British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — 9 July 2020, p.m., Issue 6 (41st Parliament, 5th Session) (20200709pm CommitteeA n6)

20200709pm CommitteeA n6

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY ,

SECTION A Virtual Meeting Thursday, July 9, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Issue No. 6 Presiding Officers: RAJ CHOUHAN, DEPUTY SPEAKER SPENCER CHANDRA HERBERT, DEPUTY CHAIR, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ISSN 2563-3511

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance ...........................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...........................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Thursday, July 9, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Page Committee of Supply Proceedings in

Section A ............................................................................................................................................................91 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 par- ticipating today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ ʷəŋin̓ əŋ-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 sup- plement.

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 chal- lenges 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 tem- porary 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 avail- able, and people who needed it extended didn’t have to reapply. We just allowed it to continue through, recogniz- ing 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 mak- ing sure that they were keeping things whole. Twelve per- cent 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 pandem- ic 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 cer- tainly 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 Colum- bian, 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 pro- gram to operate, so we pressed the pause button. I’m happy to say that it’s been reactivated, because we now have cri- teria 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 pro- vincial 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 men- tioned 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 under- stand…. 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 some- 91

what 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 differ- ence for people, in terms of their ability to continue liv- ing 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 pro- gram. 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 appreci- ated, 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 pro- gram 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 mil- lion, 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 insur- ance 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 fin- ancial 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 say- ing that despite some claims that the market is moderat- ing, 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. 92 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 eco- nomy, 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 hous- ing 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 affordab- ility, we look at affordable living. Housing is absolutely a critical part of it, but we also recognize that invest- ments 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 con- cerns 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 afford- ability 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. Tax- ing 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 prop- erty 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 dis- trict 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 loop- holes. We’ve taken significant action there — again, mak- ing 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 invest- ment 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 cam- pus. 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 liter- ally off the charts. The growth, year over year, was unsus- tainable. It was absolutely unsustainable. So our measures are about making things more manageable for British Col- umbians. 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: Y es, 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 signi- ficant 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 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 93

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 Brit- ish 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 announce- ment here in the building. We were focused on doing what we were being directed to do, and I didn’t hear the ques- tion.

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 appre- ciate your patience. For those of you who aren’t in the pre- cinct 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 every- body’s patience. We’ve been told it was a false alarm. I would ask the member for Kamloops–South Thomp- son, 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 announce- ment there was an earthquake, and my ears stopped work- ing. 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 Col- umbia 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 com- munity was: “Well, you know, there’s market demand. They’re selling like hotcakes. ” This was, I would say, 2009, ’10, ’11. What we were see- ing 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 mak- ing, certainly, some progress.

But I want to say that the housing needs assessment, as a tool, will help all local gov- ernments 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 com- munity 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 94 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 mod- erated. 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 per- cent 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 know- ledge, 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 defin- ition 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 pro- gress table that’s on page 4 here…. The definition of “ini- tiated, ” insofar as the Q1 report indicated, was: “These are projects that have been announced, but no commitment has been made towards them. ” Conveniently, that defini- tion 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 exist- ing 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 Columbi- ans understand, that when we go out with a funding call, for example, like we just did with the community hous- ing 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 organiz- ations 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 devel- opment 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 defini- tion 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 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 95

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. frame- work 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 earli- er 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 Col- umbians that every single initiated project that has been announced, that is moving through the development per- mitting 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 defin- itely attached to every single project that we announce. T. Stone: Well, that’s a twist. We’ll look forward to get- ting 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 ques- tions 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 docu- ment 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 govern- ment — rightfully so — for making a big deal about pro- jects 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 inde- pendent of this office. It is done by career public service. People who work in the public service apply the FOI legis- lation. They do it professionally and according to very spe- cific 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 tak- ing a look at some of our initiated projects that are hap- pening in the member’s own riding. There are a number that are happening in Kamloops that are under the initi- ated 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 pro- jects 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 trans- ition 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 sup- portive 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 permit- ting and all the various other elements that go into devel- opment, from an accounting perspective, it will be identi- fied 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 96 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

that we’ve made in collaboration with the local govern- ments 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 develop- ment 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, depend- ing on which community we’re in and if the site has chal- lenges 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 approv- al, 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 minis- ter 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 Brit- ish 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 get- ting 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 afford- able 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 pro- ject 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 mar- ket 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 construc- tion. That’s, I think, pretty exciting. I believe some of those have already opened, those ones that are under construc- tion, since Q4 was reporting out. [3:15 p.m.] Under the deepening affordability of existing projects, Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 97

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 develop- ment. Architects are working to draw up plans and work- ing 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 construc- tion.

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 success- ful in their new housing. We have 402 that are under con- struction 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 mem- ber’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. Y ou 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 ini- tiated phase or in the development phase. There are only 2,963 units that are actually open, meaning that they actu- ally 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 afford- able 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 devel- opment 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 build- ing 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 com- mitted to doing that.

I hope the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson will be joining me when we cut the ribbon on the numerous projects that we are build- ing 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 98 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 imple- ment the recommendations contained in thisDevelopment 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, Develop- ment 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 com- munity around the amount of time it can take to get through the development approval process. In some com- munities, it was certainly more challenging, more convo- luted 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 govern- ment and support for those who were desperately in need of housing.

In recent weeks, things have settled for us sig- nificantly 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 inter- esting…. As a result of COVID, I’ve had weekly conver- sations with mayors. They’re now sort of biweekly at this point. They became biweekly eventually, but regular con- versations.

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 develop- ment 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 pick- ing 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 for- ward.

There is so much good that could come from the kinds of changes that would flow from the recommenda- tions in the DAPR report insofar as reducing complexit- ies, 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 fin- ance 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 prior- ity 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 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 99

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 signi- ficant costs, onerous regulatory requirements, and that is dealt with quite prominently in this report. In the report, there are recommendations to improve those onerous reg- ulatory requirements by, I guess, uncomplicating the reg- ulatory 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 regu- latory requirements, which, I think, are universally viewed as one of the single greatest barriers to more housing sup- ply coming onstream faster? Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member is referring to our commitment to engage in streamlining and stream- lining 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 obliga- tions are.

A lot of them had gotten into the habit of having public hearings for things that they weren’t obligated to have pub- lic 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 eco- nomy. 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, look- ing 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 opportunit- ies. It’s really good learning that has come out of COVID and that we can apply in this case. T. Stone: Y es.

The DAPR report actually does provide a recommendation for, I believe, a provincial review of pub- lic hearings and looking at the consideration of alternat- ive 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 accel- erate the work required to bring to life this recommenda- tion from the DAPR report, insofar as the recommenda- tion to explore new ways of facilitating that public engage- ment 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: Y es, 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 min- istry 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 govern- ments 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 100 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 commit- ted to driving the recommendations and the review pro- cess 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 govern- ments are pulling it forward too. I just want to reiterate that

whereas the local govern- ments, 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 exper- ienced 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 bur- den 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 Clean- BC 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 effi- ciency and reduce emissions. This will be part of a 0.5 met- ric 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 fol- lows. 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 pro- jects 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 effi- ciency 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 acknow- ledge 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 mil- lion 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 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 101

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 elec- trical 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 com- ponent 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 reduc- tion targets in the social housing and affordable housing sector when it would appear that only one-third of its pro- jects, 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 pro- jects 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 gov- ernment 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 annu- ally. Again, I’ll reiterate. In 2019, total greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use for heating and electri- city in all buildings owned or leased by B.C. Housing were reduced by 36 percent from the 2005 level, exceed- ing 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 supple- ment. 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 dis- tributed to date, I guess, prior to the extension of the pro- 102 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

gram, 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 recog- nize 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 determ- ined. T. Stone: How many households had non-related roommates at the same address with each of the room- mates 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 sup- port 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 con- text 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. Y ou might not get that as room- mates. 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 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 103

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 repay- ment 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 con- tinue 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 under- stand 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 reas- ons 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 every- one. Again, I think what’s really important to keep in mind is that most renters paid their rent. That’s, I think, incred- ible, 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? Y ou can’t have one without the other. Eighty-five per- cent full payment, 12 percent partial payment, as expressed in percentage terms, sounds great.

But in a pop- ulation 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 sig- nificant 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 put- ting 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 land- lord 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 engage- ment 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, 104 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 supple- ment 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 min- ister’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 govern- ment 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 pen- sion 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 addi- tion, 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 cre- ates 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 frame- work, so they can evict for their own use. That is now avail- able 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 experien- cing 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 thou- sands 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 dis- tress 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. Y ou know, some people are losing their jobs, like Grace’s spouse has.

None of us could have Thursday, July 9, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section A 105

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 turn- ing the dial. Dr. Henry has been very clear about reopen- ing 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 for- ward 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 col- lect rent on their rental units. This one says…. This is Dan in Surrey. “I’m growing increasingly concerned over the provincial gov- ernment’s decision to extend the moratorium on tenant evictions for non-payment of rent. I understand this moratorium was re- cently 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 my- self, 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 finan- cial 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 nu- merous 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 fin- ancial 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 land- lords, 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 repay- ment will begin in phase 3, phase 4 or phase 5 of the gov- ernment’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 accord- ingly 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 per- cent 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 avail- ability 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 106 Committee of Supply,

Section A Thursday, July 9, 2020

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 des- perately 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 under- stand that distinction as well. T. Stone: I do understand the distinction between the secondary rental market and the purpose-built rental mar- ket. The 1.1 percent vacancy rate that I mentioned pre- viously 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 actu- ally 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 condu- cive 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 mon- itoring it, so we need that to be monitored. We are doing our best, and we are asking CMHC to do what they need

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200709pm CommitteeA n6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200709pm CommitteeA n6
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fc455365e1b84648710d282e82171acdfe2e4c20

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).