HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:00 P.M.

CHAIR

Keith Bain

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will now come to order.

We are meeting today to consider the estimates for the Department of Infrastructure and Housing, as outlined in Resolution E12 which reads:

Resolution E12 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $132,782,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Infrastructure and Housing, pursuant to the Estimate.

The honourable Minister of Infrastructure and Housing. You have one hour for your opening remarks.

HON. GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Warm welcome to my colleagues. This is actually my first experience with the Zoom format. I’m one of the fortunate ones who gets to be in the House in person every day, so I’ll do my best to stay centred and hit the microphone, but if I miss it, Mr. Chair and colleagues, please give me a heads up and I’ll adjust as quickly as I can.

It certainly is a pleasure to be here today to speak with you as the first minister of the newly created Nova Scotia Department of Infrastructure and Housing. I welcome this opportunity to talk about the work we do on behalf of all Nova Scotians.

Today I’ve got a number of members of staff here with me. Diane Saurette is in and out, but I think she’s doing double duty with Transportation and Active Transit; Martin Laycock, the acting chief operating officer of housing; our Deputy Minister Eiryn Devereaux, is here as well; and I’ve got several COVID-19 properly distanced teams in a number of different rooms within the Department of Infrastructure and Housing here, all linked in remotely so that we can get answers to you swiftly and as efficiently as possible.

I would like to thank - I know on behalf of myself, certainly of all members - I’ve heard you speak about the Department of Housing - and the Infrastructure staff. They do incredible work, and there’s no politics or partisanship or any funny business. It’s about helping people get housing and build our infrastructure. So hats off to them. We all, collectively, all MLAs of all stripes take that opportunity to thank them every day.

First, I’ll begin by focusing on the details of the department’s budget, the high level. Our estimated budget for this newly created department is $132,782,000, with the expenses broken down as follows: administration, $1.5 million; the Infrastructure division, $23.5 million; and the Housing division, $107.8 million.

Since the department is new, I’ll just spend a few minutes speaking about what we’re here to accomplish and what we’ve set out to make sure that we manage on behalf of the government and Nova Scotians.

The Department of Infrastructure and Housing designs and constructs public buildings and delivers housing programs, simply put. We have more than 300 employees with expertise in policy and planning, federal infrastructure programs, building project services, hospital redevelopment, P3 contract management, and operational and funding services related to housing.

Within our Infrastructure and Housing teams, we have two groups of experts with many, many shared experiences. By bringing them together under the same roof, we expect to be more efficient and innovative in the way we approach the transformational projects that are, indeed, in front of us. This includes the redevelopment of health care assets across the province and our work to support unprecedented affordable housing needs in our communities from one end of the province to the next.

Our employees are committed to working with our partners and stakeholders to advance these all-important priorities. The work we do at the Department of Infrastructure and Housing touches the lives of every Nova Scotian. From visits to a hospital to lessons in the classroom to safe and affordable housing, everyone counts on some of these programs and services.

Our job is to make sure government has the foundation it needs to deliver on those commitments. This includes advancing the once-in-a-generation health care and hospital projects currently under way at more than a dozen locations across the province; moving the National Housing Strategy forward and supporting the Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Commission’s work to find sustainable, long-term solutions to our affordable housing issues; collaborating with our private, non-profit, federal and municipal partners to add more affordable units to our housing market; working with the Department of Energy and Mines and the Department of Municipal Affairs, as well as municipalities across Nova Scotia to fight climate change and make clean infrastructure investments; working with partners like Develop Nova Scotia to advance their work creating authentic, sustainable places that attract and retain people. We do all of this with an overall operating budget of $132 million.

The department is also responsible for another $400 million in project management and budget oversight of capital spending in health, education, and other major building infrastructure planned in 2021-22 within the province. The operating portion of our budget is used for the day-to-day operations of the department such as engineering and construction services, administration, and professional services. It’s a big job, and we certainly can’t do it all on our own.

Much of our work is done in close collaboration with the government of Canada. We are responsible for supporting government departments and entities by providing oversight, coordination, and project advice on federal infrastructure funding programs. This includes managing the Province’s relationship with Infrastructure Canada and other federal departments on infrastructure funding programs including the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, otherwise known, of course, as ICIP; the ICIP COVID-19 Response and Resilience Program; Transport Canada’s National Trade Corridors Fund; and the national Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund.

We are committed to leveraging all appropriate federal funding opportunities on behalf of every Nova Scotian. This has been especially important work during the COVID-19 pandemic. From support for the health care system to funding to restart municipalities, we’ve been especially busy over the last year. That’s because we know it’s the work we need to do, and we have to move it forward both safely and efficiently. We need to maximize funding opportunities that will support job creation, contribute to the stability of our economy, and allow infrastructure to evolve to better meet the needs of our communities.

Our relationship with the federal government is also strong on the housing side of our department. Together we are working to deliver the National Housing Strategy. This is a 10-year commitment that will see more than half a billion dollars invested to create new programs and enhance existing ones that will help low-income Nova Scotians secure all-important affordable housing. This 50/50 cost-shared partnership represents the single largest investment in affordable housing in Nova Scotia’s history. In 2021-22, we will complete the final year of the first three-year agreement under this strategy and work toward the development and implementation of our next three-year agreement.

Another responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure and Housing is to provide oversight and manage long-term contractual relationships. Situations like this are typical between government and the private sector entities that design, build, finance, and maintain contracts, or DBFM. This is done with support of the Health Care Infrastructure Division at Nova Scotia Lands Inc. It covers architectural and engineering design, construction administration, and project management services for major renovation and expansion projects. Presently, our department has a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) contract for the new community outpatient centre in Bayers Lake and has issued a request for proposals for the contract to expand the QEII Health Sciences Centre at the Halifax Infirmary site. Both projects are part of the new QEII New Generation project and our department’s most significant health care infrastructure project.

This is, in essence, a brief overview of the Department of Infrastructure and Housing. I’d like to turn now to some specifics, starting with a look at some of the exciting construction initiatives that are, indeed, under way.

With respect to infrastructure, the department is responsible for the delivery of building projects valued in excess of $1 million, otherwise characterized as having heightened complexity and risks. Nowhere are the projects more complex or significant than within our health care initiatives. Important health care infrastructure and investments are under way in communities all across this beautiful province. These projects will improve Nova Scotians’ access to care, and create modern, reliable services that we all feel and know that we need.

Projects include the hospital redevelopment projects at South Shore Regional, North Cumberland Memorial, and Soldiers Memorial; emergency department developments at the IWK Health Centre, Cumberland Regional, and Yarmouth Regional; dialysis expansions and constructions at the Cumberland Regional, Halifax Infirmary, Digby General, Valley Regional, and Glace Bay General; and MRI projects at the South Shore Regional, Dartmouth General, and the IWK.

Certainly, the most complex and far-reaching of these is the QEII New Generation project. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rethink and rebuild on our province’s delivery of health care. This massive, multi-year project includes the following: the expansion and renovations of the Dartmouth General; new and renovated operating rooms at Hants Community Hospital in Windsor; the construction of a parkade on Summer Street; the construction of a community outpatient centre in Bayers Lake; and the expansion and renovations of the Halifax Infirmary. The construction and renovation of these facilities will make it possible for services to be moved out of the aging Centennial, Victoria, and Dickson buildings on the Victoria General (VG) site.

This project was designed through stakeholder engagement and input from hundreds of clinical and non-clinical staff and included more than 40 specialty teams. It’s the largest health care infrastructure project developed by this province. Over the last year, various project components have realized critical milestones.

At the Dartmouth General Hospital, expansion and renovation work continues to progress very well. This past December, the hospital’s new day surgery and post-anaesthesia care unit opened for patient care. New space features 18 post-anaesthesia care bays, 12 flex bays, and eight self-contained privacy rooms for patients preparing for surgery. Bright and spacious, the new unit provides a modern care environment with increased patient privacy and an improved patient care experience overall. Coupled with the opening of the new Neville J. Gilfoy Wing in 2019, we are extremely pleased with the progress at the Dartmouth General Hospital and look forward to the completion of this work.

At the Halifax Infirmary (HI), the work continues to advance the third and fifth floors and the renovations taking place with those projects. In November 2020, two new interventional radiology (IR) suites on the third floor were opened for patient care. These suites make it possible for physicians to perform image-guided diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with state-of-the-art equipment. The opening of these IR suites also paves the way for the work that is under way to create Atlantic Canada’s first hybrid operating room on the fifth floor.

In July 2020, we awarded the contract for the design and build of the Summer Street parkade. Located directly across from the HI site, north of the Museum of Natural History, work to prepare this site has begun. Consultation on this project has been ongoing. We are working to ensure that we balance the needs of partners and stakeholders, including Nova Scotia Health staff, Halifax Regional Municipality staff, and museum staff, while keeping our focus on the needs of patients and their families. People from across Nova Scotia and the Maritimes visit the QEII Health Sciences Centre every day, with 40 per cent travelling from outside HRM. We don’t want to add to the anxiety of patients and families by not having suitable parking. Safe, convenient parking on site, or at least close by, is essential.

At the heart of the QEII New Generation project is the expansion of the Halifax Infirmary, which will include a new cancer centre, a new inpatient centre including hospital beds and operating rooms, a new outpatient centre, and a new innovation and learning centre. This expansion will provide modern facilities and advanced technologies to handle the most complex care in Atlantic Canada. Other benefits will include reduced wait times, improved access to care, and improved research and teaching opportunities to help recruit and retain doctors, researchers, and other health professionals.

This past November, a request for proposals was released to two shortlisted companies to bid on the contract for that project. EllisDon Infrastructure Healthcare and Plenary PCL Health qualified in 2019 to bid on the project, which includes designing, building, financing, and maintaining the expansion of the HI site. The deadline for the companies to submit their proposal is Fall 2021. The successful bidder is expected to be announced in Spring of 2022.

[3:15 p.m.]

As part of our commitment to provide care closer to home, we continue to make progress on the Bayers Lake QEII Community Outpatient Centre. This centre will deliver a variety of services that don’t require a trip to the hospital in a more effective and convenient way for patients and, of course, their families. In August of 2020, EllisDon Infrastructure Healthcare was awarded the contract to design, build, finance, and maintain the project. The project is progressing well, and we’re pleased to be working with an experienced, highly qualified company that will delivery a tremendous outpatient centre on time and on budget.

When it comes to these important health care infrastructure investments, our staff are working diligently to advance projects efficiently and in accordance with best practices. We are engaging experienced and qualified partners. We are working closely and collaboratively with our Nova Scotia Health colleagues. We’re also advancing the Auditor General’s recommendations to approve an appropriate level of oversight in governance.

The July 2020 report of the AG concluded that reasonable and appropriate analysis was completed to select a DBFM project delivery model for the HI expansion and the Bayers Lake Community Outpatient Centre. Originally, the HI and Bayers Lake projects favoured the selected DBFM delivery model with a value for money - or VFM - of approximately 12 per cent. After decoupling those two projects, we updated the VFM analysis for the Bayers Lake Community Outpatient Centre project. This latest analysis suggests that the Province should expect overall lifetime risk-adjusted costs of the Bayers Lake project to be $35 million less than through the DBFM arrangement. That’s a reduction of nearly 15 per cent.

We are pleased that this analysis endorses our selected delivery model. We will continue to ensure that these projects, and all of our projects, are delivered in a timely and fiscally responsible way. Overall, we are making good progress on the QEII New Generation project. It’s a project we can be proud of, and it will change the way we deliver health care for generations to come.

Of course, I am also very pleased to be able to report that we are making tremendous progress with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality Health Care Redevelopment Plan. This project and a series of projects will transform the delivery of health care in Cape Breton and the CBRM to better meet the needs of patients, professionals, and our communities at large. An investment worth hundreds of millions of dollars, this project includes the following: building a new Cape Breton Cancer Centre, emergency department, critical care department, inpatient beds, surgical suites, and a maternity-newborn services unit at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital; building a new school, modern health centre, 60-bed long-term care home, plus 12-bed inpatient facilities, and a new recreational facility in New Waterford; a new, modern health centre, 60-bed long-term care home, plus 12-bed inpatient facilities and laundry centre at the Northside; and expanding the Glace Bay Hospital emergency department and surgical services.

The project is about replacing aging buildings with modern facilities. We not only want to meet people’s health care needs, we want to create a place where doctors, specialists, nurses, and other health care professionals actually want to practise. That will help with the government’s efforts to recruit and retain doctors and other health professionals. Redesigning and rebuilding the health care system in Cape Breton will be the single biggest health care investment in the Island’s history, and these projects have benefits beyond health care.

As part of the expansion of the Cape Breton Regional Hospital, a new state-of-the-art energy centre will be built, which will power and heat the new construction, as well as the existing hospital. With the goal of improving energy efficiency, the new energy centre will be registered with Efficiency Nova Scotia and meet the targets required for the Energy Star rating. The new centre will also use more renewable fuels to reduce oil consumption, and the use of sustainable biomass will contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions.

In New Waterford, our community hub model is a building, a health care centre, a long-term care home, and a school as one large, major project. This will create opportunities for the three buildings to maximize efficiencies by sharing facilities and maintenance services. More importantly, this model creates a central access point for health and social services, along with educational, cultural, and recreational spaces to foster an even greater sense of their community.

The New Waterford Community Hub will be a place where all community members can gather, build, grow, and live. Together, the CBRM Health Care Redevelopment Projects enhance employment opportunities, improve workforce diversity, support inclusion, and ensure that training needs for skills development are met. This work is made possible in collaboration with our colleagues at the Department of Labour and Advanced Education, the Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, the Cape Breton Partnership, and industry stakeholders. These Cape Breton health care infrastructure projects will create thousands of jobs and maximize local benefit by generating small business opportunities through the local supply chain and overall increased economic activity.

Just as with health care, our province is in the middle of a transformative time when it comes to education infrastructure investment. We are building modern schools that will help our students learn and grow and go on to successful careers. These new facilities will also support the hard work being done by our teachers and serve as important community hubs. The 2020-2025 School Capital Plan includes 23 projects with a total value of nearly $500 million.

We know that COVID-19 has had an impact on construction costs throughout North America, and our projects are certainly no exception to that. We are also dealing with population growth in many parts of the province, which requires us to modify our current school design. Despite all these challenges, we are committed to delivering the best possible outcome for all.

Right now, our school projects include Bedford Ravines Elementary and Middle School, Bedford High School, Breton Education Centre, Clayton Park-Fairview, Eastern Shore District High, Glace Bay Elementary, J.L. Ilsley High School, Northside Middle School, Springfield Elementary, St. Joseph’s-Alexander McKay Elementary School, and our projects for the CSAP, including the opening this past September of the École secondaire Mosaïque, as well as upcoming projects for École Pomquet, Wedgeport Elementary in Clare, and in the Halifax Peninsula.

We have developed a predictable long-term outlook for school construction and major renovation, which is an Auditor General recommendation that we’ve followed. These provincial investments will enhance the school experience for our students and families while making our communities stronger.

The Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is another significant building project that we are currently managing through the design and construction process. This new, modern space on the Halifax waterfront will enhance the province’s position as a leader in the visual arts, inviting the world to celebrate our culture and all that it has to offer. It will also better showcase Nova Scotia’s culture and excellence in the visual arts nationally and, of course, internationally. This project is a collaboration of the province with the federal government, as well as private sector contributions.

We conducted and saw the successful conclusion of an international design competition for this particular project. This culminated in the engagement of KPMB Architects with Omar Gandhi Architect, Jordan Bennett Studio, Elder Lorraine Whitman (NWAC), Public Work, and Transsolar as the winning design team.

With that - all that good news - I’d now like to turn my attention to the housing side of our portfolio, certainly a critical issue for all Nova Scotians at this point. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we are seeing some significant changes right now in Nova Scotia’s housing market. Housing prices are skyrocketing. Houses are selling the day they are listed and for hundreds of thousands over the asking price.

Vacancy rates have eased somewhat over the past year but remain incredibly low, making finding an apartment difficult and sometimes impossible. This is a phenomenon that is happening across Canada and throughout North America. In Nova Scotia, our population is growing, and those people - everyone - need places to live. We have a supply issue and we need to build more homes. If you add in the effects of the pandemic and the stresses it has since placed on the market, this situation only gets more complicated. Sadly, we know that a difficult situation like this is hardest on vulnerable and low-income Nova Scotians.

When you can’t find an affordable place to live or if you’re worried about keeping a roof over your head, the consequences are severe. It makes finding a job - or keeping a job - more difficult. If you don’t have a mailing address, it’s harder to get access to basic benefits and services, like something as basic as a phone number. There’s an unquestionable impact on your mental health and well-being. Access to adequate and affordable housing is essential to quality of life.

Access to affordable housing is an issue that our government is taking very seriously. That’s why we are investing in innovative solutions to help Nova Scotians access this affordable housing. In fact, our investments are unprecedented. These are unprecedented because the current situation is something we’ve never seen or experienced before. Last year, we took action to make sure renters were protected. We made sure rents could not increase by more than 2 per cent per year. We also prevented landlords from getting an eviction order for renovations. Those are protections that will be in place until February of 2022, or until the state of emergency is lifted, whichever is sooner.

For the longer term, I’m proud to say that we’ve created the Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Commission. This group of experts in the public, private, non-profit, and academic sectors are working on recommendations to government on sustainable, affordable housing strategies and actions. We look forward to receiving the report of the Affordable Housing Commission at the end of May and acting immediately on its recommendations. The bottom line is that affordable housing is not something government can address alone.

We are fortunate to have committee members and commission members dedicating their time and energy to developing innovative solutions, and I personally, on behalf of myself, our government, our department, and all of you as MLAs from all different regions and areas of the province, want to thank them and everyone who has contributed to ideas and stories on the commission’s website. I’d also like to encourage others to participate by visiting the site, taking the survey, and adding their voice to the commission’s work. My understanding is that, at this point so far, over 1,100 people have taken the time to fill out that survey, and that’s a good indication of how engaged people are and how important this issue is. I think we knew it was important already, but that’s a good number of people looking to contribute and shape the recommendations and policy as we move forward.

Nova Scotia’s affordable housing situation is something that we have to adjust together. There’s no other way to do so. That’s why I’m so pleased that we have many strong partnerships in communities across the province. These relationships have given us the ability to make significant investments in recent months. In December, we announced $1.8 million to support the creation of more than 50 new affordable housing units in HRM. This funding will support efforts by Adsum for Women and Children, the North End Community Health Association, and the Mi’kmaq Native Friendship Centre as they work to help Mi’kmaq women and children, African Nova Scotians, and people with physical disabilities.

In February, we announced $5.7 million to help create 109 units of affordable housing in four separate developments. These new affordable housing units will be created in collaboration with Compass Nova Scotia Co-operative Homes in Halifax, the Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia in Dartmouth, and our partners in Yarmouth and in Antigonish. We also provided $2 million in additional funding for the low-income home repair and adaptation program.

This is truly a team effort and without our partners, none of this would be even remotely possible. That, of course, does include a very supportive partner in the federal government. Together, we’re making the largest investments ever in affordable housing for our province. As I mentioned earlier, we are investing over half a billion dollars over 10 years to improve the lives of Nova Scotians through the National Housing Strategy. This plan supports new programs like the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit. It also continues to invest in existing programs like the home repair and adaptation program. The third year of our first three-year action plan within this strategy will be 2021-22, and we’ll look forward to finalizing the next three-year plan very soon.

[3:30 p.m.]

When you take all of these efforts together, I believe the results speak for themselves. Right now, more than 18,000 Nova Scotians live in 11,350 public housing units across Nova Scotia. Last year, we invested $21 million in 600 projects in more than 400 public housing buildings for the Capital Asset Management Program. We’re going to make many of them more accessible by removing barriers. We’re going to reduce emissions to make our units more affordable by becoming energy-efficient. Some of our units will become net zero.

Outside of public housing, we’re increasing the number of rent supplements available to Nova Scotians. This year, we are planning to invest more than 22 million federal and provincial dollars in these programs. As of March, nearly 3,200 supplements were in place. That’s an increase of more than 1,000 supplements compared to two years ago, and more are on the way. These supplements provide renters with an average of more than $300 per month towards their rent.

We’re also investing to make sure private and non-profit affordable rental units stay in good condition. Under the Rental Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, we offer forgivable loans of up to $24,000 per unit. In 2021, more than 60 units were approved for upgrades. For Indigenous affordable housing, our work with the non-profit Tawaak Housing Association continues. There are currently 145 units owned and operated by Tawaak. In the first three-year action plan, $7.2 million is committed to repairing 71 units, and the 10-year target is to ensure 111 units are repaired. So far, more than 50 units have been upgraded.

Another one of the ways we’re addressing the affordable housing situation is by helping homeowners stay in their homes for longer. For the home adaptation and repair program, low-income homeowners can get grants of up to $7,000 and forgivable loans of up to $18,000 to make necessary repairs and adaptations. Last year, we invested almost $19 million to support more than 2,000 low-income homeowners.

We’ve also helped more Nova Scotians find their first home. Through the First Time Home Buyers Rebate program, we supported 132 buyers with a zero-interest repayable loan to help with their down payment. Finally, we’re proud to have created the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit program this past Fall. This new program will support about 6,000 eligible households over the planned eight years of the program. This includes homeowners and renters in housing need, and those experiencing or at high risk of experiencing homelessness.

To my colleagues, that’s a recap of what we’ve been doing here to try and address affordable housing in Nova Scotia. All of this amounts to, in my view, significant progress under very difficult circumstances. It is a tremendous amount of work and I, again, want to thank all the talented and hard-working people at the Department of Infrastructure and Housing for their dedication and their tireless efforts.

As I’ve said, we couldn’t do it alone without our partners, and this says nothing of the roughly 5,000 housing units we know are being built by the private sector over the next number of years.

What we need now is a continued determination and a little bit of patience, although that’s certainly hard for people who are in dire circumstances. I look forward to hearing from the experts. I believe the report from the Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Commission will be incredibly informative, and we’ll look forward to having that discussion in a public domain when those recommendations are shared with everyone when they’re ready.

We also have reason to be optimistic that with the COVID-19 vaccinations happening every day, we may soon see the end of the pandemic, and we all equally share in that wish and hope, and we look forward to that in the very near future. That will certainly make the work we do at Infrastructure and Housing a little bit easier. No matter what we face, we’ll always keep working together.

We’ll keep delivering health care projects that improve Nova Scotians’ access to care and create modern, reliable services. We’ll keep building schools that deliver a better education experience for students and teachers while enriching our communities. We will continue to develop art spaces that promote our culture and celebrate our diversity. And we will continue to look for innovative and sustainable ways to add more safe and affordable units to our housing market for Nova Scotians. All of this will be done with an eye towards making our province stronger, making our economic growth more inclusive, and making our environment healthier.

None of these things could be accomplished overnight, of course. It takes hard work, dedication, and commitment. I’m proud to say that my team has what it takes and so do our partners in communities across the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. We’re ready to face the challenges, and we’ll do it together.

With that, I want to thank you all for indulging me here with these few minutes to talk about the new Department of Infrastructure and Housing, and my team and I would be very happy to now field your questions.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister, for that.

We’ll begin, first of all, with the Progressive Conservative caucus.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid. You have one hour.

STEVE CRAIG: Thanks to the minister for understanding and demonstrating and articulating the current environment. Certainly, nobody at all would understate the importance when it comes to housing. My questions today will all be around housing, in fact, to give staff a little bit of an idea of where I’m going on this.

It should probably not be a surprise to them, but I’m going to talk a little bit about strategy and the organization; a little about high-level budget; some of the scope - the number of units and co-ops and so on; the public housing financials - Housing Nova Scotia, I think, is where most of the money, if not all of the money, flows through for these programs - and the public housing wait-list, naturally; a little bit, perhaps, if we have time, to go to the Rent Supplement Program and talking about, then, the Down Payment Assistance Program, especially when it comes to modular homes; and then a little bit, perhaps, about the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program on that.

It was interesting that the minister did talk about foundation. This requires foundational action and the foundation has been in the making for quite some time.

I want to talk about the structure. I’ve talked about this in the House already, but last year I asked about the integration of Housing Nova Scotia into the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister’s response at that time was, and I’ll quote:

“This is a combined business plan of the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This department was brought together last June as one. We worked extremely hard to do just that. The mandate was to bring this - not as separate. Housing shouldn’t be separate from Municipal Affairs. There’s a direct correlation as to how one works with the other. We are very much one.”

We now know that’s not the case, but I have the same question to the current minister. Why was Housing moved away from Municipal Affairs when the reason for moving it from Community Services to Municipal Affairs was so well thought out and informed? What has changed?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I’d like to thank the member for Sackville-Cobequid. We’ve actually had some personal face time to talk about some of these things. He was gracious in sharing some of his thoughts. I do appreciate his tee-up as to where he’s going to be, and he did provide a little bit of that with me and my EA, Brett, and my Deputy Minister, Eiryn, just so we get a sense as to where he is and what he sees. He certainly has an understanding and a belief and a passion in housing and what we’ve got to do to solve it.

I do certainly respect the question in terms of the structure of the department of Housing and how it ended here. To be honest - I’m not dodging it - but I can’t speak to what the rationale was behind the fit - Community Services and Municipal Affairs. I don’t know. Again, the member just shared with us some of the transcript around that answer there. Again, I don’t have the foundation for that particular rationale, but I can tell you the one for this and why it’s now Infrastructure and Housing.

This has, without a doubt - housing, for me, in Cape Breton - and I’ve shared this before - it’s always tied for number one as an issue. I know that the Chair can certainly attest to this. It’s something that’s a daily conversation and it’s as active a file as health and education and community services is for me in Glace Bay. Hearing many of you in all parts of the province, but certainly in the Halifax area - the members from Halifax Needham and Sackville-Cobequid, and all those members on the peninsula and around Metro - this is certainly a critical issue.

That’s what the current premier saw. He identified that. He understands what this means for people and the gap that exists and the issue at hand. When he was looking at what his cabinet structure and departmental portfolios would look like, there was a requirement to add housing to a department that really allowed it to maintain focus and ensure that it was not only just the optics, but in its function be seen and be witnessed as a priority. Housing is a priority.

The Infrastructure piece, the builders - and I’ve touched on a lot of how the Department of Infrastructure under TIR functioned - they’ve done remarkable work understanding scope and projects and scale and how we partner with the private sector, how we partner with other levels of government, how we take advantage of those federal programs and the dollars that come with it, how we work with the municipalities in an open and mutually beneficial way.

The Infrastructure group that is under this department has that ability, the experience, and the vision to make sure that what we build and how we build it is done right. I think that, certainly, there’s a link to be made there between the Infrastructure group and the Housing group. This department of Housing - and, again, it’s no secret: the member has identified this and it’s quite apparent - has been moved quite often over the last number of years, and that’s not a great thing for stability.

I happen to know, obviously, many of the people here now, being the person responsible - proudly - for this portfolio. I know some personally from a previous life and from years gone by, and they give it their all every day. Most - all - civil servants do, and that’s not comparing departments. These folks at Housing, they don’t think Liberal, Conservative, NDP. They think, how are we getting roofs over people’s heads?

I think that it’s always been a concern for the Premier, quite frankly, and for me, that with these shuffles and with being constantly in flux, it would impact them. I think that my job and my mission, and I think for - bestowed that from the Premier, I guess, to make sure that these men and women feel appreciated and they know that the work they do is valuable. We’ve got to share the stories and the good news.

There is tough news and there are issues, and you’re here to highlight those in terms of the housing shortage and what we should be doing. That’s fair, but there are some good things happening with the department, and those people should be acknowledged for that. I think this is how we do it. I think that being identified inside a department with Infrastructure and finally having a focal point and being held up for the value that they have for government overall and for Nova Scotians is a good thing.

That’s a long-winded answer to the member for the genesis of this. I don’t know why it went from Community Services to Municipal Affairs, but I know that it should be identified and highlighted because it’s a critical function of government. It’s got the right home now.

STEVE CRAIG: Certainly, in my experience over the last 20 months or so since I’ve been a member, and in our office, working with the staff of Housing Nova Scotia, you can certainly see - and Community Services and others - we see that the dedication of our employees is without question. I’m not ever going to question that in a forum such as this. If we could move on from that, I think we can all acknowledge the value that our employees bring to Nova Scotians every day.

[3:45 p.m.]

When I take a look at the financials - sorry, I just wanted to move on to this - I’m given to understand when the former Department of Housing was divvied up, if you will, there was a portion that moved to Community Services and not to Infrastructure, so I’m just wondering if you can confirm that none of the housing - homelessness, rather - the homelessness part has moved to your department.

The amount of monies and people that went to Infrastructure was not 100 per cent of the amount that came from Municipal Affairs. In fact, it was a little bit less and it excludes the amount for homelessness. The reason I bring this up is because the minister did mention the continuum or the scope of housing, which includes homeless. Why would that not be, if there’s a continued focus on that spectrum or that continuum? Why would that portion be carved off and not given to the current portfolio of the minister responsible for housing?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Just having a quick discussion here with staff.

Essentially, our understanding - we don’t have a textbook answer, I guess, at this point. We’ll endeavour to figure it out. Again, almost similar to the previous question around what - I’m not sure exactly the genesis, why it was hived off and sort of put with Community Services.

Just sort of high level for me and for us in the room, basically, there’s - when you look at the housing portfolio and the mandate at hand, it’s a very specific sort of focus around affordable housing and providing that affordable housing in the variety of ways that we will use different partners and different things to get to that point where we’re providing housing.

On the other hand, with homelessness, I think that there are a number of different factors and ways in which government can support someone who’s experiencing or on the verge of experiencing in that dangerous place where homelessness could be a sad reality. I think that, from a resource perspective, there are a number of things that Community Services can do as touch points to support those individuals.

Make no mistake, we’ll certainly work closely with Community Services as it relates to those who are experiencing and in that unfortunate position of being homeless. That’s the rationale from our perspective.

STEVE CRAIG: It will be a question I’ll have of the Minister of Community Services. I’ll tee that one up, if you will.

In the budget under the Estimates - Page 14.7 under Housing - there are no numbers for the 2020-21 estimate or forecast. I’m curious to know as to why not, when a lot of the other estimates and departments did have that. It was noticeably absent from Housing, and I’m curious to know why that would be.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: To the member, the year end is reflected under Municipal Affairs. That’s why there’s nothing indicated for the new department.

STEVE CRAIG: I really don’t understand that response that the minister gave. That being the case, then you would expect a similar thing for all departments, but I don’t see that. I’m not going to belabour the point. It’s a fact it’s not there. In my decades of experience, it was highly unusual for that to be omitted, in my opinion and my experience.

The amount for administration in Housing is $13.4 million. How would you define Housing Services when it comes under that, and what would the full-time equivalent be?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Just before we jump into this one - on the previous one, maybe we’ll talk offline or at a later date because that responsibility would fall under Municipal Affairs. The budgetary pieces would be Municipal Affairs until April 1. For the next round, all of that that you referenced would be under the Department of Infrastructure and Housing. If that doesn’t clarify it, that’s okay, but we’ll sort that out. Nothing untoward there.

With respect to Housing Services, the total staff are - the FTE is 130.8. That’s basically all of the program staff: the finance group, regional staff in the different areas, any of the project work - affordable housing, rent supplement, the down payment assistance, anything linked to that program delivery. Not the regional housing authorities but virtually everything else would be found under that Housing Services line item.

STEVE CRAIG: I think I’m going to move a little bit quicker here because we could spend days on this, and I probably have days of questions that I know I’m not going to get to. I know a number of the other members will ask, probably, some of what I have here too.

The minister mentioned, or alluded to, Housing Nova Scotia. My understanding is that Housing Nova Scotia has no employees - they’re all government employees. They produce a consolidated financial statement and in that, people would be included under the profits somewhere, somehow.

Just before I go there, what is the number of publicly owned housing units, one? How many of these are actually rentable or rented – so, what’s the vacancy rate? What was the number of public housing units built last year? How many publicly owned housing units were decommissioned or sold off last year? And what is the number of co-operative and non-profit units? What is the number of rent supplements that are out there as well?

Mr. Chair, I find the budget process at the provincial level quite unlike any that I’ve ever experienced in decades of my life. I’m going to get those out there, knowing full well that this may take up a lot of time to get a response. We’ll get to some of these things some more. I’ll leave it at that. I look forward to the answers because I have a lot more questions.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I think there was a number of questions asked there by the member and it’s going to take the minister a while to . . .

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I think I’m okay.

THE CHAIR: Oh, can you answer it in three minutes?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I think so, yes. I think I can. The number - I’ll just go through these really quickly for the member, and then he’ll probably follow up.

The number of public housing units we have is 11,500. The vacancy rate is 3.5 per cent. How many we’ve built is absolutely none. We’ve got - obviously, we’ve moved far away from a model of building, and the sustainable model which we stand by 100 per cent is more around the partnerships and the funding - we’ve funded the construction, the application, the adding to the stock of over 200. We’re the largest landlord in the province now. For a number of reasons, building just is not the sustainable, efficient way to do this. I think that we’ve identified through a number of different options with the co-ops and the not-for-profits, the private sector, that’s the way to most efficiently get to a better place in terms of our overall numbers.

We sold - decommissioned a total of 13. We’ve got 1,390 co-op or not-for-profit units, and we’ve provided 3,100 rent supplements. I don’t know, honourable member, if I’ve missed any, but I think that’s all I’ve got in terms of your questions. If I’ve missed one, let me know.

THE CHAIR: The member has two minutes left before we go on break.

STEVE CRAIG: I guess I’m looking for a quick yes or no answer. My question would be: Should the Nova Scotia Affordable Housing Commission come up with a model that indicates that there be more public housing, would that be accepted by the government?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Yes. Absolutely. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

THE CHAIR: That’s quite all right.

[4:00 p.m.]

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Yes. The answer is yes. As I said to - I think I said this in the House in debate, and I certainly said it to the member directly during our conversation - the only stipulation we put on the Housing Commission was that there are no stipulations. We’re not going to tell them what model, what types of controls or levers or programs. We want them to tell us. This is a moot exercise if we’re giving any directions on what Dr. Ren Thomas, the Deputy Minister Eiryn Devereaux, as co-chairs, and all the members of that Commission - we’re not tainting this and we’re not giving any direction whatsoever. That absolutely defeats the purpose of this. We want to be able to plug and play their recommendations without having impacted the direction along the way. To answer the question: simply put, if that’s what a recommendation is, then we’ll follow that recommendation.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister. With that, we’ll take our COVID-19 break. We’ll return again at 4:15 p.m.

[4:01 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[4:15 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will resume. We’ll go back again to the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid. You have 25 minutes left in your first hour.

STEVE CRAIG: Twenty-five minutes? Thank you, Mr. Chair. There’s no way in heck I’m going to get through all of what I have.

As it was mentioned earlier, this is a very complex issue that has been going on. It’s a worldwide issue when it comes to housing, and, certainly, the complexity is going to just really throw us all off. The amount of attention and the non-partisanship that’s required to address this is paramount.

I’d like to ask a question now about the Housing Nova Scotia numbers: deferred revenue. We’ve got deferred revenue for the Social Infrastructure Fund of about $7.5 million; Affordable Housing, $139,000; the National Housing Strategy is $12.1 million; Deferred Federal Contribution is $33 million. That’s a lot of money to be on the table and not utilized. The total deferred revenue for the end of 2020 was $59 million. That’s a lot of money.

I’d like to know why - and, actually, we’re gaining quite a bit of interest on that money, too, as you can imagine - but my question to the minister is: Why do we have so much money on the table as to - are we not spending it? Are we having difficulty getting it out the door to help Nova Scotians?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: This is one of the things for me that I certainly highlighted in my time in Estimates when I was in Opposition. Quite frankly, I didn’t really - it’s still something that has to be explained. It’s not an easy explanation, even when we’re on the government side.

To the member, I get it. When you see a massive amount of money and you see a waiting list, the two just don’t seem to jive. That always was a question for me: If we’ve got these issues and these necessities, needs, why do we have any deferrals? Why aren’t they zero balance? It is reasonable - that is, from the surface. It’s really a function of the program expenditures: we’ve got to hold money and defer it over time.

The member, Mr. Chair, had referenced a number of envelopes. One was the DFC, the federal contribution, $33 million. By the end of this year, that will be - we’ll have spent $11 million. A lot of those funds are restricted. There are only certain things we could do with that. This one in particular centres around public housing, some of the maintenance work that we have to do there.

Listen, it’s much appreciated. This isn’t a criticism of the federal government, but there are strings attached. We live with that. We build our plans. So we do have an approved spending plan under those agreements every three years, which is going to lapse this year. We’ll set a new agreement in place. There are covenants in there that we spend a certain amount of money.

With the SIF, the Social Infrastructure Fund, same thing. That’s $13 million that gets rolled out as projects are identified and we meet the criteria there. Same application for the National Housing Strategy, the $12 million - I think the member had referenced that first - that’s sort of the allotment as we go through the multi-year agreement. That’s the money that’s set aside, that’s identified or deferred, from the federal government. All told, at the end of the nine-year cycle that will be a half-billion dollars collective expenditure. That $12 million is deferred for this year and will be part of satisfying the National Housing Strategy requirements as agreed upon with the national government.

STEVE CRAIG: One of the things that I did note in the minister’s opening remarks was that looking at more professional programs and getting things out the door faster and so on. I would anticipate that the accumulation of deferred revenue ought to be trending downward as we get that money into the street and into the hands of Nova Scotians to house them. If that’s the intention and if that’s the way it’s going to go, then great.

It was interesting to hear the minister say that when the minister was in Opposition, he had the same questions. We’ve been on this for a while. We need to be able to do better.

I want to move now to the Rapid Housing Initiative. It was indicated earlier that the Rapid Housing Initiative was a good thing and that there were three projects. Those three projects, though, were under the municipal stream. They were under the municipal stream, $8.6 or $8.7 million for Halifax Regional Municipality, who worked quite diligently with organizations that may have already had some things in the pipe to make that happen. I acknowledge that in the case of requiring operations and operational funding, the government did come up with that.

My question is, though: On the project side of the House, what did the government do and where would the monies have been - let me ask it this way - how many submissions were made with the assistance of the Housing folks on the project side of the Rapid Housing Initiative, one? And of those, how many were approved and accepted?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: There was one overall submission to the Rapid Housing Initiative. The number that they received was $1.7 million, and that’s for 24 units in Dartmouth.

STEVE CRAIG: The fact that we were not able to take more advantage of this is really disappointing, and certainly the work of the Affordable Housing Commission and the need for the Commission will point that out. We needed to be able to be in a position in Nova Scotia to take advantage of that money that came so quickly, and we just weren’t able to pull out all the stops on that. We didn’t have so many things in place to enable us to do that. I certainly hope that the work of the Commission comes about, and we do take a better position to have it so that we can take advantage of any monies and move those monies through quickly throughout this province.

I want to come back for a second. One of the answers previously, Mr. Chair, on the number of co-operative, non-profit units given was 1,390. I’ve got a number from a couple of years ago, 2019, which I believe was in the Housing Nova Scotia report, which said that that number was 1,671. If that’s the case, there’s been a reduction in the number of co-operative and non-profit housing units. I was just curious to know if the minister or his staff would have any insight as to what’s going on there.

[4:30 p.m.]

GEOFF MACLELLAN: We’re just doing some checking here to get the number that is reflective and relative to the 1,600. I’m going to ask the member when he comes back for the next question just to repeat where he saw that number. I just didn’t hear it properly. We want to be sure. That’s okay.

It’s actually 1,319. That’s the social housing baseline out of the national agreement. That’s the minimum standard, the minimum number. We can’t be and never will be below that number, so that’s the base. What the accurate number is, we’re on a mission to find that now. Once we get that, I’ll jump back in and give that number, but I do want to just get the member to repeat the 1,600 number.

Also, I do want to just comment quickly on the member’s preamble before I got this question and just say that I agree. I think that when you have project parameters and when you have line items and when you have these different subgroups - mentioned about the rapid housing - I think that’s part of the problem. It’s a hard thing to swallow and a hard thing to explain to Nova Scotians, particularly those on a list, that you’ve got this access to these funds and whatever the reason is, valid or otherwise within the process, that you can’t use this money and it goes back into the pot, so to speak. I just wanted to acknowledge that - the member teed that up - that’s exactly why we need this Commission and we need a bit of a foundation here. Because with the pressures that people are facing, we’ve got to make every dollar count. I appreciate that.

If the member, before he jumps back in here, could just repeat that 1,600 piece.

STEVE CRAIG: That, I believe, came from one of the back pages of the Housing Nova Scotia Accountability Report, probably the last one that I saw. If it’s not there, if you can’t see it quickly in that table, let me know and I’ll leave and later get you that exact source.

Let’s talk a little bit about the wait-list again. I know that the wait-list numbers - we need the wait-list numbers by what we have for the social housing, the government-owned housing, and through the co-operatives. We have that number. I’d like to know what those numbers are: the total number on the wait-list, and how much that would be for provincially owned and non-provincially owned.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: We go back by a question every time I come back on here, but it’s for the clarity. Just as we’re talking this through, it becomes a little clearer. I just wanted to let the member know: 1,600 was that number that was identified under that collective program. The baseline is what the requirement is that we keep. What happens is if someone exits the program - they meet their obligations, so they pay if it’s a grant or a loan, they square that - then that 1,600 number comes down.

The minimum is 1,319. That’s the National Housing Strategy agreement number. That’s our baseline. Outside of that, once someone exits the program, so to speak, we don’t track them. We have no way of knowing. They’re not recognized in a list, I guess. There is no - we had that 1,600 number at one point - now we’re in this agreement, we will never go below the 1,319, but we don’t have a particular number, as it is, present day. Once they exit, they’re no longer counted in that number. I’ll let you respond to that after I get to the next one.

We don’t have any wait-list numbers for non-provincially owned, but for our provincially owned list, it’s in the ballpark of 6,000 on the waiting list.

STEVE CRAIG: I’m not sure if the minister and I are talking apples and apples, or the same thing. I think I’ll take that off-line at some point, because through my office there is a wait-list. We go through the central facilitation number and people in the group, and they can tell us how much are for provincially owned buildings, units and those that have agreements with co-operatives. I’ll leave it at that for now, and we can clarify that later, off-line.

I want to talk about the Rent Supplement Program. I think this past year there were to have been 3,000 or so. I’m just curious to know how many individual households currently have the Rent Supplement Program that they’re benefiting from?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The rent supplement number as of April is 3,167.

STEVE CRAIG: Let me see if I can find a little, short, quick snapper here. How about the Down Payment Assistance Program? I believe last year we were looking to increase the program’s lending capacity to $2.2 million. I’d like to know if there’s an increase in that, one, and two, if it’s applicable to those who have modular homes.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The budget has remained the same. It’s $2.2 million. There are 130 households that participated in the Down Payment Assistance Program, and we’re just getting some clarification on the modular piece that the member had referenced.

THE CHAIR: Sorry, I was on mute there. The time for the first hour for the PC caucus has expired. We’ll go now to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: Thanks to my colleague from Sackville-Cobequid for asking some good questions so that I don’t have to. We’re trying to capture the information any which way.

I wonder if the minister could update us on how many targeted housing benefits, either for renters or for homeowners, have been allocated. I understand that there were to be 2,700 households benefiting in the first year of the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit, and so I’m wondering if you can update us on how many households have actually accepted and started receiving that benefit.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thanks to the member for Halifax Needham. I’m certainly disappointed in her opening preamble there. I was hoping you’d ask all the same questions. My answers would get better every time. Now I’m in unchartered waters.

Just quickly to the member from Sackville-Cobequid: modular homes are included, to let you know that.

Back to the member for Halifax Needham, under that program, as she’s asked, there are 1,662 renters and 115 homeowners. The department, through the resources they have and some of the access points, has reached out to over 4,000 people to increase the uptake, quite frankly. There’s a significant amount of room in that budget for these programs. Certainly, we’d like to increase and enhance the participation in whichever way we can.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m a little confused about when year one was supposed to happen. You talk about - that there’s room in that budget. I’ve seen references to this program at a number of different times including October 2020, but also June. So when was Year 1?

[4:45 p.m.]

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I don’t want to use the blanket excuse of COVID-19 for this, but there was an impact around just the program development. It was originally targeted, and the housing officials were on track to launch the program on April 1, 2020. It actually didn’t come online officially and up in motion until October 1, 2020. That delay - just a number of different factors around the pandemic and getting the administrating and the operational pieces up and running.

LISA ROBERTS: It sounds - and I didn’t quite catch the number of uptakes for targeted housing benefits targeted at homeowners. I think it was less than 200, but that means that we have got, I think, about 800 benefits that have not been accepted by anyone, though a number of - at least 2,000 households - have been offered that benefit.

What analysis and what understanding do you have? What’s the story that the department is talking about based on the refusal of the benefit to people whom, I assume, do need help with matching their income to the expense of housing in this market? They wouldn’t be even getting an invitation to apply if they weren’t already qualified for some assistance.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Basically, in total, the ways in which we’ve reached out through our own mechanisms as well as Salvation Army and other partners that would have access to potential people who could access this program - the total number was 7,000. Again, when you look at the number who have taken up this program, it’s not great.

I think that there is a part of it, not a clarification, I guess, but people don’t get - 250 have applied. People don’t get turned down per se. They basically don’t meet the criteria. The member would know. I don’t want to create a response that’s throwing anyone under the bus, but there is an issue with the CMHC around their criteria. In some instances, the identified need is 50 per cent of income on housing, but for others it’s 30 per cent. There is an issue there.

CMHC have been very reasonable to deal with around that, but our officials - two things on this one, and you’re highlighting both: This word of mouth, the access, however we’ve got to do it, we’ve got to be better at it. Also, it is to directly address this with CMHC to see if we can do something around that criteria. Again, 250 have applied out of 7,000. It’s not an enormous number by any stretch. Again, as you’ve highlighted, member, and as the member from Sackville-Cobequid and many have in the House, there’s just an issue where there’s money available, but the uptake is not there. I think this is reasonable to say that this is an example of that.

LISA ROBERTS: I wonder if there is any sort of tracking of why. So for renters, renters have to be invited to apply. It’s owners who can apply without being invited, is my understanding. I’m wondering if there is some tracking that could be shared in terms of how often people are choosing not to access this benefit today because it means that they will not be able to accept - well, basically, they have to come off the public housing wait-list.

The over-a-lifetime benefit of being accepted to public housing, where your rent is actually geared to your income, so 30 percent of your income, versus accepting a benefit where you’ve got maybe $300 extra in your pocket to go to the market, but where the market rents, you know, might still leave you actually really strapped.

So I’d be really interested to know if the department is tracking how many people are refusing because they don’t want to come off the public housing wait-list because they actually want to be - you know, they want that benefit with that security and with that income left over for everything else.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Very pertinent point. It’s one that, in particular, we’ve talked about many times in my briefings thus far. Of the two streams, so with the homeowners and with the renters, the member’s exactly right. It just doesn’t seem to make sense that people would have to choose between this benefit and coming off the wait-list. Just thinking of practical examples of why that short-term benefit would not be worth it for a lot of people to come off that wait-list and have the circumstances that public housing provides for people. I’ve referenced my mom on that one. She’s the perfect example for her.

We do track that. We’re working to get you that number. I’m sure we’ve seen it somewhere specifically. But we have made the inferences and we’re in the process of making it so that it’s not a requirement to come off the wait-list if you get this benefit. It doesn’t make any sense, so we’re endeavouring to do that. It looks like we will be able to make that happen. You’re not off the wait-list to take advantage of this program. We’re working on those details.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m wondering if the minister is about to add something else or should I go with a new question.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: No, you go ahead. We’re still going to work on this.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. I’m really interested to hear that, and, frankly, I’m interested to hear that that requirement maybe didn’t come from the Province. Obviously, there was some sort of negotiation that happened with the federal government around the way Nova Scotia entered the National Housing Strategy. It’s sort of been my assumption that the Province stipulated that people would have to come off the housing wait-list because the last Premier’s commitments around housing have all been around reducing the housing wait-list.

It’s interesting to hear. Certainly, it would make a difference for people accepting a benefit that would help them now, but it also speaks to the challenges of the market, that you could be offered this benefit and still not be able to find a place where you’re actually living without being quite housing-poor.

I’m going to try to ask some questions that might get some faster answers, and no complaints at all because this is interesting. Where programs related to homelessness have moved to the Department of Community Services, what does that say about the potential for infrastructure investment in projects at that end of the housing continuum, such as permanent supportive housing, which is something that we hear is needed?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Certainly, for the member, I get where she’s at. I’ll try to be a little bit more efficient. I just want to make sure I get the information properly and get back to her.

Good point. I think the permanent supportive housing, as I said in the opening - we’ll work very closely with DCS around some of those issues. I also think that, and, again, not to use this as the parachute all the time, there is representation from DCS on the Affordable Housing Commission. Certainly, this has been a topic of conversation with respect to how we address, I think, the member’s point about being on that housing spectrum and how we would support that.

Without question, because the homelessness piece isn’t officially under the Department of Infrastructure and Housing, certainly there have to be supports in what role we play there. How we work with DCS is critical to make sure we address that to the extent that we can.

[5:00 p.m.]

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to jump - I think we’re going to be coming up on a break shortly - but certainly one concern I’ve heard from non-profit housing providers and organizations that would like to get support from Housing Nova Scotia for investment in affordable housing that will stay forever more affordable than market is the design of some of Housing Nova Scotia’s programs. Particularly, the one that I’m most familiar with provides a subsidy of $50,000 per door, I think, in a new housing development. In exchange for that, the program has been designed so that there’s some sort of guarantee of more affordability for 15 years.

For non-profit organizations, who don’t intend to then jack up the rent after 15 years, the numbers don’t work. The commitment in the first 15 years means, I think, that the $50,000 is not enough to build the new affordable housing unless you’re planning to then have those rents go up significantly after 15 years.

For private developers, that might make a lot of sense. You’ve basically got $50,000 and you know that after 15 years you can boost those rents up. For a Northwood or an Adsum, they can’t make the programs work. Is that something where the department might consider developing programs that are aimed at permanent affordable housing, permanently non-market housing as opposed to these short-term commitments?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Two parts of this. The first one is definitely, again, this is almost the standard opener for my responses, the Commission will be considering this, that’s a given. I think what the member is highlighting is something that we’ve tried to address, and it seems to be something that’s acceptable, whether it be social or non-profit or the commercial developers. It is the idea of the mixed-use, the mixed door, so to speak, facility. Whether it be that there are affordable housing units, there are market-based units, commercial space, that we give that flexibility so that at that 15-year point, it doesn’t become unsustainable for whoever it is that’s managing that particular site.

That’s one that, from my understanding, sort of the limited knowledge I have at this point around the details here, but, basically, there is an interest and an acceptance of that model for all potential suppliers, whether that be social, non-profit, et cetera. That’s really the way we’ve tried to address that. That’s certainly something that’s on the table with respect to - it’s great to give that X dollar per door, but then what happens? Fifteen years is a long time in the grand scheme of a build. So what happens then? It’s really that mixed-use component that is one of the tools that we would have to address.

LISA ROBERTS: Before I ask some specific questions about the Affordable Housing Commission, I just want to understand how it relates to the Housing Nova Scotia 2019-2022 Action Plan. Is launching an Affordable Housing Commission now an indication that the government recognizes that the Housing Nova Scotia Action Plan did not set us on the right path?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I’ll answer that honestly if she promises this won’t go in a political ad down the road. I get the point. I think that’s fair. Coming here and understanding the complexities and the amount of work, the body of information that we have with respect to what’s happening with the housing stock, and how we meet the demand for those thousands of people who require safe, affordable housing, there’s a lot to it.

I think that, as I’ve said many times, the department is doing tremendous work. When you look at the different silos and what’s happening with all these programs that we’ve referenced, and the member herself had talked about, highlighted the fact that there’s money there and the uptake is not 100 percent. There are a lot of gaps, I think, in how we do this.

For me, I can spend every day for two weeks with the department talking just about public housing. That’s not dealing with the rent supps and that’s not dealing with the developers, the not-for-profits, the social housing entities. It’s not doing any of that. When you go to those different silos, then you’re not addressing the current needs at the public housing level.

There’s a lot happening and there’s a lot of inefficiencies. I think that it is not necessarily that there is no strategy lacking, but I think there’s a structure lacking. We’ve heaped on a lot of responsibility, I think unfairly to a certain extent, to the Department of Housing, Housing Nova Scotia, and also to those partners, the non-profits, the social housing entities that are out there. I think they’re doing their best trying to navigate and access the support, and to no avail in some instances, or a long time coming.

It’s a hard thing to try to justify and rationalize when there’s money left unspent. Some of it is the multi-year deferral, but others are - if we’re not spending 100 percent of dollars that are out there to support renters or homeowners to the effect that we’ve sent out thousands of notices and have a couple hundred participating, that’s a problem. I think that I would agree with the premise of the question from the member that the Housing Commission really, for me, is going to bring focus to all of these things that we’re doing.

We owe it to Nova Scotians from the affordable housing/homelessness wait-list perspective that, at the very least, we build the best possible road map to address these issues. We owe it to those people, we owe it to the department staff who are here, we owe it to all of those players - the stakeholders - in the housing communities that are trying their best and are front line seeing the worst of the worst in terms of stories and situations. People living in their vehicles and crashing with people, and all of those terrifying things, ordeals, that people have to manage because they don’t have access to affordable housing.

To answer the question, simply put, I think that is the case. I think that the Commission will very much harden the direction so that we can be reasonable to Housing Nova Scotia and the Department of Housing staff, and the private sector, and the not-for-profits - that we’re all pushing in the same direction because, I’m sure, some days it just doesn’t feel like that.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to jump in a slightly different direction because I appreciate that you do indicate that you have some real knowledge of public housing and of how valuable it can be.

In my constituency, I have a lot of public housing units. I’ve got, I think, four or five manors and two significant family communities. I would love to see, not necessarily expansion exactly as it is, but a real look at the potential of that infrastructure and tweaking of the management as opposed to “this doesn’t work, we don’t want to do any more of this.” How can we just do it a little bit differently and also do a little bit more of it?

One very particular issue that has been brought to my attention is that when a regional housing authority has a vacancy and needs to hire somebody at the front lines, it often takes management in the regional housing authority a full year to get approval from up the government chain to hire a person. I’m wondering if you would comment on, I guess, your willingness, or the government’s willingness, to try to do public housing better.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I literally couldn’t agree more. Seeing the stability, it’s like they’ve arrived in paradise for people who get access. The day they move in - again, I’m using my mom as the example - going from the uncertainty and challenging and financial pressure, particularly in the Winter, to a safe, clean, well-maintained environment - if we could do that for every person on the wait-list, it would be a remarkable feat. I think that the more we can, the better.

This creates - look, people are in dire straits in situations for public housing, whether it’s seniors or family or individuals. It changes their life, and it gives them that foundation for all the other things that they have to do, whether that be professionally, family, what have you. I absolutely can’t understate, underscore or underline enough the importance and the benefit of public housing for so many people.

There are two focal points with respect to that. Again, the Commission is working on an aspect of public housing around what they could recommend to increase the value of it in sort of general terms. There’s also an asset transformation team here at the Department of Infrastructure and Housing that’s looking exactly at these exact things. There are so many great outcomes from public housing as is, but with the pressures in terms of adding capacity and utilizing the budget more efficiently - it’s not cuts, it’s no reference to doing things with decreased staff or anything of that nature - it’s just about what we have in terms of stock, equipment, human resources, operational. What can we do to enhance it, whether that be for the experience of those who are there as tenants, as residents? Also, how do we expand to add more people? That’s really the name of the game.

Between those two, the asset transformation group and with the Commission, I really think there are opportunities here to identify efficiencies and be better as it relates to public housing.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. Once again, we’ve reached the time for a COVID-19 break. We’ll take 15 minutes and return at 5:30 p.m.

[5:14 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[5:30 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee on Supply will come back to order. We’ll go back to the NDP caucus with 25 minutes left.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to just put out a couple of other things related to public housing with not necessarily a question, but I appreciate that the staff are there listening.

One is that, in terms of seniors’ manors, in particular, I think that there needs to be investment not necessarily from this department, but perhaps the Department of Seniors or elsewhere, or Communities, Culture and Heritage, even, to have some kind of regular staff connector, navigator, in the building to connect those residents with other services, and just to help programs to happen in those buildings.

All of the buildings, all of the seniors’ manors in my constituency have quite large community rooms. Some of them have regular activities and some of them are only used as poll locations for elections. It’s a real shame. Oftentimes, there are full kitchens as well. Anyway, it’s a great piece of infrastructure that we don’t really take advantage of.

The other thing I wanted to say is that Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, apparently has a great public housing authority that has no wait-list and makes money. Actually, it breaks even with its revenues. I would love to see a team of folks go from Nova Scotia there to find out what they do differently, how they do it differently. I hear great things, and I think we could do better with that public asset.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Member, where is that? I know this is unconventional. All the staff have perked up big time. Where is that example? Where, did you say?

LISA ROBERTS: It’s in Saskatchewan, in Moose Jaw.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Moose Jaw. Sorry. Proceed. Sorry about that.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m glad to connect you with somebody who actually lives in New Glasgow and did her Master’s research on a bunch of housing stuff. She has spoken at length with some of the staff there about all of their procedures and processes so that they’re tickety-boo. It could be so much better.

Just quickly back to that question earlier about supportive housing: There have been proposals put in front of, I know, the last premier - I don’t know if it’s been done since the new cabinet was brought in - to make investments right now in new assets: to add to the non-market sector, including, potentially, the purchase of a hotel or a motel that is currently, perhaps, underwater - to add that housing stock that we so badly need to get people out of really critical situations. I’m wondering if there is some flexibility in your approach to contemplate that kind of investment in partnership with non-profits.

THE CHAIR: Just one note to the minister: the staff better not get too excited about travelling to Saskatchewan until COVID-19 is over.

The honourable Minister of Infrastructure and Housing.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Well said, Mr. Chair. Thanks for that. (Laughter) I’ll be with you in a sec.

I think it’s fair to say, just in general terms, there certainly is a lens for the supportive housing piece and what we do to add those supports. Between the Commission, what’s taking place inside the department, and certainly for, with the Premier and myself, around the Treasury Board, cabinet conversations, there are discussions about what that potentially could look like. Many of the - of what has come forth in terms of supportive housing and what we do, obviously there are all kinds of signals that the adequacy could enhance, quite frankly.

I know the member’s familiar. We just - the $500,000 investments in Adsum and the North End community initiative. That’s not, sort of, throwing up a flag that we’re great supporters, it’s throwing up a flag to say that when you make investments in operational losses, it goes a really long way. I think the proof is in the pudding there, and I think that talking about having that budgetary flexibility for the department to do more of that type of investment on the supportive housing side is crucial.

To be honest, I would be stretching it if I were to say that the conversations around infrastructure builds for that type of need - I don’t think that’s too far along at this point. We haven’t had a whole lot of specific discussions about that, but like the housing stock conversation, I think it’s fair to say that our role is becoming about where we invest and where we partner. To identify those opportunities is just as valuable for the non-profits and the social groups that are doing the work. They certainly can do it better, more efficiently, and manage it relative to government. It’s very much an ongoing discussion and it’s not going to stop at a few sprinkles in investment.

LISA ROBERTS: I appreciated those investments. At the same time, those investments, like the one you referenced in Compass NS, all of those projects have been in the works for years. It’s been the Province coming in with a relatively modest investment, kind of late in a project development process, as opposed to really enabling more stuff happening. I think that there’s a role for the Province to actually either lead or else facilitate others to lead without it being such a slog.

The other thing that I would comment on is that while the Affordable Housing Commission is going to be looking at how we increase supply, that’s been largely the narrative from the government. At the same time, we’re still actively losing supply. We are still losing affordable housing, and we’re losing it when older buildings are being sold to investors because they see how much other things can go for.

I saw an ad in allNovaScotia this week for a building in the South End of Halifax that is currently a seniors’ non-long-term care, but a seniors’ residence. It’s being marketed as a great commercial, multi-unit opportunity. I bet that is affordable right now, and I bet it’s not going to be when it sells. That’s the kind of thing that, I think, the Province should be ready to work with the non-profit sector to purchase those assets. The most affordable housing is the housing that already exists right now. It’s not the stuff that you start planning now to pour concrete into the ground in a few years’ time.

Related to how we actually make the stuff that exists now better: Housing Nova Scotia and housing authorities now administer, like you mentioned, 1,100-and-some rental units across the province. How much money is invested in upgrades and renovations in this budget?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The total number for this fiscal year is $28 million, and that includes - there’s a portion of that that’s accessibility. So the total spend on the public stock is $28 million for maintenance.

LISA ROBERTS: And we know that Housing Nova Scotia has done some work related to energy retrofits. I saw some solar panels that have gone up on a manor in my constituency. I was really happy to see that. I’m interested in what Housing Nova Scotia, or the department, I guess, is doing related to deep energy retrofits, the kind of retrofits that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heating. Has the department assessed how much of their housing stock would be eligible for conversion to Net Zero Ready standards? Is there also a corollary to that? Is there a deadline for making all buildings managed by Housing Nova Scotia Net Zero Ready?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Through the Investing in Canada Plan (ICIP) program I referenced in the opening, there is a part of the strategy - there is an arrangement where, over multi-years, the commitment is $22 million for energy-based retrofits and renovations. At this point, we’ve identified 187 that will fit into that mould in terms of energy efficiency.

[5:45 p.m.]

In fairness, I don’t presume that the member’s definition of “deep efficiencies” would probably hit that. A lot of it, quite frankly - it’s efficiency and it’s invaluable for the people, for the residents, with windows and siding and things of that nature. There are some of those inside the 187 - it’s not a large number, it’s less than 10 - that will be Net Zero Ready, but those 187 projects definitely do have a relatively stringent set of criteria to meet that ICIP requirement. We are in the process of those now.

Obviously, you know, as sort of an aside, it’s one of those issues that’s cross-departmental - just around what Efficiency Nova Scotia and EfficiencyOne, all of those efforts collectively put us in that direction. I think it’s getting better, but, again specifically, I could say that it’s 187 projects under that ICIP funding envelope that speak directly to efficiency with the public housing stock.

LISA ROBERTS: The 187 projects, is that affecting 187 units?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: We’re going to get back on specifics. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and I’m hoping I’m correct when the department officials come back with this - it’s 187 buildings. That would certainly imply and, again, I’m assuming in telling the member this, and I’ll retract and correct if it’s not the case. It would certainly impact far more than 187 individual dwellings.

I know this because there’s a relatively significant series of projects happening in Glace Bay that are the window wraps, siding, roofs, and things of that nature. Most of those units are the duplex: one building represents two family units. I think I’m safe to say, although without verifying with the Housing officials in the department, I believe it’s certainly more than 187, sort of a net impact.

LISA ROBERTS: Quest Society, which is a non-profit, recently presented to our caucus about the potential of following the Energiesprong model from the Netherlands. I think your department will have had some conversations about that as well. This approach involves encasing an older building with custom-made panels. It’s quick and non-intrusive, and highly effective in making buildings Net Zero Ready.

A study by Gardner Pinfold commissioned by the Ecology Action Centre in 2019 also makes the case that deep retrofits of social housing of this kind would act as a catalyst for the deep energy retrofit market in Nova Scotia and create lots of jobs. Has your department been approached about funding a pilot project for ReCover, or other Energiesprong-inspired pilots, and what are the chances of that?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I guess the short answer to the member is no. We haven’t had anything, not only specifically to that effect of the Netherlands example, and I don’t want to say we haven’t done anything that’s outside of the box, because I think that with the efficiency criteria under ICIP, there are the efficient ways of doing things and the accepted construction and retrofit practices certainly apply - but I think it’s also fair to say that this type of innovative, way-outside-the-box idea - we don’t have any that we can think of in play. Again, I’m not saying this as a general statement of peace and friendship - I mean this seriously. There was something that came to the forefront for a number of different reasons. This is the time between what the Commission is doing, the obvious heightened attention and focus on (a) housing (b) efficiency (c) net zero, in particular. I think this is the opportunity.

I think that’s one of the realities that we’ve really focused on, those partnerships and working with not-for-profits and those providers that do such great work. The problem is that - and, again, for lack of a better explanation - we’re not out looking for those things. We sort of rely on those groups to bring them to us. That’s not fair because they’re up to their eyeballs in what they’re doing now.

I don’t know if there’s a warehouse - that we’re even thinking of those things. We’re just trying to keep as many options open. If there was something particular - and I know, obviously this is a specific example, it’s never a bad idea to have this in to us and at least consider it. I think this is the time to start trying these things for real.

LISA ROBERTS: That’s great to hear. Of course, I’m like the member for Sackville-Cobequid: I’ve had a lot of different points of contact on the housing file in my four years as an MLA. I’ll get used to who it is I should shop these things to and maybe set up a meeting.

Quickly, I’m excited to see that renters in Nova Scotia may be able to access solar power through virtual net metering, thanks to the new legislation that’s coming through. It would be great to hear that there is a plan that renters in public housing could access a solar subscription through virtual net metering. I’ll put that to you to see if there’s anything to come back.

I think I will have more time, but I’d also like to have more clarity on rent control because I just heard you say, “until the end of the state of emergency or February 2022, whatever comes first.” I think that that is a little bit different than what the Premier has said recently, which is that rent control is not coming off until after the Affordable Housing Commission reports back, and there’s something coming. I think it’s really important that we be clear.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Just one data point clarification for you: The 187 buildings represents 3,200 units, so you have that for your info.

On the rent control piece, I think it’s certainly fair to try to get clarity around that. Not to speak for the Premier, I’m glad you’ve given him the housing questions in Question Period, not me, so please continue to do that. You’ve got my blessing.

I think that where we are is - undoubtably, the Commission will come up with something and address this. That’s the anticipation. Not pre-empting this, but I think that, quite frankly, the first touch point around the rent control conversation is going to be the Commission recommendations. The state of emergency is in place. I don’t see it coming off in the next month, which coincides with the Commission’s recommendations.

To be perfectly frank, I don’t know if the February 2022 date is just there, sort of as an outside buffer. This, for me, very much has been tied to the state of emergency, and I guess that gives it the additional runway. I really think that there will be some clarity around the rent control conversation when the Commission comes back. It still doesn’t mean that the day they come out, if there’s a recommendation one way or the other, that means rent control is addressed immediately. I think it’s more, really, tied into the state of emergency. As we’ve said many times, in my view, what the commission comes back with is really going to win the day from that perspective and across the board, really, when it comes to the recommendations.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The time for the hour for the NDP caucus has expired.

We’ll go now to the Progressive Conservative caucus again.

The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

MURRAY RYAN: I want to open by thanking the minister and his staff there with him for being available this afternoon. More importantly, I want to thank the staff that work in housing down here in Northside-Westmount, and all of the CBRM for that matter. Their tireless efforts - and they’ve got their work cut out for them.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the communities here in Northside-Westmount. There have been continuous housing shortages here for many years, and I honestly have to say it is the number one issue that I receive calls about. Many of these callers, they’re desperate. They’re facing situations where they’re having to leave their current residence for a multitude of reasons - from the residences being condemned, to rodent issues, health hazards, fire, homelessness, what have you.

When these individuals call the office, they’ve done their homework. They’ve already approached Housing, they’ve been told that there are waiting lists, that there are no vacancies, no housing units available. Then, when they call us, they rhyme off a number of units that are vacant and have been for an extended period of time. These units, they’re sitting vacant for months on end, waiting for the necessary maintenance to be done on them so they can be put back into service.

My question to the minister is: Could the minister detail what kind of steps are being taken to accelerate the turnaround of these units, and will the department be hiring the additional maintenance staff so that Nova Scotians in dire need of housing are not left homeless while these units are sitting empty in the community?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Like you and me, but certainly for the member in Northside-Westmount, the public housing stock and the reality and the impact on every community is different as you get up through the Island and, certainly, onto the mainland. I’m learning about the different way that public housing functions and the overall foundation of the supports they give in different places.

I’m acutely familiar with how it works in Cape Breton and I know that the member who just asked the question - from Northside-Westmount - is in very much the same place. We have - you can change the names and the addresses, but it’s pretty much the same calls. As I said in my opening - I don’t know if he heard that or not - it’s also my top issue. You assume it’s health care and the Department of Community Services, but for housing, we get those calls of, I’m sleeping in the car, and I’m on my child’s couch in the basement, and these things. It’s very much an urgent issue for those callers who reach us.

All the same frustrations of people who have an inventory probably better than the department when it comes to vacancies within the public housing sector, both at the seniors’ complexes in some cases, and in the family units as well. I can tell you that - as the member would know - there are - it’s a remarkable experience and comfort for people who get these units. That’s for the reasons of what the criteria are for allowing someone to move in.

When it comes to the maintenance and the work that has to be done around just the cosmetic stuff - the aesthetics with the walls and the ceilings and the flooring, the appliances, the plumbing, the electrical - there are obvious standards. I know that - I’m very certain - that the member is aware of those. There are those frustrations.

[6:00 p.m.]

The member and I know many of the same players who bend over backwards to support the tenants, the residents. It just - it’s a very time-consuming, labour-intensive occupation in terms of getting those units ready. When people see vacancies at a particular place, they think it’s just sitting there with the door locked, waiting for someone to move in, but oftentimes the staff are stretched trying to get to that particular address to make sure the upgrades take place so that it is not only acceptable - first and foremost, acceptable for the tenant - but that it meets the criteria and the required checklist in terms of the housing arrangements and the national strategy.

As far as staff goes, that’s always been the question - if we had more staff, could we do this? I think that, very much, what’s happening now with the - I reference to one of the previous questions for the honourable member - that there’s an Asset Management Working Group here inside the department, along with the Affordable Housing Commission. Between those two entities, we certainly anticipate that there will be some suggestions around where we go from here.

I believe there are significant efficiencies to be had in public housing. That is not a reference, at all, to the staff, not at all a reference to the managers and the people who make this go. They do tremendous work and they’re stretched really thin, and they’re good to the people who live there. If there are required resources in that operational sense, in a human resources sense, that’s obviously something that we’ll look at. If it becomes about the capital and there are ways of efficiencies there, we’ll look at that, too.

I think this is the perception, sometimes, that these places stay vacated and empty forever, but there’s also some fact there. I think that if it’s an issue of getting the horsepower to get in quicker and get these units up and ready, then that’s obviously something we should be looking at. We’ll wait to see what the results are from the commission and the Asset Management group, and then we’ll certainly act when we have a clear line of sight.

MURRAY RYAN: I want to thank the minister for taking some time to respond to my question and provide some clarity and some background information surrounding it.

That’s it for me. I’m going to pass it off to my colleague from Truro-Salmon River-Bible Hill - I think I reversed it . . .

DAVE RITCEY: You almost got it. We’re going to change up that name, I’ll tell you that. We’ll have to shorten it somehow.

THE CHAIR: Pretty close.

The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

DAVE RITCEY: To the department staff, in preparation for this, these sessions are when I’m learning. Gruelling for the minister, for sure, and the department, but lots of opportunity to ask good, local questions. I have a few.

How would you prefer, minister, around Infrastructure versus Housing? I only have a couple of questions. What would you prefer, how to roll?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I think I’ll - if it’s okay - oh, sorry. Sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair, I’ll probably - we’re all here. If you want to do the Housing first, that makes sense, but whatever you’re comfortable with, honourable member.

DAVE RITCEY: Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Housing - I know there’s been lots of discussion around rent control. I guess my question is: It’s currently in place. What’s the department’s or the government’s plan after the state of emergency, and will it remain in place? If so, then what’s the strategy to support the developers and increase supply, especially with the rising costs in supply?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I’ve heard from a number of people who live in the Mount Thom area and they’re furious that Mount Thom’s not in the name of your constituency, so you might want to add a few communities to that. [Laughter] I’m kidding, of course.

It’s certainly a good question - to the member - and off to a good start for his time here in the Legislature with Estimates. This is a question - and I know that through listening to the Premier and me at any chance, the member and the members on the subcommittee would have had around this topic of rent control and a number of topics that we have discussed and will discuss here this evening. The work of the Affordable Housing Commission is really going to determine a lot of this. I don’t want that to be ever received as a hollow, deflective answer. We’re going to pre-judge and pre-empt their work if we do anything before they come out with their recommendations, and they’re a month away.

I can tell you honestly, there’s been a push, even from members in our own caucus, that we should do X and Y immediately around housing to accelerate the quote-unquote “supports or efforts” being done by government. I think that this Commission, when they lay out their recommendations, is going to change the landscape and the direction of housing, as it relates in Nova Scotia, for generations. I really do. It’s going to long outlast this particular government and many future governments. They’re going to set the road map for how we do this, and I have got full confidence in them. I know that the topic of rent control is one of those.

For the member, once we get those recommendations, we can circle back on this one and, obviously, you’ll have that opportunity to reach out directly to me or to the Premier’s office, et cetera.

On the topic, again - I just had a little bit of a back and forth on the details of rent control with the member for Halifax Needham. Essentially, rent control is in place while the emergency order is in effect. There is an established date of February 2022 when it would come off. That’s if the - whatever comes first, the emergency order is lifted or that date. Also, again, to be clear, a lot of the direction around this and many other policy pieces is going to come from the commission. We’ll have an absolute better picture of where we stand on that as a provincial government and its housing policy once the commission reports back.

DAVE RITCEY: My next question’s still in the Housing side of it. Our local community, with stakeholders such as United Way of Colchester, Truro and Colchester Partnership for Economic Prosperity [Inaudible], municipalities, community members, as well as myself and my colleague in Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley have participated in affordable housing assessments that they’re doing right now here, locally, which is fantastic. We have approved, here, just in Truro alone - we have over 1,000 units coming to Truro that have been approved. It’s exciting. That will free up some supply, I think. It just goes back to that question that I had initially around rent control and where that’s going to go.

I’m going to jump ship here and go into Infrastructure - a couple of infrastructure projects that won that I’ll continue to beat on because I think it’s an opportunity here in our community with the Truro Amateur Athletic Club (TAAC) Revitalization Project. I guess my question to you, Minister, is: What is the level of, I guess, dollars as to when it goes into your department for consideration? I talked to the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and now I’m passing it over to you and see where that lies.

I think it’s a great community project. The Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage did visit our community back in November and met with municipalities and stakeholders, as well as me and a few others. I can’t say enough about this group. They’ve been at it for five years.

We’re seeing some exciting things happening over the last few weeks with projects up your way, with baseball fields and accessibility to those fields, and all that good stuff. I think, really, this is an opportunity, not only for my community but for the province as well. We’re in the hub of Nova Scotia, right in the heart of the province. We’re a gateway through to the Maritimes. It’s an infrastructure project that is exciting for our community. There’s a lot of talk about it. It’s just a matter of getting the commitment from the province.

According to our current MP, she tells us she’s waiting on the province to give the directive because the federal government has the reserve in place. I guess my question is - really surrounds the project but also the dollar figure level when it transfers over to Infrastructure and into your department. That’s all.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: To the honourable member - I just want to get a little bit of a clarification, and then I’ve got the Infrastructure folks in here.

What I’m thinking, as he’s talking, is actually one of my very favourite senior baseball fields, the TAAC grounds. There was the football field, the baseball field, the children’s playground - is it that specifically?

DAVE RITCEY: It’s not one specifically. I don’t know how many home runs you hit out of there, minister . . .

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Not many.

DAVE RITCEY: I’ve only had three.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Not bad. (Laughter)

DAVE RITCEY: That short porch down right field line.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Yes, that’s right. So is it that entire precinct? It’s that area?

DAVE RITCEY: Yes. That entire area.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thank you. I’ll be right back to you, honourable member.

Our Infrastructure group here - our base here - we really only have direct touch points with respect to infrastructure that we own. That certainly would be through Communities, Culture and Heritage and other departments, just in terms of the collective.

I’ll tell you what - for the member - I’ve just experienced this, actually, with his caucus colleague from Northside-Westmount - also the Hawks Dream Field and the Susan McEachern Memorial Ball Park. If he wanted to get together and just have a discussion - if you want to get me some of the details, I’d be happy to try to help out. I think I’ve got a little bit of a body of experience with these particular things. I think that’s a tremendous facility for how challenging it was to play baseball there with the track running through it. It was always impeccably kept. It’s just a great field and in a great location in Truro.

To the member - if I can help just, sort of, tighten the bolts on this - and I’ll certainly talk to the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage, but if you want to give me just a little bit of a picture as to where that project is exactly, I’ll do what I can to help just on a personal note. It wouldn’t be through Infrastructure, but I’d be happy to do that because, I tell you, with the projects that we’ve seen, they really matter. I know your community would take tremendous pride in that.

DAVE RITCEY: Thank you, Minister. I did fire off a letter yesterday to your department just to give you a heads-up on that project. Like I said, I was involved with the Rath Eastlink Community Centre. My father was the chair of the health authority back when the local decision-making was happening with the hospital. As well, prior to his passing, a little bit involved in the fundraising of the hospital. I was vice-chair of the fundraising with the RECC - I guess it’s what we call it today. Just looking at those two infrastructure projects and what they do for our community from an economic perspective, as well as a community perspective and a health perspective - and health preventive measures - is unbelievable. Like I said, I think this is a huge opportunity in our community, and something that should be really considered by the government moving forward. I think it’s definitely huge.

I’ll leave it at that one, and now I’m going to pass my time over to my colleague from Cumberland North.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Sorry, just let me put my jacket on. I apologize.

[6:15 p.m.]

Okay. I have a couple of questions that concern Cumberland North, and then I wanted just to ask a couple of questions more regarding the health redevelopment plans, if that’s okay. The questions for Cumberland North are around infrastructure. The first one is around the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. The Nappan dam was included in that. I’m just wondering if there’s any update on that work.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I don’t have a terrific answer. I could be missing this, but I’ve dealt with that fund a little bit, just on a local level, and it’s certainly not under the purview of Housing or Infrastructure. If memory serves me correctly, I think it was under Transportation. Obviously, it’s not with us, so it’s still there. Sorry about that, but I think that’s probably your best place, to drop that to the Minister of Transportation and Active Transit.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I thought that it might have moved over with Infrastructure, so that’s why I brought it up. Thank you.

This may be, perhaps, the same. I was going to ask about the Chignecto Isthmus study that’s currently scheduled to be released - the results are scheduled to be released this month. They were, I believe, scheduled for last November, but with COVID-19, it got delayed. That’s a study that’s being done between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the federal government contributed to the financing of it. It’s going to be making recommendations around dike development for 35 kilometres of dikeland along the Chignecto Isthmus.

I was just wondering if that’s going to be included under your department and if so, is there anything budgeted for that?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Just checking at first pass here. No, that also falls under the purview of Transportation and Active Transit.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Okay. We’ll save that for Transportation.

I was going to ask the minister just a few general questions around the QEII Health Sciences Centre redevelopment. The staff in charge of the QEII redevelopment, as well as the CBRM redevelopment projects, have been incredible, really, working with me and providing updates whenever I’ve asked. They’ve been quite good all along with providing information, so I don’t have a lot of questions because they’ve been so good.

Just a general question about that. Who is, ultimately, responsible for keeping the QEII redevelopment on track now, with the changes under the new leadership, under the new Premier?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: It’s really - it’s all basically the same players that you are familiar with. It’s the same - the health care infrastructure division under Nova Scotia Lands. I understand you are familiar with, and you’ve spoken with, John O’Connor many times. John is still with us and he’s obviously playing an instrumental role. He’s sort of transitioning out, but we keep bringing him back, and a gentleman by the name of Rich Caldry is in his place. He’s kind of the new John, but the old John is going to be here for quite some time as well. He wants to make sure he sees these through to fruition.

It’s always the same players, and it’s the same - I guess to answer the question specifically, nothing’s really changed with the new Premier versus his predecessor. It’s the same body, same people.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: As far as the department goes, though, my understanding was that it’s - that now it’s under Infrastructure and Housing, but Nova Scotia Lands is still under Transportation and Active Transit. Is that right?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The official answer is: half of it. The Infrastructure division comes with us to Infrastructure and Housing and the other - the maintenance and the supervisory, administrative pieces of Nova Scotia Lands - stay at Transportation and Active Transit. The one that is relevant here, indeed, comes to the Department of Infrastructure and Housing.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Under the current budget, is there anything - it does have under Infrastructure and Housing, hospital redevelopment projects, $18 million. Is that specifically pertaining to Cape Breton Regional Municipality or is it - I’m just trying to get an understanding of what numbers in this budget are pertaining to the QEII and the CBRM redevelopments.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The $18 million is really - that’s the operational component under Nova Scotia Lands. That’s the salaries, predominantly, and the administrative functions of Nova Scotia Lands. The actual capital numbers - their home base is still the Department of Health and Wellness. We don’t show the capital. For us, it’s just that operational piece of the health infrastructure work.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I apologize. I’m just trying to make sure I clearly understand. Nova Scotia Lands - would the other portion of Nova Scotia Lands - like Trenton Works, Sydney Steel, remediation of gold mines, Boat Harbour - would those operational expenses be included in that or would they be under Transportation?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: You’re allowing me to learn this as well. This is helpful for both of us, if I could be honest with you. No, those operational funds, they don’t show up on our side of the ledger. They’re still under the Nova Scotia Lands portion. That’s Transportation and Active Transit.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: And then under your budget it has, for P3 contract management, $1 million-plus. Is that for CBRM? No, CBRM is being fully financed, I believe, through the province.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: That one million, that’s identified as the P3 monitoring shop. That’s a relatively new function that’s also under John O’Connor. That is six new positions in the - some of the operation that would go with that is reflective of that $1 million, and it’s to monitor the P3s.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Just to clarify, are all those positions related to the QEII redevelopment? My understanding is that it is going to be P3, financed through a P3 model.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Yes, that’s correct. It’s all P3, so it’s QEII. You got it.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Last update I had, I believe that the pandemic had only delayed the project by a projection of four months and there was only a small cost overrun - I believe $2.2 million - related to some contracts. I’m just wondering if there’s been any change or any update on change of budget - projective budgeting - for both projects, QEII and CBRM, as well as timeline. Has there been any significant change in the timeline for either of those two projects?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I guess the fundamental answer is there hasn’t been a significant impact on timeline or budget. I think that - and, again, not foreshadowing or softening the blow of a potential cost or time overrun, just trying to give as fulsome an answer as I can to the member - I think that in everything with a lot of these projects, particularly of this magnitude, there’s almost a COVID-19 delta.

If there was an impact by timeline and by material cost, I wouldn’t be shocked. I don’t think anyone would be completely surprised by that. However, just to be crystal clear, at this point as we sit here today there’s no indication of either a cost overrun or an impact on timeline, as it were, relative to some of those other projects that had timeline overruns.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Just as I finish off, I wouldn’t mind just reverting back to Cumberland North for just a moment. There are a couple of fairly big projects going to be happening here. I don’t know if they are through the Department of Health and Wellness now or if they would be through Infrastructure and Housing. They would be the Pugwash hospital rebuild, and then also - I think my understanding is they’re under Department of Health and Wellness now, but I’m just curious - and then also the renovation of the emergency room department at the Cumberland Regional Health Care Centre and the dialysis unit - the infrastructure costs. Would that be under your department or would that be under Health and Wellness?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Absolutely, they are now under us. They’re entirely under the Department of Infrastructure and Housing. You got it.

THE CHAIR: With that, folks, we’ve once again reached our time for a COVID-19 break, a 15-minute COVID-19 break - the last one of the committee for this evening. We will return at 6:45 p.m., and the PC caucus will still have 25 minutes left.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague from Cumberland South will be taking over.

[6:30 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[6:46 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee on Supply resumes. We have 25 minutes left for the PC caucus, and then we move to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

TORY RUSHTON: Good evening, minister. Can you hear me with your computer? I’m not sure if the minister can hear us or not.

THE CHAIR: Minister, can you hear?

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Geoff MacLellan, can you hear?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Hello?

THE CHAIR: There you are.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Hello?

TORY RUSHTON: How’s that, minister?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: How’s that? How we doin’?

TORY RUSHTON: We can hear you now.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I was just going to keep fiddling with it, pretending it was broke just to work through the hour, but I guess you got me.

Ready to rock, Mr. Chair.

TORY RUSHTON: You okay to go on, Mr. Chair?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: You ready to go, Mr. Chair? You’re on mute.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cumberland South.

TORY RUSHTON: All right. Give regards or a thanks and congratulations to the minister. I think you’re in your last hour, quite possibly, your last hour of Estimates. So, congratulations on your next chapter, or wherever you’re going to move onto afterward. It’ll be a different Legislature without you. All sides of difference, your face will be missed by many, I know that.

On to just one quick question on infrastructure. I think you may recall in 2018, on the eve of a by-election in Cumberland South, there was an announcement of a new elementary school to come to Springhill. This was a school that was promised back in 2013 and long awaited. The announcement came in 2018, and even longer awaited. We finally heard the announcement of a site in 2020.

Recognition where recognition is due, I worked very closely with the past Minister of Education and worked very hard to get this pushed through. This 2020 - I know there have been committees set up, but there’s been a little bit of silence the last few months. I know there have been changes within the government structure.

I guess tonight, for an easy question for him, I’m just looking for an update and to see when we can expect to see some tenders going through so we can get the shovels in the ground.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thanks to the member for Cumberland South for the kind words and the send-off. As I said to him, on a personal note, at the beginning of Estimates, one of the downsides of this final session for me is that I don’t see anybody, really, other than the few soldiers who are physically in the House. To him and to all his colleagues and all the MLAs, it’s been a pleasure, without a doubt. I’m sure we’ll run into each other again at some point. Won’t be politics, but maybe it’ll be on a different level, a different profession. Again, in all seriousness, thanks so much for that.

I think it’s probably relatively good news for the member. I’ve got the staff with the Infrastructure leads here. With respect to that particular site, the steering committee’s working as designed. Things are - they’re working through the issues and the topics in terms of what’s required in that school and what that’s going to look like. Moving on as planned, I certainly realize it’s a little bit of an ambitious timeline, but - for the member - nothing’s changed in terms of that overall finish line being an open for September of 2023.

All indications now - and, again, our - one thing about the Infrastructure folks, they err on the side of caution and are very conservative and averse in terms of giving expectations that they can’t meet. If they feel confident that September 2023 is the landing spot for the official opening, then I’m confident in that as well. That looks to be where we are at this point.

TORY RUSHTON: I thank the minister for that update. Maybe I’ll bring back the Minister of Education, because the date that we did talk about was originally September 2021, and then it did get moved to September 2022. I know when the minister spoke with local media in the Spring, it was still the hoped-for September 2022. I’m still going to ask for September 2022, but I did see in the provincial documents, in the capital plan, where it was moved to September 2023.

We can appreciate that the last 12 months were unexpected and there were issues that did hold up a few things. I do appreciate that. With that, maybe one sub-question to that would be: Can you expect when we would see, in a build that’s going to move into September 2023 - is there any anticipation as to when we’d start to see some tenders called, or a shovel in the ground? I guess, just to put that final touch in it, so residents do see something that was promised many years ago come to that final stage.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: There certainly will be a significant level of activity, probably, getting into late Summer. There actually is - Gerard and the team at Infrastructure are still finalizing some of the numbers, but there certainly will be a significant injection in terms of the dollar amount for the cost of the project that you will see physically in 2021. You’ll start to see the tenders and you’ll certainly see the work being done to the site easily by late Summer/early Fall.

Obviously, working backwards, you’ll see some of that tender work active leading up to that point. For you and for the residents, honourable member, you’ll be able to witness it and certainly put minds at ease that it’s coming to fruition. That’ll help ease that anxiety about the timeline. You’ll see physical activity by the end of the Summer.

TORY RUSHTON: I want to thank the minister very much for that update. It is certainly welcome news here in my office this evening, knowing that there will be tenders called here within the foreseeable future. It will certainly put many minds at ease here in Springhill and area, for the students, staff, and the residents. They certainly deserve a new facility.

I thank you very much for your time. I will forfeit the rest of my time over to the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

STEVE CRAIG: Nice to be back. I’ve very much enjoyed the conversation and the way this dialogue has been going back and forth with the minister. I’m pleased to see him going, yet on the other hand, I’m not so pleased to see him go because there’s a lot of work to do. I’ll leave it at that.

I want to go back to the financials and the business plan. When you mentioned Municipal Affairs, I went back to the Municipal Affairs plan. On pages 19.2 and through the rest, it actually details out more around housing and what was transferred to the Department of Infrastructure and Housing. Mr. Chair, I see the minister leaning in. I don’t know if I’m speaking loud enough or if his hearing’s off.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: My hearing’s off. You’re doing great. I’m just leaning in to make sure I process it. Laurie, whom you’re familiar with, is also next to me, so she’s just doing some data mining as you’re articulating. You’re doing fine. You just keep doing it and we’ll get back to you once you finish.

STEVE CRAIG: Thank you. No need to get back to me. I just want to point out for the future. I looked at 19.2 and actually, when I look at the new budget for Infrastructure and Housing, there are two lines for housing. Only two lines, and they add up to about $107-$108 million. When I look at Municipal Affairs, these are all the lines that were transferred, according to their notes: housing authorities, projects and strategic planning, homelessness and shelters, housing and municipal sustainability stayed - oops, sorry, I’m looking at the wrong page. I’m going back again. [Laughter] Made my mistake.

Under 19.3: strategy and transformation was transferred, stakeholder engagement was transferred, housing authorities were transferred, projects and strategic planning were transferred, as well as administration, homelessness, and shelter programs. That was on page 19.5.

Then under 19.6, there was National Housing Strategy, data analytics, building infrastructure and assessment, greening and sustainable practices, real estate, assets and transfers, housing services, and housing programs. So, as a member, when I’m looking at these types of things, it would be a lot easier if we had comparables between year-to-year, and even the categories.

I’m glad that you’ve got some assistance there and they’re listening. In the future, consistency is important because I hate wasting my time and I hate wasting other people’s time. If you can make this easier rather than tougher, I think everybody benefits for it because we can move on to other substantive issues. I’ll leave that with you there.

You mentioned earlier about the housing - sorry, Mr. Chair - it was mentioned about the housing continuum and homelessness. The housing continuum is the homelessness emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing - those types of things - supportive housing, community housing, and, arguably, the apartments and what people might call affordable housing, and then market housing in there as well, whether it’s home ownership or not.

I’m very happy that the Affordable Housing Commission has been set up. I questioned and was critical before, that - when it was announced November 25^th of last year - it was so late. I’ve talked in my short tenure here to previous ministers of all political stripes for the last number of years on why it is that we came to be where we are.

When you’re taking a look at the future beyond a four-year cycle and you have a strategy that’s set and implemented, then we truly are looking at what can be done to improve the lives of our citizens who are currently living here, as well as those who are coming in.

[7:00 p.m.]

We talked about immigration, and it’s a wonderful thing that soon we’ll be reaching a million people here in Nova Scotia. They need a place to live. People who are moving to Nova Scotia need a place to live, and those with the means are really, now, purchasing and gobbling up, if you will, what they can afford, forcing citizens who have been here and residents who have been here for quite some time to move a little bit downscale - I’ll put it that way, or a bit to the left - and eventually we’re going to find that we have more and more people who are relying on social services, who are relying on the help of their neighbours and others, the help of the not-for-profits and other organizations. That’s what we’re seeing now. We’ve reached that stage.

I am very happy that the commission, which is made up of so many people and so many disciplines, who have seen that whole market - and to this point, I don’t believe there’s been a synergy between all those groups. I don’t believe that there’s been a will by any of the governments, regardless of political stripes, over the years to foresee this and to make that happen. That’s unfortunate, and we can all wear some of that. On a go-forward basis, I’m truly hoping that the work of the Affordable Housing Commission does come about, and I, like hundreds of thousands of people around Nova Scotia, am going to be looking forward to that report and seeing what it says.

Having said all that, my question would be now focused a little bit more on public housing. I’m a fan of public housing. I’m a fan of government doing what they can along that continuum - I truly am - and to do a good job at it, which we’ve already acknowledged here this evening, that a lot of our employees and groups are really involved in it.

When I take a look at the Housing Nova Scotia consolidated financial statements - and if anybody’s looked at these, you will know that these are audited statements. It’s audited. Grant Thornton has audited it. We have our own deputy minister, as well as the CFO for Housing Nova Scotia affix their signatures to this. It’s a very good document. If you are looking for light reading before you go to bed, it’s one of the finest. [Laughter] But not really.

One of the things I noticed in here is municipal revenue. That’s on page 16 of those statements under Section 13. It talks about municipal revenue. Now in Halifax Regional Municipality - I’m not sure if HRM pays into that or not, and if so, how much - but I wonder if the minister, Mr. Chair, would be able to elaborate on the role that the municipalities play financially in bringing forward revenues? Last year, it was $9,010,000. Just how that revenue is obtained and what the municipalities and - yes, municipalities have citizens the same as we do. They’re all the same citizen, but why is it that the municipal units are contributing to housing when it is a provincial responsibility, and of the nature and the magnitude that they do?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I think your preamble ties nicely into the subject of municipalities. I think you referenced two words, and I am likeminded in those: the synergy and the will. I think the synergy is, sort of, a shared responsibility, and I think that the will is largely a government responsibility. As we’ve discussed, and as I’ve said publicly and, certainly, over the three-plus hours here, this is such a complicated beast and such a big problem.

The siloed reality of it makes it impossible for the housing advocates, the not-for-profits, the private sector developers, our people, the department to ever put a dent - as much good as they’re doing with the programs - to ever really put a blanket around and knock down this wait-list and get it under control and keep it there. I know there are external factors - population, demographics - but we need to provide some of that direction. I think the synergy and the will, for me - I’m not speaking for the member, but in our conversations - I’m very much relying on and putting faith in the Affordable Housing Commission, that they recognize these exact things.

Look at the membership up and down the Commission’s list: that’s not in any way weighted to one stakeholder group, one interest, one level of concern. It’s very much shared. What I’m understanding - we’re very hands-off in allowing the commission to do its work - but they’re finding common ground. I can tell you that there’s not going to be anything that comes out that’s going to be in complete lockstep with everyone, but they all recognize that this is critical work.

We’ve given them the message and the mandate that what they put together is going to be the blueprint for housing for a long time to come in this province. That’s a big responsibility and they don’t take it lightly. For us, not meddling and not picking and choosing, and giving them the freedom to do their work and come back and give us the road map is exactly where we want to be, and have to be.

Any sort of inklings or yearning to do a one-off housing policy here and there just is not a good move. I’m talking about us as the government at this point. I’m not suggesting anyone has told us to do that on the Opposition’s side. I think that we’re going to get some significant clarity around the direction when the recommendations come in May. Then it becomes about the framing and the shape and the foundation and the structure that allows those recommendations to be implemented and take effect and have an impact.

One of those partners - and this is of no surprise to the member for Sackville-Cobequid - is the municipalities. The segue to his question is very legitimate. We’re not going to solve the housing challenges without not-for-profit groups. We’re not going to solve it without developers. We’re not going to solve it without partnerships with the federal government, and we absolutely - at the same level - we need the municipalities to be part of this with us. Any time you talk about housing, moving forward, what we do and how we do it, there’s absolutely an element and a role to play, an important role for our municipal units here in the province.

What we collect as revenue from the municipalities under the housing portfolio is $12 million per year in total. The member probably knows this detail, having served municipally. This $12 million is part of 650 - what are referred to as - handover agreements, historic agreements around facilities, land, et cetera, assets that were agreed upon to be shared at a certain percentage, 12.5 per cent of the net operating losses for those. That’s basically in place until such time as those assets are decommissioned, retired, or what have you.

That’s the genesis of that $12 million number. Obviously, what that number looks like depends on the particular stock that’s under that 650 individual agreements at 12.5 per cent. Again, this is more anecdotal. I’m not speaking from the Department of Infrastructure and Housing or the housing authorities as the overall entity’s perspective. I don’t think that - there’s been an incredible, significant lobby from our municipal units to eliminate that number. They certainly understand and recognize where it comes from. Could we be of assistance financially in removing these things, would they take that? Of course they would, but I think municipal units understand where that is, understand where it comes from. We deal with those 650 as they expire.

Also, I think that the municipalities are very much . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I’m sorry to interrupt, minister, but the time for the PC caucus has expired.

I want to recognize the NDP caucus. You will have - we have 35 minutes left, but I request that you leave enough time for the minister’s closing remarks and to present the resolution. Maybe the minister can give an indication as to how long it might take for his closing remarks, et cetera.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thanks, Mr. Chair. You’ve been listening to my responses. I think it’s - probably an hour will do it. What have we got left?

Four minutes is fine, three minutes. The resolution’s a couple of lines, so I’ll just push up against that 35 minutes as close as we can. A couple of minutes should be adequate for me.

THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you for that, minister.

So, if we can agree, we’ll go until 7:40 p.m. with the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to jump around a little bit, to be frank, but I wanted to ask about some information that we got through a Freedom of Information request asking for a program evaluation of the Portable Rent Supplement pilot. This would have been, I guess, a bit of a dry run for the Targeted Housing Benefit, which, as we discussed last hour, is having only so-so pickup.

One of the things that was mentioned in that program evaluation was that participants identified that uncontrolled rent increases were an underlying problem in their quest to find and maintain stable housing. They were identifying that with rent increases in the market in general, having the portable rent supplement wasn’t adequate.

I guess my question is: Did the department anticipate, or ought the department to have anticipated some structural problems or inadequacies in the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit?

[7:15 p.m.]

GEOFF MACLELLAN: The staff certainly was engaged around this, with a policy lens. I think if - again, this wasn’t what we just discussed, but going off memory, there was an element of adjustment around the policy from this at one point because of some of the factors that were evident in the rent supplement program here.

The two key pieces, I think, for the department, as they considered what would be the greatest impact for this - and by the way, there’s about a 75 per cent uptake on this from the renters stream. Certainly, the homeowners stream - as we’ve identified, we’ve got some work to do there - but the renters stream, that’s 75 per cent. I gave the member the number earlier. I think it was 1,600-plus.

Two values, or two considerations, on the policy side, to address the member’s comments: The first one is that the supplement is indexed or tied to average rents. If there’s an increase in the average rents, then there’s an increase in the supplement. Secondly, one of the requirements was around the portability. This doesn’t go to the landlord - this is attached to the renter. I’m not suggesting this is a happy rainbows and puppy dogs scenario, but if by chance there is rent that’s jacked up, this supplement would be tied to the tenant.

Now, again, not suggesting that it’s easy for them to leave and pack up and find somewhere else, but that’s a reasonable option to have. So, it is portable to the tenant, not tied into the landlord or the particular facility.

LISA ROBERTS: We’ve already talked about rent control, and, obviously, the earlier versions of rent supplements that have been allocated over the past number of years have all had rent control built into the contracts with the owners or landlords. I think having market-wide rent control would be important for the long-run viability of this support for rent supplements that are tied to the tenant instead. I know that that is - the clarification on that longer-run rent control scenario will come with the Affordable Housing Commission, we hope.

Another thing that was mentioned in this program evaluation was that the portable housing benefit didn’t account for the higher costs of spaces with accessibility accommodations. Approximately one-quarter of clients self-identified as having a disability. Have changes been made to address this at all with the Canada-Nova Scotia Targeted Housing Benefit, or elsewhere in the department’s programs?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: A couple of things: I think that first and foremost, as we’ve said - and, again, it’s not a shield but it’s where we are with respect to a lot of the policy and the investment. We tried to adapt and pivot and recognize issues inside the policy in the investment envelope. Of course, we’re awaiting the Commission’s direction on a number of things.

This is one where, with the portable housing supplement being, obviously, only in motion for six months, always conversations like this and information around what could enhance the application and the uptake of those programs is very relevant. We’ll, obviously - having this conversation is something that we can have on the radar screen.

There are other supports out there with respect to accessibility, with grants. There’s also, actually, a non-portable option for this particular program where if there are designated accessible locations, there could be a non-portable rent supplement support tied to that directly. Point taken. I think that, obviously, there are some measures in place to try to help with the accessibility piece. I recognize that there may be some work to be done there.

Also, one of the things - again, I’m jumping off here just because I appreciate the member and her caucus colleagues - the Leader, in particular - who have spoken a lot about rent control. I don’t want this to be a big issue that’s the subject of emergency debate in Question Period because I’m asking a question here. I’m speaking for myself, not for the Premier, not for the department.

There’s no philosophical reason for any policy or program or investment to just get off the table because it doesn’t make sense - just because it doesn’t make sense. That’s an asinine approach for any government to have in this day and age. For me, on the rent control piece - and, look, with respect to the COVID-19 emergency order and identifying a necessity to keep the inflation around rent from taking place over a set period of time whereas we’re under a provincial emergency, all those things notwithstanding - but the general policy of rent control - I don’t need the member to answer, but I just want to put it out there.

Maybe we can have a huddle about this with her and if it’s the Leader or the House Leader or members of her caucus. I just haven’t seen any body of information that suggests that there are successful models of rent control out there. Again, this isn’t a pushback or a challenge, I’m just saying that I haven’t. Maybe that would change the perspective. Again, I do not want to pre-empt the work that the commission’s doing. I just haven’t seen it in activity, in play, in motion where there’s a significant impact. I think that if there were, we would hear more about it.

To the member for Halifax Needham, you can park that. We can talk about that tomorrow. I just wanted to bring it up while the iron was hot here, just to say that it’s not - there’s no philosophical pushback - again, this is me. It’s just that I haven’t seen where it’s got that impactful benefit for everybody. I just wanted to add that out of respect because I know that it’s something that is on the top of your list when it comes to housing supports. If there’s a clear example or set of examples where it works, then that’s fantastic. I’d just like to know more about these things, so that’s all. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

LISA ROBERTS: I could talk for the next 15 minutes on that, but maybe I won’t. In fact, I think I’m going to speak into Supply a little bit about housing tomorrow, so I’ll try to address that there.

I will say that a lot of the studies that the government has referred to, where they - the last Premier certainly would frequently say rent control doesn’t work. A lot of the studies were actually in a very, very different moment of time and environment where there were very high interest rates. One of the consequences of our very low interest rate, current moment, is that investment in real estate is very attractive and that investment is not necessarily about adding to stock, it can just be about grabbing stock and sitting on it, and then flipping it and turning it around. Certainly, you see a great deal of investment that is not about generating new units. You see more of that investment in environments without rent control, which can, in and of itself, be dangerous for wages that are not going up, or for people who earn wages or income assistance or, basically, pretty fixed pensions, because one of the factors is going and the other factors aren’t. Anyhow, I won’t take up my time answering my own - answering your question.

I did want to ask about - in terms of the Affordable Housing Commission, one of the things that I’ve certainly heard is that there’s a huge shortage of rental housing - particularly adequate rental housing in good repair - in rural Nova Scotia. I’ve heard that very specifically from Bridgewater, Lunenburg, around Pictou - like, town of Pictou - New Glasgow, and in Inverness. I have heard concerns that that perspective and people with intimate knowledge of those concerns are not very well represented on the Affordable Housing Commission. I wonder how confident you are that the particular issues in rural but still somewhat urban-like town concerns around rentals are going to be well represented in the conclusions of the Affordable Housing Commissions?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I had a swing and a miss there. I was thinking of an issue that I could get the member to talk out until 7:45 p.m., so I went with rent control, but she didn’t take the bait. I’ll have to answer a few more questions, I guess.

Very pertinent topic and question around the Commission as it relates to the housing stock. I can tell you - again, first-hand - as can the Chair, as can your member for Cape Breton Centre, and go around the table of those who aren’t in Metro - we have the issues around affordable housing and rentals and such, but it is - the complexities are just different. They’re not better or worse, they’re just different. The housing stock and what people rent, the conditions in which they find them are varied. People are in homes and they’re renting, but it’s not sustainable. Lots of times it’s not affordable, and lots of time it’s either. That’s certainly an issue.

I can tell the member, with respect to the Commission, there’s actually a Subcommittee of municipal CAOs, the towns and villages and municipal units that specifically made a presentation on this topic around what are the challenges, because what’s the challenge in Victoria and the challenge in Ingonish is different from Amherst, different from New Glasgow, and it’s different from Glace Bay. Having a reflective presentation and baseline information for the Commission was critical. Certainly, there was extensive focus to try to get - to paint that picture. There’s also - I know, again personally - the CAO of Cape Breton Regional Municipality, Marie Walsh, is very attuned to these particular issues as it relates to CBRM. She’s on the Commission as well.

[7:30 p.m.]

There are some touch points and people with a real understanding. Although there’s - rightly so, and fairly - there’s a focus of the Commission on Metro because this is our capital city and our capital region, and it should be. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a lot of work done to stretch out and reach into rural Nova Scotia as well, with workshops and written submissions. Having a representation on the Commission and the Subcommittee, that could really paint a picture. If we don’t cover every aspect of the housing challenges for every Nova Scotian, then we’ve missed the mark.

Under their mandate, the commission has made sure that their considerations and, ultimately, their recommendations will be reflective of all Nova Scotians, not just those impacted from an urban perspective.

LISA ROBERTS: I saw that the Commission struck a subcommittee on data. Helen Lanthier, representing the South Shore Housing Action Coalition, presented to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development earlier this year and said that many rural organizations weren’t in the position to apply for the rapid housing project funding announced by the federal government in late 2020 because, in part, they didn’t have the data that they needed.

Can you actually tell me how much of that rapid housing funding might have been accessed by Nova Scotia, either under the purview of the provincial government or under non-profits? How much of that funding might have been accessed but wasn’t? How much did we actually leave on the table, or how much less did we get than we really ought to have?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Just a couple of clarifications here. This is one that is concerning to the staff in the sense that it wasn’t the typical kind of missed-out-on opportunity. That $500 million national program - it seems as though the $12 million number is based on what would be the typical per capita allotment for Nova Scotia. That’s normally how the federal projects roll out in terms of the funding support, but that was not the case around this particular piece.

We had about 30 days to line up under a competition that was nationwide. Any Nova Scotia project that we would have forwarded had to have been shovel-ready and been able to submit in a 30-day window and would be competing with Toronto and Vancouver and all points in between. It wasn’t an allotment for Nova Scotia that we couldn’t satisfy the criteria. It was a small call with a very short window, and we only had one project that came, sort of eleventh hour, that didn’t get in under this particular program. We ended up funding it anyway through our own coffers.

I don’t really think it’s a fair assessment that we proclaim that Nova Scotia missed out on $12 million. Again, I’m channelling a message from those who live this every day. They don’t get into the political weeds - not suggesting that that’s your intent here. The policy for alternatives piece around $12 million - that’s just not the case. We didn’t lose any money. We weren’t denying any money. We didn’t have the opportunity to submit a project within the 30-day window that was provided from the federal government.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. I have two different adventures. I would love to go on another one. Can be completed in three minutes or less.

The CSAP school on the Halifax Peninsula at Windsor and Young Streets, the former RCMP lands, a pretty significant piece of property. Is all of that property going to be required for the Primary to Grade Eight school, and is this the sort of opportunity where the Province could be looking at doing both affordable housing and a school on a piece of property if there is enough space there to do something like that?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Quickly, so the member can get her last question in - yes, you’re right. That’s a great question and a great observation. That’s exactly the preliminary plan at this point. There’s still the space after the school. There still is certainly potential for something that would support one of the initiatives that we’re speaking of here. That’s certainly a possibility and open to further discussion, and a great observation from the member for Halifax Needham. We can move on to your next question if we have time.

THE CHAIR: We have time for a short question and a short answer.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. Well, the short-term rental registry, you had a hand in that in your last portfolio. I have heard that the regulations - or the fees and the registration fines and such - are delayed for a year until April 2022.

Municipalities were hoping that this was going to help them see what is happening to their housing stock. There are concerns that not having registration for all short-term rentals makes that data collected much less useful. Can you tell me: What has the registry collected thus far? Are we getting any useful information out of the Tourism Accommodations Registration Act at this juncture?

GEOFF MACLELLAN: I certainly did have a hand in that. We’d need way more time, but I never supported and stood firm on that with the stakeholders around it. I just don’t - I never believed in primary residence as being part of that registry. I think that defeats the purpose and that’s what the sharing economy is. I think everybody else should be under scrutiny and be registered, without a doubt. That’s just a quick snapper where I am philosophically on that.

That falls under the Department of Business, so I don’t have any of those data points. I think that this question deserves a way more fulsome answer. I could give some background, but with the data, I think you should pursue that. It would be easy to ascertain from the Department of Business. That’s just probably as fulsome . . .

THE CHAIR: Order. Order, please. The time for questioning and debate on Estimates for today has run out.

Now I’m going to ask the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing for his closing remarks and to present the Estimates.

GEOFF MACLELLAN: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and for your time in managing this session this evening. I want to thank all of my colleagues opposite of the proverbial aisle for asking the questions. As always, I appreciate the respect and the reasonable dialogue.

I know that housing is of equal importance and urgency for every one of us. I think that, obviously, in certain peaks and valleys, it’s incredibly intense. Dealing here with our capital region, the pressures are immense. The reality of our demographics and population increases are undoubtedly affecting that. I really believe in the Commission’s work. I know we’re hanging our hat on that in an immense way, and I think that’s appropriate, given the magnitude and the enormous requirement for government to address the housing issue first, as many people as we can.

The wait-list will never be zero, but it would nice for it to be exponentially lower than it is now, and stable for those who are not on the list but always face that potential to be in such a devastating life situation.

I’m very proud and thankful of the work of the department. They’re great people who aren’t concerned about politics: they’re concerned about people being safe and dry and comfortable and secure in their homes. If that’s your mandate and that’s your focus when you come to work, you’re doing pretty good service on behalf of the Nova Scotians that are your neighbours and friends and family.

With that, Mr. Chair, again, it’s been a pleasure to be here with you this evening, and any follow-up that you need, you know where to find me. I’ll always do my best. It’s going to be a long conversation, so I will make sure at the end of the day, we’re hearing what the Opposition inputted and their ideas.

THE CHAIR: Shall the Resolution E12 stand?

THE CHAIR: The resolution stands.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, and to your staff. Thank you to all the members who participated tonight as well. We will be meeting again tomorrow. I just wanted to share with you before we adjourn that we have now completed 32 hours of Estimates and we’ve only got two more days to go. So keep a smile on your face and love in your heart.

The meeting stands adjourned. Good night, everybody.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 7:45 p.m.]