Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 306

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

D. Clovechok

I. Paton

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

E. Ross

Hon. R. Fleming

T. Halford

B. Banman

J. Sturdy

D. Davies

D. Ashton

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. B. Bailey

A. Olsen

L. Doerkson

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

the Ministry of Housing.

In committee room A, continued debate on Committee of Supply for the

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Jobs,

Economic Development and Innovation. When that’s complete, the Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions will begin.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to get us into the appropriate places, and we’ll

get this committee stage going.

We’re in recess.

The House recessed at 1:34 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of Supply,

Section B, to

order.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $884,436,000

(continued) .

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to engage with the Minister of

Housing.

Congratulations on your new role. It’s the first time, I think,

we’ve had a chance to see each other in here. Anyways, we’ve seen each

other probably quite a bit recently.

Just want to establish a baseline first with the minister. The

speculation and vacancy tax has been…. We’ve been collecting data now

for a few years. Municipalities have a good sense of their communities

and the number of housing units that are there. Does the ministry have a

number of housing units that exist in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Just a clarification question. Is the member asking how many units

we have of housing in the province, total, not speculation

tax–related?

You said speculation in the beginning. I wasn’t quite

sure.

A. Olsen: Sorry for being unclear. I was just suggesting that through the

data we’ve been collecting through the speculation and vacancy tax, we

should have a pretty good understanding of the number of housing units

that exist in the province — and just for further clarity, of all

types.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We actually don’t have that data right now, but I commit to the

member that we’ll get back to him with the number.

A. Olsen: Is that something the ministry generally collects? Just in

general, does the ministry collect this information from the

municipalities, collate that information with the speculation and

vacancy tax filings that British Columbians make every year and have a

good sense of the number of housing units in the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Ministry of Finance has that. They lead the forms that go to

all households and then they correlate that information.

A. Olsen: Is that a number that the Minister of Housing receives from the

Minister of Finance as a part of the decision-making processes for what

kind of housing needs to be built, where — the types of housing that

need to be built and where they need to be built in the

province?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of questions that were in there. Yes, we have access to

the numbers from the Ministry of Finance when we request them. That’s

regarding the speculation and vacancy tax forms and the information that

comes from that. We rely quite a bit on housing needs reports that local

governments have been doing. Many of them publish them live on their

website. We also look at population growth reports and a whole host of

other information, some that’s available externally from external

partners as well, and information that may be available from the federal

government.

A. Olsen: I’m trying to get an understanding as to the decision-making and

what’s informing the decision-making within the Ministry of Housing. Is

it fair to say, then, that the Ministry of Housing staff will then

collect all of the information from the housing needs assessments and

from the Ministry of Finance’s filings to get a very clear understanding

of the number of housing units, the kind of housing that exists, the

number of bedrooms that are in those houses, where those units are that

then can inform the decision-making about where funds go and where

houses are needed, etc.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When projects come forward, B.C. Housing does assessments of what

the needs are in the community, and decisions around how many bedrooms

the units should be, etc., are made. For example, I was just in

Courtenay, where units for women fleeing domestic violence were created.

They have one bedroom, two bedrooms and three bedrooms in those because

it was identified in the community that that need is there.

We hear a lot from our Indigenous partners who say that when we

build housing on reserve or off reserve, but it’s focused with

Indigenous communities, we need multiple rooms because you want to have

a family be together. That’s an important piece.

It really depends on…. When a proponent comes forward, they do an

assessment. B.C. Housing works with them to ensure that the types of

units that are being built are reflective of the need in the

community.

A. Olsen: I’m not getting the sense that the decision-making around the type

of housing that’s being built is driven by the type of need that’s in

the communities.

[1:45 p.m.]

If there was a direct correlation between understanding the

housing stock we have in the provincial government, understanding what

the population needs are, understanding the potential migration into the

province, immigration from foreign countries, we would, then, be having

these numbers very accessible to then be able to say: “We have a housing

stock that looks like this. We have these needs, and then that’s what

the supply is.” We hear a lot of rhetoric about housing supply, but it

doesn’t seem like we understand what the current supply is. It makes it

difficult for me to be confident the government then knows what supply

is needed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of questions that the member had. One, we have data,

obviously. I shared that. We also work with CMHC, who also puts out many

reports. CMHC has said that we need 570,000 units by 2030 to restore

levels of affordability.

We also know that when projects come from communities…. In 2019,

we actually changed the rules to ensure that there’s a housing needs

assessment done before that project comes forward. Part of that is

looking at what the need is, what kind of units are needed.

When they come through the application process, B.C. Housing

actually uses that information to help inform the decision, because

often, actually in every case, if a not-for-profit is bringing the

application forward, it’s some sort of partnership with the municipality

and that work is done between them when they apply. That’s how the

projects are assessed.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister.

We have a number, 570,000 units, that was just used. I think this

provides a good example of what I’m trying to get at here. We have a lot

of talk about the need for more supply. I’m not arguing that we don’t

need more supply, but not all supply is created equally. Those housing

needs assessments identify a range of housing in the housing spectrum —

supported, below-market rent, all the way up to high-end custom homes —

and the needs.

[1:50 p.m.]

Now, 570,000 units is a big number and identifies the overall

need. That number has zero definition. I don’t know if that’s 570,000

units of below-market rental.

When we are talking about supply and demand, we need to understand

the demand. We need to understand the housing stock that we have in our

province right now. Then we also need to…. That will then inform the

province of where to make targeted investments in order to be able to

build the housing stock that we need.

What I’m trying to gain confidence of here is that there is a very

surgical approach that’s happening here. Not just: “we need 570,000

units of housing.” They’re all different. When I take a look at some of

the housing needs assessments and see the community has identified

below-market rental units, for an example, but they’re building condos,

or they’re building high-end market rent, then very clearly the housing

needs assessment has been valuable in understanding what the needs in

the community are, but it has not been valuable in ensuring the type of

unit that’s needed in the community is the unit that’s being

built.

I’m just wondering how the minister and the ministry is balancing

a strong understanding of the housing stock in our province, the demand

for housing that’s needed and the type of housing that then needs to be

invested in. Does this reflect, the way that I’ve just painted this

picture, how decisions are made in the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think there are a few things there, and I know the member knows

many of them. I’m just going to share them for the record.

One is I often meet with local governments who say, “Hey, we need

this type of housing. We need this many affordable units,” and what

comes to them is not necessarily that. Because the majority of our

housing projects get built by the market, by private sector, and they

have to make sure that the projects work for them. They’re viable for

them to do so.

I would agree with the member that we need certain types of

affordable units. We need different types of units, amount of units in

each building. And part of the housing needs assesses that. But when we

depend quite a bit on the private sector, they are going to go to where

they think projects are the most viable.

Now there are a lot of things that go into the assessment of the

demand, and there are a lot of things we can’t control. We can’t control

interest rates, which obviously have a big impact on what gets built and

where it gets built and how fast it gets built.

We certainly can’t control immigration numbers. The demand has

certainly increased over the last few years. We’ve had three years of

record-breaking immigration. Again, we need people, so we welcome

people. But I’ve said many times: we want to make sure that it’s in line

with ensuring there’s housing for people here and then there’s adequate

housing for those that are coming. We want them to be successful as

well.

That’s why I’ve been advocating with the federal government that

we look at tying our immigration to housing starts and affordable units,

so that we can ensure that our investments are aligned. We can’t control

many of the levers that are going to dictate where the demand will be.

What we can do is look at the different type of housing that we need to

address. That’s why the homes for people strategy addresses many of

those pieces.

We’re looking at things like the speculation and vacancy tax and

where it’s worked and what other jurisdictions may be considered for

that. That’s in the plan. We’re also looking at how do we, as the member

said…. Right now we’re building…. When a single-family home comes down,

by law we’re required to build a single-family home or go through a very

extensive process to build something different.

What we’re doing with the small-scale multi-unit is giving options

for folks. If people want to buy a single-family home, and they can

afford it, that option will be there for them. But if…. Many young

families tell me that that’s not affordable for them. Now they can have

multiple units in that building, which will provide that.

That’s why we’re…. That’s why there are initiatives in here that

address many pieces of that kind of continuum, as the member, I think,

was alluding to. Things like build B.C. I mean, to build truly

affordable housing for people — certainly for low-income families, but

also middle-income families…. We have families earning $120,000 a year

that can’t afford rent in some communities. That’s a real challenge for

us.

[1:55 p.m.]

The only way we’re going to build truly affordable housing is by

looking at lands owned by government and partnering with the private

sector to build that supply up, so that the rates can be affordable. The

rents can be affordable. And the communities are more well rounded. It’s

not just low-income housing, it’s not just high-end housing — it’s

people living together. I think that’s a healthier way for society, and

it’s a healthier way for communities.

I think, to step back, as the member has asked…. Yes, we have a

sense of the challenge, but that can completely change according to

things that we can’t control. So we’re looking at the policies that we

can control, the type of housing we can bring on.

When we, in the budget, double the target for building housing for

people fleeing domestic violence…. We’re doubling the amount of units we

committed to when it comes to building housing both on reserve and off

reserve. And again, on-reserve has not traditionally been within the

realm of the province, but we can’t wait for the federal government

anymore. We have to take action. That’s why the commitments are there,

because we know the needs are there, but many of the levers we can’t

control.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. There was a lot there,

and I think that it is actually feeding right into the context of the

question that I’m asking. Doubling the units of on-reserve housing. Is

that enough? Should we be tripling them? Should we be quadrupling

them?

So doubling the units anywhere…. When I hear the language, the

words, “doubling the units” or…. What I’m trying to get at here by

asking the question about understanding the housing stock that we have

right now…. In a supply-and-demand economic framework, you understand

what your supply is, you understand what you’re demand is, and then you

make targeted decisions based on those factors.

We often hear numbers that are not in context. So 570,000 units of

what? Of where? Is it enough? Is it too much? Is it sufficient for the

uncontrollable factors of inflation and all of the things….

See, we can minimize the number of threats by understanding and

putting the information all in one place. What I was hoping to get from

the minister in the first question I asked was a response that says:

“Yeah, here. There’s actually this spreadsheet that shows that we have

been collecting all of the data, consolidating it in one place and

making targeted decisions.”

The minister’s response talked a lot about the private sector, the

market, the decisions that are made at local governments, and how all of

it — most of it — is out of our control. I was on local government. I

know exactly how that process works. We deal with the applications that

come to us. That’s the market. That’s the housing market. When the

provincial government is investing public money into a market, it needs

to be targeting to achieve certain outcomes. And those certain outcomes

are the below-market pieces to this. They’re all the pieces that the

market isn’t providing.

Does the minister believe that housing is a human

right?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are many pieces here. I would say that if you talk to ten

economists about what the exact number is of how many units we need,

you’ll have ten different answers. Because there are a lot of variables

in predicting out that are difficult to predict out, and I laid out some

of the variables.

The member asked earlier if we have the data from the speculation

and vacancy tax of how many units there are. I said yes. I don’t have it

with me now, but I’m happy to share that with the member.

I think the other thing that’s important for this context — I

should have shared it with the last answer — is that if CMHC says we

need 570,000 housing units by 2030, I would love to build 570,000 units

this year. We have a capacity challenge also. We have a shortage of

workers.

We’re dealing with a lot of pieces at the same time to get the

amount of units that we would like to get built. That’s why we’re going

to need more skilled trades, both developing skilled trades locally and

also through immigration. We’re going to have to innovate to build

housing in a different way. So those are first pieces.

[2:00 p.m.]

The member asked about human rights, and he knows that I worked on

bringing back the Human Rights Commission to British Columbia. Obviously

it’s critically important, and I would say that it is fundamental that

we get people housing in not only to provide people with the basics in

our society, but also, in many cases, to ensure that they have the

stability to get other supports that they may need. Certainly, I can

agree with the member that housing is vitally important, and that’s why

we’re making the level of investment we’re doing.

The member also mentioned housing on-reserve. I think I’ll just

emphasize again for the record that this is usually the federal

government’s territory, and they have not been stepping up in this. So

when I say we’re doubling Indigenous housing, that’s both housing

on-reserve and it’s also housing off-reserve.

Again, the need is great. We’ve been saying to the federal

government: “Fine. No other province is wanting to build on-reserve.

We’re the only ones. At least match us. Let’s start as a matching

conversation.” Now if you talk to the leadership at AHMA, the Aboriginal

Housing Management Association, they’ll say that even the money that’s

announced federally is nowhere adequate.

We’re leading in this space, yes. Could we do more? Certainly we

could do more, but we need a willing partner that will come in and come

to the table to help address that challenge.

A. Olsen: I certainly agree that the provincial government has been…. I

wouldn’t suggest the provincial government has been left on their own

for on-reserve housing. To a great extent, most of the housing stock

that exists on all of the Indian reserves in our country has been built,

historically, by the federal government. But that doesn’t mean that I

won’t thank and congratulate the government for making the decision over

the last number of years to also fund on-reserve housing.

There’s also no doubt that the housing shortage in our communities

on Indian reserves in this province has had a dramatic impact on the

need for Indigenous peoples’ housing in urban centres, away from the

Indian reserve as well.

I’ll just say that one of the things that economists, I don’t

think, will disagree on is the actual number of houses and housing units

and maybe even bedrooms that exist in the province. That’s a number, and

it’s going to go up every year or it’s going to fluctuate every year.

That’s for sure.

But you’re not going to get ten different opinions. Just as the

minister used the example: you ask ten economists about what the need

is, you’re going to get ten different answers. If you ask ten different

economists what the number of housing units are in the province, you’ll

get a fairly stable, fairly similar response if they’re using the data

that the provincial government should have.

That’s part of the reason why I’ve been asking, because we’re

spending billions and billions of dollars of public money, and we’re

putting it into a housing market that has been designed to commodify

real estate as a wealth generator for people. Sometime after the Second

World War, we made that decision as a country that was what was going to

happen. Now public money is going into it, so the public should be able

to expect that their money isn’t further inflating the housing market,

that their money is building the housing that is needed by British

Columbians now and that we’re doing the best that we can to understand

what the potential need is in the future and constructing those

units.

The minister didn’t answer my question directly. I agree that

housing is fundamental, but I also agree that housing is a human right.

Does the minister believe that housing is a human right?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I shared with the member that we’ll get him the stats. The

Ministry of Finance holds the numbers of units. We’re trying to get that

now. If not, we’ll get it for the member after so that he can get a

sense of how many units we have.

I’ll say that I believe that people have the right to shelter in

British Columbia. That’s why the work we’re doing, in particular around

the homelessness strategy, is targeted to ensure that people have the

ability to get housing so that they can get the supports that they need.

That is central to the work we’re doing. That’s why we’re making the

historic level of investments in housing in communities around the

province, because not only has the challenge grown, but we know that

with the new challenges that we’re seeing in communities, we have to

ensure that we can bring on the adequate amount of housing and shelter

that people need.

A. Olsen: I guess just for the record, and then I’ll move on here. I’ve got

a few other topics that I’d like to cover, but I think that the record

just needs…. The question was not that I need to know the exact number

of units. I mean, I’d be happy to understand that number, but in the

context of the question that I’m asking, it was not about the actual

number.

[2:10 p.m.]

It was a demonstration that the decision-making within the

Ministry of Housing is being driven by a deep understanding of the

housing stock that we have in our province, the variety of housing that

is available, or not, for people to live in, and then shelter as a right

or housing as a human right. Then it would lead to believe that the

government’s responsibility would then be to deeply understand the

housing stock that we have and target the types of housing that are not

being built by the market — the developers that come into the local

councils. That has not been what was demonstrated this

afternoon.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pretty distinct disconnect,

maybe not with the philosophical belief that shelters are a right for

people, but we’re in the process of building units for units, not

targeting the building to any type of understanding of the

numbers.

Shifting gears here a little bit, in question period on Wednesday

of April 5, I asked the minister about the city of Vancouver scattering

people living in the East Hastings encampments. I agree with the

minister that the situation that had evolved on Hastings Street was very

dangerous and that something needed to be done. The minister said: “The

city…notified me this morning that they were going to move in and move

on the encampment.”

During the B.C. NDP leadership event last year, the Premier noted

this is an issue of political will. In fact, he was very clear on it

last August. He suggested to British Columbians that he had the will to

deal with the Downtown Eastside. The Premier stated unequivocally: “The

crisis in the Downtown Eastside is well beyond what the city of

Vancouver can take on, on their own. Ottawa is too far away…. The

opportunity here is for the province to take a leadership role and say

that we will take responsibility. We will coordinate this. We’ll work

with the city. We’ll work with the feds. We’ll work with the large

Indigenous population down there.”

I’ve heard that the minister knew, long before the police moved in

on that encampment on April 5. I’m wondering what it is: is this a

situation that the minister is being briefed on, in the morning that the

Vancouver PD shut down the neighbourhood? Or is the minister working

with the city, working with the feds, and taking the leadership role

that the Premier said this government had the political will to

do?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start by saying something that the Premier has said many

times: the encampments are not safe for the people living there, and

they’re not safe for the community at large. Take from that what you

would like to take from it, but we’ve said it many times. We continue to

say that. Our goal was always to have shelter and housing available for

people, so that they’re not in encampments. That isn’t breaking news to

anyone, I hope; we’ve said it multiple times.

I’ve said multiple times that I’ve been working with the mayor and

council for months — since the new mayor and council got in, in

particular — because I was fairly closely aligned, when I became

Minister of Housing, on working on how we can get housing built and how

we can get more housing online.

Now, there were examples, such as a project on Commercial, where

we had approved for, I believe, it was over 50 units. The council said:

“Well, if you’re going to build it, why not get more density, get more

units on there?” They were able to help us move that along. We’ve been

able to work with them on finding ways to move the process quicker, to

get more units, because we know it’s needed throughout the

community.

I can share with the member that, since the Premier becoming

Premier, just on the encampment response, 103 offers of housing were

made to people, 97 confirmed moves and 160 people have accepted offers

of shelter. B.C. has opened 130 new or newly renovated units of

permanent indoor supportive housing spaces. We had a commitment, also,

that we had 330 units coming on board. We got occupancy permits for 95

of them.

We, on top of that, purchased Chalmers Lodge, which is another 115

units, because we know that there is a need. We need to ensure, in that

case, that seniors who are living in SROs have a safe place to go. This

is why we’re making the investments, because we don’t believe that

people should be living in encampments. We believe that they should get

into shelters, be assessed and then get into housing.

[2:15 p.m.]

If those things that I’ve said are news to the member, well, then

I’m happy to put it on the record. But I have been saying that for many

months since I’ve been in this role. Certainly, the Premier has as

well.

A. Olsen: No, it’s certainly not news. I’ve heard the minister repeat those

numbers. I’ve heard the minister talk about taking leadership. I’ve just

heard the minister say: “We know that there is a need.” Again, what my

line of questioning has been about is understanding what the need

is.

I do not want to diminish the units of housing that are being

offered to people, and the numbers that have been put forward. I just

have no idea about the context of that. That might be 1 percent of the

total number of units needed. If that’s 1 percent — I’m using a very

dramatically small number for a reason — of the housing units needed,

then we would have exactly 99 percent to go in solving the

problem.

This is the problem. When the number of units that have been

opened is the only number that’s put on the record, in an effort to be

answering a question, then without the context, it becomes very

difficult for British Columbians, and for us in this place, to

understand whether the question was answered or whether it was just a

response.

The result of what happened a couple of weeks ago was that people

were scattered across the city. There’s no way to really measure that —

although, from the conversations I’ve had, that had a dramatic effect on

all parts of the Lower Mainland.

The minister again suggested that the Premier and he had been

working with the city of Vancouver. Yet on the morning of April 5 — the

same day that there is a housing conference being held by the Union of

B.C. Municipalities in downtown Vancouver — the mayor, Ken Sim; the fire

and police chiefs; and Paul Mochrie are the only people available to the

media to explain what’s going on. There’s no Minister of Housing, no

Premier and no support from the provincial government.

In fact, the mayor didn’t even say it. He introduced everybody and

then left it up to the city manager to answer all the questions. That

was an administrative response that happened in that press conference.

That was not the elected political leaders showing the leadership that,

only a few months earlier, the Premier had committed to, that he was

going to show.

The province, on that difficult day, when the police are

scattering people in a very dangerous living environment, entirely

agreed: no Minister of Housing, no Premier. How does that reflect

leadership — in which the Premier specifically said only the provincial

government can answer this question — when the Premier and the Minister

of Housing leave it up to the city manager of Vancouver to answer the

questions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things the member has highlighted. First, I’ll

reiterate that the encampments were not safe. I’m sure the member knows

that the fire chief had major concerns, given that there were fires

every week and given that the incidences of violence that we saw were

very high — a lot of cases.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member will also know that 50 women were interviewed by a

not-for-profit, and all 50 reported having been sexually assaulted in

the encampment. Hopefully, we can agree that the encampment was not safe

and that shelter is a way safer option for those that were living in the

encampments.

Now, I can’t speak to what happened when the mayor said what.

Quite frankly, the mayor is not here in estimates. I can speak to what

we’re doing. I can share with the member that the mayor’s job and the

city’s job are ensuring the safety of the public. They made a decision

that it was no longer safe and that they had to move in and do

something. That’s for estimates with the city.

What I can share with the member is that we have been offering

people in the Hastings encampments shelter for months. This didn’t start

on the day the city decided to make a move. For months before that, we

were offering people shelter opportunities. We knew we wanted to get

people…. In fact, more than 90 people on Hastings Street — originally,

it was well over 200 people — accepted the shelter opportunities to move

from the Hastings encampment.

I can share with the member that since the fire chief’s orders,

139 units already opened up. I can share with the member, also, that we

committed to have 330 by the end of the summer. So 95 of those just

opened up. We’ve got the occupancy permit, and we’re trying to move

people in.

The core point is…. We want to get people into housing. We want to

get people into shelter. We want to get people off the streets and out

of the encampments and to get them the supports they need. In order to

do so, we need these units opened up as quick as we can.

The investments are coming. The units have been coming. They’ve

been opening up. We’ve been moving people, but the challenge is

great.

We’re not only doing that here. We’re doing that and addressing

these challenges in communities throughout the province. The challenge

of encampments is not a B.C.-only challenge. This is a challenge that is

being faced by, certainly, all jurisdictions around the west coast,

where there are warmer temperatures, Arizona and across the country.

What’s different here is that we’re making the significant investments —

to build, to expand capacity, to buy where we need to — to get people

indoors.

A. Olsen: Yes, the mayor is not here to answer these questions. The mayor is

not the one that answers these questions. The Minister of Housing

is.

I think the point that I was making was that the Minister of

Housing wasn’t at the press conference. There was no provincial

representation at the press conference about an issue that the current

Premier of British Columbia has said the provincial government will take

full responsibility for.

This is absolutely right. The minister is absolutely right. This

is not just a B.C. problem. The housing market…. The commodification of

housing creates real estate for purposes other than housing. It creates

it for wealth generation. That’s the way that the housing market is

right across North America. So similar conditions are being faced, to

lesser and greater extents, across the continent.

However, the Downtown Eastside is, according to the Premier’s

words, only this government’s responsibility. The feds are too far away.

The city doesn’t have the resources to do it. The Premier, on the

campaign trail to become the new leader of the B.C. NDP, said very

clearly — I already quoted it; I’m not going to put it on the record

again — that only his government was in a position to be able to deal

with it.

When the announcement was happening that the police were rolling

in on the very difficult and, yes, very dangerous situation that has

been occurring for months and months and months…. It’s what inspired the

Premier’s comments and to say: “We’re going to take ownership of it.”

But at that announcement, only the city was there. Then not only that.

It was the city manager…. It was the highest-level bureaucrat in the

city that was left to answer all of the questions.

[2:25 p.m.]

What that left the viewer to believe was that there was actually

no political leadership on this particular issue. A demonstration of

political leadership would be of the Premier following through on the

words that he had said only a few months earlier or, in his stead, his

Minister of Housing being there. There was a housing conference that was

going on. B.C. politicians were moving in and out of the Lower Mainland

for two full days, and there was an awful lot of opportunity.

I think, in connection to the question about finding people

shelter, shelter as a human right…. There is a project that has been

going on in Duncan for some time called the Village. This is providing

shelter for people. If you talk to Mayor Michelle Staples, the city of

Duncan, you find that the results of it have been quite

remarkable.

Has the minister visited and witnessed what’s going on with this

project that’s happening in Duncan called the Village?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to emphasize that the challenges we’re

dealing with, in particular on East Hastings right now, are not

something that started under our government. It has been a challenge for

a long time. People that need support have found some support there, and

many haven’t.

What’s different, though, is a Premier stepping up and saying:

“You know what? It’s unacceptable for people to live that way. There’s

got to be a better way.” That’s what’s different right now.

Yes, the Premier stepped up and said: “Better is possible. I’m

going to get in there and try to find solutions to get people into

housing.” Yes, he did. And you know what? Good on him.

I think that’s what British Columbians want. They want leadership

to step up and say: “You know what? We’re going to step up. We know it’s

going to be difficult. We know there’s no quick-button solution that

will solve the problem. We know that six months or seven months after

you say you’re going to do it, you’re going to have people standing up

in this place asking you how come you haven’t fixed it yet.”

Knowing all that, he still stepped up and said: “This is

important.” He worked there. He worked on the east side, and he

understands how important it is for people to get the supports they

need.

The member wants to talk about why we weren’t there, who was

there. I’ve been answering questions on this from that day to now. I’m

not shying away from any questions. Happy to answer the questions. Happy

for the member to ask the questions. I know his heart is good, and he’s

coming from a good place.

I’ll continue to say to the member…. Whenever questions come on

this, we provide answers.

I can’t speak to why the mayor answered less questions and the

city manager answered more questions. I mean, I saw the pictures. They

were all there. I can’t explain to you who answered questions first and

what that…. I can’t. I didn’t watch the whole press

conference.

I can share with you that the city made a decision because they

felt that the safety of the public and the safety of the people in the

encampment was being compromised. That is their space. That is their

jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is to get people into shelter and then

into housing. I’ll leave that there now.

I know the member had another question, which is around tiny

homes. Now, the member will probably know that we funded a tiny home

project in Victoria. There’s a similar project…. We’ve also funded

projects in Port Alberni, which is also kind of a tiny home style. I did

meet with the mayor of Duncan here a few months ago when the mayor was

here to talk about what they would like to see in their

community.

We continue to meet with local leaders in communities that want to

step up and find good, creative solutions to help address the challenges

in their communities. Actually, I welcome that. When I hear a mayor say,

“You know what? These are people who live in our community. They’re from

our community, and we want to help them,” that fills me with joy. There

are also local government leaders who say: “They’re not from here.

They’re from elsewhere. We don’t want any part of this.”

[2:30 p.m.]

Yes, I have met the mayor of Duncan. I was planning to go there

last week, again, to actually go on site, but for some scheduling

reasons, I wasn’t able to. But certainly, I intend to come through that

area and meet with the mayor of Duncan at the site.

A. Olsen: I’ll just say a couple of things. One, the minister has agreed

that people should have a right to shelter. This village project that’s

being undertaken by the mayor of Duncan is providing shelter for people

in a much safer way than the shelter that those were seeking in the

Downtown Eastside on Hastings, which both the minister and I agree was a

dangerous situation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Unfortunately, we’ve heard…. Some of the narrative has been that….

Some of the challenges with getting funding for the village and other

similar sites like this is that the housing is undignified. I think that

what I’d like to put together here in this is a recognition that people

have a right to shelter. People have a right to be dignified where they

live. We have a responsibility to deliver that as the government. That’s

the fundamental line of questioning that I’ve been undertaking

here.

My hope is that the minister will do everything that they can to

make sure that those tiny units that the people are living in,

surrounded by supportive services, are dignified and not shut them down

because members of B.C. Housing or members of the ministry or members of

the — believe that it’s undignified. We need to find a way to ensure

that those units can ensure the dignity of the people that are living in

them.

What I’ve heard about the project is that just the fact that they

have a place to sleep has returned at least a portion of their dignity.

A safe place to sleep. That’s, in essence, what the minister has been

talking about achieving for the people that were living in tents in a

dangerous situation on the Downtown Eastside: safety, a place to lock

the door so that you don’t get attacked while you’re trying to sleep.

We’ve heard the impacts that a lack of sleep has had on people in one or

two nights. You try to operate, and if that’s your entire life, looking

for places to sleep….

I’ve got one final line of questioning, but I do want to kind of

close down the bit around the Downtown Eastside and the decision-making

that was there. I’m not in disagreement. I’ve never demanded or

suggested this government didn’t inherit a terrible problem, a wicked

problem. It’s an awful problem. I agree. I’m encouraged by the Premier

taking responsibility for it vocally. That’s the first time we’ve seen

that from a provincial government. I support that. I’ve never once in

here said: “Why hasn’t it happened yet? Why haven’t we fixed the

problem?” If the minister heard that, then I’m sorry. That’s not what my

line of questioning is about.

My line of questioning is about…. When the Premier says that

there’s going to be leadership and a significant police action is there

to move people out of this dangerous situation and the city manager is

left being the only one that is showing leadership to answer those

questions…. I’m recognizing that the minister can’t answer the questions

because the minister wasn’t there. That’s the criticism that I’m

levelling.

The provincial government has said, through the Premier, that this

is the only level of government that can handle the situation. Yet this

was the level of government that was noticeably absent the day that

Vancouver, apparently working in coordination with the province of B.C….

We’re nowhere to be seen.

I want to just put something on the record here with the southern

Gulf Islands because this is a very challenging situation in my riding.

I don’t see how any of the legislative tools that have been created,

whether it be the Housing Supply Act or whether it be rezoning, are

going to help the very specific and targeted problem that we have on the

southern Gulf Islands.

[2:35 p.m.]

More supply, just generalized supply — back to the main questions

that I was asking — is not the problem that is on the southern Gulf

Islands. It is a very specific problem for finding workforce housing and

supported housing for homeless people and people that are living in very

marginal situations.

Part of the problem is the type of supply that’s been built, the

custom home, the cabin that’s been turned into a 5,000- or

6,000-square-foot home has added pressure everywhere else in the housing

market. There are really significant concerns. Because you can’t just

create water out of thin air and you just can’t remove human waste to

nowhere, actually, the supply narrative that has been embraced by the

provincial government doesn’t solve the very targeted issue the southern

Gulf Islands need in getting places for teachers and educational

assistants and early childhood education professionals, professionals

working in the health care system.

The now Premier and former Housing Minister was personally

involved in the Seabreeze situation that has turned into lawsuits

between the Lady Minto Hospital Foundation and others — a very chaotic

situation on the southern Gulf Islands. And the Housing Supply Act and

the other proposals that have been largely designed for communities that

aren’t an island and have actually a carrying limit…. There’s actually a

limit to the number of people that can live and be supplied with water

and with all of the services that are needed on these

islands.

Just supply for supply’s sake isn’t the solution. It’s got to be

exceptionally targeted. The Islands Trust Act and the fact that the CRD

does the servicing and the Islands Trust Act does the zoning and the

land use has bifurcated the decision-making. None of these tools are

making it easy — not for the southern Gulf Islands to just grow in an

unfettered way, but for the southern Gulf Islands to be able to get the

housing that they need for a very specific type of supply.

This is an issue that I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs

needs to be seized with. It’s an issue that the Minister of Housing

needs to be seized with. I’m just wondering how the minister intends to

deal with this exceptionally unique scenario where there’s a very, very

complex legislative and policy framework that has created the outcomes

that we have today, meaning that teachers and health care professionals

and early childhood educators and police officers can’t find a place to

live in the community that they work in and just also on a geographic

island that cannot just have unfettered growth, because it just

can’t.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not answering quickly because I wanted to leave, just because

I’ve got the answer ready for him. He’s smiling at me.

I’ll say again, I’ll remind the member that the city makes

decisions around safety. They felt that the situation has gotten to a

point where they needed to act.

At the core, the member’s saying, why weren’t we available to

answer questions? I can say to the member, we have a lot of media in

this place, and I was answering questions in this building. In fact, the

member himself asked me a question. I think he was the only one who

asked me questions about this topic, and maybe the critic across the

way. That’s the accountability we have in this place. It’s to answer

questions when members ask them. When we go in the hallways, the media

asks us questions. In no way was I avoiding any questions. In fact, I

answered them that day, every day, and any questions that come into the

future.

The member also mentions a point that we don’t need supply; we

just need housing for our workforce and other things. That is a form of

supply of housing. I think I understand his core point, which is that

you need housing that’s affordable and not just commodified for wealthy

folks who want to come and move into the community and make it just for

them and not for others.

[2:40 p.m.]

There’s got to be a way. That’s why we’re making investments in

communities to help directly fund that.

The member has, for the record, advocated for his community around

Seabreeze project. I appreciate having a meeting with him about it. I

can share with the member, from our last conversation, that no services

are being funded at Seabreeze right now. I appreciate that there are a

couple of people still there, but no services are being funded from B.C.

Housing. People were moved to Kings Lane, in a temporary

space.

We expect late this year that we will have 28 units at the Drake

site, fully ready to go, so that people have more permanent shelter than

what they have now. I appreciate his advocacy for not only his community

but for those 28 people as well.

A. Olsen: I’ll just end with this, and then I’ll turn it over to my

colleague. I want to just thank the minister for engaging me on these

questions. I appreciate the update with respect to Seabreeze.

Absolutely, there is a type of supply that’s needed.

However, if you track through this past hour just in terms of

understanding the needs of the Southern Gulf Islands…. I’ll continue to

engage the minister on this, because there is a very real capacity issue

on the Southern Gulf Islands. In fact, on Saltspring, the north

Saltspring water district has put a cap on all new hookups. So there’s

not access to water, yet there is a need for nursing.

I think that there is this tension on Saltspring in particular,

but on the Southern Gulf Islands in general, around: you can’t have

unfettered growth, and how are we going to ensure that the housing is

targeted to what the needs are in the community? That’s the tension that

I’m constantly trying to manage and respect — that businesses need

workers, health care needs workers, education needs workers, and there’s

also a very real capacity and carrying issue in terms of an island with

very limited resources.

I’ll just end with that. I really appreciate this engagement, and

thank you to the minister. I’ll turn it over to my colleague from

Vancouver.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague for those good questions.

I still want to talk a bit about the upzoning. There are many

communities that are confused again about how that’s going to impact

them and what, if any, decisions they’ll be able to make as

municipalities in terms of how this is going to work.

A couple of things. Okay. Is there another jurisdiction….? I know

New Zealand, Oregon, California — a model similar to this upzoning has

been used in different places. Is the one we’re putting forward here in

British Columbia modelled on any of those other existing

frameworks?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re learning from all of them. Arlington, I think, is the most

recent one. They keep coming. We have a model for success. We’re

learning from Auckland, so we’re seeing what can work.

Maybe I’ll get ahead of the member’s next question, which is: we

are right now engaging with local governments on how this could work. Of

course, we’ll have more to say after some of that engagement

happens.

The main point here is that we have to find a way for it to work.

Again, I appreciate that for some, that may be a challenge. When we

announced this policy, I had someone in my community say to me: “We’ve

got a good working-class community. It’s been this way for 30-something

years, and I don’t want to see it change.” My response to them was: “The

community has changed. The building structures may not be changing, but

who can live in them is changing.”

We want to make sure healthy communities are ones where there are

kids. Right now young families can’t afford, when a single-family home

comes down, to buy a single-family home. Our goal here is to ensure

there are options — that those that want to have a single-family home

have their option, and that for those young families who want to come

together, a couple of them perhaps, and build something that can be

separated for them, those options are there for them as well.

[2:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Oregon bases their model on city size. Will that be any

consideration in terms of what we’re doing here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We certainly will be learning from other jurisdictions and seeing

what they’re doing. As we engage with local governments, we’ll have a

better sense of exactly how that will work. Of course, we’ll share that

more publicly then.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister smiled when he asked that question. I believe the

previous answer was, “We’re learning,” and then I asked a specific

question about something that we were doing.

It concerns me though — perhaps I’m misunderstanding this — that

this is a significant policy change that has been publicly announced. Am

I understanding that the specifics are still not determined? So this is

still a policy in process of being developed right now, and as you’re

learning from other communities, do we not have a final drafted policy

on how this upzoning is going to work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If we had a final policy, we would have been introducing it and

debating it in this House. There’s always a debate whether, as in this

instance, we should just do legislation, and then communities are

surprised because we’ve announced legislation, or whether we should

signal our intent and then engage them on how that will work.

We decided that we were going to signal our intent and engage with

them, on the understanding that we want to make sure that this type of

housing works. That engagement is happening. UBCM is a good partner.

We’re also hearing from communities directly.

K. Kirkpatrick: So to clarify, because I have a lot of questions here that I’d

like to ask the minister on specifics that people have provided to me

from different….

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yes. We can do that now, and then I can start.

May we take a break at this point, Madam Chair?

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute break.

The committee recessed from 2:47 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for moving us along.

My question I was posing to the minister prior to the break — just

trying to get my head around this — is that there was an announcement

about a provincial upzoning plan to move single-family lots to fourplex

lots. My hope here was to ask some specific questions about how that’s

going to work.

I’m hearing that that is still…. It was an announcement that has

now gone into consultation with communities, so there are no specifics

yet, at this point, about how that’s going to work, where it’s going to

be implemented. Is it fourplexes? Is that going to be based on the

different communities? Can I just clarify? There are no details at this

point.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we have signalled that we believe that larger lots will be

able to go up to four units, and some smaller ones will be able to go up

to three. I hope the member will appreciate that it’s a big province;

lots of different perspectives on how this could work in their

communities.

So that’s the conversation we’re having right now: how do we get

to yes? There are a million reasons to say no to housing. We hear them,

unfortunately, too much. What we’re saying is: how do we get to a place

where we can say yes to get more housing online, so that we have that

housing for not only the people now but our future

generations?

The policy work is happening. I appreciate the member will

probably ask this question in different ways, because she’s doing her

job. But I can just share that at this point, we are doing a lot of

engagement with local governments on how we can ensure that this type of

housing can be built in communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am not going to ask specific questions on this. I remain

somewhat perplexed on this having sounded like an announcement that had

a policy attached to it, and it is a consultation. I may, once I kind of

get my head around that, come back to some more questions on this, but

at this point, I’m just going to move along.

To the minister…. Actually, I just want to check with a colleague.

I’m going to just…. I’ll ask one more and then — okay.

The NDP are going to be providing forgivable loans for those who

are wanting to put secondary suites in their homes for, I believe, up to

50 percent of the cost of the construction. Would the minister expect

homeowners to prefer this option over a less restrictive type of

financing, such as the home equity line of credit?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question on this topic. Again, it goes

to one of the core pieces, which is that we want to get more supply

online, all types of supply, and we’re willing to be innovative to try

new ways to get it.

Certainly, I’ve heard from people in my community who say: “I’m

property-rich but cash-poor. I don’t have the dollars to be able to

renovate, or bring up to code, my rental suite. If I did, I would

consider it.” I’ve heard that from a lot of seniors. The member is

right: some folks could take a loan against their property. That is one

way to do it, certainly. But the program we’re offering here is up to 50

percent loan from the government, which, over time, becomes zero if they

rent a property at a lower rate than market.

It’s a win for the homeowner, because they’re able to leverage

some B.C. dollars to be able to get the access to capital to build the

unit. It’s a win for the person or the family that will go in and rent

it, because they’ll get below-market rates. And over time, it will pay

itself off. But it just, again, reflects our desire, part of the

strategy, to find as many solutions as we can.

We expect around 3,000 units will initially go through the program

in this way. It’s hard — hopefully, I’m not going ahead of the next

question — to say exactly how many units, because it’ll depend on the

community. We’ve said up to $40,000. In some communities, it will be

less; in some communities, it will be more. In some communities, the

rent will be higher. Those are details we’re working out. We’ll have

more information — certainly for the member, for the community, for

people that are interested — this fall.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I was involved in a

project a number of years ago. It was an interesting approach to

providing something that’s actually not dissimilar to what we’re talking

about here.

[3:00 p.m.]

It was townhomes. I believe it was in Abbotsford. The townhomes

were being given, by one of the credit unions, a preferred mortgage

rate, but based on a lower unit being set aside specifically as an

affordable rental unit. There was a lot of management of this process.

There had to be a charge on the property. There were a lot of covenants

and undertakings.

A question around this is there’s a complexity here for

monitoring, so if there is a forgivable loan to a homeowner, how do we

ensure that we don’t have Airbnbs in there, that, you know, it goes

unrented or it’s rented only for a short period of time and then it’s

vacant again? And meanwhile, the homeowners are at the expense,

potentially, of government having an increased value in their

home.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for that. I have similar concerns.

And, you know, we want to ensure that the intention of this proposal is

good, and we want to ensure that the intention of those who access it do

so in a good way. But there are always a few bad apples out there that

find ways to try to get around the system. And we know that across any

program that any government puts forward.

So that’s some of the work that’s happening right now. We’re

looking at exactly the pieces you’ve highlighted. How do we ensure that

we’re able to follow up and check on the units and people staying in

those units are part of the original agreement? How do we ensure that

there’s accountability in that process over the, say, five years that

that loan will be in place and slowly scaling down?

So that exactly is what we’re doing right now — that policy work

to make sure that those protections are in place for this program.

Again, that’s also why we’re starting with a smaller scale. I mean,

3,000 isn’t a massive number. But we know this is innovative. We know

this is new, so part of that…. We want to see what works, learn. We’ll

make adjustments as we go.

But the points the member raises are the very points that the team

is, right now, going through to make sure that we have the policy pieces

in place to address that.

D. Clovechok: I just want to say thank you to my colleague, the critic here, and

to the minister and his staff. I’ve got a couple of regional questions

that I’m going to throw by you.

To give you a bit of a narrative building up to those questions.

Whether it be in business or in government, action creates reaction, and

with that, comes unforeseen changes or unforeseen consequences to some

extent. That’s what I really want to talk about in the next little bit,

and the questions will be centred around that.

When the Residential Tenancy Act came into play…. And just to give

you a bit of a background, I come from a riding that’s as big as the

country of Switzerland, with multiple small communities. The biggest

communities I have are 8,000 people, mostly, and lots of rural folk as

well.

[3:05 p.m.]

But our population grows in the Columbia Valley, as an example,

between 30,000 and 40,000 people between May and October because of

tourism.

When the Residential Tenancy Act was brought in, it was brought in

— certainly, understand that I’m a landlord, and I make sure that my

tenants are well looked after, because they take care of me — to protect

tenants, and rightfully so, because there are some bad apples. I’m glad

to see that the minister is using: “How do we get to yes?” I remember

Christy Clark used to say that all the time.

In any event, one of the consequences that has come about because

of the Residential Tenancy Act is landlords feel that their rights are

not being protected. As a result of that feeling, they have gotten out

of the rental business. When those leases expired, they didn’t renew

them, or they sold the houses to other people who have now turned them

into Airbnbs.

Housing is based upon supply and demand. When you take any supply

out of the market, that market drops. As a result of that, in the areas

that I live in and represent, whether it’s from Revelstoke, Golden,

Invermere, all the way down to Kimberley, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in

Airbnbs that used to be in rental stock. It’s taken that rental stock

away from people who desperately need housing. It certainly is making it

a lot more difficult for business owners to find places for their

employees to live.

With that kind of set…. Also, with these Airbnbs, it has really

changed the complexity and the dynamics of the neighbourhoods. As a

matter of fact, Fairmont Hot Springs — I just live south of there — has

one of the highest Airbnbs anywhere in British Columbia. It’s changed

the dynamics of those neighbourhoods, where it used to be that you’d

wave at your neighbour as you’re driving by. Well, now it’s not that way

anymore.

I guess the first question I would have is: do you have a strategy

that would deal with the continual growth of these Airbnbs that are

taking that stock out of the market? Because people who need to have

rental homes are not getting them, because they’re being turned into

Airbnbs.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s nice to be getting a question from the member across the way.

I was smiling at you because my dad passed away a few years ago, and he

used to have the very same saying that you just used, which is: “For

every action, there’s a reaction.” So it brought a smile on my face.

Thank you for that.

Certainly, yeah, the member lives in one of the most beautiful

parts of the province, and I can see the demand for tourism, in

particular, in that region. The type of scenario that the member raised

is a good one. I think it’s an accurate one and something that we’ve put

a lot of thought into with the housing strategy.

There are a couple of parts to it. One is around…. Of course, the

changes we make are to protect the landlords and renters. But we know in

some cases, there are renters who choose not to pay rent knowing that

the RTB wait times are long. Then often what happens is that it waits

for four or five months for a decision, and then the landlord is out

money in the meantime. It discourages some people from getting back into

being a landlord, and we need every unit possible.

Part of that is reflected in the increased investment that we made

in the RTB. We announced it in December, but it was in the housing

strategy — $15.6 million over three years. That’s a 40 percent increase

in staff. And why that’s important is that our goal is to do two

things.

[3:10 p.m.]

One is to shorten the time of decisions, shorten the time that

people have to wait before they can get the information they want. That

comes from more people. But it also comes from reform of the

system.

That work is happening. I shared with the member that some of the

wait times have started dropping because of that investment. About 50

percent, I believe, of the staff that we have money allocated for are

hired. As that goes, we will continue lower. So our hope is that by that

investment, we’ll start getting decisions faster so that there’s less

uncertainty for longer, which hopefully brings more predictability for

landlords. Certainly we’re hoping it creates more certainty for tenants

as well. As you highlighted, it can sometimes be a bad landlord. It can

sometimes be a bad tenant.

One of the other things that we’re looking at, and the team

started doing, is that we have a compliance enforcement unit, which now

can be proactive. Because, before, everyone was so busy trying to deal

with all the files coming, so it was hard to be proactive. We created

this new unit as part of the funding.

What they’re able to do is that they’re able to say: “Okay, we

know that when rent is not being paid, overwhelmingly, when the

adjudication happens, it tends to go in the favour of the landlord,

because it’s pretty straightforward. You haven’t paid the rent, and it’s

part of the contract.” What the team has been starting to do now is

proactively call when those cases come early so that the tenant can

understand that this is the process. This is what you need to do. We’re

starting to see some success where those issues are being dealt with

quicker as opposed to having to go through the full process.

I would say that it’s a very small percentage of people who used

the length of the wait times in their favour. Certainly, we know that if

that discourages anyone from a suite, that is bad for the community.

It’s bad for us as a province given the numbers we have.

Now the second part of the member’s question, again, is a good

one. When the short-term rental conversation came up many years ago, I

recall local government leaders saying: “You know what? This is going to

be important for tourism in our community.” That was a big piece that I

heard all the time.

The conversation has shifted. There are now more communities that

are tourism-dependent coming to us and saying: “It’s gone too much. It’s

gone too far. We don’t have, now, housing to have our tourism operators

continue to operate.” So there’s got to be a better way. We need some

tools to be able to better enforce rules, bylaws and regulations that we

brought in place. That is something that’s in the housing strategy on

page 27. I won’t read it into the record. The member can just look it

up. If he wants, I can.

But the idea is for us to find ways to not only ensure that local

governments have better tools to enforce but also find ways to get more

of that housing stock back into the housing market, because we know that

we desperately need it. I appreciate the member’s question, because too

often this conversation becomes Vancouver. But it’s a reminder for those

that are watching that this is a challenge faced by communities

throughout the province, especially communities that are stunningly

beautiful, because they’re seeing that impact more than

others.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much for that answer, Minister. It’s refreshing to

hear. Your father, although I wish you condolences on the loss, must

have been a wise man.

I think you answered this next question for me. But one of the

concerns that I hear from my municipal governments and my regional

governments from the regional directors and the municipal mayors is that

they’re responsible for the enforcement of this whole process, whether

it be Revelstoke, which has passed bylaws or Golden, which has done the

same. They’re doing different things to address the issue. But there’s a

lack of enforcement. They feel that it’s been downloaded on them by the

province. The province created this issue, yet they’re the ones that are

dealing with it around enforcement.

Certainly when you get a house that has a capacity of 14 people

and there’s a raging party going on, the RCMP doesn’t have time to

attend those kinds of calls given the things that they do and the small

detachments that we have. I’d just like to hear some solutions that the

minister might have about how the province is going to deal with helping

these municipalities deal with these issues, because they’re very real.

They just don’t have the ability to enforce. Which, of course, creates

even greater….

[3:15 p.m.]

The second part of that question is that I’d be really interested

to see if you have any strategies about how to incentivize these folks

that have gotten out of the long-term rental into the short-term rental

because they’re cash cows. They’re making way more money than they ever

would on a long-term rental. So what are we going to do to try to get

them back into the market?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for the question. He was a wise man,

and I guess that’s a quote that wise men use. I appreciate that. I

certainly hope that regional director is not giving you a hard time up

there because that would be problematic.

I concur with many of the things that the member raised around

concerns that were heard from local government. I’ve been hearing

similar ones. Actually, we provided some dollars to UBCM to do some of

this work just recently, and we heard similar things from the report

back from them.

We’re right now working on legislation and amendments to some of

our legislation, as part of the housing strategy, to ensure that the

platforms have more accountability as well as giving more tools to local

governments to mitigate the effects of short-term rentals. That’s some

of the work that we’re going to be working on that I’m hoping this fall

we’ll be able to have as part of the housing strategy.

The points you made are very similar to communities around the

province. We’re not the only ones also dealing with this challenge.

Communities throughout the world, in fact, but closer to home, around

North America — many of them are dealing with the same challenge. Again,

we’re learning from some of those jurisdictions.

What the member has highlighted is something that I’ve been

hearing more and more from communities and is reflected in the joint

established group that the UBCM and B.C. created. It was a UBCM advisory

group on short-term rentals that was co-chaired by us in the province

and Mayor Jack Crompton from Whistler.

D. Clovechok: I think it needs to be read into the record that there is a market

for Airbnbs and VRBOs in our communities. There’s no question about it.

It’s certainly an accommodation that people have required and have

acquired since the COVID thing was over, and it’s something that we

need. We don’t want to see them all go away.

But I’m just wondering from a municipal perspective. You talked

about… You’re looking at providing some tools. Are those tools still in

discovery stage, or do you have some examples of the types of tools that

you’ll be sharing in cooperation and collaboration with municipalities

that are being built to help offset the struggles that they’re

having?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re trying to get you the report, the what-we-heard report from

UBCM. I can’t get it for you now, but maybe I’ll send you the link. It’s

on the UBCM website, what they heard in those deliberations.

It’s really ensuring that there are regulatory frameworks in place

to hold the platforms to account, but also the important need for

sharing data. That’s one big thing we’ve heard from local governments is

that the lack of access to data to be able to identify where those units

are and then making sure that they’ve got, in some cases, business

licences and they’re paying the local fee that’s being paid — all those

things. So the data-sharing piece is a big thing.

Those are two things that I can share at this point. Again, closer

to the fall, we’ll be able to share more publicly additional

information.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for that. It’s encouraging.

Just one last thing I want to bring to your attention. You

probably already do know that, because this is such a lucrative market

where people are making an enormous amount of money, which…. I’m a

capitalist. I have no problem with that.

But we’re now seeing in communities that I represent purpose-built

houses that are for Airbnbs. We can’t regulate why people build houses,

but is there any thought given to how that’s going to continually affect

when someone is purposely building a house for an Airbnb knowing full

well that they’ll recover their costs very quickly?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you for the member to share that. Again, similar concerns

that I’ve heard from community. At this point, I can’t really give, I

guess, a clear answer to the member about that challenge.

I can say that I’ve met with a lot of folks who are in the hotel

business, for example, who say: “How is it fair that we’re paying X, Y,

Z taxes to operate this hotel, yet X, Y, Z company basically makes their

own hotel, but it’s just on residential land.”

There’s a real unfairness, I think, there that we have to navigate

and find a solution for, because we’re going to get more tourism in the

future. If we’re not going to be able to get the investments in that

type of accommodation, the hotel-type of accommodation, because they’re

worried their investment won’t be viable when it’s built, what we’re

going to only see is an encouragement of more of our housing stock going

into that space, which will make our challenge greater. I only say that

because I think the member, who has spent so much of his life in the

tourism industry as well, will fully understand this

challenge.

Just to share with you that we’re very aware of that challenge

right now, and certainly, I’ve been hearing that in communities as I’ve

been travelling. Part of that feedback will be part of the deliberations

we have on the policies we bring forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to follow the thread on Airbnb.

There was an NDP briefing note talking about some of the

challenges that may come along with the forgivable loans and the

secondary suites.

[3:25 p.m.]

It cites higher profitability of Airbnb’s may be a barrier to the

program. So how does the program…? The program I’m referring to is the

forgivable loans on the secondary suites. How has that been taken into

consideration, or does that go back to what we were speaking about

earlier, which is the measures and tests and various things that have to

go along with this policy to make sure the suites are being used

appropriately?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think part of the answer…. I’m not sure which report or document

the member is referring to, so I can’t comment on the document

specifically, unless the member wants to share it, and then I certainly

can. But I get the essence of the question. It’s similar to our

colleague across the way who asked the previous question.

I think part of that is going to be when we look at short-term

rentals. The work that we’re going to do is to ensure that good data is

being made available, both to us and to local governments. If we can get

that data, that will help us, I think, better monitor any programs,

whether it’s this program or other programs, as we go forward. That’s

why the pieces are part of the strategy. They all kind of connect with

each other.

As I said earlier, I think that there are always going to be

people that try to find ways through systems, but we are trying to think

through all those pieces in advance before the policy comes

out.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yeah, it is complicated. The briefing note…. I began reading my

questions backwards, because I was trying to tag onto my colleague. A

government briefing note on “Accessory Dwelling Units” was the briefing

note. In this, it highlights that capital gains taxes may be a barrier

to accessing the secondary suite program. Does the minister think that

that is a concern?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve been going back and forth so fast. This one was a little

longer. We’re just trying to get the document the member referred to. I

will say that certainly, anyone that is wanting to participate in that

program will have to do their own due diligence to see if it makes sense

for them to do so to advance in this. Of course, it’ll depend on when

someone sells a unit and depends on what their views are, if they want

the cash flow.

Again, I use the example of the seniors in my community that

raised it with me. The ability to have cash flow for the next many years

is appealing to some, but it may be a concern for some and may

discourage some from participating. But again, the challenge is so great

that we are trying something innovative here. So far, we’ve heard a lot

of interest, people wanting to find out when this is going to open up

and when they can apply, which is a promising sign. But of course, we’re

going to always encourage anyone that wants to participate to do so with

the best information available to them.

I. Paton: I think the minister has been to Ladner a few times over the

years. As you drive into the town of Ladner on Ladner Trunk Road, on the

right hand side, you will see a 7-Eleven, an Esso station, lots of

really nice townhomes and some condominium complexes, and then you come

to a disgusting facility called the Ladner Willows. The Ladner Willows

is a 40-unit complex I believe owned by B.C. Housing and managed by Red

Door Housing. The address is 5625 Ladner Trunk Road.

Now, this complex, which is managed by Red Door Housing, was only

built in 1988, so it’s certainly not a very old complex, but it was run

down and let go by the management, with mould and leaky plumbing. It’s a

complete disaster. Out of 40 units, we now have only, I think, seven or

eight units that are actually occupied by low-income people —

income-based. As you drive by, you’ll see boarded-up windows of plywood

on this Ladner Willows facility.

The Red Door Housing Society has put forward a redevelopment plan

to the city of Delta, but it’s all at a standstill. Nobody knows what’s

going on with this Ladner Willows project. It’s disgusting. It’s boarded

up. All but eight of the units, I think, are boarded up. As you drive by

on Ladner Trunk Road, you look at particle board or plywood on the

windows of this project. My question to the minister: what is happening

with the Ladner Willows project and its redevelopment or possible

destruction moving forward?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would agree with the member that that particular site is a

challenge.

It’s important to note that that site is owned by the Red Door

society, not by B.C. Housing. We are in the…. They’re in the initiated

phase of their application. B.C. Housing has been trying to work with

the provider to ensure that they have what’s needed to be able to,

hopefully, get approval, but they’re not there yet. So I can say to the

member that the team here will get us more information, and I commit to

a follow-up with the member.

I. Paton: One more — perhaps a statement and then a question on this issue,

and then we can move on.

[3:45 p.m.]

From the Ladner Optimist newspaper…. There’s

article

after

article if you google Ladner Willows. From the June 29, 2022,

Ladner Optimist newspaper:

“…tenant angrily accused the management of Red Door Housing Society

of bullying as well as badly neglecting the complex, saying B.C. Housing

had to be pressured to undertake mould remediation.… Saying other

options should be considered, another area resident said Red Door

Housing needs to be held accountable for the deterioration of Ladner

Willows and the treatment of tenants. Another irate speaker said the

current building is ‘disgusting and deplorable and this shouldn’t be

allowed to happen again.’”

Finally, “Red Door Housing has a long ways to go to repair its

reputation,” as one of the gentlemen said.

I guess my final question is…. We have a shortage of housing for

people that go to a cold weather shelter, and we have many, many units

that are boarded up. And it was only built in 1988. So my question is:

couldn’t we go in and remediate some of these units, so rather than

sending people to lie on a small cot at the cold weather shelter in

Ladner, some of these units could be used for people that need temporary

housing, rather than going to the cold weather shelter?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I appreciate the member highlighting the concerns in the

local paper. I think the member may not know…. I’ll just share with the

member that Red Door Society took a proposal to council last summer. It

was rejected by council, not because of the project but because of

concerns about Red Door Society. So that probably reflects the comments

that, maybe, some of those folks in the paper made. When that didn’t

proceed, B.C. Housing has been in conversation with the Red Door Society

as, again, they own the land.

I appreciate the member suggesting that we could just swoop in and

take some action on it. We do that when we own the building. It’s a

little bit more complicated when we don’t. That being said, there are

conversations happening. When I have a little bit more information, I

will share with the member. But I really appreciate him raising concerns

from the community in this forum.

K. Kirkpatrick: There was a pledge made by this government to spend $394 million

to purchase land near transit. There was only $83 million allocated in

the current budget. How many sites have been identified at this point

for purchase this year?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The funding is in MOTI, so they’ll be better positioned to answer

the member’s questions.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister, perhaps, just walk me through this or explain

this to me? The money is in MOTI because of where the land is being

purchased, regardless…. So does the minister…? If we’re going to ask

questions about how many units will be constructed using this funding,

that kind of thing, are those not a questions for the Minister of

Housing?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation was passed a couple of years ago — or it was last

year; I can’t remember if it was last year or the year before — around

the ability to purchase land beyond what is necessarily just on the

transit location. This funding that has been allocated is an extension

of that.

So MOTI, now — either when they’re planning a SkyTrain extension

or in future planning — have the ability to buy land, in many cases,

before the market drives the value up. The funding is very much in MOTI

and, I understand, is their investment. So it might be that some

questions are better posed to them about the sites, locations and how

they see the money being spent.

K. Kirkpatrick: A question, then, for the minister…. The $83 million, I believe,

was allocated in the minister’s housing budget, and this is referred to

in the housing plan. Just clarifying: is it not in the minister’s

budget, and is this not part of the housing plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a few things that are within the plan and that reside in

other ministries. This program is one of them: to purchase land. We’re

working very closely with MOTI. You’ll see in part of the housing

strategy that we project about 3,000 units that we’ll be able to build

through acquiring land, through that.

Questions about where the sites will be purchased are better

positioned for MOTI, because they have been doing a lot of work on

purchasing land for transit. They’ve now got the expertise on where the

transit stations may come, and part of that gives them insights on where

the ideal opportunities for housing will be. So their team is leading

that work.

Our ministry is working very closely with them on it, but for the

detailed questions the member wants to ask about, MOTI will be better

positioned to answer that.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister just answered, I believe, one of the questions that I

was going to ask, which was on the 3,000 units, if that was the response

to how many housing units will be constructed using this funding. Oh,

that was this year, so that is not going to be the answer.

I will just test that I understand this, and I will ask the

minister one or two of the specific questions. If at that point the

determination is made that it’s best at MOTI, then I will ask in those

estimates.

The plan mentions a ten- to 15-year timeline. This is the housing

plan, the construction time frame. This isn’t about where these are

being built, but how many units, under this plan, will be operational

before the next election?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wish that, with the money in this year’s budget, we’d have 3,000

next year. That’s my wish. I don’t know if anybody here can help me with

that, but as the member knows, we’re going to have to purchase land and

then go through the process to build them.

If the member is asking about the next election — which will be

next fall, as per the Premier’s commitment — I can’t share that exact

number, because the idea that we’d have a lot of units built on a new

program next year would be very unrealistic. I can share with the member

that we expect 3,000 to be complete by 2027-2028.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am going to move to another topic, but I will ask the minister

for his indulgence if I come back to this. I do have to give some

thought to how that works within the minister’s portfolio.

I’m going to ask some questions with respect to B.C. Builds. The

B.C. Builds program has still not been released. Can the minister

confirm that Lisa Helps’s contract is for the purpose of designing the

B.C. Builds program? Or does it include additional other

work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm that Ms. Helps is

on a six-month contract. Obviously, she has significant on-the-ground

experience for bringing affordable housing projects to communities. Her

eight years of experience as mayor, I think, will serve her well in the

work she has been doing.

I’m very excited about what B.C. Builds can be for the future. I

think that B.C. Builds has the potential to build truly affordable

housing for the middle class. Some of the work that’s happening right

now, Ms. Helps is doing. She’s been actively engaging with local

government leaders, the private sector, not-for-profits, talking to them

about the opportunities about how we can build housing in a much faster

way.

There’s work being done right now on establishing a central

database that brings together land — whether that’s provincial, local

government, school board, federal and Crown corporations — so that we

have an inventory of lands. There’s a whole host of work happening right

now. Certainly, we’ll be excited to be able to share B.C. Builds with

the public this fall.

K. Kirkpatrick: What’s the hourly rate of this contract?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The cost for the six-month contract is $80,000.

K. Kirkpatrick: When will B.C. Builds be fully disclosed and public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Our goal is to make it public this fall. As the member can see in

our housing strategy, we’ve got a very ambitious goal, an ambitious

agenda of housing-related policies that will be coming this fall. I’m

optimistic that it will be fall.

[4:00 p.m.]

I do want to give a little bit of a grace period if it requires us

to launch early in the new year. I’m certainly hoping that, before the

next budget, this will be public, and the public will be able to see

where we’re going with building affordable housing for the middle

class.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will this be a redesign of an existing housing program? Will it

replace current funds, or is it going to be in addition to

them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, work is ongoing right now. If I had those answers, I’d be

announcing this B.C. Builds right now. But some of that work is

happening. Ms. Helps is doing some of that work. We’ve got some folks

within our ministry that are working with her. When we have all that

information as well as other information the member may ask, we will

certainly be making that public.

K. Kirkpatrick: There are a lot of questions I’m asking the minister today that

are not being answered because things aren’t completed, and they’re in

process. It’s difficult when some of these things are laid out in the

housing strategy and laid out in the budget, and then there are not

details on things.

The minister had already suggested that this program will use

government land. I understand the minister is saying that the whole cake

isn’t baked yet at this point. But can the minister confirm what lands,

if lands have been identified for development?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When we have all the information ready, we will make it public. As

the member will know, and I’ve just said earlier, an inventory is being

put together right now. Then there will be assessments of those parcels

to see which ones makes the most sense, which parcels makes the most

sense, and what are the most viable. So I can’t share at this point any

specific site because I don’t have that information.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

With the assistance of those who know more than I do here, I would

just like to go back on the hourly rate of the contract for Lisa Helps.

Will the minister confirm that that’s a $250-an-hour hourly

rate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm for the member that it’s an $80,000

contract.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will now move on to…. Actually, I do have a question. Back to a

table that the minister and staff had looked at the beginning of

yesterday from the budget. It’s table 1.2.2: “Investing in affordable

attainable housing.” The question that I have on there…. I know it takes

a few moments for the minister to get this information. There is a line

in that budget, and that’s that this is a budget that, presumably, is

directed and controlled by the Minister of Housing and is accessed by

B.C. Housing.

The transit-oriented development — there is a number this year for

$83 million. Can the minister please account for what that money is

going to be spent on this year?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member, I assume, is referring to the line that says

transit-oriented development. It’s $83 million, $133 million, $178

million, to total $394 million. That money is going towards buying land

for attainable and affordable housing, but that line is with the

Ministry of Transportation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. I just really

wanted to make sure I understood that because of where it’s actually

sitting in the budget.

I would like to ask some questions now on Bill 44 and the strata

age restrictions. As you know, when that bill was being debated in this

House and when it was in committee stage, the previous critic for

Housing asked the previous Minister of Housing quite specifically about

a concern that the implementation of the removal across all stratas of

rental restrictions may create a run on strata developments actually

applying to be designated as 55-plus.

We were told by the minister at that point that it was highly

unlikely that that was going to be an issue. Yet it appears that it is a

significant issue right now. Can the minister admit that government

didn’t get it right on this strata legislation change and that it could

have been done in a better way?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not directly part of the budget, but we can have a conversation

about this.

[4:10 p.m.]

I will share with the member that I think the legislation that was

brought forward and passed did what it was supposed to, which was to

make more units available to people. That’s, in fact, what it has

done.

I personally have spoken to people who have told me that they were

now able to have a roommate in their complex. I’ve personally talked to

people who said: “I was having to pay the speculation and vacancy tax,

because I had no choice, but now I don’t have to.” I think that the

policy helped create more spaces. That’s ultimately what we want to

do.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate that this is not necessarily a budget item. But I

also understand that estimates can take a broader tack, because they are

all about what government is doing in terms of planning and moving

forward. The questions are appropriate in that respect.

Tony Gioventu from CHOA, as I’m sure the minister knows, within

six weeks of Bill 44 being in place, said that there are over 100

buildings now who’ve amended their bylaws to be 55 and over. It’s

happening across the province. That was two months ago, now, already.

Does the minister know at this point how many strata units and stratas —

those are two different numbers — have changed to 55-plus since royal

assent to Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that there are approxi­mately

33,000 stratas in B.C. A rough estimate is that around 230 of them went

to 55-plus, out of the 33,000. I think it’s important, and I’ve heard

from some stratas that did go in that direction, that they realized

after that by going 55-plus, it didn’t mean that they could limit

rentals. People who are 55-plus rent.

[4:15 p.m.]

Those spaces will still be available. Even though we’ve seen some

move in that direction, they’re still being able to create rental spaces

for people who are 55-plus. They’ll still serve a need of a population

that we know has a need, as we canvassed yesterday. It’s a growing

population.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe that the minister is significantly underestimating the

impact that this is going to have and is having for rental availability

for young people and for ownership for young people. When I say young

people, I go all the way up to 55. Many people in this room are going to

be impacted by an inability to not just rent in these buildings but an

inability to now purchase more affordable housing in buildings like

this.

Could the minister clarify for me: of the 200-plus — and I’m

sorry, I didn’t get the exact number — strata corporations that have

applied for the 55-plus designation, how many actual units does that

represent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, 33,000 stratas. An estimated 230 of them moved to 55-plus.

I think we’ve had this exchange in question period, so I hope the member

doesn’t mind me saying the same thing I did at that time, which is that

surely they’re not suggesting we not allow units to be 55-plus. It was

recommended to us by the seniors advocate to ensure that seniors still

had a place available for them. I’ve shared the number with the member

on the stratas. I can’t give an exact number of the units, but 230 out

of 33,000.

K. Kirkpatrick: I hope this is not being spun, because it sounds like there is

perhaps a misunderstanding. The questions in question period and the

questions I’m asking here today are in no way, shape or form a

suggestion there would be a removal of the 55-plus restriction in

buildings. It is recognizing, however, that there were likely thousands

of units in buildings that were not previously 55-plus buildings. Now,

because of a direct result of this legislation coming in, whether the

minister believes that, for whatever reason — good, bad, whatever —

these strata corporations chose to now become 55-plus, this has removed

thousands of units from the market for young people.

When the minister…. And this has now been downgraded even in the

budget, in the service plan. Originally, this scheme under Bill 44 was

meant to release 2,900 units back into the rental market. An estimate is

now 2,000 back into the rental market. I say that that 2,000 means

absolutely nothing. That number is completely irrelevant if the minister

does not know how many units have been lost at the same time as these

potential 2,000 have come back onto the market.

I will just clarify that this was the answer to my question: 230

strata corporations have now become 55-plus. Some of those strata

corporations could have 100 units. Some of those strata corporations

could have ten units. We don’t know. If we do not know the total number

of units that have now reclassified as 55-plus, then this minister and

the ministry do not know what the net outcome is of this Bill 44. My

belief is that this Bill 44 has resulted in less rentals available for

average people to be able to access.

Can the minister confirm that he does not know the actual impact

of rentals on the market because of Bill 44?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would remind the member that people that are 55-plus can also be

average people. I can confirm for the member that zero rental spaces

were lost, because buildings that went to 55-plus can still have rentals

for people 55-plus. So I’ll go back to my earlier comment. Surely the

member is not suggesting that we remove the 55-plus. If that’s the case,

that’s fine, but the policy we brought in said you’re allowed rentals in

all buildings.

Now the ones that go 55-plus must rent to 55-plus, but there’s a

need there. The member knows that. We talked about this at great length.

Aging population. We know the need is great there, but we know by

changing that policy we had units that were sitting empty that now will

be available for someone to rent.

So I’m not quite sure where the member is going, but I’ll repeat

the answers to the question that the member had earlier, which is

approximately 230 units moved to 55-plus from 33,000. I can confirm for

the member that zero is the number for how many rental spaces are

lost.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe the minister and I are at cross purposes here, either

not understanding, but we’re not on the same page with this. I would

just like to confirm a number that the minister just said. I think there

was a misspeak or I misunderstood. The number 230 refers to the number

of strata corporations. It doesn’t refer to the number of condominium

units.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s correct. So 230 strata have moved to 55-plus out of the

33,000. Again, I’ll also confirm that zero rentals have been lost,

because those that moved to 55-plus will have to rent to 55-plus. Again,

there is a need there.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for clarifying that. So 230 strata corporations. We

don’t know what that represents in terms of unit numbers. The

miscommunication here between the minister and I…. I’m going to just try

because clearly I’m not articulating this clearly enough

then.

The issue is not the number of rentals. The issue is access to

most British Columbians. There may be a rental that existed previously,

and that rental still exists today, but it is now limited in terms of

who has access to that rental. That rental may still be a rental unit,

but if you want to kind of break this down and say how many rental units

for a 35-year-old have been lost, perhaps that’s the better

question.

So I will put that to the minister then. Do we know how many units

previously which could be rented by a 35-year-old now are no longer able

to be rented by a 35-year-old because a building has moved to the

55-plus as a direct result of Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I hear advocacy for getting rid of 55-plus. I hear that

55-plus is a limit to young families. Maybe we’re coming from different

planets here on this exchange and maybe this is not going to go any

further, but I can just share with the member, again, what I’ve said on

multiple occasions, which is 230 strata corporations moved in this

direction — 33,000 in the province. Zero rental units will be lost

because now those that move to 55-plus will have to rent and cannot

block rentals for people who are 55-plus.

[4:25 p.m.]

The need is great. We certainly know that there’s a lot of people

who are 55-plus who will want to rent. Again, the member can maybe

clarify if the suggestion here is that the 55-plus should be

removed.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have said on multiple occasions, I do not believe there is an

issue with having the ability to limit it to 5-plus. That is not what

I’m talking about here.

I am talking about the impact of poorly thought-out legislation:

Bill 44. The result is that the 55-plus, which…. I don’t believe it is a

loophole, but it has been used out of fear by many strata corporations,

because there was such surprise when Bill 44 came in. There was not

consultation with CHOA or other folks that are going to be impacted by

this.

The issue, for complete clarity, is, I believe, that there needs

to be the ability for a limit of 55-plus, the age limit, to be on strata

corporations. However, that was a very organic and natural kind of

process previously. The number of these 55-plus buildings had been

consistent and steady for years and years and years. It is only now that

there has been this explosion of designations of 55-plus, and this comes

as a direct result of Bill 44.

I’m very concerned that the minister is not recognizing, or aware,

that the damage done for the ability of someone under 55 to have access

to a rental…. It has actually done much more damage taking units away as

rental opportunities for younger people than it has put units back into

the market.

I’m anticipating that the minister will stand up again and say

that I don’t like 55-plus, and is that what I’m suggesting we get rid

of? I’m hoping that the minister can get up and say: “I understand what

you’re talking about, and yes, there are now fewer rentals on the market

available for young people to rent.”

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, you know, the member is saying: “Just agree with me. I’m

right.” I’m saying I don’t agree with the member. I mean, we can go back

and forth. I just don’t agree with the assertion that’s being

made.

The suggestion that there was an explosion…. I’m saying 230 out of

33,000. Stratas have the ability to go to 55-plus, and 230 strata corps

went in that direction. But rental units are not being lost. Rental

units are still available in those buildings. That was the purpose: to

say that you cannot preclude people from renting.

I guess we’ve got another nine hours, or whatever it is. We can

keep doing this for as long as you like.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m not going to leave this alone. I am going to come back to it.

I just am going to give some thought to how I can better articulate

this, because I believe that the best of intentions on both sides here

are that we’re trying to kind of understand and work through this. I do

think that there is just a misconnect here on what, I believe, the

actual issue or outcome is.

Okay, I am going to….

One of the reasons that people are upset about the Bill 44 changes

is that there is a loss of control for strata councils over how they run

their community. Will the minister look at better ways for strata

councils to manage themselves without them simply converting to a

55-plus building?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will continue to work with strata corps to find ways to both

ensure that they can continue to operate in a good way and that there’s

a certainty in the rules.

Just in the last few weeks, I’ve been able to meet with numerous

organizations that represent strata members. We’ve had great

conversations about how we can work together as we go forward, and I’ll

continue to do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: One more question. Then I’m going to turn to my colleague

here.

There is, as the minister knows, a significant shortage of strata

managers in the province, and this is putting further stress on strata

corporations. What actions is the minister taking in order to address

the critical shortage of strata managers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that those who suggest that the changes are the reason

why there’s a shortage of property managers would be wrong. We know that

the industry has had a shortage of property managers which predates this

change. In fact, Chris Churchill, the president of FirstService

Residential, said the first alarm bell was really sounded around 2015.

So this is a challenge that has been going on for some time.

When I met with some of the strata organizations, we actually

discussed the challenges — the centralization of a lot of these services

to a handful of companies and a whole host of other reasons why there

are challenges. Training challenges around the limited amount of

coursework that they are doing when they are getting certified…. There’s

a whole host of things that we’re exploring with stakeholders on how we

can support them to see more property managers come on.

[4:35 p.m.]

E. Ross: Coachman Apartments in Terrace. I have an extensive history with

housing from my previous job as chief and council. So I understand the

issues related to substandard buildings and mould. Well, you name it. I

was quite shocked to actually walk through this building during the

Christmas holidays and to find the state of disrepair and the lack of

maintenance.

I do understand the complications surrounding the estate. From

what I can understand, the deceased owner was in the United States. We

have a number of people that have been living in this building, knowing

that they’re actually gambling with their health because of the mould,

some actually incredibly dangerous forms of mould, to boot. I understand

the minister has been up talking with the mayor about how to resolve

this and about the legal complications as well.

I’ll start with a very simple question. Can the minister tell me

how many residents are still living in the Coachman Apartments

today?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just getting the most up-to-date information. It will be a

couple more minutes.

The member from Saltspring Island asked a question earlier. I said

I would read into the record some numbers for him, and I’m going to do

that now. The question he had was around unit counts, so unit count info

from the Ministry of Finance.

In B.C. in 2021, there were 2,211,694 private dwellings, according

to the census. The definition of a dwelling is a set of living quarters

that has a private entrance. Any additional information I’ll provide to

him in person.

[4:40 p.m.]

The member is correct. It is a very challenging situation.

Certainly, I’ve never heard of a situation quite like this.

For the record, I think I can share with the people who are

viewing that maybe don’t have the background that this building wasn’t

in great condition. It was privately held. They had pipes freeze, and

then the building flooded. People were displaced when the situation

happened. Everyone tried to contact the owner, who had passed away at a

similar time.

What complicated the matter even more was…. Through our legal

advice, it is illegal for B.C. Housing to expropriate the property. If

the city would like to take possession, or seek possession of the

building, they could do so and then contract B.C. Housing for repairs.

But there were legal challenges, I think the mayor highlighted, for them

to even do that. Of course, we consulted our own legal advice on

that.

Now, the building is not in good shape. B.C. Housing staff have

been urging people not to stay there. It’s not livable.

[4:45 p.m.]

I can share with the member…. It’s hard to know an exact number

because it has been fluctuating. People have been going in. People have

been going out. The last I had heard, there were a couple of people in

there. It’s hard to know exactly how many there are today.

I can share that 12 households have secured more long-term

housing, so that’s positive, from the work B.C. Housing is doing. I can

share that we have about 19 households that are in hotels, which we’re

covering the costs for right now. We are actively looking at working

with the mayor and council to find other solutions that are more

permanent than the hotel, and we’re making some progress.

Once I can confirm where we’re at, I’ll certainly call the member

and share that news with him. A very, very challenging

situation.

E. Ross: It’d be nice to be in the loop. Ever since the story broke, I’ve

been out of the loop. I have no idea what’s happening.

I’m hearing a lot of stories about what might be taking place in

that building, including a citizen that took it upon himself to go in

and repair the plumbing. From what I can understand, he used a provision

within the RTA to actually do it on behalf of the residents and then

requested the city to turn the water back on since the plumbing was

fixed.

Now, I understand the legalities underneath that. I also

understand why these residents are so fearful. They didn’t even report

this because they were afraid of renovictions. They were afraid of a

landlord that would be vengeful. I understand why they didn’t report

that, and I understand why they don’t want to leave, especially when

we’re thinking about the discussion we have here in this Legislature

about a lack of affordable housing, a lack of affordable rents. Terrace

is no exception.

The minister mentioned getting legal advice. I can understand

that. I can understand that from the municipality’s perspective as

well.

I made a suggestion that, at some point, the province buy this

building from the estate. I was thinking that the province could have

some emergency powers, in the event of an emergency, especially when

we’re considering and talking about housing as a crisis in B.C. We’ve

got a number of residents here living in crisis mode.

Apart from purchasing the building…. I know that really can’t

happen under expropriation powers, as explained by the minister. But was

there any thought or investigation, legally, into the idea of placing

liens on this to get this building up to standard as quickly as

possible, to get the residents that are living there currently living in

better living standards and to get the people that have been displaced

back into their apartments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for the ideas. All ideas are welcome. I can

share with the member that we certainly explored both the ideas that he

suggested. The hotel is damaged to such a point…. I wish it was just the

plumbing that needed fixing. The water damage has put the building in a

really, really bad place.

The member suggested us going and buying it. The problem that we

have, at hand, is that when the owner died…. It’s taking us time to find

out who the heir is. It has to go through…. Anyone that wants to

challenge a will…. It has just added to the complication of even wanting

to buy the parcel.

I can share with the member that B.C. Housing acted quickly, not

only to be able to house 12 households in more permanent long-term

housing but to get hotel rooms so that people had that stability. We’re

working very hard right now to find more long-term solutions for

everybody that’s still displaced by that.

I can just assure the member that we’re literally working around

the clock to find a solution, and we’re making some progress. When I do

get that information, he’s got my commitment that I will reach out to

him and share with him the plan.

[4:50 p.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you for that. I understand the legalities, especially when

you talk about cross-border legalities in terms of the estate. But the

question was liens.

The mayor of Terrace already considered this question as well. I’m

not sure of the financial capability of the municipal council to

actually do something on their own without the province’s

support.

In an emergency situation and given the crisis prov­incewide

in terms of affordable rent and affordable housing, are there any

emergency powers that can be utilized by the province to exercise

placing liens on repairs — so the people living currently in this

apartment, in these substandard conditions, can actually look forward to

a healthier future living where they currently are — and to consider

this building to be a place for the people that have been displaced to

move back to, and also for affordable housing for more people living in

the Terrace area looking for affordable rent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We don’t have the legal authority to do that ourselves. What I did

share with the mayor was that if the city would like to seek possession

of the building, they could do so, and then B.C. Housing could go and do

the work, and go with maybe the lien option, but we don’t have the

power, the levers, to do that ourselves directly.

We advised the mayor and council that they themselves should get

legal advice, because they may not have the power either. In fact, it’s

highly likely that they don’t have the power, but we did advise them

that we’re willing to…. The issue wasn’t us putting dollars in to fix

the building. The issue was all the legal pieces around it to give us

the ability to even go and do it.

The mayor did raise that with me. What I advised the mayor at that

time was get your legal counsel, find out from your teams what is

possible, and if you think it’s possible for you to go and do so, then

let us know and we can find a solution. The fact that they haven’t come

back to us probably means that they don’t have the legal powers to do it

either.

I think that there are two questions here. I think the most

important — for the member asking the question, for myself and the mayor

— are the people who have been displaced. We were able to find housing

for a whole host of them. We’ve got the rest of them in a hotel for now,

and we are working actively on a longer-term solution for those folks. I

can assure the member that until we have another solution, those

families will still be able to stay at the hotel.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. Yeah, there’s a number of questions here.

Ultimately, I’m thinking the timeline in terms of any solution is

actually what I’m looking for here, especially for the people that

refused to leave this apartment.

Any First Nation leader across Canada can tell you what it’s like

to deal with mould. It’s a systemic problem for First Nations on

reserve. I’m quite shocked that given all the parties that are a part of

this issue in Terrace we can’t come up with one solution to actually fix

this one property. It’s an emergency situation. Combined with the

municipality’s powers, there’s got to be something that can be

done.

Even the fire chief has said that this is not suitable for living

and they won’t give their approval for anybody to actually live there

and move back in. Meanwhile, these families are living in this

apartment. These vulnerable people, seniors, are living in this

apartment, because they’re fearful they will not have a place to

go.

If they can be guaranteed a long-term solution to this, outside of

this apartment, I’m sure that they’d actually jump at the chance to get

out of this building. Nobody wants to see their health put at risk,

especially First Nations who fully understand what it means to breathe

in mould every day. I understand the legalities around the estate. I

understand that fully.

[4:55 p.m.]

In terms of the residents still living in this apartment, in

combination with the displaced people living outside the apartment, is

the idea or the goal to find long-term housing for these residents,

apart from a date given by the province that they’ll hold them in hotels

until March 19 or until they themselves can find new places to

live?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, the goal is to get them into a more stable, long-term

housing. I’ve shared with the member that we have been able to get 12

households into long-term housing already with the work we’re doing. The

solutions which are safer than that building right now are hotel rooms.

We’ve got people in hotel rooms. There’s a handful of people that keep

returning to the site, and we have spaces available for them. We’re

encouraging them to take it.

It’s two separate pieces. There are the people we’ve been able to

house in long-term housing, some. We’ve got people in hotels for the

short term, and we’re working actively on a solution for those that

don’t have long-term housing right now. Again, I’ll share with the

member when things are more final and I can share with the member, but

we’re working actively with the mayor on what that solution can look

like, a quicker solution.

Then there’s the question of the building. I appreciate the

member’s frustration that perhaps we can just go in and do something on

the building, but I also appreciate the member has highlighted that he

understands the legal challenges in doing so. I can just assure the

member that we’re thinking about the people, and the fact that we’ve put

those supports in place is to ensure that the supports are there. Those

few people that continue to go back, we’re encouraging them to take up

the hotel rooms, because it’s certainly safer than the condition that

that building now is in.

K. Kirkpatrick: Mass timber. I’ve always been a big fan of mass timber building.

I’ve seen just some amazing work done that way. I’m happy to see that

part of this government’s housing plan is to look at that. A question to

the minister: the mass timber action plan only commits to 2,300 new jobs

by 2035. What does this small number say about the prospects of

utilizing mass timber in housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Man, nine hours will fly quickly if we’re spending the next nine

hours on mass timber. I am just as enthusiastic about it as the member

across the way. I think there are a couple of important things to

highlight. One is that the mass timber action plan, although close to my

heart, is at JEDI, and they didn’t let me bring it over with me as much

as I wanted to. So questions about where the plan is to now would be

better directed to them.

I will say that my conversations with industry have shown that

more and more developers are showing interest in going this way. One

reason is around sustainability because they’re starting to hear more

and more from local governments that local governments are paying

attention to the materials that are being used in the construction

process.

It’s a win for local governments because they’re seeing less

disruption to local businesses because there’s less trucks coming in

because a lot of it’s prefabricated. There’s less noise, so less

complaints coming from residents that the site is loud. Third, and I

think just as important as the sustainability side of it, is the ability

to get some of these projects built in half the time than other products

being built because it’s prefabricated; it’s brought on site and has

been going up quickly.

[5:00 p.m.]

B.C. is leading North America in the amount of mass timber

projects that we have coming online. I believe I saw a stat that said

that B.C. has now more mass timber buildings built or under construction

than the rest of the provinces and the U.S. combined, so we are seeing

progress.

I can tell you that I’ve also heard from leaders in this space

that have advised me that more and more, because of supply chain

challenges, developers are choosing, even if there is an additional

green premium with a product from B.C., to choose B.C., because of

shortage of supply chains.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I’m very optimistic that we’ll continue to see advancements in

this space. The mass timber action plan is moving quite well. We also as

part of the strategy committed to looking at how we can enable more mass

timber buildings within the building code. Certainly, I think most

experts would share that there is a bias built into the way we build to

certain products as opposed to wood, so we are looking at that and

finding ways, with the National Research Council, to advance more safe

ways for us to use mass timber in construction.

The Chair: Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Welcome back to the chair.

There’s a lot of places we can go, but I promise the minister it

will not be nine hours on this. I apologize for that. We’ll try and find

something else that we can talk about for a longer period of

time.

What is the approximate dollar value per job that this government

is expending in subsidies for mass timber homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the questions around that will be better positioned for

JEDI, because the mass timber action plan is within them. We in our

ministry just look at building code specifics, so I don’t want to give a

specific number, although….

Yeah. I think it’s just better for them to answer, given that

they’ve got this inform