Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 217

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Henry Fair

F. Donnelly

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

T. Wat

Hon. D. Eby

J. Tegart

R. Merrifield

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Estimates: Other appropriations

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. R. Fleming

R. Merrifield

B. Stewart

I. Paton

J. Sturdy

D. Clovechok

T. Shypitka

D. Davies

D. Ashton

N. Letnick

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2022

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HENRY FAIR

F. Donnelly: I rise with a heavy heart. It is with great sadness that I inform

the House of the death of Henry Fair. Henry had been battling cancer

since 2020. Henry became involved with the Coquitlam–Burke Mountain B.C.

NDP in 2013, where he was a passionate volunteer and a very bright light

in every campaign office he stepped into over the years.

Henry grew up in East Vancouver. His admiration for Emery Barnes

kindled a passion for helping people throughout his life. Henry was a

school teacher at Gari­baldi Secondary and ran a program for

at-risk youth, where he continued to coach youth basketball long after

he retired.

I know I speak for many when I say Henry will be dearly

missed.

A celebration of life will be held on July 22 at Rocky Point Park

from 3:30 to 8 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate in estimates in the Ministry of

Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for

the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000

(continued) .

T. Wat: First of all, I’d like to thank the minister and all the staff for

coming for this multiculturalism, anti-racism nature of the discussion.

I have to thank the member for Peace River South for his kindness to

offer me a few minutes to read some of the questions that I want to

really put on record.

For the minister, I know that time might be running short and that

the minister might not be able to respond to my questions. If he can, I

appreciate that. I don’t know whether my colleague will object to it,

because I’m taking away his precious time on the most important issue of

housing. Anyway, I’ll just do my best and see what the minister’s

response is like.

The first question I was planning to ask yesterday. When we

discuss a 700 percent increase in anti-Asian hate crime, we often forget

the impacts each crime can have on individuals in the communities. Just

recently, on May 20, an 87-year-old Chinese senior was attacked with

bear spray in Chinatown. This is a senior who doesn’t feel safe in his

own community. A family will fear every time he steps out of the door,

in a community that fears for their elders and the most

vulnerable.

These acts of hate persist today. I just heard last night again.

The latest painting by another artist in Chinatown was destroyed with

graffiti the night before. It looks like there’s an organized kind of….

I don’t know whether it’s organized or whatever. They’re trying to shut

the mouths of people who advocate for Chinatown. It has been going on

day after day.

I know that the minister and this government have been doing a lot

to try to turn Chinatown back to the normal days, but with this kind of

anti-Asian hate crime and unprovoked attacks and graffiti going on day

after day, I would like to hear from the minister what kind of actions

he will try to raise and what kind of move he’s going to do to stop such

violent acts towards the most vulnerable in our community.

I’ll just continue to read all my questions. Yesterday, actually,

I was trying to start all my questions with: “Can the minister discuss

what progress is being made on the implementation of the recently passed

race-based data legislation”?

Yesterday I also asked about the status of the anti-racism bill,

and the minister heard it. I would like to thank the minister for

providing all the briefings for me before the presentation of the

race-based data legislation. I think that’s the kind of non-partisan

cooperation that we are all aspiring to. Thank you for doing

that.

Another question I’d like to ask is: has the minister spoken with

his counterparts in the Ministry of Education regarding the fact that 75

percent of respondents to a survey of persons of African descent felt

that their educational experiences were affected by anti-Black racism

from school officials, from teachers and even from their

peers?

[1:40 p.m.]

Another question. In 2020, a BCCDC survey found a majority of

South Asian, Southeast Asian, Filipino, West Asian, Arab, Black and

Latin American, Hispanic respondents had financial stress about the

future. While we are in a different stage of the pandemic, these groups

felt a disproportionate amount of economic anxiety at the time. Has the

minister noticed whether these groups has continued to face divergent

outcomes from other groups during the economic recovery, and if so, what

is the minister doing to fix this disparity?

I still have two more questions. While many communities

experienced racism and discrimination prior to 2020, we saw an

unfortunate increase during the pandemic. In our discussion, we have

highlighted the experiences felt by a few communities. We also, as a

society, are coming to terms with the legacy of anti-Indigenous racism.

Are there any other communities that continue to face discrimination

that the minister would like to draw attention to? What is the minister

doing to help reverse this worrying trend?

The last and final question is: does the minister feel that the

anti-racism and multiculturalism branch is able to accomplish their

goals with their current budget levels and no additional, one-time

funding, like during the early stages of the pandemic?

Thank you so much for allowing me my time, to my colleague, and

Mr. Chair, the minister and the staff as well.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for her questions and for her passion on

this issue of racism in our province.

I will touch briefly on some of the topics she raised but will

provide answers to her in writing to the majority of the questions. Like

her, I was shocked and disturbed by the incident where a senior was bear

sprayed in Chinatown. The graffiti in Chinatown is an ongoing issue in

that community.

I was very pleased and honoured to be a part of the Chinese museum

community event there last weekend, where 600 people came out to show

their support for Chinatown and to show their support for government’s

partnership with the community to deliver a museum about the

contributions of Canadians of Chinese descent to our province’s history,

which I think is an important part of fighting back against racism —

education about how we’ve all been working together to build this

province for a long time. That needs to continue.

On the specific question of what we are doing about it, staff have

reached out to the Chinatown BIA, from my office, and we’ve had meetings

with the VPD to discuss this issue. We will be meeting with the

Chinatown BIA, Minister Farnworth and I, to find out how we can provide

more support. I’ve engaged with the mayor of the city of Vancouver on

this issue, as well, to understand more about what the city’s doing to

take on this problem in the community.

I think that, without doubt, some of the challenges in Chinatown

are linked to the challenges in the Downtown Eastside — the closure of

some very large SRO buildings increasing street homelessness in that

community and issues of disorder, addiction and mental health, all

closely intertwined, impacting the Chinatown community.

Our work on housing, which we’ll go into more this afternoon, is a

key part of that, our work with the family associations around the SROs

that are owned in Chinatown, making sure that housing is safe and

appropriate for the seniors who live there, as we did in our

intervention in the Grace Manor situation to preserve that housing for

the seniors who live there.

There is lots of work happening and more to come. I just want the

people who support Chinatown and the people who live in Chinatown and

the merchants who are in Chinatown to know that they have government’s

full support to address these issues.

The answer to many of the member’s questions relate closely to the

anti-racism data legislation that we passed unanimously in this House —

collecting that information about the disaggregated data about the

backgrounds of British Columbians to find differences in terms of, for

example, as the member said, divergent outcomes from the pandemic,

divergent economic impacts, health impacts from the pandemic. This work

will become significantly easier for government to take on the

challenges of systemic racism and differential impact of government

policy through having that information.

I am confident that the anti-racism multiculturalism branch is not

only able to do the work, but they are doing the work. I will

acknowledge that staff have been working very, very hard to deliver

these initiatives, working overtime and at considerable personal

sacrifice.

[1:45 p.m.]

I wanted to put that on the record and recognize the commitment of

that branch of the ministry to delivering huge pieces, like the

anti-racism data legislation that involved engagement with communities

across British Columbia, co-authoring with First Nations and involvement

of Métis Nation B.C. — just a very, very significant project and just

one of many projects delivered by that branch. So I thank the member for

that question and her concern about ensuring that there are adequate

resources for that branch.

All the other questions I will respond to in writing. The member

knows that the specialized staff from that branch are not with me today,

as we’re focusing on housing, but I wanted to encourage her to bring the

questions forward, and I’m glad she did.

J. Tegart: As the minister is aware, my riding of Fraser-Nicola has seen more

than its fair share of challenges regarding housing units this year,

with the devastating loss of the community of Lytton and surrounding

area to wildfire; the incredible flooding, which has left hundreds of

residents unable to return home in Merritt; the loss of homes and lands

throughout the Highway 8 corridor; and all of this in just the last

year. I have people who’ve been displaced for over 300 days, living in

motels, on couches, in campers and with extended family.

My first question is: what role does B.C. Housing play in the need

for transition housing during disasters caused by climate and fire

events?

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing has a number of roles in relation to the housing

crisis caused by emergencies in Merritt, Lytton and Princeton. The roles

are diverse. B.C. Housing was involved in relocation of individuals from

those sites to Kamloops and Kelowna and is working with those cities on

short- and longer-term housing solutions for displaced

residents.

B.C. Housing is also involved in working on the rebuild on those

city sites of affected locations — so some cities profoundly affected,

some cities and other areas that are not as affected. For example, in

Princeton, there are two B.C. Housing sites that were impacted by

flooding that are going to need to be either remediated or relocated, so

that work is undergoing with the city of Princeton.

In Merritt, B.C. Housing is involved in piloting 3-D printing of

homes in that community as a way to, potentially, deliver homes more

quickly.

[1:50 p.m.]

There is funding through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for

short- and long-term responses that B.C. Housing is involved with

assisting Municipal Affairs in delivering in those communities. So there

are a number of different roles. A subject-matter expert is liaising

with cities and direct assistance to residents in relocation.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister for the answer. In the role, as part of

the team that responds to disaster, does B.C. Housing sit on the

provincial task force or round table that actually is dealing with each

of the disaster zones?

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is yes. In addition, there are also, as I

understand from B.C. Housing, local community discussions that are

taking place in those communities. So there’s the provincial work that

B.C. Housing participates in, in those round tables. But then there are

also local discussions on responding, and B.C. Housing is sitting at

those tables as well.

J. Tegart: As a local elected MLA, as we talk about the role of different

agencies within government, I guess my thoughts always are: what does it

look like when it hits the ground?

If you’re the person who is displaced or cannot find homes…. We

know that during the disasters this last year, we were extremely

challenged due to COVID, due to the number of disasters. We had people

who had been evacuated out of Lytton that were then again evacuated out

of Merritt, so we had people moving. Trying to follow them and figure

out where people were was sometimes one of our biggest

challenges.

In your role with B.C. Housing, the question is: what have you

learned over the last five years? I mean, my riding definitely has seen

five years of fires and floods and whatever it seems can be thrown at

it. What have you learned in the last five years in regards to the

importance of providing housing support — and in that, do you provide

expertise; do you provide funds; fo you provide land; do you provide an

overall plan with timelines?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, one of the pieces that has been the experience of people on

the ground, as the member says, is the unprecedented scale and size of

these disasters and the impacts of them. To lose an entire town to fire

is a remarkable thing and a very disturbing thing to happen in British

Columbia, let alone for the people who have to live through

it.

As a result of the scale of the destruction and the consequences

of some of these disasters, some of the solutions that would usually be

more immediately available have not been available in the same way. In a

situation where there would be a desire to deploy and the ability to

deploy modular housing…. For example, in Lytton, the cleanup work that

had to be done first due to the contamination resulting from the fire —

before modular housing could be deployed and people could be living in

the community — is a significant piece of work that is delaying the

housing deployment.

With that said, in other communities, one of the opportunities

that has been identified — the member asked about lessons learned — is

the potential for having modular units available as short-term options

to deploy quickly to neighbouring communities that are less affected.

That can provide housing more quickly.

As the member will know, during COVID-19, we purchased a number of

motels and hotels. We’ve leased hotels and motels to house people out of

these disaster zones and also to respond to the arrival of Ukrainians.

That has been an effective response, but it does have limits, given the

number of hotel and motel rooms and the fact that we’re coming out of

the pandemic and tourism is returning.

B.C. Housing is currently focused on responding in these

particular communities, but one of the lessons that is emerging is the

potential for having more of a stock of short-term modulars on hand to

respond to emergencies as they arrive.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I think one of the things we’re seeing

as we go through the process is that huge gap in transition housing and

people wanting to go home — particularly in the Lytton situation, where

people scattered, ran for their lives. So if the learnings from the last

year have been to identify that huge gap, it is good to hear that and to

know that some planning and some action is going to be taken

forward.

We are not in our first year of disasters, unfortunately. We had

the Elephant Hill fire. We’ve seen a lot of devastation through the

Interior. So as we move forward, I guess my questions are focused on how

we make sure we don’t find ourselves there again, talking about these

gaps next year and the year after and the year after.

My last question is: in the next three to five years, what is in

your budget to do the plan around disaster relief — whatever needs to be

bought or to be put in place so that we don’t find ourselves where we

are today? Even though it seemed like every disaster that could happen,

happened, Lytton is an opportunity for all of us to make sure no other

community ever goes through what they did.

I’m looking for the next three to five years. What’s budgeted, how

will you plan, what are the timelines, and how will you execute support

for climate disasters?

The Chair: Of course, through the Chair, Member. Through the

Chair.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this work is absolutely being done.

It is being led out of emergency management B.C. They have assembled a

committee. My ministry, the Ministry of Attorney General and Housing,

sits there along with B.C. Housing representation in order to inform the

emergency management planning process from the perspective of housing to

ensure that we are prepared for future emergencies.

Any funding for those initiatives will flow through emergency

management B.C. and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General,

not through this ministry.

J. Tegart: I guess what I’m looking for from the minister is assurance that

we will not be in this place again. My experience this time around is

that there was a document. There was an outline. There was a process.

But I can tell the minister that there are many people on the ground

that felt it didn’t work. So documents are great, all the best

intentions are great, but if they don’t work for the people on the

ground, they are merely something written on paper.

I am extremely hopeful that the minister will feel confident

enough to assure the people of my riding that we have learned lots and

that we will not find ourselves in this place again without having

learned from the experience.

Hon. D. Eby: I know it’s a priority for the Premier, for the Minister of Public

Safety and certainly in my own ministry that we be as prepared as

possible for emergency. I certainly hope this is the last time we see

emergencies of this scale. But we know, with the changing climate, that

there is a very high risk and a disproportionate impact on British

Columbia in terms of climate disasters such as fire, flood, and so

on.

A big portion of the work in the Ministry of Environment is

resilience and ensuring that, in our infrastructure, we’re building back

better to respond to — in the Ministry of Transportation, for example —

the changing climate, the changing impacts of flooding, and so on, on

roads, housing, and so on. That work is very much underway. The lessons

that have been learned are incorporated in that.

I will also advise the member that I am aware that EMBC does do

reviews following disaster response to determine the lessons learned,

formalize those and incorporate those lessons learned into future

emergency response. That work is underway. I will advise the member that

this committee work — to be prepared and ensure that the lessons learned

from these disasters are incorporated into future response — is

underway. My ministry is participating in it, and so is B.C.

Housing.

J. Tegart: To the minister, thank you to you and your staff.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to my colleague for giving me a little bit of time here

today and also to the minister and all of the staff here today ready to

answer some questions.

Obviously, my hometown riding, the city of Kelowna, is one of the

fastest-growing municipalities and needs help. Severity of crime is up,

and Superintendent Triance actually delivered news yesterday to council

in which she noted that the severity of mental health issues has

increased.

In a report that was delivered to council, it’s noted that the

Kelowna city council has been diligent in planning — through the Journey

Home document and society — as well as funding police officers, creating

350 new supportive housing units, with the community inclusion team, the

Kelowna Integrated Court and the community safety plan.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s also, in this report, I guess a desperate plea. That is

for complex needs and for complex needs care. That is what Kelowna

requires.

In my canvassing of the Ministry of Mental Health and the Minister

of Mental Health, she indicated that there is no capital for funding of

new spaces for complex care. As the Attorney has noted, and I’ll

actually quote the Attorney General: “So specifically on this issue, in

the most recent budget, we are opening 20 complex care housing sites

across the province to really engage with and hopefully interrupt this

rotating door of criminal justice system for people with serious mental

health and addiction issues.” That was said by the minister on March 16,

One of the reliefs of the prolific offender crime that we have

today is through complex care, but the Ministry of Mental Health is not

funding those spaces, and currently, I don’t see how B.C. Housing is.

I’m not exactly sure how those 20 municipalities are supposed to go

about funding those complex care spaces without actually having means to

do so. Why does the complex care program not have any capital dollars

attached to it at this time?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s an important

issue.

Complex care housing is medically based services delivered by the

local health authority to people with serious mental health and

addiction issues who are at risk of or who are currently homeless. The

member is right to ask: “Well, if you’re funding the services, where

will they be delivered?” The goal of the complex care housing work that

is happening, the 500 beds that have been funded this year, is to

deliver these services in different ways, in different settings to

determine which is most effective.

The focus is on delivering additional services that will be

accessed by residents in many existing buildings in different

communities. The size of a building and a program is important around

complex care. These are people with very serious challenges. Building a

50-unit building, for example, is a challenging thing to do. The focus

is more that there would be a floor of an existing building or that

there would be some units or some scattered housing — different

approaches to delivering this housing in a way that we can evaluate

which is most successful in addressing the needs of this particularly

challenging population.

There have been proposals around a group home model. There have

been proposals around floors of existing buildings. There have been

proposals around scattered housing, where there are individual

apartments that are serviced in this way.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’m happy to advise the member that we have a very good

relationship with the mayor of Kelowna, co-chair of the Urban Mayors

Caucus. He has worked hard in his community to deliver significant

supportive housing to respond to the homelessness crisis in Kelowna. We

will continue our work with the city of Kelowna and Interior Health on

delivering these services in that community.

I can also advise the member that ongoing work is happening within

the ministry about the delivery of the system, but I would assume she

would know that already — but just to put it on the record, to ensure

that as we deliver these services, they’re being evaluated for their

impact on the community and on the residents who receive these

services.

R. Merrifield: My understanding, and through reading the white paper that was

delivered by the Urban Mayors Caucus and in knowing how much work the

city of Kelowna has put into this…. One of the very specific asks and

one of the specific needs, as well, within the white paper was actually

to have complex care that was facilitated in a structure, in a building.

You would assume that the efficiencies would also be there in terms of

delivery of care.

If the $165 million of the Ministry of Mental Health dollars is

specific only to delivering the care and not the actual capital, you’re

looking at over almost $100,000 per individual of cost per year in

operating and in delivery of services without any capital spending.

Surely there should be some efficiencies that would be

located.

I’ll ask the minister…. Would the minister reconsider and direct

B.C. Housing to reposition funding dollars for this complex care

housing, specifically in response to what the Urban Mayors Caucus has

asked for and what the white paper was specific to asking for as

well?

Hon. D. Eby: Since 2017, government has built 790 units of affordable housing,

including supportive housing in Kelowna. We have 270 additional units

underway. The idea of complex care is to actually take advantage of the

efficiencies in supportive housing, to layer in additional medicalized

services that grew out of this recognition that 10 to 15 percent of

people in supportive housing were either being evicted or were really

struggling in the building, causing disruptions in either a surrounding

neighbourhood or in the building itself, and that layering in additional

services will help respond to the needs of those residents.

When that happens in that way, it actually takes advantage of

significant efficiencies in funding of supports that were already in the

supportive housing — meals, essential life skills, support for daily

living — so it builds on the structure that we have. It is intended to

operate in that way. There will be different models that are deployed in

different communities, but one of the benefits of this is that it can

take advantage of existing supportive housing units and build on top of

those supports.

It also gives the opportunity for flow. So someone who is in

supportive housing, not showing any signs of needing additional

services, and suddenly decompensates for some reason can receive complex

care housing where they are. They don’t have to move. Then if they

restabilize, the complex care supports can be provided to somebody else,

so that you’re able to deliver those services where people are rather

than moving them over to a specialized building and causing that kind of

disruption. That flow is important in and out of the different steps of

levels of support that we provide.

[2:15 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer and the understanding of

the layering of services.

I’m going to ask, though, a curious question, because I’m not

understanding how this would actually address the needs of people who

are not in social housing but have severe and layered mental health and

addictions challenges. Who is going to be responsible for outreach and

intake for those individuals, and how is that accomplished if there are

no services already in place right now for those individuals who are not

in a B.C. Housing or supportive housing site?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There are two audiences for complex care. One

is to help people in supportive housing stay housed and minimize the

disruptions and challenges that they present in housing when they don’t

have adequate supports. The other audience is people who are living

outside and who are homeless and who are sick out in the

streets.

The method of access of complex care is and will be, for

communities where it’s not yet open, through regional coordinated access

tables, which are also sometimes called situation tables. These are

tables where there are local non-profit organizations that provide

housing around the table, B.C. Housing around the table, the health

authority around the table, as well as social service ministry

caseworkers. In many communities, police also sit on these

tables.

The table helps identify people who are struggling in community.

Typically individuals are on wait-lists of some kind to get into

housing, but they may be identified through the coordinated access table

itself, through the situation table. That is how they’ll be referred

into this kind of housing.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that there is only a distributed model that is

somewhat different in all of these different communities and that there

are no actual complex care facilities that will be provided by the

province, there will be communities, then, that are forced to rely on

distributed market housing.

The minister has indicated that there are regional situation

tables. So to the minister, how and where are these regional situation

tables located, and how would someone with mental health issues access

one of these tables to seek out complex care?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the participants in these coordinated access tables that I

forgot to mention is typically the local municipality. The city or

cities are involved as well.

Due to the nature of the individuals and the groups who are around

the table, they have a tendency to know the people in the community who

are homeless and who are really struggling. They have relationships with

them.

[2:20 p.m.]

The idea of the tables is a discussion around the table around who

needs additional supports and which non-profit and which service agency,

which housing is available that would best meet the needs of that

person. It could be complex care. It could be housing that responds to

the particular needs of a community, like an Indigenous-based housing

service provider for someone who is of Indigenous heritage.

These regional coordinated access tables, the situation tables,

are funded by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. That

ministry could provide a full list of supported tables, but they are in

communities like Quesnel, so smaller centres as well as much larger

centres where there may be much larger coordinated access

tables.

Typically, it’s not an individual seeking out the table and making

a presentation about why they would make a good candidate for supportive

housing. It’s that they’re identified by the group around the table as

someone who is struggling in community and needs that support, who is

homeless, and a discussion about how best to support that person coming

inside.

R. Merrifield: So we have a scattered complex care model that started out as a

complex care campus, where supportive services came around the

individual, but that this was a dedicated space. We have the Urban

Mayors Caucus that has specifically asked for dedicated space and new

spaces, and what we’ve been hearing through the course of these

estimates is that now it’s scattered care that is going to cost over

$100,000 per individual, that is going to be called upon or called for

through regional tables, but we’re not even sure if that would apply to

someone who is outside of a supportive housing unit, etc.

My question is: how does this system of scattered care actually

interrupt the cycle of prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve obviously done a poor job explaining. I’ll try to do it

again. I listened to the member’s question. I don’t know how she got

there from what I said, but I’ll try again. I think it might be helpful

for the member if I could walk through some of the complex care beds

announced to date, with more to come, the nature of the sites and the

nature of the beds.

In Surrey, the Foxglove facility has 39 beds in a much larger

facility that are complex care beds. It’s a very large building, but a

portion of it provides the additional complex care beds in it. It’s a

newer facility that just recently opened.

In Abbotsford, the Red Lion Inn, which was a motel that was

purchased by B.C. Housing during the pandemic, eight complex care beds

are open. Those services were layered into this motel, where it was a

front-line response for people who were homeless, to get the people

inside.

Vancouver, Jim Green building — 44 beds are open. This is a

building that’s been around for a while. Additional services were

layered into 44 beds in that building to provide additional supports. In

Vancouver, as well, Naomi Place — 12 beds are complex care beds in that

building, which are open and operating.

In Langley, there is a proposal that has been supported by

government and will be funded for 25 spaces. They’re distributed in the

community. We anticipate the beds will be open by fall of

In Bella Coola, there is an Indigenous service provider that is

providing 12 spaces. The beds will be open by late 2022 in a newer

facility. Powell River, Tla’amin Nation, 20 spaces in a facility of beds

by late 2022. Victoria, 100 distributed spaces open by spring

Fraser south, forensic services supporting, distributed 25 beds,

opening by spring, summer 2023, and we continue our work with health

authorities across the province to open additional beds.

As the member can see from that list, some are new facilities.

Some are existing buildings where services are being layered in. Some

are distributed sites.

[2:25 p.m.]

The idea is to measure and determine which are the most effective

ways of approaching this, both from an economic perspective and from an

outcomes perspective, in terms of the stability and the health outcomes

of the individuals who receive the services, and community

impacts.

I wanted to take that step back to explain the program a little

better than I obviously did.

Layered on top of that was a question about prolific offenders.

It’s my opinion…. We’ll see the data, I suspect, that indicates the

nature of prolific offending that people are seeing in downtown

corridors across the province. But it is my impression, based on the

stories that are being shared with us from police, mayors and community

members, that there are a number of people struggling with serious

mental health and addiction issues. They are individuals who are

committing crimes that are closely linked with the fact that they are

either homeless or the services that they’re receiving are inadequate

for their particular health needs.

The court and other agencies — the Prosecution Service, defence

counsel, and so on — aren’t able to access services that would be able

to interrupt the cycle of offending. We have two experts — one an expert

in policing, a former chief of police with lots of experience with

front-line policing; another an expert in mental health and corrections

— advising us on the best way for the provincial government to interrupt

cycles of offending.

It’s my belief, based on the results out of Vernon, for example,

that providing this kind of housing reduces crime in communities that’s

associated with living your life outside — crimes of poverty,

desperation and illness. But we also know that there are probably

prolific offenders who are motivated by other things, so it’s not a

straightforward issue, by any stretch.

I do believe that this kind of support is going to have a

significant impact on people’s feelings of safety. When you see someone

who’s really struggling with mental health and addiction issues on the

sidewalk in your downtown core, it’s not something that really makes you

feel: “Wow, the community’s working well. Everything seems to be going

well here.” It makes you say: “Well, there’s something very wrong here.

What’s going on in our downtown?”

For that individual, who is sick in public and needs support….

Getting that individual inside and providing the health care resources

that they need supports that person with the challenge that they face.

It supports the broader community with greater feelings of community

safety and that things are going the way that they should be. And, for

some individuals, it may interrupt a cycle of offending that’s motivated

by the fact that they’re living outside, that they’re ill, that they

have challenges in their lives that make them make decisions that cause

problems for other people, that cause havoc in communities.

That’s how I believe that this program could potentially have an

impact on prolific offenders, but I also think this program is not

sufficient. Complex care beds are voluntary beds, and there are

individuals who will not choose to come inside, will not choose to take

up those services, even if they’re offered repeatedly. For those

individuals, we need other solutions, which is why I’ve asked for this

work to be done.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. In his attempt to

explain complex care and give me a litany of the distributed beds that

are scattered throughout communities…. Some of these communities are

new, because I didn’t see them listed in the top nine priorities that

the Urban Mayors Caucus had stated.

So I’ll ask this question: what exactly is complex care, then? Is

it simply a menu that is given to each of these beds that was listed, or

is it something different than that?

My second question is: with that actual definition of complex

care, then, what are the outcomes that will be measured? The example

given of a feeling of being safe seems somewhat less quantitative than

what I would hope we would see.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: For complex care, it’s additional medicalized services that are

delivered to individuals who need those additional supports to be

successful in housing.

In addition to the various health, personal, social and job

supports provided in supportive housing…. Those enhanced complex care

services include things like physical, mental health and substance use

care; psychosocial rehabilitation supports; social, emotional and

community supports; personal care and personal living supports;

Indigenous cultural supports; and coordination and navigation services

for people who have trouble navigating their way through different

services that they need to access in order to be well.

If I were to put it all together, I would say that these are

wraparound services that respond to the particular needs of this

individual, whether they’re physical, mental health, disability-based or

so on, in order to help them be successful in their housing — very

tailored to the individual.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member asked about specific metrics and evaluation. The

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is leading this work. They are

preparing an evaluation framework. It is not based on a qualitative

feeling of community safety. I think that’ll be one of the positive

effects of the housing, as I said. However, the evaluation framework

will be very much based on evaluating the impact on the individual in

terms of their own health; interactions with the criminal justice

system, for example; any interaction in broader community; as well as

the delivery of the services, whether they’re delivered effectively and

efficiently in the best way possible.

I refer the member to the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

for details about that evaluation framework. That work is still

underway.

R. Merrifield: For lack of a better word, I’ll call it a complex care concierge

of sorts. What I’m hearing is that the outcomes are not actually

specified at this point, but that seems to be in contradiction to what

the minister had indicated earlier.

He talked about how he was really hopeful that this will help

interrupt the cycle for a number of people: “We’re going to be

monitoring the data very closely in terms of the payback to the public —

have reduced offending, reduced emergency room use, reduced emergency

services use generally — because a lot of the data we have indicates

that there’s a very significant expense in terms of property damage and

disruption to local economies as well as emergency health care and

prison use.”

Are these aspects that will be part of the data set collected to

determine whether or not the complex care concierge or scattered outcome

is successful?

Hon. D. Eby: Some sites will be scattered sites; some sites are concentrated in

a single building. I don’t understand why she keeps describing these as

scattered sites or as concierge services. I didn’t use that word. I

don’t know why she’s using that word.

I’m trying really hard to explain what this is. These are

additional health care services layered in for people who need them.

There is an evaluation framework that is being worked on by Mental

Health and Addictions.

I tried to give the member a broad picture of the metrics that are

being looked at — health care outcomes, criminal justice outcomes, and

so on. That work is still underway. I believe strongly that those health

care outcomes will include things like emergency room contacts, police

contacts, and so on. I’m sure that the member could think of similar

metrics.

The goal is to determine whether this kind of housing, this kind

of support, is having positive impacts on the person’s ability to stay

in housing, be less disruptive in community, to have better health

outcomes. That will be the aim of these metrics, the work of which is

happening in another ministry.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Basically, there is no

data set, there is no data collection at this point, and we are simply

trying to create it as we go along. When I referred to scattered, the

list that I was given from Surrey, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Langley, Bella

Coola, Powell River, Victoria and Fraser South — that’s very much so

scattered. It’s not collected into complex care facilities that would

have that.

My next question is: how many of the new FTEs of these complex

care wraparound services that I am referring to as the concierge service

have actually been fulfilled within these different facilities across

B.C.?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, I guess the confusion was on my part, about the use of

the word “scattered.”

Scattered sites have a very specific meaning in the housing space

when you’re talking about delivering services to people with complex

care. A scattered site is where you fund 44 beds, but those beds are in

different apartment buildings all over the geographic area where it’s

funded. So the distributed sites in Victoria, the 100 spaces, will be in

all different places in the city of Victoria. They won’t be in one

building.

That definition of a scattered site is one example of the way in

which complex care sites are being delivered. In others, it’s a floor of

a building or a couple floors of a building. They are scattered

geographically. The member is right. The goal is to open complex care

beds across the province in different communities.

I’m not sure, but I think underlying the question around complex

care facilities — I’m just trying to understand the member’s perspective

about what this is and isn’t — maybe it is more of an institutional,

involuntary mental health care model, more in the nature of the Red Fish

Centre that we opened at the səmiq̓ʷəʔelə, the Riverview site. That is

not this. This is voluntary. These are additional services that are

delivered to people in supportive housing or who are homeless, who are

coming inside, who were not successful in supportive housing because of

their challenges.

On the issue of scattered housing, I’d recommend to the member

some research around the At Home/Chez Soi federal program that was

targeted at a very similar population as complex care beds are — with

very detailed research about responding to the challenges faced by this

group of people who need those additional supports, led by Dr. Julian

Somers out of SFU but nationally implemented.

The results were, in cities across Canada, that scattered-site

housing — this is where the beds are all in different places, in

different apartments, as opposed to in a single building — was at least

as successful, and in some cases more successful, than congregate

housing, in that it provides choice and autonomy and, for some people,

less stigmatization in dealing with their health and addiction issues.

There’s some very good research about why it’s a good idea to explore

and offer these models and why that informed the government’s decision

to deliver this.

On the very specific question the member had about the number of

employees who are delivering this service through health authorities, I

recommend she direct that question to the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions, who is doing that work and would be able to provide that

data.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think what I’m looking

for is some accountability and some measurement or means or mechanism to

actually determine whether or not this is successful, as this is a

deviation from some of the white papers and some of the asks of our

communities and our municipalities, which seem to be pretty much on the

front lines of understanding some of what the mental health needs of

their communities are.

When we’re spending over $100,000 per person to deliver just the

care, not the actual facility, that number is actually quite alarming.

I’m looking for what forms the accountability. How are we actually going

to — as the minister had said — monitor the data? What data are we going

to monitor? Lastly, how does this actually offer the solution, or part

of the solution at least, for prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I did walk through how I am hopeful that this will have an impact

on people who are repeatedly in contact with police because of the

circumstances of being ill in public and having those interactions and

having challenges that cause them to be involved in criminal activity

that’s very disruptive and problematic in communities. If the member

wishes, I can go over it again. I think the core of the member’s

question is: what are the metrics? How will you know this is successful?

It’s a significant public investment.

[2:40 p.m.]

I am confident in advising the member that there is a detailed

framework and a set of metrics that are being prepared by the Ministry

of Mental Health and Addictions to evaluate the success, or the lack of

success, of different models of delivering this program. The goal of

this project is to determine the best way of delivering these

services.

There are a number of different sizes of sites. There are a number

of different methods of delivering it, scattered in a particular

building. That will help us determine next steps, in terms of building

on those models that are successful and abandoning those that are not

successful.

I have met with nothing but support and enthusiasm from mayors for

complex care supports. They, if anything, quite urgently want these

services deployed in their communities.

I don’t agree with the member’s contention that this is a

departure from what mayors are looking for in their communities or what

they believe they need. Additional supports in supportive housing for

the most ill members, who have the most disruption in the community or

are most at risk, are exactly what they’re asking for, and we’re very

pleased to deliver that. This comes out of cooperative engagement and

discussions with the mayors about what they were seeing in

communities.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister.

I have been working for different mayors for almost ten or 11

years now, I guess, on some of the hardest-to-house within the

communities. I would argue…. I have never heard a single one of the 13

different municipalities within B.C. that I’ve worked within ever

mention having scattered units within different housing models being

used for complex care. In fact, the urgency and the ask have always been

on complex care facilities where these mentally ill can actually find

solace. I think it is a huge deviation from what they’ve been asking

for.

I would ask that we have some metrics that can actually be

measured against, which are in process, I am hearing from the minister.

I look forward to seeing those when they are finally

released.

It feels to me like we’re describing somewhat of an experiment. We

have these different types of housing with different types and models of

care being offered in different places, and we’re going to see which one

works. That’s like building the house without a blueprint and hoping

that the rooms fit the individual person. With all due respect,

hopefully, the Housing Minister would have a better handle on this

aspect.

My next question to the minister is this. If these are not

additional new beds, then what are we doing to increase the number of

beds that are taken out, with the complex care system?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to have to provide some substantiation for her

repeated allegation that the mayors are opposed to this model, that they

don’t support it, that they wanted something else.

I was at a press conference with the chairs of the Urban Mayors,

who celebrated the complex care announcement with me and the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions. They have talked repeatedly about how it

is a model of us working together to respond to issues in

community.

I struggle to know on what basis she is making that allegation,

which, frankly, I think is absurd, given the conversations I’ve had with

mayors about how excited they are, how much they want the service in

their community. The big urgency they have is: how quickly can we get

these beds in our community? How quickly can we get this deployed? We

need this urgently, including in her own home community of Kelowna. I

couldn’t leave that unaddressed.

Happily, I have good news for the member. We have a significant

housing program to open a number of different types of housing across

the province. We have overachieved our target for housing for people who

are at risk of homelessness. We have exceeded our target on supportive

housing. Part of that was as a result of the pandemic, where we

purchased a number of motels and hotels to get people inside and to

avoid the spread of COVID-19 and to support people who were COVID

positive.

[2:45 p.m.]

A legacy of that are things like the Red Lion. We are delivering

now complex care supports inside that motel.

We’re also building new. A number of those hotels, where the site

was purchased, were purchased with an eye to redevelopment. There’s a

parking lot. There’s additional space for redevelopment into permanent

supportive housing and, frankly, more appropriate long-term supportive

housing.

We have 3,786 supportive housing units completed, under

construction or in development. The numbers break down as 1,584

completed, 1,275 under construction, 89 in development and 838

initiated. These are the types of beds that can have layered into them

additional complex care supports, or it can simply be additional

supportive housing. So good news that we are continuing that work and

layering additional supports into the units that we do have.

R. Merrifield: I’ll ask for forgiveness for agitating the minister. That was not

my intention whatsoever. The minister and I have actually sat on the

same phone calls in the same meetings with mayors begging for an actual

facility with new beds. So with all due respect…. I appreciate the

admonishment from the minister.

My last question is this. He’ll be relieved, hopefully, to see

that it’s my last. Is the minster prepared to, if the model is not

successful, adjust the B.C. Housing funding model to actually to give

cities the ability to apply for new beds for complex care

facilities?

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to just separate two things. One is…. I like the member’s

questions. She’s asking important questions about important issues in

communities. So I’m not relieved that this is her last

question.

What I find agitating is when she repeats and says things that are

just demonstrably incorrect — that the mayors are not supportive of

complex care, that they’re not trying to get those beds in their

community, that they want something different than what we’re

delivering. It’s just not true, and that is what is agitating. I tried

to correct it a couple of times, and then it keeps getting repeated. So

just for the member, I’m glad for her questions, and I think she should

keep asking them.

Now, with respect to the beds, we’re going to keep building

supportive housing beds. We’re going to keep building the housing to

respond to the homelessness crisis that we face across the province. So

1,275 beds under construction right now. Others tied up — as the member,

I think, may empathize with — in various municipal approvals processes

across the province. I hope cities expedite the approval of these sites

to get them open and running.

Those are the kinds of beds that can have complex care layered in.

We are not doing complex care as a government and abandoning building

those additional affordable housing units and those beds to respond to

homelessness and supports for people who are living outside to get them

inside. That work is all happening at the same time.

Cities should continue to prepare and support non-profit

organizations in bringing forward applications for additional housing to

respond to homelessness, to prevent homelessness. We are going to

continue to put out calls for funding for the supportive housing fund,

for the community housing fund, for the Indigenous housing fund and a

rapid response to homelessness. That work should continue. So there

won’t need to be a change in policy to have cities apply for those kinds

of beds, which can have complex care layered in. That work will

continue.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister and staff for all the answers

today.

The Chair: Minister…. Not minister. Member. Sorry, Freudian slip. Member

for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Appreciate that. Used to be and hope to be again,

Chair.

I also want to thank my colleagues who stood up. As the minister

acknowledged, these are important questions that we are asking. I think

it’s also important to acknowledge, through those questions…. There are

different perspectives, and there are also different ways of looking at

this, depending on where you are in the province, obviously.

[2:50 p.m.]

To my colleague before that was speaking, when you talk about

whether…. You know, different types of layered housing to help in a

crisis, around the province, can be seen differently, depending on what

municipality you’re at, depending on how they work with the different

not-for-profits, as the minister has said.

There is a huge amount of frustration that I have heard as well,

even through my short time as the Housing critic, on that specific file,

because sometimes housing complexes are built…. I’ll look at Dawson

Creek as an example. One will be built around trying to help people get

off the streets. But then the frustration that we hear…. Not just from

mayors, but we’re talking from people who are offering the supports:

from RCMP, from ambulance attendants, who are now saying that the amount

of calls they get, the amount of crime they now see — that’s different,

because of the lack of services.

I think, to my colleague that spoke before me, it’s just to

address that, again, to the ministry. Although the ministry and

government, all of the different partners, have the right intentions,

there’s still a lot of work to be done. I think that’s what was trying

to be addressed there.

I want to go back to where we were before lunch and to move on

with some of the questions that we were canvassing, I guess, at that

point, originally talking about the 114,000 units that the government

has announced, promised, that they’ll have in place by 2027. The

minister did confirm for me what we thought, which was that a portion —

a good portion, maybe — of those are going to be in municipalities,

possibly brought on by the private sector through partnership,

regulation, zoning, whatever tools will be, I guess, at a local

government level, to facilitate that.

The minister did acknowledge and reference, for instance, for this

House, that we had Bill 16, which was a tool that was brought in here

through a transportation bill, talking about what can happen through

present transportation corridors and the future build-outs that will

happen around trying to bring in some of that affordable housing. I

guess maybe I’ll start, again, back on that.

What tools is government going to put in place to ensure that…?

There is a local government aspect. But, obviously, we now have the

provincial government’s responsibility brought in with that bill. What

tools — or, I guess, sticks — might be in place to work with developers?

I assume this might be private developers we’re talking about now that

will acquire land through a partnership, maybe with the province. I’m

foreshadowing what may or may not happen.

But to ensure that there is that affordability aspect brought into

a housing development…. I’ll use an example of maybe a 20-storey housing

complex that might be developed over top of a SkyTrain corridor, we’ll

say. What do we see, then, possibly happening — again, the minister

knows where I’m going with this, I’m sure — to ensure that we have some

of that affordable housing?

Then, with that, are we talking affordable rent units? Are we

talking about affordable market housing? Those are two different things.

How do we quantify what affordability really is?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: Above us in the gallery is a group of students from Talmud Torah

school in my constituency. I had a great conversation with them outside.

They’re very interested in watching the proceedings today, so I hope you’ll

all make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of different fronts that I’m working on that

may be of interest to the member, in coordination with my colleagues

across government and with B.C. Housing.

First, we are working with First Nations — as an example,

Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh — and one of the largest

developers in the Metro Vancouver area, both independently and as a

group, finding ways to support them in economic development and their

ongoing projects but also to deliver affordability within those projects

that they are developing.

Bill 16, which we discussed — it passed this session — allows the

Ministry of Transportation to buy land, not just immediately the

footprint of the rapid transit station, rapid bus or SkyTrain but, in

fact, a larger perimeter around the transit station that enables the

development of actually affordable housing on top of and in close

proximity to a transit station. This way, people who are more likely to

use transit will be able to live closer to that transit because the

housing will be more affordable. I anticipate there will be a

significant partnership with private developers in developing sites that

are purchased in that way, but those decisions have not been made

yet.

Housing approval processes for municipalities have been an ongoing

discussion, both inside and outside government. The Ministry of

Municipal Affairs is working closely with municipalities under what is

the development approvals process review work that was done. There was a

report and a review of development approvals at the municipal level —

how authorities could be given to municipalities to expedite those

processes.

One of the things that increases the cost of housing is the length

of time of approvals. The landholding costs, as well as the costs of

labour and supplies, tend to go up over time, and certainly, now, that’s

the case. So the lengthier the municipal approval process is, the

greater the costs and the less affordable the final housing

product.

That is not just a private sector developer issue; that’s also a

public sector developer issue. Both non-profits and B.C. Housing face

this challenge of cost escalation due to extended municipal approvals

processes. The DAPR report outlines the work that is happening within

Municipal Affairs in partnership with municipalities to expedite those

processes.

We’re doing work internally within the province to expedite

provincial approvals. There are a couple of areas in particular that

have been the focus of attention. The Ministry of Environment, around

contaminated sites approvals processes, got backed up quite dramatically

by the flooding in the Fraser Valley. The officials responsible for

determining whether sites have been appropriately remediated and are

ready for housing were deployed to determine whether farmers could plant

— whether their fields were contaminated by the flooding or whether they

would be able to go ahead with the farming season. So there was some

backup in contaminated sites.

Also there was, at the same time, an increase in the number of

contaminated sites — formerly contaminated sites — remediated and coming

forward for approval. Because of the housing market being what it is,

sites that previously were uneconomic to develop now have become

economic to develop and require that provincial approval. That’s one

example.

Archaeology approvals, as well — archaeological evaluation of

sites by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, as it

then was, now the Ministry of Forests. Work has taken place to reduce

the backlog in archaeology reviews as well, and there has been some

success on that project. So, broadly, the heading for that category of

work is housing approvals processes.

The HousingHub program will continue. That’s a $2 billion

construction financing fund for private developers, which includes

non-profit organizations, community organizations as well as private

developers, to build more affordable rental housing or more affordable

housing for purchase.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a construction financing program where a loan is made to the

developer or the community agency to complete the construction. Once

construction is completed, that loan is paid back to the province,

because the province can borrow money at a much lower rate than a

private developer can for construction. The difference between those

interest rates is converted to commitments for increased affordability

at the site for rentals, a ten-year commitment for ownership, a

commitment that is contained within a participating mortgage held by

government so that the affordability can be passed on to future

owners.

There is a lot of work in the ministry around advocacy with

municipalities on major development discussions, rezoning discussions —

for example, in the city of Vancouver, the Broadway plan. That is a

planning process taking place in relation to the massive investment by

the province and the federal government in a new SkyTrain for that city

and the need for two pieces.

One is affordable housing and rental housing along that SkyTrain

line to be prioritized through that planning process. The other is for

the protection of renters who are living in buildings along those sites

that may be redeveloped — to ensure that they’re able to return, as

affordable rents, to the new buildings once they’re constructed. I’ve

been advocating and supporting the work of the city of Vancouver to move

that plan ahead and to approve it.

Similarly, in the city of Victoria, there’s the Missing Middle

initiative, where they are proposing to allow expedited approvals

processes for duplexes, triplexes and houseplexes such that they can be

built in the same way that a single family home could without city

council having to approve each development. I’m very much in favour of

that proposal and have been supporting and advocating for Victoria to

push that along as well.

I would categorize those under the moral suasion. I’ve written

letters across the province to municipalities around affordable housing

initiatives and initiatives like this to expedite the approval of

affordable housing.

We also have the speculation and vacancy tax, which is not this

ministry but was an important housing initiative that brought 18,000

units of previously vacant condos and homes held by investors back onto

the rental market. This tax is only paid if the home is held vacant in a

speculation and vacancy tax area, which are high-demand, low-vacancy

areas, and you don’t pay it if you rent it out. So the goal of that tax

is not to tax people but to encourage them to rent out previously vacant

homes, and it has been successful in that regard. We’re going to

continue that work.

Also, the member will be familiar with the rental housing zoning

that was made available to municipalities. It was, unfortunately,

subject to a judicial review out of, I believe, the city of New

Westminster. And with that court case concluded, we hope that more

municipalities will be looking at rental-only zoning uses as part of

their toolbox around housing approvals.

M. Bernier: Thank you, I think, to the minister for that answer. Maybe I

should back it up, even just a little bit, for a question for the

minister, because it does tie into what we’re talking about. It’s

different for every group, every person, every family. As I see our

students are leaving, it’s important to them, as well, as the next

generation, who we hope will have the opportunity to get into

housing.

Some of the challenges…. Can the minister explain to me: what does

he or his ministry use as a benchmark when we talk about affordability?

What is an affordable rent? What is affordable housing? I think he would

agree that that’s different for every person, for every municipality.

Yet we stereotypically, I guess, easily use that terminology for all.

When we are talking about affordability and affordable housing, what

does that mean to the minister?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The strategy that government is deploying in relation to housing

looks at a continuum of different types of rent and housing structures

to respond to the urgency in the community around affordable housing,

providing what used to be called deep core need housing. That housing

that’s affordable and available to people who are living on social

assistance or disability assistance is critically important as a

homelessness response. It’s often a category that people most associate

with government and public housing programs. The reason for that is the

market is just not going to build the housing for that group of people,

and it’s up to government to provide that housing and

support.

Building up from that deep core need housing, that most-affordable

housing, our government has shifted to providing increased affordability

to groups that typically would not have been thought to need to have

government intervention to deliver housing for them — middle-income

people across the province. We have a $2 billion commitment through the

HousingHub, and that program provides housing for people with household

incomes of up to $175,000 annually, which is, obviously, a remarkable

thing — that a government program would be out there encouraging the

construction of housing for that particular population.

These programs vary from the shelter rate of social assistance all

the way up to housing income levels approaching $200,000 annually. On

that continuum, between those points, we have a number of different

price points for different units, because the need is so diverse and so

broad.

The traditional definition of affordability for housing is the

CMHC definition of 30 percent. B.C. Housing uses that for

rent-geared-to-income and for determining affordability for different

income levels. But it’s really important, I think, to have government

delivering that full spectrum of affordability to ensure that those

needs are met.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has compelled municipalities to

do what’s called a housing needs study to look into what the housing

needs are in their community — different income levels, different types

of housing, family housing, housing for singles, and so on — as an

education tool for municipalities to understand where they should be

focusing their energies to encourage development in certain areas to

respond to the needs in their community.

It’s not just the price; it’s also the type of housing, the number

of bedrooms, and so on, to respond to the needs in community.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate the minister acknowledging the fact that

affordability, again, is different depending on what we’re talking about

here. If we’re talking about…. A lot of times we reference “the great

middle class.” Well, they’re not looking for government-subsidized

housing. They’re looking for an opportunity just to get into market

housing, which is near impossible for so many people right now. I’ll

probably touch on that, and I’ll have some questions on that a little

bit later.

Just one last question I wanted to ask the minister, since he

brought it up. This was around the transportation corridors. As he

acknowledged, there’s a wide swath outside that will be considered for

the government to access around that corridor for affordable housing and

market housing — an array, it sounds like.

One of the things I’m sure the minister has been hearing, though,

as I have — and he acknowledged it in his previous answer — is of the

people who are already presently living in those areas. They will be

allowed, through some mechanism, to come back at a similar price point,

I believe — I’m not trying to put words in the minister’s mouth; he used

different terms — a similar rental price point of what they’re paying

now when development takes place.

[3:10 p.m.]

The concern that I am hearing from people — and I know the

minister is, as well — is that mid-point, though, of: where do they go?

A big concern from a lot of not only developers but advocacy groups….

They’re saying that the government might acquire some land. There will

be a transition period of what will happen with that land while

development takes place. People will lose their homes. Many of them are

in these areas where they classify as lower rental areas, maybe, at

present.

It could be a year, two, three, four years of development,

depending on what’s taking that place — that somebody will be losing

their home, and they’re being told: “Don’t worry. You’ll be able to come

back when the development is finished at a comparable rate, so not to

worry.” Their concern, my concern — I’m assuming the minister would

share it as well — is what would the plan be, though, in that 18 months,

two, four years, whatever it might be?

We do know, and we have to acknowledge, that it can be many, many

years while a development takes place. Where do the people go in that

time? They’re not just going to be sitting around and waiting for four

years to hopefully get back into the same neighbourhood where they have

maybe lived for many, many, many years, if not their entire life. What

is the plan in that mid-term if the province goes through with this

plan?

Hon. D. Eby: The approach of B.C. Housing around redevelopment of any of their

sites is a tenant-first relocation strategy, which focuses on ensuring

that the tenant has another place to go, that they’re supported in the

cost of hookups and disconnection and so on of services, and that they

are not left outside with the idea that in four years they can return to

a home.

This is, I think, best practice, and I want to be clear. When the

tenant returns to B.C. Housing, it’s a return to rent-geared-to-income.

So if the tenant’s income has changed during the time that they were

outside, or the tenant’s income is such that they can afford more or

less rent, they’ll be income testing on return to the unit. I think that

I said they could return at the same rent, but I just want to be clear

that it may vary depending what has happened to their income in the

interim period.

Both Vancouver and Burnaby have tenant protection plans in place.

They are slightly varied. Vancouver’s proposal is in relation to the

Broadway corridor. Burnaby’s is in place, generally, for the

redevelopment of housing. They deal with the transition period

differently. Burnaby through tenant relocation plans and resources for

tenants. Vancouver’s proposal, as I understand it, is that they are

looking at the possibility of swing spaces being developed so that the

tenants can move into the swing-space building, which would be a

new-build rental building. Then, once the building is complete, they

could move back into the new building, once it’s done. I understand

these plans are still evolving within the city.

I can advise the member that, at the provincial level, we are

having policy discussions about what we can do to provide support to

tenants, because we know that we have aging rental housing stock that

needs to be redeveloped. It’s particularly low density in a number of

communities, and it provides a significant opportunity for

redevelopment. But the big challenge around it is that the tenants have

to be protected. Otherwise, our goal of reducing homelessness, of making

life more affordable for British Columbians, is really undermined by the

fact that these tenants are displaced and can’t afford to live in the

community where they used to live.

I’m certainly very concerned about that, and I’m glad to know that

the member shares that concern, because the displacement of tenants

leads to homelessness and other unhappy outcomes. We need to do this

redevelopment work, and at the same time, we need to protect tenants. It

shouldn’t matter whether you live in Vancouver or Burnaby or some other

municipality when this happens. I think there’s an opportunity for us at

the provincial level to look at providing some minimum standards there,

but that is very early-stage policy work.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Bernier: One of the things, obviously, when we have some of our partner

groups, when we’re looking about affordable housing…. I looked recently

at one of the comments that came from the B.C. Non-Profit Housing

Association where they publicly said that they had 10,000 affordable

homes ready to be built, awaiting funding though, and were disappointed,

I guess, in the B.C. government’s Budget 2022 for the lack of funding

that was there for these 10,000 units that they say that they have ready

to go.

Now, I know there are always some nuances with that, but I’m

curious if the minister can give an update from the discussions I’m sure

that he’s had with the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. Is there

hope, then, that these 10,000 units are going to be funded? Are they now

going to be partially funded? How is that process working? Looking

through the present budget, it appears that that’s not the case right

now. So what is the plan?

Hon. D. Eby: The background to the concern of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing

Association is that they were aware of, as B.C. Housing and government

was, 13,000 units in applications to B.C. Housing for funding through

the community housing fund. In the budget envelope available, we were

able to fund 2,800 of those units. In this year’s budget, there’s $100

million. Recognizing the gap between what was asked for, the 13,000, and

the 2,800 that were funded, there was another $100 million that was

brought forward into the 2022 financial year.

This is a ten-year housing plan, so that accelerated funding will

allow, we believe, 850 additional units in 15 to 17 projects across the

province, closing that gap a little bit more.

But it definitely underlines a couple of things. One is the

capacity of the sector. The fact that we have so many non-profits who

are able to put together credible development proposals for affordable

housing is a very good sign of the health of the non-profit housing

sector in the province.

The second is the scope of the demand. This is a massive, $7

billion housing program. B.C. Housing is one of the largest, if not the

largest, residential housing developer in North America with 6,000 to

7,000 units under development as we speak, in construction. Yet there’s

still a very significant demand for additional direct-funded government

housing.

B.C. Housing is working with those project proponents to

coordinate them with other potential funding streams. The first is

federal government funding. We work closely with the federal government

to coordinate funding with CMHC, their B.C. Housing arm. The close

partnership between CMHC and B.C. Housing enables projects that are

proposed for B.C. to be repurposed for federal funding streams that are

available to British Columbia.

The member…. I encourage him when he’s interacting with our

federal counterparts, Members of Parliament, to push them — that B.C.

deserves a per-capita share of federal funding for housing. Something

that we have yet to see, frankly, from the federal government, which is

very disappointing.

[3:20 p.m.]

I have commitments from the federal minister that he is going to

address that issue and support us in ensuring that we do see our fair

per-capita share of federal housing funding, especially given the level

of investment being put in by the province and especially in relation to

Indigenous housing, which is a significant federal responsibility where

there’s a lot of rooms for improvement.

The second opportunity for these applications, and where B.C.

Housing is working with proponents, is to have discussions about using

HousingHub funding for construction financing and then traditional

mortgage takeout funding that enables affordable rental housing to be

constructed — and sooner than the calls may go out for different

affordable housing funds either at the provincial or federal level. So

B.C. Housing works with funding proponents to repurpose their

applications for different streams of funding.

In addition, we will have future years’ calls for funding for our

different housing streams. Those applications, some of which will need

additional work to get them into shape to be funded in those years….

B.C. Housing will work through project development funding and so on to

get them into shape for funding in future calls.

M. Bernier: It sounds, by that answer, that obviously there are a lot of

different components built into some of the challenges to get some of

this affordability dealt with and housing built. But a lot of it seems

to gravitate around funding or a lack of funding at certain

times.

I don’t know if the minister will want to comment to this, but it

just quickly pops to mind. I have to say that if $100 million is going

to build about 10 percent of what’s needed for the 10,000 affordable

homes through the not-for-profit society, imagine what $1 billion,

instead of building a museum, would do.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the chuckle. I know the minister is at the cabinet

table when decisions are being made. I don’t say this to be joking. It

is, again, about priorities. But it is important to highlight the fact

that if funding is an issue….

The minister has acknowledged it’s only one. We need the federal

partnership. But it is important to also highlight again that government

makes priorities where they see fit. I thought that would be my perfect

window to get on the record again that affordability is important. It’s

the crisis right now that’s facing so many people across the

province.

When we talk about some of the housing units that are already

built, I think it’s important to acknowledge some of the other

challenges. I probably wasn’t going to go here. But in light of the

unfortunate situation that just happened in North Vancouver at a B.C.

Housing unit with a fire that just took place…. Of course, we’re also

very hopeful. The RCMP and fire department have said, at this point,

that they’re unsure if anybody was unfortunately trapped in the

building. We all hope, obviously, that that is not the case.

What was highlighted through the media this morning, when I was

just reading through it over lunch, was the lack of maintenance that

takes place in B.C. Housing units, which puts people at risk. The

commentary in the media today over lunch was that for ten years now —

I’ll say ten years — there have been calls for additional funding from

B.C. Housing for ongoing maintenance on a lot of their facilities

provincewide.

What is the provincial role in ensuring that there’s adequate

funding for B.C. Housing? Not just…. We’re talking about “to date” in

today’s estimates. We’re talking about building new infrastructure. But

what about the stuff that’s already there and maintaining it to a level

that is suitable and safe for people to live in? Can the minister maybe

break down what kind of funding there is for that and what the plan is,

ongoing, with B.C. Housing to ensure that?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A number of components to the member’s question. First of all, in

relation to North Vancouver, there was a fire in a building in North

Vancouver which had B.C. Housing operating funding. Tragically, I

understand…. I am advised that somebody lost their life. Obviously, our

hearts and thoughts go out to the family and friends of that individual

and to all of the people who lived in that building who have been

displaced by this fire, tragically.

I’m also advised that this building had been identified for

significant capital upgrades, including fire-related upgrades, where the

technical work was underway. The fire has happened during this period.

It was a building that was in need of repair, and that work was getting

underway. So a very tragic and awful situation, and obviously we wish

the best to everybody who was affected by that terrible fire.

Now, more broadly around the question of capital renewal of B.C.

Housing buildings and non-profit buildings that receive operating

funding from B.C. Housing, in 2018, there was a capital renewal fund

established. In that fund, $298.18 million was committed for

non-profit-owned projects for upgrades and maintenance, and $179.76

million was committed for provincially owned buildings, B.C. Housing

buildings. As of March 31, 2022, there are 255 non-profit maintenance

projects, renewal projects, in progress and 452 provincially owned

projects in progress.

The total investment under the capital renewal fund is a ten-year,

$1.36 billion investment. The reason for making this investment and

supporting these 707 projects that are currently underway is recognition

that the most affordable housing we have is the housing that’s already

standing. Where we can preserve it and ensure that it’s safe and has a

long service life, that’s good news for our response to the housing

crisis more generally.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I hadn’t heard, so our hearts go out as well. I

appreciate the minister acknowledging that in the House. Obviously, none

of us want to see that. It’s unfortunate when you hear the situation

that…. As the minister acknowledged, we’re trying to do the investment

for maintenance on these facilities.

How does the government, I guess through B.C. Housing…? How do we

audit these facilities, then, to determine that…? I’ll speak from past

experience as a Minister of Education. The school districts would audit

their facilities, and we’d be able to grade them based on requirements

for upgrades, based on a facilities index.

[3:30 p.m.]

Does something similar take place with B.C. Housing? If we’re

going to be spending the money, we’d determine that that money would be

spent on a risk-analysis basis, I would hope, but also from a provincial

perspective. Again, there are B.C. Housing units right across British

Columbia in small rural communities as well.

How do we determine where that money will be spent — through an

auditing process, I would assume — and how does that work through the

ministry as we determine the accountability of who is going to

administer that funding and the determination of how much and

where?

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing monitors the physical condition of the social housing

stock through something called a facility condition index, which I’ll

refer to as FCI, as part of their asset management program. The FCI is

an indication of the condition of the building, and the measurement is

such that it’s like golf. A lower value corresponds to a better building

condition.

B.C. Housing set the 2022-23 overall target at 16 to 21 percent

for the condition of the provincial social housing stock. This target is

calculated using a five-year projected average of the condition of the

social housing stock. This approach is industry-standard around property

management.

As of March 31, 2022, the portfolio FCI rating is 19 percent for

the social housing stock, but at the start of 2021-22, the FCI of the

housing portfolio was 20.9 percent. Without investment through the

capital renewal fund, the FCI would have reached 22.7 percent by the end

of the year, well out of target. As the member will note, we’re headed

in the right direction on our FCI scores.

The buildings that score the worst on the facility condition index

are the ones that are prioritized for funding for maintenance and

renovations with the capital renewal fund.

M. Bernier: Do all B.C. Housing units get funding if they’re required,

depending on the rating and the index? Where I’m going with that…. I’m

going to use the community of Chetwynd as an example — something in my

riding that I’m aware of — where, I am told, there are numerous B.C.

Housing units that are sitting vacant because the government, through

B.C. Housing, is not doing the necessary repairs to make them

inhabitable.

For different reasons — obviously, when tenants left — the

facility is no longer in the state that would allow a person or a family

to move in, but I’m being told by local B.C. Housing staff that one of

the struggles is getting the funding to bring it back up to the repair

state needed for someone to live in it. I understand that that would be

a struggle in many aspects, probably right around the province, but how

do we determine that, then?

You’ll have a small community like Chetwynd that might only have —

I don’t know the number — 15 or 20 B.C. Housing units. If they lose five

or six of them because they’re in disrepair, that’s a huge loss to a

community. How do we determine where that funding goes? Is it a

responsibility of government or B.C. Housing or of a local MLA to

advocate? Where does that responsibility lie, to bring these much-needed

affordable housing units back into stock?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Housing has technical management teams, headed by the asset

manager, and assigns priority, based on the FCI score of the building,

for determining which buildings access the capital renewal fund for

renovation.

Now, typically, when a unit is turned over and requires some

renovation in order to be brought back online, it is the highest

priority for B.C. Housing, because this is the opportunity to get

somebody inside who may be out on the street, in a shelter, or otherwise

in desperate need of housing.

I don’t know what’s happening in Chetwynd. I guess the member’s

example of the local MLA drawing the issue to the attention of

government is a good one. B.C. Housing will follow up on the member’s

question about Chetwynd and what’s happening with those units. That is

the process for determining renovation priority.

M. Bernier: Okay, I appreciate that response. As unfortunate as it is,

sometimes it can be tens of thousands of dollars, maybe — that’s the

numbers I’ve been told — to fix up some of these units to allow people

to get back into them. It’s an unfortunate situation and a waste of

dollars in so many ways, but in a lot of respects, it’s still cheaper

than building a new facility. Obviously, with the stock that we have, to

keep people in them would be a preference.

The minister referenced today, a few times, HousingHub. I just

wanted to ask a few questions, maybe go back to that since the minister

has referenced it. It’s my understanding — I believe the minister has

even acknowledged this — that the HousingHub system is about $2 billion

that we’re talking about. It used to be a grants process, it sounds

like, that has now been switched to loans.

I’m just curious, then. Why is it that? Why have we switched the

system to now…? I know the minister has acknowledged, and he might say

again in his answer, that the government can borrow the money for

cheaper interest rates than somebody else. But the system used to be, to

my understanding, a grant for somebody who is going to be applying in

order to build a facility. Why was it switched from a grant to a

loan?

Hon. D. Eby: The HousingHub program, from inception, has been a construction

financing program. The member is likely thinking of the many programs

under Building B.C. that are grant-based — the Indigenous housing fund,

the community housing fund, supportive housing, and so on, which are all

grants. They are not loans.

The reason why HousingHub is structured as a loan program is that

it’s a program that’s targeted at middle-income people in the province.

The member will know — he has previously sat around cabinet tables —

that there are not unlimited resources in government. So when deciding

where to allocate housing grant dollars, assigning those to the

populations that are most desperately in need of housing or at risk of

homelessness has been the priority of government.

But we didn’t want to fail to respond to the challenge faced by

working people across the province to just find basic rental housing or

affordable housing for purchase. Through this HousingHub program —

because it is a construction financing program and benefits from that

change in the interest rates between what government can get and the

developer can get — we’re able to deliver increased affordability to

middle-income people.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The fund doesn’t get used up. It gets paid back at the completion

of construction and is able to go into facilitating the development of

another affordable site.

Hon. Chair, welcome to the session. I might ask, with my

colleagues’ consent, a five-minute recess.

The Chair: The Chair is happy to grant that request.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s bring it back, shall we.

We’re here for the estimates of the Ministry of

Housing.

M. Bernier: We were just talking about the HousingHub. I’m curious, then, on

this loans-based process. Can anybody apply? Obviously, when we’re

talking about developers, is there a set of criteria that a developer

would have to have some proven record of ability to do that?

If so, depending on how the minister will answer that, he can also

add how it is decided, then, on that loan. Is it on a case-by-case

basis, or is there a set of criteria depending on the number of units or

how it’s going to be built? Could the minister just maybe explain that a

bit more wholesomely?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll give a high-level answer, and then if the member wants to

drill down on any of these, I’m happy to go into detail.

B.C. Housing has an underwriting department, just like any bank

would, in relation to loans. They use typical evaluation tools used by

banks to determine the appropriateness of any given construction loan.

This involves an assessment of the builders’ ability to complete the

project, as well as personal or corporate guarantees, often both, where

the loan is guaranteed by the personal assets of both the developer and

the developer’s company.

In addition, the loan is secured by a mortgage guarantee that puts

B.C. Housing’s repayment ahead of developer equity. In other words, the

developer is required to put equity into the project, and the equity

could be accessed by B.C. Housing to recover the loan in order to ensure

that taxpayers are kept whole. This collection of guarantees ensures

that construction loans that are provided will be returned to

government.

[3:50 p.m.]

In exchange for the construction financing, projects are evaluated

on their ability to deliver affordable housing for purchase or for

rental housing — that there is a ten-year commitment to meeting income

levels in the purpose-built rental building. In other words, this is a

building that is built for rental, and for ten years, rents need to be

at a level that the income levels that have been guaranteed by B.C.

Housing and can be met. In other words, when a tenant moves out of the

building and the unit is turned over, the tenant that’s coming in within

that ten-year period will benefit from the more affordable rents as

well.

At the end of the ten-year period, those tenancies continue with

those rents until the tenant moves out. They’re only subject to market

rents at the point of those tenants moving out, who were in the units,

at the nine-year, 364th day, essentially. They’re protected by the

residential tenancy branch rent control increases over time, as long as

the same tenant is in the unit.

M. Bernier: Just trying to not necessarily drill down but to understand the

process a little more. There is a $2 billion pot that B.C. Housing has.

This is not, obviously — as the minister is acknowledging, so we

understand — $2 billion a year. There’s a $2 billion pot that gets drawn

down but repaid. That comes back as the loan repayment. That money will

just be a continuation — in-out process, I guess — through an

application, and then payback process, as loans usually are.

So there’s a cap of the $2 billion. Do we see, maybe presently,

how much of that is going out? Do we see that $2 billion being drawn

down? Then, obviously, there’d be no money until money starts rolling

back in. Or is there a top-up from government, a continuation, to ensure

that there’s more money coming in? If so, then that’s more than $2

billion, or is the $2 billion the cap?

If it completely gets drawn down, then there is no money left

until developers, through the process of completion and payback, top up

that pot, back to B.C. Housing for reissuance, I guess, for future

projects. Do I understand the process correctly?

Hon. D. Eby: This program has been operational for less than a year, and

already, it has been taken up by a significant number of projects. We

have $330 million in loans that are currently out, funding construction

across the province.

In order to carefully manage this fund, the best way to think

about it is as a revolving line of credit. B.C. Housing and the Ministry

of Attorney General maintain an accurate forecast and

schedule of the

loans — when repayments are anticipated, when requests for draw downs

are happening — to ensure that we stay within that $2 billion

limit.

[3:55 p.m.]

There are not additional top-ups. The trend line of loans is that

they are increasing, so this $330 million figure will be increasing over

time as construction continues. Then, as those projects complete, it

will come down, but our anticipation is that number will continue to

grow.

M. Bernier: I guess the question around this would be…. This isn’t “I gotcha”

stuff. This is just trying to understand the process.

Has Treasury Board, through the ministry’s application through

Treasury Board, I guess, approved the $2 billion? Has that $2 billion

already been allocated and is now sitting with B.C. Housing? If so, do

they get to invest that and recoup any interest accumulated while it’s

sitting and if there is only $300 million plus that’s gone

out?

If that is the answer, that’s one thing. But if not, then what is

the oversight through the ministry on the application process? Not to

take away from the expertise that B.C. Housing has, as the minister

acknowledged there — the process. I’m just trying to understand if they

already have the money. If not, how does that process work?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just trying to think about how I would ask for that $2 billion

to be allocated to B.C. Housing to use the interest. That would be

enthusiastically received at Treasury Board, I’m sure.

The money is not sitting with B.C. Housing. It’s drawn down as

needed from TB. The commitment from government to B.C. Housing is that

the drawdown can be up to $2 billion, but it can only be drawn down as

projects are approved.

The approval process is as follows. Under $25 million: if the

project is under $25 million, B.C. Housing has the authority to make the

decision around the loan directly. For $25 million to $50 million, there

is a risk screen of the project that is done by both the Ministry of

Attorney General and Treasury Board staff. Over $50 million: projects

that are over $50 million go to a full Treasury Board submission. So

there is an increased degree of scrutiny the higher the value of the

project.

M. Bernier: I was hoping and assumed, knowing my time at Treasury Board, that

that was the answer. I also acknowledged, while I was asking the

question, the nice smirks from the staff in the back who were probably

thinking: “Wow. It would have been nice to have just had that $2 billion

and allow us to do that.” But I appreciate the answer.

My next question was going to be around — just ensuring from the

transparency aspect but also the scrutiny — the application process,

responsibility and accountability back to government. The minister,

through that answer, acknowledged what I was hoping that the answer was,

because I think that’s an important part of the process.

One little bit different train of thought that I want to go to is

really around just housing supply in general now. The latest February

2022 figures, survey of employment for payroll and hours, showed that

B.C. is the only major province that’s experiencing a decline in

employment at hospitals.

Now, the Minister of Health, when asked about this, identified

that one of the biggest challenges around recruitment and retention….

Specifically, I would acknowledge — and, I would say, for different

reasons in rural British Columbia — a lot of the lack of housing supply

that’s there and affordable housing supply, in a lot of aspects, is a

barrier to filling a lot of these vacancies.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m curious what this minister’s role is when it comes to talking

about that gap in our housing supply. I look at…. The CEO from Royal

Inland Foundation in Kamloops has said that they’re in a situation now….

We’ve heard, and I won’t have to go into some of the discussion we’ve

already had through question period and other areas here in this House —

about the problems that that hospital, as well as others, is

having.

They’re wanting to bring in and trying to bring in travel nurses.

Some are coming in for up to a year. We’re seeing that in a lot of

places — whether it’s Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Prince George, Prince

Rupert — because of the shortages of nurses. Almost every single one of

them acknowledged that one of the largest challenges is housing and

making sure that that housing stock is available at an affordable rate

to recruit and retain nurses and doctors into those

communities.

Back to, I guess, where I was going in…. My question that I had

was: where does this Minister of Housing fit in to that discussion with

the Minister of Health? Is there a plan in place? Is there a program

they’re looking at, or is this still going to be market-driven and we’ll

let the communities take care of that?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to correct the record, government has added 30,000 health

care workers since forming government.

I know this is an issue. It’s been canvassed in some detail in

question period. It’s not accurate to suggest that there’s been a

decline in the number of employees at a hospital. It is accurate to

suggest that housing is a serious issue around recruitment and retention

of not just health care employees but also employees of many different

and vital sectors across the province — everything from tourism,

government services, retail, manufacturing. You name it.

It’s the reason for government’s establishment of the HousingHub

program — to ensure that and to do our best to deliver more affordable

rental housing and housing for purchase. It’s sometimes described as

workforce housing, if only because I can’t think of a better name,

really. This is the housing for the people who make our cities and

communities go. This construction financing is meant to facilitate and

encourage the development of that kind of housing.

As for specific housing for health care employees, usually, I’m

advised by B.C. Housing, that work would be done by the health

authority. Any particular housing program…. Most universities, for

example, for recruitment and retention of staff, also have housing

programs internally to support their staff around finding appropriate

housing. Health authorities have similar kinds of initiatives around

relocation of staff and housing for staff.

M. Bernier: Obviously, I’m not expecting this minister…. We’re not reliving a

question period here, by any means. Of course, when I look at a lot of

the different data and the nuances on the wording…. I mean, we’re

talking about doctors and nurses, not health care workers in hospitals.

It could be a multitude of different areas.

Issues in rural British Columbia. We’re talking specifically

doctors and nurses. In my travels around northern B.C., housing is the

number one issue. The minister just acknowledged, if I understood his

answer correctly, that a lot of that responsibility is looking at the

Ministry of Health and from the health authorities

themselves.

When I talk to a lot of people on the boards of health

authorities, their comment to me is: “We’re not in housing; we’re in

health. Our job is to ensure that we have health care and good health

outcomes. There have to be other areas that deal with the

housing.”

That’s why my question was…. As the Minister of Housing, I would

assume, or think, that there’d be some responsibility there for this

minister to look at ways to incentivize or support housing

development.

Now, he referenced the HousingHub. I would only ask, then, to the

minister: what does the minister or ministry do around — I guess

“advertising” might not be the right word — supporting the message

around the HousingHub initiative?

[4:05 p.m.]

I can almost guarantee that a small community…. I think the

minister even referenced earlier a place like Prince Rupert. It’ll have

similar issues. Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, McBride — I could list a whole

bunch of communities that don’t necessarily have the capacity to be

applying to the hub and to be building these facilities that the

minister is acknowledging that the health authorities and the

communities need.

I guess my question is more of…. Is the minister saying that this

is the only option — this HousingHub — and that’s what we’re going to

deflect to? Or are there other things that are being looked at, which

maybe I’m not aware of or the communities aren’t aware of, where we can

partner to deal with this housing shortage specifically to support

health care workers in communities that desperately need it?

Hon. D. Eby: In the earlier set of questions, I discussed a review of the

Building B.C. program to ensure that it corresponds to the needs in the

province. One of the issues that we’ve identified in the program — I’m

not sure; I think I raised it in an earlier response but maybe not — is

that some communities have a shortage of developers or non-profits, or

both, to build housing that’s needed.

Prince Rupert’s a really good example, which I’ve spoken about on

a number of occasions. Here’s a community that’s growing incredibly —

economically, hundreds and hundreds of jobs added annually just at the

port, all the services that the people who take these jobs at the port

need — yet the municipality really is grappling with a shortage of

developers to come and build the housing for people who are going to

work at the port.

It’s not just a health care issue. If we’re talking about health

care workers in Rupert, we’re also talking about port workers and other

essential service workers in Rupert. I’m sure there are similar issues

in Chetwynd and other smaller communities.

The HousingHub program is one that is likely most successful in an

urban setting, where there are multifamily housing developers that are

able to take advantage of this program. That said, there’s no bar to

rural participation, but it does rely on a certain level of

infrastructure. The same with the Building B.C. program. It relies on,

often, non-profit operators to bring forward certain proposals. So that

gap is one that we have identified. We’ll be looking at that as part of

the overall review of the Building B.C. program.

Overall, in terms of housing, we have a 30-point plan, which we

have been deploying since forming government to address housing

speculation and vacancy, and so on, in different communities, to

encourage the development of housing, to assist municipalities in

expediting housing approvals, and so on. All of this work is

contributing to building that workforce housing, and we’ve seen positive

results in terms of our provincial numbers around housing starts, rental

housing starts, multifamily housing.

That work needs to continue. It’s also not the full answer, which

is why we’re doing that review of this program.

M. Bernier: Well, we talked about the review earlier. That’ll be, hopefully,

sooner rather than later, acknowledging that the issues aren’t going

away, and they’re just going to be compounding.

[4:10 p.m.]

As we’re talking about this…. I know the minister will be looking,

then, at some of those challenges, which are unique in rural parts of

British Columbia, that don’t fit the present model. I know many

communities…. Members in this House will be looking forward, then, to

that information coming out so we can share it in those regions to try

to help solve some of these issues.

The minister just referenced the Building B.C. housing plan. Maybe

I’ll ask a question there. In that plan, how many housing units are

being specifically targeted in that plan just for seniors?

Hon. D. Eby: The data I have immediately at hand is seniors units completed,

31st of the fiscal year basis through to end of December

In our time in government, starting with the most recent three

years, 2019-2020, 865 units of supportive seniors housing and 408 units

of independent seniors housing, for a total of 1,273 units that

year.

In 2020-21, 301 units of supportive seniors housing and 404 units

of independent seniors housing, for a total of 705 units that

year.

Then in 2021-2022 — this is a partial year, because this data is

to the 31st of December 2021 — 417 supportive seniors units and 177

independent seniors units, for a total of 594 for that year.

We are averaging about just shy of 800 units a year of seniors

housing. I’ll gather more up-to-date numbers for provision to the

member. These are completed units, so they are currently available to be

occupied.

M. Bernier: I guess one of the concerns that I just wanted to quickly raise

there…. I was reading through the report from the seniors advocate. Of

course, we talk about the census showing that we’ve now surpassed about

one million people at the retirement age here in the province of British

Columbia. A good portion of those people, for different personal

reasons, are trying to access subsidized housing.

I was looking at some of the stats that the seniors advocate put

out, and although the minister is acknowledging that there is some

modest growth and buildout taking place, the seniors advocate says that

seniors subsidized rental housing has actually decreased over the last

five years. There’s also, during that same time period, during decreased

subsidized rental housing, a 43 percent increase in

applications.

[4:15 p.m.]

In her report, it says that there’s a two-year average wait time

right now for seniors who are looking for subsidized housing in British

Columbia to get in, with an actual 8,706 people, as of last year, at the

time of this report…. So 8,700 people on a wait-list in the province of

British Columbia, looking for some form of subsidized

housing.

I acknowledge that is going to be a challenge for us here in

British Columbia and for the minister. But the question would be, then….

He acknowledged some modest buildout that looks like it’s taking place.

But with one million people at retirement age, what’s the plan in the

next one, three and five years, I guess, within this Building B.C.

housing plan? If he could let us know what his thoughts are to try to

meet that gap so we don’t have a two-year waiting list of people who are

requiring subsidized housing as seniors.

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to seniors housing, there are a number of initiatives

underway. But one of the significant initiatives relates to the SAFER

grant for seniors. This is a subsidy for seniors to assist them to cover

rents in an environment where rents are going up. It’s an important

subsidy for seniors.

In 2018, we expanded eligibility and increased monthly rental

payment amounts by approximately 42 percent under the Shelter Aid For

Elderly Renters. That’s the SAFER program. It went from $187 to $265.

The number of seniors supported by SAFER has increased in each of the

past five years, likely due to that expanded eligibility.

The challenge with SAFER is that rents continue to escalate, and

they’re not tied to inflation. So B.C. Housing is doing a review of both

the SAFER and the rental assistance program, which is a separate subsidy

program. Those findings will inform recommendations for government,

moving forward, to ensure that the program continues to meet our goals

of supporting housing affordability for seniors.

This is one of the reasons why I’m so enthusiastic about cities

approving the rental housing that is in the queue for approvals through

municipalities. We can’t subsidize the rent for seniors in rental

housing that doesn’t exist.

I am a bit frustrated, occasionally, by the discussions about what

the rents will be that take place, detached from the idea that

government is willing and able to support seniors in getting into some

of these units once they’re built. But putting the units off for a year

or two years, waiting for increased affordability, doesn’t actually

increase affordability, nor does it reduce pressure on renters like

seniors.

With respect to some of the concerns raised by the office of the

seniors advocate, there were two. One was that there was a decrease in

rental housing units. This is due to operating agreements, which B.C.

Housing had with some seniors buildings, expiring. The units don’t go

away, but B.C. Housing stops tracking those units once the operating

agreement is complete.

It doesn’t mean that the seniors aren’t still living there or that

there are not still units for seniors. It just means that B.C. Housing

no longer tracks them as government seniors housing. It sounds like a

bit of a technical issue, but it is significant in that the units

haven’t disappeared. They continue.

[4:20 p.m.]

There was a decrease in the value of SAFER subsidies paid by

government that was raised by the seniors advocate. We suspect, although

are still doing work, that this is likely due to an increase in senior

incomes due to the federal CERB program. This is an income-dependent

subsidy, so if your income goes up, your SAFER subsidy can be reduced.

That is the likely source of that. People’s incomes went up, and

therefore, their SAFER subsidies were reduced, even though the number of

people receiving the subsidy increased.

M. Bernier: There’s no argument from me that, obviously, supply plays into

issues. As the minister acknowledged, it’s hard to have something to

rent if the supply is not there for people to rent.

I thought it was important also to canvass just the pressures

that, especially, are facing our aging population, when I say that

almost a million people now are at their retirement age. That support is

very much needed. Again, this is felt right across the entire province,

this challenge.

I know the minister was just waiting for this one, and I’m going

to give him a chance. Since we talked about renters, I asked the

minister a question here in this House about two months ago, February

15, right when the budget was being announced, the day before. The

minister stood in this House and said, “Wait for it; we’re working on

it,” the renters rebate, $400 to help the people in the province of

British Columbia that this government has promised now for many years.

But we did not see it in the budget, and the minister did acknowledge

and say that we’re working on it; it’s coming.

Maybe the minister can enlighten this House today where we’re at

on that promise.

Hon. D. Eby: That work is being done by the Ministry of Finance, and I

understand it is underway.

M. Bernier: Well, we canvassed the Minister of Finance on that. It’s nowhere

in the budget, and it seems to always be pushed around, that specific

promise, because it always goes back to “this was a housing initiative,”

and it’s the Minister for Housing’s promise on this to

deliver.

The Premier made the promise publicly, so I know the pressure that

puts on the minister to try to deliver. But has the minister, then,

advocated for this? Has there been costing done on what this will amount

to, to help renters? Because the minister himself has been on record

supporting this initiative, I’m just curious where he’s at on trying to

help deliver on it.

Hon. D. Eby: Responsibility for delivering different government commitments

that were made during the election is assigned to different ministries.

The renters rebate responsibility was assigned to the Minister of

Finance. If the member has canvassed that with the Minister of Finance,

that’s where he will find the best answers about where that is at. I’m

absolutely supportive of a renters rebate and all of our government’s

commitments made during the last campaign.

M. Bernier: I find that an interesting answer, because, again, it seems to be

pushed around. The Minister of Finance has said that she’s really, it

sounds like, not working on it.

It was a commitment from this government. Of course, it does fall,

I would argue, financially, under the Ministry of Finance, but the

commitment to deliver, you would assume, would be a housing commitment

under this minister. So I’m quite surprised.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, yeah. The minister did say, “Stay tuned,” that it’s coming.

I do acknowledge that the minister was trying to say it’s the Minister

of Finance. I just want to say that this is one of those frustrations,

though, because, as the Housing critic, I know I’m getting the calls. I

would assume the Housing Minister is as well.

The minister’s also been on record — and he can correct me if I’m

misstating this — saying that he does not necessarily support the

homeowner’s grant. I’m just curious how that plays out. Is the

minister…? Looking at the looks that I just got on his face, am I

incorrect in that assumption? I know the minister has said: “It’s not

fair that homeowners get a benefit through a homeowner’s grant when

tenants don’t.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Through that, I would say that it makes it sound like he doesn’t

support a homeowner’s grant, or he’s supporting a renters rebate that

they haven’t received as well. So I’m just curious where the minister

can square that one for me.

Hon. D. Eby: In the previous question, I said that I support the renters

rebate. I support the commitment of government to address that

unfairness. I do not know how he gets from that quote, that unfairness,

that, by extension, then, I do not support this long-standing grant for

homeowners.

I think it’s fair and appropriate that renters see a rebate as

well. More and more families are renting and having to rent. It is a

reflection of that. So I support the campaign commitment. That’s why I

support the work of the Minister of Finance on this.

M. Bernier: I only bring that up because of, maybe, the perception. Words are

important, and when the minister publicly says that it’s not fair that

homeowners get a homeowner’s grant, that makes it sound like the

minister thinks it’s not fair that homeowners get a homeowners grant.

Those were his words.

I do understand the nuance that the minister is trying to say —

that it’s not fair that they get a grant when the tenants don’t, and

he’s trying to say that that’s supporting the tenants getting a rebate.

It is unfortunate that it’s been, I guess, going on five, six years now

that everybody in the government says they support it, but they’re

unable to deliver on that promise.

Maybe I’ll switch, because I know the minister. I’ll just get the

same answer from him every time on that topic.

The Residential Tenancy Act. I’m being advised that there is a

huge wait-list right now for hearings at the residential tenancy branch.

Can the minister maybe acknowledge where we’re at with wait times for

that dispute resolution process? Is there still a large wait time? I

know government has said that COVID played into that a little bit. I’m

not sure if that’s still the case, but I’m being told there is quite a

wait time. What is the wait time, and what’s the reasoning for

it?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve seen a significant increase in call volumes since 2019. In

March of 2022, of this year, the residential tenancy branch received

19,809 telephone calls. That’s an increase of 34½ percent over March

[4:30 p.m.]

In fiscal year ’21-22, the residential tenancy branch received

199,950 calls compared to 205,000 calls in ’20-21 and 183,000 calls in

2019-20. This represents a 9 percent increase in call volume between

2019-20 to 2021-22. In 2021-22, the average wait time was 14 minutes and

55 seconds versus six minutes and 56 seconds in the previous fiscal

year, so a significant escalation in wait times.

As of April 2022, hearing wait times are now approximately 4.2

weeks to hear an emergency dispute, 15.3 weeks to hear standard disputes

and 27.7 weeks to hear monetary disputes. The pre-pandemic average

number of dispute applications was 1,550 per month. That has increased

to 2,245 in September 2020.

The RTB received an average of 1,720 applications per month in the

past 12 months and received 1,942 applications in March 2022. I think

the explana