusion for the builders and citizens and all that and even new councils that get elected and everything to understand their charter. So it might be worthwhile to look at that moving forward. I’ll leave it at that for now and thank you, minister, for answering that question.

What I’d like to move to now and a couple of questions. As you know, in 2021, an atmospheric river disaster exposed serious weaknesses in the Fraser Valley flood protection system, never mind in a couple of other communities, especially the one that I live up in Merritt, many of which are governed by outdated, underfunded local diking authorities.

A 2022 report estimated that over $4 billion is needed for dike upgrades, pump station replacement, and resilience retrofits. To cite public expectations of urgent investments, the pace of construction and planning has been slow, with multiple levels of government blaming each other for jurisdictional holdups. Local governments report no clear provincial lead agency while the province has publicly shifted responsibility to local diking authorities.

My question to the minister would be: why is the province taking so long to appoint a dedicated coordinated agency or provincial flood infrastructure lead for the Fraser Valley despite repeated calls from the municipalities and First Nations for a one-stop approach to this issue?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question and the concern. I’m well aware of that because I was watching it very closely when we had to deal with the

despite repeated calls from the municipalities and First Nations for a one-stop approach to this issue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question and the concern. I’m well aware of that because I was watching it very closely when we had to deal with the atmospheric rivers south of the Fraser. I can tell the member that this question is better for water, lands and natural resources because that’s within their ministry’s portfolio.

Tony Luck: Yeah, fair enough on that. But this kind of reaches into the municipalities, and they’re the ones that are kind of asking for that as well — so just a couple more questions, then, to help them understand where we’re at with that, especially when we’re in the budget, right, and if there’s money allocated and allowed for that.

What percentage of the estimated $4 billion flood infrastructure needed in the Fraser Valley has been committed or spent as of 2025?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, I can share with the member infrastructure dollars that we’ve shared with communities, but this is very much in the water, lands and natural resources department. There was, I believe, a flood mitigation strategy that’s being developed by that ministry. You know, they’re the leads. They’ll have more information.

If the member wants to talk about infrastructure generally, I’m happy to talk about it. But if it’s specific to floods, it is very much in a different ministry.

Tony Luck: All right, infrastructure — what is the current state of the Barrowtown pump station, and are upgrades being prioritized, given its critical role in protecting Sumas Prairie?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, it’s not our ministry, but I appreciate the member putting it on the record that he raised the questions.

I do believe a few years ago that the Emergency Management Ministry provided approximately $50 million to the pump station. I’m trying to share a number that may not be exact, but it’s in that ballpark because it was EMCR that did that and not Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Tony Luck: We’ll just ask one more question around that because this is kind of to do with intergovernmental disputes and that.

Will the ministry confirm if any of the funding delays are due to intergovernmental disputes over jurisdictions? And how does the government intend to break the cycle of jurisdictional finger-pointing and the need for us to work together to get these things put together?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, because this is EMCR, it’s better situated for there. But I can just share with the member that I do recall that there are always disagreements not only in this but with many issues, as you can imagine.

With this specific issue, I believe it was 2005, from my memory, approximately around there, when Gordon Campbell was the premier, and then there was a shift for who was responsible for this. There was a major shift. So there are disputes since then on who is responsible and why and who should be responsible.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s not my ministry that’s leading it; it’s EMCR. But to the member’s question, “Are there disputes?” there are lots of disputes on different issues.

Tony Luck: Thank you, and I appreciate the honesty there around there are some cross-ministry situations there. But we certainly would like to get the answer to, you know, especially

to the member’s question, “Are there disputes?” there are lots of disputes on different issues.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the honesty there around there are some cross-ministry situations there, but we certainly like to get the answers, you know, especially in this time of floods and things that we’ve been experiencing in the province. So I appreciate that.

We’ll move to another topic here that’s been raising a lot of hackles and a lot of questions. The Sen̓áḵw development is a major residential and mixed-use project led by the Squamish Nation in Vancouver, as you know, adjacent to the Burrard Street Bridge and Vanier Park. Notably exempt from local municipal zoning and planning processes due to its status as an Indigenous reserve land, the project has drawn attention and controversy over its scale, density, and limited consultation with municipal authorities.

Questions persist around the province’s role in the project, specifically whether public resources or taxpayer support were extended to the project, either directly or indirectly. There are concerns about transparency regarding public funding, infrastructure costs, and lost municipal revenues, particularly given the project’s exemption from standard development cost charges and transfers.

I’m hoping the minister can help me on a couple of questions here that we’ve got around that project. For the first one, can the minister confirm explicitly what role, if any, the provincial government played in facilitating or supporting the Sen̓áḵw development project, either financially or logistically?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll make a couple of comments on this.

First, we need housing. It’s a consistent conversation that happens. I recall a famous quote of a person who said: “What do we want?” They said: “Affordable housing.” They said, “Where do we want it?” and then no one spoke. It’s a real challenge for us because we consistently know we need housing, but nobody wants that housing near their backyard.

I’m generally supportive of any opportunities there are, especially Indigenous-led, especially the opportunity to actually have affordable housing in Vancouver, where it’s needed.

The member’s question was what financial investments we have in that project. We don’t have any. Our ministry does not. It’s possible that MIRR may be involved somehow with the project, but certainly not the Ministry of Housing.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Minister, through the Chair.

I don’t think we’re worried about the low housing costs. It seems it’s the double standard that’s being done here, waving of DCCs, bylaw exemptions, municipal zoning exemptions, and I think that’s the concern about a lot of people here, that that’s happening on.

Can this minister talk about that and why that has been allowed in this particular project or any project like that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member knows this. There are often DCCs waived, there are often fees waived, there are often parks waived. I certainly hope that folks that are raising concerns are not doing it because it is an Indigenous-led project. It is unlikely that is, but I certainly hope that is not the case. Because it does happen. Often developers come forward or not-for-profits come forward and say, “Can you waive DCCs?” so that the project can be viable or, in some cases, be more deeply affordable.

From a B.C. housing perspective, we’re constantly going to communities to say: “We’ll build affordable housing if you come to the table with some relief in those things.” So that’s a City of Vancouver question. And of course, the federal government is the entity that has invested significantly in that project.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I don’t think it’s coming from any position except that, you know, some groups get things waived, especially when it comes to zoning, upzoning, downzoning, whatever the case is. So they’re just concerned about that piece of it. I don’t think it’s anything to do with any group or any of that in particular. That’s not what I’ve heard.

I was recently at a dedication in Merritt for a new Indigenous seniors housing project that, when I was on council, we approved, so we were quite happy to do that. I was at the open house the other day. It was amazing — 59 units.

This is just about what we’re doing with the municipal zonings and bylaws and things like that. Are we slowly creeping them down or whatever? I think there’s a concern about that.

Beyond direct funding, were any provincial resources such as technical expertise, land transfers, expedited permits, or legislative exemptions specifically provided to enable the rapid advancement of this project?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware. Because we don’t have a direct investment in that project, it’s very unlikely that we would be involved in any way. The federal government is involved. And so

that exemptions specifically could be provided to enable the rapid advancement of this project?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware. Because we don’t have a direct investment in that project, it’s very unlikely that we would be involved in any way. The federal government is involved, so they may have supported.

But I would say that MST, Squamish, Musqueam — very, very sophisticated development arms. In some situations when we’re building Indigenous housing, we may need to be involved in some way or another, but when you have nations who have development arms as thoughtful and as big a player as them, they’ve got their own teams, I’m sure, that can handle all that work.

Tony Luck: A little further into that, could we find out what are the estimated total public infrastructure costs, including roads, transit access, utility connections, sewage, water imposed on the city of Vancouver and the province due to the Sen̓áḵw development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I understand Mayor Ken Sim was here earlier. I should have brought him in with me for estimates.

Most of those infrastructure pieces are for the mayor and the city, and we haven’t gotten — I certainly haven’t gotten — any correspondence to say: “Can you support us with infrastructure for these things?” It is very much a conversation between the city of Vancouver and, in this case, the folks that lead the development.

I would say it’s not often when you have a unique development come forward where local government would come to us and say: “Can you provide us infrastructure just for that?” So, yeah, I can’t provide the member with that answer.

Tony Luck: Has the province conducted or reviewed any fiscal analysis estimating how much property tax revenue the city of Vancouver and the province will forgo annually due to the special Indigenous reserve tax status granted this development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Our ministry doesn’t have that. It’s possible the Ministry of Finance might have information around tax measures and potential dollars coming in or not, but it’s not something our ministry has.

Again, thank you to the students from McRoberts. Safe travels. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you for coming today.

Tony Luck: Given the unique financial and regulatory arrangements for Sen̓áḵw, does the ministry consider this project to represent a successful housing model, and is the province actively pursuing or facilitating similar projects elsewhere in the Lower Mainland or throughout British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the question is, “Do we believe that housing in partnership with Indigenous communities, with First Nations, is something we want to pursue in the future?” the answer to that is: absolutely, yes. We think there are enormous opportunities to partner, to build affordable housing with Indigenous communities. In fact, if you look at BC Builds, we have a project in Cowichan, a BC Builds project, where the nation is bringing land and we’re bringing financing to bring more attainable housing to the community.

We have an attainable home ownership program that we’re moving forward with MST on Heather Lands. We’re constantly having discussions with different nations about housing opportunities across the province.

Tony Luck: I’m just finding my next sheet here. I’m sorry. Well, we’ll go on to the questions on here.

The governance controversies in Metro Vancouver during early 2020 have highlighted long-standing inefficiencies, redundancy and costly bureaucratic overlap among multiple municipal governments in British Columbia. I’ll pre-warn you that this’ll be a bit of a sensitive topic here for many municipalities. But studies from other jurisdictions indicate consolidation can streamline governance, reduce administration redundancy and significantly ease taxpayer burdens by standardizing municipal tax rates and service deliveries.

[3:05 p.m.]

Yet despite the clear advantages, the ministry appears unwilling to explore elsewhere to transparently discuss the potential benefits of municipal consolidation in Metro Vancouver or elsewhere around the province.

Does this ministry…? Given the high-profile governance controversy that engulfed much of Metro Vancouver recently, has your ministry initiated or conducted any

to transparently discuss the potential benefits of municipal consolidation in Metro Vancouver or elsewhere around the province.

Does this ministry…. Given the high-profile governance controversy that engulfed much of Metro Vancouver recently, has your ministry initiated or conducted any comprehensive studies on the viability and taxpayer benefits of consolidating municipal governments in the Lower Mainland or elsewhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member is asking are we planning on merging communities, the answer is no.

We do support communities that want to explore that. For example, Saanich and Victoria recently just had a people’s assembly, where they wanted to engage with citizens about how they should move forward as two communities. It was actually recommended by the people’s assembly that they move forward with a merger, so to speak, to create efficiencies.

We helped fund that, at the request of Victoria and Saanich, but in the end, those two communities need to go back with the report to their communities and make some decisions, and then we’ll look at it from there.

Tony Luck: To the minister, can you explain why this government would prefer to maintain the status quo of fragmented, high-tax municipal bureaucracies rather than consolidating governance structures that could demonstratively reduce tax burdens for British Columbians around the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s why we provided Saanich and Victoria $250,000 for them to put an assembly together to look at that question, and that report encompasses some of that. So that would be an example of where we do that.

Of course, we’re not going to force Vancouver and Burnaby and New West to become one, but if those communities came forward…. I hope no reporter is listening to this saying the minister is suggesting that, because I’m not. I’m using a hypothetical. Now it’s going to be in a tweet going out on an attack ad in moments.

But, hypothetically, if those communities were interested in that, we would certainly support facilitating that conversation, but we do leave that discussion to the communities, to find the efficiencies on that space.

Tony Luck: One last one on that one. Can the minister confirm, yes or no, whether the ministry has undertaken research comparing the average property tax burdens faced by homeowners in different municipalities across British Columbia? If so, will you publicly release that comparative tax analysis, and is there a benefit to communities consolidating their efforts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was just confirming with the team. We have no studies on looking at merging communities right now that I’m aware of.

Tony Luck: One last question on this one.

I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague here.

[3:10 p.m.]

Given the clear taxpayer frustration surrounding uneven and rising municipal tax burdens, what measures, if any, has your ministry taken to ensure municipal governments operate efficiently, transparently and with full accountability to taxpayers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We canvassed this part yesterday. A major

tax burdens, what measures, if any, has your ministry taken to ensure municipal governments operate efficiently, transparently and with full accountability to taxpayers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We canvassed this part yesterday. A major step we took was around creating an ACC tool. Local governments now have been using a process referred to as CACs, and often that’s negotiated in closed doors, and it creates a lot of doubt from the public because it’s not as transparent a process. The questions are always raised: “Well, did this developer help support this local government and that’s why they’re getting something lower? Why did this person get charged more?”

In order to, I say, depoliticize some of the decisions on housing, we need to create systems that create more transparency and more information up front. It’s good for the home builders to know, up front, their costs so it’s not changing on them. It’s good for the elected officials to be able to clearly say to their community: “We’re going to build X, Y, Z. It’s in our bylaw, and this is how much it’s going to cost each development to get to that.”

I think it’s just better for us as a society to streamline. So that’s why we made those changes in legislation last year, and communities now have some time to create their ACC tools.

As we move to, by the end of this year, all communities having updated their OCPs, their official community plans, and updating their official community plans to 20 years of housing need, what we’ll see is less need for public hearings, less need for public to be engaged, again, because that engagement will happen regularly every five years, and the community gets to decide where they want the housing. But it also means that the ACC tool will be important for amenities. So we’re doing a lot of work to create more transparency, more clarity for local governments all the time.

Tony Luck: I do have a follow-up from the minister’s answer there.

I’ve been on council before, and I know how much we do not like public hearings. However, they are an important piece of the transparency for the people in the community. Is this ministry, under municipal affairs, looking at other ways to make sure that they are more transparent — to be more transparent and be able to have those conversations with the public on an ongoing, regular basis?

Even in Kamloops at this particular time, they’re struggling with having public hearings as well. So it’s really important that we’re able to keep that piece for the public so that they’re able to come and see what’s happening within their community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s vitally important that communities are engaged about how they grow. Where is the housing going to go? Where are the parks going to be? Where are the amenities going to be in the community? But our view is that when you have an official community plan being developed, that is the ideal time to engage the entire community on what the community should look like, where the housing can go — so moving away from site by site but moving to a more holistic approach where the community decides together where they want that.

What I’m hearing from local governments, since we made the changes that we made last year, which was no public hearings for any project that already meets the test of what a community has decided on in their official community plan, is that more people are engaging right now in their official community plans. So I think that’s healthy for democracy, where the community comes together and says: “This is where we want housing. This is our plan for the next five years.” It creates more certainty for people who are building homes. It’s better for council, because then if a project comes, there’s an understanding that we had that conversation. So we’re not having the same conversation when we create the official community plan that we’re having — the same conversation — when a specific project comes forward, because often what ends up happening, and the member will know from council days, is that people that live just near it will say: “We don’t want that house here.” And then the next project comes, and the people nearby say: “We don’t want that.” But when the community as a whole had decided that that’s where the housing should be….

Basically what I’m getting at is that the public engagement piece is very important, but when we decide where the housing should go and parks should go and how the community should grow, that should be the plan until the community comes together again to do that. And that will now be required every five years.

[3:15 p.m.]

It was certainly frustrating for a lot of communities, because there were communities that didn’t have a plan updated for 14 to 20 years. And so nobody knew what the rules were. Nobody knew where you could build, and now requiring it every five years, as we have with legislation, it means the community will get a chance pretty much every election cycle to be able to say: “Let’s relook at this. Let’s figure out where we want that housing.”

to 20 years. Nobody knew what the rules were. Nobody knew where you could build.

Now requiring it every five years, as we have with legislation, it means the community will get a chance pretty much every election cycle to be able to say: “Let’s re-look at this. Let’s figure out where we want that housing.”

Tony Luck: Yeah, I understand that. Then the public hearings…. But the OCPs are…. Two things.

One, it’s hard to get public engagements. I’m really happy to hear that the minister is feeling confident that there’s more public getting engaged with this. But so many times we’d go to a public hearing, and they’d say: “Hey, we never heard anything about the OCP.” Well, it can be up to a two-year process. That’s one of the things.

The other thing is it’s very, very expensive to do, especially in smaller communities that are struggling to get their infrastructure needs and everything done in their own community. Now that the…. Another download from the… You know, when I got elected in my community the OCP hadn’t updated for about, I think was about 15 years, so I fully sympathize and understand that. But boy, once we tried to get it implemented and going, we got push-back. So I’m really happy to hear that.

What my question would be around that…. Will the ministry be able to help those smaller communities that now have to update that OCP on a regular basis in a five-year plan — be able to help them out financially? Especially, like I say, the smaller ones — 2,000, 1,500 residents. It’s hard to do that considering all the other things that they have to do in that community as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s comments.

We provided, last year, $51 million for local governments for capacity dollars to do this work, to update their OCPs, to make the changes. We also have provided additional dollars, actually, through UBCM for streamlining processes and permitting. We are supporting communities with capacity dollars. We know that’s needed.

In fact, we’re going further. What we’ve said to local governments, and I think it ties to what the member was asking earlier, was instead of every community doing their own report and doing their own assessment, we have funded through UBCM peer support groups so that local governments could come together and say: “Why don’t you do a study on this, and we’ll piggyback. And we’ll hire a consultant to do this work, and we can do it together.” We’ve seen a lot of communities take up on that.

Of course, Metro Vancouver has some advantages because of their scale, where they’ve been able to move forward, but we have seen other communities, the CRD, etc., that have taken the opportunity to work together and share learning as they go forward.

Tony Luck: I’ll take leave at the moment, but I reserve the right to come back to any questions. I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague. She has another meeting to run off to, so she can ask a few questions if that would be…. Please. Thank you.

Kristina Loewen: I wasn’t quite ready for that, but here we are. No, it’s all good.

In February, our local team of MLAs held a round table in Kelowna Centre that was focused on homelessness and how to support the vulnerable in our community. We had a wide range of community members present, including many from non-profit supportive housing and various shelters and organizations. At this session, and in many other conversations, both private and public, the question of the Residential Tenancy Act comes up. Specifically, why does the Residential Tenancy Act apply in supportive housing situations?

The issue is that those administering programs in B.C. Housing facilities are unable to evict problem tenants. This comes at the expense of more vulnerable residents and their quiet enjoyment at times. This comes at the expense of the neighbours who actively see illegal activity happening. Program administrators are frustrated, seeing that they have almost no recourse with the problem tenants under the current Residential Tenancy Act.

Will the minister consider evaluating the RTA and its effect on supportive housing?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question. It’s a good question. It’s a conversation we’ve been having with supportive housing providers for some time since I actually became the Minister of Housing. I think there are a couple things that I need to clarify, though.

The RTA always applied. It wasn’t something new that we added and where the RTA applied. The RTA always applied, but a lot of supportive housing providers were operating in a kind of grey space where there were things happening, but they did fall into the RTA, and cases were coming forward.

What we did: we made changes that allowed supportive housing operators to implement additional measures. We had heard, from a lot of our providers, that they wanted to have guest policies tailored to their specific housing site and to be able to do wellness checks. Those were the changes that we made.

Also, those practices previously were not allowed. They were under the RTA, there were people operating in the grey space, often because they were working with folks who were vulnerable, and there was different scenarios they had to deal with. The change we made was to give them the ability to do wellness checks and to give them the ability to monitor who’s coming in and out.

That said, we have heard from some supportive housing operators who say: “Well, there are still some challenges for us.” I can share with the member that there are three things that we’re doing to address it.

One, we have a staff and workplace safety working group, of WorkSafeBC and B.C. Housing, which can help find opportunities to improve worker safety — the safety for people that are working there. That’s vitally important. It can be a difficult place, for some, to work.

Second, we have a working group with law enforcement, which is looking at supportive housing, how we improve safety and how we improve security.

We also are providing webinars with all of our providers, so that we can address any issues that they may have with the RTA and try to help navigate those challenges as we go forward.

Work is ongoing. In the end, we want to make sure that the people that are working there are safe, that the people living there are safe and that the people in the community are safe, with the ability for us to have wellness checks and put in guest policies. It’s so that we can ensure that people are not just coming in and out. Those were important measures that we needed to put in place. That’s why we made those changes in 2024.

[3:25 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I understand that you’re working with a lot of different moving parts. It’s complicated. There are safety issues, and I can appreciate that.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I understand that you're working with a lot of different moving parts, and it's complicated, and there are safety issues. I can appreciate that. And I appreciate, as well, that you've put some things into place.

It does seem like there's still a problem. People in Kelowna Centre who are working on the front lines have been asking me to push for more reform with the Residential Tenancy Act and how it is applied in these situations.

So I'm asking the minister today: will you commit to a full evaluation and full public report on the intended and unintended consequences of having the RTA in effect in this scenario?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I said to the member, we continue to have conversations with supportive housing providers. As you can imagine, there are varying opinions from provider to provider. Some providers believe there are not enough rights for tenants. Some believe that there are not enough rights for them.

We believe we’ve struck a balance with the changes we have made. We believe that wellness checks need to happen. We believe that providers need to be able to monitor who is coming in and out, when. That's why we made those changes.

The differences that we have in opinion are not whether those things need to happen. But some believe that the RTA didn't apply to them before, and the reality was that the RTA applied to them before. There were cases that came forward to the RTA from people that were in supportive housing and were successful. So that's why we just…. The only change we made was in that space, to clarify what can be done and what can't be done.

I can share with the member that these conversations are ongoing. I can also share with the member — and hopefully the member can share with those concerned citizens that raised this — that we actually have cases where supportive housing has evicted people for safety. So a system is available and has worked.

But if there are unique challenges, we are going to continue to find a pathway forward that can find a balance between making sure people that work there, that live there are safe but also has some respect for the people that are living there as well. We need to make sure both are respected.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I totally agree. It's a hard balance to strike. I see that too. So, yeah. You have my support, my respect and my collaboration.

I was going to ask about housing only versus housing first. I understand the idea that if you house a person who's in addiction or struggling with health or mental health, that that's an important first step — that ultimately, it is cost effective, and it serves as a foundation for healing.

As I've been discussing this with the boots on the ground — those running the outreach programs, those running the supportive housing units — I've discussed and discovered a lack, a lack of forward movement and support for those in these facilities, a lack of services. I have been told explicitly that what was meant to be housing first has, somewhere along the lines, turned into housing only.

I will mention that I've noticed one thing that's not lacking. That is that supervised sites are supplied, including dedicated outdoor spaces for inhalants and indoor spaces for injectables.

My question to the minister is: where are all the supports, the healing programs, counselling, career skills, resume help, budget skills, cooking classes, just to start with? And how is the Ministry of Housing liaising with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction? If not, how and when can we meet in committees?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team and I were just chuckling because I’m wearing my Kelowna socks right now, so it’s just timely with the Kelowna MLA asking questions.

Let me start by saying that we get a lot of requests, as you can imagine, from supportive housing providers that always want more dollars. They always want more people. They always want more things. That’s just something we grapple with. With every ministry, with every program, there’s always a demand for more. I just should acknowledge that off the top.

Every single supportive housing operation that we have has similar pieces in it: supportive housing services to do room decluttering, life skills, community information and social programming, education, employment life skills, case planning, residence assessments, help to get IDs and income assistance, etc., two meals per day, 24-hour staff coverage. Ministry of Health comes in with mental health supports.

I think Kelowna, since we’re, you know, speaking about Kelowna specifically…. And I think the member shared yesterday some of the successes we’ve had with the HEARTH units that have come down in Kelowna. It’s pretty remarkable, I have to say. I’m actually really proud of the work that’s been happening in partnership with Kelowna, because all these things are being tracked.

For example, you know, within not even a full year of those units on the ground, we’re able to assess each of those things that I highlighted, to see how people are making progress. They use goals, you know, trying to achieve certain goals. They’ve got 94 goals achieved for personal development, so that’s people taking the steps to obtain their IDs and services.

We’ve had — and I can share this with the member if the member wants it in writing; I can do that — 89 goals achieved for financial well-being, 74 goals achieved for mental health and substance use, and 39 goals were achieved for employment. That’s either finding a full-time job or some sort of employment program. You know, it’s remarkable.

I believe there’s a number of what percentage of people or how many people have moved to the HEARTH sites into either rental or into connected with family, and it’s a remarkable number. I believe it’s over 55 people that have moved into the supportive housing site, have gotten through their life goals and have been able to reconnect and re-establish with community in a bigger way.

You know, it’s a model of success. And we always need improvement. We’re always looking for ways to improve that, but there is a lot of progress happening there.

Kristina Loewen: That’s great. There definitely still seems to be a lot of frustration around supportive housing. I’m just going to say that because in Kelowna Centre supportive housing has taken up a significant amount of my time as MLA. I’ve had feedback from residents, neighbours and the community at large in regards to current supportive housing as well as new projects coming along. Most of the feedback has been, you guessed it, negative.

Now, I’m going to temper that with saying that I do think that supportive housing is needed, and I do think that the people of Kelowna Centre really do understand that people need to be housed. They really do have a lot of care and compassion in general.

[3:35 p.m.]

Kelowna is a very generous community. But where they struggle is when they see residents loitering, littering, attracting drug dealers — allegedly, let’s say — in their neighbourhoods, next to parks where children play, shopping and the like. Where we question the current government’s planning is: why are we kind of spreading supportive housing out into so many different neighbourhoods? We don’t think this should be a normal part of every neighbourhood.

So two questions to the minister — why every neighbourhood

play, shopping and the like, and where we question the current government’s planning is: why are we kind of spreading supportive housing out into so many different neighbourhoods?

We don’t think this should be a normal part of every neighbourhood. So two questions to the minister. Why every neighbourhood? And what is the plan for frustrated neighbours who feel they’re getting the runaround when they contact local authorities about some of the issues around the neighbourhood?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is an interesting conversation. If you hear from the city of Vancouver, they would argue that as too many people in one neighbourhood and that it should be more distributed.

I think it’s important for folks…. Well, first off, the research shows that when people are in a community, they’re more likely to actually integrate in the community as they get their supports and services. If you move people into — and I know the member is not saying this — more of a kind of ghettoized environment where they’re isolated from everyone else, the chance of success is less.

Our goal ultimately is to have people integrate. I fully get it. If people see people loitering outside and some people get frustrated, I get that. I acknowledge that people have sometimes concerns around seeing people that they normally didn’t see in their community. Those fears — they’re genuine, and I get it. I’ve never said to anyone that I discount their fears. I understand.

I also know that if they’re sleeping in the park or if they’re sleeping behind the local business or in front of the local business, that also has challenges. That also has safety concerns. Our view is it’s better to get people indoors, because we’re seeing the success: in fact, 66 people — the latest number I have — out of approximately 110 people that have moved in and moved out.

We’ll continue to work with our providers, work with the community on how we can address some of those concerns. In some sites we don’t get many. In some sites you get a little bit more. But that being said, we need housing. What we do is we go to local governments and say: “We know there’s a problem. We need housing. Where can we find housing? Where can we find land?” And we go to where there are opportunities. Of course, we have to rely on our local government partners to support us in that, and that’s the work we continue to do in communities throughout the province.

Lastly, I’ll say that there are communities that historically have said, “We don’t want any,” and the ironic situation is that many of those communities, over time, come to the point to say: “We realized that doing nothing was not an option.”

Maybe I should give a shout-out to my critic, because my critic was the mayor of Surrey. That was the very conversation, debate, that was happening in the community, where there were many people saying: “We don’t want supportive housing. We don’t want that in our community.”

It did take courage to say to people that we do need to support people, that we need to make sure that these people that live in our community, grew up in our community…. They deserve to have those same supports, so I take my hat off to any mayor that has been in that situation, because it’s not easy. You get lots of those concerns, but we have to do the best for people as we can.

There are a lot of local governments that are doing that work, so I want to acknowledge that as well

Kristina Loewen: I’ll just ask one more question and that is in regards to the good-neighbour policy. I know one of the supportive housing units had that in their documents, but it doesn’t seem like it ever really got off the ground. I’m not sure why that was. I know everything — time and money — is short and staff is short and whatnot, but I think we could do more to engage with the neighbourhood and even encourage some of the residents to contribute to the neighbourhoods that they’re in.

I know Freedom’s Door is a great example of that in Kelowna. They’re a private facility. They have their guys go and clean up the neighbourhood, and the neighbours don’t seem to have a problem with them. I’ve never heard from a single neighbour near Freedom’s Door complaining, but I have heard of complaints from some of the government-funded supportive housing.

I’m just wondering if there’s room to act there and how we can collaborate for that kind of positive, forward movement.

3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just trying to pull that information.

I can share with the member that a lot of the supportive housing sites that are purpose-built, we are trying to create space internally so that people can gather and have a bit of a living room where they can build those connections. It’s not possible, depending on lot size, on every location, but where it is possible, we’ve been doing that, and we’ve seen some success.

I do believe the member sent me correspondence on this, maybe in the last six months, but maybe not. I recall seeing correspondence from Kelowna from a resident that was concerned around people gathering outside. The challenge is, it’s not a prison. We can’t keep people locked inside; they need to be able to go out. In fact, it’s important for us and for them that they do, that they reconnect and that they are able to go to the shops and do these things because that’s a life skill that will help them take the next step.

And as far as the need for communities to be able to raise concerns and the tables that we’ve created, I’m assuming, because the team was just looking at…. Is the member referring to Stephen Village supportive housing site? Is there a specific site that the member is referring to?

Kristina Loewen: I would rather not be specific today, if that’s okay. But there definitely have been some concerns raised about specific sites.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, I appreciate the member raising the concerns, and perhaps we can connect offline to identify where those challenges may be and look to see how we can improve that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Tony Luck: First of all, I want to clarify right now, I’m going to be bringing some questions up around the ALR. This has nothing to do with my comments in regard to getting any land out of the ALR or anything to do with that or our party’s position.

I just have some questions around there, especially when it comes to housing, because there is such a demand for housing

First of all, I want to clarify right now, I’m going to be bringing some questions up around the ALR. This has nothing to do with my comments in regard to getting any land out of the ALR or anything to do with that or our party’s position. I just have some questions around there, especially when it comes to housing, because there is such a demand for housing. Many factors play into the cost of housing, the availability of housing and that kind of thing.

But I’d like to preface this with a little story before I get started. I’m giving something away now. I was born in 1955. At that particular time, there were a million people living in the province, and there was about 5 percent of the land available in the province at that time for development. Lots of space at that time; no problem at all.

Let’s move the clock forward 70 years. Six million people in the province today. Same amount, if less land, available for development now because over that period of time, the ALR was introduced into that 5 percent of the land.

One of the challenges we have around housing costs is land costs. We know that, especially in the Lower Mainland and throughout the valley and everything here. To the minister: what are we doing to secure more land in the province so that we have more land available, especially in rural communities?

Kamloops is out of developable land. Kelowna is quickly getting out of developable land. That’s a lot of small communities in our area, yet there’s this edict and demand that we must build more housing. I know some communities, even in the Lower Mainland, who are surrounded by ALR land. They seem to think that the edict is still there for them to build all this housing. They can’t expand. There is no land to do. It’s one-third of the cost of residential housing.

What is this ministry doing about getting available land to build on?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was chuckling, not because the member raised how old he is, but I was chuckling because every year in estimates, the faces may change but the same question comes.

The ALR is nothing within our ministry, so we don’t have control over the housing policies on agricultural land or decisions around the agricultural land, whether it pertains to housing or pertains to any topic. All of that is with the Ministry of Agriculture.

It is interesting because this question comes up, but it is outside of our space and policy work. So I can’t provide the member with any specifics on that.

Tony Luck: I understand that, and it is probably in the agricultural piece, or whatever, but it is an important component because the agricultural land has been locked away and isn’t available for house building. So there is a little bit of overlap that we perceive here.

Can this ministry confirm that it hasn’t conducted or commissioned any economic analysis on the direct impact of ALR policies on housing affordability, particularly assessing if the ALR could be driving rents and home prices up by 20 to 40 percent, or any other less restrictive scenarios in there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any. I can share with the member that even when we brought in rules around small-scale, multi-unit and transit-oriented development, we excluded agricultural land from those pieces.

Tony Luck: Has this ministry explored policy alternatives or introduced flexible measures within the ALR to allow controlled and sustainable residential development, more for the families that are already living there and allowing them to build more residential on their property? We know in some areas of the province, they’re very strict about this, even to build a second dwelling on some of those properties, on large properties.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, these questions are all for the Ministry of Agriculture because we have no policy levers over the agricultural land in our ministry.

Tony Luck: One of the challenges I’ve been finding as I’ve been rolling around my riding and visiting individuals…. There are some challenges that some of the ALR is coming out of the ALR. It’s being transferred to other groups, and it’s being used for housing, industrial purposes and that. Do we have any policies that are going to be worked around those kinds of exemptions that are being extracted on this agricultural land at this particular time?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Often we’re getting requests for projects that could go, but there are agriculture-land-related items to it. We don’t have any policies that we’re exploring or any levers that we have. It often has to go to the ALC for

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Often, we’re getting requests for projects that could go, but there are agricultural-land-related items to it. But we don’t have any policies that we’re exploring or any levers that we have.

It often has to go to the ALC for their decision. They’re independent, and that’s where the decisions are made. So I can’t provide any more answers on any agricultural land questions, unfortunately.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I can understand that. We’ll have to pursue that in a different slant, because we will need to talk about that with the Agriculture Minister and the ALC, I believe.

So let’s go back to one of our favourite topics here in the Lower Mainland, the north shore wastewater treatment plant. I know the hairs on your back just stood up. But, anyway, the north shore wastewater treatment plant project stands as a devastating example of government mismanagement, reckless spending and profound lack of transparency under the current provincial administration.

Originally budgeted at roughly $700 million, this project has ballooned dramatically, to close to $4 billion, a staggering increase that defies any reasonable accounting standard. This has been going on for some time, of course.

To the minister, given the ongoing negotiations between Metro Vancouver and the terminated contractor of the wastewater treatment plant, what specific steps has this ministry taken to ensure that taxpayers will not be deprived of critical information due to any non-disclosure agreement or other secrecy provision that may be signed between the contractor and Metro Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member I know knows that Metro Vancouver is governed by elected officials, who will be going to the public for their own mandates. And they’re responsible for their decisions that they’ve made.

I, too, have concerns around the project. I have spoken about that publicly. I can share with the member that there is a review happening, and we are observers. Part of that review — to ensure that there is transparency, to ensure that it’s being done above board — the people that they’ve brought in appear, by all standards, to have all the skill sets to be able to do that.

There’s a litigation happening, so there’s going to be lots of sensitivities around what information is gathered and what can be disclosed to the public. I think that’ll be a challenge for Metro Vancouver, because you don’t want to compromise that lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is a major concern. It’s a major, major concern. How it got to that point is a major frustration.

So I share the frustration the member has around that project. But that being said, I do believe Metro Vancouver is taking the right steps. The mayors are taking the right steps to put a team in place to do the reviews, and our observer will continue to monitor that as they move forward.

Tony Luck: I think it’s been mentioned a number of times that you would never get the fox to audit the henhouse. I think that’s exactly what’s happening in Metro Vancouver, and it’s been called upon many, many times to have a completely and totally independent review of Metro Vancouver and their accounting practices and the way they let contracts out there.

We know…. I think the minister is hiding behind the fact that this is the government that gives the rules and the rights for municipalities and regional districts to operate. So I’m asking again, why does not the minister call for an independent review? He has the legislation, he has the power to do it, and this should be done.

We should not be allowing the fox to decide who is going to audit the henhouse. Can we please get a commitment out of this minister that this will be done?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve said previously to the member, Metro Vancouver is responsible for the decisions that they make. They are all elected officials. They’ve brought a well-respected retired judge to come in and oversee the terms of reference. They are going to take the step to put a team in place that will do the review. We have an observer that will be ensuring that there is transparency, that they’re looking at all the elements that need to be considered. At some point, when that is done, they’ll have to share that with the public.

[3:55 p.m.]

But given that there’s litigation happening, they’re going to have to be sensitive about what information gets shared until that legal action has been taken.

Again, that’s Metro Vancouver. They’re the leaders in this space, and this is their project that they have to continue to advance.

but given that there’s litigation happening, they’re going to have to be sensitive about what information gets shared until that legal action has been taken.

But again, that’s Metro Vancouver. They’re the leaders in this space, and this is their project that they have to continue to advance.

Tony Luck: Yes, we know it’s Metro Vancouver, but they’re there at the behest of the provincial government. There is legislation in the Local Government Act that allows this government, this Premier, to demand independent review of Metro Vancouver.

Not that they should be looking at, once again, the foxes auditing the henhouse. We can’t have that. To get the real numbers and the real things that we need to do and how we need to fix Metro Vancouver and the governance model there, we need to have an independent review.

I’m not the only one. Many, many independent groups are calling for an independent review that has been requested by the provincial government to make sure this is a standoff situation where we’re not getting friends of the family doing the auditing, or anything like that.

Can we get a commitment of this government that they will bring in an independent view to get this thing done properly?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve said already, but I’ll say it again, Metro Vancouver took the right step of doing a review, not only on the project but also around the governance. The member may not trust the people they have put in place. But that being said, we have a retired judge, a well-respected judge. We have Peter Milburn, who is very well respected, doing some of that work.

We talked about efficiency. If there is a review happening, and there are people in place to do that — we have observers, and we have a retired judge sitting there — to do another one on top of that at the same time — that’s not efficient in any way.

I think we need to let this process unfold, and we have an observer that will be monitoring and ensuring that there is transparency in the process.

Tony Luck: What specific oversight processes or legislative frameworks does this government have or intend to put in place for the future to ensure Metro Vancouver and other regional districts and authorities cannot conceal critical details about project failures and cost overruns behind NDAs or other restrictive agreements in the future?

This has been a blight on many communities. I’ve had some regional districts and cities call me up and say: “Hey, we’re not like them.” What can we do to make sure that we’re going to have a standard practice across the board within the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are standard processes for local governments, and we canvassed this yesterday. They’re required to have audited statements. They are required to be aboveboard, and they do. I don’t want anyone watching today to think that our local governments are just running wild and are not accountable to the public. They are.

To the member’s other question, it is possible, through the governance review, that there are additional measures that come out of that review as recommendations from the experts that have been brought in. But we’ll wait until that time before we discuss what next steps can be taken.

Tony Luck: I remember asking this House specifically a number of months before this audit and this internal review was put in place: why didn’t the government at that particular time do the audit? We’re not asking them to do a second one or an overlap one. The provincial government, under their legislation, should have taken this upon themselves to do it right to make sure it got done. It doesn’t only have to be done right; it has to look like it’s being done right. There are many people in this community that are concerned about the process.

Why did this government hesitate to implement its own internal review of the process over at Metro Vancouver? Why did it wait until Metro Vancouver implemented a process? It should have been done by the government.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I do recall the member asking that questions. I do recall myself giving that answer. Since he’s asked the same question, I’ll provide him the same answer, which is that Metro Vancouver is a board of all elected officials who are responsible for the projects that they bring forward. I had raised concerns, like my friend across the way had raised concerns, and Metro Vancouver responded

the same answer, which is that Metro Vancouver is a board of all elected officials who are responsible for the projects that they bring forward.

I had raised concerns, like my friend across the way had raised concerns, and Metro Vancouver responded, I think, with the appropriate measure. They brought in a retired judge so that there was clear transparency about how they were going to move forward. The judge put the terms of reference in place. They brought very respected people, independent people, to come in and do that work.

That’s the same work we would have done if we had come in. We would have brought somebody like a retired judge in. We would have brought some experts in. So the work is happening, and Metro Vancouver is paying for it because it’s Metro Vancouver’s responsibility, and we have an observer overseeing it.

I appreciate the member is going to ask the same question that he asked then, and I gave him that answer. Unfortunately, it’s the same question now and the same answer again.

Tony Luck: Given the government’s stated commitment to transparency over the last number of days, will you release all provincial documents and correspondence related to the government’s involvement in the wastewater treatment project, including its decision-making around financial interventions, oversight responsibility and discussions about a NDA, if you have done one at this particular time?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We haven’t been involved in this project. I mean, the member could always go through FOI, and he’ll get information, but likely, if the member wants information, he’ll have to FOI Metro, because we have no involvement in the project’s Metro Vancouver advances.

Tony Luck: Okay.

The initial contractor involved in the north shore wastewater treatment plant fiasco is responsible for massive cost overruns and significant project failures. The contractor’s partners and its front companies are now actively bidding and working on critical provincial projects including the Pattullo Bridge replacement, Broadway SkyTrain expansion, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension.

Can you explain how a contractor so clearly associated with severe management failures continues to secure such major government contracts as we move forward?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re debating the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, and I can confirm to the member that we don’t have any contracts with that company at this time.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to move the questioning into the partnership model.

B.C. Housing delivers most of its social and supportive housing by contracting operations to a network of non-profits, as we discussed yesterday a little bit. I think I was told, rounding it up, around 800 of those. But many of those, or most of those, do not own the buildings they manage, as the minister described yesterday. B.C. Housing, via the Provincial Rental Housing Corp. or another government entity, does. Yet these societies are entrusted with millions in annual subsidies and property stewardship and often hold the keys to even tenant placement and eviction processes.

There is no public-facing regulatory or accountability dashboard outlining how much each of these receive, manage or deliver annually, unless I get that really special flow chart going. Despite managing billions in provincial housing assets and operating budgets, many of these societies function outside of the reach of the Auditor General, FOI or PAC-level scrutiny.

[4:05 p.m.]

My questions, and I have a few here…. Firstly, could the minister confirm that B.C. Housing has entered into a contractual relationship with an organization known as Renewal Development?

Firstly, could the minister confirm that B.C. Housing has entered into a contractual relationship with an organization known as Renewal Development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This sounds familiar. It was unfortunate that in the election, the opposition used this to try to smear me, to smear my family. It's unfortunate that the line of questioning continues, but I'm happy to engage because there's nothing there.

B.C. Housing does not have a contract with Renewal. We provide money to different organizations, as the member mentioned. But in this case, I think the member is referring to a local First Nations community, which is looking to bring housing into their community. They may have a contract with Renewal, but B.C. Housing does not have one directly.

Linda Hepner: My apologies to the minister. I quite frankly had no idea Renewal was in any way related to the minister or had anything to do with it at all, nor do I recall that during the election. If that was…. It was in no way meant to be offensive. It was to try and determine…. We knew Renewal Development had something to do within the B.C. Housing conundrum of suppliers or operators, and it is not a registered company.

What I was trying to get to is: who is Renewal, and what do they do? What I'm hearing the minister say is that they have something to do with an Indigenous housing project.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member's comments. The member may not be aware of the smears. I think the late Premier Horgan used to say that it's the kids with the short pants in the basement.

So that being said, I'll just say again that there's no contractual obligation directly with B.C. Housing with Renewal. The member may want to look up the website to see what they do, but we don't have one.

Linda Hepner: Can I just move on then, forward, to some questions regarding Atira and how much total funding has been directed to Atira Women's Resource Society across…? I'm not sure if the minister will have the numbers from 2018 to 2024 across all B.C. housing programs, but that is a number I would like to know.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is trying to go back and find the dollars that went to Atira.

I did share, I think, on the record yesterday that we’ve taken several steps with Atira since our reports have been taken. I believe five sites have been taken and given to other not-for-profit providers. So the team will try to dig those numbers up and get them to the member.

Linda Hepner: I’d like to see or hear of that information once you have gathered it.

Has Atira submitted any audited financials for each of the last five years at all?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have financial audits up to 2023, and we expect the 2024 one this summer.

Linda Hepner: Up till 2023 and you expect 2024? Is that what the minister has defined? Okay.

This may be a difficult question, but is the minister satisfied that Atira continues to provide value for money in light of the findings from the Ernst and Young forensic audit?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s important to note that Atira is the largest provider of supports to women, vulnerable women in particular, in the province. Again, I highlighted steps that we’ve taken — the five sites in particular that we’ve now moved to other not-for-profit providers.

If the question from the member is “do they provide a good value?” I say: “Yes, they provide amazing value because they support vulnerable populations that desperately need supports, so they’re important.” The people that work there, the people who are providing the day-to-day supports, are some of the best people that you can find anywhere in this space.

Although there are challenges clearly identified from a few years ago from the leadership, in no way do I believe that’s reflective of the people that work there day to day and support vulnerable people. We are not there yet with Atira. We are making progress. There’s a whole host of items that we’ve been able to achieve with them, but we still have more work to do.

The team continues to meet with Atira. Essentially, it’s a new board over there. There are a few people that are remaining. They have, clearly, new leadership coming in. We have some more work still to do, but we’re making some progress.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that information.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s certainly not lost on me the good work that needs to be done relative to support for the women. And I’m pleased to hear the minister say that they’re working on ensuring Atira provides the best service possible.

It would be helpful if the minister were to tell Atira

on me — the good work that needs to be done relative to support for the women. I’m pleased to hear the minister say that they’re working on ensuring that Atira provides the best service possible.

It would be helpful if the minister were to tell Atira that they should publicly provide their financial statements, which they have not done since 2021. I hear the minister say that Atira has provided, to his offices, up until 2023, but I believe — especially given the scathing remarks by Ernst and Young — that those financial reports should be available, publicly and online, by Atira.

I would ask if the minister is prepared to suggest, to that supplier, that that happen.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to the member for bringing that to my attention. Certainly, I believe that should be transparent, and it should be on their website. We will be following up with them.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if the ministry could give me some understanding of how many sites are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp.

My apologies if I should know that, but quite frankly, I didn’t even realize that B.C. Housing had their properties through the Provincial Rental Housing Corp.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just going to pull up that number. I can share with the member that the amount of units is over 21,000. We’ll get the number of buildings momentarily.

Linda Hepner: That’s 21,000, Minister?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we have just under 2,000 sites, and we have just over 21,000 units of housing.

Linda Hepner: Is this the same entity that also owns the SROs and the hotels that are bought by the ministry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct.

[4:20 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Can the minister tell me what the charges or the mortgages are, or total, on these sites?

Can the minister tell me what the charges or the mortgages are, or total, on these sites?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a challenging number to pull, for the member, because we have a lot of active sites under construction. They’re all in construction phases, so they are construction mortgages. They’re in different stages.

The team will try to get some numbers, but as you can imagine, it’s a bit moving, given that we have so many projects under construction, as well, on property that’s owned by the PRC.

Linda Hepner: I will jot down that that number will be provided, because I would expect, through the Ministry of Housing, you know how much money every year the provincial agency representing all these properties has to pay out, in order to do your budget.

At the same time, I wonder if the minister could provide who the mortgage holders are.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: While the team is pulling up the number, perhaps we can continue, and then we’ll get the number for the member.

Linda Hepner: While we’re waiting for that number, I’ll give you, Minister, probably an equally difficult number to come up with right away but one that I hope that we could expect to hear from. That is: what is the weighted interest rate and the remaining amortization on the mortgages for the portfolio of properties that are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp.?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team will pull that number, as well, for the member. If there are more specific numbers the member would like, maybe the member can just share all of them with us.

The team can just pull all of them for you, and then we can continue our discussion.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team will pull that number as well for the member. If there are more specific numbers the member would like, maybe the member can just share all of them with us. The team can just pull all of them for you, and then we can continue our discussion.

Linda Hepner: That kind of information will be valuable, so I’ll just wait and get all of it at the same time.

What I’m trying to get at is: is it reasonable and feasible for the taxpayers to be to be providing all these housing units in supportive housing that we all need? But I want to measure that with: who has the mortgage? When do the taxpayers get the mortgages on their land back, in terms of valuation? That’s sort of where I’m headed with the question, if that helps provide all of the information that I’m looking for.

I’ll move on to sector-wide oversight. If the minister could advise how many of B.C. Housing’s current non-profit operating partners have failed to publish audited financial statements in the past two years.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the numbers the member is requesting are in the audited financials of B.C. Housing. If the member would like, we can get a printed copy of all the audited financials for the member. Or we can just send you a link. If the link is easier, we can send that, but all that information is in that.

Also, the second question the member asked was around how many not-for-profits have not provided us their financial audits for this year. The number is 184 providers, but they still have some time. They’ve got a few months to still provide us that. They’re going through that work, and we expect that they will all have their financial audits to us within the time that they’re required to do so.

Linda Hepner: The actual question was: how many have not provided or have failed to provide an audited statement in the past two years? I’m not sure that the answer the minister gave was relative to just this last year.

[4:35 p.m.]

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, we were trying to communicate to the team that leads this, and we got them online.

So 184 providers — I apologize; I said that because I thought the member was asking for just 2024. But the member was asking for who is, essentially, two years out, and so the answer is any…. We’ve got two tiers of

that leads this, and we got them online. So 184 providers — I apologize when I said that because I thought the member was asking for just 2024. But the member was asking for who is, essentially, two years out.

And so the answer is: we’ve got two tiers of providers. Anyone that has $1 million or more, we consider them bigger, and there are none outstanding, aside from Atira. There are some smaller providers that are below the $1 million threshold. Often, they don’t have their own financial teams, they don’t have their giant structures for accounting, and those teams, there are 39. Our expectation is that they will provide those.

We do put measures in place for those smaller ones that haven’t done that. Like, they can’t access the renewal fund. They can’t access a whole host of resources until those audited financials come. But it’s only the small ones, the bigger ones, besides Atira, have reported.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that.

Does B.C. Housing require third-party audits for any non-profit partner receiving more than $5 million?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the audited financials are done externally, and it is something we require. As I shared with the member, we are not aware of any of the larger providers that have not had their audited financials for 2023, besides Atira.

Linda Hepner: I wonder, through you, if I could ask the minister whether or not the ministry conducts regular financial or operational audits of these societies, and if so, how frequently?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If there is a concern that we have, then certainly we would do that. In fact, that’s what happened with Atira. When information was brought to our attention…. At the time it was the Premier who was the Minister of Housing. When information was brought to his attention, he immediately took steps to address it. So we have the ability to do such things, and certainly I’d be using it if I had something that was concerning to me.

Linda Hepner: I’d like to understand better “value for money.” And I wonder if the minister can define for me how B.C. Housing defines “value for money” in its contracts with non-profit housing suppliers and operators.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, team.

We use a program framework as, kind of, benchmarks of what we want to see from the providers, and we do assessments every three years — a full review. We often are engaging with not-for-profits that are operating, depending on the type of housing, on concerns that we may have, concerns that may be raised by local government, to assess whether they're following that.

So I've asked the team to get you a copy, get the member a copy of the framework so that you can assess what those benchmarks are that we use.

If I can ask, Chair, if we can do a short break so the team can get some water.

The Chair: Minister, we had just contemplated that ourselves, so we will stand in recess until five o'clock sharp.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

Linda Hepner: I think the

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

Linda Hepner: I think the minister described that the value for money that B.C. Housing uses is similar throughout the multitude of contracts that the ministry deals with. If I could just get some clarification that I understood that correctly, because I wasn’t really looking for what the ministry puts in contracts. I was looking for: does B.C. Housing have a direct definition of value for money since they do so many subcontracts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The framework is actually B.C. Housing’s framework. It’s not the ministry’s. So hopefully that answers the question.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Member for Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Chair. Nice to see everybody here this afternoon.

The Braidwood Road shelter project at 925 Braidwood Road in Courtenay has undergone cursory public consultation and seems to be proceeding despite significant concerns from the neighbourhood, including but not limited to: the two provincially funded daycares within 100 metres of the site; Glacier View alternate school, which deals with very vulnerable children within a couple hundred metres of the school; the Comox Valley RCMP, who, while conveniently located next door, have significant safety concerns for their civilian 911 staff and RCMP staff and have actually included in their budget substantial perimeter security and fencing because of the proposed project.

In addition, the Ministry of Transport access has issues to the ministry-designated roadway to which this project is adjacent.

While I understand this facility is desperately needed in the Comox Valley, and we will not litigate the certain amount of NIMBYism that is always going to accompany these projects and the stigma that they bring…. With the surge in the unhoused due to rapidly escalating costs, can you confirm what funding for this project is in the current budget, what that number is and what the anticipated annual operating budget is for this facility?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate that this is the first time the member and I get a chance to talk.

Nice to meet you across the way.

This project specifically has had a long history, as the member is probably aware. I spent a lot of time up in the community trying to work with council, many Saturday meetings, Sunday meetings, to try to help identify locations. I can share with the member that — well, the member is probably aware — there were concerns with the shelter that exists now in town. It wasn’t purpose-built, so it had specific challenges that a lot of local businesses were struggling with. A lot of people flowing outside, and that had impacts on the local economy.

So it was important for us to find a location where we could build out housing for the vulnerable populations and where there was space for us to do that. I can share with the member that we looked at 40 properties with the city to try to identify one. We were close at one point, but at a council meeting, I guess, it was raised about a specific location that we were looking at and that that was a preference. Then the price for us to acquire that suddenly went up dramatically, so we had to walk away from that.

We’ve got this site that we’re engaging with right now. The annual operating budget will be approximately $6.2 million and, of course, that has shelter and supportive housing on site.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

We know that the ministry continues to contract non-profits. We have some fantastic non-profit operators in the Comox Valley that are currently looking after the Connect Centre, which is the problem temporary site that was opened several years ago under this government.

With that, the sales pitch with B.C. Housing around these SRO beds always revolves around wraparound supports and the engagement with Health around those supports. They don’t ever seem to accompany it in any meaningful way. We see this from time again. We’ve also seen security funding issues and a bit of buck passing between Health and Housing on some of these projects.

I’d like to just elaborate how, for the record, that consultation is done. I question why Health isn’t brought into that conversation earlier to make some commitments.

I’ve recently reviewed the tender and the RFP for the operation of this site. It doesn’t specify any minimum staffing levels. That seems to be a question mark that I would love to see cleared up, and I’m happy to see you take it on notice. I do think that’s important to know. My support of our non-profit operator largely hinges around what these wraparound supports and staffing levels look like so we don’t have another repeat.

[5:10 p.m.]

I guess the question more simply is: how much funding per SRO shelter bed is allocated in this year’s budget for those wraparound supports? And can you please clarify for the record, so that we know who to talk to going forward, because this is a problem in many communities, whether it’s the Ministry of Housing that we should be complaining to when these wraparound supports don’t show up or whether it is the ministry

funding per SRO shelter bed is allocated in this year’s budget for those wraparound supports?

Can you please clarify for the record — so that we know who to talk to going forward, because this is a problem in many communities — whether it’s the Ministry of Housing that we should be complaining to when these wraparound supports don’t show up, or whether it is the Ministry of Health? We know there are staffing issues across the board, but we’d like to make sure we take those concerns to the appropriate ministry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. We had just canvassed this. Our sites all provide some level of support, such as supports around life skills, community information, case planning. There is 24-hour staff coverage. There are two meals per day.

The member’s question around health supports…. The member could always come to us, and we’re happy to either provide an answer or direct the member to where they need to go.

I can share that with all of our supportive housing sites on the Island, we have a really good relationship with Island Health. They’ve been really responsive. If the member wants examples…. I mean, you can see what’s happening in the tiny home village in Cowichan. Campbell River is another site where there was a lot of apprehension from council to have supportive housing units and just recently came back and said: “Maybe we can have more.”

Of course, there are always going to be issues. I appreciate that. And if there are, our ministry is a good place to come for that.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that. I’m sure we will be having some meaningful discussions around what that might look like as this project proceeds.

I will now pass it back to my colleague to continue with her questions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, my office is available if the member…. Of course, during the hearing process, there are always concerns. But if we are successful and able to continue to operate, that will have a big impact on the member’s community. The member is free to reach out to us, and we’ll try to provide information to him.

Linda Hepner: Thanks for reaching out, to the minister. That’s always valuable to have that direct one-on-one.

Just going back to the earlier questions that I had, I’m wondering if the minister can provide any per-unit operating cost breakdown to groups like Atira, PHS or Lookout and those supporting housing projects — whether there’s a per-unit cost breakdown.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Housing’s per-unit benchmark averages to about $2,493.

[5:15 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Do you know whether or not B.C. Housing, Mr. Minister, has ever terminated a non-profit partner due to underperformance or financial

Linda Hepner: Do you know whether or not B.C. Housing, Mr. Minister, has ever terminated a non-profit partner due to underperformance or financial mismanagement?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we have. Our first approach, always, is to try to get compliance and try to get to the bottom of it, because we don't want to disrupt the people we serve. That's always the number one goal.

But we have. We've taken back sites. We've taken back properties. We've distributed that work to others. So yes, that does happen.

Linda Hepner: I'm wondering. This is my final performance question. Has the ministry considered creating an internal performance scorecard or accountability dashboard for non-profit operators that would be made public so we could all have a better understanding of how we're measuring performance on these very expensive contracts and subcontracts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We don't have a dashboard. That essentially is a name-and-shame-type of exercise. If we hear concerns, we investigate. If they're found to be, in fact, a challenge, then we have steps that we can take in order to address that.

Linda Hepner: I think creating at least a performance scorecard so you have some understanding of whether or not they're performing in the way that not only would the minister expect but that the public would expect…. I would put it to the minister that perhaps looking at an internal scorecard which, in my local government experience, is often done with respect to outside contractors…. I would suggest that the minister at least take that under advisement.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We do that every three years: a full operational review where we assess the providers. If they're not doing what was required of them, part of the contract, then we have the ability to change directions.

Linda Hepner: Moving on, I wonder if the ministry has yet received any report relative to the West Vancouver situation and the adviser — on the Bill 44 issue.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m advised that the ministry has received a report. They’re analyzing it at this time. They haven’t seen the recommendations or what’s being recommended, but when I do get it, I will be making that information public.

Linda Hepner: Perhaps the minister could provide that to the critic, as well, so that we can better understand what the advice is from the third-party adviser.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a fair request. When we make it public, we’ll surely make sure that the critic has a copy. As well, of course, we’ll be sharing it with local government.

Linda Hepner: We are approaching the June 30 deadline to amend existing community amenity contribution approach, and that has a very direct impact on local government revenue.

Now I’m speaking very specifically about the Surrey situation, as I understand it, that there are in place currently some CAC agreements that…. For instance, they’re in stream, and if they were to be displaced, we would, as a city, lose something like $250 million.

A report recently went, and I saw it, from Surrey council, asking the minister…. I believe the mayor has written a letter as well, but I’ll just quote quickly because it’s in front of me:

“That the housing legislation enacted by the province since 2023 has provided municipalities new and updated land use planning and development finance tools. The interaction of the various tools with Surrey’s unique context has created unintended consequences for the existing amenity financing framework.

“Surrey staff are recommending a strategy to limit the impact of amenity revenues, including a request to the provincial government to set a deadline of June 30, 2028, for necessary changes to zoning bylaws, to then allow all those in-stream applications to complete under the current zoning bylaw while proceeding with updates with respect to the new applications.”

I believe the primary concern is, of course, collecting those funds that have already been agreed under CACs and they’re in stream. How will the minister respond to those unintended consequences, certainly in Surrey but, I’m assuming, more likely in other communities as well?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. I’ve, in fact, received that letter, and it’s something that I’m actively considering.

[5:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I’m very sorry, but I didn’t hear what you said last. Something you were considering or to respond to or you’re agreeing to?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No. I received the letter, the correspondence, and it’s something that we’re considering at this time. I can’t give the member an answer on what will happen, but we are considering the

Sorry, but I didn’t hear what you said last — something you were considering to respond to or you’re agreeing to?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I received the letter, the correspondence, and it’s something that we’re considering at this time. I can’t give the member an answer on what will happen, but we are considering the request.

Linda Hepner: Okay, thank you.

I think that it’s incumbent on us to realize sometimes what our unintended consequences are through on-the-ground realities, and that would be an enormous amount of money for a city to lose, or for any community to lose. I expect there are others that have already established CACs.

I trust the minister will look at that with a very serious lens and understand how critical it would be to local governments, who have very few ways of getting money, as he knows. That’s why he brought in the ACCs in order to better supply opportunities for local governments. I leave it to the minister for that.

I’m going to move on to BC Builds and ask a couple of questions around how many units…. I know that has recently been launched only a year ago, but I’m wondering how many units have begun construction or even been completed under BC Builds to date, and how does the progress compare to the promised units over five years? I’m assuming that that’s measuring where we are now to where we want to be.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have made significant progress for the member. We’ve got about 684 units under construction already, and I’m confident we’re going to reach our five-year goal at this trend line. We’re seeing a lot of local governments come forward, First Nations come forward.

I can share with the member that we’ve got a project in Gibsons under construction, Whistler, city of North Vancouver….

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was saying that Abbotsford, Cowichan, Prince Rupert and a project on the UBC endowment land, so a considerable amount of projects in a year that are already under construction.

Linda Hepner: For whom the bell tolls, we never know, do we?

Interjection.

Linda Hepner: It tolls for thee, exactly.

What is the total cost to taxpayers for BC Builds, including the $950 million in provincial grants and any additional operating funds.

What is the province’s financial exposure on the $4 billion low-interest financing if some projects default or face cost overruns?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The total commitment from us was $950 million. We have access to a $2 billion fiscal agency for loans. The member suggested our ongoing subsidy for operating. We don’t provide subsidy for operating for BC Builds. All the projects are owned not by BC housing; they’re owned by

We have access to a $2 billion fiscal agency for loans.

The member suggested our ongoing subsidy for operating. We don’t provide subsidy for operating for BC Builds. All the projects are owned not by B.C. Housing. They’re owned by other entities. So, if there were a situation, we would be first in line to access what is owed to us.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister explain the repayment terms for BC Builds loans? Specifically, what happens if a developer cannot pay a B.C. building loan?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide a construction loan, and when the builder completes a project, then they pay us out.

I suppose if a builder had issues, we would go through a normal process. We would require the builder to…. If there’s an issue, then we would have to go through the normal process of finding another builder to come in and complete the project, etc. But, at this point, the team is not aware of any projects that have challenges.

Linda Hepner: These builders that are doing these projects for the ministry, are they required to provide any letters of credit or insurance, or are we just on a wish and a prayer hoping they continue to be financially viable or stable?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, we go through the same full process anyone would: review pro formas, full underwriting. We ensure that the loan doesn’t go above the project. There’s a whole host of measures.

Part of the review is their capital, their equity, of the builder, before we decide on who is going to be taking the project on. So there’s a full risk analysis done before a builder is chosen to take those projects on.

Linda Hepner: Okay, except that the risk analysis…. How you do that risk analysis is of interest to me, so perhaps offline the minister and I could have a chat about that?

Defining middle-income beneficiaries, I was surprised to see that the income threshold was as high as up to $190,000. So how many British Columbians do you expect to qualify?

[5:40 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Is there a plan to ensure those units go to those who truly cannot afford market housing? At $190,000, on this side of the House, we would be in the low-income section.

and is there a plan to ensure those units go to those who truly cannot afford market housing? At $190,000, on this side of the House, we would be in the low-income section.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important, because the member and I haven’t had a chance to talk about this program before, just to put it in context. B.C. Housing has traditionally been in the space of providing more subsidized housing, ongoing subsidized housing. This is closer to market. It’s still below market, but it’s closer to market.

Although there’s no ongoing subsidy for operating, we’re still trying to meet that need of just higher than where B.C. Housing has traditionally provided housing. You could call it workforce housing. Some people call it workforce housing. That’s what we’re trying to target.

For example, the city of North Vancouver…. When they came forward first with their land, they were very much targeting people that are working at the local hospital, someone that’s working as a nurse or a health care professional. They know they need to attract that workforce, so they’re trying to make sure there’s housing available for that type of workforce in their community. They’ve got C-SPAN in their community. So they were thinking: “Okay, C-SPAN is looking for workforce. People are travelling long distance. Maybe we can try to attract that type of workforce in this housing.”

That’s who this type of housing is for. So $190,000 is on the high end, but if you’ve got a firefighter and a nurse and they need a three bedroom, this fits. It’s a program that’s just above…. It’s kind of middle-income families. Of course, if you’ve got a single person, there are units that are below; $190,000 is on the higher end.

The rents will vary from community to community. That’s just a general threshold we use for the program. But if you’re in a community…. For example, in Cowichan, and I think the member knows, the rent will be totally different than what will be in Langley city, what will be in North Van, in the city there.

Hopefully that explains the thresholds and how they were set.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that information. That actually does help. I understand the difficulties in some areas. Particularly in the Lower Mainland and in some areas in the Interior, as well, it’s more difficult to find housing that meets the needs of middle-income earners and double earners.

How many private developers and builders have agreed to participate in BC Builds so far, and what has been the feedback that you’ve received from the development industry? I’m really looking to understand the uptake and whether or not the industry thinks this is a program they want to be wholeheartedly participating in.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve seen a lot of interest. Just so the member is aware, the process is we put up land on the website, and different builders, whether they’re not-for-profit or private, can bid. We go through a pretty extensive process. Whoever’s land it is, is at the table with us.

The most recent one, for example, was Sun Peaks. We had one in Kamloops. We had nine bidders for that. There is a lot of interest. There’s a lot of interest, in particular, right now because some folks have their own projects. They’re not maybe pencilling, and they want to keep their crews working. So they see an opportunity to keep people working and, at the same time, see a bit of a return.

Linda Hepner: That actually leads me to the next question. It was whether or not what we’re doing here, or what the government is doing here, could crowd out or disincentivize private rental developments. Are you analyzing that at all and how the ministry will ensure that it doesn’t undermine the other market projects that we seriously would like to have done that are not government-led?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve seen no sign of that at all. In fact, the biggest request we get is folks in the private sector saying: “I’ve got land. Would you want a partner to do that?” And we’re not in that space, because we’ve got a lot of local governments and First Nations coming forward with opportunities, and we’re exploring those first. So there’s been no indication that what the member described is actually happening.

Lorne Doerkson: I want to ask a couple of questions about a few different properties in Cariboo-Chilcotin, specifically in Williams Lake. I’ve given the ministry a bit of a heads-up with respect to one of the properties. I want to better understand, really, the relationship of the ministry with the property owner, which is the Hamilton Inn. Time is obviously of the essence here, so I’m hoping to ask a couple of questions in one.

What I really want to understand better is what the current relationship is, because I know that that relationship over time has changed and that it may be a temporary unit that we’re using now from the province’s side. I also wanted to understand what the average amount of occupants are nightly in that facility, and I wanted to better understand when this tenancy or this agreement may come to an end in Williams Lake.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I really appreciate the member just sending the questions to the team so I can put this on the record.

The member has highlighted some concerns around the site that exists there, and we too have some concerns. It was a hotel not really meant for this purpose, but we needed the capacity to be able to support people.

The member’s aware that on 1st Avenue we are currently renovating a site. We expect in the next approximately two months to have that renovation complete and move people from the hotel to the renovated site. At that point, we will be ending the relationship with the hotel. The 1st Avenue site will have, essentially, unit-for-unit space over there.

It is busy. It is at capacity. But we do see the ability to have a better site that’s better suited to this population within the next two or three months.

Lorne Doerkson: I just wanted to get a little bit of clarity around capacity. I asked in my first question what the average nightly amount of visitors are to that facility, and I’d like to get clarity around that if I could.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate the Chair telling the Chair that I’m ready.

Right now at the hotel, we have capacity for about 20. It’s busy. It’s busy every day. The new site will have capacity for 40. It gives us additional capacity in the community.

Lorne Doerkson: Maybe I’ll try not to beat around the bush here. I want to better understand that capacity number because it really goes to other questions.

What I’m really trying to understand is that the minister just suggested that there were about 20 people staying there per night. It’s my understanding that there might be as many as 40 rooms in that facility. I’d be very interested in knowing how many rooms are actually available to us.

Also, I would be very interested in knowing what the monthly cost is to renting the Hamilton Hotel in Williams Lake.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ll pull up the exact number for the member of how much we pay for the lease.

The member is correct. The original agreement was for 40 units in that building. Because of some challenges, that was reduced to 20. So the member could be correct that…. We have 20 spaces, but there still may be 40 people there. It’s possible that the owner of that site is renting out the other 20 units in the community.

[5:55 p.m.]

Our lease is now for 20 units of it, until such time as the other units are done, and then our lease will end.

I’ll get the member the exact number.

Lorne Doerkson: I would definitely like to get clarity on that because it’s my understanding that we are renting the full facility. At least, that has come

now for 20 units of it until such time as the other units are done, and then our lease will end. I’ll get the member the exact number.

Lorne Doerkson: I would definitely like to get clarity on that because it’s my understanding that we are renting the full facility. At least that has come from…. Certainly the owner shared that with me approximately a year ago or so.

At that time, it was really thought that we had about 40 units, but because of some pretty severe damage to some of the units, they were no longer liveable. I have a number of concerns around that because we do have a facility that obviously has the ability to provide more capacity for our community, and we still see people unhoused in our streets, of course.

To add to that, which is where we’re going to go next, is the new shelter that, of course, is being built. There are a number of concerns, obviously, in Williams Lake, and certainly our community has expressed those through a number of different meetings, whether that be last week where we had an emergency meeting regarding crime.

Crime is extremely serious in our downtown core. We’ve had…. O.K. Tire last week, of course, had a break-in through the front door. Somebody stole a vehicle out of the shop bay and drove it through the back door. We had Sandtronic broken into just a couple nights ago, which is a computer store. The local tea shop has had serious damage. All of this is happening almost weekly in our community, and it’s become very serious.

The reality is that now we’ve taken the Hamilton, which has been a mainstay for housing for a number of years in our community, and we’ve changed that model to go to build a shelter downtown in what was the old Elks hall. I want to better understand why that decision was made.

I’d like to understand what the cost is around the new shelter that is being built in the Elks hall. How much is that? What does the contract look like going forward? And what was the reason for leaving the Hamilton Hotel and moving to the new location?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question again. I was in Williams Lake and met with the mayor, council and staff. It was made clear to me that the Hamilton Hotel was not working. The member is correct; we have an agreement for 40 units.

There’s also an agreement that when we vacate, the units will be in decent shape for the owner. We have 20 that are occupied, and 20 are being fixed up, so that when we leave in a couple of months, we are contractually meeting our obligation to the owner of the hotel. The new site is $1.2 million to fix up, and it’s about $2 million in annual operating. It’s going to have capacity for 40.

When we met with the mayor, council and staff, they made it clear that this was the location that was better than any other location. First off, there are not many options in the town. The member knows that; there are not many options. I suspect that even finding a constituency office might be tough in that community. We were directed to the site as possibly the only option that was available. We’ve taken that advice to move in that direction.

Now, there are some benefits of this site, certainly as compared to the other site. You know, we can put some better safety measures in place on the site. We were just canvassing the need for a supportive housing site, how important it is to have common areas within a building, so that people can congregate inside, as opposed to having to meet out in the living room out front. This new location allows us to do that.

There will be better measures in place that will, I hope, address a lot of the safety concerns on the new site that we simply could not do at the hotel, given the layout of that structure.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate the answer from the ministry, although it does bring up a number of other questions. I’m grateful that the minister is able to confirm that we are or have been for the last number of years obligated to 40 units. However, because those units have been harmed in some way, we have only been able to use 20 of them.

I guess my next question is a fairly simple one. Does B.C. Housing manage Jubilee House in Williams Lake?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it is contracted under B.C. Housing.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate the answer. I was wondering if the ministry could tell me what the average capacity is there nightly. Also, if I could understand, how many units are available to us there as well?

[6:05 p.m.]

as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are 33 spaces at this site. This is not a traditional supportive housing site. This is a legacy site from 2010, a legacy program since 2010, and it’s right now being operated by CMA.

Lorne Doerkson: I was hoping to get the average occupancy rate per night.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s not a shelter, so it’s not a drop-in or drop-out.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate that it’s not a nightly rental or a nightly housing supplier, but just the same, I’d like to know how many people are living in that facility or how many of those units are being used today.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just contacting the manager and the region to get a number for the member.

Lorne Doerkson: Time is running out for me here, so I’m going to move on to potentially one last question. I’d appreciate if the ministry could provide that information to me outside of this time, if that’s possible.

I guess I’m very concerned that we would have, potentially, two facilities in Williams Lake that have not been at capacity, as the minister suggested. At capacity, to me, means we have 40 units, and I can appreciate there’s been some damage, but then I think there’s probably an obligation somewhere along the line that the province will have to repair those anyway. I’m just not certain why there hasn’t been steps to repair them and to use that capacity.

I’m concerned with Jubilee in the same way now. Granted, it may have changed in the last little while, but I do know that there has been an opportunity for more capacity there as well.

I guess why I’m afraid or certainly concerned is that we haven’t been using the capacity that we have available to us. We have tents in the park. We have them in the River Valley Trail. We have crime that is rampant in downtown Williams Lake. And now we’re building a new shelter. While I would enjoy terribly an hour to ask questions on that itself, I’ll pass on that for right now.

The question is not…. I mean, the minister referenced talking to city council. Trust me when I say this. I speak to city council very often, and I have a very good relationship with most of the council. The question is not so much around…. And that conversation has come up in this estimates conversation.

The fact that we need housing is not up for question, but it’s always a question as to where. I think that the biggest challenge around that where is because we don’t provide enough safeguards around these housing complexes that we create, whether they’re shelter or whether they’re, you know, the Hamilton Inn. I think that’s the biggest concern that residents have.

I can assure you that in the past, the past Housing Minister actually set up a temporary shelter at what was the longhouse in Williams Lake. I can tell you that I took chili on Christmas Day to that longhouse to give a bit of a gift to the residents, and I was embarrassed because the senior citizens of our community had taken up fresh apple pies and everything else. Our community wants to support these folks. The fear is that there are no safeguards around these facilities.

[6:15 p.m.]

Now, I can appreciate at the Elks Hall there’s now a fence going up around it, and there are some other things. But can the minister clearly explain to me and to the residents of Williams Lake what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that our downtown core is not seeing the of level of crime that we are facing right now.

We’ve had, certainly, assaults. We’ve had all kinds of broken windows, all kinds of

What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that our downtown core is not seeing the of level of crime that we are facing right now?

We’ve had, certainly, assaults. We’ve had all kinds of broken windows, all kinds of crime. And honestly, the residents are very frustrated by that. So I want to get a clear understanding of what the minister’s plan is to provide some safeguards around this new facility at the Elks Hall and what other ministries this ministry might be cross-pollinating to create those safeguards?

I can’t say this enough. I think that the residents of Williams Lake are very, very supportive of trying to create an avenue for the unhoused to be warm and dry, particularly on those 25 below nights. None of us want to see people on the streets when it’s that cold. But I think that the government owes the residents of Williams Lake and certainly Cariboo-Chilcotin some sense of security around these projects wherever they may end up in our community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s advocacy for his community, and in no way would I suggest that he doesn’t care about the residents of vulnerable people in the community. But the member surely knows that if we don’t have these spaces, the people will still be there. They’ll be in tents. They’ll be in the park. So it’s not the housing that’s the problem; it’s the lack of housing, I assume, that’s the problem here. So we need to find ways to get more housing opportunities available for people. And so hopefully we’re in alignment there.

What I’m hearing are concerns about the First Avenue site.

No? Okay. Not hearing concerns about the First Avenue site. But more about what measures we’re putting in place. And I highlighted a few of those. The member mentioned the fencing is going up, that we’re creating common spaces inside for people to gather. That site will have the ability for storage, for people to have storage so that they’re not hauling things around. And of course, we’re going to continue to monitor the safety piece of it.

I’m happy to contact or be in contact with the member when that opens up and there’s issues that arise in the community, because we want the same thing. We don’t want violence in the community. We don’t want there to be people homeless. We want to find a way for folks to be able to get indoors and get the supports that they need. Happy to work with the member to try to get those measures in place in his community.

Lorne Doerkson: Just to clarify a couple of points with respect to capacity. I do not feel that we’re using what we have now properly, and frankly, I certainly am supportive of any kind of housing that would take people off the streets. I’m certain that the minister heard those words. So I’m not pushing back on that. In fact, I’m encouraging.

My concern is that this doesn’t create…. I think the minister explained earlier that we have 40 units available at the Hamilton Inn. We have 33 at the Jubilee. Now, albeit that’s not a nightly space. However, the new shelter has only 30 spaces. So overall, we’re in a different situation with respect to capacity again. So our capacity is actually going down.

Interjection.

Lorne Doerkson: Forty? Okay, I thought you said 30. Okay, thank you.

So now we’re going to have 40 in a shelter. Now, I guess, again, going back to the concern about that….

And I want to make it very clear to the minister, I’m not against housing in our community. Certainly, I don’t want that to be suggested. What I want to explain is that there is significant crime around our downtown core, and that is what the breaking point is for our community and for our members, certainly those folks.

I’m excited about the idea that we may have some housing. I hope that we use it to its capacity, because the reality is I don’t feel that we’re using our housing in a way that we’re taking advantage of the full capacity.

[6:20 p.m.]

But also I think that B.C. Housing along with other ministries certainly owe the residents of Williams Lake an assurance that we are going to not have that crime that has developed around that location now just simply move downtown, right? I mean, it’s all downtown.

I think that B.C. Housing, along with other ministries, certainly owe the residents of Williams Lake an assurance that we are going to not have that crime that has developed around that location now just simply move downtown, right? I mean, it’s all downtown, and the minister has been there. But that is what the real concern is around these housing projects.

With that, I will leave it at that. Hopefully, the minister or the ministry and I can have further conversation on this. This is a very serious topic in our community. It has been for a number of years, and it’s going to continue to be.

Thanks for the time to Surrey Serpentine, and thanks for the warning that I’ve got a thread on my jacket, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ll certainly be following up with the member on new developments, and I hear the concern. We, too, want the same thing. We, too, want people to be housed. We, too, want people to feel safe in their community. We’re all trying to get to the same place. If the member wants to work together, that’s something we’ll certainly take him up.

Perhaps what I can say is that when the first site is close to being opening, perhaps we can set up a time for the member to go out, having a walk through and have a look through the facility and get an understanding of what’s happening as well.

Lorne Doerkson: I would be very grateful for that, and I appreciate the offer. I’ll definitely take you up on that, Minister, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thanks again, Surrey Serpentine.

Linda Hepner: I just have a couple of questions before I turn it over to another colleague who has questions as well. I just want to finish up on BC Builds and understand the performance metrics that the ministry will be using to evaluate BC Builds.

I know we’ll have a per-unit cost, but I’m assuming that we’ll have something else, as well, that the government will commit to regular public reporting, including the budgets, the actual costs, the timing, the efficiencies, whether or not it’s meeting those timelines. Can I just get some assurance that the minister is putting that under advisement in consideration in their BC Build metrics?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide with all of our housing projects a lot of information about each project, how much we’re spending, etc. Timelines. When do we expect it to get online? When do we expect construction to start? When will it be complete?

With BC Builds, it is new, but we will be making that information available publicly.

Linda Hepner: Can I ask if the ministry is aware of what’s happening with the Site C housing and where that housing may ultimately end up or if there is any provision in the ministry’s consideration that that could be useful in some other arena?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are some initial conversations happening with B.C. Hydro. I can’t say anything concrete at this point, but B.C. Housing is having early conversations with them about it.

Linda Hepner: So then the rumour that that housing would be going to the landfill would not be correct at all, right?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Energy may have an answer of what they have decided or they haven’t decided. All I can say is that B.C. Housing has just recently met with B.C. Hydro, and it did not appear to us that there was any decision on putting any housing into the landfill. If there was a decision, they wouldn’t have met with us.

Linda Hepner: I think it’s incumbent on the minister and the ministry to…. If there is some usable housing that we could even use for some shelter or some temporary shelter or some homeless options, we should exhaust all of those before we see that disposed of in any way. My encouragement would be that the ministry take a look at where that lies in terms of other ministries, and say: “Hey, maybe we can have a conversation here before we throw the baby out with the bath.”

Finally, I have a question regarding landlord rights. This is happening not only in my own riding but throughout the province, and I’m getting more and more calls as the Housing critic that landlords have no rights. They can’t do the single occupancy, short period of time, short-term rentals, which they would prefer to do because the tenants have destroyed their properties on occasion. Now when they have long-term tenants, they can’t easily get them out because there are so many restrictions.

Is there any intention of examining how, other than through the tenancy branch, which has been so far fairly laborious for landlords at least…? Is there any intention of making sure that those who are good landlords and want good tenants — and we all want that — that when they don’t have a good tenant, there’s some mechanism of support for those landlords to not have something that is so cost-prohibitive for them in terms of correcting their private property once they ultimately do get someone to leave? Oftentimes that takes a year.

I’m just looking for some ministry comment around if they recognize the problem and if they’re looking at any avenues of relief.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member is getting calls, you can imagine how many I get from both landlords and tenants. In the role that I am in, you make no one happy. Any changes that are towards landlords, the tenants are upset. Any changes the other way, and the sky is falling.

[6:30 p.m.]

So our focus has been on two parts. I acknowledge that certainly when I became the Minister of Housing, our wait times were way too long. In fact, there was a time, when I first started, that our wait times were 12 weeks for unpaid rent. As everyone can say, that’s unacceptable. And not only us. It was across the country.

One of the first things I was able to do, thanks to the Premier, was secure financial support to increase the amount of adjudicators at

12 weeks for unpaid rent. And that’s, as everyone can say, unacceptable. Not only us. It was across the country.

And one of the first things I was able to do, thanks to the Premier, was secure financial support to increase the amount of adjudicators at the RTB. Before the election, we brought in legislation to reform how appointments are made at the RTB, so we cut a lot of red tape.

I’ll give the member an example because the member wasn’t here. When a case came forward, we were required to have, by law, an adjudicated time set aside. If the issue got resolved, we would lose that time, but we wouldn’t know till that time.

We made a lot of legislative changes. I can share with the member that we went from 12 weeks to unpaid rent to now having decisions within three weeks. We have some of the lowest wait times in the country now because of the investment and also because of the changes.

Just to show you that there’s no winning, I met with landlord and tenant groups, and they were complaining now that decisions are happening too fast, and they don’t have enough time to prepare for hearings because it’s happening too fast. So I had to chuckle, because there’s no winning. When it’s too long, everyone complains, and now it’s happening too fast.

We also just made some recent changes. The member is probably aware. Some of the recommendations actually came from the landlord rights group. One of the changes is now we will be publishing monetary decisions on the RTB website starting in June so that any landlord or tenant that has a monetary order…. It can be seen publicly. So I think that’s an important measure.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

We have increased the threshold for keeping property on hand from what was $500 before. So if anybody left stuff that was $500 or above, the landlord had a responsibility to keep it for 60 days. We moved that threshold to $1,000 and reduced that time to 30 days. Of course, if it’s ID etc., individuals’ IDs — those things still need to be protected. It’s important — those kinds of measures. Those were two important changes that we made.

We also have introduced…. There was legislation called the Money Judgment Act that was right before the last election. That’s targeting the ability for landlords or tenants to recoup their dollars in a more effective way than going through the court system, which can take a long time.

All the key areas that were recommended to us by landlords, by tenants, by the landlord rights groups — we have addressed almost all of those issues. The only issue that we respectfully disagree is lifting the caps for rents to go as high as they want. That was a request, and that’s not what we’re doing. We’ve got a cap in place.

The second request was to not require bailiffs when a court’s judgment needs to be taken forward. I have highlighted that that is not within the control of the ministry. We cannot direct the courts to use police or security. The courts decide what they want, and the courts have decided they want to use bailiffs. It’s a conversation the AG can have with the courts, but it’s not something the government can fix. But all the other measurements that have been highlighted we’ve taken steps to address — reduction of wait times, more balance and fairness.

And the member will also know that during the peak of the challenges we were dealing with, we had, for personal use, moved from two months to four months. And the reason why we did that was that the fastest increase in homelessness was among seniors, and we were seeing more seniors showing up at shelters.

What seniors were telling us in particular, through the seniors advocate and through other reports, was that when they got evicted, they just did not have enough time to be able to find another place that they could afford. By having that period so short, they were often finding themselves in homeless situations. So we moved it to four months.

Now, as vacancy rates go up, with the changes we just made, we’ve reduced that to three months. And if the vacancy rates continue, then we can go back to a different number. But it was important for families, and also, it was a challenge for young families.

[6:35 p.m.]

We heard so many young families who said: “We just got evicted. Somebody said they need the space for themselves. Our kids go to school in this neighbourhood. We can’t find a place. Now we’ve got to figure out where we’re going to move our family, where the kids will go to school.” And the time frame for all of that was too tight.

That’s the rationale for why the changes were made. But again, we’ve made a whole host of changes to create more balance.

We can’t find a place. Now we’ve got to figure out where we’re going to move our family, where the kids will go to school.” The time frame for all of that was too tight.

That’s the rationale for why the changes were made, but again, we’ve made a whole host of changes, to create more balance. I’m really proud of the team at the RTB for seeing the reductions that they’ve seen. Regular hearings went from 18 weeks to 5½ weeks. We publish this data every month, so that people can see. I believe we’re within service standards for every single item — for phone call wait times, for unpaid rent.

One of the measures that we did last year also was to expedite cases where there was unpaid rent. If a person was not paying rent, we knew that there was a high chance that those cases would go in favour of the landlord.

So what we did was that we said, “Why don’t we just move those up in the front of the queue and just address them right off the bat?” It went from 12 weeks’ wait to now having decisions within three weeks — again, all trying to create that balance, all trying to show that we can move in that direction.

In fact, I had met with, just before the election, the minister from Ontario, who has a massive crisis of landlord-tenant disputes and wait times. They were asking us what we have done to get our times to where we’re at, and we were sharing information. There’s still always more work to do, but we have taken substantial steps to be able to address this challenge.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive analysis. It would actually help me if I had something written out so that I could define how many steps you have already taken relative to that issue, because I do get a lot of complaints. I certainly understand that the minister has got a tough balancing act, but landlords right now are feeling that they don’t want to rent their properties.

That’s not a place that’s going to help anyone of us, when we’re trying to create housing — and not make those units that are available no longer available because they’re afraid someone’s either going to wreck it or not pay.

So thanks for the information. If I could have it in written form, so that I can sing that same song, it would be very helpful, if that would be agreeable.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, we will get the member the service standards that are set, and where we are within the service standards. We will get, for the member, all the recent changes that have been made as of late, and we will get that all, via email, as soon as we can.

Linda Hepner: I’m just wondering. I’ve had a question regarding what process is in place to confirm that those who are being evicted for a family moving in have actually been displaced for that reason. And I’ve had exactly the opposite question asked of me last week, so I do understand the two-edged sword here. If the minister could give me some analysis on that process.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That is a serious concern for many who have been living in a home for a long time, when someone says, “Hey, I need it for personal use.” You know, they leave there and are then finding a place to rent, for substantially higher. Then they find out that in fact it wasn’t for personal use; they’d just wanted them out because they wanted somebody else, to get a rent.

That happened a lot. There are a couple of reports that came out last year highlighting that personal-use eviction was one of the leading causes of homelessness. That’s alarming for all of us.

So one of the things we did was, as I shared, that during the peak, the lowest-vacancy-rate period, we moved the time from two to four months. We also changed the rules to say that if you are caught, you’re paying, I believe, 12 months of lost paid rent.

[6:40 p.m.]

We’ve also launched a digital portal. What we often heard from tenants was that they didn’t have any information about what’s happening and what the process is. Our digital process allowed us to do two things.

It made it easier for landlords to actually serve a notice. If they didn’t need it for personal use, they were able to use a

tenants was that they didn’t have any information about what’s happening, what’s the process, so a digital process allowed us to do two things.

It made it easier for landlords to actually serve a notice if they didn’t need it for personal use. They were able to use a digital portal to put some information in and get some information to be able to share. It also gave the potential for a tenant to get some information that they may need to ensure that it’s being followed properly. And it gave us the opportunity to actually track how often it’s being used. We’ve had a lot of success from that.

We’ve actually seen a lot of decrease of people using personal use because now there are more measures in place. One of the things, using that, is that you have to, essentially, sign a waiver saying that you’re doing this in a just way, so we continue to track that issue.

It was a bigger issue when we saw a rapid rise in rents because people saw an opportunity to evict somebody. I’m not saying everybody — I just want to make sure that’s clear — but some, certainly. It’s a challenge when you’re trying to balance the needs of someone who’s got a home, who genuinely wants to do that, to someone who’s abusing the system.

I’m hoping that the monetary orders being public now will help deter that type of activity. I’m hoping that it will also ensure that, for example, if a tenant is going to a place and they lose their deposit and the deposit is not being paid back and then they go and go through the process, that will be on there as well.

This was an important piece. I heard from tenants, saying: “I wish I had known this landlord has this history,” and I hear from landlords, saying, “I wish I knew the tenant had this history,” so I think by posting that information, that will be an important step. We are putting some provisions in place for where there are cases of domestic violence, etc., so that that information is not public to make sure that people are protected.

Back to the main point of the question, which is: yes, we need to continue to have those measures in place to protect people from people that use that clause to unjustly move people out of their homes.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to change topics for a little bit and talk about the short-term-rental registry. The province launched the short-term-rental registry to help families find places to live. On the website, it indicates that registration fees will support short-term rental enforcement programs and help to ensure that homes are being used for people living and working in B.C.

Can the minister explain to me what the rental enforcement program is? And how many people will it be employing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member was asking…. I don’t want to give a long answer for a question the member is not interested in, so is the member wanting me to walk through how the short-term rental enforcement is going to happen, going forward?

[6:45 p.m.]

If so, the member can let me know. I can kind of walk through the whole thing. But if the member just wants to know how many people, I can tell the member that we have a compliance enforcement director, and they have seven staff.

going forward. If so, the member can let me know. I can kind of walk through the whole thing.

But if the member just wants to know how many people, I can tell the member that we have a compliance enforcement director, and they have seven staff.

Rosalyn Bird: The reason I'm asking about the rental enforcement program…. There is an indication on the website that you have a provincial compliance unit. Is that part of the rental enforcement program, and if it is, does that include….? The director and seven staff — is that compliance unit included?

You've got two listings on your website, so I'm trying to figure out if they're two different organizations or if it's one, and one falls under the other.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We've got two different units. One is associated to the RTB and making sure that there is compliance around landlords and tenants. And yup, there is another unit that's short-term-rentals focused.

Rosalyn Bird: So the employees that are going to be part of the rental enforcement program, are they going to be public service employees, or has that been contracted out?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of these are public servants. There's no outsourcing for this.

Rosalyn Bird: Are you aware of or are you able to provide what pay level the employees would be at?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of it is done through the public sector classifications. We have one band 4 director, one AO 21, two people that are AO 24, four that are at AO 18. And the member can find all the wage classifications online. I can share....

The member is okay? Okay. Thank you.

Rosalyn Bird: That number of staff, the director and the seven staff, as part of the rental enforcement program, does that also include…. Are they doing the work at the registry itself? And how many employees are you expecting or projecting to need, say, over the next six to 12 months as the registry rolls out?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: For both the enforcement and the registry, there are 25 employees, and the budget is about $3.6 million.

Rosalyn Bird: Once the registration is up and running — because the fees are starting to be collected May, June, in that time frame; people are already registering — can you elaborate that if the fees collected are more than the operation and the management of the program itself, where are those moneys going to be used? Will they be earmarked for housing projects, because that’s what this program was initially set up to help with, or will those moneys be going back to general revenue?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re still at the estimate phase, so it’s hard to know exactly the revenue we’ll get. That being said, any dollar that would be additional would, in the immediate, go to general revenue. But it would give us an opportunity after one year to assess the amount needed to operate the system, compared to what we expect the dollars to come. Because those things can fluctuate, right?

We see over 20,000 this year of units. We could see less next year. We could see

revenue, but it would give us an opportunity after one year to assess the amount needed to operate the system compared to what we expect the dollars to come.

Those things can fluctuate, right? We see over 20,000 this year of units. We could see less next year. We could see more. Because we’re still in it, it’s hard to know exactly. But it’s something for next year’s estimates, for sure, that we’ll be considering.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you confirm whether this registry is intended to be temporary, until the housing crisis has been met, or is this a registry that you intend to keep indefinitely?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, it’s important for the member to know that UBCM requested us to create a provincial ongoing registry. Local governments were having major challenges with two things: (1) not getting accurate data and not knowing exactly what is happening in their communities, and (2) not being able to actually enforce their rules.

What we’ve seen is two things. Since our registry has come online, we’re seeing a significant increase in compliance to local government bylaws and to local government permitting. Some communities…. When we shared preliminary numbers, there were, you know, in the 50 percents of people that actually registered with the local government compared to those that were operating on different platforms. So we are going to expect to see a better compliance.

We may even see, in fact, a lot of local governments move away from their own systems because our provincial registry does pretty much what they need to do with enforcement, etc.

The projected expectation is that it’s in the budget and it’s ongoing.

We may get to a place where, as the Premier highlighted…. The legislation states pretty clearly that if communities have a two-year average of more than 3 percent vacancy rate, they can opt out. We may get to that point — hopefully; that’s a healthy thing — for communities to be able to get that vacancy rate and have the ability, if they choose so, to opt out.

That will affect the numbers. If we get to a place where there are not many communities left, that’s a different consideration. But at this point, this is an ongoing program.

Rosalyn Bird: Could I request clarification on the comments that you just made, Minister? Are you indicating that various villages and/or cities or areas have an opportunity to actually opt out of the registry?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that those questions should come through the Chair, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My comment is that under the legislation around short-term rentals, communities have the ability to opt out of principal residence requirements if their vacancy rate is above 3 percent for two consecutive years.

Rosalyn Bird: That is not the understanding that I have received from the office, so if we can get clarification of that…. My understanding is that whether there is a primary residence or you are exempt in a primary residence area, you still have to actually register through the short-term registry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Correct — I think I’m correct and the member is correct. If you’ve got a vacancy rate at 3 percent, you can opt out of principal residence requirements, but if you do have a short-term rental still in your community, you’re still required to register.

That’s important for local governments. I’ll give an example. If you have a community that does not have a bylaw system at all, and you’ve got, right now, an operator, someone that’s running short-term rental in your community…. If a local government has an issue, there’s no way of them enforcing anything on that property unless they use our portal.

So it’s important for the registry to happen because local governments can use the portal to either notify a landlord…. Often what happens is people don’t even know who the landlord is, and so it’s always a challenge to figure that out. But now you can use the portal to send a direct message to the owner, the landlord of the unit and also, if it needs to be amplified, use the same portal to send a direct message to the platform for removal of a listing.

The member is correct, and I think my statement was correct as well.

[7:00 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: The provincial principal resident requirement is intended to be a floor or minimum standard for regulating short-term rentals, according to the website. This statement would imply that there is going to be further regulation coming for short-term rentals

Rosalyn Bird: The provincial principal resident requirement is intended to be a floor or minimum standard for regulating short-term rentals according to the website. This statement would imply that there is going to be further regulation coming for short-term rentals. Is that actually the case?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll share an example with a member in Victoria. Victoria has rules that are above and beyond what the province has set. They don’t allow short-term rentals and ADUs, so that’s what’s being referred to here. There is a base, but local governments, if they choose, can go above and beyond and have additional measures if they feel it’s appropriate for their community.

Rosalyn Bird: The STRA indicates that hosts and platforms are required to register annually. They are also required to pay unit fees per year. Is this going to be indefinite, or is this going to be for the next few years until you have a good grasp on the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The fees to the platforms are a yearly fee. For a platform that has more than 1,000, it’s $5,000 a year. For a platform that has less than $1,000 units, it’s $600 a year.

Rosalyn Bird: So the hosts are going to also be required to pay fees annually through the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s a smaller fee for hosts, and there’s a larger fee for the platforms. If you have a short-term rental in a property which you live in, it’s $100 a year. If you have a short-term rental that you do not live in, so it’s a complete home, it’s $450 a year. If you are a strata hotel, the entire strata hotel fee is $600.

Rosalyn Bird: This has been an ongoing challenge in my riding, Prince George–Valemount. We are a resort municipality, so I’m going to ask a few more questions. These are questions that I’ve been challenged with over the last few months and that have gone back and forth. Some of those questions have been directed to the ministry’s office, but the answers haven’t been completely clear.

How were short-term rental hosts notified?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Perhaps the member can clarify. Notified of what?

Rosalyn Bird: Notified that they needed to register on the short-term rental registry.

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The platforms shared with us information about anyone that has listings on their properties. We sent three emails to every unit or every host. We sent one physical letter. The platforms also sent multiple notifications to all of their hosts on their site, and of course, we did public awareness and paid media advertisement around it as well.

Rosalyn Bird: If I understood you correctly, it was the actual platforms that had to notify the hosts that they had to register on the short-term-rental registry, and there was notification sent by email and by letter form. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just repeat it again. The platforms were required last year to share with us, the government, emails and home addresses of anyone that’s a host, so we have that information. The province sent three emails to hosts. We sent one physical mail to everyone that was sent to us from the platforms. And the platforms notified people that lists on their properties as well.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the clarification. The reason I was asking the question specifically is that I have a number of short-term rentals in my riding that did not receive notification and are very confused about that.

The reason I was kind of…. I’m going to go back to the platforms themselves. Which platforms did the ministry or is the ministry working with in regards to the short-term-rental registry? Are we talking about Booking.com, Airbnb, VRBO, Expedia, Trivago, Marketplace, Kijiji, UsedVictoria?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Just a warning that we’re going to call a recess here shortly, after the minister answers this question.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s an extensive list. There are 69 platforms across the province that are registered. Marketplace is not one of them because Marketplace doesn’t actually do transactions. But there are 69.

Maybe perhaps it might be easier if I just send an email with the...? Is it possible to get out of this?

Perhaps we can have dinner for five minutes or ten minutes, and then we’ll come back, and I’ll be able to share that with the member.

The Chair: Minister, we gave 15 and it took 20 last night, so we were going to try ten tonight and aim for 15 — so 15 sharp.

This House will stand recessed. Thank you very much.

The House recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:21 p.m.

The House recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:21 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, everybody. We'll bring this chamber back to order.

We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs today. We'll turn to the minister for a comment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We were just touching on the 69 platforms. We're going to just check to see if I can share all 69 platforms. I've just got to check legally if I'm allowed to share all the names.

I can share with the member that all the majors — Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia — are the biggest players. They’ve all got more than 1,000 listings. Those were the three that provide us the majority of the hosts’ information, email addresses, etc.

Rosalyn Bird: Is there a plan in place or a process for the short-term rentals that were not given notifications that they had to register on the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, everyone can still register, and we still are getting registrations coming in. The challenge is that you can only directly communicate to those that you know that operate, that are there. We're doing that. And a lot of it requires the media. A lot of it comes through some of the paid advertising we've done. So we're doing everything we can to reach as many people as possible.

Rosalyn Bird: What is the incentive for large platforms like Booking.com or Expedia or even smaller platforms to participate in this process? They have to pay a large fee.

No disrespect, but there are approximately 28,000 short-term rentals across this province. I find it hard to believe that one director and seven staff are actually going to be able to manage that amount of administration between themselves, so the opportunity for people to participate and continue to do short-term rentals is very high. I'm just curious what that looks like for the ministry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it goes to the question I was asking earlier, if the member wants me to kind of give an overview. I'm happy to do that.

First off, platforms are required by law. This was part of the deliberations when the legislation came in last year. We're not asking for goodwill from the platforms. This is a requirement for them to participate.

This is a fundamental challenge that local governments struggled with. They were all relying on goodwill, hoping that the platforms would listen. Vancouver had an agreement with some of the large platforms but rarely got the complete information. No other community had that. So that was the reason why local governments asked us to create a provincewide registry.

Now with our registry that's launched, every single platform, by law, must show a provincial ID of every listing that they have on their website. And in order for them to have a provincial ID, they must register through the province.

Local governments benefit because they're now going to have exact information of what's on there. Anyone that….

[7:25 p.m.]

Well, platforms. If platforms are caught with listings that don't have a provincial ID, there's a significant fine associated with it, not just a one-time but an ongoing fine. Hosts that don't comply have a fine associated with it as well. So there are enforcement tools in place.

We have already over 20,000 hosts that have

have a provincial ID, there’s a significant fine associated with it, not just a one-time but an ongoing fine. Hosts that don’t comply, they have a fine associated with it as well.

So there are enforcement tools in place. We have over 20,000 hosts that have already registered and fairly good compliance from the platforms, I have to say. I’m confident that we’ll be able to enforce the measures.

Because the listings are online, we are able to scan digitally and to be able to see what listings are there, see if there are multiple numbers. We’re able to very importantly share that data, because of the legislation, with the Ministry of Finance, which has its own registry that was designed after some of the money-laundering issues that we had in the casinos.

They have information about who owns what property, whose is principal residence, who has got investment properties, and more importantly, who owns the properties, not just numbered companies but actual names. So that is an important link from a money-laundering perspective that I think is an additional benefit to the entire operation that we have.

The teams investigate, maybe, perhaps, through complaints that may come, but they also can identify through different systems if there’s an inappropriate ID that comes, of display. So there’s a whole host of ways for them to be able to do that.

We have had to issue some fines. We’ve had…. Now, this is prior to the registry. The registry, obviously, takes our enforcement to another level, but previous to that, it was very much complaint driven. We’ve had cases where individuals were identified to have multiple properties and not principal residence. When the issues were highlighted, they took their properties down off the listings, and then a few weeks later put them back up and, of course, we monitor these things.

There’s a whole host of ways that investigations could happen, but to the members’ main question, the registry allows us to scale it to another level. The database system or the portal system allows us to efficiently communicate between local government, host, platform. The province can connect with host and platform in a very efficient way, with some timelines of when listings have to come down. So it just raises enforcement to a different level.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister, what was the rationale that was used when you determined that resort municipalities would not be exempt from the registry? Those areas are designated areas for tourists. They are areas that are highly popular across the province. And, of course, one of the primary reasons people go there is because there are lots of accommodations.

There have been restrictions that have been put in place now. A lot of the operators in these types of areas, because they’re small villages, small towns, small businesses that are family owned and operated…. I wouldn’t disagree that the province is definitely benefiting from the registry. However, I would disagree that…. It is not in the benefit for the small operator that is being forced to use the registry.

So how are you anticipating? Or what was the consultation that was done between various ministries when looking at the registry and the impacts on not only small business but on tourism across the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When this legislation was brought forward, there was extensive consultation. It was a recommendation that came from UBCM. They also did consultation. We engaged with tourism-dependent communities. We notified them all that we were moving in this direction. Many communities reached out to have one-on-one meetings with us.

I think everyone benefits. If you’ve got a community that’s a tourism-dependent community and you’ve got a property that continuously has large house parties and everybody else is annoyed, how are they going to address that if they don’t have a registry? They can ask the platform if they will, out of their goodwill, take action. But we’ve seen in community after community that it hasn’t been effective. So now that they’re registered, they can use the portal and a message gets sent directly to the platform.

[7:30 p.m.]

There’s a level of compliance that wouldn’t have existed without the portal. So the consultation was extensive. We didn’t get to this in just a few weeks. This was years of advocacy from local governments for the province to bring something in with teeth so that they could

that wouldn’t have existed without the portal.

The consultation was extensive. We didn’t get to this in just a few weeks. This was years of advocacy from local governments for the province to bring something in with teeth so that they could ensure that housing was prioritized for people in our communities.

Rosalyn Bird: Hosts that do not comply will have their listings taken down on May 1 and have future bookings cancelled starting June 1. So for those smaller operators that did not get notification, and there are a number of them in my area, what is going to happen with the tourists, particularly the ones coming from out of country, who arrive to find that they don’t have any accommodation bookings this summer when they’re visiting from out of country?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It takes ten minutes for someone to register. Folks can do that fairly quickly. The platforms will have their APIs up and running by June 2. So we expect that if there’s someone not following the rules, within a couple of weeks there will be requests for a takedown.

Again, the system is designed in a way that we first want to urge compliance. We don’t want to go straight to enforcement. So if the member has folks that haven’t registered, it’s a ten-minute process, and folks should be encouraged to register.

Rosalyn Bird: I don’t disagree with anything that you just said, but I can’t encourage somebody to register if I don’t know that they’re operating. That is actually my concern, particularly in these smaller communities where people aren’t necessarily advertising on some of these bigger platforms. The reason I have a number of these questions is because this has been brought up over the last few months in my particular riding.

I’m going to repeat a question that I asked earlier because I am concerned about it. If the ministry put out notification through the platforms that they were aware of because the platforms had indicated who was and who wasn’t renting, but they did....

Actually, I’ll ask a clarification question. Did the ministry reach out to municipalities and/or villages to ask them to provide also a list of small renters or small, short-term rentals in their area so that everybody that they were aware of would actually receive official notification?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I say this respectfully to the member, if there is a host that hasn’t registered, say as of June 2, when the platform notices that there’s no provincial ID number, they’re going to notify them and say: “You’ve got a listing here, but you don’t have a provincial ID number. Can you share that with us?” At that point, they’ll realize that they perhaps didn’t know that they needed to get it, and then it’s a ten-minute process.

It should be fairly easy for anyone that has a listing on a platform. The platforms are going to know right away who doesn’t have that, because they’re not allowed listing it and they’re going to want them on the listing. They’re just going to send them a notice to say: “You don’t have a provincial ID. Here’s what you need to do: ten minutes, register and you’re on.”

There is a lot of time. We did send a notice to all local governments that the registry was coming. We didn’t ask them to notify us, but there was an opportunity for local governments to notify people in their communities if they chose to do so.

You know, I appreciate the member’s concern that a host may not know today, but they are going to know when the platforms come back to them and say, “You have no provincial ID,” and suggest to them: “It takes ten minutes to go online. You’re going to get a provincial ID and use that to put all your listings up.” There are many opportunities for that to happen.

[7:35 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I do actually have a property in my area. They are renting a small number of cabins. They advertise on their own website. Of course, they did not receive a notification. They were given information through the registry when they called that they had to both register as a host and as a platform. My question is: if you have a small independent operator that is now required to register as a host and as a

notification. They were given information through the registry, when they called, that they had to both register as a host and as a platform. My question is: if you have a small independent operator that is now required to register as a host and as a platform, are they going to be required to follow all of the same reporting requirements as any of the larger platforms?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Could I suggest to the member that if they’ve got a unique situation like that, the member share that information with us now or after, and we can have our team reach out to help them navigate the process? Many operations that are really small in nature can also get exemptions, but we need to understand the model that is there, and we can help them out.

Rosalyn Bird: The registry has communicated that Airbnbs are single-room units, so they don’t meet the definition of a dwelling. But they are required to register and to pay a $100 fee for a shared home. Operators in my area have been told they have to pay a $100 fee per room within that home.

For example, if I have a primary residence and I am renting six rooms in my house, I will be required to pay $600 per year, of course, plus the service fee of $1.50. Can the minister confirm that for me, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll repeat what I previously said. If the member has an operator in the community that has unique challenges, we can have the STR team reach out and figure out what it is. Because we’re talking hypotheticals.

If there are six units, then it’s $100 per unit. But again, we’ve had some small platforms that operate in that type of environment getting exemptions. Again, we can go back and forth, but if the member wants to help these folks, the best thing to do is have our team connect right after this and meet with them directly to figure it out.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to go back to the $100, you actually had said earlier that the $100 fee was for a household. If we could actually get full clarification on that, whether it’s $100 per room or if it is $100 per shared household, that would be greatly appreciated.

Moving on to a different type of…. Well, same topic, different question. I had asked the office what the difference was between a hotel-motel with a kitchenette and a purpose-built STR. I was told that motel-hotels cannot be occupied as a principal residence, which, based on a number of the conversations we had yesterday, is interesting because there are a lot of people living in hotels currently.

How is the province able to use hotels for short-term supportive housing, yet private property owners and investors that have built and have purchased purpose-built short-term rentals prior to the registry…? Why are they being penalized?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is information about definitions around hotels and motels on the STR website. Is there something specific the member would like to know?

Rosalyn Bird: I have an example actually. There is a building here in Victoria — the minister may or may not be aware of it — called the Janion building. It’s just to the left of the Johnson Street Bridge actually. It’s a beautiful old stone building with a glass-and-steel frontage that has been added to it. That building was purpose-built as a short-term rental building. The idea behind…. There are a number of them around the province, but that one happens to be here in Victoria.

Those buildings were built prior to the registry being implemented, and they were built for a specific purpose. A lot of those buildings, particularly Janion…. Companies and/or individuals have purchased those units to come into town and work for weeks at a time so that they don’t have to have a hotel. They were never intended and/or built for somebody to live in on a permanent or long-term basis, similar to a hotel type of situation.

So a lot of money was invested in, well, that particular building and a number of those types of buildings around the province, and owners are now losing money and having to sell units, but they’re challenged in selling those units because the majority of people are not going to purchase them at the purchase price they’re being offered at because they’re not designed to be lived in permanently and full-time.

I’m trying to understand what the premise was or the understanding. Why would we as a province be penalizing people that have spent a significant amount of money and invested in a particular type of housing, whether you call it permanent or not permanent, in this province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We canvassed this legislation at great length when it was introduced, but I’ll just say to the member: how does the member know that those units are not able to be lived in for long term?

Rosalyn Bird: Whether they can or cannot be…. I mean, I can live in a hotel room for a long period of time also, but it says right on your website, right on the registry, that a hotel room is not considered to be a permanent-residence living space. So if you build something that is of the same square footage, and you build it intentionally and that it be used as a temporary space, and that was part of the building model and part of the building plan, I don’t think those individuals that purchased those units for that opportunity should be penalized.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I will ask the question: how does the member know that those units cannot be lived in for long term? And I say that with all seriousness, because there are people that live in that building that live for long term. In fact, many of those units went on rent for long term. So it’s a genuine question for the member. What assumptions are being made to assume that those units can’t be lived in long term?

Rosalyn Bird: I’m not making those assumptions at all. So I will actually ask a different question. Based on the question that you just asked me, are you intending to have the hotels that you have purchased around the province register on the short-term rental registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They’re classified as supportive housing, so it’s a different situation.

[7:45 p.m.]

It doesn’t actually make any sense in the context of what we’re discussing. The government owns those units. They’re for vulnerable populations, to get them off the street, to get them wraparound supports. They’re not being operated for tourists to come into British Columbia. So I’m not quite sure of the relevance of the question.

it doesn’t actually make any sense in the context of what we’re discussing. Government owns those units. They’re for vulnerable populations — to get them off the street, to get them wraparound supports. They’re not being operated for tourists coming to British Columbia. So I’m not quite sure of the relevance of the question.

Rosalyn Bird: We will have to agree to disagree on this point. There are a large number of British Columbians across this province that are losing substantial amounts of money in investments because they bought units in a building that were intended as short-term rentals and are no longer being allowed to be used for that.

As of May 1, 2024, short-term rental hosts were required to display a valid business number on their listings where a business license is required by the local government. Platforms will also be required to enable the posting of this business license number.

Many smaller communities, many in resort municipalities, are not given business license numbers that are now necessary to be posted on the advertising platforms. How is the ministry addressing these types of challenges with online platforms before the deadline dates are met?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just presuming that the member is heading to the question around what was canvassed with the member from Kelowna yesterday, which is when a business license is required and…. For example, in Kelowna where a business license was just required and people need to register, what we’re accepting for the registry is proof of application. We can do the check later to ensure that the application went through and the local government approves the business license.

Rosalyn Bird: In Valemount, for example, if you are operating a small business that, you know, has an Airbnb — and I can think of a particular property — and has some cabins on it, there is not a business license per se that is given out for that particular operation. But on the registry, it is required that that actual license number be added to the platform drop-down list, and there’s no ability to do that if you don’t have it.

There are concerns for people in these smaller communities that don’t have that particular number that if it’s not on the platform, because they don’t have anything to put on the platform, their listings are going to be cancelled.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That portion is only for communities that have business licenses, that they issue business licenses. So if a community…. For example, in Surrey, they issue a business license, so people put the number in. But, in Valemount, if there’s no business licensing regime, then they don’t need to put that in.

We have information for our validation of which communities require a business license and which ones don’t because the local governments have shared that information with us, so it should not be an issue.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that information. My concern is how will the platform know to notify the registry to confirm that this particular community doesn’t give out these types of licence numbers?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It doesn’t involve the platforms at all. Our system has already a capacity built in, for when people put their address in, to identify whether the

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It doesn’t involve the platforms at all. Our system has already a capacity built in for when people put their address in to identify whether the specific property is in an area that has a business licensing regime.

If someone, for example, in Victoria registers on our registry, and they don’t put a business licence in, they will be notified that: “You are in a community that requires a business licence, and you need to contact your local government to get it.” In the case of Valemount, a person would register, they wouldn’t put a business licence in, and it would go through without a notification.

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to clarify. I’m looking at the platform requirements currently, so I want to make sure that I’m understanding this correctly so I can tell my constituents that this is the case.

In the platform requirements overview, it actually indicates that short-term rental platforms operating in B.C. are required to — and there are a number of requirements; there are nine in total — include a number of pieces of information, and the one third from the bottom says: “business licence number.” That is a requirement on the platform when you go to register your short-term rental.

My concern is that if that information is not provided, and the platform does not reach out to the registry, there is going to be an issue with bookings or something being cancelled. I just want to clarify.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member. Again, it’s the same answer as I provided, which is that our registry has, by address, an automatic system that notifies people if they’re in an area that requires a business licence.

In Valemount, if the member is saying that there’s no business licence regime in the community, then they don’t need to put a business licence number in. The system automatically notifies them if it’s required. If I were in Victoria, and I’m putting my information in, and I don’t put a business licence in, the system will right away notify me, because I’m listing a property in Victoria that requires a business licence. That’s the difference between the two.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to go back to the same sort of question, slightly different: the platforms are required to share information about short-term rental listings directly with the province. Platforms are required to provide two types of reports to the province on the 15th of each month via the STR data portal. They have to provide a monthly data and a monthly takedown report.

Was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner consulted as to what information would be appropriate to collect by the ministry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it was, but we are heading way into relitigating legislation that was passed in this House some time ago. I want to try to answer as many questions from members as I can, but I’m hoping we can concentrate on the estimates here instead of going back to something that was probably one of the longest debates of legislation that, certainly, I’ve been part of in the previous government.

Linda Hepner: I’m just going to ask a couple of questions as we move closer to our midnight hour here.

[7:55 p.m.]

One of them, I know, is contentious because it’s…. The minister himself has spoken about how difficult it is, and I have personal knowledge of that from local government, in finding a spot for shelters and housing that is difficult to find, places for permanent shelters.

There is one that is probably now on the minister’s top-of-mind list, and that is the one that is creating a lot of dissension in Burnaby at

places for permanent shelters.

But there is one that is probably now on the minister’s top-of-mind list, and that is the one that is creating a lot of dissension in Burnaby at 3020 Gilmore Diversion. It is next to a casino and a bar, and there is a lot of angst amongst the residents there who are in a retirement home that it could not be a less appealing choice to put a shelter.

I’m just wondering if the minister can let me know what processes are in place for selecting sites for permanent shelters and supportive housing, because at first blush, this certainly does not seem to me to be conducive to people who are already addicts and suffering from various addictions to be right next door to a casino and bar.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member was the mayor and had to make some tough decisions about where to put folks, and so we have the similar challenges in all communities.

I would just say that we’ve been having lots of discussions with communities around needing to step up and do a little bit so that some communities don’t have to do a lot. This was a preferred location from the local government, from all the locations that we were able to come up with as options.

We are engaged with local government, and I appreciate that any time a shelter has come in place, any time there’s supportive housing, it comes with some concerns. We certainly will mitigate those concerns as best we can and monitor how that goes as we go forward. It’s something that we’re always in continuous conversations with the city of Burnaby on.

There’s a shortage of shelters and supportive housing in Burnaby. The mayor and council are well aware of the challenge. This opportunity came available for us. From all the options, this was the best option that we could come up with.

Again, my commitment to the mayor and council and to community is that we’ll continue to monitor that site to see if there are in fact issues. But anytime something new comes in the community, I appreciate that it raises some anxiety for people.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for the comments, Mr. Minister, but I’m wondering if there is an analysis that is made to say: “We have these kinds of shelters or this kind of housing that we need to provide. These people are very vulnerable. Let’s not put them immediately to close to a school. Let’s not put them close to a casino. Let’s not put them close to a bar.”

I’m just wondering: what are the measurements? Because I certainly can commiserate that there’s no easy solution. I faced many of those same decisions. But there is generally a criterion where you say: “These are no goes, and these are possible.”

So I would like to know from the ministry, what are the criteria no goes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is an office-industrial area. I appreciate that, I guess, not far from there, there are some people that live there as well.

I will just share with the member…. Actually, I am sure the member knows from her time in Surrey, there are supportive housing and shelters near bars. If the concern is that it is really close to a casino, that is a different conversation. Perhaps there are issues being raised by the casino that they don’t want people in the community nearby them, but we will have those conversations.

Again, I’ll go back to the comment I made earlier, which is…. You know, there’s the chant, “What do we want? Housing. Where do we want it?” then silence. We have to find places. This was, from all the options that we could find, the most reasonable for the local government.

[8:00 p.m.]

My commitment is that we’ll continue to monitor it, but there are a lot of people struggling in Burnaby. I’m actually saying hats-off to that community for saying, “Yes, let’s do something for people,” and we’ll continue to work with them as we go forward.

is that we'll continue to monitor it. But there are a lot of people struggling in Burnaby, and I'm actually saying hats-off to that community for saying: “Yes, let's do something for people.” And we'll continue to work with them as we go forward.

Linda Hepner: I'm just conscious of the time, and I know I have a lot more questions to go through.

I'm going to skip to home ownership for a moment, and the fundamentals of home ownership as opposed to rental, because I know that the ministry has focused a lot on rentals and people becoming perpetually indebted to government to supply housing for them as a tenant.

I'm wondering if the minister can confirm what percentage of British Columbians are homeowners and can clarify whether or not the ministry has set more explicit targets for initial benchmarks to increase home ownership rates in B.C., as opposed to people having to rent their homes.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A lot of the programs that we do through B.C. Housing are focused on rental because we want to keep the land. We don't want to just sell the land.

But we also invest a lot in co-op. We've got new co-ops opening up, which is popular in many communities, and we certainly will be looking to do more of that.

We have the attainable home ownership plan or partnership that we're looking to roll out on Heather Lands. That’ll be an opportunity, on leased land, for home ownership.

If the member will look at the changes we made around allowing fourplexes or six units near transit, that's really what we're getting at. We're trying to get at the opportunity for people to get into home ownership.

That entire home is not affordable for young families. But if that home can be broken up into two or three units, it becomes more attainable because the prices are lower. So we are trying to target the opportunity for people to get into home ownership.

It means easing restrictions. It means making it easier for someone to build a triplex or a fourplex, maybe just as easy as it is to make a very large single-family home, because we know that large single-family home is not attainable.

Now, it is attainable for some. I certainly have said this on the record many times: if people still want the single-family home, then the market will continue to deliver it. But for a lot of people, they can't afford that single-family home, and we need to make it flexible enough, our rules flexible enough, so that homebuilders can look at the market and meet the market's needs.

So we are doing a lot to enable home ownership — we do believe it's critically important — through some government programs, cutting red tape so that we can get more of these homes built in our communities. I think we need to create that pathway.

Finally, I'll say that for a lot of people, they don't want to own a home. They're happy renting. And there's nothing wrong with that as well.

Sheldon Clare: Airbnb owners who’ve been in discussions with me have expressed concerns about how decisions were made in the budget that affected their businesses. I wanted to ask the minister: what was the nature of commitments made to the motel/hotel industry regarding Airbnbs which led to that type of business being shut down? Did these commitments have anything to do with any major sporting events that were happening?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This legislation passed a long time ago, and I'd like to focus on the estimates. There are a lot of things that the Housing Ministry does, and perhaps we can continue to focus on that.

If the member is making an accusation of some sort, he should just say it. He's a straight shooter, so if he's saying that there's something, I'd like him to say it.

[8:05 p.m.]

In fact, I’d like him to come outside in the hallway and say it publicly, because suggesting that there are some sort of nefarious actions being taken, I think, is a little bit inappropriate.

Sheldon Clare: I was making no accusation, Minister. I was asking a question.

suggesting that there are some sort of nefarious actions being taken, I think is a little bit inappropriate.

Sheldon Clare: I was making no accusation, Minister. I was asking a question.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the Minister of Housing: is the minister aware of the $50 million grant funding request made by the Vancity Community Foundation to his ministry on November 29, 2024?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m not aware of it, but my team says that there has been a request come from Vancity, but I haven’t had a chance to explore that at all.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that his chief of staff met with Vancity about the funding request on December 13, 2024?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware that this request was something that Vancity met with my chief of staff on. I’m not sure how the member knows that it’s about this topic. My staff informed me that the request came just to them now, but I’m not aware, no.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that Nicola Hill, principal of Nicola Hill Strategies, registered to lobby the Ministry of Housing on behalf of Vancity?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’m not sure. No one has lobbied me from Vancity, so I’m not aware of that.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that his sister’s government relations and lobbying firm claims to work with Nicola Hill and lists Nicola Hill as a collaborative partner on the lobbying company’s website in the section titled “Our Team”?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware if they’re still working together and I’m not aware of any meeting and I’m not aware of any requests. I have no idea what the member is referring to.

Harman Bhangu: After your sister Parm Kahlon’s collaborative partner registered to lobby your ministry for Vancity about the $50 million funding request, is the minister aware that multiple senior officials in Ministry of Housing met with Vancity about the funding request?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any meetings. I’m not aware of any requests except for what my staff has just informed me.

Harman Bhangu: Was the minister or his staff aware of those meetings between Vancity and the Ministry of Housing officials?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just notified the member on the record that I wasn’t aware of any of those meetings. In fact, I wasn’t even aware of a request until the member asked and my staff just notified me then.

Harman Bhangu: Has the Minister of Housing or his staff had any communications with Nicola Hill or Parm Kahlon about Vancity Community Foundation in the last six months?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I have not.

Harman Bhangu: Have Ministry of Housing officials briefed the minister or his staff about the meetings with Vancity or the funding requests from Vancity or any other information related to the funding requests?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We get lots of funding requests. I was not made aware of it. In fact, my team just notified me that they got a letter requesting funding, but I have not been notified of that previously.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware of the nature of financial arrangements between his sister’s firm, Core Firm, and Nicola Hill Strategies Ltd.?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not, but I’m well aware of conflict-of-interest rules. If the member has an allegation he wants to make, it’s a good place to take it to.

I’ll just notify the member that he has made some borderline slanderous comments in the past, and I’ve always referred them to go to the conflict commissioner. In fact, the opposition has made accusation in the past, and every single time it goes to the conflict commissioner, it gets ruled against.

notify the member that he has made some borderline slanderous comments in the past, and I’ve always referred them to go to the conflict commissioner.

In fact, the opposition has made accusations in the past, and every single time it goes to the conflict commissioner it gets ruled against. So if the member has something that he’s concerned about, I believe the commissioner is the place to go.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that Opreet Kang, who co-founded lobbying company Core Firm with his sister, is on the board of Vancity Credit Union, which is connected to the Vancity Community Foundation?

The Chair: Member, I will just warn that we are here to discuss Vote 33, so I hope we’ll get there soon.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, I just want to echo that as well. We’re here to debate the estimates. If the member has concerns, I welcome him to take it to the conflict commissioner. That’s the appropriate place. But I’d like to focus on the estimates at hand.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware of other lobbyist registrations made by Nicholas Strategies to directly lobby the Ministry of Housing?

The Chair: We’re going to try to get back to Vote 33, but does the minister have a comment on that?

Thank you, Members.

Recognizing Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to talk about skilled trades and the shrinking construction industry and the fact that in March of this year B.C. experienced a 30 percent decrease in housing starts. Vancouver recorded a 59 percent decrease, driven lower by decreases in multi-unit starts.

The critics are pointing to various policies, and we’ve had those discussions around some of the regulatory restrictions that I believe are fuelling some of the non-construction projects. We’re seeing local governments get lots of approvals, but we’re not seeing, particularly, a lot of building permits.

I’ll use the city of Surrey because that’s the one I know best. For all of the housing units they have approved this year, there are 44,000 that have not taken out building permits. I know there is a decline in the actual construction. A lot of that will have to do with workers, but much of it has to do with policies and where we are financially and economically in this province and some of the regulatory streams that are holding it back.

But if I could ask the ministry how they can claim success on housing and infrastructure while we’re simultaneously seeing a declining construction workforce that is clearly now insufficient to meet our building needs, because the workforce, the construction and skilled workers have declined as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it certainly is a concern that we’re working on. I think the member knows that skills trade training specifically is in a different ministry. But at a high level, I’ll make a comment, which is that there are three things. One: scaling up skills training opportunities, which we’re doing as a province. The second important piece is using provincial nominee and other avenues for immigration for skills trades, which we need. And third is supporting the prefabrication and manufacturing space and increasing that capacity.

Part of the changes we’ve made, in particular around small-scale multi-unit…. The reason why it’s important, the reason why I think it’s going to help us address the challenges we’re dealing with, is that the skills trades that are required for some of the high-level, the highrise construction, are different than the skill sets that are required for more of the small-scale multi-unit housing. And there is capacity in the system for housing in that space. So that’s why I think it’s important for us.

But we are going to have to move to prefabrication. It is part of the future. It was something that we’re already doing some work on. The federal government has made a commitment to help expand prefabrication as well. And that’s why I’m really excited about the opportunity with mass timber as well.

[8:15 p.m.]

Not only does it help us use B.C. forest products to get more value, but it also can be done faster. It can be done more sustainably, and it can be done with less people on site, because a lot of the work happens off site. So you’re creating good manufacturing jobs, and you can assemble locally. So it’s a multi-pronged approach, but if the question is

to get more value. But it also can be done faster, it can be done more sustainably, and it can be done with less people on site because a lot of the work happens off site. So you’re creating good manufacturing jobs, and you can assemble locally.

It’s a multi-pronged approach, but if the question is specifically to the trades training piece, I think it’s better situated for the minister that is responsible for that.

Linda Hepner: Over the last decade, B.C. has witnessed an unprecedented escalation in construction costs, far outpacing normal inflation rates. According to Altus’s cost guides, hard construction costs for highrise condos have increased approximately 71 percent. Low-rise condos surged by over 120 percent, and institutional facilities, such as schools and hospitals, rose nearly 50 to 54 percent. By contrast, general consumer inflation rates during that same period averaged slightly lower, significantly lower, in fact — 20 percent, according to the Bank of Canada.

Minister, with those construction highrise buildings, low-rise buildings, schools and hospitals all increasing at rates much higher than inflationary rates, has the ministry ever conducted or commissioned an internal assessment measuring how the myriad of new building regulations, industrial carbon pricing and labour policies directly increase the construction costs in B.C.? If not, could you give me an indication of whether or not that would be something that you would look at favourably?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any analysis on labour shortages, etc., would be done by a different ministry.

We are always assessing costs for housing. Some of the biggest costs are waiting and waiting for approvals. We know that there are communities that can take a couple of years, and some take up to seven or eight years, and all of that has a cost. That’s been our focus — to reduce the waiting and reduce the uncertainty so that projects can move on to construction quickly. Of course, you know, we continue to look at the building code to find more efficiencies and ways for housing to be built faster.

Linda Hepner: Well, from my 35 years of experience in local government, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything take that many years that the minister had. I’m glad I worked in a place where certainly that length of time did not happen.

I wonder if the minister could provide to me a better understanding of the consultation that has gone on relative to housing construction generally, not just social housing, but explain how often or how frequently the ministry engages with organizations that are more dealing with private construction.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Nice to see Councillor Sampson again. He’s loving question period and estimates. Nice to see you.

[8:20 p.m.]

B.C. Housing meets with industry quarterly, and my ministry meets with different stakeholders within the construction community very regularly. I, in fact, meet with stakeholders from the construction and home-building

It’s nice to see you.

So the B.C. Housing meets with industry quarterly, and my ministry meets with different stakeholders within the construction community very regularly. I, in fact, meet with stakeholders from the construction and home-building community very frequently. So it is part of a normal business practice for our ministry to be engaging with them on a whole host of issues.

Ministry of Finance also engages with the home-building industry, and the Minister for Post-Secondary Education also meets with the construction industry.

Linda Hepner: I just need to follow up on that, then, because I’m wondering if the minister has ever directly reviewed the developers’ financial pro formas or sat down with private sector developers to understand why financing market-driven housing projects has now become so increasingly untenable.

I met recently with large contractors in the Fraser Valley. They described to me and said I would wish that every planner and everyone involved with housing could just sit down and let me go through a pro forma for holding property, for paying interest, for the regulatory hoops we have to go through at every level — I’m not specifically saying only the provincial level — but at the cost escalation of product and policy.

I’m just wondering if our ministry or our ministry staff or the minister’s staff have actually sat down and said: “Okay, run me through a pro forma, and let me understand what are the hiccups and why we aren’t getting the private sector investment in housing that we should.”

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, I’ll start by saying that the last four years have been some of the highest housing starts in the history of this province since we started collecting data in 1955.

But that being said, there are some new challenges. First, yes, of course, yeah, we meet with industry representatives. I meet with homebuilders all the time, who tell me the challenges they’re facing right now.

In particular, now, some additional challenges. Most of their concerns are around DCCs and Metro Vancouver fees and the impacts of that in the future and for their pro formas. The next biggest one is time and delays and how long it takes to get approval and go through the process.

So, yes, and then if you add….

[The bells were rung.]

There we go.

[The bells were rung.]

Oh, man, these bells just keep coming.

As I was saying before the bells started ringing, the last piece that is a new challenge for the homebuilders is the fact that rents are starting to come down, and homes are not selling at the prices that their pro formas were under.

On one side, it’s positive for renters who are seeing rents come down and for people who are buying homes to see those prices come down. But for those that bought land at a higher value with the projections to sell things much higher, it’s making it challenging for them. Often what we hear from them is: “How do we lower costs? Can you get rid of the development fees? Can you get rid of time?” As the rents are going down, they need to make sure their pro formas work, so I get the concern.

In one way, our success is leading to new challenges. Those are the conversations we’re having.

[8:25 p.m.]

Again, there are a lot of folks in the home-building community that were really happy with the negotiated agreement that we had with Metro for the two-year in-stream protection and moving DCC payments to the end in order for them to unlock $250 million. That’s going to help a lot of projects. And our move to have 20 percent accessibility instead of

happy with the negotiated agreement that we had with Metro for the two-year instream protection and moving DCC payments to the end in order for them to unlock $250 million for Iona. That’s going to help a lot of projects. And our move to have 20 percent accessibility instead of the adaptability, as opposed to 100 percent, that obviously will make a big difference.

We’re always looking at cost pressures, given that we’re in an environment where there’s supply and rents are coming down and the new prices are.... It’s good for young families that are trying to get into the market that are seeing that head into a place that’s more affordable, but I do appreciate and acknowledge that there are some additional challenges for homebuilders.

Quite frankly, the flipping tax that we introduced does benefit the people who are actually building homes. The other concern I hear from a lot of them is: “Why should I even build homes when folks right now just buy land and they continue to flip it and they make so much money and we’re stuck with it at the end at a really high cost because our business model is to actually build homes?”

There are a lot of folks in the home-building community that actually really like the flipping tax because they see this as an opportunity to discourage that type of activity so that they can actually get housing or land at a more reasonable price so that they can build housing.

That’s probably a longer answer than the member wanted, but I’ll just end with: yes, of course I meet with homebuilders all the time, go through pro formas and hear about the concerns that they have.

Claire Rattée: I’d just like to start out by saying thank you to the minister. I know that yesterday when we were asking some questions, I mentioned that my office had an email in for a couple of weeks now about a specific issue. We did get a response today, so I appreciate that.

I do have some more questions about it, though, because the response really didn’t fully help me to understand the situation. As I mentioned yesterday, I have a constituent. They make just under $17,000 a year. They’re on income assistance, and they live in a B.C. Housing building in the community of Terrace, so, obviously, their rent is controlled through that. My concern for this constituent was that his rent was increased quite significantly, about 40 percent, and that he was not informed of that, and then was facing eviction.

Based on the email that my staff received today, essentially, my understanding is that the rental portion of the income assistance cheque was increased from $348 a month to $498. Now, I’m assuming that that’s obviously the reason that his rent was increased. And I can understand that if it didn’t affect the rest of his income, perhaps he’s not completely understanding that his cheque increased. I totally get that. That’s fair enough. I will follow up with him to confirm that his cheque was actually increased.

The place that I take issue with it is that this particular individual is saying that they were not given any notice that the rent was being increased. Now, the issue here is that…. My understanding, through this email, is that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction pays the rent on behalf of this constituent to B.C. Housing. And apparently, it’s this constituent’s responsibility to inform that ministry that their rent has increased so that they can then transfer the correct amount of money to B.C. Housing.

As I stated yesterday, this individual has severe complex needs, complex traumatic brain injury. At the very least, he’s saying he was not aware that his rent was being increased, and it wasn’t until he was in an arrears of $375 and was facing a ten-day eviction notice that he actually received an email and then went to go fight it because clearly he is not completely understanding the situation here.

My question to the minister is: does he believe that this is an acceptable practice for B.C. Housing? On the one hand, I don’t understand why we are duplicating this kind of work, when they’re two ministries that should be able to communicate. I’m assuming that this is a very common issue throughout the province — that we have a lot of people who are on income assistance and that that rent portion is getting put specifically to B.C. Housing. I don’t understand why that’s not something that the ministry can handle. I’m sure there are many people that struggle with managing their finances in those positions.

And why is it that this individual wasn’t given notice until it was at the point where there was a $375 arrears and a ten-day eviction notice?

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are straying way away from estimates. I’ll give a short answer to the member. The member said: “Your office reached out a couple weeks ago.” I think the 23rd was when the email came in, so that’s a week ago. I know it’s not a couple of weeks ago, but I just want to make sure. We do respond pretty quickly, and it wasn’t a couple of weeks. It was a week. But a week along, when a person is struggling — I appreciate that.

the member said your office reached out a couple of weeks ago. I think the 23rd was when the email came in. So that's a week ago. I know it's not a couple of weeks ago, but I just want to make sure. We do respond pretty quickly. It wasn't a couple of weeks; it was a week. But a week is long when a person is struggling, and I appreciate that.

There are a lot of details here that the members shared that are different than our understanding of it. So instead of having a conversation on the record and Hansard, because it's a vulnerable individual, perhaps it's a conversation we can have offline.

Of course, we want to try to help individuals navigate any challenges. People are paying shelter rates, and there are some complexities that come with that. So if the member is okay, that's a conversation offline as opposed to here.

Claire Rattée: I'm fine having that conversation offline, but I do wonder if I can get a response about whether or not that's a policy that's been looked into.

I understand that this might be straying a bit off estimates, but I do think it's a fair question of trying to understand why those rents aren't just paid directly to B.C. Housing, why that would be that particular individual’s or any individual's responsibility to then inform that ministry that their rent has increased when this is something that's being dealt with entirely through government ministries.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I'll just say that when we provide…. I'm not talking about this specific person, just generally. When we provide people that support, they have the option, especially because it's shelter rate, to either have it paid directly to the landlord, in this case, or they take the responsibility themselves, and they take that money, and then they pay it. If an individual takes the responsibility to take the money themselves and pay it, and information isn't made clear that the amount that's being shared, there's a problem there.

You know, we are talking about accountability. We're talking about people, when they get money from government, that it's going to the right place. I'm sympathetic to people who are struggling, but we have to have accountability.

That's what this process is about. I'm being asked questions about which stakeholder gets what money and what they are using it for. So I'm accountable to people in this place. When we provide an individual with money, we have to ensure that it's going to the appropriate place.

Again, I don't want to go too much into it here. I appreciate the member's question and just want to focus on the estimates, if we can.

Claire Rattée: I understand that. I do think that there is a little bit of a discrepancy here, so I'm happy to try and deal with this outside of estimates, if we can organize a meeting at some point to talk about it a little bit further.

One thing I would like to ask about then, in a similar topic, I suppose, but in a general sense. One of the issues that arose out of this is that this specific unit…. This is the Willows building in Terrace. The way it was categorized in the email was that it's not a building that is meant to accommodate people with complex needs, essentially. There was no extra level of support involved.

I'm curious if the minister can talk about how many units, how many buildings there are in the northern British Columbia region that are equipped to be able to give extra supports to people, for example, that have traumatic brain injuries, people that are struggling with learning disabilities, things of that nature. Do we have any kind of housing available for people in the northern region that does assist with that through B.C. Housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: These buildings that are being mentioned…. I shared yesterday with the member the units that we have, so I already have shared that on the record.

My understanding is that these units the member is referring to is…. It’s a below-market rental, so it's a rental unit. I think I've shared that information yesterday with the member, but if there's something more specific, I'll try to get the team to get it.

Claire Rattée: I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what kind of housing there is available in the northern region through B.C. Housing. So I understand that this is below-market rentals, but the email that I received insinuated that there were other types of housing available through B.C. Housing. This just wasn't one of those units.

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what type of housing B.C. Housing does provide. Is there housing available for people with complex needs, and do we have any of that in the northern region?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: So 3219 Eby Street, Terrace and District Community Service Society. There are low-income-family homes that are underway. We’ve got Ksan,

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: For 3219 Eby Street, Terrace and District Community Services Society, there are low-income family homes that are underway. We’ve got 2801 Kenney Street, Ksan Society, which is 39 underway. We’ve got Stone Ridge Estates; there are 45 low-income family units there. We’ve got the Lammas family multi-family apartments that have 22 units that are in progress. We have the M’akola on Lazelle Avenue — 47 units that are open now. And then we’ve got women’s transition housing units.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, I think that maybe my question is not being well understood, because it sounds like those are still just below-market housing units.

I’m just curious. Is there something other than just below-market housing units and, I guess, obviously, SROs and things like that that B.C. Housing provides? Because the insinuation in this email was that there are units throughout the province that would provide an extra level of care to people with complex needs through B.C. Housing.

I’m assuming that means assisted services for people that need it, whether it’s, as we mentioned before, a traumatic brain injury or a number of other scenarios such as a learning disability. I’m just trying to have a better understanding of what kind of units B.C. Housing actually provides. And again, if there are those types of units, do any exist in the northern region?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I shared this yesterday; I’ll share it again. There’s Mumfords lodge, which is supportive housing; it’s got 19 units. There’s Sonder House, which is supportive housing, where there are 52 units that are available to the people in the community.

And again, if it’s a specific to the case, it’s better offline.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if the minister can help me to understand, when we’re looking at SROs and things of that nature throughout the province…. I know we talked a bit about wet versus dry facilities yesterday. I’m wondering if there is a way for the minister to provide what are the ratios of wet versus dry in the province so that we have an understanding.

Is it about 50-50? Are there more wet, more dry? I’d just like a rough ballpark of what that percentage looks like.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I committed to the member yesterday that we would get that information, and the team is compiling it to send over.

Claire Rattée: So there isn’t even a rough estimation, just in any sense, that we can have about…. Just to kind of give an idea…. I’m just curious. Is it roughly 50-50? Is there a significant amount more of one or the other? I feel like that’s something that we should be able to at least estimate.

I’m not holding you to a number. I understand that it’s a lot of data to go through, but I would assume that the ministry would have a rough idea of how common one is versus the other.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a little challenging. I don’t want to give a rough number because we’re in estimates and we’re supposed to be giving exact numbers. It’s probably better if we get that entire list for the member. In some projects, we’ve got 20 units that are wet and then a completely separate space that is dry, and so that’s the complexity of breaking it out. But I commit to the member that we will provide information.

Claire Rattée: My understanding, then, is you’ll even have some buildings where there will be some units that are wet and some units that are dry within the same building. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we could have a building that would have a separation between floors for wet and dry. That does exist. Sometimes it’s just complete separation of buildings where it could be wet and dry. So yes, those are different models that we explore.

[8:40 p.m.]

As I mentioned to the member, when we approve supportive housing sites in communities, we sit down with our CAC partners at the community access table, and what we do is we assess what the needs are. If there is a need for dry, we then have flexibility — not in all facilities, but we try when we can — to be able to create separation. There are those opportunities.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, my last one just before

assess what the needs are. If there’s a need for dry, we then have flexibility to be able to — not in all facilities, but we try when we can — create separation so that there are those opportunities.

Claire Rattée: Sorry. My last one just before I hand it back to my colleague here.

Just so that I understand really clearly, once I do get that breakdown of where all of these facilities are throughout the province…. When we’re talking about wet versus dry facilities, I just want to make sure I know what the classification is. Somebody could still be on an OAT therapy, I’m hoping, and be in a dry facility. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to give a specific answer, but because we’re so late in the night, the team that does this, because it’s a very specific question…. They’re not available right now.

But perhaps when we get back, because we’re doing many more hours still, this can be one of those things we’ll try to get an answer for.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, and it is indeed late.

I’m going to close my comments with respect to federal funding and a new Prime Minister.

I’m wondering whether or not we can get a commitment from the minister to table a complete and prioritized list of housing programs and projects, from the most sensitive to the least sensitive, that clearly identify the most dependent on federal partnership and funding, now that we have a government in place — the efforts that the minister will be making to ensure that list is available and that he’s working on that with the new Prime Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not entirely understanding the question. I’ll try to give an answer, which is that our priority request of the federal government is infrastructure. It’s more money for Indigenous housing, especially on reserve, because that’s the responsibility of the federal government, and we’ve been funding more on-reserve housing than the federal government has been, and it’s shameful. So those are some of the top two asks.

We’ve also asked them to support us in SRO redevelopment, because we believe that what is a challenge on the Downtown Eastside is a national challenge. It’s not just a B.C. challenge.

So those are some of the top three priorities, but if the member wants something more, I’m happy to try to provide it.

Linda Hepner: I’ll just finish up with the Build Canada Homes initiative that Prime Minister Carney recently announced as he was running for election. What specific implications, positive or negative, do you foresee for British Columbia’s housing agenda on that Build Canada Homes perspective and how that may or may not help us?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, we in B.C. launched the rental protection fund. A few months later, the federal government decided it was a great idea and launched the national rental protection fund.

We did stat housing designs, and a year later, the federal government decided that stat housing designs was a good way to go. We launched a mass timber action plan, and now they have it in their platform to have a mass timber action plan for the country. We’ve been doing work on prefabrication, and now the federal government….

We launched BC Builds and then they decided to launch Canada Builds. I could go on. I would say that I don’t know enough about what their new vision for Canada Builds is, but it sounds awfully like BC Builds.

[8:45 p.m.]

We’ll wait to see what the details are. I don’t know the details, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s very aligned, and the reason why I wouldn’t be surprised is that we hear from local governments across the province that they’re super excited about this because they’re desperately trying to attract a workforce, health care

so we’ll wait to see what the details are. I don’t know the details, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s very aligned. The reason why I wouldn’t be surprised is that we hear from local governments across the province that they’re super excited about this. They’re desperately trying to attract workforce, health care workers, people who work at the local government, and they see this as an opportunity to unlock that potential in their community.

So we’ll see. We’ll see what the federal government tells us their program is, and I’m sure we’ll find a way to align it.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee will stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:46 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jessie Sunner: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.