Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, July 9, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 6

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

J. Isaacs

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2020

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $120,978,000

(continued) .

The Chair: I’d like to start by recognizing that I’m participating today

from the traditional territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our

appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work

before us on this land.

S. Furstenau: I just have one last question to follow up on the theme we were on

before, the temporary rental supplement. I’m wondering if the minister

could give us some insight into the plans for when this program expires,

at the end of August. Those would be plans for supporting renters — and,

potentially, also landlords looking at challenges with their mortgage

payments.

That’s my final question.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question.

Just to remind everyone, when we brought in the temporary rent

supplement, we brought it in for a three-month period of time,

recognizing that none of us knew how long this COVID response was going

to last and what we needed to do to keep everyone safe.

Since that time, we’ve extended it another two months so that

people can continue to get the supports that they need. So for July and

August, the rent supplement is available, and people who needed it

extended didn’t have to reapply. We just allowed it to continue through,

recognizing that people still had considerable needs.

We’ve also said that the expectation is that people will continue

to be responsible for any rent arrears, that that was always part of our

plan, that this was just an aid to help people to get through the

difficulty.

The other thing that I think none of us knew, because this is so

unprecedented — and I double-checked numbers over the break — is that 86

percent of renters paid full rent. That, I think, is outstanding — the

commitment that people had to their landlord-tenant relationship and

making sure that they were keeping things whole. Twelve percent paid

partial rent, based on the data that we’ve been collecting, and just

about 3 percent or so — the numbers are rounded, of course — didn’t pay

any rent. So we know that for the most part, renters have been doing

their level best to keep their landlords whole.

We also committed, as we moved through this pandemic response, to

making sure that people have the time they need to make the appropriate

housing arrangements that meet their financial situations. We’re

monitoring exactly what that’s going to look like going forward, and

we’ll certainly have more to say about that in the coming

weeks.

T. Stone: I just wanted to finish off one or two quick questions on the HAFI

program, which I was canvassing with the minister just before lunch.

Again, I had asked a couple of times who actually made the decision to

close the HAFI program. I specifically want to know: did the provincial

health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, make that decision or make that

recommendation to government, or was it government that made the

decision to close the HAFI program?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: For the record, I want to make it really clear that we didn’t

close this program. We pressed the pause button.

Just like everyone else, like every other British Columbian, we

were listening to Dr. Henry’s advice to all British Columbians around

minimizing contact with other people and shrinking our exposure risks.

In order to do that, we made the decision that for now, this was not a

safe program to operate, so we pressed the pause button. I’m happy to

say that it’s been reactivated, because we now have criteria about how

to best proceed, given that we’re still in a COVID response.

T. Stone: I appreciate that. What I heard there was that it was the

government that made the decision, at the end of the day, based on the

broader perspective of the provincial health officer. I also think I

heard in the minister’s response that the program, while it was on

pause, has now been unpaused.

I just want to clarify, though, that when she says that, it means

that folks who had applications in to the program prior to the program

being paused…. Those applications are going to continue to be

considered. I believe she mentioned an extended deadline for the

consideration of those applications. So that’s question 1. I want to

make sure that that’s clear.

The second part of the question would be this: why not allow net

new applications for the program? I do understand…. The minister said

earlier that the program was scheduled for a review this spring. She

also said, in her answer earlier today, that that review is not expected

to be concluded until the fall. It would seem to me to be somewhat

unfair for quite a number of people that, because they missed getting an

application in before the program was paused, are now going to have to

wait many months to see if the program is even going to be maintained,

if it’s going to be kept.

Could the minister just explain what the rationale is for that

part of this? Why not allow applications to continue to come in and be

processed during this very difficult time for a program that provides a

really important service? It helps people stay mobile, particularly

seniors, through these retrofits that are done in their homes through

this program.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I agree completely with the member about the importance of this

program. It makes a difference for people, in terms of their ability to

continue living in their homes and having it meet their needs, which is

why we’ve provided an extension for those approved

applications.

We also, I think, have an obligation to review and refresh all

programs. This has been a planned review of this particular program,

making sure that it delivers exactly as it’s designed to deliver. That’s

the work that we’re undertaking. Anyone who is interested, I mean, they

can…. We’ll certainly continue to work with people as we have this

refresh program, which will become available, I hope, in the next number

of months.

T. Stone: Again, one final two-part question on this program. First off, the

minister keeps referencing the fall. Can she be more specific for all

those people out there who, through no fault of their own, didn’t get an

application in before the program was paused? They have real needs. Why

make them wait for three, four or five months if it can be less

time?

Assuming it’s an expedited review that the minister is

contemplating here, can she be a bit more specific around what she would

like to see as a time frame for the completion of this review, instead

of simply the fall? A little bit more specificity there would be much

appreciated, if possible.

Secondly — again, this will be my final question on the HAFI

program — the funding that we’re talking about here…. I’m just wondering

if the minister could provide me with the total dollars that were

expended in this program in the last fiscal year, so ’19-20, and what

was budgeted for this current fiscal year for the HAFI program, for

20-21.

[1:55 p.m.]

Now that we’ve confirmed that there’s a pause on the program,

pending a review of the program, does that mean that whatever funds

still remain in the program will be protected so that they can be put to

use on similar investments, as per the existing HAFI program?

If the review suggests that the program is going to be

discontinued, will those funds be moved elsewhere? And how many funds

are still remaining that haven’t been expended in the fund for the

current fiscal year, ’20-21, on the HAFI program?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can tell the member that we are expediting the review and

expecting a relaunch around October 1. That’s where our target

is.

I want to remind the member that historically this has been a $5

million budget for this particular program. In ’19-20, we doubled it

because there was an exceeding demand. For ’19-20, close to $8.5 million

was expended. For ’20-21, the $5 million is yet to be

allocated.

I think I answered all of the member’s questions, in terms of what

he’s asked.

T. Stone: I just wanted to be really clear. The amount allocated for ’19-20

was the $8 million and change, up from $5 million? I see the minister

nodding her head on that. I think she wants to answer that. And then

what again is the dollar amount of the allocation that hasn’t been spent

yet for ’20-21?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to double-check with staff around the numbers. The

’19-20 budget was $10 million, and $8½ million was what was spent. The

’20-21 budget allocation is $5 million, of which the full $5 million is

still available.

T. Stone: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

Let’s move on. Let’s talk a little bit about affordability —

housing affordability, in particular. We know that over the last…. Well,

there’s been a lot of talk about affordability, and it’s been a

priority, I think, of all of us for a number of years. What we also

know, however, is that over the last three years, the price of housing

has actually gone up.

It’s gone up by about 8 percent in the Lower Mainland. I believe

the latest numbers that I have for the minister’s own community of

Coquitlam are that housing prices have gone up about 10 percent in the

last three years. Average rents in Metro Vancouver are up about $172 per

month. That’s an additional $2,064 per year spent on rent for the

average person.

Of course, while we’ll likely not canvass the strata insurance

crisis during these estimates, considering there’s a bill on the floor

and we’ll have ample time to get into the strata insurance issue, we

know that that’s causing significant financial hardship for British

Columbians as well.

I want to start with the housing market piece, with a few

high-level or general questions. I think it goes without saying that

despite some claims that the market is moderating, the fact is that

housing prices have continued to climb. Most economic forecasters and

financial institutions, the HBC and others, are projecting that housing

prices will continue to increase.

Recognizing that that’s likely the trend line that we’re on, to

see continued increases in housing costs, and looking back over the last

three years and recognizing that house prices have actually increased,

again, by 8 percent just in the Lower Mainland, as one segment of the

provincial economy, how do these results on housing affordability, both

past and over the last three years that the minister has been in

government, and the projections for the months and years ahead…? How

does the minister suggest at all that that really jibes with the

commitment to delivering housing affordability for British Columbia’s

homeowners in this province?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to make certain that the member understands that when we

talk about affordability, we look at affordable living. Housing is

absolutely a critical part of it, but we also recognize that investments

in transit and investments in child care also add to affordability. If

people have a safe, affordable place for their children, then that helps

with the affordability concerns that, frankly, we’ve been hearing for

quite some time from British Columbians. Those investments are also

significant and add to affordability, as well as the investments in

transit.

[2:10 p.m.]

Making sure that people can get out of their cars will not only

help reduce GHG emissions and be good for climate action, but it’s also

good for people and good for affordability if they don’t have to own a

vehicle in order to get around and they have transit that works for

them. That, too, will absolutely contribute to affordability.

Certainly on housing affordability, we’ve taken some significant

actions with our 30-point plan. I’m very proud of the work that we’ve

done in the last couple of years. Taxing speculators who were driving up

housing costs was one of the first actions that we took, as well as

increasing the foreign buyer tax rate to 20 percent.

Expanding the foreign buyer tax to areas outside Metro Vancouver.

We’ve done that as well. Increasing the property transfer tax on the

value of homes over $3 million. Increasing the school tax rate on the

value of homes over $3 million. Allowing online accommodation providers

to apply provincial sales tax and municipal and regional district tax on

short-term rentals. That was done as well in our early days.

The other thing I want to mention that we’ve done is addressing

the issues around tax fraud and closing loopholes. We’ve taken

significant action there — again, making sure that everyone is paying

their fair share. That’s absolutely been very critical to us. We also

are making the largest investment in affordable housing in this

province’s history, a more than $6 billion investment in affordable

housing. That was done a number of years ago, and I’m very proud of the

progress that we’ve been making on that and making a

difference.

The other thing I think is really important is the investment that

we’re making in housing for students. For the longest time, universities

were not allowed to take on any debt in order to build desperately

needed housing. We’ve fixed that and are investing in student housing.

Think about what that means for students. They can live on campus.

Again, from an affordability perspective, if they don’t need a vehicle

because they have to commute, they can live on campus. That just makes

life more livable and more affordable for them as well.

We’ve also seen, really, an increase in the number of

purpose-built rentals in ways that we have never seen before in this

province. That’s going to make a significant impact on affordability for

British Columbians.

Remember that all these investments will take time. One of the

things that I think is important to note is that, previous to our coming

into government and taking these measures, we saw housing prices and

affordability literally off the charts. The growth, year over year, was

unsustainable. It was absolutely unsustainable. So our measures are

about making things more manageable for British Columbians. We could not

keep up with those skyrocketing prices.

One of the other things that we did is we capped the annual rent

increase to just inflation. We removed that additional 2 percent that

the previous government brought in, recognizing that that, too, would

create additional affordability challenges if we kept that going. So

we’ve reduced that, in terms of what landlords can charge for rent

increases each and every year.

We’re also seeing, from CMHC data — I think it’s important to get

it on the record — the 19 percent increase in the rental market. Because

of the spec tax, there are 11,000 more units that are available in the

rental market as a result of the actions that we took. Again, when

there’s more supply, that will ease pressures.

I am not in any way wanting to suggest to the member opposite or

to any British Columbian that we have achieved where we want to get to.

There’s absolutely more to do. We need to keep going. We need to keep

doing what we’re doing, because that’s how we’re going to deliver on

affordability for British Columbians.

T. Stone: Yes, certainly, there is a heck of a lot more to do. Again, I

remind the minister that the average price of housing in the Lower

Mainland is up 8 percent in the last three years. The housing prices in

Coquitlam are up 10 percent. The average rents in Metro Vancouver are up

$172 per month. That’s over $2,000 per year more that renters are paying

now than they were three years ago. The strata insurance crisis is

driving all kinds of people to very significant financial

distress.

[2:15 p.m.]

It definitely paints a picture of a government that I think is

failing on the key objective of making housing more affordable for

British Columbians. At the end of the day, if your rents are going up,

notwithstanding everything that the minister has cited, and if house

prices are going up, notwithstanding everything the minister has cited,

you’re not doing much to improve housing affordability for British

Columbians.

A quick question for the minister. Does she have any short- or

long-term targets for real estate prices in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to apologize to the member and to the House. We just had an

earthquake announcement here in the building. We were focused on doing

what we were being directed to do, and I didn’t hear the question. We’re

just confirming whether or not we still need to be under our

desks.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 2:16 p.m. to 2:22 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, everybody. I really appreciate your patience.

For those of you who aren’t in the precinct at the moment, we just

had a false alarm over an earthquake warning, telling us to get

under our desks. So it was a bit alarming until we had it all sorted

out now.

I really wanted the minister to be able to concentrate and not

have any worries and concerns. I appreciate everybody’s patience.

We’ve been told it was a false alarm.

I would ask the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, please, to

ask a question.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair. Certainly very happy that it was a false alarm.

I didn’t think that my question was that good. Anyway, let’s carry

on.

Can the minister advise whether or not the government has any

short and/or long-term targets for real estate prices in British

Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Now that my heart rate has come down and we’re not experiencing a

real earthquake, I have to apologize to the member. I heard him. I was

focused very carefully on his question. Then we got the announcement

there was an earthquake, and my ears stopped working. It’s amazing how

it just turns off. So I appreciate him being patient with us.

First of all — and I know that the member knows this — as

government, we don’t regulate prices in the market. That’s not what we

do. However, we are very focused as a government on making sure that we

have the right kind of supply for people who live and work in British

Columbia.

We need to make sure that we have the right kind of housing being

developed, being designed, and that it’s available for British

Columbians. That’s why we are doing a number of things. Certainly, in

our ten-year plan, we are focused on increasing the right kind of supply

and also having demand measured so that we can help moderate and so that

it’s reasonable for people here in British Columbia to expect to be able

to have the kind of home that meets their needs.

I want to take a moment to talk about this housing needs

assessment legislation that we brought in, because — and I keep saying

this to anyone who will listen — it’s a bit of a geeky piece of

legislation, but it’s also a very critical piece of

legislation.

Certainly, in my time in local government, I had the opportunity

to make housing decisions, land use decisions…. I should qualify that:

land use decisions. And I remember that I [audio interrupted] forward

proposals, mostly for bachelor, some one-bedroom highrises, that they

said there was certainly demand for around a coming SkyTrain station in

Coquitlam. I kept asking: “Who is this for? Who’s going to live there?

Where are families going to be living?” The response I kept getting from

the community was: “Well, you know, there’s market demand. They’re

selling like hotcakes.”

This was, I would say, 2009, ’10, ’11. What we were seeing was

demand for investment — for, essentially, safety deposit boxes in the

sky. Real people were not living there. The demand was certainly there,

but it wasn’t demand to live there. It was demand to invest there. So as

a result of not having accurate data, for not making the right kinds of

decisions and not having legislation or policies in place that didn’t

allow for that kind of behaviour, we saw lots of empty condos. That, to

me, was a disgrace and really hard on British Columbians, and it

contributed, I would say, overall to unaffordability in a really

significant way.

We’ve been diligently trying to fix that, and we are making,

certainly, some progress. But I want to say that the housing needs

assessment, as a tool, will help all local governments right around the

province to make decisions for their communities about the kind of

housing they need so they can make the right planning decisions. We’ve

already heard, for example, from the mayor of Mission. They just got

their housing needs report, and she is very excited to take a look. What

she’s been able to identify is that they need more two- and

three-bedroom apartments and that they need more townhouses and

duplexes.

It is informing them as well as the development community about

what the appetite is, not because it’s market-driven; it’s needs-driven.

So in order to better meet the needs of the people who live in those

communities, local governments will be able to make the right kinds of

land use planning decisions. I think, from my perspective, that as we

see more and more of these come online, we’re going to see better land

use planning decisions made to deliver the right kind of housing that

addresses the affordability challenges that we’re seeing.

The last thing I just want to mention is that what we’re seeing is

actually a moderation in the housing market. The skyrocketing,

year-over-year numbers increases that we were seeing prior to us forming

government have moderated. That very steep curve that we were seeing

that was going up and up and up is levelling off. I have to say that’s

made a considerable difference to people here in British

Columbia.

[2:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: In the government’s latest or B.C. Housing’s latest progress

report, the affordable housing investment progress report for Q4, the

report indicates that 43 percent of units in progress have no funding

commitment; 59 percent of projects underway have experienced delays. Can

the minister explain why that is?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can I ask the member to tell us what page he’s referring

to?

T. Stone: I am referring to page 4.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member providing us with the specific details

about where he’s reading.

I’ve pulled up the report. The projects that are…. I believe this

is what he’s referring to, around the fourth quarter. As of March 31, we

have 16,564 homes in various stages of development, with 13,474 of them

through the Building B.C. programs. There are various funds listed above

that.

The programs capture our programs that were created in 2018. The

projects in initiation phase are public knowledge, so they’ve been

announced or they’re in municipal process. They have not received their

final B.C. Housing approval, because they’re still in early stages of

planning and final unit counts.

Again, in terms of the exact number of units — and the budget sort

of can change a little bit this way or a little bit that way — we can’t

finalize it until the planning process is gone through, but the

commitment is absolutely there. The projects in development, under

construction and complete have gone through the necessary requirements

through the executive committee or board of commissioners, as per the

capital review committee terms of reference, for approval.

T. Stone: Well, I’m glad that we’re focused on the same page

here.

I will reiterate that the Q1 report for the B.C. Housing

affordable housing investment progress report had a definition in it

that has gone through a few iterations and is very different today than

it was in Q1. The original definition of “initiated,” which is one of

the key columns in the progress table that’s on page 4 here…. The

definition of “initiated,” insofar as the Q1 report indicated, was:

“These are projects that have been announced, but no commitment has been

made towards them.” Conveniently, that definition no longer appears in

the existing reports.

I’d be curious to know why the minister has changed that

definition such that it doesn’t even appear in the existing report. This

is important, because almost 6,000 units of housing — according, again,

to the progress table on page 4, 5,910 units, to be exact — are in the

initiated phase, which, as per that definition, represent projects that

don’t have any funding attached. How can they possibly be counted as

units when they basically have been announced — there’s been a photo op;

there’s been a ribbon-cutting ceremony — but there’s no funding that’s

been committed to ensuring that these projects actually come to

fruition?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to make sure that the member understands,

and that British Columbians understand, that when we go out with a

funding call, for example, like we just did with the community housing

fund, to build 3,000 homes for people, that’s a funding commitment. We

have set aside resources to build homes for British

Columbians.

Now, once that call goes out and people and organizations apply

for that funding, we take a look. They are reviewed and identified about

what makes the most sense. Does it meet the criteria? Will it deliver in

the way we expect it to be delivered? Then it has to go through a

development approval process. Again, that takes some time. We’re working

on that as well. I hope we do get to talk about the development approval

process review that we’re doing.

Again, depending on the permitting fees and depending on DCCs and

how that gets negotiated…. Each one is a negotiation. We invite local

governments to support these projects as well. We work through the final

details until we actually have an identified, very targeted amount, and

we know exactly what that project is going to cost.

It’s that in-between phase that is initiated. It is initiated. The

work is progressing and is continuing, and that’s what that means. When

we take a look at those numbers, that is what has been initiated. It is

working through the various systems until it’s finalized with the exact

amount it’s going to cost to build those homes.

T. Stone: Well, again, the Q1 report had a really clear definition of what

“initiated” meant. The initiated definition was that these are projects

that have been announced, but they haven’t been funded. They haven’t

been allocated funds. That definition is now conveniently missing from

this report.

We even checked this morning. Perhaps the minister can point me to

where I can find this. We checked the B.C. Housing website this morning.

Conveniently, the only report, the affordable housing investment plan

report, that’s missing from the website is the Q1 report, which has the

definition of initiated being projects announced but not funded. Fair

enough. The other interesting wrinkle, I would suggest now, is that as

of this Q4 report, B.C. Housing is no longer providing details and

reporting on project delays.

I’m wondering if the minister could tell me: why is there no

component in this report anymore that highlights where these projects

actually are, which ones are a bit behind schedule, which ones are

really behind schedule? Why is that information not contained in this

latest Q4 report when it was in the previous iterations of this exact

same report?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to have context here as well. I think it’s

really important. We’re about 2½ years or so into a ten-year plan of the

Building B.C. framework that we established. Of the, I think, 28,700

that we committed to, we’re at 13,474, which is about half, almost half,

that we’ve allocated within 2½ years of a ten-year plan. That’s, I

think, pretty significant.

As the member knows full well — he reminded us earlier today that

he once upon a time had been in cabinet — you can’t make announcements

unless funding has been allocated for the project. I know that he’s

asking questions about language. I want to assure him and all British

Columbians that every single initiated project that has been announced,

that is moving through the development permitting process, where an

architect is looking at drawings, where we’re consulting with the

neighbourhood…. Every single one of those projects has funding attached

to it.

[2:50 p.m.]

The specific dollar amount is still working through the system. We

don’t know exactly which materials are going to be used, or we don’t

know exactly whether it’s going to be a 75-unit building or a 72-unit

building. Those are the kinds of details that are being worked through,

but I can certainly assure the member that funding is most definitely

attached to every single project that we announce.

T. Stone: Well, that’s a twist. We’ll look forward to getting the details

from the minister in the days ahead on that on a project-by-project

basis.

I want to ask the minister this question. We asked questions in

the Legislature when the Q1 report came out about this whole concept of

initiated projects not being projects that have funding attached. That

was in black and white in the minister’s own B.C. Housing report. She’s

responsible for that. The Q2 report then comes out, and the definition

for initiated projects is gone. It’s no longer there, and it hasn’t been

back.

As the member knows well, one of the tools that one can use to try

to get to the bottom of these kinds of things is freedom of information.

So the opposition put in a freedom-of-information request. It was for

B.C. Housing. It was request No. 30-2620. We wanted an actual version of

that document that was not edited, not redacted. What did we get back?

We got back a document that was heavily redacted.

It does make us wonder: what is there to hide here? Why would

there be redactions in a B.C. Housing report around the definition of

initiated projects when there clearly was some political heat applied to

the government — rightfully so — for making a big deal about projects

that apparently didn’t have funding attached? At least up to that point,

the definition of initiated projects in the minister’s own report was

projects announced but projects that did not yet have

funding.

Will the minister commit to releasing that Q2 report without the

redactions so that we can see what edits were actually made to it and

therefore compare that with the Q1 report? I think that would likely

settle this matter. Is the minister prepared to release that report with

all of the edits in it and no redactions?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about some FOI, and I know that he well knows

that that happens independent of this office. It is done by career

public service. People who work in the public service apply the FOI

legislation. They do it professionally and according to very specific

guidelines. The member is certainly free to appeal that if he’s not

satisfied.

I also want to just point out…. I took the liberty of taking a

look at some of our initiated projects that are happening in the

member’s own riding. There are a number that are happening in Kamloops

that are under the initiated phase, which means that there is funding

attached to them. I know that the member will be very excited to know

that there are certainly two community housing fund projects that will

deliver, it looks like, close to 80 affordable homes in his community.

Those are in the initiated phase.

We also have some housing under the women’s transition housing

fund that is also initiated. Details are still being worked out, but

that’s going to provide some refuge for women and children in his

community. Actually, there are two that are being built in his

community, and those are under the initiated phase.

We also have — it caught my attention — supportive housing that is

coming to his community: Valleyview supportive housing, some 52 units of

supportive housing that are under the initiated phase. What that means

is that we have been working with the local government. We’re working

with the service provider. We have taken an envelope of funding, put it

aside for these projects. The final details are being worked out. Once

we have the exact amount of money that is needed to see these projects

through to fruition, once we’ve sorted out all the permitting and all

the various other elements that go into development, from an accounting

perspective, it will be identified as fully ready to go.

I know that at the end of the day, people will move in, and their

lives will be better because of the investments that we’ve made in

collaboration with the local governments and with the community housing

sector so that people have an affordable, safe place to call

home.

T. Stone: At the end of the day, we all want people to move in, but I would

suggest that we want people to move into these units much, much faster

than is the current clip of the government.

[3:00 p.m.]

There were 2,963 units completed out of a total target of 114,000

for the overall plan three years into a mandate. It’s not exactly, I

would say, lighting things on fire here. It’s not moving quickly

enough.

The issue of this initiation and what does it actually mean….

Again, in the Q1 report, “initiated” was projects that didn’t have a

commitment yet. They’d been announced, but no commitments. That

definition was conveniently pulled out of the Q1 report. I’ve asked the

minister whether or not she would be willing to provide us with the Q2

report with the edits in it that have been redacted.

I can’t for the life of me understand why any of that would be

confidential financial information or proprietary information that would

compromise anybody. That’s a B.C. Housing report that presumably must

have originally included the same details and

definitions as the Q1

report, only there were some edits made to it. And we’re not allowed to

see those edits, because it’s been redacted. That’s really

disappointing.

I’m wondering if the minister could tell us how many projects have

actually secured a final project agreement to date and how many are in

each program stream.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: All projects receive project development funding in order to

initiate the projects and then to move them through the various stages

of development. I’m sure the member is well aware that it can take a

couple of years to start with a project, start with the funding

commitment, work with the community group, work with the neighbourhood,

work with local government, get the designs all done and, finally, get

shovels in the ground to build homes.

In some communities, we can be very efficient. I want to say that

in Grand Forks — it was very exciting — we were able to…. In nine

months, I think over 50 people were able to move into affordable homes

in Grand Forks. That moved very, very quickly. Other projects — again,

depending on which community we’re in and if the site has challenges or

is an easy site to work with, the timelines may change.

I want to let the member know that final approval, once that

happens…. Typically, once a project has final approval, that means that

everything is in order — the permits, everything, all the components

that go into the design work and all the permitting and all the zoning.

Typically, 30 to 60 days after final approval, actual construction

begins.

T. Stone: Again, we’re three years into the government’s mandate, three

years that the minister has been the minister responsible for housing,

and the total number of units of affordable housing that have opened

under her watch is 2,963, including a whopping 189 units of new housing

opened or completed in all of Q4. Is this the minister’s idea of good

progress on delivering affordable housing for British

Columbians?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to read into the record the details of this

report in terms of the level of activity that is going on around

housing.

I also think it’s important to recognize that we announced this

program in February of 2018, just a little over two years ago, and put

out our call for proposals just shortly after that. So we’re only

really, I would argue, two years into a very significant program. Again,

I want to remind the member that a typical build is anywhere from 18

months to three years, so that’s the time frame for getting people moved

into a completed home.

There are days that I wish I was…. Was it Tabitha from

Bewitched who used to sort of wiggle her nose and make

things happen? I wish that I had the ability to do that because people

have been desperately looking for affordable housing.

The other thing I think is really important to also get on the

record…. Unlike the previous government, when they came in 2001, we

didn’t cancel a single housing project of the previous government. We

recognized that a lot of work had gone into these projects and a lot of

money had already gone into these projects. In fact, we added additional

funds because on a lot of these projects, the affordability just really

wasn’t there. Something that was being built that would only be 5 or 10

percent below market wasn’t sufficient, so we added additional funds and

additional resources into these projects so that they could bring real

affordability to people right around the province.

Under the affordable rental housing project, we have a fund. We

have 109 completed, and 337 are actively under construction. This is, of

course, as of March 31. More have come online since then, but I want to

stick with the dates, so I’ll stick with the fourth quarter. And 280

units are under development. So there’s activity happening, design work

happening and that’s going to be coming online.

Under the rapid response to homelessness program, 1,776 homes are

now open, and 116 are under construction. That’s, I think, pretty

exciting. I believe some of those have already opened, those ones that

are under construction, since Q4 was reporting out.

[3:15 p.m.]

Under the deepening affordability of existing projects, we’ve

opened up 588. People have moved in. And 1,063 of these units are under

active construction. There are people on site, swinging hammers and

lifting drywall and doing all the things that you do in order to build

housing. We have another 365 of these homes that are under development.

Architects are working to draw up plans and working with local

governments to finalize exactly how it’s going to be situated in

community.

Under the community housing fund, 52 projects were completed. And

1,023 homes are under active construction. That means that thousands of

people are going to be able to move into their new homes, I hope, in

short order. And I’m proud to say that under this pandemic, we didn’t

shut down construction. These projects are continuing to move forward,

and I think that’s a really good thing for British

Columbians.

We have 484 under the community housing fund that are in

development, and we’ve just put out another call for another 3,000 homes

out of our Building B.C. fund. We’re doing a second intake because we

want to keep that going, and we know how critical it is to do

that.

Under the Indigenous housing fund, we have 314 that are under

construction and 70 in development. Under the supportive housing fund,

we have 358 homes that are open, and people who were formerly homeless

are now getting the supports that they need in order to be successful in

their new housing. We have 402 that are under construction and 40 that

are in development.

Under the women’s transition housing fund, there are 80 that are

completed. So 80 women now have a home that they can afford, and they

can live safely and rebuild their lives. Another 40 are under

construction, and 67 are in development. A number of these are in the

member’s community.

Again, there is certainly lots of activity happening, and we’re

going to continue to see more and more of these homes come to fruition

in pretty short order. We put this project together, this whole plan, in

February of 2018, and here we are, 2½ years later. In a time frame, from

a housing perspective, when it can take three years to get something

built, thousands of people have new homes.

T. Stone: The member made some reference to the former government. I’m

really proud that in our time in office, we invested about $4.9 billion

in affordable housing. We invested in 26,000 units of affordable

housing. During that time, thousands of Downtown Eastside units were

preserved, and new units came on stream. There were actually people in

the units.

The minister can rattle off all the numbers. You know, I can read.

On page 4, I’m looking at the same chart that she just read into the

record, which is fine. We don’t have to do that now moving

forward.

My concern, and I think the concern that people have, is with the

significant number of units that the minister continues to count as

having, you know, almost magically delivered, when the significant

number of those units don’t have commitments attached to them. They’re

in the initiated phase or in the development phase. There are only 2,963

units that are actually open, meaning that they actually have people in

them. That’s ultimately what matters.

I’ll ask the minister this question. To this point, three years

in, there are only 161 new units of rental housing that have opened

across British Columbia — 161. Is that the minister’s idea of good

progress in delivering affordable housing for British Columbians who

really need it — 161?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to make it really clear that every single

project that we’ve announced has a commitment. It has a funding envelope

attached to it as it moves through the development process, as it moves

through the design process, as it moves through the development approval

process. Those numbers get refined more and more and more. We have done

an outstanding job of delivering as quickly as we can.

Like I said earlier, I wish I was like Samantha on

Bewitched , or Tabitha, where I could wiggle my nose and

just deliver on housing with a little wiggle of my nose. But I know that

the member understands that the building process, the development

process, does take time. We are moving as quickly as we can. I’m proud

of the progress that we’ve made.

I know that in the coming weeks and months, there is going to be

more and more and more housing delivered, more and more people moving

in. The fact that here we are, 2½ years in, since we announced our

program…. Again, it’s a ten-year program. We’re committed to doing this

over ten years. We’re making good progress. There is absolutely more to

do. No one is suggesting for a second that we should take our foot off

the pedal.

Certainly, in this case, people have been waiting a long time for

affordable housing. That is why, again, we made another announcement

just a couple of weeks ago, inviting community housing providers to join

with us, Indigenous communities, local governments, to put their

projects together and identify how they can work with us to deliver on

the housing that is needed in their communities so that we can keep the

momentum going.

[3:25 p.m.]

It does take time. It does take two to three years to build any

project. We need to keep going. We’re committed to doing that. I hope

the member for Kamloops–South Thompson will be joining me when we cut

the ribbon on the numerous projects that we are building in his

community.

T. Stone: Well, let’s move into the development process. The minister has

referenced that a number of times.

She indicated moments ago that she would be thrilled to talk about

the development approvals process review that was undertaken by her

government. This is a document that was produced, I believe, in

September of 2019. What is that, about nine months ago? It provided a

wide range of recommendations to the provincial government with respect

to the kinds of changes that needed to be made — regulatory changes,

changes that impact cost — that would unleash the much-needed supply

that we need to see in this province. We have a growing population.

We’re not keeping up with the current demand, let alone the fact that

the demand is ever increasing.

My first question on this development approvals process review and

where it goes from here is this. There was a lot of talk about this as

it was first announced by the minister. There was a lot of talk about

the release of the report. Where’s the plan for implementing it? When

can we expect to see the government actually begin to implement the

recommendations contained in this Development Approvals Process

Review , which the minister made such ado about only nine months

ago?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question about what we refer to here as

the DAPR report, Development Approvals Process

Review .

When I first became minister, in talking with various housing

stakeholders on all sides, it became really clear, certainly, that there

was concern in the development community around the amount of time it

can take to get through the development approval process. In some

communities, it was certainly more challenging, more convoluted and more

layered than in other communities. So we made a commitment to work

together with all of our partners, local government side as well as

development side and community housing side and planners, to work

together to identify how to move forward and how to make this a much

more efficient practice.

We did put together this report that the member is referring to

after a number of meetings. That was in September. I will say that COVID

has sidelined some of that work. We had to prioritize support for local

government and support for those who were desperately in need of

housing. In recent weeks, things have settled for us significantly as we

move through some of the responses that we needed to do as a ministry,

and we are back at it.

I want to say to the member that what’s been very interesting…. As

a result of COVID, I’ve had weekly conversations with mayors. They’re

now sort of biweekly at this point. They became biweekly eventually, but

regular conversations.

As we were moving through the COVID experience and looking and

turning our minds to recovery and what that looks like, it became really

clear to me, just listening to what these mayors were saying about their

appetite and their desire to move through the development approval

processes much more quickly than they had been, perhaps, historically,

that there’s tremendous appetite at the local government level to pick

this back up and really dig in and make sure that we are refining this

process so that we can expedite development. I’m eager to get that work

done.

T. Stone: What’s the time frame, recognizing everything she said about the

COVID pandemic? I think all of us in the Legislature rallied, as the

public rightfully expected us to, to focus on that very real public

health emergency that was in front of us. But it’s now time to also

focus on picking up some of these balls again and moving forward. I see

the minister nodding, so that’s good.

I’m looking for a bit more detail in terms of what the minister

might be thinking around timing, moving forward. There is so much good

that could come from the kinds of changes that would flow from the

recommendations in the DAPR report insofar as reducing complexities,

reducing costs and reducing regulatory burden, which are largely

inherent in a local approval framework that, frankly, local governments

have to operate within because it is what it is.

What is the time frame that the minister is looking at in terms of

beginning to pick up these recommendations and actually implement

them?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When we put together the review, we identified some general

priority areas for this review process — streamlining of approvals,

development finance area, looking at public hearings and public input,

and official community plans and zoning. Those were sort of the four

areas that we committed to reviewing. Then, of course, COVID hit, and we

have learned even more since then in terms of what works, what the

priority areas need to be.

Right now we are actively working on this file. We are working

with local governments that I have to say have also been sidelined from

this work and are dealing with a response to COVID. So they, too, are

just coming online. We are looking at: do we need to reprioritize? What

have we learned from COVID? How do we incorporate that into what we

learned from the review process?

We need to incorporate new learnings. We’re committed to working

as quickly and as diligently as we can. It was designed as a multi-year

action plan. At this point, I know that there are discussions that we’re

actively doing around: do we need to expedite it even more given what’s

happened because of COVID? That work is being undertaken as we

speak.

T. Stone: I think the minister would agree that the total dollar value of

building permits is way down. It dropped, I believe, 61.3 percent in

April of this year. We know that the flow-through effect of that means

that the supply is going to get even tighter. So more needs to be done

to speed up the development process and to reduce costs and so forth to

ensure that that supply is coming on stream.

[3:40 p.m.]

The home construction sector in particular faces significant

costs, onerous regulatory requirements, and that is dealt with quite

prominently in this report. In the report, there are recommendations to

improve those onerous regulatory requirements by, I guess,

uncomplicating the regulatory process overall. That’s a bit of a loaded

word: “uncomplicating.”

I’m just wondering if the minister could take a moment to let us

know what work is being done on this particular point. What does she

think is likely to unfold in the months ahead that would work towards

the fulfilment of this recommendation to uncomplicate the onerous

regulatory requirements, which, I think, are universally viewed as one

of the single greatest barriers to more housing supply coming onstream

faster?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member is referring to our commitment to engage in

streamlining and streamlining these processes that, over time, have

become much more cumbersome. I just want to provide the member with an

example of new learning through COVID that I think highlights the

opportunities before us, from a streamlining perspective.

One of the things that came out of COVID — because people couldn’t

gather in ways that we’ve traditionally gathered — is that we reminded

local government about where the obligations were for having a public

hearing and where there weren’t obligations to have a public hearing. We

just reminded local governments of what those obligations

are.

A lot of them had gotten into the habit of having public hearings

for things that they weren’t obligated to have public hearings for.

Because we reminded them of what the legislation actually said and what

the requirements were, many of them started to question and to change

some of their practice through COVID as a way to keep things going. They

were committed to keeping things going.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m hearing back from mayors about how well that worked for them

and what the advantages were for them. Again, we’re continuing to have

these conversations with the mayors. We need to be working in

partnership with them so that we can get it right, as well as working

with the development sector. That’s what we’re committed to doing, and

what we are doing.

Local governments are working with us to help us identify what

they can do quickly. Just like the member highlighted, this is an

opportunity to stimulate the economy. We know that we need more housing;

we need more of the right kind of housing. We want to be able to keep

this rolling and keep it more efficient. We know that time is money and

that if we can shorten the amount of time it takes to get projects

through, the cheaper it is. That’s good for affordability.

This is an example of how we’re moving forward, looking at

streamlining and reminding local governments about how they, too, can be

more efficient. In that work, I think, there are going to be some really

good opportunities. It’s really good learning that has come out of COVID

and that we can apply in this case.

T. Stone: Yes. The DAPR report actually does provide a recommendation for, I

believe, a provincial review of public hearings and looking at the

consideration of alternative options to ensure that the meaningful

public input that needs to happen, happens, but that it, perhaps,

happens in a manner that is more conducive to enabling projects to

actually move forward.

I’m glad the minister mentioned that specific learning from the

COVID pandemic that we’ve all gone through. Is the minister committed to

doing what she can to accelerate the work required to bring to life this

recommendation from the DAPR report, insofar as the recommendation to

explore new ways of facilitating that public engagement in the

development process — looking at alternative options, alternative means

for meaningful public debate? Is the minister committed to making that

happen?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, I am.

T. Stone: Great. We’ll keep talking about that one. That, I think, will be a

significant reform that would make a real difference. Let’s hope that we

get on with it.

I wanted to ask about one other recommendation in the DAPR report.

The report recommends that some development permit categories could be

combined or eliminated within the Local Government Act. I’m just

wondering if any work has been done within the ministry to determine

what those combinations or those eliminations might look

like.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s keen interest in this topic. I think

it’s one where we can really make a significant difference in addressing

some of the burdensome processes that were highlighted in this

report.

The specific recommendation that he’s referring to is very

technical and requires working with the local governments and all the

technicians and the permitting people at local government level to

identify how to best peel this onion back, all the layers, and identify

which layers need to be retained and which layers can be eliminated and

still have a significant onion. So this is the work that we need to be

doing with the local governments. We’re committed to working with them —

not doing it to them but with them. That work needs to

happen.

We also want to get it right. We absolutely want to be

transformational. We recognize what needs to happen. So we’re going to

be, in the next little while, focusing on what the things are that we

can do now and what the things are that are going to take time to get it

right. We’re committed to driving the recommendations and the review

process and moving it forward.

Again, I think it’s important. Land use planning and building is

just too important to put on a back burner. It has been pulled forward

now that we’re through, I would say, I hope, the hardest part of COVID,

and local governments are pulling it forward too.

I just want to reiterate that

whereas the local governments,

perhaps, prior to COVID weren’t seeing this as important as we were and

perhaps even as the member opposite saw it as important…. I would say

I’m very pleased to hear so many local governments recognizing the

importance of doing this work. It feels like the work will be able to

progress even faster, because they’ve experienced what it means to be

more efficient and how that keeps things going in their communities, and

that’s a good thing for the people that they serve.

T. Stone: I think we’ve canvassed the DAPR report.

The minister refers to the regulatory and the cost burden that’s

wrapped around housing projects as being like an onion and we need to

peel back the layers. Well, the best onions are the smallest onions. So

let’s start peeling those layers back and focus on less cost, less

onerous regulatory requirements, faster approval processes and better

ways to ensure the public engagement that must take place takes place

but does so in a way that facilitates faster housing supply that’s so

desperately needed across the province.

I want to shift to CleanBC housing retrofits. The CleanBC plan,

from December 2018, states that $1.1 billion is in the plan for the

capital renewal fund for public housing. That’s to specifically improve

living conditions, energy efficiency and reduce emissions. This will be

part of a 0.5 metric tonne reduction of emissions by 2030.

[3:55 p.m.]

The fourth quarterly update of the affordable housing investment

plan report — the minister maybe thought we were done with that

particular report — provides an update on this capital renewal fund. The

update is as follows. Of $1.1 billion in funding, $222.07 million has

been committed to non-profit projects. Sorry, $136 million is non-profit

and $86 million is provincial projects.

However, the AHIP report also reveals that not all projects

contribute to energy efficiency. What’s of concern that I want to

canvass for a few minutes with the minister is that of the 243

non-profit projects, only 69 are “energy performance” projects. So

that’s only 28 percent in that category. Of the 288 provincial projects,

only 99 of those projects are energy performance projects. That’s a

little bit better, but that’s still only 34 percent. And just 32 percent

of the CRF projects are energy efficiency upgrades.

With that backdrop, my first question to the minister would be

this. How will British Columbia meet its climate targets if only one in

three housing retrofits are actually energy-efficient?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m just going to ask if we can have a recess so we can have a

little bit of a bio-break.

The Chair: Members, we will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

T. Stone: I had asked an initial question, actually, of the minister. I

might have been a bit quick in putting my hand up again there. I’m

wondering if the minister would like…. I can repeat the question if she

would like me to, but it looks like she’s ready to answer.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the bit of a break.

The member had asked a question about energy efficiency in our

budget, our $1.1 billion budget, to improve social housing as part of

our capital renewal plan. I want to draw the member’s attention to the

fact that about $400 million of that $1.1 billion was designated to meet

our legislated climate goals. So about a third of the total budget.

That’s why he’s seeing the numbers up to a third. We’re really excited

to do that work. It’s really important work. It helps not only to

mitigate greenhouse gases, but it also addresses affordability for

families.

The other thing that I think is important to acknowledge as part

of this $1.1 billion fund is that it’s being used to renew and upgrade

existing buildings. Let’s be really clear. They haven’t been well

maintained, and it’s a critical part of our housing stock. When we

formed government, we saw that the annual investment was only about $20

million a year in all of this really vital and critical housing stock,

and now we’re spending $145 million a year. That’s the importance of

investing in this housing stock.

Just to give you an example of what we were seeing. We were seeing

elevators breaking down in older buildings and stranding people, leaving

them stranded on upper floors and unable — especially if they had a

disability or if they were a senior — to leave their apartments or leave

their floors. So this was desperately needed.

I’m very proud of the investments that we’re making to make sure

that these buildings are well maintained, that they’re upgraded, that

they’re fire-safe. We’re doing some seismic upgrades, as well, and

making sure that people’s homes are comfortable and that they can last a

long time, because we need to preserve this stock.

[4:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: I’m just wondering. The CleanBC plan implies that the 51,000

housing units in British Columbia will be made energy-efficient. Is that

not the case? Because the numbers in the minister’s B.C. Housing AHIP

report would not suggest that there’s much progress being made toward

the 51,000 number.

Hon. S. Robinson: In addition to our commitment to clean energy, the upgrades also

include improving the building efficiency, which is another part of

reducing energy use. We’re going to see things like boiler and

electrical upgrades, replacing doors and windows, building envelope

repair, electrical upgrades and other investments.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge that in 2019, the total

greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use for heating and

electricity in all buildings that are owned or leased by B.C. Housing

were reduced by 36 percent from the 2005 levels, which I think is pretty

good. This has exceeded the reduction target of 25 to 30

percent.

We’re going to keep delivering on that commitment to keep

investing in these buildings. They’re a critical part of our housing

stock that we need to make sure is there for the long term for British

Columbians.

[4:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: I appreciate that the member says that the numbers that she has

cited are good. What I’m trying to focus on here are the commitments

that the government has made in its CleanBC plan, of which a significant

component is energy retrofits, upgrades in the housing

sector.

As I mentioned in my

preamble at the outset of this line of

questioning, when you look at the total number of non-profit and

provincial projects combined, a total number of 531 projects, only 168

of those projects are deemed to be energy performance projects. That’s

only 31 percent.

It would strike me that it’s going to be a bit of a challenge for

the government to meet its CleanBC emissions reduction targets in the

social housing and affordable housing sector when it would appear that

only one-third of its projects, these non-profit and provincial projects

combined, are actually deemed by the government, by B.C. Housing, to be

energy performance projects.

Again, does the minister think that the CleanBC plan will actually

meet its objectives for emissions reductions in the social housing and

affordable housing sector? Based on the numbers I can see, it’s pretty

hard to paint that picture. Could the minister please explain how she

expects to meet her emissions reductions when only 31 percent of the

projects are listed as energy performance projects?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a number of things I’d like to share with the member. First

of all, he’s referring to two different numbers — sort of an

apples-and-oranges piece. He keeps referring to number of projects, but

each project has lots of units in it.

Really, when he refers to projects, we’re talking about thousands

of units. We know that we have 51,000 that are in our stock. I think

there’s that. I want to make sure that’s well understood. Also, the new

construction meets the energy code. This is really about looking at the

older stock. So it’s a combination of those things.

Also, a reminder that we’re just a couple of years into a ten-year

plan. When you multiply it out over the coming years, I’m very confident

that we will reach our targets.

[4:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: Do the 51,000 units that are referenced in the CleanBC plan, the

existing units of social housing that are all to receive energy

upgrades, energy retrofits…? Can the minister confirm that the 51,000

units are equivalent to the 531 non-profit and provincial projects that

are cited in the AHIP report?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to say that we’re 1/10th into the spend. There’s a

number of projects that are listed as part of an annual report. We are

committed, over the time of the ten-year plan, to get through all of the

projects. We are well into this work and delivering on our targets, and

I am confident that we are going to get there.

T. Stone: Can the minister say whether all 51,000 social housing units cited

in the CleanBC plan will get energy-efficient upgrades, yes or

no?

Hon. S. Robinson: Over the ten years, that is absolutely our intent.

T. Stone: Does the minister think that she and her government are going to

meet their CleanBC emissions reduction targets insofar as the energy

retrofits and upgrades in the social housing space? If she does believe

that, if she believes she’s on track to meet those emissions reduction

targets, what metrics can she point to that would show her program is

actually on track?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to refer the member to the annual service plan for B.C.

Housing. It’s reported annually. Again, I’ll reiterate. In 2019, total

greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use for heating and

electricity in all buildings owned or leased by B.C. Housing were

reduced by 36 percent from the 2005 level, exceeding the reduction

target of 25 to 30 percent that we had established as a

target.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, we’ll move on to our next topic. Time is ticking here.

So much to cover and such little time to do it.

I’m going to move on to the temporary rental supplement. I’m

assuming the minister has the correct people at her disposal on this

particular piece. Okay.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if the minister could…. I’m looking for a quick

snapshot as to the following numbers. What’s the total dollar value of

the supplement that has been distributed to date, I guess, prior to the

extension of the program, and then what is anticipated to be expended as

part of the program extension? What has the application rate been as a

percentage of the total number of renters in the province? How many have

actually applied for the grant? How many have actually received the

grant? How many would be in the midst of being considered for approval

at this particular point in time?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to…. I’ll read into the record again. I did for the

previous member who had asked these questions about the temporary rent

supplement. We had — again, notional allocation — $84 million for the

first three months for the temporary rent supplement and then $64

million estimated, of course, for July and August. We are still in the

middle of this pandemic, and we won’t have final numbers until we’re

through this current situation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then the numbers that I have till mid-June in terms of the number

of applications — 90,504 applications were received, and approved,

82,681. Those are the numbers as of mid-June.

The other thing, I think, that’s really important to recognize is

that pretty much 97 percent of renters paid full or partial. I think

it’s 85 percent paid full rent and another 12 percent paid partial rent.

That’s significant — that people did what they needed to do to keep

paying and maintain the landlord-tenant relationship as whole as

possible. That’s the good news here.

T. Stone: Could the minister provide a breakdown of the total number of

applications from households with dependents that received the

corresponding $500-per-month payment? If she could provide that as a

percentage as well, that would be appreciated.

Likewise, what is the total number of applications received

without dependents that received the $300? Expressed as a total number

and a percentage would be great. I’ll bundle up the next couple of

questions after this one here.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do have some numbers. I don’t have percentages. I’ll have to

leave that to the member to calculate. In terms of singles who received,

54,089; couples, 13,611; single parents, 8,171; two-parent families,

12,966. Then we have 1,667 that we’ll call as other or unclassified, and

that is in the process of being determined.

T. Stone: How many households had non-related roommates at the same address

with each of the roommates receiving $300? Did the government actually

track that? Why was the decision made to offer households with

dependents less money than a couple of roommates living under the same

roof? Why was the decision made to do that? It essentially provides a

family with less support than is available to two-plus roommates living

under the same roof.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t recall if the member wanted the numbers. I can get that

for him. I don’t have them right now, but I can certainly explain the

decision around this. I want to remind everyone that this was made in

the context of a crisis and trying to understand exactly how it was

going to affect different people.

In the case of roommates, the rationale was that with roommates,

you don’t share all the living expenses. They might not share a vehicle.

They have independent lives.

Whereas in a family, they tend to share

these expenses differently. They tend to share, perhaps, food, in terms

of being able to bulk buy. You might not get that as roommates. So the

decision was made in that particular context.

T. Stone: Can the minister tell us if the program is going to remain in

place as long as the eviction ban is in place? Are the two intrinsically

tied together — i.e., you can’t have one without the other? What’s the

plan in terms of this program being wound down? Does that depend on the

eviction ban for nonpayment of rent essentially being in place as

well?

Hon. S. Robinson: These are two separate programs.

T. Stone: Okay. I just wanted to touch briefly on the decision that was

made, I believe on June 19, where the province announced the extension

of the temporary rental supplement but also, and very importantly,

continued the moratorium on rent increases as well as evictions for the

nonpayment of rent.

I think MLAs from all sides of the Legislature have received a lot

of correspondence from British Columbians who are landlords and who, for

all intents and purposes, fit the definition of a mom-and-pop landlord.

They have one unit or two units. It may be a mortgage helper or may be

part of their retirement planning and so forth. That makes up a huge

chunk of the rental stock that we have in the province.

I think there was a certain amount of understanding in the midst

of the pandemic, certainly in the early days, that the government needed

to make some decisions in a crisis situation. Fair enough. The

government is now going to allow the process of initiating an eviction —

and the appeals and everything that’s done through the residential

tenancy branch and so forth — for a wide range of causes except for the

nonpayment of rent.

The government has said that the plan is, working with

stakeholders, to wind that one down over time as well. The problem is we

don’t know what the details of that look like. Again, there’s tremendous

anxiety, stress and financial uncertainty for a tremendous number of

people out there who have been caught in the middle on this situation —

again, these mom-and-pop landlords.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could talk a bit about what her plan

is for putting in place whatever this repayment scheme is going to look

like. What is the timing wrapped around this? What can the landlords out

there look towards with some degree of certainty in knowing that there

is a framework coming? When is it coming, and what will that rent

repayment framework actually look like? And ultimately, when does the

minister anticipate removing the ban on eviction for the nonpayment of

rent in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s important to remember that almost 85

percent of renters paid full rent. They paid full rent, and that’s, I

think, really important to keep in mind. Another 12 percent paid partial

rent. So people were really trying to keep their landlords whole,

recognizing the importance of making sure that they continue to pay as

best they can.

Thousands of people made use of our temporary rent supplement.

That was paid directly to landlords. I think it’s important to

recognize…. I mean, the member keeps referring to just landlords, but it

has also been really hard for tenants, tenants who want to make good on

their rent. But service workers who weren’t working in restaurants as

they were closed or hairdressers who couldn’t ply their trade or tourism

workers who found themselves without unemployment….

I think it’s really important to recognize that everybody within

this relationship has been under stress, so we’ve been working with both

sides as best we could to understand how we can best help landlords as

well as tenants so that the relationship, the integrity of the

relationship, is maintained.

As the member referred to, we’ve lifted the ban for reasons other

than for nonpayment of rent. We did that a number of weeks ago,

recognizing that we were in phase 3 and it was time to get back to more

normal. We’re not quite there yet. We’re still under a state of

emergency. I think that’s really important to recognize. Work is ongoing

around how to best support renters and landlords so that we can get to a

more normal state.

We are putting together a framework that I expect in the next

number of weeks we’ll be able to share with everyone. Again, I think

what’s really important to keep in mind is that most renters paid their

rent. That’s, I think, incredible, and I know that many landlords are

grateful for that, for those payments. We’ll continue to work with both

of those groups and make sure that the road ahead means that everyone

can remain whole going forward.

T. Stone: At the end of the day, there is no question that this was a crisis

and that it affected everybody. It affected tenants. It affected

landlords.

The key here is: as the government focuses its attention on

recovery and how we come out of this pandemic and all facets of it from

an economic recovery perspective, how do we ensure that that framework

works for renters and for tenants? How does it also work for

landlords?

You can’t have one without the other. Eighty-five percent full

payment, 12 percent partial payment, as expressed in percentage terms,

sounds great. But in a population of five million people and on a renter

base of 600,000 renters, we’re still talking about a lot of situations

where landlords — good, honest, hard-working mom-and-pop landlords, not

the big huge companies…. I’m talking about the small one- or two-unit

people that are an important part of the housing mix. A lot of them are

in significant pain right now.

The government did announce that it was going to be working with

stakeholders to figure out how to put in place a regime that would

ensure the full payment of rent that’s owing. At the time of the

announcement, it was made very clear that the repayment of back rent

would be required within a reasonable amount of time.

[4:50 p.m.]

The government also made clear that it would be setting in place a

framework to ensure that landlords are able to collect the rent that is

owed from their tenants. So I’d ask the minister again: what does that

framework look like, and what is the time frame that she has in mind for

putting in place the appropriate measures that will ensure that

landlords are able to collect the rent that they are owed?

If they’re not able to collect in a timely fashion, it will

actually cause some of these folks to lose their homes and find

themselves in financial ruin. What does the plan for building that

framework look like? When can we expect to see it? What does a

reasonable time frame actually mean in terms of the repayment of back

rent? When can landlords expect to receive the rent that they’re owed in

the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have been working with landlord groups as well as tenant groups

on the development of a framework. We’re doing it in collaboration to

make sure that both sides can recoup and manage through the next phase

of recovery. We will be sharing that framework once we have it

finalized.

T. Stone: What’s the time frame on that? Again, 599,000 renter households in

British Columbia, and 8 percent didn’t pay rent. That works out to

almost 50,000 households that didn’t pay rent. So what does that time

frame look like? The minister talks about the engagement and

consultations she’s doing. Are we talking six months? Are we talking 12

months? Are we talking 18 months? When are landlords going to know what

that framework looks like? And what is the repayment framework going to

look like?

Government is going to have to put something in place, something

that provides landlords the ability to actually collect the back rent

that’s owing. The minister and the Premier have said many times on the

record that the back rent, unpaid rent, still had to be paid at some

point in the future. Landlords would like to know what does some point

in the future mean. What is the time frame here, Minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate to the member that we’re one of only

two provinces that has made a commitment to support landlords through

this pandemic. Let’s remember that thousands and thousands of landlords

have benefited, and tenants as well. But again, we paid directly to

landlords because we wanted to make sure that they were supported. Our

temporary rent supplement has made a significant difference.

I wish I had a crystal ball for the member that would tell him

exactly when we’re going to be out of the state of emergency. This is an

ongoing emergency. None of us could have predicted in January that we

would be here and, in March, that we would still be here in July. We’re

continuing to work with both landlords and with tenants on this

framework. The residential tenancy branch is working to make sure that

all the elements are captured in that.

[4:55 p.m.]

We are still committed to making sure that we have a framework in

place that supports tenants and landlords to pay rent arrears over a

reasonable amount of time. As soon as we have the framework in place, I

will be sure to share it with everyone so that everyone has the time

that they need to prepare and understand what the expectations

are.

T. Stone: I’m not hearing any willingness to commit to a time frame of any

sort. I take at face value the minister’s good-faith commitment to work

on it. I’m certain that she’s working on it, but what landlords around

the province need to hear from this minister and from government is a

firm commitment, that working on it means that something will be in

place in a few months or five or six months or whatever. Give them some

sense of hope here.

Perhaps to really underscore the importance of this for the

minister, I’ll cite a few examples here. Here’s a letter that I have

from Kirsten in Salmon Arm. She says:

“My name is Kirsten. I live in Salmon Arm with my husband and three

young sons. We are both self-employed and have no pension plans. As a

result, we have built a new home with legal suites, with the intention

of building a second home so that we can retire in 30 years. In 30 years

the mortgage will be repaid, and the rents can supply us with a

retirement income.

“We recently sold our family home with the intention of moving into

one of the rentals while we built the second rental. It was our

understanding that if we owned the house we could, with two months’

notice, move into it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We will be

the proud owners of two homes but be homeless. In addition, one of the

four tenants we have has not made a payment since they moved in, in

January of 2020, and are currently in arrears, but we can’t do anything

about it.”

What does the minister have to say to Kirsten in Salmon

Arm?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that it’s been hard for many around the province. This

family in Salmon Arm are doing all the right things, and then this

pandemic hits and creates challenges for them.

My first part that I want to remind the member, and certainly I

hope he passes this on to the folks who wrote the letter, is that

landlord use of property is now available. We’ve been slowly shifting

back to a more normal framework, so they can evict for their own use.

That is now available to them. That’s been available for the last number

of weeks.

Again, I can’t predict when the state of emergency will be lifted.

We have made a commitment, and I’m making a commitment, to have

parameters in place for repayment plans so that landlords and tenants

are properly supported as we come through this pandemic.

T. Stone: I guess, again, what I’m trying to get at is: what is the time

frame for developing those repayment plans and putting that framework in

place?

Here’s another letter. This one from is from Grace in West

Kelowna. She says:

“My family and I live in West Kelowna, and we have a tenant that’s

not paying the rent and is in breach of our agreement. The tenant isn’t

even communicating with us and was late on rent even prior to no longer

paying it. We run the risk of losing our home. We’ve tried to reach out.

Our tenant is blatantly ignoring us and has not applied for any relief

or even indicated that he is experiencing financial hardship.

“We, however, are experiencing very serious financial hardship. My

husband was laid off during the pandemic and still doesn’t have a job.

I’m a health care professional experiencing the stress of COVID-19 in

the workplace, and now I have to worry about losing my

investment.”

[5:00 p.m.]

What does the minister have to say to Grace in West Kelowna? This

is not a big huge corporation with thousands of rental units. This is a

husband and wife who, by all measures, have been doing all the right

things to look after themselves. Through no fault of their own, they’re

being caught in the middle of a terrible situation here.

They need some certainty. They need to understand when they’re

going to be able to collect some rent so that they don’t find themselves

in the misery of financial distress and financial hardship.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate how hard it is for Grace and her family. I

know that there are many like them that are caught in this, but none of

us also predicted that we would be in a pandemic. None of us predicted

that it would be unsafe to be in close quarters with other people. None

of us predicted that we would have to really hunker down at our homes.

You know, some people are losing their jobs, like Grace’s spouse has.

None of us could have predicted this. I feel for Grace and for her

family and for others like her.

We are in this situation now where we are slowly turning the dial.

Dr. Henry has been very clear about reopening at a slow pace in order to

ensure that we don’t fall back into significant loss of life and people

getting sick and spreading this disease. We are in line, following the

best practices as we slowly turn that dial back to more active

engagement in our social life and in moving and in work. We are doing

the same thing around the housing file.

As we moved into phase 3, we lifted some of the eviction

moratorium around personal use so that people could start shifting back.

There’s another phase that we look forward to. We’re putting a framework

in place. I hope we can have it ready in short order so that when we can

get out of the state of emergency, we are ready and that everyone has

the time that they need to prepare and plan accordingly.

T. Stone: Again, I didn’t hear a time frame there, which is what Grace and

her husband really need.

One more example I want to read into the record just to, again,

really underscore the impact that thousands of British Columbians are

feeling, in not being able to collect rent on their rental units. This

one says…. This is Dan in Surrey.

“I’m growing increasingly concerned over the provincial government’s

decision to extend the moratorium on tenant evictions for non-payment of

rent. I understand this moratorium was recently extended to the end of

August, and it seems likely that it could be extended even further. This

ban effectively removes any incentive for my tenants to pay rent, which

is highly problematic and seems utterly unfair.

“What advice does the government have for landlords, like myself,

who rent a second property where the tenant has opted not to pay rent?

Despite my ongoing efforts, I have not received rent since March. This

means I will be out at least five months of rent, constituting thousands

of dollars. This causes considerable financial strain for me and my

family. When the ban is eventually lifted, it’s likely that my tenant

will move out and disappear, while owing me thousands of dollars in rent

but making it near impossible for me to find her and to go through any

process to collect it.

“In addition to eviction protection, tenants have access to numerous

financial aid programs. However, there’s nothing in place to support

landlords like me. The costs of keeping and maintaining my property

continue unabated, including mortgage payments, utilities, insurance,

property taxes, upkeep, yet I’m unable to collect a large portion of the

revenue that I need in the form of the rent that’s owing.”

I could go on. It goes a bit longer. Again, Dan in Surrey has one

unit, and it’s a significant component of his financial planning. He’s

trying to do the right thing. He’s not even blaming the tenant per se —

I think understanding that we’re in a pandemic.

[5:05 p.m.]

Let’s remember that the government intervened in the

tenant-landlord relationship, for good reason, in this crisis.

Therefore, it’s incumbent on the government to intervene again to make

sure that everybody is whole at the end of the day — everybody, the

tenants and the landlords, especially these mom-and-pops.

I’d like the minister, perhaps in the backdrop of these stories,

to just confirm whether or not tenants will be required to repay back

rent all at once or over time. And when will that repayment framework

and whatever aspect of support the government is going to wrap around

it…? When will British Columbians see this come forward from the

minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have been very clear that our expectation is that people will

pay rent. We’ve encouraged people to pay rent if they can, and the

expectation is that they are responsible for their rent arrears. We also

said that we would put a framework in place so that people can pay out

any rent arrears over a reasonable amount of time. We are working on

that framework, and as soon as we have it finalized, we’ll be sure to

share it with everyone.

T. Stone: Is it the minister’s expectation that rent repayment will begin in

phase 3, phase 4 or phase 5 of the government’s reopening

strategy?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, as we come out of the state of emergency, we’ll be sure to

let everyone know what the expectations are so that everyone can plan

accordingly and do what they need to do as we move through this

pandemic.

T. Stone: I just want to move on to a few questions on the rental space,

actually beyond the COVID-related measures and the ban on evictions and

so forth. I think the government has had some pretty lofty expectations

around vacancy rates and creating a supply of affordable rental product

in the province.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak to what she believes the

likelihood is of us seeing a 2½ percent, 3 percent vacancy rate here in

British Columbia anytime soon.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Right now we are seeing a little bit of an increase in the vacancy

rate. In Metro Vancouver, in particular, we’re up to 1½ percent, which

is an edging up, moving in the right direction.

This measure, I want to point out, is only for purpose-built

rentals. So the mom-and-pop landlords that the member was referring to

earlier don’t get included in this measure. What we are doing is we’re

looking at the availability of rental housing. We think that that’s an

additional measure that we need to be looking at.

We’re seeing increases in housing. In fact, because of the

speculation tax, we’re seeing an additional 11,000 rental units come on

to the market, which helps alleviate some of those pressures. We’re

seeing progress, and that’s a good thing.

T. Stone: Well, thanks to the minister. The 11,000 rental units, which she’s

mentioned a few times now today…. The minister says it in a way that

makes it sound like these are suddenly available to be used.

The fact, however, that the vacancy rate has remained largely

unchanged clearly indicates that these 11,000 units that she speaks to

are occupied. Otherwise, the vacancy rate would have changed. And while

we have seen, you know, a little uptick here and a little uptick there

in the vacancy rate, generally speaking, in the most recent CMHC rental

market reports, the vacancy rates are largely unchanged across the Lower

Mainland.

What policies does the minister…? What efforts is the minister

going to bring to bear in the weeks and months ahead to actually focus

on increasing those vacancy rates and getting more supply of the rental

housing that’s so desperately needed definitely in the Lower Mainland

and — I would suggest, and I think the minister would agree — in

communities all across the province.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate. I don’t think the member is making the

distinction very well. The CMHC vacancy rate that he refers to is only

for purpose-built rentals. It’s a very narrow data point that doesn’t

take into consideration what’s available for rental housing. So when he

talks about all of those mom-and-pop landlords, they are not counted in

the vacancy rate.

When I refer to those 11,000 units…. Those are not counted because

they are not purpose-built rentals. They were investment properties that

were sitting empty. They were empty. Because of our intervention, they

are now on the market as part of the secondary market, which won’t get

captured in those vacancy rate numbers.

This is a flaw, and I’ve certainly taken it up with CMHC and let

them know that we need better data. Their data does not reflect what’s

truly happening on the ground.

[5:15 p.m.]

While their numbers are increasing, and that’s a good thing —

their number of purpose-built rental vacancy is increasing — there’s a

whole lot of secondary market, available-for-rent homes that don’t get

captured in that data. It is a challenge. I’m not disputing the fact

that getting good numbers is certainly a challenge. But I don’t want to

discount the secondary market and the value that brings. The mortgage

helpers that so many people have don’t get captured in the vacancy rate

numbers that CMHC shares with us regularly.

We pay attention to the availability of rental housing. Some of

that might be coach housing. Some of that might be basement suites. Some

of that might be investment properties that people purchase and now are

renting out. Those 11,000 homes that I’m referring to are now homes for

people to live in. They pay rent to a landlord. But it’s not captured in

the vacancy rate that CMHC produces because it’s not actually built as

purpose-built rental.

I think it’s important that the member understand that

distinction, and I hope that British Columbians understand that

distinction as well.

T. Stone: I do understand the distinction between the secondary rental

market and the purpose-built rental market. The 1.1 percent vacancy rate

that I mentioned previously is the latest number in the purpose-built

market. The vacancy rate in the Lower Mainland is even less in the

secondary rental market. It’s actually 0.3 percent, as per CMHC numbers.

I don’t know….

Frankly, I’m not sure what the heck the minister’s actually

talking about here. It’s an even tighter rental market in the secondary

space than it is in the purpose-built space. When you bring the two

together, at the end of the day, there are not enough rental units

available to meet the existing demand, let alone when you overlay

population growth in British Columbia.

Again, I guess that we could quibble back and forth on percentages

here and there and which report and all the rest of it. I think we can

certainly agree that the vacancy rate is very, very tight. It’s very,

very low, particularly in the Lower Mainland, across all types of

rentals. It’s not conducive to a healthy housing market. Efforts need to

be made to increase that vacancy rate. How do you do that? We’ve got to

figure out how to bring more supply on faster.

I’d like to ask one more time, recognizing that some very strong

commitments were made by the government to drive down the cost of rents,

to increase the supply of units in the rental space…. We’ve seen average

rents are up $172 per month in Metro Vancouver over the last three

years, and the vacancy rates are largely unchanged. What are the

minister’s plans to rectify this very, very tight and expensive rental

market in British Columbia?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I will differ with the member around how CMHC looks at vacancy

rate. I’d be interested to know where that number came from on the

secondary market, because it’s not what we’ve seen. I’ve just checked

with staff again, and that’s not how CMHC reports out on vacancy rate.

They do not report out on the secondary market. So that’s been a huge

gap in the data that we are trying to fill.

I’ve certainly spoken with CMHC and let them know that we need

them to actually get us better numbers, because it’s not helpful, given

that governments, for years, have been out of the housing sector, and

there hasn’t been a lot of purpose-built rental being built, so the

secondary market has become a critical market. But they’re not

monitoring it, so we need that to be monitored. We are doing our best,

and we are asking CMHC to do what they need to do to get us good

numbers.

In light of the member’s question around how critical it is to

move on housing, that’s what we’ve been doing. It’s what our 30-point

plan is. It’s not just supply; it’s also demand. We have been curbing

demand. I read into the record early on today around all the actions

that we have taken, and I’m proud of the fact that 11,000 more units

came available as a result of our spec tax. That’s good. That’s good for

renters. It’s good for the supply part by reducing demand. We can’t just

do one without the other. We really needed to address both.

We’re also…. We’ve created a rental-only zone. We’re starting to

see some pickup. It has taken local governments a little bit of time,

but we’re starting to see some pickup on the application of that and the

opportunities that come with that.

We’ve developed the housing hub as a new branch of B.C. Housing.

They are very busy, and the opportunity to partner with the private

sector, with local government, bringing everyone together to deliver

middle-income, affordable rental has been a significant opportunity, and

there’s certainly lots of appetite to deliver housing through that

program.

We’re also working on transit-oriented housing with local

government partners as we invest in transit, and the expectation to

deliver on additional rental housing is part of the actions that we’re

taking. Again, there’s tremendous appetite and excitement to deliver, as

part of our ten-year plan, on that kind of housing, making sure that we

have affordable rental available.

Again, we talked earlier on about DAPR and making sure that the

development approval process is streamlined and more efficient. We’ll

move some of that purpose-built rental stock through to fruition and

help alleviate the challenges that, frankly, have been a long-standing

problem. It’s one that we inherited when we formed government. Again, I

want to say that we’ve seen a little bit of movement. I’m not shouting

from the treetops by any means — there’s still a ways to go — but that’s

moving in the right direction, and that’s a good thing.

T. Stone: Well, the minister has consulted with her staff. I’ve consulted

with my staff. You can pass along to your team that the numbers that I’m

referencing are available at this moment — I’m actually looking at the

page — on the CHMC housing market information portal. That’s where these

stats are. You put in the city of Vancouver or whatever community you

want and — boom — up come the rental apartment vacancy rates by

structure, and 0.3 percent is the current vacancy rate. That’s on the

secondary market.

[5:25 p.m.]

Again, you can talk about 11,000 units that suddenly appeared.

They’re all occupied. They’re all baked into a 0.3 percent vacancy rate

in the secondary market and a 1.1 percent vacancy rate that’s baked into

the purpose-built rental market. The market is tight, and it’s no wonder

that the cost of rent continues to escalate.

So the CHMC housing market information portal — have your staff

check that out to verify the numbers that I’ve thrown out there

today.

I want to move quickly to the rental-only zoning. I recognize this

is a tool that wasn’t in place anywhere else — the minister was proud to

be blazing a trail on this — and we wouldn’t have known how it would

work until it was in place, so fair enough. But what we have seen in the

limited cases where it’s actually being implemented by a local

government is that it’s been implemented to downzone. That was not the

intended use for this.

We do know that the city of New Westminster used this tool

contrary to, I think, the spirit of the legislation. FOI documents

appear to show that the city of New Westminster intended, again, to use

this for downzoning purposes, yet there hasn’t been any noticeable

activity on the part of the government to rectify this situation insofar

as making whatever changes can be made to the legislation so that it

can’t be used as a downzoning tool.

The first question is: has the minister or the ministry taken a

look at the rental-only zoning legislation, understanding now the issues

that have come into play in its application in some local communities

where it’s being used for the exact opposite intention than was in the

original legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a new tool, as the member pointed out. It’s enabling

legislation which allows local governments to use this as a tool to make

the best determination about how to use the tool. It matches, in part,

the housing needs report requirement that we brought forward into

legislation so that they can identify how to best respond to the land

use planning that they’re responsible for.

I mean, it is new, so ministry staff are continuing to respond to

questions from local governments and monitor how they are using it. To

date, there are several municipalities that have adopted this, including

Victoria, Burnaby, Ladysmith, Kelowna and Squamish. We’re going to keep

monitoring how this gets used, because it’s a real opportunity to help

address the problems and the challenges that the member was just asking

about — making sure that we have purpose-built rental.

[5:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: I mentioned in my last question FOI documents that appear to show

the city of New Westminster with intent to use this rental-only zoning

tool to downzone. The FOI documents that came back to us indicated that

the minister actually met with the city of New Westminster mayor on June

7, 2019. The discussion pertained to renovictions and mentioned the

rental-only zoning tool. There were suggestions that the city was using

it as a renoviction tool.

I’m just wondering if the minister could comment for us. What

exactly was the message that the minister was conveying to the city of

New Westminster in terms of the intended use of this tool in contrast to

how it appears that the city of New Westminster was actually trying to

use the tool?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, this is enabling legislation for local governments to make

the best decisions that they determine are in the best interests of

their communities. It’s not appropriate for me to comment on a local

government matter that I understand is currently before the

courts.

T. Stone: Will the minister, then, comment on the rental-only zoning tool,

which she refers to as enabling legislation? Will she comment on whether

or not the use of that tool for downzoning purposes, the use of that

tool to essentially result in downzoning, was not the intended use of

the tool and shouldn’t happen? Can the minister, at that high-level

policy place, agree that that tool was never intended for downzoning and

that it shouldn’t be used for downzoning?

Hon. S. Robinson: This tool is another part of our 30-point plan to help local

governments preserve and increase the overall supply of rental homes in

their communities for the long term and to help increase housing choice

and affordability. That was the intent of our legislation — to help make

sure that we had and to stimulate more rental supply.

[5:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: Chair, after I ask this question and the minister responds, my

colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will have her hand up to ask a

few questions. Just a heads-up for you.

To the minister, then, if the intent of this enabling legislation

is to, as she said it, “increase rental supply in communities” and, as

part of that, to drive affordability in communities, then surely she

agrees with the assertion that this tool should not be used for

downzoning purposes. Does she agree with that assertion, yes or

no?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s right before the courts as we speak, and I can’t provide

comment.

T. Stone: Okay. I was going to go to my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain, but I will ask one follow-up question.

I’m not asking for the minister to comment on a case before the

courts. What I’m asking the minister to do is to make a comment on what

she believes the intended use of a tool is. She has answered that part

of the question. This tool is intended to increase rental supply in

communities.

However, the second part of what I’m looking for here, the second

part of the question, is not about a court case. It is about whether or

not she believes that a local government should use this tool for

downzoning purposes. Downzoning will not result in additional rental

supply in the communities, which she says is the stated

intent.

Again, does the minister agree with the assertion that this tool

should not be used for downzoning purposes, yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the intent is to increase rental housing supply. The very

essence of what the member is asking is before the courts, and I’d leave

it up to the courts to make that decision.

J. Isaacs: Good afternoon to everyone, and good afternoon to the minister.

What I’d like to canvass today is the opening of the Brunette Avenue

expansion shelter.

I know that B.C. Housing has secured a hotel in Coquitlam for 28

spaces. That will be used as shelter spaces for homeless people who are

over the age of 19, people that are living in and from the Tri-Cities

without a home or people in the Tri-Cities who are at risk of

homelessness. I understand that the shelter’s also open to people with

no fixed address who may have been released from hospitals within the

Tri-Cities.

We’ve seen some experiences where the residents have been moved

from Oppenheimer Park to the hotels in Yaletown. The residents and the

businesses are dealing with a lot of aggressive behaviour, needles,

street disorder. People don’t feel safe stepping out of their homes or

walking in their neighbourhoods. According to the business improvement

association and reported by News 1130, crime is up 400 percent. We’ve

seen similar incidents and reports in Victoria and Kelowna.

I’m just wondering if the minister can advise what impacts she’s

identified for Coquitlam, what her strategy might be to deal with any of

those negative impacts that may arise that we have seen in other cities,

and what assurance can she provide to Coquitlam and the residents and

the surrounding businesses that their experience would be

different?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the member. She talks about —

crime is up 400 percent. That’s actually inaccurate. It might be calls

to police that might be up, and we’ve certainly seen this in other

places. But that does not mean crime. It just means that people are

making phone calls to say that they have some concern. They get

investigated, and most often it is not a crime. It’s just a

concern.

I think it’s really important to make that distinction, because I

think that that contributes to fearmongering, and that’s not good for

the people who are pretty vulnerable, who live on the streets or who

find themselves in situations where they don’t have a home. So I think

it’s really important to make that distinction.

I also want to point out…. And I’m very proud of the fact that

this is coming to my constituency. The member for Kamloops–South

Thompson, when he kept referring to Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, was

actually referring to…. He kept saying Coquitlam-Maillardville. This is

a program that is coming right into my backyard, and I’m really proud of

the fact that it’s going to be there and make a difference in people’s

lives.

Phoenix is a well-established and expert operator, and they are

the on-site operator to support these 28 individuals. Of course, there

are supports to help people adjust to living indoors, making sure that

they’re getting the supports, making sure that they’re getting meals,

making sure that they’re seeing physicians and they’re getting their

health care taken care of, access to mental health and substance use

supports. Phoenix is a well-known substance use recovery provider, so

they really do know what they’re doing. I’m very proud of the fact…. I

had a meeting with Keir Macdonald, the CEO, and he was certainly filling

me in on all of their activities and how they’re going to be supporting

people.

[5:45 p.m.]

If the member has any specific questions, I would certainly

facilitate setting up a meeting with Keir. But I want to assure my

constituents that they’re a very good operator and will continue to

support these people.

I think it’s also important to speak to the impact that these

investments have in people’s lives. There was a physician recently, Dr.

Anne Nguyen, who works with the Cool Aid Community Health services’

Mobile Inner-City Outreach team here in Victoria, who talked about the

work that they’re doing in Victoria. Because, of course, the encampment

that the member refers to at Oppenheimer…. There was certainly another

encampment here in Victoria that we addressed simultaneously.

She has spoken about the impact that these services are having in

people’s lives. I think it’s really important to speak to that and to

comment on it. One of the things that she has said is that there is an

adjustment period of time to facilitate new routines in people’s lives.

Remember, these are people who didn’t have structure before, and now

there is a bit more structure. There is a bit of an adjustment period,

but they do settle in.

She’s saying — this is what she said — that currently the

buildings are up and running, and they’re well-staffed and they’re

well-run. She’s hearing that people are glad to be indoors. They’re

glad. She’s hearing a lot about people who are interested in getting

better. They’re saying that now that they are inside, they can turn

their attention to getting better. That’s what this is about.

I know that the member wants people to get better and wants people

to have the supports, because if they don’t have them, then they’re

still in our communities, except they’re in our ravines and they’re in

our parks, and then that’s not good for anybody. Having them housed in

our communities, having them housed with supports, is really the way

forward.

The last thing I just want to say about this doctor who was on the

radio recently…. She was honoured by the Doctors of B.C. on National

Physicians Day. She’s really well respected. This is what she had to

say. She said that what she’s hearing from folks who are now indoors is

that they’re turning towards health, because they have their basic need

of housing met. Then she goes on to say: “So I think that what we’re

hearing is that housing works, housing first works, and that we need

more of it.”

I’m very proud of the fact that we were able to deliver more for

people who are from the Tri-Cities so that their needs can be met so

that they can become healthy and they can find another path

forward.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister for the full answer there.

I understand that Phoenix, who’s the contractor and the operator

of the hotel, has that contract up until September 30. Of course, in

October, then we’re kind of heading into the winter months.

Is there a plan to move residents on October 1 with the hope that

there are some other housing options that become available by then, or

is there a plan to renew the lease on October 1? Are there any other

hotels in the Tri-Cities that are under consideration?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s question, we are always looking for opportunities

to keep people housed. Our desire is to keep people housed as long as we

absolutely can, so looking for lease extensions is always on the radar.

This is something that we’re looking at right across the

province.

We also want to build permanent housing. I invite the member, who

shares in my community, working with local governments, to identify

opportunities to build the kind of permanent housing that these folks

need so that we can all make sure that their needs are met and the

community is better. That work continues, again, right across the

province, as well as in the Tri-Cities. Any time the member wants an

update on where we’re at in the Tri-Cities, I’d be happy to give her

one.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to the minister for the offer. I will probably take you

up on that offer. I think we do share many of the same types of

concerns, and I’d be very interested in what work is being proposed and

what work is being done.

We saw, in the dismantlement of Oppenheimer, that almost 90

percent — actually, over 90 percent — of the residents had addiction or

substance abuse problems and even a higher number with mental health

challenges. Is the minister seeing a similar trend here in Coquitlam?

What is the percentage of the people that are housed in Coquitlam that

may have addiction issues or may also have mental health

issues?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member refers to Oppenheimer, which was a significant camp

that was situated in the Downtown Eastside that had grown over a number

of months and years. This is a very different kind of situation, so I

think it’s really important to understand the distinction.

In Coquitlam, what we are seeing is not a camp like we saw in the

Downtown Eastside. What we are seeing is that there are individuals that

are in our community — whether they’re in some parks or they’re in

ravines or they’re down by the Coquitlam River — that are needing

housing. So it’s a different comparator.

[5:55 p.m.]

What we do — and this is right across the province — is…. When we

identify someone who is needing a home and is interested in having a

roof over their head and supports in place to successfully house them,

they go through an assessment process. We take a look at what their

primary health needs are, what their mental health needs are and what

their addiction challenges are so that we can put the proper supports in

place. We do that as we identify people who need supports.

In the Oppenheimer situation, as well as Pandora, we knew exactly

who needed supports. Assessments were done, I’ll say wholesale, so we

understood exactly what the needs were before we moved people in. So we

were able to put supports in place for those folks, knowing exactly what

the needs were.

In this situation in Coquitlam, it’s about identifying people. As

they are identified, we will assess them and then determine their needs.

I can’t give her specific percentages that she’s asked for, but I will

say…. I think we need to remember that these people are the most

marginalized. They’re the most challenged, in many ways.

We do know that there are higher needs about primary care. They’re

physically not well. They probably haven’t been eating well. Their

hygiene has been compromised because they’re homeless — and their

ability to take care of their mental health. When you have to find a

place to sleep every night, when you feel like you’re not worthy and the

public treats you as not worthy, I’m sure she can imagine how that

would, in turn, feed and fuel mental health challenges. We do see higher

rates of mental health challenges as well as addictions.

I want to assure the member that we also work very closely with

Fraser Health as well as the housing provider to make sure that the

supports are in place. B.C. Housing has excellent relationships with the

health providers to make sure that the supports are there for people

when they need them.

J. Isaacs: I understand that Fraser Health is doing the assessments. That’s

part of the intake process, so I would imagine that they would, in doing

those assessments, be able to provide a percentage of how many people

have addiction issues, what those substance abuse issues may be, as well

as those who have mental health problems, as well as those who may have

brain injuries. I’m sure that is all part of the assessment. But we’ll

leave that for now.

Just a question on the safe injection sites. Is there a safe

injection site at this hotel? If so, were residents advised that a safe

injection site was going to be at this location? If the lease expires

and the lease is terminated, are there any plans for the injection site

to remain open after the lease expires?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no safe injection site at this location.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

When I was talking to the estimates with the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, we talked a little about 24-7 support

and what that means. We hear an awful lot about the term “wraparound

services,” but when you actually boil it right down, it really isn’t

24-7 care, as is implied. It basically means that there are some

security staff there overnight and that meals are provided. So it’s not

the 24-7 that people think it is.

I know that there’s a nurse practitioner that’s on site once or

twice a week. There’s a counsellor. There are outreach workers, a

physician and so on. When you meet with these health care professionals,

you get a referral to access addictions specialists or mental health

supports, but you don’t actually get the support on site, and it really

isn’t available 24-7.

I just want to make the point that people are getting access to

the service, but they’re not getting service on site. I think that

there’s a distinction there. The new term that has come up is “rapid

response,” and I’m wondering what exactly rapid response is. How does it

differ from what is being delivered right now? Will it improve services

that can provide quicker access to services and supports that are

already in place?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to reiterate what 24-7 means. Not only is it the daily

meals that she identified, as well as security, as she refers to it, in

terms of monitoring. I’ll call it monitoring, rather than security. I

don’t want her thinking, or anyone thinking, that it’s just about having

a security guard. This is about monitoring. How are people’s health? Are

they engaging with other people? Are they safe? Making sure who’s going

in and out of the building is part of that. That’s certainly available

24-7.

Again, there’s helping people learn how to clean. People forget.

If you don’t have a home, you forget how to clean. Do people need skills

training? Do they need help with some of their social skills? That is

what’s happening. That’s what is available 24-7.

I have to say that Phoenix, as a provider, is very skilled. All of

their staff are very skilled and provide the supports, and I will say

24-7. If someone wakes up in the middle of the night and they’re feeling

distressed, there is someone on site who will sit down and have a cup of

tea, listen and remind people about their worth and about their capacity

for loving, for living and for doing the things that they need to do. To

me, that is support, and that is what it means to be in supportive

housing.

What the member is referring to, I would say, are more clinicians.

That’s available, certainly, as a sort of outreach, right? There are not

clinicians on site. That’s a different level of service. But there are

absolutely support services 24-7, and clinical services are available as

well.

I was just checking on the status of this particular project where

we’re housing people. The member would be very pleased to know that

already — it just opened, I think, last month — two individuals have

made the decision to go into Phoenix recovery in Surrey. That’s a good

thing. It’s because we’ve invested here in Coquitlam-Maillardville. The

people in the Tri-Cities have a safe place to go, I’ll say, to get their

wits around them, have a place where they can shower, where they can eat

meals, where they can think clearly and not worry day to day about

dragging your stuff around in a shopping cart and trying to keep

yourself safe.

They’ve had a place to rest their head, a place to have a shower,

a place to get well. And now we’ve already had two people make the

decision that it was time to change and turn away from a life of abusing

drugs into something healthier. I think that’s something we can all be

very proud about.

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Of course, it’s great to have

someone to talk with — and support, when you need it, through the night

— and have a cup of tea. But the term “24-7 wraparound service” really

implies that that clinical support is there. I think there’s some

confusion, certainly in the public’s mind, of just what kind of support

is there.

I do want to take the minister back to a time when the proposed

shelter and transition housing project on Gordon Avenue was taking

place. The minister was then a Coquitlam city councillor and — at the