HANSARD

 

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

 

 

COMMITTEE

 

ON

 

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

 

 

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

 

 

COMMITTEE ROOM

 

 

 

Government Measures Addressing Housing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
 

Public Accounts Committee

Lorelei Nicoll (Chair)

Nolan Young (Vice Chair)

Tom Taggart

John A. MacDonald

Melissa Sheehy-Richard
Marco MacLeod

Braedon Clark

Susan Leblanc

Lisa Lachance

 

[Susan Leblanc was replaced by Claudia Chender.]

 

 

 

 

In Attendance:

Kim Langille
Committee Clerk

James de Salis

Administrative Support Clerk

 

Gordon Hebb

Chief Legislative Counsel

 

Kim Adair

Auditor General
 

WITNESSES

 

Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing
 

Byron Rafuse - Deputy Minister

 

Hardy Stuckless - Executive Director, Partnerships, Funding & Municipal Taxation

 

Michelle Waye - Executive Director, Housing Programs and Services

 

Kathy Cox-Brown - Executive Director, Rent Supplement and Executive Panel on Housing in HRM

 

Brian Ward - Executive Director, Operations, Nova Scotia

 

 

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2024

 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

 

9:00 A.M.

 

CHAIR

Lorelei Nicoll

 

VICE CHAIR

Nolan Young

 

 

THE CHAIR: I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. My name is Lorelei Nicoll. I'm the Chair of the committee. Before we start, I'll remind everyone to keep your phones on silent. Should there be a need to leave the building, we'll exit through the doors on Granville Street and gather at the Grand Parade.

 

Now I'll ask the committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my left.

 

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

 

THE CHAIR: On my left, we have from Legislative Counsel . . .

 

[The Chief Legislative Counsel introduced himself.]

 

THE CHAIR: And on my right, the committee clerk is . . .

 

[The committee clerk introduced herself.]

 

THE CHAIR: I remind everyone that we have officials from the Auditor General here with us in attendance as advisers to the committee should they have any questions.

 

On today's agenda, we have officials with us from the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to Government Measures Addressing Housing. I'll ask our witnesses to introduce themselves, starting on the left.

 

[The witnesses introduced themselves.]

 

THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone. We'll start with Deputy Minister Rafuse with his opening remarks.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Thank you for inviting us here today to talk about Government Measures Addressing Housing.

 

I understand the committee is interested in learning about what we're doing to address the housing crisis and how we are helping more Nova Scotians access housing across the spectrum. My colleagues and I will do our best together to answer your questions.

 

We've had the opportunity to be here with the committee several times over the last year or so, and we always appreciate the opportunity to bring forward an update on the important work and the measures being undertaken to improve and enhance housing. As you may know, we've created a strong, clear housing plan with solid data and backed by historic investments that will help to create the environment for an additional 41,200 units over the next five years. It's been about a year since we've launched our plan, and we've already seen significant progress.

 

For example, Nova Scotia's housing stock has increased by 4,600 units and housing starts are up 48.4 per cent year to date. We are pleased to see this progress, but we know there is more work to do, and we know we can't fix this crisis alone. That is why we are working very closely with our municipal, federal, and community partners to ensure we can support as many people and families as possible to find a home.

 

One way that we are doing that in partnership with HRM is through the Executive Panel on Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality, the HRM joint planning task force, which is focused on solutions to address the housing crisis here in Halifax. Through the panel's work, we've been able to unlock over 40,000 housing units, creating more supply faster.

 

In the last couple of weeks alone, you may have seen some significant announcements on affordable and deeply affordable housing with our partners in community and other levels of government, including municipalities. A few examples are the investments by all three levels of government and community totalling over $12 million in 32 new affordable homes for women and their children in the Mount Hope neighbourhood of Dartmouth. Residents will also have access to wraparound services tailored to meet their needs around mental health, health care, and employment services.

Another example is our partnership with the Antigonish Affordable Housing Society and their new development at 19 Appleseed Drive. This will feature 17 affordable units, including four barrier-free units. This is a partnership under our Land for Housing Program, which has unlocked the potential for 1,000 units, including more than 430 affordable units in areas across the province.

 

Work is happening across the housing spectrum to help Nova Scotians. For the first time since the 1990s, the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency is building 273 new public housing units that will help over 700 people. We've increased our investment in our home repair programs and helped more than 2,250 Nova Scotians, including many seniors. The investment in the community housing sector has increased tenfold, with over $120 million invested in the last two years, increasing the number of households supported by 175 per cent. The Community Housing Acquisition Program - or CHAP, as we call it - has helped preserve 483 affordable units, including 187 supportive housing units. Many of these units are in HRM.

 

We've increased our investment in the First-time Home Buyers Rebate Program from $400,000 to over $4 million, making it easier for people to buy their first home. We've also made changes to that program three times in the last few years to improve and increase access and eligibility so that more people and families can apply.

 

We've quadrupled our investment in the rent supplement program to $69 million annually, aiming to assist 9,500 households this year. We are also partnering with Nova Scotia homeowners to increase our housing and affordable housing stock. I am proud to say that through programs like the Secondary and Backyard Suite Incentive Program and Happipad, we have been able to connect hundreds of Nova Scotians to housing faster. These are just a few examples of how we are working with our partners at all levels to address the housing crisis and connect as many Nova Scotians as possible to a home.

 

Before I conclude, I wanted to touch on another important topic that I know the committee has expressed interest in, and that is infrastructure. My department understands the importance of improved infrastructure for our municipalities and communities. We know that in order to address the housing crisis, we need strong, improved, and sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure. Most times they go hand in hand.

 

Over the past few months, you may have noticed my department was busy telling Nova Scotians about the Municipal Capital Growth Program, which is a $102 million provincial investment to enhance infrastructure in municipalities across the province. I would note that that's also matched with investments from municipalities. This program alone will result in replacing and extending 25 kilometres of water and wastewater pipe, reducing flooding risk to 638 properties; building seven kilometres of new or improved sidewalks and trails; and enabling the development of close to 7,000 new housing units.

 

On top of the MCGP, we have programs like ICIP - Investing in Canada Infrastructure - which is a $2 billion investment from all levels of government that will see hundreds of infrastructure projects roll out across Nova Scotia until 2033.

 

Just a couple of months ago, we announced our role in the Canada Community-Building Fund with the federal government, which will see on the order of $60 million-plus for infrastructure programs flow to our municipalities each year for the next 10 years, and through the new renegotiated Service Exchange Agreement, we've committed to a $15 million annual program to assist municipalities in their infrastructure needs. The details of that program for this year are being worked on now. We will have something very soon to say about that.

 

Chair, in short, we know our municipalities need help. We have proven our commitment to leveraging and investing dollars available to support our communities now and into the future, and we will continue to do so on the infrastructure front and on the housing front.

 

I conclude by saying that I know everyone in this rooms shares the department's vision for a strong Nova Scotia with a housing sector that supports many people and families as soon as possible.

 

Thank you. We are happy to take your questions.

 

THE CHAIR: Thank you for your opening remarks, Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

We will start the first round of questions with the Liberal caucus.

 

MLA Clark.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here. Apologies for being a couple of minutes behind this morning.

 

I wanted to touch on something first that's been in the news over the last 24 or 48 hours or so, and that's some changes that the Province announced recently to the Minimum Planning Requirements Regulations for HRM. Some of those I agree with and I think are good changes. I think the elimination of minimum parking requirements is actually a really good one that is underrated and will help. Obviously, the focus on housing and developing housing makes sense too.

 

There are two things I wanted to ask about specifically. Deputy Minister Rafuse, I'll direct them to you, and then if you want to stickhandle them beyond that.

 

The changes to unit mix requirements, which basically means you need to have X number of one-, X number of two-, X number of three-bedroom apartments in any given building - that has been eliminated. I'm wondering why, because it's good to have a mix of bedroom sizes so you can have bigger families, for example, in a building. The other change is to eliminate the requirement to have at least 20 per cent ground floor commercial, which to me is a good thing because if there's a corner store on the bottom of your building, you don't need to get in your car and pick up milk. If there's a great restaurant at the bottom, you can do that rather than drive and walk around the neighbourhood, which I think we all agree is a good thing.

 

For those two particular changes - unit mix and ground floor commercial - why were those changes made, from the Province's perspective? How does that help deal with the housing crisis, I guess?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Most people realize these changes for minimal planning standards were addressed at HRM council yesterday. I can tell you those changes were the result of the panel's deliberations on the issue. As you know, the task force panel has representation from both the Province and HRM and has professional consultants providing them support.

 

As HRM was going through its Housing Accelerator Fund amendments, which they passed over the Summer months, where there was a tremendous number of progressive changes made, the panel deliberations concluded that there were some additional changes that are warranted. On the recommendation of the panel, the minister recognized that and approved these bylaws, and requested the HRM pass it.

 

As far as the changes of the two civic ones you mentioned, the housing mix one, an element is to not loosen restrictions to allow development to proceed as a market allows. I agree with you that there is a need for all three units, but to require that has some limitations. Likewise with the commercial on the ground floor aspect of it. Our focus is on housing and not the elements of commercial operation. That's really cool that was submitted.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: As I said in my first question, I agree that housing should be, in many cases, the predominant concern, but you also want to have communities that are walkable and livable, and people like to have commercial ground floor. I don't quite understand that. The unit mix - I understand it is a requirement. It is, if you wanted to call it, red tape - although I don't think that is the right term. If developers have the option to use whatever mix they want, my assumption might be that they would build predominantly a vast majority bachelor and one-bedroom because you can get more units into the same amount of space because they're obviously smaller than a three-bedroom. I just wanted to lay that out there because I think those are changes that I don't quite see the rationale for.

 

You mentioned the executive panel, which is important. Special Planning Areas have been the topic of interest ever since they've been introduced. There are three of them in my riding alone. I know other members here have them in their ridings as well. What's always confused me about it is the minister has said repeatedly when we've asked about these Special Planning Areas that they will follow all the applicable rules and regulations and studies and planning that go on already in HRM and have been going on for a while, yet the minister has also made the argument that the Special Planning Areas are building housing faster. How can both of those things be true? If the department is following all the existing steps that HRM has for these Special Planning Areas, how is it also true that they're being built faster if you're just following the rules that have been in place?

 

[9:15 a.m.]

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Before I get to that, I was remiss in not mentioning in the answer to your first question around the commercial properties and the removal of that, if you look at the commercial vacancy rate right now in Halifax, it's quite substantial. That was one of the driving forces which led to removing that requirement. Compared to residential units, there is a fair amount of commercial space available, and quite frankly, if there is a market for something in the neighbourhood, it will develop on its own as opposed to a requirement.

 

It's true there have been a number of Special Planning Areas that have been announced, with several in your area. One thing to note with that is yes, they do have to follow all the same rules. It's not a free pass. What it does do, if you look at the time it takes - it's always been, quite frankly to me, astounding the length of time from project conception to an occupancy permit. You're talking not two or three years; you're talking several years to go through all the steps. What the panel work has done, what the legislative changes have done, is shortened that time frame. The designation of Special Planning Areas has removed - depending on the area - anywhere from a low of three months to up to 15 months out of the process.

 

What that allows us to do is to expedite some of those processes - it doesn't mean they don't have to do certain studies. It doesn't mean they get a free pass to a development agreement. It doesn't mean they don't have to follow all the building codes and environmental standards. It just expedites the process, and when we can expedite the process, housing will be built faster, and it does reduce the cost for that developer. Time is money on these things, so if you can shorten the process, housing becomes more available, and it becomes a more viable option for the developer to proceed.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I agree in the sense that sometimes it is shocking how long things can take. Maybe we should be used to it in government. We shouldn't be, but sometimes it does, so I take that point. I think we do need to be more efficient on housing development in general. You said three to 15 months for the range of time shaved off. My question would be: How? Could you give me an example of what the Special Planning Areas process has done to take three months or nine months or 15 months off a process? What specific things happen through the executive panel that weren't happening before that are allowing housing to get built faster? As you say, time is money in that sense. If you have something, a good example of how that time has been cut down.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I don't sit on the panel, so I don't know the deliberations. What that does is it expedites the process so that a lot of times it will remove things that are within the planning department of HRM that are hard to address. It gets them through that process faster. It does allow things to be advanced further with ministerial approval as opposed to waiting for council approval. Those are the elements that it does allow things to go faster. It does remove some uncertainty for the developer and for the area.

 

Those are the examples I will give you. I will get back to you with specific examples, with specific SPAs, is probably the best way of doing that - saying, “This SPA, this step took out so many months.” I just don't have that in front of me, but it does expedite the process, and I would say to you that both HRM and the development community would agree with that.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I would appreciate that, Deputy Minister Rafuse. Thank you for that offer on the examples. You touched on another topic in your opening comments I wanted to ask about, which is the Secondary and Backyard Suite Incentive Program. As we know, eligibility has gone from $25,000 to $40,000 recently. Anecdotally, I still hear stories about complexity and difficulty and so on. Could you just give us an update on how many applications there have been for that program and how many loans have been approved? Whatever the most recent reporting period might be, if we have that at hand.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Before I hand it off to Michelle to speak further, it is an exceptional program which has shown great progress. We've made some changes to it.

 

I just want to make a point of clarity that has led to some off comments around the program. It's not meant to cover the entire cost of your backyard suite or your secondary suite. It is to help you to advance on that. It helps you to provide it on an affordable basis. There are some difficulties, and we've removed some of those challenges within the department. Like in the last changes, you don't need to submit your drawings and plans to us. There are still some challenges in some areas of the province from a municipal bylaw perspective that are a challenge for backyard suites, and we are working with those municipalities to progress that so they are more accommodating on this notion. This is a really expedited way in which additional units can be provided. I'll now ask Michelle to provide some stats on the program itself.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Yes, as Deputy Minister Rafuse said, the secondary suites program is newer and it's actually one of our most popular programs, I would say. We're getting quite a lot of interest within the first few months that it was open; we had up to 300 inquiries within the first month. The first year that it was operational - it opened last November, so halfway through last fiscal, say - at the end of last fiscal we had approved 26 applications. This was before we did the changes in the Fall where we increased the amount and reduced some of the administrative burden. To date in 2024-25, we've approved 191 applications, and that equals about $7.5 million. We're seeing a lot of interest in this program throughout the province.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: If you've approved 191 applications, do we know how many suites have been built and are occupied by people at this point in time? Do we have that data?

 

MICHELLE WAYE: We do not have the specifics. We do know it's early in the program, so it does take a while for these units to be built. I can get back to you with the exact number, but I'm thinking that one or two suites have been completed so far. I will get back to you.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Just so I understand, as they are completed, that data does get routed back to the department in some way, shape, or form? It doesn't just sit with the municipalities, I assume.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Yes, you are correct, it does get rerouted back to the department because we issue final payment when the municipal approvals have been completed.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I'm going to jump back to the Special Planning Areas for a second, if I could. You mentioned earlier that you don't sit on the panel, therefore you might not have the blow-by-blow decision-making process, and I appreciate that. One thing that's troubled me a bit about the Special Planning Area and the Executive Panel on Housing is it's a bit opaque, to be kind. I think there are vague minutes, and there's a website, and it's not updated as frequently as perhaps I would like. From the department's perspective, is the department comfortable with the level of transparency and decision-making around that? If so, why?

 

Obviously, those decisions are huge decisions. For example, I think there are 10,000 or 11,000 units potentially in my riding alone that could be built through the Special Planning Area process. That's tens and tens of millions of dollars of investment and I don't see a lot of rationale or decision-making process. Is the department comfortable with the level of transparency around the Executive Panel, and if so, why?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I am quite comfortable with their decision-making process. To give you some insight into that, I do realize that their minutes can be a little opaque, I think is the word you used. That's for a very good reason. The panel makes recommendations to the minister. The panel decisions are such that the minister can accept those or not. It would be very inappropriate for someone to see in the minutes that something was approved, then not approved, and didn't ultimately make it through the rest of the process.

 

There is a robust screening grid used by the panel members as applications are put through that process. There is a scoring grid on several factors used, and that scoring grid has evolved over time as the panel has tried to address other things. Case in point: I think for a while not a lot of consideration was given as to how long an application was in the pipeline in HRM. Recently we decided - or they decided, rather - that that's a good criterion to use, that things that have been sitting there longer than others; maybe that should be a higher score.

 

So there is a scoring grid. The scoring grid is maintained. They are confidential. Panel members individually vote, and the vote is recorded. Then a decision is made and a recommendation is made to the minister.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I could be wrong, but I think when the Special Planning Area process was first announced there might have been nine or ten sites, if memory serves - somewhere around there. How many in total have been approved thus far? How many applications has the executive panel received from developers or companies who might be looking to have their project be deemed an SPA? How many approved at the moment - today - and how many applications has the panel received in total?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: To date, there have been 15 Special Planning Areas that have unlocked 46,000 housing units. As I said earlier, I actually understated the amount of time they saved. Actually, the Special Planning Area units saved between three and 24 months that otherwise wouldn't have been the case. In addition to those 15, seven of them have had development agreements reached, which is the secondary part, and construction has started on six of them. Those would be Indigo Shores, the former Penhorn Mall lands, Bedford West 10, Bedford West 12 and 1, Port Wallace, and we spoke earlier of Southdale/Mount Hope.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Clark with a few minutes left.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: How many, sorry?

 

THE CHAIR: One minute.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: One minute. Okay. Good hand signal there.

 

In that case, 15 approved, seven DAs, six under construction, I take that. So how many applications have been received? Fifteen have been approved. How many applications in total has the panel received since it was created?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: That's information I'd have to get back to you with. I'm not sure how many are actually at the panel site right now, or what stage they are. I would get back to you on that. That's an ongoing process where the development committee will either decide to submit something to the panel or not. I don't have that with me.

[9:30 a.m.]

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Clark with 30 seconds.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I take it to mean that there are some number of applications currently under consideration by the panel for status. Is that right?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Yes, the panel work continues on. As you know, they have a legislative timeline, and they're currently working on their work plan for the next remaining years on that. Included in that would be the intake of additional ones and some additional work that they were undertaking beyond declaring Special Planning Areas.

 

THE CHAIR: We will now move for the next 20 minutes to the NDP caucus.

 

MLA Chender.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Good morning. Interesting conversation so far. I will get to some questions about Special Planning Areas, since I think MLA Clark and I really have the lion's share of those ones you just listed.

 

What I want to talk about is affordable housing. I say that word knowing that it has no definition. I guess my first question is: How does this department define affordable, and how many units of whatever that definition is do we think will be established in the five-year plan covered by the housing plan?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: You're right, there are several definitions of affordable. In fact, we use several in the department, depending on the program that we're speaking to. Broadly speaking, and I'm going to ask Michelle to weigh in on this a little bit afterwards, our program that we have to construct new affordable units - there are other ones that maintain affordable units like the Community Housing Acquisition Program and also our ability to upgrade existing ones, but they just don't enhance. I think you're talking about when we build new ones. Our primary objective there is to have the units constructed so that the rental markets - we don't have an affordable home ownership program yet - can come to market at at least 80 per cent of the area market rate, and there has to be a minimum of at least 20 per cent of units in that particular building maintained at an affordable rate for a minimum of 20 years.

 

For most of our ones that we work with, particularly with our community partners, the affordability percentage is much higher than that, and also the rate is substantially below the 80 per cent mark, but I'm going to ask Michelle maybe to expand on that a bit for me.

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Waye.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Yes, there's a variety of different programs that we have to support affordable housing development. The key one, of course, is the Affordable Housing Development Program. Since 2022-23, we've committed over $81 million, and that has resulted in 597 units, and 466, or 78 per cent of those, are defined as affordable housing units. So far this year, we've committed $14 million towards nine new projects that have been approved, and out of those, there will be 128 units, and 83 per cent will be owned by the community housing sector, which in itself affords indefinite affordability with their projects.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Affordability is defined by this government in public housing as rent geared to income, so 30 per cent. That's a very standard measure. I'll note that by some watchers, rents went up 18.2 per cent last year, which would mean that covers that gap, 20 per cent of market. I think in my area, 20 per cent of market is just categorically not affordable for anyone who is at all feeling pinched at the end of the month and isn't a high-income earner, which is the majority of Nova Scotians.

 

I want to ask, given those numbers, and as you point out, Ms. Waye, I think the community housing sector is offering that indefinite affordability, that deeply affordable measure that we're looking for: Why won't the department consider actually defining affordability as rent geared to income? For some, that might be 80 per cent of market rent. But for those who need it, you're actually creating something that is by definition affordable; whereas, as I point out, 20 per cent below market rent, depending on what the market is, which at the moment seems to be pretty decoupled from incomes in this province, isn't actually affordable. Is there a reason why there's been a resistance to adopt that more standard measure of affordability?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: You're correct, we have adopted that model in our public housing. It is considered, by most, what I'm going to call the gold standard, and that model works well with public housing. When you look even at market or community housing, that model becomes more difficult.

 

I'll start with market. The cost of construction right now is quite high. If we were to move to a model - I'm going to call it with our market partners - where we insisted on the affordability to be 30 per cent of income - I'm assuming you mean 30 per cent of income for folks who are under HILs, because really that's the target group that we want to address on affordability, is those lower-income folks. It would become prohibitively expensive, and probably, I would suggest to you, most private developers wouldn't partake in that. Therefore, you've lost the opportunity to make some of the units at least below market.

 

Likewise with our community partners - some of them do choose to go to a rent-geared-to-income model. That's the model they've chosen, and they can work within that. Again, it does take a considerable amount of investment to make that under new construction, given the cost. The average cost right now for an apartment building is around $450,000 per door. If you extrapolate that out to a monthly rent, it is quite prohibitive in some markets.

 

We do strive, as I said - our housing plan is to address elements across the continuum. Some of that is market, some of that is affordable, and some of it is deeply affordable, and we will intervene in each of those markets as we can. The objective is to increase supply. Our studies and the evidence have shown that in the long run, supply is what will drive the market to a more affordable area. It will address the housing need faster. That's one of the reasons why we won't adopt that in all areas, but it is a model that works in certain circumstances.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I couldn't agree more. The private sector isn't going to take that on. I think this is the point we've been trying to make. The community-housing sector will take that on. They're not looking to profit. Their time horizon on recovering that $450,000 per door is much longer than the private sector. If you take that profit motive out, you have much more possibility, I would suggest.

 

I think we're not just looking at people under HILs. I mean, we talk all the time to young professionals - often two-income young professionals. They're being asked to spend $2,500 a month on a two-bedroom apartment. We don't have incomes that support that in this province, particularly if they want to start a family, and particularly if they want to save to buy a home. I would suggest that for folks like that, the rent geared to income isn't going to be necessarily prohibitive.

 

I also want to talk about what you raised, which is that the private sector might not participate. I would suggest that they might participate in partnership. That's what we've seen at Mount Hope. I want to ask a question about that, because I think Mount Hope is a great example.

 

This government announced one fiscal year-end in March that they were going to offer a $22 million forgivable loan, I think was the instrument, to a large developer to create affordable housing. After lots of silence and some mixed messages, when we inquired with the department about it, we were told that the developer walked away. They said, “We don't want it. Twenty-two million dollars - no thanks. We're not in the business of building affordable housing.” Most developers I've spoken to in this province would say the same thing: “It's not our business” - which is what you just said, Deputy Minister.

 

So then the question becomes: How do we get it built? In that same development - as you mentioned in your opening comments - we now have 32 units that were built in partnership between the YWCA Halifax and the Shaw Group. The Shaw Group built them, and the YWCA acquired them. The provincial investment in that was $2.9 million, I think - a fraction of the money that was turned down by a developer, and we now have families living in those units at deeply affordable prices.

 

My question is: Why isn't that the emphasis of the work of the department? In partnership, that will happen. This flexible affordability that's offered to private sector developers - I would suggest it's not going to work. My question is: How many more projects like that project at Mount Hope that was ultimately successful are in the pipeline, and more specifically, what is the other $19 million that was originally allocated to that project being deployed for at the moment?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: For clarity, the program that private developers tap into and the community housing sector - it's the same program. It is available to both. We do work with community housing partners, and they do have the ability through the process to have units further below the area market rate. Many of them - maybe not in Mount Hope - do need to have market rates involved in their developments to make the project viable. It is a very expensive market to get into. We do need private developers to address the housing crisis. Some of them want to participate in our program to make some of the units available.

 

I do believe that the one you mentioned - they thought that would be a viable option, and when they started that project, they were committed to it. The math just didn't work well for them as construction costs went up. They actually were quite supportive of the pivot to what we did. It's much smaller; that's why the dollars are smaller in scale. To be clear, as well, no money actually went to them. That was an announcement. All of the help through this program are construction loans with a forgivable period. That's how they work. Since they hadn't constructed, there was no money flow to them.

 

You asked about the difference on that. This program is an ongoing program. We have several projects with partners, both private and the not-for-profit community sector, which continue to tap into this program. It's not like all of a sudden, $18 million or $19 million became available. We have a budget. We work towards that. We have an annual allotment. If we believe that we're being more successful than we actually anticipated, the government has been very receptive to us just to come in and say, We need some additional allocations because our monies are being exceeded, which is a great success story.

 

The not-for-profit sector: Yes, they do have the ability to make more units affordable at a deep rate. It's because their approach is different. We like working with them, and we like working with co-ops, and we like working with community land trusts. We're going to continue to work with all groups because all groups are part of the solution.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I agree. I think that the example of the Mount Hope project demonstrates that. One of the things - and to your point, I understand no money was spent, but that is fiscal capacity. With respect, I actually don't put any stock in government budgeting anymore at all. I'm being completely honest here. We overspend the budget to the tune of $1 billion every year. What we see in the budget documents that we pore over in the Spring has no relationship to what we see in the fiscal updates. The deficits that are announced become surpluses. I don't care about the budget. I don't believe it. What I do know is when money is announced, that's fiscal capacity.

 

[9:45 a.m.]

 

I will say selfishly Mount Hope is in my district and we have a line of people out the door, as does every MLA in this province, I would suggest, struggling to afford housing. They come to us and say, We see the construction. How do we get on the list? They assume that it's going to be affordable. They assume that if this is a government project, that the government is building housing or participating in the building of housing that people can actually afford to live in. We know that often that's not the case.

 

You say that we work with all partners. I think that's important. One of the things we've suggested is that you actually prioritize the non-market housing sector. I believe that's what Nova Scotians think is happening or would like to happen. I guess my question is: Is that something that the department is considering? That could be non-market housing providers in partnership. Lots of those folks would say, We're not developers. We're non-profits, or we're agencies. We've seen lots - small, but many developing success stories around partnerships. If we could prioritize in the procurement process or however these things are decided because it's all very opaque to me, to quote my friend. If we could prioritize the non-market housing sector, I would suggest that we would get more of these built. Is that something the department is considering?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: On this particular aspect, I would disagree with you on the opaqueness of this. Our programs are readily advertised, available on our website, and groups come to us. We may not go to groups and say things, so they come to us. If a community group and a not-for-profit with a consortium of folks are wishing to develop, they come to us, and we evaluate and explain to them how we can help. We do the same with private developers if they're interested in exploring the affordable housing options or programs that we have available, or even programs that we can help for market housing to be expedited.

 

I'm not going to say that we're going to prioritize one over the other. I would say, however, that we are making an investment in probably the most affordable housing that is available, and that's public housing. That is an area which we recognize, or the government's recognized. Not only is there a need for more units - they've made an investment now of over 270 more units - but they've made the decision that those units should be - or the existing stock needs to be upgraded. They need to be made energy-efficient, and accepted the recommendation to go to rent geared to income on this model which is, as you said, the most . . .

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Chender with a minute and 30 seconds.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Two quick questions: How many public housing units have actually come online, because we know lots of other housing that the government's been involved in has, and how long is the wait-list?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Before I hand it over to Brian to talk about exactly where we're at with our new additions, the wait-list right now is around 7,000 units across the province. We have endeavoured to make that an accurate list which I believe it is now. We have done great jobs on increasing our turnover rate, which allows individuals to get into these units faster as they become available. We have reduced our vacancy rate as we upgrade some of those units to allow them to become market. We've addressed some overhousing issues, which makes units more available for families, for long-standing tenants who perhaps don't need the three- or four-bedroom units that they have now. We have addressed that. We've made great strides on that, and we are on target for both our modular housing which was diverted from the wildfire program and from the new builds that were announced, the 222s. The new units are all on track, but the exact timelines I'll leave for Brian to give you.

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Ward, 10 seconds.

 

BRIAN WARD: The 51 modular units for the wildfire - 17 of these units are currently occupied.

 

THE CHAIR: Order, time has elapsed. It's now the PC caucus. I'll go to MLA Young.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: Did you want to finish what you were explaining, Mr. Ward?

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Ward.

 

BRIAN WARD: Of the 51 new modular units that were on top of the 222 - the 51 new modular units which were deployed across the province - 17 of these units are currently occupied. We anticipate that 10 families will be occupying - or an additional 10 families in 2024, this Fall - the occupancy in those is moving along quickly. The 222 units that had been announced - we're in the midst of signing contracts on the first set of tenders, where we placed three of those locations out to tender.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: Recognizing that there's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to addressing housing issues, and that it's a multi-pronged approach - I think you mentioned when you were talking about the backyard suite that it was quite successful. I wonder if you could share some of the feedback you received.

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I'm going to ask Michelle to address that question for me.

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Waye.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Yes, we've received a lot of client feedback about the Secondary and Backyard Suite Incentive Program. In fact, that client feedback helped us make some modifications last Spring to help improve the program as well as the take-up.

 

Initially, the program was offering a cost-matched forgivable loan of up to $25,000, and the tenants living in the secondary or backyard suite would either have to be under the household income - so an affordability stream - or have a parent-child relationship to support family supports. Based on feedback that we received from clients and staff, modifications were made in April 2024, including that we increased the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $40,000. We broadened the definition of “family” to include persons with disabilities as well as other extended family members, and we eased administrative requirements by not requiring the initial permits and drawings.

 

The program was launched in November, so we really only had a few months of the year, and we almost spent it. It was $1 million, and we approved $962,000 worth of applications. There continues to be strong demand for this program. As I mentioned earlier, to date we've approved 191 applications. We currently have applications in the pipeline - 35 applications are currently being assessed. We continue to see a lot of demand for this program.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: I guess another prong would be the community housing sector. I know we talked about this in the past, but maybe you could bring me up to speed on some of the recent investments that would be in that area.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Since 2019, the provincial investments in the community housing sector have increased significantly. In 2023-24, over $57 million was committed; $36 million of that was to increase supply. This included $25 million for modular housing initiatives for health care and skilled trade workers. Also that year, we committed just over $19 million to support new programming for sector growth and sustainability. This included funding for repairs to 111 Indigenous housing units through the Tawaak program and transferring provincially owned housing units to the Preston Area Housing Fund.

 

We've had commitments for CHIRP, which is our Community Housing Infrastructure and Repair Program. This includes funding for community housing organizations through the Community Housing Growth Fund for pre-planning and capacity-building activities to allow them to be more robust in the community housing development sector.

 

On that stream, the Community Housing Growth Fund is the initiative that was launched in April 2022. It provides funding to community and co-operative housing providers and researchers in post-secondary institutions to support capacity-building, planning, pre-development, and research and innovation for the community housing sector. The department has invested $7 million, and as of June 2024, 96 projects have been awarded through that program.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: I'll pass it off to my colleague, MLA Sheehy-Richard.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Sheehy-Richard.

 

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: You just answered a couple of mine, but I wanted to just go back and talk about Mount Hope and the Special Planning Areas. A lot of us are rural MLAs. I just wonder if we could touch on other initiatives that might be under way to support the development of affordable, and especially the deeply affordable, if you could speak outside of the Special Planning Areas.

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I'll start and perhaps I will hand this off. We do have other programs not only to address affordable housing, but from a municipal planning perspective, which helps compress the timelines, not only have things happened in Halifax through the panel's work, but if you recall, last year the Province put through several legislative changes that expedite the process and streamline that process for all municipalities. That in itself not only makes housing more affordable but also can make supply increase.

 

In addition to the work we've done on that, several communities - the first round went to our bigger municipalities, Halifax and CBRM. They received funding from the federal government through their Housing Accelerator Fund and through a commitment to increase land usage. To expedite their permitting process, they did address and help their communities address that aspect of it, which over time will not only expedite supply but will help affordability.

 

We do have a number of programs that are directly related to affordability. Michelle mentioned some of them as well, like our Community Housing Acquisition Program, which allows not-for-profits to buy existing stock and to retain it as affordable. Many times, those properties can get out of the not-for-profit sector, and that program allows them to do that. Our infrastructure program allows them to invest in those properties so that they can be maintained and retained at an affordable rate. I would be remiss in not again mentioning the work we've done on the public housing side, which is by definition the most affordable housing that is available in the province. It's deeply affordable and it really is an opportunity to provide housing or enhance housing for many low-income individuals.

 

We do, through a number of other programs, help address the supply issue. If you recall in the housing plan, research showed to us, showed to everybody that increasing supply will address affordability and is the way to address the supply and make units available to those who need it. We do that through a number of ways. We haven't been talking about infrastructure yet this morning, but I do want to throw that out to you for consideration, because that allows more supply and stock to become available.

 

[10:00 a.m.]

 

If we help municipalities through our infrastructure programs or to co-fund with some of the federal infrastructure programs, that allows - in conjunction with changes they've made through their permitting process and their bylaws, by putting in water and wastewater pipes that can be connected or houses can be connected - for those houses to be developed. It allows them to address the needs in their communities. Those are some of the ways that we have. I'm going to ask Michelle: Have I missed any of our affordable programs?

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Waye.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: I don't think you missed any of our affordable programs. I think you gave a very good overview of that. We're certainly seeing successes in all of the programs that Deputy Minister Rafuse addressed. The community has the acquisition program. Particularly, that's a nice program to allow community housing providers to purchase existing buildings. Just in August, through the Community Housing Growth Fund - the transformation centre that administers the Growth Fund, we released a program to allow community housing providers to obtain the equity they need to buy those properties through the CHAP program.

 

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: I am going to pass it to my colleague, MLA MacDonald.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA MacDonald.

 

JOHN A. MACDONALD: I just wanted to first mention I'm in East Hants, and because HRM was slow, and slow, and slow, we benefited from that because of people saying, I'm not spending 12 months in HRM. In a way, the point it's gotten faster has actually meant East Hants has got to pick up theirs because of that. I think it's a good thing. I think we need to make sure we're being responsible but not making people have to wait 12 to 24 months to do what I consider a normal development.

 

As everybody knows, I love facts and numbers. For me, I want to know how the department is ensuring that the investments that are being made are being utilized and going to the people who need the support now. Can you tell us about the recent program improvements the department has made to ensure that Nova Scotians in housing need receive the supports they're looking for?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Let me start on that and then I'm going to turn it over to Kathy to talk about one of our programs, which is very in front of our rent supplement program, which allows folks to address the high cost of housing. It makes it affordable for them. Rest assured that when we make investments, either through a community housing program or a market development program, that we have the leaders to ensure that those individuals live up to their obligations they put into it, either by the number of units or the rates at which they are charging.

 

We do retain a position on those developments that still allows us to recoup the dollars, the provincial dollars that have been put in toward that development. We do have those mechanisms. We do have the mechanisms with our municipalities as we provide them funding for infrastructure that they fulfill those obligations and they follow through on what they are funded to do, and that those infrastructure developments do lead to housing.

 

As you may recall - more so with the federal government, less so with us sometimes or in the past - that the federal government's funding and infrastructure programs, particularly the new round that comes out, there is an implicit requirement that the investment leads to more housing. Larger municipalities must address and must report that and retain the data through our housing needs assessments, and how they addressed the housing needs, and how the infrastructure investments helped increase housing.

 

I want to give it to Kathy to talk about the program that many people benefit from and is probably our single most important program that doesn't address supply, but it does address affordability for individuals in the rental supplement area.

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Cox-Brown.

 

KATHY COX-BROWN: We are constantly looking at all our programs for improvements. How do we make them more effective, making sure they meet the intended objectives? How do we make them more efficient and also improve equity in each of the programs?

 

Recently, we have made some significant changes with the rent supplement. One of the key ones was we lowered the eligibility criteria. We are still focusing on our clients who are most in need, but we've lowered it from 50 per cent to 40 per cent.

 

We've also looked at making sure our program is a gap-based program. We have implemented some changes - we had a significant number of our clients for whom our rent supplement subsidy was paying more than their actual rent, so we were very much oversubsidizing this group. We have developed some changes in our policy, grandfathering some of the ones who were paying over so that we will pay just their actual rent. We made changes to the calculations so now it is your actual rent up to AMR that we're using in the calculation, not just AMR. With that, we were able to reinvest that in so we can support and serve more clients who are in need.

 

Those are a few things that we're constantly looking - efficiency, we've been trying - last fiscal year, we had a significant backlog. We are now doing two to three months in our rent supplement programs. The only exception is our housing support ones. We require one to two weeks to process those. Our backlog has significantly decreased from what it was, and now we're getting about 400 a month in applications. It did increase this month with our announcement of 40 per cent. It has significantly increased our applications, but we're being able to handle the volume. We only have right now about 460 that are actually with a case manager, and we have another 78 that are being screened by intake.

 

That's where our wait-list is now compared to when it was in the thousands. Again, we get 400 a month - that is what our application volumes are. We're able to address them quickly through streamlining the process.

 

One of the other things that we did is we launched a new program. It is a benefit program for survivors of gender-based violence. We launched on July 19^th, again looking at how we can serve our clients best. We now have about 37 active as of September 23^rd. I can tell you that has increased. This new program is really unique in its way in that the first year we do not do income testing. A lot of the requirements that we have on it are based on a lot of consultations with the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, as well as with transition homes - what would be best. The first year there's no income testing because we know people in their situation, when they're fleeing, they may be making money, they may have assets, but they don't always have access to it.

 

We give them a flat rate the first year because we just want to make it as easy as possible to understand what their benefit would be. That's again looking at what our clients need whom we are serving. We constantly are meeting with the transition houses, too, to make sure that this program is working smoothly. I say that's another thing; when we look at how to make our programs more efficient and effective, it's always constantly talking with our partners like the Department of Community Services.

 

Another change we did to make it more equitable is seniors prior - their eligibility was only 95 per cent of AMR, and their calculation benefit was 95 per cent of AMR. We changed it. We treat them equally. It's 100 per cent as well. We are constantly looking at how we can improve efficiency, how we can meet the needs of the clients.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA MacDonald with 40 seconds left.

 

JOHN A. MACDONALD: Forty seconds. I guess I should be able to get this answer in. For the millions of people listening, AMR equals?

 

KATHY COX-BROWN: AMR is a calculation that we receive from the federal government. It is calculated by them. AMR is your average . . .

 

THE CHAIR: Sixteen seconds. MLA MacDonald.

 

JOHN A. MACDONALD: I don't need the calculation. What does AMR stand for?

 

KATHY COX-BROWN: Average . . . (interruptions).

 

THE CHAIR: We will now go back with 10 minutes each to MLA Braedon Clark from the Liberal caucus.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Ms. Cox-Brown, I did just want to ask you one thing about rent supplements just so I can understand the changes that have been put in place. You talked about actual rent versus AMR, average market rent. Can you just explain for me again what changes were made recently? Is the rent supplement based on the actual rent you're paying, or is it based on AMR, or some blending of the two? I just want to make sure I understand exactly how it's determined.

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Cox-Brown.

 

KATHY COX-BROWN: For our non-portables, actual rent has always been used in the calculation. The changes were for our portable portion. Where the calculation used to be AMR minus 30 per cent of total household income - the rent geared to income - now it is your actual rent up to AMR.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Mr. Ward, just touching on the public housing, which you gave us a little bit earlier - I think you said three locations are out to tender or will be shortly. Could you just give us a timeline, essentially, of when the government expects that the 220-some-odd units that are being built - when will those be open and have people living in those units?

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Ward.

 

BRIAN WARD: We have the 222 units that were announced last year. Those units - we've been tendering it in groups. We have our second tender call coming hopefully this month, and then we'll have a third tender call coming up after that.

 

Some of the units will be online in December 2025, and then the final call-up will probably be occupied in Summer 2028. Those ones are being staggered as we do up the development to make sure that we're getting the right thing in the right location. We're doing some early planning and design work and making sure that the site is good and solid.

 

As far as the 51 units that we talked about, we anticipate some of those are ready for occupancy now. Some of them are occupied. Some of them will be ready for occupancy this Fall. Some of the newer eightplexes that we're building in Western Zone - we have one in Digby that should be available late this year, in 2024. We have substantial completion in 2024 for the others.

 

One of the things about public housing is, along with the new builds, we're trying to build capacity. Instead of just talking about new builds, we talk about capacity-building. One of the big key features right now in capacity-building is that we've worked hard on our unit turn. We've been able to reduce it since December 2022 by 25 per cent. We're turning units faster. We also have between 100 and 120 people per month in public housing across the province who leave public housing, so we're turning those units also. We've been able to move our vacancy rate down to 2.6 per cent, so it's well below what our 3 per cent policy guideline is. We continue to work on that. So that's one of the key components here: to build capacity in public housing.

 

Another key component for us is we're looking at spaces that we have in some of our developments across the province that are being used for other uses besides public housing. Besides residential housing, we have some cases where we've had some - in the case of the Spryfield area, we had a police station. The police have chosen to leave, so we've renovated that unit and put a family in.

 

We're looking at those items. We're looking at where we have office space, where we have storage space. We're internally trying to rebuild capacity within the system that we have on top of the 272 that the government has announced for us.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Mr. Ward, you mentioned that the first of the new 220 units or so would be online. I assume by that you mean occupied by December 2025, I think you said. Do you know where those will be - which location?

 

BRIAN WARD: Yes. The first tender that we put out was Kentville, a set of units in Glace Bay, and one of the units in Lower Sackville - the Old Beaver Bank Road. Those tenders closed a little over a month ago - a month and a half ago - and we're just negotiating now with the bidders.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Thank you for that. I wanted to ask as well about the Community Housing Acquisition Program. That was announced a couple of years ago, in 2022. I'm just wondering: How many units have been acquired through that program to date?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I'm going to hand that off to Michelle to answer that question for you.

[10:15 a.m.]

 

THE CHAIR: Executive Director Waye.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Since the Community Housing Acquisition Program was launched in July 2022, over $25 million has been invested to acquire 478 affordable housing units; 159 of those units, so 33 per cent, are supportive-housing units targeted towards the most vulnerable. All have a 30-year amortization, 79 have a 30-year fixed-interest plan, and 83 per cent of the loans have been in conjunction with the Department of Community Services, who are providing operational support to those units.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Mr. Ward, you talked earlier about capacity as it related to public housing. I think that's an important word, one that I've written down in relation to this question about non-profit and community housing, which I know MLA Chender was talking about in her first round of questioning. I agree. I think it's a huge opportunity, and maybe an underutilized sector in the province that's kind of a gap there - we might be talking about public housing and market housing, and I think there's a real opportunity there in the middle.

 

In talking to people in the sector, one of the things that does come up over and over again is capacity. A lot of these organizations are small volunteer-run organizations. The people who run them don't always have expertise in development, for example, or construction - all these things that are quite technical and not easy to just start.

 

The two issues are capacity and access to capital. That's another big one. I know other provinces - Quebec, for one, is considering a program where the government, the Province there would backstop or provide loan guarantees to some in the not-for-profit and community-housing sector to help them scale their projects. That 10-unit project might turn into a 75-unit project or a 100-unit project, and then we're really getting the ball rolling.

 

Deputy Minister, I'm just wondering - I'm giving you not much time here, I know, maybe a minute and a half: What's your view on access to capital for non-profit? Does the department have a role to play, or could it have a role to play, to unlock capital so that non-profits can scale up their operations beyond what they're able to do, generally speaking, today?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse with under two minutes.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I agree with you in the aspect about capacity within that sector. It is a concern, because we're asking a lot, sometimes from very few. Those individuals or those groups that have formed - there are some that are quite robust and actually can make themselves available for new groups.

 

We do have programs where we provide funding to these entities to allow them to develop that capacity, because you're right, a lot of people get into this space because they feel a need to help. A lot of them may not have the required skill sets. We will provide them with that funding to allow them to build that capacity to get the right people and the group and connect them with those in the space that can help them out, including developers - because these people don't build - and also some experience in property management.

 

We did, I think last year, create an ability for these not-for-profits to tap into funding to allow them to address their equity portion of these investments. We do have a requirement of a 5 per cent equity investment to access some of our programs. These individuals do have access to our funding, so they can have financing-available options with us. Some of it is repayable and some of it non-repayable. They can also, I believe - I have not yet, but soon will be accessing, or the ability to access . . .

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the Liberal caucus. We'll move to the NDP caucus with MLA Lachance.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I think we hear from so many Nova Scotians who are struggling to afford their housing - all different types, whether that's rental housing, whether that's trying to buy a home - and even struggling overall with affordability, so that the cost of home ownership is also a factor.

 

I think one of the most challenging things that we hear about is from seniors. I hear from seniors in my riding a lot who have been long-term renters and have settled into their retirement years in Halifax Citadel-Sable Island with the intent that they would live out their days here. With the current 5 per cent cap that isn't working and the fixed-term lease hole, I have a lot of seniors who are losing their foothold in this neighbourhood. In particular, with the 5 per cent cap, they're also recognizing that their pensions are not going to rise 5 per cent a year. Even if the cap is held, they're really having trouble affording their rentals. I'm wondering what the department is doing in terms of focusing on seniors.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: We have a number of programs that do help seniors, and, specifically, some are addressed to seniors. For those individuals who do own their own homes, we have a home repair program that allows them to stay in their homes. Quite frankly, staying in your home a lot of the time is the most affordable option available to you, so many seniors do tap into that program, either for need of repairs or accessibility upgrades. Seniors also are eligible for the rent supplement program and are addressed to that means.

 

At the end of the day, we actually also have a large component of seniors in public housing, too, which are, if you look at our tenant mix ratio, a lot of our existing tenants are seniors, I think right now are on the wait-list - it's probably less so. There are a number of programs that seniors can access, some of which are for those who do own and some for those who do rent.

 

LISA LACHANCE: How many seniors are on the wait-list for public housing? Just a note: I have been fighting since 2021 to improve the conditions of seniors' public housing in Halifax Citadel-Sable Island and just recently spent a couple of days in one of the manors and wrote follow-up letters to your department. The conditions that people live in public housing are not acceptable. I don't think that any of us would think that the current conditions are okay. I'd be happy to go on tour, take people through the ones in my riding any day of the week.

 

How many seniors are on the wait-list for public housing and what investments are being made to actually make that living experience acceptable?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I'm going to start that off, and then I may hand it off to Brian for further details, but rest assured that when there are deficiencies in our public housing stock, every attempt is made to address those in as timely a fashion as they can. We do have old buildings, and older buildings are harder to take care of sometimes, especially since for a long time, a lot of issues were not addressed. The agency is attempting, through their processes as issues are identified - and all tenants have the ability to notify the management group that there is an issue with their unit or in their common areas - and it will be addressed as soon as possible.

 

I'll ask maybe Brian to talk a little bit more about that, but our current wait-list, as I indicated, was around 7,000. About half of those are seniors. I don't have that breakdown. It may be different outside of HRM than it is inside of HRM, but they are predominantly our main group on the wait-list.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Lachance, do you wish to hear from Mr. Ward?

 

LISA LACHANCE: I might switch to another question just because of timing. Just to be clear, I feel like I have enough contact with the folks in the seniors' manors in my constituency - I don't think seniors feel like any time they raise concerns, they are addressed, and they're certainly not addressed in a timely fashion. We're talking years at this point for different issues.

 

The housing plan also talked about ways to explore making home ownership more attainable for Nova Scotians, including lease-to-purchase options. Can you provide an update on that? Are we close to launching a program on lease-to-buy?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: Certainly, it is an area that the housing plan speaks to. We continue to explore options on that. There are options available through the lease-to-own option, and there are other models that have come forward from areas in the province that they wish for us to consider - shared equity being one of them, and the like. We are still working on the policy development on that to provide to government. I know that there is definitely interest there to get into that area.

 

I would be remiss not to mention that we do have the Down Payment Assistance Program that does allow folks to get into home ownership - first-time home ownership. This program has increased immensely over the last number of years as more individuals take advantage of that. But there are other policy options that we're still exploring.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Can you confirm a timeline on when a policy proposal will be brought forward?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I can't confirm that, because these types of policy considerations would be subject to government approval. They're ones that we would have - I couldn't confirm a timeline on that.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Turning to the question of folks who need immediate types of shelter and that transitional type of shelter, the housing plan talked about investing in 1,000 shelter beds, but we know that shelters aren't homes - shelter beds aren't homes. Are you confident that the current housing plan is making enough non-market housing units available for those with unique needs and lower incomes? I guess the question is: Are we getting people moved through that transitional housing? Are they staying housed?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: We work with our partners at the Department of Community Services who are primarily responsible for this area. We do work with them on shelter options - particularly, our contribution is around locations and funding for the structures themselves, where they provide those services to the individuals who require or need the shelter options.

 

I think we have established a much better process now, particularly with our partners in HRM and elsewhere, as individuals go from unhoused to sheltered to shelter services to structured, and then eventually we have a stream that allows some of these individuals to go into public housing and the like. It is much more robust than it has been.

 

I know Community Services is endeavouring to address the needs of all those who need - I'm going to call it temporary shelter, whether it be a Pallet or the like.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Lachance with 40 seconds left.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I just want to probe quickly this whole idea that supply is going to increase, and then there are going to be more people who are going to be able to afford their housing more. Is that saying that you expect rents to decrease and home prices to decrease in Nova Scotia when supply increases?

 

 

[10:30 a.m.]

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I can't guarantee that, but the laws of supply and demand would tell you that that would be the case. Certainly there would not be the upward pressure on it, or it wouldn't be a situation where individuals will be price takers. They would have options, and that in itself would stabilize pricing.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. We will now go to the PC caucus for 10 minutes.

 

MLA MacLeod.

 

MARCO MACLEOD: Good morning, folks. I'd like to take a step back and look at this from 10,000 feet. I believe it was last October the five-year plan was introduced which looks at our housing strategy, a road map for it. What is the progress to date on the key indicators there, and are we on track?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: That five-year plan made a commitment to accelerate or increase housing units by over 40,000 over the five-year plan. As I said in my opening remarks, there are increased housing starts, particularly in HRM, over the last year. We are, within the next very short while, going to have our commitment to have progress reports on that report. I think there is good progress on it. I don't know whether or not we had actually made annual commitments, but a commitment to get to the end - I stand corrected on that. There's been great progress on that, and you can see as you walk around this community and others that there has been an appetite at all levels of government to expedite the permitting process.

 

We talk a lot about what they do in Halifax. I was really quite struck last week. I heard a presentation by the Town of Truro about what they've done and how progressive they have become in their bylaws and their zoning process which should, by nature, just accelerate the process. My feeling is that we are well on the way. We'll have hard numbers soon on that, but the end goal is to reach that gap that was addressed in the housing needs assessment that said our current process versus the need - there had to be an additional 41,000 units or so within the five-year time frame. I think we've unlocked the potential for that, and then it's just a matter now of getting them built.

 

MARCO MACLEOD: We are in a housing crunch and we're thinking outside the box. We've heard of the backyard suites. I was just curious: What other creative solutions are being implemented, and are they homegrown ideas or are they best practices from other jurisdictions?

 

BYRON RAFUSE: There are other ideas out there. We're not ashamed, sometimes, to go out and look at what other people have done that have been successful. One that does come to mind to me is an option that we've explored and we're approved to do in a pilot site. I'm going to call it the Regent Park model, which is a development out of Toronto, which was public housing land that needed to be renovated. Those properties were put out for renovation, but also the inclusion of additional affordable or market units on it.

 

We have received permission to proceed on that on three sites across the province and demonstrations. We've announced that they're going to be in Halifax, Wolfville, and Stellarton. The first one that's progressing right now is in Wolfville, where we've already started the process with the municipality and a local community housing provider. We will look at the existing stock there that needs to be replaced and how that can be accommodated. What else could come onto those properties in the areas of the market or affordable housing to densify the area and address the housing needs?

 

In that particular area, it's quite exciting where Wolfville has actually come to the plate and said, “We have an adjoining piece of property that we would like to get to bundle with this.” When you look at the capability there, a lot of great options could be explored. That's just one of the ways in which innovation and innovative ideas are being explored. That one there, that's not new to us, but we've tailored it, I would say, to our needs.

 

We do, as well, look at other options which are maybe, at one time, even more popular. The co-op option is a strong one. I think there are options to move on co-op housing more so than we have, and we have a mandate to do that - and as well with land trusts, which are a good way for some communities to get into a model where they can have a more connected stake in the housing development in their communities.

 

MARCO MACLEOD: I realize this is a great province and there are 55 ridings here, but I do have a pointed question. My constituency office is in Pictou, and just down the road is the old municipal building. There is a project going on there. I believe it's the Nova Scotia Co-operative Council leading it. I believe there is a component of affordable housing there. I was wondering what your involvement is in that project specifically, and if you happen to know a timeline there.

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse is looking like he wants to pass this to Executive Director Waye, so I'll go to Executive Director Waye.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: I might have to get back to you. Was it the Appleseed Drive one?

 

MARCO MACLEOD: I apologize. I should have mentioned that the name of the project is Stonehouse Manor.

 

MICHELLE WAYE: Yes, that is on my list. We have supported that. We have provided $1 million for 14 units; 10 will be affordable. That project was approved this fiscal. Were you asking about the timeline?

 

MARCO MACLEOD: Yes, please.

MICHELLE WAYE: I can get back to you with the specific timelines, but since it was approved this year, it's in the pre-development, pre-construction stage, so it'll most likely be a year or two down the road. But I can get back to you with that.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA MacLeod with just over two minutes left.

 

MARCO MACLEOD: Thank you very much. I'd like to pass it over to MLA Taggart.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.

 

TOM TAGGART: My question's going to be to Ms. Cox-Brown. There's been a lot discussed here this morning about the Special Planning Areas. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it's been quite successful. Maybe there are some things that some folks don't think are working perfectly, but it appears to be moving housing ahead significantly.

 

Can you give me a bit of an update on the implementation of the Deloitte recommendations?

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Rafuse.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: I'm sorry, I thought you were addressing Ms. Cox-Brown.

 

The Deloitte recommendations, I can certainly give you an update on that. Obviously, the report did recommend that we do things like the executive panel in HRM, which we have done. It has recommended that the permitting process needs to be streamlined and modernized, and elements of that have either been done through the panel or other municipalities have done it with the use of their Housing Accelerator Fund, which allowed those processes to be streamlined or made even automated, or electronic forms of public consultation.

 

There's an element on that on the form, which is the HRM Trusted Housing Partner Program, which would allow for certain individuals who are a part of either a development approval, like an engineer or an architect - there would be no need for the municipality to recheck their work, because they are a trusted partner. That work is progressing. HRM has a mandated timeline to complete theirs. We have enabled that throughout the province so that individuals . . .

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the questions, but it's back to you, Deputy Minister Rafuse, if you want to have some closing remarks provided.

 

BYRON RAFUSE: No closing remarks. I just want to say thank you to the committee for your questions. We look forward to being back, probably. I know we had a number of take-aways, and we'll endeavour to get those to you as soon as possible.

 

THE CHAIR: I thank all the witnesses. Mr. Stuckless, if you want to say anything, now would be the time to say it, since you're the only person who did not speak. Thank you for being here.

 

Does the committee wish to have a recess? We'll just wait until our witnesses leave. (Interruption)

 

It is best to recess. Then we can have a health break as well - a two-minute break.

 

Committee is now in recess.

 

[10:41 a.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[10:45 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

THE CHAIR: I call the meeting back to order.

 

On the agenda - I think the emails were sent to everyone with regard to the new Department of Emergency Management. On our list of topics, we have Emergency Preparedness. I will need a motion to approve the change in the witness to go from who we just had as the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing to the Department of Emergency Management.

 

Is anyone willing to put that motion on the floor for the committee? (Interruption)

MLA Young. Do you want him to say it formally?

 

It's been recorded. Therefore the motion is on the floor.

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

I see the Auditor General here. Is she . . . ? (Interruption)

 

You're here in case there are some questions from anybody. Does the committee have any questions at this time for her?

 

Seeing none, I say that our meeting is to be arranged for December 4^th and 11^th . . . (interruptions). I'm on December meetings.

Would you like the microphone, MLA MacDonald?

 

The meetings being arranged for December 4^th and 11^th - does the committee want to schedule a meeting for December 18^th, given that we know Christmas is - how many days away?

 

I'll open the floor for discussion with regard to the December meetings.

 

MLA MacDonald, can you - rather than nod? MLA MacDonald.

 

JOHN A. MACDONALD: I'm fine with December 4^th and 11^th and not going on the 18^th.

 

THE CHAIR: All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

We will not have a meeting on December 18^th.

 

The 2024 PAC annual report for the committee has been circulated. Do members have any changes? I'm just going to ask for a motion to approve the report.

 

MLA Young.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: I move to approve the annual report of the PAC 2024.

 

THE CHAIR: The motion is on the floor. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

Meetings related to follow-up reports: There was a discussion at last week's meeting regarding whether it was necessary to hold a pre-hearing briefing for meetings related to the AG follow-up report. I know it's not been the practice to hold pre-hearing briefings in advance of the AG follow-up reports. As the committee receives a briefing from the Auditor General when the annual follow-up report is presented to committee, a decision will need to be made for scheduling purposes.

 

We just need a motion, and we want to open the floor for discussion about going forward from here on, because, as you know, last week's and this week's - there was no pre-hearing. I know some had brought it up that they prefer to have them. I was talking with Ms. Langille, and she says she wants to have it on record as to what the wishes of the committee are with regard to follow-up reports.

MLA Clark.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I think we should just continue as we have been. I think with the follow-up reports, I don't see any need for a pre-hearing briefing, given we have a briefing earlier on the topic already. It feels like a bit of duplication to me. I would argue that we should just leave things as they are and proceed as we have been on this.

 

THE CHAIR: In that argument, could you put the motion on the floor?

 

BRAEDON CLARK: Does anyone else want to speak? I could after, but I think MLA Taggart had a . . .

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.

 

TOM TAGGART: I do want pre-meetings. The follow-up report is generally, if I understand correctly, a follow-up to a meeting we had, often, a year previous or that sort of thing. I don't think to go to a meeting without some kind of briefing.

 

Somebody suggested that we could get our staff to do that. I'm not sure. I don't get an opportunity to ask staff questions in the sense that I could ask the Auditor General questions. I would prefer to have the pre-meeting briefing on any subject, in this case the follow-up reports prior to the public meeting so that I can ask the AG questions or her staff so I fully understand the entire picture.

 

THE CHAIR: Is there any other discussion? I will go to the AG for some input. MLA Young.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: Historically, did we have briefings for the follow-up reports? For some reason, I thought we did for a couple of different topics. I see value in the input from the AG prior to the reports, but perhaps I'll let Ms. Adair . . .

 

THE CHAIR: Ms. Adair.

 

KIM ADAIR: The follow-up report was released in May of this year, so about six months ago. As soon as it was tabled, we would have had an in camera briefing on the details of what's in the follow-up report. We're now roughly six months later. I think the chapter is quite well laid out, so you can easily find the recommendations and the status of those that have not been implemented for the departments and agencies that have been suggested to come in. Just as a reminder, it's the Department of Public Works to come in on the 2019 bridge audit where six of seven recommendations have not been implemented.

 

Build Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Health Authority are on the list to come in on the QEII New Generation project, where zero of four recommendations were implemented. Then there's the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation, where six of 11 were not done, and then the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, where six of nine were not implemented on the pre-Primary program. Those are the departments in question. We would have given you an in camera briefing, but it was six months ago.

 

NOLAN YOUNG: Just with respect to new members on the committee, and it's been quite some time since we did have a briefing, I would like to be brought up to speed with the Auditor General to have an in camera hearing.

 

BRAEDON CLARK: I think I've lost, but that's okay. I just think there are better uses of our time, to be honest, and of the Auditor General's time and of the Office of the Auditor General. We have a limited number of meeting times, obviously, throughout the year. It is what it is. I think the government members have made their intentions clear on this, but I don't see the value of it. I think we should proceed as we have been, but I'll leave it up to government members if they want to make a motion on the topic.

 

THE CHAIR: Is there a motion to be placed on the floor? MLA Taggart.

 

TOM TAGGART: I move that we have a pre-briefing meeting with the Auditor General prior to any follow-up reports.

 

THE CHAIR: The motion is on the floor. Any discussion? MLA MacDonald.

 

JOHN A. MACDONALD: Just to be clear, MLA Taggart, in the event that the Auditor General is able to do more than one in that, she wouldn't have to do one per if she was able to do more than one in a briefing that spans multiple - your motion would not preclude that, correct?

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.

 

TOM TAGGART: I would agree with that provided the meeting was going to be relatively shortly after the briefing meeting, but not if it's going to be three or four months after - no, I wouldn't support that. If it's going to be within the month, then yes, I'd be okay with that.

 

THE CHAIR: Do you have any response, Ms. Adair?

 

KIM ADAIR: Whatever the committee wants to do.

 

THE CHAIR: The motion is on the floor.

 

Any discussion? All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

Our next meeting date will be October 16^th in camera: Office of the Auditor General Pre-Hearing Briefing on Agriculture Support Programs and Investments in the Skilled Trades and Addressing the Skilled Trades Gap.

 

I now look to close the meeting. Meeting adjourned.

 

[The committee adjourned at 10:55 a.m.]