Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 420

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

D. Davies

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

Hon. R. Kahlon

S. Bond

K. Kirkpatrick

P. Milobar

I. Paton

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 3 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Bill 11 — Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024

Bill 13 — Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024

Bill 15 — Budget Measures Implementation (Residential Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax) Act, 2024

Bill 16 — Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024

Bill 18 — Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024

Bill 19 — Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Ross

Bill 22 — Safe Access to Schools Act

Hon. N. Sharma

M. Lee

S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. J. Osborne

E. Ross

M. Lee

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2024

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Russell: Just very quickly, I want to acknowledge people that I think are

online watching to recognize and celebrate Edwin and Mary Findlater, who

were celebrating, I guess a week ago or so, their 70th wedding anniversary,

which is a pretty remarkable accomplishment.

Welcome them, please.

Orders of the Day

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

Housing.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 17,

Police Amendment Act.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

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

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

exchange.

The opposition critic and I were just chuckling about the critic

coming here and me having an entire team being with me, but I am

fortunate to have an entire team with me doing some amazing work. And

there are others that are watching right now from another room or in

different offices.

I want to start by saying a big thank-you to all of them for the

work that they do to ensure that people have housing. It’s not easy

work; it’s difficult work. I’m really grateful to have so many amazing

people supporting the work we’re doing, whether they be in our ministry

or at B.C. Housing.

I’ve got with me my deputy minister, Teri Collins. I’ve got Tracy

Campbell, the Master of Coin, sitting beside me. Vincent Tong, the CEO

of B.C. Housing, is here with me; Meghan Will, my assistant deputy

minister for homelessness; and Bindi Sawchuk, the assistant deputy

minister for housing policy.

I want to thank them for the amazing work they do every single

day, and I look forward to the exchange.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I may make a few opening remarks as well. I would like to thank

the ministry staff. I know this is hard work. You never know what’s

going to be asked, so you’ve got to be prepared for everything, so I

appreciate the time.

I’d like to thank my team on this side of the House as well. I say

that with jest because I actually do have a phenomenal group of

researchers that help and support me and do their best to try and make

me look smart, like I know what I’m talking about, and I really

appreciate that.

I know both government and B.C. United, the opposition, want the

same things. We want to get to that same place where British Columbians

have affordable housing, quality housing, where we’re going to be able

to have people come and live and stay here and be able to afford to have

a nice, good life, as so many of us have had the honour of having for so

many years here in British Columbia.

We have different ways to get there, different roads, and we may

take a different direction, but I do know that ultimately, we are trying

to get to the same place. We really have a focus on reducing barriers,

reducing costs, reducing transaction fees, reducing all those things

that are going to make it easier for all of us to get housing built and

to provide clarity to British Columbians, to developers, to

municipalities in terms of what we need to do and how we need to do

it.

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

the first question.

What does the minister think of CMHC’s report last year that over

600,000 homes must be built by 2030 to make sure that B.C. is

affordable, has affordable housing? Is it a reasonable number, and how

on earth is it achievable for us?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, we pay close attention to any report that comes,

whether it’s CMHC or elsewhere, and certainly, the numbers that have

been highlighted from CMHC are ambitious. I think the member is very

astute when it comes to this topic and understands that not only do we

have a challenge ahead of us of how much housing we need; we also are

dealing with global inflation, rising interest rates, a whole host of

pressures, all at this time. It’s a bit of a perfect storm.

My general view of the targets is that they’re ambitious, and our

goal is to ensure, as the member said, shared goals to ensure people

have access to housing. So we’re monitoring that report. And of course,

there’s a whole host of measures that we brought forward to get us on

the path of ensuring we have enough housing for people.

K. Kirkpatrick: We’re going to be asking specific questions in a moment about

where we are on each one of the targets that government had

set.

A question in terms of trying to find information so that we could

ask some of these questions is…. There used to be an affordable housing

quarterly that was published. It does not seem to be published anymore.

I’m just wondering why that had stopped. It’s the affordable housing

quarterly progress reports.

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There were changes being made to the website so that we can make

that information available. But for the member, we are going to print a

copy from the service plan that has all the details laid out.

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

you.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Was that a replacement for the affordable housing:

quar­terly progress reports? Are they not going to be…? You’re

giving me information that’s in the service plan as opposed to what B.C.

Housing was providing previously?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, the intention is to be having that posted on the site. The

information the member is looking for — we’ll get that to you shortly.

But the intention is to have it up on the website so people can have

access to it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m now going to ask the minister for how the ministry is doing on

a set number of targets under the B.C. Housing programs. In previous

times that we have met and had these conversations, I believe the

minister got back to me in writing afterwards just to make sure I had

those right numbers. But I’m very patient today, so I would actually

hope that…. I’m very happy to wait to actually get these

numbers.

If the minister can provide…. If you’d like me to go through one

at a time, or if you’d like me to read the list of the different

programs. You already know, I’m sure, what the programs are. If I can

look to the minister and he can tell me how I would….

Thank you, through the Chair.

Affordable rental housing, rapid response to homelessness,

deepening affordability, community housing fund, women’s transition

housing fund, supportive housing fund, Indigenous housing fund,

homelessness action plan and the HousingHub.

To clarify, I’d also like these numbers to be what is completed.

It’s not what’s in progress, but what is actually completed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: For affordable rental housing, I can tell the member that there

are 1,300 units in progress, 679 are complete, and 416 are in active

construction.

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

1,894 complete.

The community housing fund, there are 8,957 in progress, 2,585 are

complete, and just under 4,000 are under construction.

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

459 are complete.

The Indigenous housing fund, 1,559 are in progress, 623 are

complete, and just shy of 600 are under construction right

now.

[1:15 p.m.]

I think the member asked for the HousingHub provincial rental

supply as well. There are 5,877 in progress, and 3,679 of them are

complete.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Did the minister give me the supportive housing fund numbers? I

don’t think I got those.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thought I did, but I’ll say it again. For the supportive housing

fund, there are 4,454 in progress, 2,272 are complete, and just shy of

1,200 are under construction right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’d like to clarify that for the rapid response to homelessness,

there are 1,894 complete, which is the exact same number as in last

year’s estimates, 1,894 complete.

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

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

According to the Homes for B.C. plan, can the minister explain the

methodology behind counting units as underway and how this aligns with

physical construction progress actually happening on the

ground?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To the member’s question, some are under construction, and some

are just in the development phase. So that’s the difference

there.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to clarify the difference be­tween underway and

the development phase. Is underway that shovels are in the ground? What

is the minister counting in terms of progress? Is something 25 percent

done? Are we coming up on completion? Underway can be a very broad way

to describe something.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We use “completed,” “under construction” and “in progress” in the

document, if the member is asking about that.

K. Kirkpatrick: How many of the 77,000 units included in the government’s figure

are currently complete and habitable? How does this number compare to

the total number of units promised, now that we’re 70 percent of the way

through, or even more than 70 percent of the way through, the

government’s ten-year housing plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that we are still on target. I can

share with the member that 77,918 would be either complete or under

progress, and 47,695 of those are available right now. With the trend

line that we’re going on, we will hit our target.

K. Kirkpatrick: The inclusion of units subject to the speculation and vacancy tax

in Metro Van and ban on strata rental restrictions in the total figures

have been perceived as inflating the actual number of new homes created.

I would say it’s inflating it, but certainly the media has flagged it as

inflating the numbers. Could the minister itemize which units are newly

built versus those made available through policy changes and

reclassification of units?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have been clear. I feel like we are in Groundhog Day ,

because this is the same conversation we had last year. We had made it

clear that our housing plan at that time that was launched was through

direct builds, through policy changes, and bringing housing back to the

market. We were clear. In fact, the critic at the time from the

opposition also verified that in estimates debates, which I believe,

last year, I shared with the member.

[1:20 p.m.]

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

it’s always been the same.

Now, these were targets that were set many years ago. If you look

at the new initiatives, whether that’s small-scale, multi-unit,

transit-oriented development, the whole host of changes that we debated

at great length last session, we will greatly surpass the goals that

were set out in that strategy.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will say to the minister that yes,

you may get the same questions, because there is, perceivably, progress

going forward and some of the answers may be changing over time. You may

hear the same questions.

I will also just remind the minister that in 2017, it was: “We

will build 114,000 affordable rental, non-profit, co-op and

owner-purchase housing units through partnerships over ten years.” So

there has been a difference between the word “build” and now including

those units that have been really reclassified.

On the number that have been reclassified, can I just ask the

minister, how is the ministry validating those numbers that are being

given in the progress on housing targets? The ban on strata rental

restrictions, for example…. I’ve got the number 2,000 here; I don’t know

if that’s still the remaining number. How is the ministry actually

tracking that, and what level of assurance can they give British

Columbians that those numbers are actually accurate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I actually went back to our exchange from last year, and the

question was the same and the answer was the same. Almost word for word,

actually.

I did share with the member then, and I’ll re-emphasize it now,

that when we launched the strategy, it was clear that it was new builds,

as well as policy changes to bring housing back online. In fact, the

critic at that time confirmed in estimates that that was the case, and I

did share with the member the Hansard exchange. But I can, again, if

it’s needed for the record, read that back into the record.

The question the member had around strata…. If the member can just

kind of extrapolate what the member was referring to, that would be

great.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’ll leave that first part alone,

because we can go back and forth about what “build” means versus these

other things. That was probably my colleague here as well.

In the number of the 77,000 — or what I’ve got is just under

75,000, but let’s say it’s 77,000 — I’ve got the number 2,000 as having

actually been created as part of that number from the ban on rental

restrictions or the removal of the ban on rental

restrictions.

What I’m trying to understand is: how are those numbers

legitimate? That’s what we were talking about previously. We’re not sure

that those numbers are necessarily legitimate and should be included in

the success of what government has created, because I don’t understand

the metrics or way that that number is come up with — if that number is

kind of a guesstimate of what might happen, or if there are hard facts

that 2,000 units were actually created from that policy.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I was actually reading our estimates exchange from last year. This

question came up. I shared with the member…. The information from the

Ministry of Finance was available to us. Approximately 2,900 units were

captured by the speculation and vacancy tax because they were not able,

at that time, to rent to other people. We had estimated, at that point,

around 2,000 of those units.

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

last year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I was asking about the lifting of the

ban on rentals. That was the speculation tax. I’ll move on from

that.

The reason for asking these questions is…. I just think it’s very

difficult to poke at the numbers that government gives in terms of what

they’ve actually created because there’s nothing there that you can

specifically point to. People rent for all kinds of different reasons,

or they don’t rent their units for all kinds of different reasons. If

something has the spec tax, it doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is

going to rent it out.

I also, as the minister knows…. I probably said last year. He can

tell me if it’s in the estimates last year. There were a significant

number of condominiums that moved from not having an age restriction to

55 plus. Where there may be 2,000 units…. If that is, in fact, the

number that was created, I would like to know.

[1:30 p.m.]

I’m not asking him the question. I’m just making the statement

that it could actually mean that there was a reduction in rental units

that were available for people who were under 55. Again, it’s just

really hard to put a pin in how those numbers all came to be.

I’m going to ask some questions on supportive housing. There are a

few different themes here. I’m going to ask a question. Interestingly,

this question was provided to me by a provider of supportive housing for

government. The question is: can the minister please describe what

supportive housing is?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Supportive housing is 24-seven supports and services for people

experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.

I suspect the member is going to RTA and RTA changes, which many

in the sector are talking about. The courts have said to us to put a

more clear definition of “transitional housing.” That is work that we’re

going to do with the sector so that we’ve got clear

definitions on that

part. There’s more clarity for the courts and more clarity for the

sector.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I wasn’t going to ask about the RTA.

Since the minister has brought that up, I’ve got other questions with

respect to this.

My understanding is that many supportive housing providers have

actually come to government and asked for an exclusion for supportive

housing from the RTA. One step that was taken, which is a good step,

is…. The requirements for notice to enter a suite have been removed so

that supportive housing providers can keep people safer and can,

probably, save lives. They can have access to the suites to check on

people.

What does the minister say to the question about removing

supportive housing from the RTA so that housing providers can have a

little bit more control, with the sole purpose of that being to keep

people safe?

[1:35 p.m.]

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

I appreciate the recognition of the importance of ensuring that

supportive housing providers can do wellness checks and have guest

policies to ensure that people in the building that work there and that

live there have a measure of safety. So safety for everyone — for the

community, for the people who live there.

This change came directly…. In 2018, the Rental Housing Task Force

made a recommendation — our Chair was on that committee — that this be

done. We worked with the sector to make this change.

Now, we continue to have conversations with the sector on what

more we can do to ensure that there are protections for people living in

the sites and protections for people that work there, staff. It’s

important to know there need to be some tenant protections for people.

We need to ensure that the tenants have some rights. It’s always finding

a balance between ensuring the safety of everybody in the community and

the workers and also ensuring that these are human beings living in this

building who deserve to have a level of rights available to

them.

It is a conversation that is ongoing. We felt that these two

changes were important for safety, and it was highlighted to us as an

important change that needed to be made by the rental task

force.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister.

I’m going to go back to my question about the definition of

supportive housing and the minister’s response that it is housing that’s

got 24-seven supports.

There are so many complexities in terms of the kinds of needs that

people have in supportive housing. I would like the minister to explain

the level of care that people in supportive housing require. What, if

any, barriers are there to accessing housing in supportive housing for

someone?

Please describe what supports are. “Supports” is a very vague

reference to something. It could be somebody at a front desk as opposed

to a medical professional who’s there to help someone.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to put on the record, for the record to show, that Vincent,

our CEO of B.C. Housing, has amazing writing. I have to say. Well

done.

Examples of support services available are room decluttering, life

skills, community information, social programs, education, employment,

life skills, case planning, resident needs assessments, assistance with

ID and income assistance benefits, two meals per day, 24-hour staffing

coverage.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will note the handwriting and congratulate….

I would like a little bit more on the staffing piece. That’s

really where I was pressing. So 24-seven staffing does not answer the

question in terms of what is supportive. You may have somebody who is

overdosing at two o’clock in the morning, who is psychotic and becoming

violent. There are a whole number of things that can happen. They are

actually more apt to happen overnight than they are during the day. May

I have a breakdown of what those supports are from a human resources

perspective?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I recall that we had this conversation last year as well. I

believe the MLA for Surrey South asked this question.

We have two FTEs available throughout the day.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister please explain to me

what those FTEs are? Is that a social worker? Is it somebody at the

front desk? What is the role and function of that staff?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Two FTEs is about six to eight employees. It varies. The skill

sets can vary. It can be a social worker. It can be different types of

staff. There’s a mix in the building.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That is not clear enough in terms of

what supportive housing really is. There are so many different levels of

support that people need. When we talk about two FTEs, for how many

residents is that?

I still would really like to understand. There’s got to be kind of

one model that government looks at or B.C. Housing looks at in terms of

best practices, the kinds of supports that people need. Who needs to be

there with what skill set at two o’clock in the morning? Your ministry’s

contracts with the housing providers must detail and set out what these

skill sets are.

I really want to understand, and maybe I’m not asking it the right

way. But I want to have a picture in my mind in terms of somebody in a

supportive housing project contract facility. What are they getting

24-seven in terms of supports? What are the skills that someone

has?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It varies from site to site. It varies be­cause, in some

areas, the needs…. At some sites, there’s the need, and the complexity

is higher. At some sites, it’s less. So that’s why there’s a variance

there. That’s why it’s not an exact piece, a cookie-cutter approach to

every single site.

All the services that are laid out are what’s available to

residents at all our sites. Health care services are available to all

people in supportive housing. Those services come in from the Ministry

of Health.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that there was a list

provided to me in terms of what the supports are, but helping somebody

with…. I don’t know if it’s résumé writing or a job search, some of

these different things. That’s not what I’m looking for. I’m looking for

when people are in crisis and it’s two o’clock in the morning. Who is it

that is there to help and support them? Can it be…?

Actually, perhaps I will give an example. As the minister knows, I

have brought up, and will probably read out of last year’s

Hansard , the Travelodge in North Vancouver. Let’s just use

the Travelodge in North Vancouver as a specific example so I can hear

the minister describe what the staffing supports are at the Travelodge

contract in North Vancouver.

[1:45 p.m.]

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

year.

The site would have someone at the front desk, and then it could

be someone with different skill sets. It could be a social worker. It

could be somebody that’s building maintenance. It could be someone else,

but we always have two people.

The member asked specifically about the Travelodge, and I’ll

provide an update to the member shortly. The team is just pulling up how

many people are still there. As the member knows, we’re transitioning

people out of that site. I know we’ve been trying to find homes for

people, and certainly the new site that has just gone through council….

Hopefully that will have some ability for some people from that site to

go as well.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that. I will look forward to that

information, because I do think it’s going to be…. It’s easier for me to

kind of understand what “supportive” means. Having a maintenance person

and a front-desk person doesn’t give me confidence that somebody who has

a critical health emergency or issue is going to be able to be

appropriately supported. That is the reason for my question.

It has been pointed out to me that there are two numbers that I

did not get with our previous questioning on the housing numbers update.

So if I may just ask the minister and staff to go back. Two things that

I don’t believe were said: the deepening affordability fund, where we’re

at with that right now, and the homelessness action plan.

Hon. R. Kahlon: With the homelessness action plan, 542 are in progress, and 480

are complete. The deepening affordability, which is…. So 2,097 are in

progress, and 2,023 of those are complete.

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

We know that the Victoria police chief has talked about criminals

infiltrating social housing — a concern. This was a concern I raised

last year to the minister, in terms of preying on vulnerable people. We

were talking about the fact that there was no controlled access to the

Travelodge in North Vancouver and the concern that you’ve got particular

women, vulnerable women, who are being housed in these places where they

can be trafficked, taken advantage of.

Those were some of the concerns I raised last year, but now the

police chief is confirming that there are serious issues and poses

safety issues to vulnerable people in supportive housing.

[1:50 p.m.]

Does the minister believe that the practice of buying up

unsuitable hotels has contributed to the inability of the ministry to

manage rampant crime in B.C. Housing sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The chief was referring to a specific site which was in fact

purchased by the B.C. Liberal government when they were decamping people

from the city of Victoria. I recall having had this exchange with my

friend across the way. I think that at the time the government was

trying to do the right thing. They had people in an encampment, and they

were trying to get them indoors as fast as possible. I met with Chief

Manak multiple times about this topic.

Courts had ruled that they were not able to put guest policies and

wellness checks policies in place, which led to some challenges in the

community. That’s why, when we made the policy changes to the RTA to

ensure that the providers can do the wellness checks and have guest

policies to control the flow of people coming in and out, it was to help

support the safety not only of the people that worked there but of the

people that were residing there.

The member will know that Chief Manak provided a quote in the

release. When we first met, he had highlighted that this was a

particular challenge. I know he was pleased to see that concern

reflected in the change that we made. It’s a sad reality that we’ve got

people who try to exploit the most vulnerable people in our society.

It’s awful, and it’s unfortunate, but it does happen. By putting these

policies in place, we believe we’ve made supportive housing sites much

safer across the province.

It’s also important to note…. I was clear with my conversation

with Chief Manak: where would we rather have people? Would we have

people sleeping in a park, in city hall on the front lawn, or would we

rather have them in supportive housing? We both clearly agreed that

having people in housing, having the supports around them, was vitally

important.

I do appreciate the concern that Chief Manak raised, or that any

police chief raises, around sites. It’s our work and responsibility not

to throw out all supportive housing, not to throw out all housing

options for vulnerable people but to address the specific

challenges.

We had another challenge in Prince George with an individual who

was, I guess, using one of the units to hide their stuff. In that case,

in many cases, our not-for-profit providers actually work really closely

with police. This is not us versus them. This is a collaborative effort,

and police are able to move in to make sure that the residents are safe

and that the community is safe as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Chief Manak, in an April 17 article, said that most of the B.C.

Housing supportive housing sites have embedded criminals in them. Can

the minister explain why that is different than what he has just told

me, about the chief referring only to one site?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, Chief Manak will have to speak to the comments that Chief

Manak made. I can tell the member that when I’ve spoken to him, I think

he would share what he shared with me: there are sites that have

challenges, but it would not be fair to characterize every single

supportive housing site with criminal activity. I know the member has

done this work and has supported vulnerable people. I think the member

would agree with me that the last thing we want to do is stigmatize

vulnerable people more than they already are stigmatized.

This narrative that every single person who has had a tough time

in their life and doesn’t have a home is a criminal is something that I

reject strongly. Where there are challenges, that’s where we have to

step in and make sure that we take action.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s unfortunate. There are people out there that are

trying to exploit our most vulnerable people, and we need to continue to

have partnerships with our not-for-profits, local government partners

and police at the table. We have those tables set up in many communities

around the province, and they’ve been really helpful for us to be able

to address challenges as they come up.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, I wonder how it is that the police chief can say something

and it’s quoted, and the minister is telling me that that’s not either

what the reality is or what the police chief said. I can assure the

minister — I appreciate he recognizes some of the work that I’ve done

previously — that no one on this side of the House is saying that people

in supportive housing are all criminals. The concern isn’t the people

who are living in the supportive housing. It’s the people who are

preying on them and the criminals that are preying on them.

I certainly can understand why someone who is homeless, who is

unhoused, who is in a park, may feel safer staying there in a tent than

they would moving into a supportive housing project site, because they

don’t feel safe in that site. I’ve heard it from different housing

providers.

Can I ask the minister, then: what is being done now that the

ministry, presumably and hopefully, has been made aware that these kinds

of things have been going on? What is the ministry doing now to assess

all of the housing sites and make a determination as to whether criminal

activity has actually infiltrated and even replaced some of the

residents?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ll leave it to Chief Manak to explain his comments. I can

just share with the member the conversations that he and I have

had.

Chief Manak has also made it clear, on the record, that they have

a good partnership with our not-for-profit partners. There are

discussions happening all the time about how we can ensure that people

are safe. I would say, to the member’s question about what has been done

around Victoria, the wellness checks and the guest policies are what

have been done. That has made a substantial difference. The guest-policy

piece was the number one ask from Chief Manak. He believed that having

that ability to know who’s coming in and going out is very

important.

In the site that I mentioned earlier where there were particular

challenges, fencing ensures that people are not coming in from multiple

doors and going out from multiple doors. They’re coming in from one door

and out from one door, so staff have a better line of sight. That was an

important step that we had to take.

We have been responding to where there are challenges. For this

one in particular, the chief was on the news release with us, praising

this important step.

I thank him for bringing information to us about where there are

challenges so we can work together to address them.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand that there’ll be changes so that we know who’s going

in and out, and on guest management. What about those sites that don’t

have controlled access? I’ll use the Travelodge as an example. I know

that there are other B.C. Housing sites that don’t have fences around

them and don’t have one door for access. There are the old kinds of

motels that you could just walk in and out of the doors. What is

happening with respect to initiatives there to make sure that people are

staying safe?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, on the purpose-built sites, because they’re

purpose-built, it’s easier to have all those pieces in, but they also

take time. On many of the sites where we know there are going to be

people there for a longer period of time, B.C. Housing goes in, does

assessments and puts in pieces to ensure that the safety measures are

there.

The site, the Travelodge, was temporary in nature. As I mentioned

already, people are already being transitioned out and moved to another

location. But we do…. B.C. Housing does go in on assessments, puts

fencing, makes changes to the building structure, wherever it’s

possible, to ensure that there’s a good line of sight of who’s coming in

and who’s going out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The temporary nature of the Travelodge has been…. I think we’re

coming up on three years now, but we don’t need to debate what temporary

is.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I have spoken to housing providers who have said that they have

challenges with B.C. Housing in getting health, safety and security

funding, which is quite significant, particularly in some of the areas

where these sites are oper­ating. My understanding is that in the

Downtown Eastside area, when staff will call for VPD support, there is a

hesitancy for police to respond to a supportive housing site unless they

have ten or 12 officers with them.

Is this, to B.C. Housing’s knowledge and to the minister’s

knowledge, a realistic challenge that is happening right now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve been down to the Downtown Eastside a lot, visiting supportive

housing. I’ve seen police arrive on site. I’ve never seen them arrive

with ten or 12 officers.

I am not quite sure what this particular person had shared with

the member, but from my conversations with Vancouver police department

officers, that’s the last thing that they want to do: to show up with

that many officers. That is escalating situations. That actually makes

it more problematic, more challenging for them to control the site. So

I’m not particularly sure about what this individual, perhaps, had

shared with the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the minister’s response to that. It’s difficult when

one isn’t given a specific example.

It was clear, however, that there are concerns, with the

providers, that they’re not being funded enough for security gates, and

they’re not being funded enough for security. There has been a change in

the nature of supportive housing and drug use, and there have been a

number of social issues that have really changed how these sites are

operating and the safety of these sites and the level of violence of

some of the residents and people going into the sites.

I would ask if B.C. Housing is aware there have been requests for

health, safety and security, as part of the contracts, which have not

been addressed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by disagreeing with the person who shared this

information with the member, that B.C. Housing doesn’t provide supports

for health and safety. B.C. Housing does provide supports.

[2:05 p.m.]

But I think it’s not a surprise to anyone that works in this space

or, quite frankly, any other space where not-for-profits are operating,

that there’s always a need for more money. There’s always a need for

more dollars. We are providing a significant amount of dollars to

support supportive housing.

B.C. Housing, myself…. We really value our partners and the work

they do. It’s important work. It’s hard work. These folks that work

there care deeply about providing supports for the most

vulnerable.

We have created the table. We’ve been working with our partners to

find out what challenges they have, where there could be additional

dollars and, also, from us, from a government perspective, how we can

get greater clarity about where dollars are going. I think for this

process, for the public…. Everybody needs to know. It’s a conversation

that’s going on right now. We’re committed. We’re at the table, and

we’re going to continue to work with them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The minister and I may disagree in

terms of how rampant the embedded crime is in the different supportive

housing sites. We do know that it is happening.

How is the ministry enhancing protocols for reporting and

responding to criminal activities within supportive housing, especially

considering the fear of retribution that may prevent residents from

coming forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Many of our supportive housing sites…. We have tables where we’ve

got community — often police, not-for-profit, local government officials

— where these conversations happen. I think it’s fair to say, in some

cases, individual tenants may be afraid to speak up or to say things.

But when you build those relationships over time and that trust is

built, that’s when things happen.

I won’t name a specific site, but I will say…. I was talking to a

police chief within the last six months about a major, I guess, move

that they made into a supportive housing site. It was done because of

the people that lived there, the people that work at the site and the

not-for-profit provider working together. So these conversations

happen.

How do we ensure that those relationships are built? Well, it’s by

having the people in the homes, having the staff there, constantly

providing them supports. There’s enough trust built so that this

information can be shared. That’s the work that happens every single

day.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I have heard stories, again talking to some of the housing

providers, and I’ve seen this firsthand. In a supportive housing site,

you have a single woman who is in a unit. You have another unit where

there may be a man who is quite aggressive or has psychotic outbursts.

They’re in an active addiction. How do you make sure that those

vulnerable residents, when they’re all mixed together…? People have

different requirements and different needs. How do you keep those

residents safe?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have community access tables, tables with providers and

outreach workers, where they discuss individuals that are living in

supportive housing or sometimes individuals that are in shelters trying

to get into supportive housing.

[2:10 p.m.]

If those types of incidents arise, often what happens is that when

a new spot opens up at that table, they discuss moving this individual

to another place. Not only does that table help create a mix of

residents in a building, so that it’s not too many people with too many

challenges overloading one particular site, but they also have the

ability to move people out to something that is more appropriate for

them. Those shifts between locations are happening often.

It’s also important to note that if you’ve got an encampment or

you’ve got people living there, we offer locations. We offer them an

opportunity to go and look at the supportive housing site or the shelter

location that they can potentially move into. But we want them to feel

comfortable. Sometimes it takes a week or two weeks for people to say,

“Yeah, I accept this place,” but it’s an important step, so that they’re

not going into it and then saying, “Hey, forget this,” and then going

back out.

K. Kirkpatrick: That just made another question come to mind. I had a supportive

seniors project have this challenge with one of the residents. If you do

have that scenario that I described previously, if the ministry has that

scenario, is the RTA a barrier for actually moving people between

different sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If an individual is disruptive and is putting the health and

safety of others at risk, there are provisions within the RTA for action

to be taken. They’re also often our not-for-profit providers. If they do

identify someone, they try to find a better fit for that individual. At

the end of the day, if you’re in a shelter or supportive housing, yes,

you may have some challenging individuals, but if you kick them out,

then they’re just on the street.

Our partners work the best they can to try to find a situation

that is a better fit for that individual.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I think people that are working in supportive housing are saints.

They have one of the most difficult jobs I can possibly imagine, and the

kindness, care and compassion that I have seen from staff of these

various housing providers are breathtaking. I appreciate that they are

doing the best that they can and that there are very difficult,

challenging issues that they have to deal with.

When there is a rapid movement, when there’s decamping or you are

moving people from street living quickly into shelter, I have always

wondered how it was determined who went where. When there was a big

decampment in Vancouver, there were two housing projects that were

developed by the Cambie Street Bridge. I don’t know the exact address,

but I think you know where I mean — across from BCH head

office.

How is it determined? What are the procedures to thoroughly vet

individuals before they’re placed in different supportive housing sites,

particularly during those rapid transitions? I know that we want to

protect those who need low-barrier access to housing, but what kind of

vetting is done to try and reduce the challenges that we were just

talking about?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s an interesting question. I think many British Columbians

would probably want to know how it happens. The answer is a little bit

complex, but I will go into it a little bit.

When you have individuals, let’s say, that are in an encampment,

what we want to do is to ensure that people are being moved to shelters,

where there are assessments done, so that we can identify the needs of

individuals, get to know the person, see what barriers and challenges

they have, what kind of level of support they need. Shelters provide an

opportunity for us to triage, to be able to see…. The individual, in

some cases, may just need a rent supplement to be able to get into

market housing.

When I first became the Minister of Housing, I was at an

announcement, probably two weeks in, with Mayor Sim, with the Premier

and with Melanie Mark, who was an MLA here. There was an individual, who

came over to the event, who wanted to talk to me and the mayor and the

Premier. He described exactly what we’re trying to do.

He said: “Well, I was living here on this corner. I got into that

shelter over there,” and he pointed it out. He got into the supportive

housing, which is literally next to the supportive housing that we were

announcing that day. Then he was describing to us his new rental

apartment that he had moved into.

That is what we want to see in an ideal way, but it’s not

necessarily always that way. I think, in a perfect world, you’d have

that flow happen. But this is a continuum, and sometimes people go back

to the beginning. Sometimes they need to go back to supportive

housing.

The community access tables are vitally important for us, because

they build those relationships on the ground. We have folks doing that

in Prince George. We have folks doing that in Abbotsford right now. We

have folks doing that in Nanaimo, where they’re on the ground building

relationships, trying to understand the needs of individuals. The

greater challenge comes when people don’t want to go into shelters.

Those are the complexities that we deal with from community to

community. It is really trying to get an understanding of

people.

I think I shared this last year with the member: when that

situation happened, when there was an encampment in the city of Victoria

under the previous government, I do think that the decision to move

everybody into a hotel was the best decision that could have been made

at the time. You want to make sure people have housing, so there was a

hotel purchased, and it was moving people inside.

What we’ve learned from that process is that although it might

feel like the fastest thing to do just to get people inside, we need to

have a process of where we can build the relationship and get an

understanding of who’s who. So not to asperse anything against what

decision was made — I think it was made with the information that was

had at the time — but it has implications in the long term.

Those are the conversations we have with local governments, where

somebody might say: “Well, you’ve got ten people here. Just move

everybody in.” Well, we can’t necessarily do it that way because we

don’t want to have long-term problems. We want to identify people’s

unique challenges and try to get the best fit, because that means

long-term success.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I love the story of this

person who had success. I agree with the minister that that’s what we’re

looking for. We want to support people.

I do think when it’s not successful, we have to look back at what

supports are in place in the shelters, the supportive housing and along

the continuum. I’m just not seeing, in the supportive housing sites that

I’ve been to and in the answers I’m getting from the minister, that we

truly, truly understand what supports are required and that we have

those proper supports there.

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

on supportive housing.

[2:20 p.m.]

There has been recently — this is not going to be a surprise to

you, with the conversations about nurses and hospitals — fentanyl

contamination in the air at supportive housing facilities, which poses

serious issues to both residents and staff. The Victoria Cool Aid

Society discovered that it had concerning levels of fentanyl in the air

at one of their housing sites, and it was exceeding occupational safety

limits. It was identified through air quality testing that had been

initiated, and it had been initiated because there were a number of

illnesses with their staff — vomiting, headaches, something that was out

of the ordinary for times in past.

It’s a non-smoking building, so it’s suspected increased smoking

of drugs is the cause, and that’s compounded by poor ventilation in the

old motel structure. Interim safety measures are mandatory masks for

people and restricted access to the site.

Can the minister provide data on the number of complaints related

to airborne fentanyl exposure in supportive housing in the last five

years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t have data for WorkSafe, but I can share with the member

that there were two sites, at Tally Ho and the Queens Manor, where

issues arose.

Important for the record, the not-for-profits reached out to us,

and the challenge was different, slightly, at each. Queens Manor — just

poor circulation in the building. No-smoking policies, of course, exist,

and the challenge is there are sometimes people that do.

The decision to wear PPEs, masks, is when an individual goes to

knock on a door where they suspect somebody is smoking. It’s out of

protection for the person working. Those are the protocols we put in

place. Again, if they suspect somebody is smoking, of any kind, we ask

them to wear that just out of safety, especially in those buildings

where there was poor circulation.

Now, at Queens Manor, the shift is happening, people moving from

that location. And the Tally Ho not only has the policy to ensure that

if a worker feels that there might be a risk, that they have equipment

there, but it’s also…. They implemented a whole host of policies. They

actually have, now, a no-visitor policy. No one is allowed visiting that

site, because that’s what they found was happening, where people would

come, and then that is when it happened. We took other action like

building fencing around the site and a whole bunch of

measures.

In the end, worker safety is our priority when a not-for-profit

comes forward and says: “Hey, this building is old. We have poor

circulation. We’re worried. We want to make sure that people are

protected.” But in the end, we have policies that say you’re not allowed

smoking inside. You’re not supposed to be smoking in any rooms. The

challenge is they have individuals who do still do that. We’ll continue

to work with our partners to reinforce the rules of buildings to ensure

that everybody is safe.

[2:25 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’d just like to clarify, as I was thinking about it when the

minister was speaking. If it is a non-smoking building, and when it was

originally determined to be a non-smoking building, does that

non-smoking include the smoking of drugs on site, or is the non-smoking

just related to cigarettes and maybe cannabis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No smoking of anything. No smoking of anything in the units.

That’s the policy. And again, in cases like this, where a not-for-profit

proactively comes to us and says, you know, “we’ve got an issue;

individuals continue to break these rules, and we’re worried about

safety of our staff,” it’s incumbent on all of us to ensure that

everybody that works in this space is safe.

The member said earlier that people who do this work are saints; I

agree 100 percent. So for us, it was to ensure that there were policies

in place to make sure people are safe. The policy is if they knock on a

door where they suspect somebody is smoking, out of abun­dance of

caution…. It doesn’t matter what they’re smoking. Out of an abundance of

caution, we just want the protection to be there for the

workers.

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

decriminalization?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re not aware of any escalation. I would say this is a challenge

that’s been, whether it’s SROs or supportive housing, for as long back

as I can remember. This is a topic that’s been top of mind with fire

officials, when you talk to folks in Vancouver and Victoria. So no,

there hasn’t been.

Now, I don’t know if we want to get into this conversation, but

I’ll touch on it briefly, which is to say that everyone knows that

fentanyl is killing people. We have seen an increase in the toxicity of

the drugs that are on our streets since the pandemic. It was during a

time when the ports were shut down. Everything was shut down. Things

weren’t moving. Quite frankly, drug dealers, etc., have found new ways

of making drugs that are so much more toxic than they’ve ever been. And

this is not just in Vancouver; this is a North America

challenge.

That being said, when it comes to supportive housing, there hasn’t

been anything different than what we’ve been seeing, unfortunately, for

a long time.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

With COVID, we became acutely aware of the challenges with proper

ventilation in our schools, in particular. So when I hear about, you

know…. We’re looking at hospitals, but when we’re looking at supportive

housing, these are older buildings, and there are going to be challenges

with air circulation, filtration.

I am wondering if B.C. Housing is looking at investment in current

sites in order to recognize the reality that we have this increased

indoor smoking of fentanyl and other drugs that are toxic and get into

the air system. Is B.C. Housing looking at any changes to its

re­quirements for appropriateness of facilities to accommodate

these new issues?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing does assessments of all of their buildings of where

there might be challenges.

We spent some time talking about the Tally Ho, for example, where

there is poor circulation of air through the premises. That’s why, right

behind it, we’re building a new building so that we can move people into

something that’s more safe and that meets the needs and what we’ve

learned since the pandemic.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Are all supportive housing facilities required to have drug

consumption spaces? Are they inhalation spaces or solely for

injection?

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

this.

I think that the challenge is…. The member will recognize…. In

many supportive housing sites, you will have people who have addictions

issues. When there are individuals with addictions issues…. Many of our

providers will try to have a place for supervised, I guess, forms of

consumption, but there’s no requirement for it.

In the end, it’s about trying to save lives. I think the reason

why so many people support that concept is…. It’s better to have someone

there with a health professional so that they’re not overdosing and

dying alone in one of the rooms. But it’s not a requirement.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I very much care about the safety of the people who are living in

the supportive housing sites. I also care very much about these heroic

employees who are working in these sites as well. That’s where these

questions are coming from.

Do I understand from the minister, then…? Does the housing

provider have a choice as to whether…? Do they make a determination in

terms of whether they need to provide this space, or is it something

that’s actually set out in the contract, where it is

required?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our contracts require the not-for-profit to have some form of harm

reduction supports, but we don’t specify, necessarily, what that should

be. Each of the not-for-profits, especially the not-for-profits who

operate multiple sites, have a good understanding of the needs of the

individuals.

The member said that she cares deeply about not only the residents

but also the people who work there. I certainly share that view as

well.

[2:35 p.m.]

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

thing.

When we were talking about how people move from an encampment into

housing…. I think it’s important to share with the member. Since last

year’s discussion…. At Crab Park, we had over 130 people at one point.

We have been actively working to try to get individuals indoors,

building those relationships, creating spaces. We’re at 16. Now, 16 is

still too many for many people.

People who do this work understand that moving individuals one by

one, trying to find the right fit for them, is quite the challenge. So I

want to take my hat off to folks at B.C. Housing, to our partners in the

city of Vancouver and to the not-for-profit partners for the work

they’ve been doing. Still much more work to do.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will say…. Many of us fly over to Victoria. We go over Crab

Park. I have seen a reduction in the size there. That certainly is what

we want to see: the ability to have the time to actually move people

into the kind of housing that’s going to be appropriate.

What I’ve heard the minister say in our conversation here is….

There hasn’t been a significant increase in the rates of employees who

are dealing with fentanyl issues and toxic drug supply or toxic drug

ventilation and inhaling. That hasn’t been an increase. But we know that

it’s happening. What resources are being provided to support housing

staff who might be affected by such exposures?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that it’s, again, important to emphasize…. People who have

addictions issues are going to find the drug one way or another. What’s

important for us is…. How do we find ways to build relationships, build

trust with individuals, ensure that they’re safe and then bridge them to

supports and, ideally, get them to a place where we can get them into

treatment and away from the challenges?

The member referred to the perspective of individuals that are

working on these sites. When not-for-profits or their workforce come

forward and say, “Hey, there’s a challenge; we have some concerns,” then

we take steps like we did at the Tally Ho and the Queens

Manor.

Protocols get put in place. If you’re knocking on a door where you

suspect somebody is smoking, there’s equipment there for you, just to be

safe, just to make sure that you’re protected. It could be a cigarette,

but it could be something worse. We want to make sure that people have

the protection for when they do knock on the door.

Those are the pieces that I highlighted, protocols that can be put

in place. Those are the two sites where this issue came forward, in

particular, because of circulation issues in older buildings. We’re

doing the assessments of our buildings to make sure, when the situation

arrives like the Tally Ho…. We start building a plan to demolish that

building and build something that is more purpose-built and, perhaps,

has better circulation and all the pieces that we want to see when we’re

supporting some of the more vulnerable people in our

communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

A question just occurred to me. I think I know the answer based on

what was said previously. This is not a supportive housing

question.

In strata bylaws, where you have strata bylaws that have smoking

restrictions in them…. Those smoking restrictions would also, then, be

expanded to include the smok­ing of illicit drugs. I’m just

clarifying. I believe, based on the previous answer, that’s the

case.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff are not aware of a definition of what you’re smoking. Well,

not what you are smoking but what a person is smoking. The act is just

saying smoking in general. So it could be any product.

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

just occurred to me.

I am going to go back and ask yet another question on the housing

progress. Then after I ask that question and it’s answered, I would like

to ask for a short break, if we may.

The question that I have is…. The number…. Oh, my heavens. If you

can bear with me for a second.

The numbers that have been given for 2024, based on our earlier

conversations, are 14,702 new units. Now, that’s lower than the Homes

for People backgrounder says have been created.

If you will bear with me, I do actually have the number. I’m sure

you have the number over there in terms of what…. I do not have that

number. I have a Thursday afternoon kind of head here, so I will get

that.

Thank you. That was a partial question.

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

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

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

K. Kirkpatrick: I will try and ask my question in a more articulate manner this

time. It is Thursday afternoon.

My question was…. The numbers the minister gave me previously,

when we started our conversation today, add up to 14,702, yet under the

B.C. Housing Homes for People backgrounder, it gives the number as

15,703. I’m wondering if the minister can explain the

discrepancy.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Welcome to the guests that are in the chamber today to watch the

proceedings. We’re discussing the Ministry of Housing and our budgets

and everything within the Ministry of Housing. So thank you for being

here.

To the member, I think the member is referring to the in-progress

number. I think it’s just important to note that the in-progress number

can shift, because when things complete they go to the completed

section, and the new project is funded…. The number changes all the

time. So that’s what we think the member is referring to, and that’s why

there would be different numbers at different times.

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

as well. I’ll clarify that.

We have had some concerns with overdoses in supportive housing.

Again, I spoke to the minister and wrote a letter about the Travelodge.

I’m not going to talk specifically about the Travelodge here.

[2:50 p.m.]

Despite government pouring hundreds of millions into converting

hotels into supportive housing, the coroner’s report reveals there’s a

glaring rise in indoor unregulated drug deaths, especially in supportive

housing. Why has the ministry failed to equip these expensive

conversions with the necessary health and mental health supports? That

seems to be disregarding this escalating crisis.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the public certainly would understand and I think the

member understands that when you have got a population that perhaps have

been homeless for some time and that individual struggles with mental

health or addiction challenges and they’re using drugs, it’s a real

challenge. So when you move them into housing, it doesn’t mean that

they’re dying because they’re in housing. It means that there’s a really

toxic drug supply out there right now that is killing individuals, and

many, unfortunately, are dying alone.

We try, our not-for-profit providers try, to create spaces where

there are staff available to be able to respond quickly if an individual

is dealing with addictions. I mentioned already that we changed the RTA

so that staff within the supportive housing can go and do wellness

checks when they’re needed to make sure people are safe.

We had cases of parents who came to us urging us to make this

change because in this one particular case, the son of the individual

passed away, but the staff were not allowed to do a wellness check. It’s

heartbreaking.

I think the change to a wellness check is an important measure,

but it’s a real challenge when you have a toxic drug supply out there

and fentanyl. Unfortunately, we’re seeing people die. What we’re trying

to do is bring people indoors so that there are supports, relationships

are built. In some cases, ensuring that people have access to something

that is not lethal, that won’t kill them, just so that we can get them

to a point of stability and we can get them towards addiction

treatment.

That’s what we’re trying to do, whether it’s within supportive

housing or complex care or even in our shelter systems.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister explain to me where that intersection is between

Housing and Mental Health and Addictions, working with that ministry in

terms of…? We’ll come back to what we talked about at the beginning

here, which is providing the appropriate supports. A 5 percent spike in

unregulated drug deaths indoors is concerning. We’re going in the wrong

direction.

When looking at the supportive housing, what input does the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions have in developing those

contracts?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that individuals that are

unfortunately passing away from overdose are not passing away because

they’re in supportive housing. They’re passing away because we’ve got a

fentanyl crisis and we’ve got people who are struggling with addictions.

If they didn’t have access to the housing, they may be in a park. They

may be in a community centre.

I know the member’s not necessarily implying that, but I just

wanted to have it for the record that people understood that people are

not dying because they’re in supportive housing. They’re dying because

of a toxic drug supply. If they weren’t in supportive housing,

unfortunately, people would be in parks and other places.

When it comes to complex care beds, we work closely with the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. It’s a partnership. They

identify where there are opportunities for complex care beds in

partnership with us. We try now to find ways, in particular where

there’s capital, to make sure that there’s a partnership in how those

are built out.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’m happy to go into more details if there’s something specific

the member has. I should also share with the member that we just

recently provided the B.C. not-for-profit association with $1 million to

help housing societies to install overdose prevention devices in

supportive housing buildings and emergency shelters around B.C. That

just happened recently.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m certainly not suggesting that being in supportive housing is

what causes drug overdoses, but the minister’s response to me sounded

like people would die of these drug overdoses if they weren’t in

supportive housing, which I don’t think is the case. I do think, from an

improperly developed system, that the actual supportive housing itself

can actually contribute to an increased likelihood of

overdose.

The question I’m really…. I’ve asked this in a few different ways,

and I’m not feeling that I’m getting the answer. Are we providing the

right supports to people in supportive housing to ensure that they have

access to medical supports, access to detox, access to recovery? Are

they dying in supportive housing because they don’t have

supports?

I’m looking at the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and

I’m thinking, well, they are the ones that are developing and providing

programs that should be able to recognize what people need to get

better. So where is the overlap between the contracts that B.C. Housing

has with the housing providers and identifying what those supports are

and putting those supports in place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just disagree with the member. I think the member did imply that

people are dying in supportive housing because they don’t have support.

People are dying, unfortunately, because we’ve got a fentanyl crisis.

We’ve got a drug crisis. We’ve got just really toxic drugs like we’ve

never seen before.

As I mentioned to the member, all supportive housing is required

to have some programming in place, some supports in place. It varies

from site to site, depending on the need and complexity. But our

supportive housing providers understand. This is not something they just

started doing. Dealing with people with mental health and addictions

isn’t something that just started a year ago or two years ago. This has

been years of challenges. The only thing that’s changed since the

pandemic is the toxicity of the drugs.

I will just say this again. During the pandemic, when things were

shut down…. We have now seen drug dealers, unfortunately, go to creating

a new drug supply that is way more toxic than it has ever been. That’s

the challenge that is being dealt with across North America.

The member is asking about complex care and the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions and the Ministry of Health. My answer is the same,

unless there is something specific the member is getting at, which is

yes, we are working closely together. Supportive housing sites have

health care services that come on site to support individuals that need

it. That’s the case in most of our supportive housing sites. So if

there’s something specific the member is looking for, I’m happy to

provide that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Is the minister able to…? Does the ministry track how many deaths

there have been in supportive housing in the last year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is data that’s collected by the coroner’s office. The team is

trying to get some numbers for the member. If we can go on to questions

the member has, then we’ll get that number once we have it.

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

I think that’s important information for B.C. Housing to be

looking at. You would then be able to identify if there were

discrepancies or anomalies between some of these sites and to take a

look and see if there are some supports lacking in some of them that

should be there.

A moment ago the minister mentioned $1 million in overdose

prevention funds that were given to B.C. Non-Profit Housing. Can the

minister explain what that looks like? Are these prevention devices?

What are they? How are they meant to work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: These new devices, which immediately alert staff to potential

overdoses — combined with existing staff support, safe consumption

spaces and peer observation programs — will help the not-for-profits

respond more quickly to overdose incidents and, obviously, help save

lives.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’ve got some questions, then — this won’t be a surprise to the

minister or the ministry — on the Winters Hotel fire. This fire resulted

in the deaths of two vulnerable individuals. It looks like, based on the

report, there was mismanagement and lack of oversight by B.C.

Housing.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

A few questions I have on here. With the inquest highlighting

systemic failures leading to the Winters Hotel fire, what review of B.C.

Housing’s operational procedures is the ministry conducting to ensure

such a tragedy is not repeated?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was certainly tragic to see these two individuals lose their

lives to the fire. I think there’s understanding, and the member knows

that we had a lot of discussion about this last year, that it’s an

important topic to discuss: the challenge that we have around

single-room-occupancies, or SROs, in the Downtown Eastside. Many of

these buildings are very old. They have some really serious challenges

to them. There are multiple things.

When it comes to the inquest, we participated fully. In fact, we

called. We wrote and said we wanted to make sure this happened so we

could get all the information. There has been a whole host of

recommendations that have been provided to us. B.C. Housing is going

through all the recommendations. Some of them are moving a little bit

quicker. Some of them are longer challenges that we have to address. But

we are committed to advancing the recommendations that came from the

inquest.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There has been a lot of change at Atira since this

hap­pened. I know that there has been new management, new systems,

new processes. They’ve just hired a new CEO. I just wanted to preface

that by saying that I know Atira has made some changes.

How does the Ministry of Housing plan to increase transparency and

accountability in its dealings with operators like Atira, ensuring that

those providers are meeting all safety and operational standards without

exception?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two things. B.C. Housing has launched a partner hub.

It’s a new tool that works with our partners and that allows for

collaboration, for information-sharing back and forth. Also coming out

of the inquest, we’re forming a working group with not-for-profit

partners, with fire, others — so that we’re working as a team to ensure

that we’re addressing issues within our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister explain the process when a housing provider, for

example, comes to B.C. Housing and is looking for a replacement of some

equipment — fire equipment, something that’s not working? They need to

get pre-approval in order to be able to spend those funds. What does

that process look like with B.C. Housing, and how long does that

take?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It slightly varies, depending on the dollar amounts. There is a

threshold for not-for-profits, if it’s a life-and-death emergency, to be

able to make that investment. Then there’s a process for checks and

balances after, and then if it passes a certain threshold, they have to

go through a process to, I guess, apply for the dollars. But if it’s

life or death, there is a threshold for the not-for-profit to be able to

go ahead and spend that money, and then we can deal with that

after.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

So if Atira or Lookout or whoever it is had a request for a new

fire extinguisher, something like that, that is something that they

could act on themselves? They wouldn’t have to worry about that being

approved?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Correct. A fire extinguisher is a small expenditure, and they

could just go ahead and do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, in light of the reports that a deaf resident had been

requesting an adaptive fire alarm…. That request had gone from the

provider to B.C. Housing, but that wasn’t provided for that resident.

Knowing this, what steps is the ministry taking to ensure that the

specific needs of all residents in B.C. Housing facilities are

adequately met, regardless of what that mobility or hearing issue might

be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s the not-for-profit’s responsibility to ensure the

accommodations meet the needs of the individuals that are on site. If

they need financial support to do that, they would just contact B.C.

Housing.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I understood from the report that there had been a request made to

B.C. Housing and that the request was unanswered. If that’s not the

case, I will go back and take a look at this. If I can find that direct

information, I’ll come back on Monday to ask.

[3:15 p.m.]

Testimonies revealed that fire exits were chained shut at the

Winters Hotel, which is obviously a clear violation of safety standards.

How does the ministry plan to prevent these kinds of dangerous practices

in the future?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re taking the steps to action the recommendations. We’re

meeting with our not-for-profit providers to make sure that they

understand. We’re working with fire officials to make sure that things

are moving in the direction that we want them to move.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The chaining of the fire doors…. Was this at all related to the

ingress of banned people, such as drug dealers, from actually coming

back into the building?

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

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Considering the inquest’s recommendations for a higher standard of

fire safety and a 24-seven resource team for critical incident support,

what concrete actions has the ministry undertaken to implement these

suggestions, and when can we expect full compliance across all of the

B.C. Housing sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just going through this, doing the work right now. Our

response to the coroner is due in May, and work is happening to make

that response.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

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

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

public.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide a detailed account of the budget

allocations made specifically for improving safety standards at B.C.

Housing facilities since the Winters Hotel fire and how these funds are

being utilized to protect these vulnerable populations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Work is underway right now, again, to respond to the

recommendations from the coroner, and the information will be released

to the coroner in May.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

[3:20 p.m.]

How will the minister personally ensure that the families of the

victims and those affected by the Winters Hotel fire get justice and

meaningful change and that the ministry’s actions reflect a genuine

commitment to safety, oversight and accountability, moving

forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s very detailed information that the coroner has brought

forward. Our intention is to action this, and that’ll be laid out in the

response to the coroner.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I am going to pass to my colleague from Peace River

North.

The Chair: Yes, it is Peace River North.

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

today.

I’ve just got a couple of questions. Of course, over the last

while, we’ve engaged a lot with B.C. Housing up in the northeast, a

number of clients we’ve been working with, and potential future

clients.

The one thing that we’ve been seeing, certainly in Fort St. John,

is the state of some of the B.C. Housing inventory. I could, after,

share pictures that I’ve been shared with, and my CA actually went over

to look at another one of these units. We’re just hearing this theme

getting more and more about the level of these houses — you know, holes

in the wall, bathtubs ready to fall through floors.

I’m wondering if, through B.C. Housing, there is a plan to create

a bit of an inventory around the housing that’s in Fort St. John and

area, as well as a bit of a maintenance

schedule to get these homes

back. These are government assets. These are assets that the province

owns, and it’s like they’re just planning to run them into the ground.

If the minister can give us a bit of an update on that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. I know in particular areas

where climate is maybe harder on the buildings, there is a challenge. If

the member shares what he has with me, I can certainly find out about

that particular building.

I also can share, and the member knows this, we just opened, in

the last two years, 42 new homes with supports for people that were at

risk of homelessness in Fort St. John. We’re committed to find ways to

continue to make investments to not only create new spaces, but we do

have a fund also to address buildings that need more repairs. I’m happy

to get B.C. Housing staff to get more information for the member if he

likes.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister. I do appreciate that we do have a good

working relationship with the staff of B.C. Housing. I know my

constituency assistants have reached out, and it’s a good relationship

to get that information. But we can certainly tabulate a number of the

homes and units and such that are in need of some significant repairs.

We have passed this on to the Prince George office, as well, and let

them know. I do want to, obviously, thank the Prince George

staff.

I know that we’ve actually got some maintenance people up in Fort

St. John just recently as well. I’m hoping that maybe this is a move

toward these units being brought up to a better standard.

[3:25 p.m.]

My next question is…. If the minister can maybe give us an update.

Of course, Site C is finishing up. B.C. Hydro currently has a building,

I believe, that is being turned over to B.C. Housing, a fairly large

complex. I know there are already some B.C. Housing units in there, but

there are also a bunch of B.C. Hydro employees staying there. I know

that there’s a plan to transition that solely over to B.C. Housing. I’m

just wondering if we can get a bit of an update on what that looks

like.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:26 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 17, Police Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Housing.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole

for Bill 22.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:28 p.m.

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

(continued) .

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

member.

[3:30 p.m.]

In the interest of time, I can take your questions. The Prince

George team is just getting that information for us. If there is another

question while we’re waiting for that answer….

Okay. So if it’s okay with the member, I can put that on the

record once the information comes in.

Thank you so much.

S. Bond: I want to begin by thanking my colleague for providing me with

some of her time. I know it is limited, and I will attempt not to take

too much from what I know is a very significant portfolio for her to

manage.

I want to ask some questions about my community, the city of

Prince George. I want to begin by just asking the minister if he could

confirm for me that he and his staff have received a letter and a

package of information from Mr. Eduard Hausot.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. I can confirm to the member that a letter was received from a

constituent from the member’s community, and a response is being drafted

right now.

S. Bond: I wanted to spend some time just reflecting on the letter that was

sent not just to the Minister of Housing, but Health, Environment, B.C.

Housing, actually to the Premier and also federal representatives as

well. The reason that it is important is because it speaks to the issues

that residents who live above the Lower Patricia encampment in Prince

George are facing.

One of the most significant issues is air quality. The package

provided to me in a briefing from a number of the residents in my

community, and I’ve had a number of them over the years, speaks to the

issue of PM 2.5. The letter lays out very clearly the impacts of wood

smoke and other air pollution for Millar Addition residents. In fact, it

looks at last year’s wildfire index and looks at the air monitors across

our city over a period of time. The purple air monitor that is right

above the Lower Patricia encampment exceeds the worst days of wildfire

smoke experienced last summer.

I’d like the minister and his staff to indicate to me the fact

that the information provided has been considered, is being considered,

will be considered when we think about the actions that are being

taken.

I’m also going to speak to the…. I’m going to ask some questions

about the temporary housing units that are going to be built and placed

in that area.

Can the minister just provide me some assurance that his staff —

B.C. Housing, someone — are aware of the significant air quality issues

that not only residents who live in single-family homes, and some of

them for decades…? But also, there is an elementary school. There are

several daycare programs. There is a new child care centre where 75

children, ages toddler and up, are in the vicinity of the purple air

monitor that demonstrates that the air quality in that particular part

of our city is consistently above that when there is a wildfire in

British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

Have the minister and his staff looked at the information that’s

been provided? How does B.C. Housing — how does the ministry, how does

anyone on the government bench — review the air quality that is

impacting residents who live above the Lower Patricia

encampment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we are aware of the letter. B.C. Housing will review it.

Certainly, we’ll be responding to the member’s constituent. Usually,

it’s public health that does the air-monitoring pieces. It’s not

something that B.C. Housing does.

That being said, I think the concerns that are being raised about

the encampment are concerns that are shared by, certainly, me and, I

know, by council and many others.

We believe that it’s much safer, for the residents that are living

in the encampment as well as the community, for people to be in the

housing. Encampments are not safe. They’re not safe for the residents

that are staying there. It’s not safe for the community.

We saw not too long ago a company from Alberta bringing a couple

of tiny homes in without the proper building code pieces in place, and

we saw both of them go up in flames and people’s lives being put at

risk. This is a top-of-mind issue for us — what’s happening, especially

in Prince George, with that encampment.

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

can.

S. Bond: I’ll make the assumption that since I, as their MLA, was copied on

the letter, I will be copied on the response that comes from, I would

assume, a number of ministries or at least from B.C. Housing or

someone.

I want to also make sure that I indicate on the record that the

residents of Millar Addition have been patient and respectful. This is

not that people don’t care. Unhoused people obviously need to be

appropriately cared for in our community. I want to thank them for that,

because they have been very respectful about this process, yet they are

being deeply impacted. It’s not just air quality; it’s quality of life

as well.

There have been many, many presentations made about the impacts. I

would urge the minister to personally review the document that was sent

to him. It will lay out the air quality index for approximately 25 air

monitors. And I can tell him that the one with the absolute highest

readings — in fact, it is maroon — is considered hazardous. It is a

health warning of emergency conditions. That air monitor sits directly

above the Patricia encampment. I think the residents of Millar Addition

have laid out the circumstances. They’ve included

photographs.

I know my time is not endless, so I will simply ask that the

minister personally review the information that’s been provided by the

residents. And I am very appreciative of the approach that they’ve

taken, but they certainly do want to see some actions.

From there, I’d like to…. Well, perhaps I’ll ask a single

question, and then I’ll come back to the issue of the temporary housing.

Can the minister tell me whether there is an encampment management

plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member bringing concerns from her constituents to

me here. We will respond, and we will ensure that the MLA is responded

to, as well, in that response. We, just in the last couple of weeks,

have had some correspondence with the city of Prince George around

additional housing units that we can advance in the community. We will

work with them to ensure that we get individuals from the encampments

indoors, into shelters, into housing.

Again, just to re-emphasize that we do believe that the encampment

is not safe for both the individuals living there now and the community

at large.

S. Bond: I do have some questions about the temporary housing. I know that

very recently a temporary use permit was agreed to by the city, and I’m

also aware of the minister’s letter that was provided. But I don’t think

I heard the answer. Is there an encampment management plan?

[3:40 p.m.]

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

with the city on a plan.

S. Bond: Well, thank you to the minister for that re­sponse. I’m a

bit surprised by that, considering the Lower Patricia encampment has

been there for a very long period of time, and there have been

significant concerns ex­pressed in my community about safety,

about a number of issues.

I will ask the minister if, when the plan is complete, he would be

prepared to share it with me as the MLA representing that specific part

of my community.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Often these plans are not made public. There are a lot of

operational pieces around that. But I do appreciate the member has got

an interest in something that’s happening in her community, so when the

plan is finalized, we’ll work with our teams in the city of Prince

George to share with the member the information around what’s going to

happen.

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

that.

I want to move on to the temporary housing that’s being provided.

As I understand it, there are 43 units that will be considered

transitional housing. As the minister’s letter points out, that is in

addition to other HEARTH beds that will be provided at the Knights Inn

and the North Star Inn.

I want to begin by asking if the minister can describe for me…. I

will also just note that one of the things that matters the most to me

is that in order to ensure there is a community approach to solving

these problems, there needs to be adequate, appropriate consultation

with people who live in the neighbourhoods. I will tell you that the

people who live above the North Star, for example…. Many of them are

seniors who have invested their lives in their homes above that

facility.

Change is challenging. We are going to have a significant number

of residents in a building right below their homes. You can literally

look out their back doors, and they overlook the balcony of the new

housing units. Again, those people were respectful and thoughtful, but

they have a right to express their views. And there is a lot of concern

about the process that led to the North Star being selected.

However, today, I’m just respecting my colleague and the time she

has. I do want to be on the record, though, about the concerns that our

community has. It is not about not caring for people who are unhoused.

Everyone who has met with me has said that right off the top.

[3:45 p.m.]

They also want to make sure that their neighbourhoods remain safe,

that their homes still have the value that these people have invested

their lives in. I met with many seniors who live above the North Star,

for example, who are very concerned and felt unheard through this

process. Their views matter as well.

I’d like to ask specifically about the staffing and the

qualifications of the people that will be engaged. One of the things in

the consultation process B.C. Housing had…. In fact it was called the

community engagement. Obviously, one of the things that people were very

concerned about was ensuring that there were adequate and experienced

and qualified staff on site. The minister’s letter speaks to the fact

that there will be a minimum of three staff members on site 24-seven,

experienced in supporting vulnerable populations.

Can the minister describe…? Are these mental health and addictions

counsellors? Are they specific health care professionals? We know there

are people with complex needs, and there needs to be an appropriate

staffing complement to help support people with complex needs. Could the

minister or staff provide me with the qualifications, the nature of the

people that will comprise the staff at the transitional housing

site?

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

There are two FTEs on site all the time. That’s about six to eight

staff that will be allocated to that site. The skill sets vary, from

social workers to outreach workers to different forms of support. The

Ministry of Health comes in to provide additional supports depending on

the needs of the residents. They’re doing that right now at the

encampments, but they would be able to provide supports for individuals

on site.

Other services that are provided to individuals on site are life

skills, community- and social-related programs, education, employment

programming. There are other supports like having people be able to get

their IDs and get on other supports that might be available, two meals a

day…. That’s 24-seven coverage for supports. That’s what we’re expecting

at this site.

S. Bond: Thank you for the response.

The letter goes on to state that staffing levels may need to be

adjusted at the discretion of B.C. Housing. I’m assuming that would be

increased staff, not decreased.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we have an interest in the success of this site. This is

what we provide funding for. Now there’s always the odd occasion where a

staff person is not available. They can hire somebody. But our

expectation is this, and in cases where Health needs to come in, the

resources are additional to what we provide there.

S. Bond: I appreciate that. I won’t pursue that further other than to say

that people with complex needs need 24-seven wraparound services. That

means there need to be people properly qualified to deal with issues as

complex as mental health and addictions.

I do have one final question. In the event that there is a violent

incident or some sort of behaviour that requires additional support, is

there an expectation that the police would be the people to

respond?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It really depends. It’s hard to say exactly what the incident

might be. I will say that given the amount of units that we’re investing

in all at once: the North Star, the Knights, these units, through the

HEARTH unit…. The team that we have on the ground, the community access

table, which will have the not-for-profit providers that are providing

the housing…. It will have local government representatives, different

representatives there. There will be an assessment done of every

individual. There will be….

[3:50 p.m.]

Certainly a lot of efforts are being taken so that we’re not

putting too many individuals that have additional challenges, in one

location. A mix between the sites so that the staff are able to manage

that. I think that’s the one benefit, certainly, that will be available

in Prince George, given the amount of units coming online all at once.

That perhaps isn’t always the same for communities where they’re just

behind the units you need.

A lot of this assessment has already been happening. Our priority

always is to get people that are in shelters, who already have

assessments done, who are there regularly, as the first ones that will

get access to these sites, making room in the shelters for those from

the encampments to come into the shelters. That’s always been what we

are trying to do, and that’s what we expect here as well.

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

I do want to confirm that there will be a full fence, cameras,

lighting, all of the things that would help to secure the site. The part

of the letter that concerned me, candidly, was: “with necessary

revisions at the discretion of B.C. Housing, based on operational

requirements.”

Obviously, having appropriate security and fencing, lighting, all

of those things…. I’m assuming there isn’t a lot of discretion there.

There are expectations, particularly about ensuring that there is safety

for everyone who shares that neighbourhood. Can the minister explain

what that paragraph means?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member listed a whole host of things, and that is correct.

That’s what we’ve put in writing to the city.

The reason why that line is in there is because there’s nothing on

the site now. If, for example, we can’t drill into the ground to get the

fencing in, we have to make alternatives to have different types of

fencing. So there needs to be some flexibility to how we provide these

additional measures, but lighting, controlling the parking — all of

these are pieces that we intend to advance at the site.

S. Bond: I certainly appreciate that, as long as the intent is to fulfil

the description that has been provided to the to the city of Prince

George and, ultimately, to us, as residents there.

Perhaps one of the most important questions for me and for the

residents of Millar Addition and the people of the city of Prince George

is: what work has been done to look at this project? It is considered

transitional, temporary supportive housing, meaning that, obviously,

there is a transition to permanent housing at some point down the road.

In fact, in the B.C. Housing document, on page 8, it talks about B.C.

Housing now actively pursuing permanent housing solutions with 50

purpose-built supportive units already planned, etc.

What I want to be assured of is that this temporary use permit,

and thus, the temporary supportive housing that’s being put in place,

meets the test that the courts have determined — that residents who are

currently in the Patricia encampment need to be housed in order to

actually close the encampment. So I would like some reassurance from the

minister that this, which is, as I understand it, planned for three

years, despite it being called temporary….

My concern is we have a temporary supportive housing number of

units, 43. B.C. Housing is now actively looking for permanent housing

solutions. We have an encampment that cannot be altered until residents

there, of which I believe the latest RCMP number, and maybe the minister

can confirm for me, is about 35 people.

From my perspective, the math works, if there are 43 temporary

units and there are 35 residents. Has work been done to ensure that this

solution meets the test that the city needs to meet in terms of the

court decision?

[3:55 p.m.]

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

I can’t presume what the court will say. But I do believe that

shelter and this housing we’re providing is adequate for people to move

indoors. That’s always a challenge. The member was the AG and

understands the challenges with how courts would interpret this, but it

is our belief that that meets the test.

Now, I would add that we have right now 57 affordable units under

construction, and we are always looking for more sites so that we can

get people stabilized and into different forms of housing. That’s our

intention. So 57 are already there. We’ve got some women’s transition

housing going, as well, that may work for some of the residents, and

we’re continuing to look for more opportunities.

There are two, I think, important opportunities. One, we have an

Indigenous housing fund that’s open till May 15. I know that in Prince

George in particular, there are a lot of Indigenous partners who are

wanting to be active in building housing. We’re providing nations or

First Nations organizations that don’t have dollars PDF funding so that

they can prepare for the next call if they’re not prepared for this.

That’s one way I think that is going to be able to address

it.

Then CHF projects, a new fund, will be opening end of the year,

early new year, for any other projects that could be built in the

community to get people indoors.

S. Bond: I very much appreciate that response and the fact that the

minister does believe that this should meet the test. Yes, as a former

Attorney General, I certainly understand the independence of the courts

and not intending to challenge that today. But I think there is a way to

demonstrate to the court that — in fact, in the decision, the word was

“shelter” — this is transitional housing with supports in

place.

I am very hopeful on a number of fronts that is indeed the case

because, as I’ve said repeatedly, this is not about an us-or-them

situation in Prince George. People have been incredibly patient and

understanding. They want to see everyone have a home, but they also want

to make sure that our neighbourhoods and communities are

safe.

Breathing clean air is a pretty important part of that. Again, I

want to urge the minister to take very seriously the presentation that

was sent to him regarding air quality. It links also, in my view, to an

issue of an encampment management plan, the issue of what is burned,

when it is burnt, all of those kinds of things. There is significant

evidence to say that air quality is a major issue.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m so grateful. I will now just make my last comments, perhaps

question. I guess I feel discouraged. I am elected by the people of

Prince George–Valemount, I care deeply about my community, and I want to

ensure, as the person who brings those voices to Victoria, that I have

an opportunity to understand and be provided with

information.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Meetings with B.C. Housing should be regular between city council,

between elected MLAs. We live there. We actually know the circumstances

on the ground, probably better than most people.

I am asking the minister…. I recently requested the opportunity,

in my own community, to visit a B.C. Housing site. I was told I had to

have permission from the minister to do that. I have to tell you that as

an elected official in my community, I want to know what’s going on. I

want to understand what the circumstances are.

I certainly understand protocol and wouldn’t be showing up at a

site at inappropriate times. I understand there needs to be a process.

But I would like assurance from the minister that he has given

direction, or will, to B.C. Housing to work constructively with locally

elected officials, including the MLA and city council, and also that at

the appropriate time, we have the opportunity to visit sites that impact

people who live in my community.

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

happen.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can assure the member that no policy, since the member was on

this side of the House, has changed. So whatever protocols were in place

when they were here on this side are the same protocols. We have been

having exchanges with my critic, who has visited supportive housing

sites. If the member wants to visit a supportive housing site — and I do

appreciate her comment on not just showing up, but a scheduled time — I

don’t see why that’s a problem. I appreciate the questions, and I’m not

aware of people being told they’re not able to go.

That being said, if I can just add two responses to previous

questions. My critic had asked me about coroner’s reports and deaths. In

2023, there were 2,299 deaths across B.C. Three hundred were at B.C.

Housing supportive sites.

My colleague from Peace River North asked about a specific site, a

B.C. Housing building near Site C. To him, there are about 25 units

there. The lease ends in September. We are having conversations with

Hydro about their expectations. If, for some reason, they decide that

they don’t want to continue with those sites, they will be made as

affordable rental units within the community.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for West

Vancouver–​Capilano.

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

Thank you to the minister.

I also would like to thank the member for Prince

George–​Valemount, because many of the questions that she asked I

really think kind of narrowed down and were more specific in terms of

the broader questions I was asking about supportive housing earlier. I

found that was quite helpful for me just to understand more.

If I can just clarify the answer that the minister just gave me in

terms of deaths in supportive housing. The numbers 2,299 and then 300

were in B.C. Housing supportive housing. I didn’t understand what the

2,299 number was.

Hon. R. Kahlon: What we are told from the coroner’s report is in 2023, there were

2,299 overdose deaths. Three hundred of those were at B.C. Housing

supportive sites.

[4:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The question wasn’t specific to

overdose deaths, so that’s why I was confused about what that number

was. It was deaths within…. So deaths regardless of reason within B.C.

Housing’s supportive housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If there is an overdose, the coroner’s office records that. If

someone passes away of old age in a supportive housing site, that’s not

something that is tracked by the coroner’s office.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Well, with respect to the overdose deaths, then, the 300 in B.C.

Housing in the previous year…. How does that compare to years prior to

that? Is that kind of a consistent number?

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

of Housing information.

We’re trying to get information from the coroner’s office for the

member. If it’s okay, we’ll continue, and we’ll try to reach out to see

what information we can get for the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. I appreciate that there are many different groups

involved in these kinds of numbers, although I would say that this is

Ministry of Housing information that should be had because it is

happening within B.C. Housing supportive housing sites.

I’m going to ask a few questions on BC Builds. Then I’m going to

turn it over to another of my colleagues for some questions.

We were really excited about finding out what BC Builds was all

about. It was really touted as being kind of this big solution to our

housing crisis.

Considering Lisa Helps’ assertion that B.C. Housing is neither

affordable, supportive nor subsidized housing…. Can the minister clarify

for whom exactly the housing is designed, especially given the acute

nature of our need for affordable housing in B.C.?

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

that came from.

I’ll just say…. We came up with the BC Builds concept. The member

is aware…. The federal government has seen the concept and now is

expanding it across the country. I know Quebec and Ontario are creating

something similar.

This is another piece, another tool for us to address the

challenge we have in housing. Just this week, Delta council had a

briefing on BC Builds. Communities are getting briefings all the

time.

The idea is to be able to use lands, whether it’s municipal,

provincial, federal, faith-based groups, to build housing for

middle-income earners — 30 percent rent to the people’s incomes for

middle-income earners — so that we can attract the health care workers,

the teachers, all the important employments that we need, the workers

that we need in our community. So that’s the target.

Of course, this is an additional piece to what we already do.

We’ve been talking about shelter, supportive housing, low-income

housing, Indigenous housing. This takes B.C. Housing into an expanded

space.

It’s a partnership. We’re going to have not-for-profits partnering

with us. We’re going to have the private sector partnering with us. It’s

a model that clearly has caught interest across the country.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Considering that many British Columbians are spending more than 30

percent of their incomes on their housing costs…. Why does BC Builds

just target to only build 4,000 rental apartments over five years? How

is that sufficient to this housing crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: At no point have I said that government will be the only one

building housing to address the housing crisis. I have always said, from

the beginning, that we’re going to need the private sector. We’re going

to need not-for-profits. We need government involved in the housing

business to ensure that we have the housing we need.

This was a new concept. The targets we’ve set were based on the

fact that this is a new concept. We can expand. We can grow as we move

forward.

[4:10 p.m.]

If the member is asking me if BC Builds alone will solve the

housing crisis, I will say that BC Builds is an important part of the

different types of housing that we need in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Now, the Premier has criticized the previous government’s reliance

on the private sector for housing solutions. Yet under the NDP, rents

and home prices have continued to rise.

How does BC Builds materially differ in its approach to curbing

these trends?

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

tell.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Weird. Exactly.

I will say…. Just today I was asked by the media about Little

Mountain. I won’t go too much into it. I’ll just say that there are

examples of what we don’t want to see.

What this does is…. It ensures that the lands that are publicly

owned stay publicly owned and that we’re able to build affordable

housing for people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The program aims at middle-class individuals, with eligible

households earning between $131,000 up to $191,910 annually. How does

the ministry reconcile this approach to increasing housing with the

needs of low-income British Columbians who are facing the brunt of the

affordability crisis?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are already investing in that space as well. This is in

addition to those investments. This housing doesn’t require ongoing

operational subsidies.

Individuals earning less than what is in this program…. That is

the type of housing that B.C. Housing is already investing in and

already building. This expands that into housing opportunities for

people beyond that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

It’s not clear there are clearly set out operational plans for BC

Builds. How does the minister ensure that there will be transparency and

accountability in the allocation of the $2 billion funding, particularly

in light of concerns over the program’s vagueness?

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

public.

Interjection.

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

link.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide specifics — perhaps this is in what we

just referenced — on how the eligibility and income verification

processes for BC Builds are going to ensure that we’ve got fair access

to housing? Again, that’s especially for those in dire need.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The not-for-profit partner or, maybe, a First Nations partner that

will be operating the building will be responsible for that. It’s a

similar framework that we have for the other incremental projects that

are within B.C. Housing’s purview.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Some of my questions may be in this document. I haven’t had time

to read it, so I’m just going to ask.

Actually, if I just might ask the minister, to start with…. When

was this document available, and where would peo­ple have been

able to have access to it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This was posted on B.C. Housing’s website, I believe, on February

13. It is available online. Either a Google search or…. If the member

needs the link, we can try to get the link to the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

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

at the electronic version.

Does BC Builds plan to prioritize local residents in areas with a

high demand for housing, considering…? The details so far have been

vague on prioritization and how we focus on the critical pieces of the

communities.

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

entity owns the land.

For example, the city of North Vancouver, which was the first

project we announced…. There’s an interest from the city to ensure that

its housing is available for Royal Columbian, for the folks who work at

the port, for people who are working within the city.

There’s flexibility within the program for the landowner to have

those provisions that target specific populations within their

communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer.

Given the uncertainty surrounding targeted market rents and

potential subsidies within BC Builds…. Can the minister explain how the

program will remain accessible to its intended middle-class audience

without becoming an inflated market rate housing option?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be program agreements, as well, on title elements. It’s

not like you can move somebody out and charge market rents. There will

be both provisions put in place.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I can just confirm with the minister also, what we were looking

for was kind of a detailed operational plan. Just at first blush, this

is a very light framework, as opposed to something that has got a lot of

detail in it. Is this considered the operational strategy? What other

documents can be provided to help people understand how the program

works?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Perhaps the member could share what kind of detail the member is

looking for. Then it’ll be easier for me to answer.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, I would need to understand the program in greater detail to

know specifically what detail I’m looking for. If I might come back to

that when we continue on Monday, then I will have had the opportunity to

read through this more thoroughly.

If at this time I could pass the floor to my colleague from

Kamloops–North Thompson, he has a few questions to ask.

P. Milobar: I was surprised by my colleague earlier when she said not to bring

politics, and I really think the minister said not to bring politics

into this. Either way, I’m going to bring politics into it, because last

I checked, that’s what we’re here for.

No, in all seriousness, just a couple of different projects in

Kamloops that I have some specific questions around, mainly pertaining

to B.C. Housing — the first one being in what’s commonly known as the

government precinct.

It’s behind our courthouse, and there are some other government

buildings there. The far eastern corner would be where the old highways

works yard was. It abuts the hospital in the very back. Just before

Peterson Creek Park, there’s what is called Glenfair Seniors Housing,

which has been around for as long as I can remember. I have been there

since the early ’70s, and I think it predates that. That’s for seniors

that have been living in there month to month for years.

My understanding is B.C. Housing has now acquired a portion of the

government lands, and the conversation in Kamloops over the last little

while has been that indications are that this will be a B.C. Housing

complex for short-term housing, not longer-term residency. I’m trying to

get clarification if indeed B.C. Housing has a site behind the

courthouse in the government precinct area. That’s referred to in

Kamloops terms.

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

how many units will it be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing has been having conversations about housing. We’re

not at a point yet where we’re prepared to make anything official or

public, but we certainly will when that point comes.

P. Milobar: Well, in the backdrop of a housing crisis, my understanding is

that the first discussions on this date back possibly even to 2020.

Certainly, by 2021 there was an acknowledgment that B.C. Housing was

working on something back there.

Here we are in mid-2024 and no clear timeline or definition of

what is going to happen. On a backdrop where BC Builds purports to be

looking to provide government land to build housing, this seems to be a

site that is government land and has been in talks for 3½ years now, and

nothing further to report. What is the actual timeline on something

actually being built, then, on that site?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that we’ve been making investments in Kamloops to

get housing online for people. When we have more information about the

specific site, we certainly will make that public.

P. Milobar: I guess part of the problem and part of the issue in Kamloops,

frankly, with B.C. Housing projects over the last while is that the

Fortune Motel was bought without an operator in mind, without a

clientele identified to the public. It turned into a “just trust us”

exercise with the community. I had to meet with community members on

that. They were fine if it was, say, going to be for low-income seniors

but not necessarily if it was for people that were newly released from

incarceration and that type of thing.

Then the project sat. Pipes burst. Extra costs had to be dealt

with because the building was sitting dormant through a winter period

and wasn’t properly winterized, while B.C. Housing was trying to figure

out what it was going to do with this property. That’s in the same

timeline as this Glenfair property, which has been the subject of

discussion around planning tables of the city, publicly talking about

it, yet the minister is unable to provide, over three years later, any

clarification on what is moving forward.

The Glenfair area itself is owned by B.C. Housing. Those are the

areas I was talking about previously. They’re one and two storeys high.

They were built between 1958 and 1982. Those have been providing stable

housing for low-income seniors for all that time, which is great. I

think everyone wants to know what the actual plan by the government and

B.C. Housing is to support those tenants long term, and what this type

of housing is going to be.

Is the minister saying that despite repeated open houses and

feedback from the city…? We have Coun. Bill Sarai, back as far as 2021,

saying that he was going to be pressing the government for more action

on this, and here we are in 2024 with no action taken.

Is there nothing in this budget to start moving that project

forward with B.C. Housing, or is it just still a plan for the future? I

mean, the minister talks about Little Mountain today. This seems to be a

chunk of government land that, literally, the government hasn’t taken

action on to get building with.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I did have a chance to meet with Councillor Sarai and a few

councillors a couple of months ago when they were all here for a housing

conference led by UBCM. They have expressed a desire to have more

housing built in the community. I also spoke to the mayor, as well,

there, and we talked about housing.

[4:30 p.m.]

What I’m saying to the member is that when we have information

around what’s going to happen on that site, we’ll certainly be making it

public.

I think it’s also important to note we have opened 506 housing

units in Kamloops. We have about 300 under de­velopment, and we’re

prepared to commit more resources to Kamloops to ensure there are more

housing options available in the community. It’s something that we’re

prioritizing.

Kamloops plays an important role not only because of its location

but also how it supports the smaller communities in the region. Th